Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how?

In article <1124991992.676121.273520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Mitchell Jones wrote:
> > In article <1124928428.652481.59290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Mitchell Jones wrote:
> > > > In article <1124912524.920707.70730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip]

> > > Then let's get down to what you mean by "ponderable thing". What are
> > > the properties of such a thing?
> >
> > ***{Entities are localized momentum carriers that follow continuous
> > pathways through space and exert force by contact. To say that "naught
> > exists save entities and the void" is to say that everything real,
> > everything ponderable, everything capable of exerting force, is either
> > an entity or is composed of entities. The reason for saying such a thing
> > is that if force can be exerted by a presence which does *not* follow a
> > continuous pathway through space--a presence which is capable of either
> > leaping into existence out of nothing or vanishing into nothing--then
> > knowledge itself becomes impossible. For in that case, we might think we
> > saw a cow, but instead the image of the cow might have simply appeared
> > on our retinas out of nothing. Similarly, we might think we have a pair
> > of legs, but in fact the sensations that we think are coming from those
> > "legs" may, in fact, be leaping into existence out of nothing. The
> > implication: either naught exists save entities and the void, or else we
> > have no basis for belief in the existence of anything, including
> > ourselves. --MJ}***
> >
>
> A couple of comments:
> 1. A wave, for example, by definition follows not one continuous
> pathway through space but a *range* (take that to mean infinite
> multitude) of continuous pathways through space. This means that a
> *single* wave can cause an effect at two different locations
> simultaneously.

***{Yes, but the wave is composed of entities, and the entities that
cause effect A at one location are not the same as those simultaneously
causing effect B at another location. --MJ}***

> This is essential to the concept and is *completely
> divorced* from the assertion (correct or incorrect) that the wave is a
> collective behavior of constituent localized carriers. While this is
> not leaping into and out of existence, it is definitely not a
> *localized* entity that is following *a* continuous path from one
> source to one destination.

***{Yes, and waves also change their constituents: the specific
particles that knock Sam down as the surf rolls past him are not the
particles that knock Bill down ten seconds later, when the "same" wave
rolls past him. Hence while the force of the wave is delivered by
entities, the entities that are involved are in a constant state of
flux. Because of that, one speaks loosely when one refers to a wave as
an entity, though problems do not arise with such a usage if one keeps
its imprecision firmly in mind. --MJ}***

> We have evidence that such *nonlocalized*
> causal agents exist. To assume that they *must* consist of a collective
> behavior of constituent localized carriers is an unjustified leap.

***{No, to focus on nomenclature and usage is to miss the point. The
point is that everything which exists, whether generally labeled as an
entity or not, and whether localized or not, is composed of localized
momentum carriers that follow continuous pathways, and exerts force by
means of them. The justification for that view is as already stated: any
other assumption rips the foundations from beneath the structure of
human knowledge. If the carrier of the momentum that knocked you down
did not transport it to you via a continuous spatial pathway, then there
would have to be a discontinuity in the pathway--meaning that at some
point a momentum carrier--an entity--either leaped into existence out of
nothing or vanished into nothing. Either way, such a possibility
destroys the inference from sensation to source: you can't infer the
presence of a cow when you see a cow, if the image of the cow may have
simply appeared out of nothing. Result: you lose all basis for believing
in the existence of anything, including yourself. --MJ}***

> 2. It is incorrect to assume that the nature of causal agents and their
> behaviors should be common at all distance scales. All that matters is
> that there is a correspondence principle that makes one nature/behavior
> on one scale consistent with the other nature/behavior at another
> scale. There is also a *strong* element of probability that plays into
> experimental verification.

***{The concept of probability is based on the assumption that things
will behave as they behaved in the past--which means: it assumes that
the past existed, meaning that an ever-changing external world exists
and that it reached its present transitional state by passing through a
series of prior states. But, of course, we have no basis for such a
belief, if things can leap into existence out of nothing or vanish into
nothing. For in that case the sensations we consider to be indicative of
its present state may merely be leaping into existence out of nothing,
and any actual indications of whatever may really be out there may be
vanishing into nothing; and that may have been true in the "past" as
well. Indeed, our supposed record of those past events, our memory, may
not exist: the sensations we naively assume to be impinging on our
consciousness from "memory" may be leaping into existence out of
nothing; and any real signals from an actual memory, if one exists, may
be vanishing into nothing before reaching our consciousness.

Bottom line: you can't use the concept of probability, if you deny the
validity of the principle of continuity, upon which all probabilistic
reasoning is based.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> I'm addressing the assertion that something
> that pops in and out of existence (like a virtual electron-positron
> pair)

***{Such notions arise out of the realm of magic and superstition, and
can have no role in actual science, which is based on reason and its
necessary presuppositions, prominently including the axiomatic validity
of the principle of continuity. Thus if you wish to speak
*scientifically* about the creation of electron-positron pairs, or of
anything else, you must acknowledge that the material "created" was in
fact a mere rearrangement, along continuous pathways, of pre-existing
entities, rather than a discontinuous "popping into existence" of
something that did not exist an instant before. --MJ}***

> cannot have reality and be a real causal agent because to assume
> so would therefore necessarily imply that we would have to expect
> elephants and pails of concrete also popping in and out of existence,
> which would therefore dispense with any coherent understanding of cause
> and effect. The truth is, this is a scale-dependent behavior.

***{You are reasoning in a circle. The very notion of scale dependent
behavior presupposes the existence of an external world, in which
phenomena vary in terms of scale. But if it is possible for things to
leap into existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing, all basis for
the inference from sensation to source--which means: all basis for
inferring the existence of an external world--disappears. You want to
use the principle of continuity to construct a complex structure of
knowledge, and then abandon it selectively, based on "evidence." But, of
course, one cannot gather evidence about such matters: evidence is "out
there" in the world--which means: the possibility of the existence of
evidence presupposes the validity of the principle of continuity. You
must have already inferred the existence of the world, using the
principle of continuity, before you can believe in the existence of
anything, including "evidence." --MJ}***

> On a
> microscopic scale (comparable to a small fundamental constant), such
> discontinuous existence is not only common but essential to the
> successful prediction of the caused effect.

***{It won't work. You can't apply the principle of continuity
selectively. You either accept it, or you don't. If you don't--if you
entertain the possibility of even a single violation--then all the
inferred sources of all the sensations you have ever experienced are
called into question, and you can't provide so much as a shred of an
argument, either deductive or probabilistic, in support of any of them.

Why is that so? Because the only argument that can be given in support
of the principle of continuity is generalized and metaphysical. The
principle of continuity must be true because if it is not true, we
cannot know anything at all. Hence if we can find anything we are sure
of, then the principle of continuity must be true.

So, are you sure of anything? Are you sure that you think? That you
doubt? That you are receiving sensations? That you exist? That you are
participating in this discussion? Anything at all? Well, since the
possibility that things may leap into existence out of nothing or vanish
into nothing is incompatible with all forms of surety, any claim to
knowledge on your part requires that you treat the principle of
continuity as certain truth.

--Mitchell Jones}***

> On a large scale (large
> compared to the same small fundamental constant), such behavior is
> still not explicitly forbidden, but it is *extremely* unlikely, and the
> probabalistic weight that is given to such excursions in the prediction
> of the caused effect is exceedingly small. The error is in thinking
> that because one does not see such behavior at large scales, then it
> must be a priori excluded at all scales.
>
> 3. You may have answered my question, but I want to be sure: your
> definition of "ponderable" means "momentum-bearing"?

***{Taken literally, the term means "capable of being weighed," a usage
which is of little import nowadays. But, of course, that which is
capable of being weighed has weight, hence mass. And "having mass"
implies that the mass in question is localized, that it occupies a
finite volume of space (is extended), that it is a carrier of momentum,
etc. It is such implications of the narrow literal meaning that I have
in mind when I use the term. --MJ}***

> Your definition of
> "thing" includes "localized"?

***{Of course. A presence which is everywhere cannot move. Entities
move, hence they are not everywhere, but somewhere--which means: they
are localized in space. --MJ}***

> PD
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: attractive force via particle exchange - how?
    ... >>> have no basis for belief in the existence of anything, ... A wave, for example, by definition follows not one continuous ... >> that there is a correspondence principle that makes one nature/behavior ... > of the principle of continuity. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Please help me with the verification of this law
    ... cause, lies in the principle of continuity, that no thing may come into ... existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Please help me with the verification of this law
    ... interaction of physics" ... cause, lies in the principle of continuity, that no thing may come into ... existence out of nothing or vanish into nothing. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Useful ASCII Codes
    ... data that contradicts the experimental evidence that expanding fusible ... meta-metalanguage, recursively, ad infinitum, in principle. ... subject of your inconsistent thinking? ... existence, or non-existence, of a transcendent beingness. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: Supremum of ordinals
    ... of continuity with the epsilon-delta definition of ... there IS a non-measurable set of reals, ... statements of particular existence. ... nor can we say what is "explicit" ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast