[NetBehaviour] Very Large Works exhibition opening

Max Herman maxnmherman at hotmail.com
Sat Nov 2 05:54:31 CET 2019


Well and concisely put -- I am certainly too hopped-up about certain similarities I think I am seeing, which are not verifiable.

'Tis better to go to the house of mourning than to the house of mirth!   🙂



________________________________
From: NetBehaviour <netbehaviour-bounces at lists.netbehaviour.org> on behalf of Alan Sondheim via NetBehaviour <netbehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org>
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2019 9:53 PM
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <netbehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org>
Cc: Alan Sondheim <sondheim at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Very Large Works exhibition opening

(Trying to shorten the reply, not sure I've succeeded.)
re: Smolin or Bohm for that matter, or Bateson, I think we need to look at hard physics, at the mathematics of this - for example information via black holes, time in Einstein and Minkowski and QM for that matter.
Speculation without that backbone is for me at least digging through metaphors that others use; as David Finkelstein (one of the inventors of quantum logic) said to me in discussion, time is impossible to understand in physics without the hard math.
That said, I admit my knowledge of math is poor; I try to read Susskind's books which help, listen to his lectures, etc., all of which lends itself to my ignorance.
That said, for example 'smaller and smaller particles' is not at a standstill, unless I misunderstand (and even if I do misunderstand) dark matter research or neutrino studies.
As far as objects go, I've never believed in them except as shorthand for conglomerations in potential wells.
Clearly the world is more than meets the I.

- Alan, thanks!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20191102/a17a69f1/attachment.htm>


More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list