Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Senses and Physics ...
Ricardo Rademacher writes:
What I am striving for is the difference between that which we can
sense with our bodies and that which we only infer through our
mathematics.
We can see a photon.
We can touch mass.
This is why I put EM and Gravity on a different level than the Stong
and Weak forces. I understand your point about classifying these
entities by what they do rather than what they are, but don't you think
that those entities that have direct contact with our experience deserve
a diffrent role in our interpretation and understanding of Physics?
Mati Meron wrote:
Be careful of putting too much trust in our senses.
Mountain Man (prfbrown@magna.com.au) wrote:
I am wondering then, what it is, in which we place our trust?
Would it be the intellect? The senses, imo, represent the windows
between the inner realm of the observer and the outer realm of the
phenomena of (external) nature. As such they are interfaces.
If there is agreement with the above, we might proceed:
After data concerning the phenomena of nature passes through
our senses, it is brought (in some cases) to our "attention",
(our intellect or mind) and in other cases it is "unconsciously"
received and used for our "lower-level" support systems.
If there is agreement with the above, then the answer to the
original (top) question might be assisted by the study of the
process of consciousness, and if there is agreement in this,
it implies (imo) that one should examine the history of yoga,
and the nature of its findings, for of all disciplines which
concern themselves with the senses of the body, this would
appear (imo) to be the prominent.
Mathematical inference seems to be purely an internal act
of intellectual endeavour - conscious most of the time -
which draws upon pre-existent intellectual structures
to place mathematical concepts in some form of order.
Mati Meron writes ...
I think a great care is needed here. In a way we can hardly avoid
giving those entities a prominent role, since it is only through these
entities that we experience all other ones. Thus, if anything, we
should be careful not to give them more prominent role than they
deserve and not to turn the specific set of senses there where created
as a product of biological evolution on a little planet at the
perifery of a standard, run of the mill galaxy, into the standard by
which all universe must be measured.
Mountain Man writes ...
Mati, your above notes are really a statement of caution, and do
not address the question, except in a limiting manner. While this
is part of the specification of the "interpretation and understanding
of Physics" - quite a necessary part - we also need some progress
through trial and error, so I have the following non-cautionary,
exporatory items to contribute: ;-)
(1) I can perceive the "different level" business between G and EM
and the set Strong and Weak, and would agree that the natural
phenomana which manifest the "forces" of the first set are perceivable
directly through the sensory apparati of man, whereas the second set
of (more recently "discovered") forces represent intellectual structures
which are relatively far-removed from any direct (human) sensory ID.
If there were brought to my attention some everyday occurrences whereby
my senses could perceive the strong and/or weak forces, then I would
havve to reconsider this position.
(2) Entities, natural phenomena, forces of nature - of which we have
direct sensory experience imo *should* be categorised differently, or
at least considered (for the exploration) as one possible
combinatorial solution which offers greater "meaning" to the current
progress of the scientific program.
Our genetic history must have huge reference to Gravity and EM
interaction with the body - extending back maybe billions of years.
Our perception of the universe is biological, and it is grounded
in a *living* biological system. We cannot escape the domain
of this system it would appear - not that we have understood it.
In the history of the interpretation and understanding of physics,
it is my contention that the greatest diversion away from the
experiential commonality of "proto-science", natural science, or
whatever it was which existed prior to the beginnings of modern
science, occurred in the replacement of the consideration of
the "elements of nature" which the more generalistic intellectual
notions of the "states of matter".
The modern scientific program had its roots in the days when the
concept "the world is consistent of the elements of nature -
earth, water, air and fire" was gradually replaced with the
concept "material nature may be seen to be consistent of three
states - solid, liquid and gas (plasma came later)" and from then
on attempted to specify the various natural phenomena in accordance
to this intellectual perception of nature.
Mati writes ....
No, not at all. There is no reference whatsoever to "solid, liquid,
gas" in Newton's laws, in relativity, in QM, in short in all our
fundamental theories.
Ricardo Rademacher writes ...
Right, but I think his point is that science started as an exploration
of what we could experience and thus, as far as materials go, we went
from the 4 basic elements to the 3 basic states of matter.
Mountain Man writes ...
Yes - thanks for the elucidation here. I am trying to express the
opinion that, although quintessence of the contemporary scientific
appears to have been crystalised out of only recent developments,
and in the strict "modern meaning" it may be argues that it has,
there also exists an argument whereby the entire evolutionary thread
of human development may be seen to have provided a foundational
expoloration of experiential discovery, which is (almost always)
discarded. My persistence in the revisitation of this is borne
by my pre-occupation with the simplicity of life as may be
understood using those very same "elements of nature" which
we used by the ancestors of all humanity in order to make sense
out of the world, and more importantly, to survive.
Continuing with the exploratory items ...
The steam engine, thermodynamics and the industrial age soon
followed upon the analytical success of this concept of states
of matter, and the specifications of their phase changes.
(3) However (IMO) something very subtle was missed.
And this something relates to the changed thread subject.
It is the sensory apprecation of life, along with its
co-existence within the studied "phenomena of nature".
The states of matter are lifeless and dead wehreas the
original elements of nature are the sources or renewal
raw materials for the furtherance of life - ie: survival.
The living scientific "observer" requires air for his/her
life-breath, requires water to quench the thirst, and requires
food (earth or living product thereof) to just exist.
Externally, fire (EM energy from the sun) is centrally required
for heat and light, not only for the observer, but for most
processes of the ecosystem.
That water and air are "only" a specific instance of liquid
and gas. Earth, is some prehistoric general concept
of living matter and non-living matter. Fire is just a source
of light and heat - whether terrestrial or cosmic. Such is the
usual translation of the historical significance of the elements
of nature. It is generally understood too, that for the purposes
of the scientific program, there use or reference is not only
not required, but even undesirable. Like "new-age mumbo".
But the fact of the matter is that when the scientific observer
looks out-doors at the natural world, he sees on this "little
planet at the periphery of a standard, run of the mill galaxy"
none other than the enormous natural interplay of water and air
and earth, processes fired by the cosmic fire of the sun.
(4) Metaphysics, I understand, is trying to be avoided in this
thread, and I think I understand the reason. The reason is
that it is exceedingly difficult if not impossible, to have any
degree of certainty or common agreement or understanding in
reference to any metaphysical concepts. On the other hand,
physical scientific concepts are very much specifiable within
given tolerances. However, IMO the very reason for this is the
restricted domain of the scientific enquiry - ie: physical and
material measurement of tangible structures - sensory data.
The metaphysics either resides in the intellect or in the low
level uncounscious "systems" or both, or is emergent from the
ensemble of these two, but is not observable via the senses
in the external phenomena of nature.
(5) Neverthless, it would appear to most, that metaphysics is
required somewhere in the overall picture of things, especially
if consideration is going to be given to the classification of
entities according to whether or not they are "experiential",
involving direct appreciation through the senses.
Physics on its own, and metaphysics (whatever system one might
entertain) on its own seem to be severely restricted in their
explanatory power of both the observer and the observer's
observations and the universe of the observer's observations.
But the building of any formal bridge bewteen the two is a
daunting task, and is not seen as necessary to many folk
resident in either domain. I'd just like to comment that
IMO, if the task were to be done, one possible way would
be to use the living model of the four ancient elements
of nature - for they are the elements which provide the
raw material of the life of the observer, and the gross
elements of the outer phenomenal world of sensory nature.
If we presume the discipline of yoga (and by this I mean
the study of the living consciousness, the body, and the
ensemble of this known as me, or you, or the observer) to
be the best mechanism to observe the processes of the senses
and the processes of nature observed through the senses,
does this imply that yoga is some form of science? Can the
scientific method be applied to the practice of this
definition of yoga - ever?
Pete Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BoomerangOutPost: Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
Thematic Threading: Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
Webulous Coordinates: welcome.html
QuoteForTheDay:
"We are the birds of the same nest,
We may wear different skins,
We may speak different languages,
We may believe in different religions,
We may belong to different cultures,
Yet we share the same home - OUR EARTH.
Born on the same planet
Covered by the same skies
Gazing at the same stars
Breathing the same air
We must learn to happily progress together
Or miserably perish together,
For man can live individually,
But can survive only collectively"
- Atharva Veda, India (about 1800BC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Rademacher continues
in a further shard of this thread ...
After all, any and all exploration in science would be purely
philosophical in nature had we not the machines to do the expereinceing
for us. The annmeters, voltmeters, computers, etc take place of our
eyes and ears and skin for the purposes of investigation. We place more
faith in machine experiments due to the universal reproducability that
they offer, but underneath it all, they are truely just extensions of
our selves.
Would you believe in quarks if there wasn't a machine whose results
could be intrepreted as such? I doubt it.
Would you believe in electrons if there weren't machines whose results
could be interpreted as such? I doubt it.
Now, would you believe in gravity if there were no machines around
whose results you could interpret as such? The fact the we are stuck on
Earth is proof enough.
So, IMHO, gravity and to a lesser extent EM, by virtue of needing only
our senses to experience their effect do hold a diffrent role than other
forces. Note I said different, not better, not worse, just different.
Mountain Man writes:
Point taken. We have 4 "modern forces of nature". There are so
many combinatorial manners of looking at them. The above is just
one to explore. As such it is a journey which may or may not yield
a better understanding of ourselves and/or our environment of nature.
Ricardo Rademacher continues ...
As a matter of fact, it's the purpose of this thread (for me at least)
to find out how they are diffrent because we expereince them directly
and not indirectly through experiments and intellect, and through this
diffrence try to understand the intellect and experiments. A rather
vicious circle, eh?
Mountain Man writes:
Well, I can appreciate the deliniation here, and to an extent think
it is worthwhile pursuing. And I hope the journey is *indeed*
fruitful. That which is sensory and that which is intellectual
need to be perceived from a vantage point from which the commonalities
and differences can be assessed.
No doubt the more intellectual quintessences of the scientific
program (Newtonian, SR, GR, QM) do not require reference to the
states of matter, but they were derived historically from the
analysis of directly experienced natural phenomena, and the
familiarity of the mathematics which was required to be able
to better and better express the generalities of the physical
material world of nature in which man evolved.
We may dwell within the confines of a terrestrial environment
consistent primarily the never-ending forms of living earth,
surrounded by water and air, but the driving force of this
living environment in which we have all co-evolved, is the
cosmic fire of the sun - EM energy. Gravitational forces
have been required to maintain the equilibrium of this living
environment, and the substrate of the gravitational dynamics
of the body (and attached senses) of every single living
being known to this world ever ... has been the relativity
of its body to:
(a) in the terrestrial sense, the survival afforded
by the primal management of the "elements of nature",
in seeking them, or in seeking shelter from them, and,
(b) in the cosmic sense, the dynamics of the earth and moon
and sun, which have provided the stability for life to
evolve (at least to the present).
But possibly I am simply stating the obvious?
What may not be immediately obvious is the isomorphism
which may be asserted to exist between the senses of the
human being (IMO) ...
Element Outer Sense Inner Sense Natural Environment
=========================================================
Earth Touch Hunger
Water Taste Thirst
Air Breath Breath Terrestrial
---------------------------------------------------------
Fire(M) Hearing Speech Cosmic
Fire(A) Sight Vision
=========================================================
* Where (M)=material and (A)=aetheric (or ZPF), vibration
In this view, fire at root is none other than EM energy
and the dominant source of this is the sun.
In the intellectual analysis of "earth", first material
and then chemical properties were observed and discovered.
Finally, air and water were able to be specified in accordance
to more fundamental constituents, and the elements of nature
were subsumed within the scientific "states of matter".
In the current domain of science, it is indeed pointless
to resurrect the question of their applicablility to anything,
however on the edges of the scientific domain, where it seeks
union with other disciplines of man, such as metaphysics,
philosophy, yoga, environmentalism and even the basic rights
of human access to these raw materials of life (esp water).
Pete Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BoomerangOutPost: Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
Thematic Threading: Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
Webulous Coordinates: welcome.html
QuoteForTheDay:
"I dont know half of you half as well as I should like;
and I like less that half of you half as well as you deserve."
This was unexpected and rather difficult.
There was some scattered clapping, but most of them were
trying to work it out and see if it came to a compliment.'
- JRR Tolkien (from 'The Fellowship of the Ring')
--------------------------------------------------------------------
