Sorry, but I'm not invested in this nearly as much as you. Goodbye.
Well the premise here is that concepts of mass, length and time are not satisfactory because they are mysteriously received, not based on empirical evidence. So the point of this wiki is to develop definitions for these ideas from a discussion of sensation.
It would be very interesting if you write down the "strictly scientific" definitions for these terms that you mention. I invite you to use the Premise Critique page.
How is this in any way related to physics? This is metaphysics, and it's not built on a very good philosophy of mind, either. And what's with the complete disregard for well-defined, strictly scientific terms being used as barely related buzzwords based on vague "definitions" of various sensations?
Okay, I've tidied this up. And as per your other suggestion, the term acoustic has been replaced with the more general word somatic.
" … You’ve described your previous terms (e.g. sensations, seeds) in layperson’s terms with impressive clarity. But suddenly what to a layperson seems to be highly technical physics jargon – i.e. quarks – comes out of the blue, and much of it being used in somewhat idiosyncratic fashion. And so does a whole swatch of attendant physics-based detail such as specific values for baryon and lepton numbers. Also, as of yet I still don’t get the relationship between your analysis of sensation and the values for these standards of measurement. … "
It's been years since I wrote that, and I can't remember exactly what I had in mind other than some notion of comparing thermal and visual sensations very generally with acoustic perceptions. After thinking your question over for a while, I think that I may have originally been too restrictive. The key point about standards is not what they are, but more importantly that they just don't change very often. So let's take out the 'acoustic' requirement. I don't think that will diminish the central idea that we just start imposing calibrated measurement on the squirming mess of raw sensation.
Yes, there is some muddle about this. And I expect there will always be a bit of fuzziness because our senses do not really come to us in logically distinct categories. For example, you actually can 'see' sunshine on the back of your neck if it is bright enough. And you actually can 'hear' music through the soles of your feet if it is loud enough. Categorical analysis is something we impose on the sensorium.
Still, your point is well-taken. And now I am rewriting this article to try to carve things up more clearly. After reviewing a few dictionaries, I think you're correct to question the use of the term 'acoustic'. It's too specific. What I really want is something more like: somatic-pressure. Or somatic-everything-but-thermal. I'll keep looking for a good word. Meanwhile, maybe we can get by with just 'somatic'.
An independent glossary tied to the logical structure of the mathematical definitions has been set up for the first four chapters. Now that the associated lists and templates have been established, it should be pretty straightforward to extend this to more recent articles as they become sufficiently stable. So next-up is a rewrite of these first chapters to strip-out any redundant defining and to enhance explaining. Based on recent forum comments these articles need to be filled out with …
- a more complete treatment of other sensations
- an outline and justification of the ontological arc from discussing personal experience toward constructing a collective point-of-view
- a discussion oonf how acoustic sensations are special, including a road-trip example, leading to the introduction of quarks
Well, that should blow away the rest of January, and possibly other chunks of 2013.
I'm flummoxed by the brief explanation accompanying the equation of how the norm of the angular momentum is related to the spin σ.
On the classification of quarks page, you define dynamic quarks as those connected with audio-visual sensations. Yet, in the rows above acoustic sensations (which are presumably part of the construction of each of the individual quarks and anti-quarks) are explicitly mentioned. And acoustic sensations are explicitly mentioned in the corresponding definition of baryonic quarks. Don't understand this apparent contradiction.
It seems to you get tied up with the sensory ambiguities of specific and thermal energy in your particles section (and why is so much of this section not done in the usual slide to slide progression — this stuff seems incredibly important?) when this discussion leads to a discussion of particle values for both internal energy and temperature where we have perfectly legimate 'objectified' results for the various particles available. Shouldn't more weight be given to Schrödinger's notion of objectification here? It would seem that one of the main purposes of objectification is to deal with exactly these sorts of ambiguities. But maybe I'm missing something…
When you introduce acoustic sensations you explicitly include somatic experiences along with auditory ones. But aren't these two types of experences logically distinct? I would have thought somatic experiences would be directly linked to thermal sensations instead of being classed as acoustic.
Whoops. I meant thermal energy, not temperature, since the former is one of the basic building blocks here.
I'm on the concepts of specific energy and temperature. Why are these concepts measured relative to acoustic sensory standards instead of in direct relation to the Anaxagorean sensory concepts of hot/cold and/or warm/cold?
I've been mulling over our glossary options. So far we've been using page tags as a sort-of glossary. But the suggestion is well taken. For perfect clarity of ontological status we should have a formal glossary. Then the articles can shift their focus to making better explanations. And the definitions can adopt a common banner template, which can also be reused in chapter summaries, etc. Also a formal list can be used to check and demonstrate that all entries are presented in order of logical precedence. The latter chapters haven't settled down enough yet, but think it is practical to start this with the first 4-5 chapters. So now I'm going to get working on this …
Okay, the Wikipedia links have been pruned. And I agree that it looks better, i.e. less clutter with virtually no loss of meaning.
Hi Tom, Yes, that makes sense to add a definition — and preferably one that intimates why taste, smell etc are being excluded!
A thoughtful reader has recently commented …
"I don’t think all the Wikipedia references work. Some (e.g. sun) strike me as gratuitous, and given the more pertinent questions that seem to go unanswered, potentially a bit off-putting as well. Meanwhile, there are other terms (e.g. baryon number) that are not referenced, which seems strange given that lay readers are far less likely to understand such terms than they are everyday terms such as ‘sun’. I know you are using some terms (e.g. quark) very differently from the Standard Model (SM), so I can see why not all are so referenced. In the long run I think you need a full independent glossary rather than using Wikipedia for these reference purposes. "
Well we certainly don't want to be gratuitous or off-putting, so I'll go and thin out the Wikipedia links.
You are correct, I've fixed it.