IUBio

Consciousness

Eray Ozkural exa erayo at bilkent.edu.tr
Fri Dec 19 04:54:08 EST 2003


"kenneth p  Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<ROhEb.3508$wL6.1160 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> 
> Coulomb's Law.
> 
> If Coulomb's Law is to be sustained,
> then the field must be infinitely-divisible
> and, therefore, continuous.
> 

That is, if space-time is continuous. (ie continuum hypothesis is not
just a mathematical hypothesis, it's also a physical law!)

> With respect to 'particles', the problem
> is analogous to that of Zeno's 'paradox' -
> pick a 'particle' size, and, by Coulomb's
> Law, one can always 'go halfway' with
> respect to the selected 'particle's param-
> eters.

Well, Zeno's paradox is a non-paradox technically, but let's leave
this aside for a moment :) [There was some Australian idiot who
recenty published a paper about "Zeno's paradox" claiming a
"solution"]

> It's not a big deal. There are other ex-
> amples of accepted continuity. My 'fav-
> orite' is the black body power spectrum.

Agreed.

> That assertions of continuity are commonly
> questioned comes down to artificial 'parcel-
> ization' that was imposed upon theory while
> experiment had none of the modern tools
> that are now commonplace.

That is probably a valid psychological speculation.

> Practitioners became familiar with the 'parcel-
> ized' approach to calculation, and, thereafter,
> required Students to calculate in accord with
> it.

Or discretization was necessary for other reasons! Is not that a more
plausible explanation?

> It's a case of handed-down presumptions
> dictating what can be 'observed'.
> 
> And anyone who disagrees just gets thrown-
> out into the cold :-]

More or less true with any set of postulates.
 
> I sense the possibility of a long, and useful,
> discussion. If so, fire away.

I was just asking a technical point. From which source can you be so
sure that the universe is not discrete? I can't.

I read some part of your book, and it turns out to be pretty
interesting. I don't think I agree with all of your claims but it's
definitely one of the most eccentric written works one may find on the
internet. I feel lucky :)

Now, could you please tell me what kind of a field is this 4-D
energydynamics field? I would like to hear, if possible, a precise
mathematical description.

I hope that is challenging enough for you.

Regards,

--
Eray Ozkural



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net