I did find notes from Hywel but they are too long to send to Friam. Perhaps they could be put on a server. I will see if they say enough about gravity to make that worthwhile.
Frank ----------------------------------- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918 On Wed, May 1, 2019, 6:27 AM Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> wrote: > We already know what it causes. The question is, how does it accomplish > "action-at-a-distance"? There are explanations of other such phenomena. > Particles sent back and forth, etc. Ask Hywel for details. Perhaps he > left some notes. Or has an equivalent Oracle on the list. > > Frank > > ----------------------------------- > Frank Wimberly > > My memoir: > https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly > > My scientific publications: > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 > > Phone (505) 670-9918 > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 11:46 PM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > >> Frank, >> >> >> >> But when we do find out what gravity is, it will be from the study of the >> things it causes; and if it caused nothing, we would find out nothing, >> right? >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology >> >> Clark University >> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank >> Wimberly >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 30, 2019 9:25 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] A Question For Tomorrow >> >> >> >> Nick, >> >> >> >> If Hywel is correct we know a great deal about how gravity "behaves" but >> not what causes it. No one has ever observed a graviton, he said. >> >> >> >> Frank >> >> >> >> The quote marks are because we know how objects behave in a gravitational >> field. >> >> ----------------------------------- >> Frank Wimberly >> >> My memoir: >> https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly >> >> My scientific publications: >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 >> >> Phone (505) 670-9918 >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:15 PM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, Eric, and interlocutors, >> >> >> >> I knew I would get my ears boxed for this: >> >> >> >> *I was in a forum with a bunch of physicists last year many of whom were >> wedded to the notion that nature was determined by things beyond experience >> that we would never know. That's both a tautology AND an oxymoron. * >> >> >> >> Others have met you at the high level of your response, so I will now >> confess that I was making a small logical point. In the first place, >> “things beyond experience that we could never know” IS a tautology, right. >> So, that expression is merely to say that there are things we may never >> know. Ok. That’s fine. But when you go on to say that nature is >> determined by unknowable causes that’s an oxymoron. To the extent that >> anything is caused, by whatever means, it reveals its causes in its >> behavior. To the extent that events are random, no cause is revealed and >> no cause exists. >> >> >> >> Now the discussion which followed your post was so far above my head, >> that I wasn’t sure the extent to which it addressed the following: To what >> extent do you-all think the vagaries of quantum phenomena are properly >> generalized to the macro level? I hear a lot of talk among social >> scientists to the effect that now that we have quantum theory, we can’t do >> psychology, which talk I take to be obscurantist blather. Do I need to be >> pistol-whipped on that point, too? >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology >> >> Clark University >> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Smith >> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 2:22 PM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com >> > >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] A Question For Tomorrow >> >> >> >> > I was in a forum with a bunch of physicists last year many of whom were >> wedded to the notion that nature was determined by things beyond experience >> that we would never know. That's both a tautology AND an oxymoron. >> >> >> >> I think this requires care. Never wanting to defend the positions of >> people I don’t know in a conversation I wasn’t in, it would be helpful to >> know what topic the conversation was about, in the terms the participants >> applied to it. >> >> >> >> >> >> Since physics has existed as a mathematical science (let’s say, since >> Newton?), it has employed a notation of “state” of a system. >> >> >> >> Also since that time, it has employed a notion of the “observable >> properties” (shortened to just “observables”) somehow associated with the >> system’s states. >> >> >> >> In classical physics, the concept of state was identical to that of a >> collection of values assigned to some sufficiently complete set of >> observables, and which observables made up the set could be chosen without >> regard to which particular state they were characterizing. >> >> >> >> aka in common language, anything inherent in the concept of a state was >> just the value of an observable, meaning something knowable by somebody who >> bothered to measure it. >> >> >> >> >> >> In quantum mechanics, physics still has notions of states and observables. >> >> >> >> Now, however, the notion of state is _not_ coextensive with a set of >> values assigned to a complete (but not over-complete) set of observables, >> which one could declare in advance without regard to which state is being >> characterized. >> >> >> >> To my view, the least important consequence of this change is that the >> state may not be knowable by us, even in principle, though that is the >> case. (To many others, this is its most important consequence. But the >> reason I shake that red cape before a herd of bulls is so that I can say…) >> >> >> >> The important consequence of this understanding is that we have >> mathematical formalizations of the concept of state and of observable, and >> they are two different kinds of concept. It is precisely that both can be >> defined, that the theory needs both to function in its complete form, and >> that the definitions are different, that expands our understanding of >> concepts of state and observable. A state still does the main things >> states have always done in quantitative physical theories, and in the sense >> that they characterize our “attainable knowledge”, observables do what they >> have always done. Before, the two jobs had been coextensive; now they are >> not. >> >> >> >> >> >> I assume Shakespeare wrote the “There are more things in heaven and >> earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” line about the same >> phenomenon as the thing that makes the Copernical revolution a revolution: >> people fight to give up importance they believed they had, or control they >> believed they had. Once the fight is in the culture, there may not be that >> emotional motive in all the combatants; they may believe they have a >> logical problem with the revolution. But how can there be a logical >> problem with the Copernican revolution? It is a statement about the >> alignments of beliefs and facts. Likewise the concepts of state and >> observable in quantum mechanics. >> >> >> >> It feels like a Copernican revolution to me, every time physics shows >> that new operational understandings are required, and tries to give us new >> language habits in which to coordinate our minds (singly or jointly) around >> them, to pose the question how this was known all along in our folk >> language and thus can be logically analyzed with its categories. There is >> only very limited reason for our folk language to furnish “a description” >> of the nature of the world. It is a collection of symbols that are part of >> “the system of us”, which when exchanged or imagined mediate coordination >> of our states of mind (and yes, I know this term can be objected to from >> some behaviorist points of view, but it seems to require much less >> flexibility to use provisionally than the state of a quantum system, even >> though it is also much less well-understood at present). If a collection >> of robot vacuum cleaners exchange little pulse sequences of infrared light >> to coordinate, so they don’t re-vacuum the same spot, we might anticipate >> that there is a limited implicit representation of the furniture of the >> room and its occupants in the pulse sequences, but we would not expect them >> to furnish a description of the robots’ engineering, or the physical world, >> or much else. Human language is somewhat richer than that, but it seems to >> me the default assumption should be that its interpretation suffers the >> same fundamental hazard. Signals exchanged as part of a system should not >> be expected to furnish a valid empirical description _of_ the system. >> >> >> >> Common language is fraught with that hazard in unknown degrees and >> dimensions; technical language can also be fraught, but we try to build in >> debuggers to be better at finding the errors or gaps and doing a >> better-than-random job of fixing them. >> >> >> >> The fluidity and flexibility with which the mind can take on new habits >> of language use, and the only-partial degree to which that cognitive >> capability is coupled to emotional comfort or discomfort in different >> habits, seems important to me in trying to understand how people argue >> about science. >> >> >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe >> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
