The varieties of material existence (2018)
cognitivemedium.com
cognitivemedium.com
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.
are 'you' just a collection of electrons, protons and neutrons ?
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.
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 ️
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not sure what do make of the rest of your comment. I'd need to see specific links.
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.
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.
>Status: Rough and speculative working notes, very quickly written – basically, a little raw thinking and exploration. Knowledgeable corrections welcome!
right at the top
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."