Craig, Yes of course there can be motion or relations without an experience if you mean a human experience. The only people who believe otherwise are a few comp and intersubjectivists who believe nothing happened in the whole universe before humans came along.
Edgar On Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:39:45 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > Can there be any motion or relation without an experience in which a sense > of motion or relation is literally encountered? > > > On Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:37:46 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> All, >> >> Here's one more theory from my book on Reality: >> >> All forms of mass and energy are just different forms of relative motion. >> They actually have to be different forms of the same thing for there to be >> mass-energy conservation, and different forms of relative motion are what >> they are. >> >> Rest mass in this theory is just vibrational motion. It is relative >> motion, but since this relative motion is so spatially confined, it appears >> the same to all external observers. It is equally relative to all >> observers, thus it appears absolute in having the same value relative to >> all observers. Thus rest mass is the same to all observers, even though it >> is actually relative motion. >> >> This is somewhat similar to string theory's notion of particles as >> vibrating strings. But in my theory the vibration itself is not the >> particle and there is no need for extra dimensions. In my theory, the >> vibration takes place in ordinary 3D space and represents only the mass of >> the particle. Only in 3D space is it interconvertible to other 3D relative >> motions. >> >> [In my theory particles themselves are composed of their particle >> properties (not vibrating strings), one of which is mass-energy, but that's >> another part of the theory I won't get into in this post.] >> >> So in this theory the conversion of mass to energy is quite simple. It's >> just the conversion of the equivalent amount of vibrational motion into >> either the relative linear motion of kinetic energy and/or the relative >> wave motion of EM energy. >> >> This theory neatly conceptually unifies all forms of mass and energy, and >> the conversion of one form to another as simply the conversion of one form >> of relative motion to an equivalent amount of another. >> >> All other forms of energy neatly conform to this explanation including >> what we call potential energy which is really just an accounting trick. >> What we call potential energy is actually just some form of blocking (or >> impinging) energy from a system external to the system under consideration. >> To just analyze the system itself, we imagine a potential energy IN the >> system equivalent to the actual blocking energy outside the system. It just >> makes things easier to analyze. So potential energy is not a real form of >> energy, not a real relative motion, but an accounting trick to confine >> analysis to an isolated system when systems are not actually energetically >> isolated from their environments. >> >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
