joigus

I've emphasised where you started to go wrong: This looks like that, so basically that's what it is. You were as good as lost from there.

How can I be part of a problem? What problem? What is it that's wrong with physics that you set out to put right? OTOH, this doesn't look like a discussion on classical physics. It seems more like a speculation to me. And you didn't address any of my criticism. It's not about 'disparaging' anything. It's about stating clearly what it is that you're addressing. And then addressing any possible criticism.

So what's the point to be discussed? You talk about photons in terms of "inertia in transit" which does not single out photons in any way. All energy moving from A to B would be inertia in transit. You also say that dark matter is without inertia, which is sure to be doomed as a useful physical concept. Not that anybody has tried to accelerate a galactic halo, though. Anything containing energy must possess inertia. Dimensional analysis only gives you a zeroth-order approach to physics. It weeds out lots of possible silly mistakes and allows you to qualitatively predict the parametrics of physical problems. But trying to guess the whole of physics from dimensional analysis is akin to figure out global economics by counting beads.

You're not making sense. You need a then and a there. Force is not an attribute of mass. Nor are either of them (force or mass) space-time references.

I agree with the criticism. Also, whenever you write down t (for time) or d (for distance), you should immediately ask yourself: Time and distance with respect to what? That these concepts are mere references that require coordinatisation was first realised at least in 1632.

Read the comments on Stackexchange. Then read about "Zeno's paradox". And then go for the real thing "the quantum Zeno effect", which is no paradox, but an actual effect.

Supporting? Yes!! Endorsing? Never!! That's Mrs Tilly's way.

Loves soot, hates coal. She likes a dribble, but dislikes a trickle. Go figure.

Very interesting. Thanks.

You sound like one who's read about quantum mechanics and is trying to extrapolate it to the familiar world of human affairs. Language that's used to talk about yes/no propositions (the one that rules the classical world) is alien to the eigenvalue/eigenvector world of quantum superpositions. Eigenvalues and eigenvectors are also useful to talk about mechanical tensions and strains, moment of inertia, etc.

Great! There's another shortage of toilet paper now. But power is back. Funny that you mention this. I've been thinking about it for the whole 8 hours that this has lasted.

That's not the way of mathematics. Prove that you were wrong! Have some coffee first.

She likes forgetting, but not forsaking; forbidding but not forebearing. While she enjoys foreseeing, doesn't have a sense of foreboding...

Mrs Tilly likes a good footing, but doesn't like a fine base.

Electricity wasn't invented. It was discovered. Ways to tap electrical energy were invented. I concur with @CharonY . There are laws (patterns of evolution), initial conditions (how things get started to a limited precision), and historical contingencies. Not even in physical dynamics do we have same behaviour for very close initial conditions on a system that can be simply formulated in terms of few parameters. Imagine how different life could have been with a different panoply of astrophysical contingencies (close-by supernovae, asteroid collisions, etc) to name but one type of contingencies. There are also molecular, geophysical, atmospheric, (etc) contingencies that boggle the mind. So no.

Chinese peasants apparently have become both money lenders and manufacturers of electronic components. That's not disrespectful. Sounds more like ignorance to me. The most dangerous vice in this world is probably a half-arsed sense of security based on what you think you know when you combine it with power.

Not an actual Turkish proverb apparently, but comes in handy nonetheless,

...chemical engineers.

It's all a big grinding machine. A metabolic system of ideas. The system will regurgitate it again when it's necessary. I'm getting off-topic, and dangerously philosophical again...

Well, I'm sure it's not a new idea...

Not exactly. I should have said "perceive" instead of "recognise" to make it clearer. I don't think we are separate from the rest of the universe. I do believe the physical laws can produce the illusion of being a separate thing from the rest of the universe. I also said 'I would be happy with...' This implies that I was drawing a working definition for the purposes of discussion, while a more robust definition might (and perhaps should) be possible. Even taking what I said without the previous caveats, I don't see how it would be taken to imply that the universe is a mental projection. It would go more in the direction of the self as being a projection of some kind.

No, I haven't. Not at all. I haven't watched the video because according to the rules of this website the onus is on the members to explain the ideas on the thread. Not on the members to read or watch any supplementary material to be accessed off-site. Federico is well respected. Federico once successfully worked as a scientist. Let's leave it at that. None of that proves any point about quantum fields and consciousness. This has been addressed by other members. Suffice to say: What I said was intended as an analogy, reads like an analogy, and is an analogy. You saying it's not is just you saying it's not. You're clearly splitting hairs here. Again with the dictionary: Instincts is a useful term that includes many different responses according to different circuitry not processed entirely within the purview of the individual's volition. So it is an umbrella term. I can't make sense of any part of this paragraph. Let alone believe that any of this foggy concepts are "clinically validated". You also said plants, fungi, and the like have "feelings" or self-awareness of some kind. I think @zapatos and others, have asked for scientific literature supporting such claim. Then you said E. Coli does not feel because it doesn't have a brain. I never said I do. I don't. I do have an idea of what it can't possibly (very plausibly, rather) be.

I'm not going down any philosophical rabbit hole. I'd be happy with something like "the ability to recognise oneself as an individual, separate from the rest of the universe". I haven't watched the video, so I don't know what Federico or Mat said. That has nothing to do with a quantum field. It's clearly a misnomer then. I'm not really envisioning anything. I'm drawing analogies between what strikes me as a silly idea and another hypothetical --but equally silly-- idea. Namely, that elementary quanta had other familiar attributes of conscious beings. You see, "quantum fields", "quanta", etc just means "elementary particles". "Instincts" is kind of an umbrella term for many things, none of them applicable to fungi or plants, as far as I'm aware. Physical fields are not responsible for feelings, or instincts, or happiness. Those aspects of so-called minds in all likelihood emerge from very complex interactions involving recursive correlations among / between aggregates of many elementary particles (or the fields representing them if you like), only when organised into protein tissue. Reinforcement of those correlations, and so on and so forth. That it's not the other way around is only too obvious, and I can't make a better job of explaining it.

Just off the top of my head, electrodynamic effects are many orders of magnitude stronger than gravitodynamic effects. Also, intense electrostatic fields induce polarisation in matter, that gravitation does not. You would have to maintain electrically charged elements on conductor surfaces (capacitor plates of some kind), rather than at center-of-gravity placement, which suggests strange effects like all your effective "weight" being placed at a particular surface. Then capacitors tend to get discharged, so it sounds energy-costly. I'm not an engineering-inclined person, so perhaps someone more technology-minded can offer better insights.