There has been a continuing debate between Paul and Jack regarding the aether. I think that Paul has won the argument, but Jack is reluctant to concede anything, especially the possibility of being wrong. Chris has been included on the list, but he is maintaining his radio silence. Ron volunteered to contact him, but I've heard nothing more.
In the meantime, before attempting to summarise the Paul/Jack dialog, I would like to point out my new insight........ occasionalism and essentialism are nearly polar opposite perspectives. These both contrast with the randomness/determinateness espoused by physics. Liebniz' preestablished harmony is a form of teleology that transcends both views and is what I base the BPWH upon. Chris' CTMU is....... a preestablished metanarrative, if you will. It seems strongly essentialist, to me. The Logos is alive and is strongly self-creative within the bounds of its Telos. It seems close the Bohmian implicate order. That the Telos is within our historical grasp is a necessary precondition of any prophetic tradition. We cannot immanentize the Eschaton, within that temporal frame. The Metanarative will not be sustained.
I'm going to put this last paragraph out to our ten member list, and see what happens.....
Date: March 27, 2013, 12:15:50 PM EDT
To: Jack Sarfatti
Cc: Paul Z, Chris, David G, Larry, Rick/Jake, Saul-Paul, Kim, David K
Subject: Re: Moving 'forward'.....?
So, what is the way forward?
Well, I can only think of two ways forward...... more physics or some new 'metaphysics' that is more compatible with present physics, than has been the case in the past.
Jack and Paul are as well placed as any physicists to discern these choices. No? One of their non-trivial qualifications, in this regard, is the 'mere' fact that they have afforded me more opportunity to bend their ears than have any 'others', and that select group includes....... everyone!
So, given the Aether bridge, then what......?
For one thing, it tells us that the Ancients may not have been as stupid as we moderns are prone to suppose. It has been a predilection of us moderns to burn our bridges with the past...... damn those antique torpedoes..... full steam ahead!
On Mar 27, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Dan wrote:
Why should any physicist have any 'professional' concern for the future? Well, there is the historical fact that physics, along with many other science and engineering disciplines, has had an enormous influence in bringing us to the cusp of our present crisis.
But I am saying more than this....... I am saying that physics remains the conceptual pace-setter amongst the sciences, and so, if there is to be a paradigm shift, then the physics community must be given the right of first refusal, and, furthermore, if any putative new paradigm does pass muster with this community, it is likely to encounter 'only' political resistance elsewhere.
Am I placing too big of a burden upon just two 'random' physicists, Jack and Paul? Well, if so, just cry 'uncle', and I will tone it down a few notches......
On Mar 27, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Dan wrote:
Jack, Paul, et al.,
Would it be acceptable, if I were to attempt to summarize the discussion up to this point, and then try to move 'us' 'forward'.....? The 'forward' direction being defined as the direction toward a brighter future, considering that humanity faces an unprecedented historical crisis, which may or may not have a silver lining.
In a nutshell, it appears that we have established the existence of an Aether, despite Einstein's and Mach's best attempts to eliminate it from physics.
So what, we might ask......?
Well, the Aether represents the closest approximation we have to an immaterial but physical object. As such, the Aether represents a possible conceptual/ontological bridge from physics into metaphysics, should any of us have a hankering for such a link.
Does anyone here not have such a hankering? I suspect that Jack might be the first and most vociferous of the deniers.