[MD] False Messiah

[David M]

Hi

actually experiment has shown that the
firing of a single photon can be detected when absorbed
by the human eye, i.e. experienced as a small blip of light.

There is also a good way to experience atoms that you cannot
see, just blow some air in someone's face.

DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885 at localnet.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 5:41 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] False Messiah


> SA,
>
>> SA said:
>>      Are you saying the world is non-spatiotemporal
>> without reason (consciousness and value; the latter
>> two according to what you are saying are the same as
>> reason)?
>>
>> Scott:
>> I'm afraid I don't follow this question. What do you
>> mean by
>> "non-spatiotemporal without reason"? I'm just saying
>> that sense perception
>> turns the non-spatiotemporal (the quantum) into the
>> spatiotemporal (the
>> world we see, hear, touch, taste and smell).
>
> SA said:
>     What I am saying is 'non-spatiotemporal without
> reason', yet, with reason we have spatiotemporal
> existing in our lives, in our perception, and thus,
> the way we see the world.  The former
> ('non-spatiotemporal without reason') does not exist
> due to us having reason.
>
> Scott:
> If reason, in some esoteric sense, is fundamental, then reason creates/is
> the non-spatiotemporal, and unconscious (to us) reason (in its guise as
> sense perception) also projects it as spatiotemporal. Note that I am not
> restricting reason to human beings. You might also note that what I said
> sounds like John 1:4 "By [the Logos] were all things made that were made",
> though I began thinking this way before making that connection. So it is
> important to remember that reason has levels. The reason to which we
> ordinarily refer, for example that which theorizes about spacetime and the
> non-spatiotemporal, is not the Reason that creates them.
>
>> SA said:
>>      Thus, if you are saying yes to the above
>> question, then you are saying perception is tied to
>> how we view the world, thus, our values placed by
>> perception will be found in photons, neutrons,
>> etc...,
>> and this is how value is found in these latter
>> (which
>> these latter [photons and such] usually thought of
>> strictly absent of moral and value pieces of the
>> world
>> would actually have morals and values due to our
>> reasoning tied with these particles?
>>
>> Scott:
>> How can we "find value" in photons and such if they
>> are not perceived? Of
>> course, the theory of photons and such is a valuable
>> theory, but I assume
>> that is not what you are talking about. Again, I
>> don't understand you.
>
> SA said:
>    What do you mean photons are not perceived?  We
> see light.  Sure we don't see a photon as a particle
> or wave, but we notice the larger scale version called
> light.
>
> Scott:
> I meant that we do not perceive massless, spin 1 whatevers. Photons,
> neutrons, etc. are physicists' constructs. And what we *do* see is 
> particle
> effects or wave effects, while photons are neither particles nor waves, 
> so,
> no, we don't see photons.
>
> SA continued:
>  Maybe you are stating that photons are
> filtered out via experiment and we do use theory to
> guide us into having these 'things' we call photons.
> Maybe you are saying as long as the theory holds, we
> value photons or the theory of photons.  I guess maybe
> I am jumping from theory of photon to photon itself at
> times.
>
> Scott:
> On the last sentence, yes, I think you are, which makes your other 
> sentences
> off-base with respect to what I am saying. A physicist uses a concept 
> called
> 'photon' in his or her theory. I don't think we can say anything about
> photons beyond that.
>
> SA continued:
>  So using theory of photons (theory is our
> perception, our reasoning) to notice photons (as long
> as our reasoning holds up, or in other words, as long
> as the theory of photons holds up) then our reasoning
> is not just valuing, but supporting something we call
> photons.
>
> Scott:
> I seem here to be using 'perception' differently than I have been. I have
> been using it strictly as "sense perception": our seeing, hearing, 
> tasting,
> smelling, and touching, not in the more vague sense of "how one perceives 
> a
> situation (e.g., as good, bad, etc.). So theory is precisely *not* sense
> perception in the way I have been using the term. Theory is our reasoning.
> Our reasoning (thinking) does not turn the non-spatiotemporal  into the
> spatiotemporal. Our senses do.
>
> SA continued:
>  Our value of photons, is in other words, our
> reason and consciousness of photons, thus, photons
> exist as long as we value and perceive photons as
> existing.  Is this what you are saying?
>
> Scott:
> No. I presume that if we all die, there would still be the
> non-spatiotemporal reality that, while we were alive, we understood as
> photons, etc.
>
> - Scott
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>