Science is a wonderful tool to investigate the world of the particle; the solid world; the physical world.
It is arrogant to take the same tools and apply them inappropriately to the waveform world.  These tools do not work on this side of the equation.
For instance, they have not yet told us the reason of how electricity works.
Or detecting a gravity waveform, not even to explain how it occurs.
Or the abandonment of explaining the origins and mechanism of the world of quantum electrodynamics firty years ago.
And now, the insult of looking for the origins of consciousness in the brain.  I used to wince, now I laugh everytime I hear some new cacamamie idea about how consciousness works by these people.
So, I propose the following:
Stop trying to use left brain tools to investigate right brain events.
Invent a new set of tools.  They exist, let them coexist with science as it is today.
Wrest these tools out of the hands of the extreme intuitives that are misusing them on the other side.  Invade the domain of the visionary, understand that domain and take over, but not with existing tools.  Take the action away from the shaman and priest.
Get humble and admit that you do not know and that maybe you do not know that you do not know.  Stop the pretense.
Stop telling me that a table is mostly empty space and other myths that cover up your ignorance, it is not, any idiot that can hit you over the head with it can tell you that it is not empty space.  It is 'frozen' energy that is not seen with your current tools.
I have some clues,but, notice where I am posting.  From the private board of a courageous young scientist that will listen, at least.
What do you think?  Tell me about God and I will know that you are coming from the some direction of what I just accused scientific attitude, but from the exact opposite pole.

Whoa, boy! Offended science lover coming right up! Whats wrong with a table being mostly empty space. It makes sense to me! When you get hit over the head, a force is what hits you, not matter (apparently). It's not that a table is mainly nothing, it's that it isn't solid matter as it appears to be. Give science a break. It's job is to strip the perceived world down to the very basic rules, to simplify the equation, if you will. It's not supposed to explain the equation itself. That's philosophies job. The two, however, can happily coexist, and even help each other out with common ideas about things like the nature of time.

Synch, I don't understand why you always distinguish between the particle and the waveform world. In fact, both of them are handled with mathematics, by the same physicists, all the time. They don't have a problem with dealing with particles and with waves. There are formulas for each of those, formulas that work.

Perhaps you're talking in metaphor, as I heard previously from New Agers that also think the wave is something transcendent. But in the realm of science it's a concept like any other concept.

If you want to trascend the left hemisphere you have to stop thinking altogether, and you'll be more like a priest or shaman than a scientist, even if you don't like to. (You can also be a private mystic, then you avoid the problems spiritual people have when dealing with others.)

Or a philosopher, that's even best. Then you have the liberty of being rational and intuitive altogether.

Seanf,
I would rather wait until you get over your defense of science and settle down.  Reread my post and your response.  Right now I would rather not respond to only force hits you over the head even though it is just mostly empty space in the table.  I do not wish to use you as a pawn in my argument, you seem too bright for me to mis-use you in that way.

well thats a nice thing to say gggggggggggg

Thank you Numinoso for stepping up to the plate.
I needed you to demonstrate what I am attempting to say.  I am also surprised that you would take such a position since we have done some work together in the waveform world, but, we move ahead.
You said and I will intersperse comments between your remarks:
"Synch, I don't understand why you always distinguish between the particle and the waveform world. In fact, both of them are handled with mathematics, by the same physicists, all the time. They don't have a problem with dealing with particles and with waves. There are formulas for each of those, formulas that work. "

I make the distinction between the waveform world and the particle world because it is central to what I observe and understand and have investigated and researched and what I speak to here.  
Oh, mathematics works in the waveform world?  Then why do we not have any answers in the fields of electricity,
quantum electrodynamics, (a field abandoned by scientists with the Copenhagen convention in the '50's, that was a absolute admission that current tools of science do not work in these fields), gravity, consciousness, etc..  Also let us expand this into the field of the psyche and consciousness.  Mathematics is an absolute failure in these fields, for me to point out the obvious.  It is a language to frame things within the field of the left hemisphere.  It is a working language of a lopsided scientific viewpoint.  That is one of things I wish to say.  Thank you for giving me that oportunity.

"Perhaps you're talking in metaphor, as I heard previously from New Agers that also think the wave is something transcendent. But in the realm of science it's a concept like any other concept. "

Don't attempt to paint me with this brush as I will consider it a ruse on your part.  I am not talking in metaphor, I am speaking directly to the problem as I perceive it.  And energy is not a concept it is a fact of life.

"If you want to trascend the left hemisphere you have to stop thinking altogether, and you'll be more like a priest or shaman than a scientist, even if you don't like to. (You can also be a private mystic, then you avoid the problems spiritual people have when dealing with others.)"

Again, read my post.  I said nothing about transcending the left hemisphere.  In fact, what I am proposing is the mutual operation of each hemisphere in a simultaneous and intertwining fashion, but that is a little further ahead than I wish to take this discussion at this time.  Let us stay with the basics for now.  I am not a private mystic nor a spiritual person with a problem nor do I wish to avoid problems as I  am demonstrating right now.

"Or a philosopher, that's even best. Then you have the liberty of being rational and intuitive altogether."

Philosophy is an effete science with no tools except rationality mixed with a little intuition as you indicate.  I have my liberty and speak it here.  I need no other cover that would only emcumber this freedom that I now possess.
So, thank you, but, what is your point, that I am wrong and should be satisfied with what exists or fit into one of the boxes you just proposed?
Now, not only do I take on you, but also the attitude of science, mathematics, philosophy and New Agers.  
I am not looking for a fight, I am trying to get us to look into a new and more fruitful direction of perception and stop being so complacent with what exists at present.  The old perceptions only work in the particle world and will continue to mislead us in the investigation of the waveform world. .
 I will not shirk a battle, if necessary.
John

I mainly wanted to point out that waveform is a concept of physics. They do have formulas to handle them, althought these formulas are on a probabilistic base. There are tools to handle gravitation, QED, and current attempts of unifying these fields in string theories that work in a multidimensional space. There are also approaches like chaos theory and fractal mathematics, as well as system theories. They all don't look as exact as the particle approach you are citing, but they still are based on maths and have proven useful in handling these effects.

I think the major distinction is not between wave and particle but between mind constructs and pure consciousness. Consciousness actually is very different from waveform things, and to talk about it like that is only an analogy. An analogy I heard before from New Agers, that's why I mentioned them. That doesn't mean you would belong to them.

What sense does it make to mix the investigation of consciousness with things like the double-slit experiment, laser beams, and the particle-wave duality? I see no other connection that the analogy between two dualities. The real question is somewhere else.

As you said, the real question is about investigating consciousness. But linking it with wave phenomena only is a rough parallel. That's why I'm criticising it. Although it might be didactic for those who have not the slightes idea what else could be there besides the world of objects. But it's not exact enough for my taste.

Your remarks about philosophy and New Age generally are true, but the present state of these things doesn't mean much. Actually, the idea of a New Age is perfect, it only depends on how you interprete and realize it. I don't want to get influenced by what is there by now, in fact, I don't even know much about them, but I like the concept. And with philosophy it's the same. There are so many different philosophies, and it would be no problem to do something new in that field that is very much in accord with the work you're doing. If you want to get blocked by the status quo you won't be able to settle anywhere. I guess psychology would be too restricted for you, too, if you see it like that.

The same goes for religion. There are no reasons why a priest or shaman shouldn't be able to behave in a way that is satisfying to your standards.

"It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it..."

Numinoso,

I am attempting to do the impossible.  In order to do the impossible I need to fashion a way to do this.
Some new ways of approach.  
Here are some principles that I am employing:

Don't do anything that puts a label on you.  People are going to not understand anyway, if you have a label it makes it easier to misunderstand. Oh, he is just a_____

Be serious, but don't forget to laugh.

Learn from Nietschze, if you are going to reorder all order and talk to horses too, make sure it is the right horse.  (Horses are one of the symbols of the Self in dreams. The first indication that Nietschze was going crazy was his conversation with a horse in the street)

Waveforms are not a concept in physics, they are reality.
Frequency over time is a way to state that reality.  If you want to prove this reality, hold on to an open AC line for a few seconds and then tell me it is a concept

Mathematics is a language, stop confusing it as an approach to anything.  It is a miserable failure when applied to the subjects that I referenced, why don't you read my posts?  Show me what mathematics has decoded as to the basic origins of, electricity, gravity, quantum theory, consciousness, etc.  Why do you want me to use old failed tools and old failed concepts and titles?  I am much better off shucking off the old clothing in order to put something fresh on.  Mathematics is only as good as the people that employ this aid.  The people that are using it are looking at the wrong area, using the wrong type of lighting.  So stop trying to fashion me into something I do not want to be.  If you want to be there, stay, I have no objection.
Particle and waveform physics are the perfect vehicles to state what I want to state in the way I want to state things.  This science is intimated intertwined with consciousness.  I shall give you a hint with the following statement.  The observer effect in quantum electrodynamics is not an incidental event as previously conceived but the linchpin to understanding QED.
So, stop trying to make me drink at your well, I have tasted it and enjoy the drink better at my place.

Could you define the difference between 'concept' and 'reality,' Synchronox?

P.S
I'm not going to join the argument - I'm not good enough at arguing and I don't have the science. However, i'd like to know what you mean when you say certain things, so I might ask a few questions.

my whole take on the wave/particle duality:

space is a discrete ether, the nodes of this ether are modular, the modules are complexes of fundamental bits, and these bits are 'existential' oscillators (ideally SHOs).  Fermions are the bits, and bosons are energy transferred between bits.  boson transfer between fermions is a function of phase and 'qual' similarity between the relevant fermion paths.  the smaller the phase difference, the higher the likelihood of the boson swap; the more energetic the boson, the smaller the phase difference is likely to be; qual similarity also has action, in that qual desirability corresponds to 'choice'. Thus, the wave nature of space is a reflection of phase relations of 'bits', and these 'waves' are everpresent even when no boson is being swapped.  I.E., there is no 'collapse of the wavefunction', there is only localized motion that is guided by 'chosen' phase-logical pathways.

the trick is in the description of the bit.  A single bit is irreducable, and also carries a 'qual' symmetry.  It is oscillating 'existentially', which means that its existence has a finite dynamic extension, and repeats cyclically.  In the case of the conserved physical view, the bit is assumed to always return, to repeat necessarily.  This assumption supports physical 'laws'

consciousness is then a result of the state of all bits at any given instant.  the number of bits near the limit of zero phase is vanishingly small,  but it is the bits in some neighborhood around zero phase that are the 'loud' qual in consciousness at that instant.  And it is the instantaneous state of consciousness that determines what bits are created, and how energetic they are.  

the time-division of consciousness follows triivally, in that different bit configurations constantly appear at zero degrees, and mostly repeat cyclically

Synch, I want to remark that the particle description also is useful when applied to consciousness. Not the particle description in a physical sense, but in the sense of objects of the daily world. Most of the symbols of dreams are objects, not a waveform.

For the rest of your post I could agree or argue, but I'm actually not much interested in both.

Same applies to Dan.

Numinoso,

I am saying these things for the first time in a  public forum.  I am vastly overprotecting thes ideas with my over sensitivity, I understand this.  They are my 'babies' and I am protecting them from being misunderstood before they see the light of public day.  I have not developed a comfortable veneer to sit back and just discuss them.  I paid with them with my attention over these years and don't want them casually treated with suggestions that I go back to whence I came.  I came from the land of linearity and am comforted by Wm. Blake's comment about "man's fall to reason".
So, please disregard my prickliness, but, also please respect my 'mother hen' position.

seanf,

A concept is the word or symbol representation of reality.
Reality is 'the thing-in-itself'

Dan,  We have to meet in the street below our skyscrapers.  What is simple to you is at least Athenian to me.  I understand the words, but how did you arrive at the conclusions?
Physics is also not what it appears to be.  Fynmann said there are three things in quantum physics.  What a photon is; what an electron is;  and what their interaction is.  Most physicists have their own language.  How many times I have been told about one photo/electron having a 'down' spin and the other having an 'up' spin.  I had to do a gedanken experiment of my own to see what they were talking about was simply polarized light and the pathways and arrivals at certain locations.  Murray Gell-Mann, the Nobel prize winner for his concept of the quark, said the most unkind remarks at his acceptance speech.  He said he had to stand on the backs of dwarves to get where he was going.  Now, I have to re-examine these unkind  remarks to see what he was getting at.
John

the key to me was mostly psychological; it seems people (including myself) have a natural tendency for 'continuum' descriptions and also have a great interest in believing that there exist many simultaneous 'perceivers'.

trade in 'continuum space' for 'discrete space', and trade in 'many simultaneous perceivers' for 'One, time-divided', and you're with me.  The property of qual-distinction of bits into 'families', and the property of oscillation as a distance function between familial 'bits' and importance to qual-magnitude in perception appears to be worth of axiom status.

8)

Some remarks: A wave is 'an oscillation of energy travelling through a medium', according to my diccionary. As it seems appropriate to describe consciousness as something that has frequency and is inherently linked to time (time being the essence of it) I have some difficulties in finding the medium through which it should travel. It seems to be rather independent of moving, so perhaps vibration or oscillation would be more adequate for describing it. (But waves is certainly a simpler word.)

Then, mathematics is also an approach, besides of being a language. You approach reality with the intention of measuring it and performing operations with the obtained numbers, without mathematics you would approach it very differently.

The spin of particles is just a way of talking. There's nothing that is rotating, and 'up' and 'down' are mere descriptors, like the 'flavors' or 'colors' of quarks. In my opinion the spin perhaps would be better described by 'outside' and 'inside', for it seems possible that there is and outward or inward direction of some quality of the particle/wave. Also note that the two electrons in a particular atomic orbit always have two different spins, but the same set of quantum numbers besides that.

Dan, I have some difficulties in getting from your description of physics to the consciousness. Is it just the bits in the brain which produce it, or everwhere in the universe? And if yes, why then is my individual consciousness separated?

Num
yes, every bit produces it, but the production is variable in a highly nonlinear sense, maximized near zero degrees

thus, only the few bits at a time are 'loud', and there can be 'silences' inbetween.  this is how your consciousness is 'separate', it's like a loud moment preceded and followed by a silence

Dan, I'm sorry, but I found a principal error in your concept. Because space can't be discrete. If it would be discrete it would have to consist of quanta. And those quanta should be of the same size. But that can't be because of the expansion of the universe, since there's no possibility where new quanta should emerge, and the old ones can't expand because the subatomic particles neither expand (only the space between them), so there's no way that space is quantized.

Have you ever thought of that?

QUOTE

Because space can't be discrete. If it would be discrete it would have to consist of quanta

'quanta' generally refers to the limitations on energy transfer, while the 'discrete' I'm talking about refers to 'matter'

QUOTE

And those quanta should be of the same size

'size' is defined in the discrete field in terms of phase separation, and is also characterized by the number of nodes in that 'window' 

QUOTE

But that can't be because of the expansion of the universe, since there's no possibility where new quanta should emerge, and the old ones can't expand because the subatomic particles neither expand (only the space between them), so there's no way that space is quantized.

the 'expansion' is just an increase in the number of discrete 'bits'/nodes, and the uniformity of space is preserved by a corresponding reduction of phase difference between node neighbors

one nice conclusion from this model is that space is finite and unbounded

8)

QUOTE

the 'expansion' is just an increase in the number of discrete 'bits'/nodes, and the uniformity of space is preserved by a corresponding reduction of phase difference between node neighbors

That means: (x is a normal size phase difference, and i a small sized one) (to be correct, both are a pair of phase differences)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxixxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxixxxxxxxxixxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxixxxxxxxxixxxxxxxixxxxxx
xxxixxxxixxxxxxxxixxxxxxxixxxxxx
xxxixxxxixxxxixxxxixxxxxxxixxxxxx
xxxixxxxixxxxixxxxixxxxixxxixxxxxx
xxxixxxxixxxxixxxxixxxxixxxixxxixxx
xxxixxixxixxxxixxxxixxxxixxxixxxixxx
xxxixxixxixxxxixxixxixxxxixxxixxxixxx
xxxixxixxixxxxixxixxixxixxixxxixxxixxx
xxxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxxixxxixxx
xixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxxixxxixxx
xixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixixxxixxx
xixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixixxixixxx
xixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixixxixixxix
(...)

Is this right?

The reason that I was bold enough to start the string was not to bash science as a bad tool, but to indicate the tool does not work in some areas.
It does not work in the areas that you Dan and Numinoso are discussing.  What you are doing is using visionary devices built into your system to envision what space might be like.
Einstein did not make his discoveries with mathematics, he was in fact, a poor mathematician.  He did it with a series of gedanken (thought) experiments.  A form of controlled vision.  That is my positive point.
We have organized reason and logic, augmenting this reason and logic with rules of procedure and mathematics and detection equipment.
We now need a companion science that uses the foundations of the visual capabilities found within.
These visual capabilities are usually spontaneous and chaotic, therefore disrespected and fought against by logical and reasoning types.
I would not have grossed and complained had I not had a positive way of proceeding.  A way to organize this into a useable field of its own.
Thanks,
John

Num, can you restate?   ???

Yes, Dan, of course:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxixxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxixxxxxxxxixxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxixxxxxxxxixxxxxxxixxxxxx
xxxixxxxixxxxxxxxixxxxxxxixxxxxx
xxxixxxxixxxxixxxxixxxxxxxixxxxxx
xxxixxxxixxxxixxxxixxxxixxxixxxxxx
xxxixxxxixxxxixxxxixxxxixxxixxxixxx
xxxixxixxixxxxixxxxixxxxixxxixxxixxx
xxxixxixxixxxxixxixxixxxxixxxixxxixxx
xxxixxixxixxxxixxixxixxixxixxxixxxixxx
xxxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxxixxxixxx
xixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxxixxxixxx
xixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixixxxixxx
xixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixixxixixxx
xixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixxixixxixixxix
(...)


(The problem would be if the number of nodes is increased it has to happen in specific places which would make space expand not uniformely.)

(And you sure have realized that this is a one-dimensional picture of the three-dimensional space.)

of course!  but there are zillions of nodes in a dimension, and new nodes should appear across this space in a statistically random fashion which will look essentially uniform on the large scale.  the key is, phase difference uniformity must be an equilibrium condition, which means that phase difference equality is quickly reestablished.  the question is, then, should there be observable side-effects of this action?  
8)

OK, you egg heads. if you won't join me, I shall join you, you win.  Something about Mohammad and the mountain.
Here's my take on what is happening on the fringes of the universe.  Brand new, it will probably start a discussion to last centuries. (A wink of the ever present Eye).
We are right in the middle of a white hole.
The other side of a black hole.
An entropic universe, ever expanding, therefore dissipating.
Materiel is being created at the fringes all the time, and that is why space is curving.
The beginning of this entity, (funny to call the universe an entity) the big bang-the start of another black/white hole combination.  Entropy, the other side of supertropy, ( a new word, I think).
Believe it or not,  I also have a take on th node theory.
Beware.

I would like to take the designation of white hole back as to envision it it would have to be positive because of its expansion.  Therefore for serious reasons and also not to forget comedy, I would like to change the terminology to a white pole/black hole configuration.
Best, in terror to the reasonable ones,
John

I had an immediate Beavis/Butthead reaction to the White Pole concept, but I shall keep it to myself
:

also, I'm not a big fan of Einstein's 4-D manifold space, or any manifold space for that matter.  continuum space is a myth

maybe continuum 'motion' though (in terms of the primitive 'oscillation' of primitive bits), which makes for a sort of continuity. but that's the only physical continuity  dammit




8)

Dan,  I'm going to lay one on you.  To prepare you, imagine a tsunami coming  at you at 650 mph.
(Eriq, what would the term be for an aquatic gedanken experiment?).  There is a cork between you and the tsunami force traveling through the water.  What does the cork do when it is hit with the tsunami?.

Do you think the white pole metaphor too much, should I remove it?
John

it moves up  8)

and

of course not!  ;D

QUOTE

you keep saying nothing->something as if this were self-evident, I am saying that this is pure belief

Dan, that applies back to you. You theory is nothing but pure belief.

Dan. right and down. up ane down.  Does it make you think?  Where is the cork system?  How does the energy system move through it with so little disturbance?  650mph, gee.  how come?  This is a Wittgenstien question crafted to provoke a certain type of answer.  The answer may have thunderous application.

Eriq,  I know you know more than me about the nomenclature and rules of physics, would you please monitor?

So. let us see if we can invent something together.

Num:
so we're agreed that you can't know, then?

Synch:
the energy is distributed deep into the ocean and horizontally across a large wavelength.  The energy density is small, but the volume is large

OK Dan, you pass with lightening speed.  I am going to build this with care and patience, so please bear with me.  This is the first time for me to express this on the outside.
So we have established that the medium, in this case the water, is not traveling at 650mph, but a force traveling through it, OK?
Now, some distant point, let us say a beach X, is to be the destination point for this force.  Let us discuss this in a Socratic dialog fashion.  I am not trying to treat you as a student, but, instead have us carefully build a logical case.

I don't know if I'm keen on saying a force is traveling, but clearly energy is translating by means of a fluid medium.

;D

Dan, I still fail to see the point behind your whole theory. It sounds like common field theories, but I don't understand why space has to be discrete. Common field theories also interprete bosons and fermions as fluctuations of the underlying field, but they don't need a discrete space.

It would also be interesting if you could tell us a little about the size of these modules. Are they close to the Planck length? (Meaning that the Heisenberg principle would enter the play.))

the point of the theory involves consciousness.  I am developing around an axiom that consciousness is not distributed in space, but that structure emerges in the 'subject'.  the simplest concept for emergence from void is duality, and these little 'dualities' are the bits.

and yes, it would make sense that the planck length is on the order of 'empty space' module size

8)

OK, we are headed in the same direction.  I am trying to build a gedanken playground with the tsunami force-energy and water medium as model to get us away from someone else's jargon, which in many cases will just distract and mislead.  For an instance, try to forget what the industry is saying, they have demonstrated their inability to find anything in this area since the inception of science.  Otherwise I will withdraw and call attention to your jargonitis infection with attendant  attempt to creep.
Which shall it be, shall I withdraw and pout or will someone put up with my spoiled ways?  My sainted mother told me there would be days like these.  She depended on me to be her parent in a funny role reversal that really added a lot of unwelcomed spice to my life.  But that was an experiment played on me.
Back to the beach, so the force moving through the medium comes to point X and refocuses its energy cresting in an enormous wave running out of space to propagate.  Now it transfers its energy to the medium, instead of just moving through that medium.  It came to the waters end ability to carry the force.  Just like a sound barrier or light barrier or steam barrier.  Put in very simple terms it distorted the medium when the medium was not available to pass the force or energy on comfortably.  This is Observation #1.
Observation #2. there are two seperate 'worlds' encountered here.  World 1= the Matrix, I loved the movie but just to pay it the respect it deserves, not to be confused with what is observed here.  A system of evenly dispersed H2O nodes ( or whatever) bound together in some plastic arrangement with World 2-the energy-or force-or waveform ( we can decide on nomenclature later) moving leisurely through it at some constant rate.
The only conclusion I wish to come to at this point is Observation #1 & 2,  there is an end point to the systems interacting together and there are two systems that are seperate and distinct from each other.  Nothing more or less at this point.  Agreed or not agreed?

QUOTE

so the force moving through the medium comes to point X and refocuses its energy cresting in an enormous wave running out of space to propagate.  Now it transfers its energy to the medium, instead of just moving through that medium.  It came to the waters end ability to carry the force.  Just like a sound barrier or light barrier or steam barrier.  Put in very simple terms it distorted the medium when the medium was not available to pass the force or energy on comfortably.  This is Observation #1. Observation #2. there are two seperate 'worlds' encountered here.  World 1= the Matrix, I loved the movie but just to pay it the respect it deserves, not to be confused with what is observed here.  A system of evenly dispersed H2O nodes ( or whatever) bound together in some plastic arrangement with World 2-the energy-or force-or waveform ( we can decide on nomenclature later) moving leisurely through it at some constant rate.   The only conclusion I wish to come to at this point is Observation #1 & 2,  there is an end point to the systems interacting together and there are two systems that are seperate and distinct from each other.  Nothing more or less at this point.  Agreed or not agreed?

it seems you are saying that there is an energy wave moving, and that it is somehow separate from the water medium.  All I see is water molecules, nothing more.  The energy is completely contained in the translational motion of the water molecules, and is translating as a nondispersive pressure perturbation.  The origin of the pressure perturbation is due to some initial purturbation at the water boundary, like in an earthquake.  There is no 'force' moving through the water, there is just water molecules bumping into each other in a particular fashion.

I guess we disagree?

8)

Dan,  And this bouncing or collision of what you call force has no dissipatory effects of reducing the energy?  If there is an interaction of force  between would this not be the same for instance, as DC current moving through a wire.  It can only move along with a resultant loss of 'force'.

In my example, I think I see a transfer of energy from node to node with little loss of energy.  In this case that I am suggesting there is a second system, a wave form system that acts in a different capacity.  A passing through rather than a 'mechanical' interaction.  

So, we disagree.  I think thinking along these lines will lead toward the solution of a unified field theory of how energy works.  At least it is fun trying.  Thanks, until the next example.
There is a University in your town.  Are you connected with it?
John

Synch

I'm thinking the lack of dissipation is what characterizes this as a harmonic wave, but there probably is a small dissipative loss such as friction and internal heating and other odd effects (it is just not big enough to matter).  The DC current through a wire experiences the dissipation due to joule heating, this is what superconductors solve.  

and yeah, I am an OU student (guess what in?)

8)

(p.s., I'm going to be out of town 'till Tues., going to CO for my little bro's HS grad  :( )

As a late contribution to the original thread content, here's my overview for what it's worth.

Surely we must accept that what science is offering us is a series of models of reality, some of which may appear to be mutually exclusive. The arrogance lies in a belief that any one of these models is the 'correct' description of 'reality' - even at our human scales, 'reality' is filtered via sense data; at subatomic scales, we are forced into analogy to describe things, hence waves and particles. It is probably impossible (sic) to truly understand the nature of things in themselves; what science does with its models is give us tighter means of control of nature, that is technology. As an aside, I came across a wonderful line in a Don deLillo book 'White Noise' - "Technology is lust removed from nature." Sublime.

So whilst it is still fruitful to pursue different methods of description, it should always be borne in mind that no single way is the 'right' way.

ID,

Thank you for the beautiful articulation of the subject.
My thinking perhaps is the view of what is 'real' is best seen by enfolding all of the strands into a rope and then viewing the world from this perspective, to mix metaphors.
I am reading a critique on Goethe and would respond with a blurb on the back jacket of this book by David Abram that better expresses an aspect of this sentiment:
"Many of us yearn for the maturation of modern science-
-its transformation from the calculative manipulation of deadened objects to an attentive exploration and participation of living nature."

The book is "The Wholeness of Nature"  by Henri Bortoft,
a one time grad student of David Bohm's.

I am ernestly following this path and found recently that Goethe had done a similar exploration two hundred years ago.  So now I find I am attempting to update not only Carl Jung but Goethe as well.  Such is the nature of my ownarrogance.
____________________________________
Edit:  To demonstrate what happens when this door is opened can be done by telling the story of how I acquired Bortoft's book.  It was given to me by a friend of my wife that knows little about me and what I do.
She is an affectionado of Steiner, I am not.  She gave me this book right after I had began this string on 'Science and its' Arrogance' spontaneously.  My wife nor I told her what I was doing.  This is a 'synchronox'-a synchronicity with a cause.  It is a very common occurance here.  

No-one here ever seems to cast doubt on the existence of 'things-in-themselves.' Has it been proved? In a way not worth challenging?

synchronox,

I love the quote, also the rope analogy - nothing wrong with metaphor if we remember it is just that. I would say that one of my personal life quests is a synthesis of the many strands of science and philosophy into a more coherent and meaningful whole; coincidentally, I've just 'discovered' Bohm myself. Of course, I knew of him from other writings, then my partner randomly borrowed 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' from the library; I haven't finished it, but someone had ordered it at renewal time so I can't borrow it again for a while, hence I've just ordered it from Amazon - I must own that book! Perhaps I too have experienced a 'synchronox'!

seanf,

It must be pointed out that the thing-in-itself is also a concept. Once this is realized it is then seen that it can not be 'proved', at least by the very creature(s), (Kant), that conceived of it in this manner and state and condition.  Sort of a box that we mortals are in at this time and can not get out of-yet.

ID,

Nice to be on the same page with you.

John

Is there then any point to discussing 'things-in-themselves'? As far as I can conceptualise, there is no existence other than self-consciousness and effect on consciousness that can ever be comprehended by consciousness. This leads to another thought: Objective knowledge of a/the universe is only possible if the universe itself is conscious in it's entirety - God.

Seanf,
Two worlds, one of nature; unconscious-archetypally aware.  Major job, hand over to the next generation the toughest and brightest survivors of the last generation.
Second world, fully conscious.  Permeates the first world but does not interfer until one of the creatures in the first world gets it.  Then there is a flash and the world of Nature drastically revises to incorporate the new mutation.
This is my morse code version.  What do you think?