Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA02018 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:04:36 GMT From: "Chris Lofting" <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on... Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:12:22 +1100 Message-ID: <LPBBICPHCJJBPJGHGMCIEENJCMAA.ddiamond@ozemail.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745BE5@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
> Of Vincent Campbell
> Sent: Thursday, 18 January 2001 11:54
> To: 'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'
> Subject: RE: ....and the beat goes on and on and on...
>
>
> <it is obvious from this remark that either you did not read the
> post or you
> > are a bit slow on the uptake today! :-)>
> >
> Of course I read all of your interminably long post. You can't
> deny what is
> the case just because it doesn't suit your model. Light displays
> characteristics of both waves and particles, even the Royal Institution
> Christmans lectures explained it in this way a couple of years ago.
>
So? what has this to do with discussion on methods of interpretation? There
is no assertion re the 'facts' but how the METHOD of analysis can create
misconceptions. When you create an experiment to test for something the
design and intent does not come out of nowhere, it comes out of your MODEL
of reality and that model has STRUCTURE and that structure is rooted in your
neurolology and so the test validates the structure and more so REFLECTS
that structure.
I am surprised that you cannot pick this up, you seem to be stuck in
expression mode incapable of differentiating!
If I create an experiment based on dichotomisations (e.g. left slit, right
slit) and if wave patterns are a property of this METHOD regardless of what
it is applied-to then there will be a case where I will see this property
expressed and so the property is not necessarily a property of 'out there'.
IOW the method I used to experiment is the source of meaning and all
patterns I get from applying that method are meaningful only in the context
of the method and not necessarily generalisable.
It is the CONTEXT that determines the PERCEPTION but that context is
coloured by the METHOD. If I view things in a classical way then in general
I will see 'classical' but when anomolies emerge I will drift into
non-classical and out of that create a 'new' paradigm.
The point is that all POSSIBLE meanings are already coded in the neurology
as potentials based on potiental object/relationships distinctions and so we
can 'refine' our maps buy studying these areas and then re-viewing our maps.
>
> > >> By the way, that reminds me that you never answered that question
> > > >about the invariability of the speed of light.
> >
> <? I dont recall this at all, when, where?>
>
> OK, this was you on the 27/11/2000 (responding to Joe):-
>
> >>>BTW since you have not responded to previous emails (both off
> > > >>memetics and
> > > > >on) I suppose I will have to point you in the 'right'
> direction: the
> > > >> *fourth* concept that enables the encapsulation of the
> idea of a wave
> > is
> > > > >SPEED, something you leave out so as to retain your
> > > >>trichotomy... As usual
> > > >> all those who favour trichotomies fail to differentiate relational
> > > >> processes, they lump them all together, Freud did, Popper did,
> > > >>and Peirce
> > > >> did. An education based on these sorts of works prior to
> analysis of
> > the
> > > > >neurology clouds your thinking...
> >
> Joe asked:
>
> >> How many speeds does light have, exactly?
>
> You said:
>
> >>>depends on context. in water is different to vaccuum is
> different to air.
>
> To my mind this is an inadequate, and inaccurate statement.
>
No it isnt. Read up on EMF more, Chekov Radiation etc and while your at it
reflect on this that it is not light that has a limit but more that matter
cannot break its boundary -- expressed in De Broglie's work re matter wave;
the limit is reflected in a prohibition on the frequency of the matter wave
becoming infinite. In this universe this is expressed as a speed limit.
Thus light in 'this' universe can vary in a 'multiverse' context -- not my
preferred model but it is a possible.
Chris.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 19 2001 - 08:06:21 GMT