Thanks for posting that.
It seems at first glance to fit rather well with a theory I use when trying
to investigate "perception"; namely that (as a methodological convenience) I
hypothesise that the basic 'stuff' of the universe is not matter, energy or
space/time, but rather "information", and that those other terms we use
refer to 'properties' of this basic stuff, rather than the other way round.
So, 'matter' is a particularly 'lumpy' form of information, which can of
course be converted into 'energy', which is much more fleet of foot. In this
way, one could entertain the notion that a) information can survive the
transition from one form to another quite easily, and
b) one could imagine information without energy, but not energy without
information.
This is handy because perceptual theorists have long had to wrestle with the
notion of how the brain 'makes up' information when signal energies are
interrupted; i.e. if a thing passes behind another thing (for instance), how
is it that the human brain 'knows' that the thing continues to exist, and is
merely hidden from view. Studies of pre-linguistic infants confirm quite
readily that 'intuitive physics' of this sort is established very early in
development, too early to be universally explained by theories of 'learning
by association'. There seems to be an innate propensity to believe in the
information that objects tend to continue to exist, even when the signal
flows do not, at least for as long as 'memory' allows.
Postulating "information" as the basic 'stuff' actually gets round an awful
lot of philosophical dilemmas, such as the 'mind / matter dualism' inherent
in Descartes' thinking (and of course before), and whilst it seems to offend
traditional notions of causality (long regarded as fundamental to scientific
thinking, though see [Popper, Karl] on that subject), it doesn't actually
contradict the basic principle of causality, if that principle is re-framed
around the 'information-as-fundamental principle of the universe'; in fact
perhaps one could actually have a 'law of conservation of information'
rather more easily than one could have a law of conservation of energy,
though it might be rather less useful! For that matter, the notion would
seem to bolster the theoretical position of the idea of a deterministic
universe, yet within which 'free will' might happily exist!
I should say that I haven't really explored the metaphysical implications to
any great extent, so there may be gaping holes in my reasoning in some of
these areas; but it certainly simplifies thinking about models of
perception, in the spirit of Occam's (Ockham's) razor.
regards,
peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco" <marble@infinito.it>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: 23 June 2000 00:23
Subject: R: MD speed, space and time
Hi Dan
> experiments did not measure what we thought they
> measured, but rather only measured the instruments themselves.
Stronger than the Eisenberg principle.
Thanks
Marco
-----Messaggio Originale-----
Da: Dan Glover <glove@indianvalley.com>
A: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Data invio: giovedì 22 giugno 2000 18.46
Oggetto: MD speed, space and time
> Hello everyone
>
> I don't know if everyone has read the new moq.org link:
>
>
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/06/04/stifgnusa01007.html
>
> but the findings pose serious challenges to how we currently view
> Universe. First, space and time are no longer united as Albert Einstein
> declared them to be with his Theory of Special Relativity. It is now
> seen that what Einstein described, while being a valid point of view,
> only operates under very specific circumstances.
>
> What does this mean exactly? Basically it seems the problem boils down
> to our measuring instruments. We know what the speed of light is for we
> have measured it very carefully, with highly precise, technologically
> advanced instruments. What is it that is being measured, however?
> Looking at the findings of Dr. Wang, it becomes apparent that the
> measuring instrument itself is being measured and not the speed of
> light. In other words, a response to the delay of the receiver. Another
> researcher, Ralph Sansbury, writes:
>
> "A similar explanation applies to the red shift in radar reflections
> from venus and mercury
> when they are on the opposite side of the sun; that is the gravitational
> effect of the sun is not to
> change the time scale of light wave disturbances in the ether near the
> sun so as to increase the time
> between successive peaks and valleys of a sine oscillation but to
> influence the radar receiving
> antennas on the earth so that they do not respond as quickly to changes
> in oscillating forces on the
> free electrons in their antennas resulting in a lower frequency for the
> received oscillation of charge in
> the radar antenna." (see http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/news96_f.html
> )
>
> For years, experiments have suggested light propagates instantaneously
> and the the light of stars we see shining overhead are not millions and
> billions of years old at all, as is commonly presumed. The volume of
> research leading to this point of view is staggering:
>
> http://www.padrak.com/~ine/index.shtml#RS_REFS
>
> The law of conservation of energy so befuddled Niels Bohr that he
> abandoned it in his early career, only to be forced back into accepting
> it when experiments seemingly confirmed the law. What Bohr didn't
> realize then, and what we are only starting to realize now, is that
> those experiments did not measure what we thought they measured, but
> rather only measured the instruments themselves.
>
> Could light may be the medium through which electromagnetic waves
> travel? It is appearing more and more that this may be.
>
> Thoughts, anyone?
>
> Dan
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:45 BST