tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post7825021991347396565..comments2024-01-22T08:01:58.626-08:00Comments on Panexperientialism: Thoughts on "The Ecological Self"Justinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06145123903223215665noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-67487867023052325102008-10-07T21:46:00.000-07:002008-10-07T21:46:00.000-07:00Please check out these related references which po...Please check out these related references which point out that our bodyminds are totally embedded in the vast cosmic display or process---or that their is not a jot of separation to be found any "where". "IT" is an Indivisible Unity.<BR/><BR/>www.fearnomorezoo.org/literature/observe_learn.php<BR/><BR/>www.dabase.org/broken.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-2199792282532887992008-06-30T09:21:00.000-07:002008-06-30T09:21:00.000-07:00I guess that could be. I hadn't thought of it tha...I guess that could be. I hadn't thought of it that way. Then the planck level "units" would have priority (in Schaffer's sense) over the entities at scales below and above it.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14851240963321295307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-85807312160446212212008-06-30T04:13:00.000-07:002008-06-30T04:13:00.000-07:00Agree with you that infinite divisibility support...Agree with you that infinite divisibility supports the whole being fundamental and visa versa. <BR/><BR/>But in my vague example (sorry I meant to write Planck length , not Planck constant), I was referring to your post where you say that the Planck scale is good evidence of a limit to divisibility. <BR/><BR/>Your point there seems to me to be a very valid one, but if it is correct it seems strange that “gunk” has come to be regarded by (some) philosophers and physicists as an empirical possibility. So I am anticipating how a gunk advocate might respond to your claim (but bear in mind I am doing so with pretty limited physics knowledge!).<BR/><BR/>My point was that although the Planck scale places a practical limit on divisibility, couldn’t entities at the Planck scale still be made from smaller parts ad infinitum, although it would be impossible to break them down into these smaller parts? Perhaps it would then come down to the cosmological question of the genesis of entities at the Planck scale in the history of the universe.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06145123903223215665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-36759532883467989452008-06-29T13:01:00.000-07:002008-06-29T13:01:00.000-07:00I think I agree, but let me know if I misunderstoo...I think I agree, but let me know if I misunderstood your example.<BR/><BR/>Following Schaffer, we would say there is a whole and there are parts and we're arguing about which is ultimately fundamental. If parts are not infinitely divisible, I think this supports the idea that parts are fundamental. I think this is like the airplane model. In the case of infinitely divisible parts, it seems the whole is needed to "support" the parts and it has better claim to be fundamental.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14851240963321295307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-39556136645299215412008-06-29T12:12:00.000-07:002008-06-29T12:12:00.000-07:00great! thanks very much for sharing!great! thanks very much for sharing!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-32918385902490308872008-06-29T03:47:00.000-07:002008-06-29T03:47:00.000-07:00Hi SteveI'll have to catch up with those posts on ...Hi Steve<BR/>I'll have to catch up with those posts on your blog re quantum gravity. All looks extremely interesting, but something about which I'm pretty ignorant to date.<BR/>I notice that youv'e already discussed Schaffer a bit. Re your comment about Plancks constant and "gunk", I'm wondering whether the practical and theoretical impossibility of never-ending division counts against the possibility of their being no ultimate parts? ? As a rough example, I could make a model airplane out of parts with glue that was impossible to get apart - the model would thus be indivisble, but this would not mean that it was an ultimate part.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06145123903223215665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-10422113808941545942008-06-27T08:13:00.000-07:002008-06-27T08:13:00.000-07:00Thank you for writing the review and for the point...Thank you for writing the review and for the pointer to the Schaffer paper. I’m very interested in this topic.<BR/><BR/>I agree with these authors that the dual scheme of {space-time container plus material objects} must be rejected, but think the authors are slightly off-track in wanting to reduce the properties of matter fields to space-time. <BR/><BR/>In some ways the quest for quantum gravity can (should?) be viewed as a quest for a monistic theory which is rid of the dual scheme. I continue to try to follow the different theories as a layperson to see how they come down on this issue. I think I'll put up a quick post on this. Thanks again.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14851240963321295307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-64258639863434696342008-06-13T03:18:00.000-07:002008-06-13T03:18:00.000-07:00Thanks for your comments Stephen.Mathews uses "unb...Thanks for your comments Stephen.<BR/>Mathews uses "unbounded" to mean without limitations, in the sense that a traveller within an unbounded medium could continue indefinitely without reaching an edge. Whilst from the outside, a sphere has a boundary, I imagine Mathews would say that it is incoherent to speak of something outside of spacetime/ the universe.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06145123903223215665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7449019.post-58526040706885117742008-06-12T12:03:00.000-07:002008-06-12T12:03:00.000-07:00a spherical, finite but unbounded space that expan...<I>a spherical, finite but unbounded space that expands in time</I><BR/><BR/>That would be for, uhm, small values of spherical. What else is there to a sphere other than a boundary?<BR/><BR/>And that's a problem with definitions in general. They work great in theory, as in math, but in practice, the Universe is not bound by them. Yet another case of, "The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, they're the same."<BR/><BR/>Sounds like an excellent review of a pretty good book. I come from a country where "not bad" is high praise. This isn't an easy topic. History of the philosophy of fledgling science, or some such.<BR/><BR/>A string theorist is caught by his wife in bed with another woman. He says, "But honey, I can explain everything!"<BR/><BR/>Of course, we don't yet have a Theory Of Everything (TOE), or Grand Unified Theory (GUT), or any other satisfying body part acronym.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03934169832326108710noreply@blogger.com