I find it most interesting how the author so very assiduously avoids any mention of plasma, or anything made of plasma, or anything that has plasma noticeably in it. The closest he gets is controlling electrostatic fields.
This is remarkable because 99.99...% of the universe is 100% plasma. It takes a very willful sort of blindness not to notice it, not even to dismiss it as uninteresting.
The author is not alone in this. Astronomers have traditionally avoided any mention of plasma, despite that it is about all they can look at, only planetary bodies excepted.
I think the reason is similar to physicists' long avoidance of solid-state phenomena. Murray Gell-Mann famously called it "squalid-state physics", and disparaged people who worked in it. The mathematics was considered intractable.
Plasma dynamics has even more intractable mathematics. It is humbling to physicists used to mastery. Navier-Stokes equations are no picnic at the best of tines, but plasma dynamics makes them a footnote: neutral-fluid equations. I think it must be this shame that turns most physicists away.
"Pay no attention to the plasma behind the curtain!"
I think of generation after generation of students steered quietly and carefully away from natural interest in this stuff so hard to study, and so hard to predict. I am awed by those who overcome the ingrained distaste of their mentors and take on solar physics.
We could say that God is a plasma physicist who has been known to dabble in beetle ecosystems.
Fundamentally, all that I am is built from electrons, protons, and neutrons, but if you think I am "just a collection" of such things, you might struggle to differentiate between a human and a rock.
I also think that thinking of ourselves as "ultimately" being "nothing more" than whatever fundamentals give rise to our existence is a great way to deprive ourselves of meaning, given that there's quite a bit that goes on between the subatomic level and the experience you have as you read this. For example, from my own particular materialist point of view, I don't spend much time thinking about subatomic particles when I want to deepen the sense of "meaning" I have about any particular experience.
Fundamentally, I believe, the main issue is that we have a tendency to believe or think that "reality" (the world/universe), is separate from us. But we cannot separate our perception or experience of reality from it. If I don't exist, then _my_ reality doesn't exist. And there's no way for anyone to experience anyone else's reality. So all individual realities are that, individual, and maybe a lot of us can agree on some stuff, but that doesn't necessarily mean that stuff is objectively real for everyone/the universe. We each individually assign meaning to our own experiences and then need to deal with the (maybe apparent) difference in meaning or interpretation among ourselves.
I believe the next big revolution in physics is going to come from incorporating perception and "the observer" as a fundamental part of the models. Consciousness, from my perspective, is the only way we have to "know" the world, which to me means that consciousness is even more basic/fundamental than matter, time or space. And so far, the whole field of physics has been pretty much ignoring it ️
well said! The argument between various schools of philosophy (which includes Materialists / Realists) is age old. We need to revisit / refresh each point of views so we deepen the understanding of 'our' nature. I would suggest a reading of Vedanta school of philosophy as a counter point to Materialism.
There is a famous book called The Varieties of Religious Experience. It's probably good or something. I mean, I've never read it, but let me co-opt its title while subtly dismissing it, as a light segue into my blog post...
>Status: Rough and speculative working notes, very quickly written – basically, a little raw thinking and exploration. Knowledgeable corrections welcome!
Also, I will launch into a philosophical discussion of existence from a purely materialistic point of view while ignoring the religious dimension that is almost completely universal to human experience throughout history. I can get away with that because it has become the dominant mode of thought in our materialistic age.
"As striking as are the varieties of religious experience, they pale beside the variety of material things that can possibly exist in the universe."
Spoken with the self-confidence of someone who's never had anything remotely approaching a religious experience, or deems it worthy of investigation by those with Serious Minds, whose chest will swell with pride as he solemnly observes the traditional a minute of silence once a year as satisfactory repayment to those who've laid down their lives in past wars to his benefit, before carrying on mocking a sacred belief that most of those people likely believed in.
I assume this would also apply to political flamewars?
When a flame war arises when someone asking for clarification regarding a (typically pejorative) claim, is guilt or innocence based on relative epistemological truth, or popularity of the idea? As long as one's words are ideologically consistent with the majority opinion, it seems like the HN guidelines have little bearing on acceptability of comments. But go against the grain in the slightest, even asking how someone knows of what they claim to be true, and it seems it won't be long before a warning is received. Completely misrepresent what someone has said, to the degree of pure fantasy? Perfectly fine. "Do not read minds" would be a positive addition to the guidelines imho.
This particular exchange may not be the best example, but on certain topics it seems like anything short of full agreement is no longer tolerated around here. Arguing in bad faith is one thing, not being allowed to disagree is something else entirely.
If history is any guide, I will be the one at blame. But compare the words written there against the HN guidelines - who is behaving inappropriately? If one disagrees, or dares ask a question, and people lose their tempers because you're challenging their orthodoxy, who is at fault?
If you were to take a careful read through the words written in that entire thread and ones like it, you might notice a recurring pattern of people knowing things that they have no way of knowing. Knowing what people have done in secret. Knowing what people are thinking. Knowing what people's motives for actions are. Knowing what people really mean, even though their words say something else.
If you're tired of ideological flame wars, consider whether people making things up might have something to do with it.
This is the internet. People are constantly making things up. Actually, this is mostly what people do. I don't think we can do much about that. It isn't against the site guidelines to be wrong.
As for the comment you linked to, it seems like a neutral statement of what the commenter thinks. Maybe they're mistaken, but I don't see how that was a flamewar comment.
After thinking about this for a bit I think I need to think some more, particularly about how to articulate this idea to you in a way that is persuasive. In the meantime, I am going to try to avoid (or at least minimize) further experimentation.
I have to run out the door but am going to write a more substantial reply later. I'm sure you have better things to do than listen to the complaints of some lunatic on the internet, but I think these things have genuine merit and may be more important (and perhaps simpler to improve) than you see, so hopefully you can check back later if even out of curiosity. Thanks...
Those people in graves? They were put there by material impacts. Serious material impacts. That Serious People do pay a lot of attention to. Because the consequences are real, unambiguous, and repeatedly demonstrable.
I'm not sure I see the irony. Nothing you've said is contrary to what I've written.
Perhaps there is some sort of a miscommunication here....have you somehow reached the conclusion that I've asserted that material reality doesn't exist, or is unimportant?
Meta: Oh my the throttling is especially strong today, I wonder if the "too fast" algorithm got a little fine tuning to reduce the amount of wrong think getting through the filter.
While we lack the ability to articulate a defense or substantiation of our religion, we more than make up for it with the vigor to downvote, on a platform that censors those with dissenting opinions.
The religious dimension is not universal. The materialistic point of view is. That's why there a many contradictory (and self-contradictory) religions, and only one material world.
This is remarkable because 99.99...% of the universe is 100% plasma. It takes a very willful sort of blindness not to notice it, not even to dismiss it as uninteresting.
The author is not alone in this. Astronomers have traditionally avoided any mention of plasma, despite that it is about all they can look at, only planetary bodies excepted.
I think the reason is similar to physicists' long avoidance of solid-state phenomena. Murray Gell-Mann famously called it "squalid-state physics", and disparaged people who worked in it. The mathematics was considered intractable.
Plasma dynamics has even more intractable mathematics. It is humbling to physicists used to mastery. Navier-Stokes equations are no picnic at the best of tines, but plasma dynamics makes them a footnote: neutral-fluid equations. I think it must be this shame that turns most physicists away.
"Pay no attention to the plasma behind the curtain!"
I think of generation after generation of students steered quietly and carefully away from natural interest in this stuff so hard to study, and so hard to predict. I am awed by those who overcome the ingrained distaste of their mentors and take on solar physics.
We could say that God is a plasma physicist who has been known to dabble in beetle ecosystems.