
The varieties of material existence (2018) - how-about-this
http://cognitivemedium.com/vme
======
ncmncm
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.

------
lisper
Related: [http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/02/31-flavors-of-
ontology.ht...](http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/02/31-flavors-of-
ontology.html)

------
webdva
Inspiring stuff. Thanks for sharing.

------
CrasVestibulum
quoting the author "Using electrons, protons, and neutrons, it is possible to
build: ... a conscious mind; "

are 'you' just a collection of electrons, protons and neutrons ?

~~~
djokkataja
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.

~~~
ta1234567890
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 ️

~~~
CrasVestibulum
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.

------
mikelyons
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMtDuv48XsQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMtDuv48XsQ)

------
wellpast
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...

~~~
cicero
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.

~~~
mistermann
"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.

~~~
dang
Please keep religious flamewar off this site.

~~~
mistermann
Honest question dang:

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.

~~~
dang
Yes, it applies to political flamewars.

I'm not sure what do make of the rest of your comment. I'd need to see
specific links.

~~~
mistermann
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20303294](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20303294)

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.

~~~
dang
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.

~~~
mistermann
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.

------
foobar_
Yes, I think we are a few years away from programmable matter. I think we are
on our way to turn lead into gold.

