Atoms are particles. Neutrons protons, and electrons are also particles. So are quarks. As far as I know, their respective volumes do not consist of "particle fields". — 180 Proof

Theorist Sean Carroll thinks it’s time you learned the truth: All of the particles you know—including the Higgs—are actually fields.

Fermilab Symmetry Magazine

Don't forget that 99.999% of baryonic "matter" also consists of empty space — 180 Proof

Would you consider it empty if permeated by particle fields? Is it really empty if sustaining a magnetic field?

As Bear Bryant said, "Victory is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration." Wait, no, he said "When the going gets tough, the tough get going," or was that Picasso — T Clark

Well, he could have said that, but what he did say was (Wiki):

Again, as at Kentucky, Bryant attempted to integrate the Texas A&M squad. "We'll be the last football team in the Southwest Conference to integrate", he was told by a Texas A&M official. "Well", Bryant replied, "then that's where we're going to finish in football."

During the 1960s in visits to my parents in Tuscaloosa I would go exercise climbing on Bear's metal coaching tower, maybe thirty feet high with a covered roof and staunch guardrail fence around the top to keep him from falling off. He had a metal seat/cage attached to a hoist that his players would crank him to the top where he would sit with his feet hanging over the edge and chest against the guardrail fence. Not saying much, letting his assistant coaches do most of the yelling. There was a metal winding stair to the top but I don't think he used it. He was the next thing to a Deity in Alabama. The photo below taken maybe ten years after I last watched him doesn't show the hoist. That would detract from is popular image.



Pop philosophy from Bear:

1) It’s awfully important to win with humility. It’s also important to lose. I hate to lose worse than anyone, but if you never lose you won’t know how to act. If you lose with humility, then you can come back.

2) I think the most important thing of all for any team is a winning attitude. The coaches must have it. The players must have it. The student body must have it. If you have dedicated players who believe in themselves, you don’t need a lot of talent.

3) Losing doesn’t make me want to quit. It makes me want to fight that much harder.

4) I know what it takes to win. If I can sell them on what it takes to win, then we are not going to lose too many football games.

5) If you believe in yourself and have dedication and pride – and never quit – you’ll be a winner. The price of victory is high but so are the rewards.

6) I have tried to teach them to show class, to have pride, and to display character. I think football, winning games, takes care of itself if you do that.

7) I honestly believe that if you are willing to out-condition the opponent, have confidence in your ability, be more aggressive than your opponent and have a genuine desire for team victory, you will become the national champions. If you have all the above, you will acquire confidence and poise, and you will have those intangibles that win the close ones.

8) First there are those who are winners, and know they are winners. Then there are the losers who know they are losers. Then there are those who are not winners, but don’t know it. They’re the ones for me. They never quit trying. They’re the soul of our game.

9) If we’d beaten ‘em, I wouldn’t be going out.

10) If wanting to win is a fault, as some of my critics seem to insist, then I plead guilty. I like to win. I know no other way. It’s in my blood.

From Psychology Today:

The scientific research is clear about the psychological implications of looking at greens generally. Studies have shown that seeing the color green is linked to enhanced creative thinking.

In this regard the forum needs all the help it can get. :cool:

'Quantum mechanics says that classical objects — including brains — don’t exist'.(Hoffman) — green flag

I wonder where? What a waste of time.

This "thesis" is about formulating a paradigm that unifies scientific explanations with panpsychist/spiritual or theistic ones — Benj96

The proof is in the numbers, so explain how that comes about.

I see a comparison between "pop philosophy" and "pop science", although authors of the latter generally have more impressive credentials. Nevertheless, I cringe when I see the image of the Earth resting in a basketball net in space. Or read quantum woo attempting to describe the indescribable. Victor Toth commented on Quora at some point that the subject was virtually all mathematics and attempting to uncover analogies from the macro world, simply a bit of nonsense.

Both pop philosophy and pop science have their places, however, in sparking curiosity and reflection. And you do have to be a real philosophy buff to appreciate the finer differences of thought between two intellectuals who lived centuries, even millennia ago.

I'm ready. What is the known ontology of matter? — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: Bullseye.

How could anyone not appreciate this, a Sach's Puppet? :smile:

Back in the saddle. Great! :cool:

How does matter arise from consciousness? — TheMadMan

We become involved in life's experiences and discover what really matters.

Oh, wait . . . that's another kind of matter. But, you see, the crux of the matter is poorly defined words and concepts in philosophy. As a matter of "fact", take being. Many have tried, but few if any have succeeded in this matter. :cool:

My perspective on it would be to find others that want to harmonize not only different perspectives and insights, but also experiences, moral and everyday life as well. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Welcome aboard . It would be interesting if members would speak more about their life experiences as they argue philosophical points. Sometimes they do.

Minkowski coordinates measure the interval between events as √(t²-x²-y²-z²) . — noAxioms

c=1?

1. Tenure-Chasing Supplants Substantive Contributions — Art48

Substantive contributions? Who decides that? Possibly like a clique of mathematicians who gather together to praise the subject to which they have devoted much time and effort. I've been there and done that and then looked with unbiased clarity and found little of consequence in a larger scheme of ideas.

In the math profession one achieves favorable results through a convergent sequence of mistakes — jgill

Converging in what sense? From what I understand is converging on the correct answer by process of elimination (series of errors). I feel this is not just applicable to maths but across the board. Probability underlies most of not all interactions/processes right? — Benj96

Getting closer and closer to the solution of a problem through a sequence of mistakes. It's a play on math terms, but probably applies to most problem solving.

Perfection is a distant and cruel god. Even refereed published math papers frequently have mistakes, simple typos mostly, but sometimes flaws in reasoning which are much more serious. A highly respected Oxbridge mathematician far up in years, like me, claimed to have solved a long lasting and major problem in analytic number theory, but those who read his paper shook their heads in sad recognition of creativity being a spectacle of youth. :chin:

As for feeling badly when you make a mistake - get back in the saddle and do better.

I've been reading some of his earlier posts and when he moves away from purely philosophical banter they read like a novel, fascinating at times. I wonder, did this guy get a PhD in math eventually? He sounds very distracted from the intensities those programs normally exhibit. In his later incarnations on TPF did he ever get into math discussions?

'The sage' as a philosophical archetype, one who'sees things as they truly are' not in the narrow sense required by the precise sciences, but as a general grasp or insight into the imperfection of our sensory knowledge — Wayfarer

It would be good see more personal experiences recounted in these discussions to give meat to things said centuries, even millennia, ago. As a mathematician I had the handicap of only fully grasping abstract ideas when bringing them down to specific, more elementary examples.

In the present thread I am reminded of a drive I took several years ago into nearby mountains. As I drove over a hill and looked down on a small bridge I saw a bear leaning against a guardrail. This was no surprise as I had seen bears in this site before, but as as I approached the bridge the bear shifted into an old stump leaning propped the rail.

When I analyze this experience I think of the fact that seeing a bear there before had triggered a slight rise in emotions, which would make embedding in memory a tad stronger than usual. Then driving down the hill the subconscious would seek and find and present what had been enforced in memory stronger than normal. An "insight into the imperfection".

I would be surprised, however, if my suggestion were to take root. Philosophy is not a game to be played on a personal level. Profound statements are the ticket. Good luck with that. :cool:

THIS is the only thing of substance on this thread IMO. Penrose deserves praise for his contributions to physics and math, but as a philosopher I'm not so sure. For example, his notion that complex numbers are fundamental in QM seems a stretch - though they certainly facilitate the wave equations.

Personal correspondence. I was convinced of his credentials. But I could have been mistaken. He was from the Netherlands.

What surprises me is the person I have in mind has a graduate degree in physics and has reappeared on several occasions in various lively personas. Not a math person like me. Oh well. Good work, Inspector.

Well, Inspector Wayfarer worked it out. I had no idea — Baden

Kudos to the man down under. :cool:

green flag was banned for being returning banned member Hoo. — Baden

That's a surprise. I would have guessed someone more recent.

We are human, mistakes are both inevitable and necessary - to learn from — Benj96

In the math profession one achieves favorable results through a convergent sequence of mistakes. :cool:

My question would then be, why is the government and military so untrustworthy that civilians feel that gun ownership is a requirement to feel safe/protected? — Benj96

Sadly, frequently the police can only come in and pick up the pieces. And I doubt that large numbers of Americans fear their own military. Quite a few of us served.

that the enemy, finally seen, turns out to be us — green flag

Pogo's words reverberate through time. I once pulled a skiff through murky waters up to my chest in the Okefenokee much like Humphrey Bogart in "African Queen". That same week someone had lost control while water skiing not far away and had died, having fallen into a nest of water moccasins.

Stay away from this guy. Throw yourself into adventure. — jgill

Zapffe was a climber ! — green flag

Practicing what he preached?

This is a tragic break in nature, as Zapffe clearly laid out — schopenhauer1

Stay away from this guy. Throw yourself into adventure.

That story could have turned out very differently! It makes me wonder about what happened leading up to the story that brought together a fourteen year old, a mafioso, and a frequently fired stolen gun — Fooloso4

I would spend part of the summer with my grandparents on the Gulf coast, very loosely supervised. I went crabbing and sold my take to Angelos Restaurant, where some mafia guys would eat. I noticed one of them would drive his Cadillac convertible into the parking lot behind the restaurant and leave it open. I hid in some bushes one evening with my bicycle and when he went in I opened his unlocked glove compartment and took the gun, getting on my bike and peddling furiously.

I also broke into a couple of antebellum mansions lying boarded up on the coast, their spacious lawns complete with ancient oaks, Spanish moss hanging from branches. Inside, the decor was post Civil War with deep somewhat tattered red velvet drapes and a sword or two hanging from the walls. I stole two old guns from those break-ins. One, a pistol, disappeared yeas ago and probably is still out there, functional from the 1890s.

Angelos and many of those impressive homes were destroyed by hurricane Camille in 1969.

These stories show how tapestries of gun ownership evolve.

I quit being a crime lord in the Fall of 1951.

What is it like to be a cockroach ? — green flag

If AI gains eminence we will all find out. :worry:

I know and confess that I'm caught in this game of playing the hero, and that's how I play the hero. — green flag

:chin: :cool:

The majority of people favor gun control. — Fooloso4

It's the details where things go awry. Over 300,000,000 guns out there, how would one start to deal with the sheer numbers? And they last so long, they are so well made.

When I was fourteen I stole a handgun from a mafia member. This was 1951, and the gun was a Colt semi-automatic in .380 caliber, dating from about 1915 or so. Its lands and grooves were pretty much gone from considerable firing, but it was definitely still usable. I gave it to my father a few years later and it disappeared sometime before 1968. It's still out there somewhere, untraceable and lethal.

Personally, I would like to see assault weapons banned, and that might be enforceable to some extent due to records being kept. But the political will is lacking.

Well, if jgill cant help . . . — universeness

The late Dr McCarty seems to have been a man of many talents, including studies of logic. Beyond me, I fear. The length of this piece is challenging on its own. I didn't get far. @TonesinDeepFreeze might find it interesting. The idea of relating math to solipsism is bizarre (to me, at least).

He is arguing against the ultimate reality of objects in spacetime — Art48

Ultimate or not, being bitten by a snake or run over by a train is a strong argument for what appears real.

I know, "I refute it thus" has fallen into disfavor. But something connects with the kicker's foot, and it might as well be the Illusory rock.

This reminded me of a discussion that apokrisis participated in — T Clark

Yes. He seemed very trustworthy on technical subjects like this. I miss his participation.

Emergence is not well understood in all its varieties.

In Wikipedia Mark A. Bedau observes:

Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities?

At its simplest level it is characterized as an automobile, which involves a pattern or arrangement of parts. Under downward causation in Wikipedia:

Downward causation does not occur by direct causal effects from higher to lower levels of system organisation. Instead, downward causation occurs indirectly because the mechanisms at higher levels of organisation fail to accomplish the tasks dictated by the lower levels of organisation. As a result, inputs from the environment signal to the mechanisms at lower levels of organisation that something is wrong and therefore, to act.

Downward causation might be a key to understanding consciousness, but mathematically it is not well understood. The explorations I have done in infinite compositions of functions might eventually play a minor role, especially inner compositions which relate mathematically to the convergence of continued fractions. Don't worry, I won't get started. :nerd:

Please sign ChatGPT on as an honorary member of the forum. :cool:

The way this question is phrased amounts to meaningless internet blather. — Wayfarer

:up:

What I'm arguing is that there is no existence without mind and that the nature of the universe outside any mind is unintelligible and unknowable. That's why I keep referring to the book Mind and the Cosmic Order, which is not a philosophy book, but a book about neural modelling — Wayfarer

At age 91, Dr Pinter is still intellectually active it seems. But he made his mark in mathematics, not metaphysics or neurology. His speculations about why we see multiple objects simultaneously and not isolated single objects is perhaps of interest to some. But to stretch this to imply "there is no existence without mind" seems a tad sketchy. :roll:

Suppose, instead, that there is a measurement at the slits — Andrew M

Does this measurement physically affect a photon on its way to the far screen?

Time, therefore, elides the multi-forms of creation into a universal oneness of blissful wholeness. — ucarr

Where do you buy your weed? A blessed product.

Science fantasy at best. :roll: