Subsidiarity

I think we are talking past each other. I will let it go unless somebody else wants to mediate or engage or something. Good day.

I certainly appreaciate you taking the time. For my benefit could you expand on this: "Thirdly, it would be blatantly obvious in any experiment if the observed velocity of particles was in one direction, and the observed velocity of waves was in the other." I'm curious if there is a way to rescue the theory from the infinite wave issue that you raise. Firstly I don't feel bound by the classical idea of a wave. At the base I think it makes more sense to think of 'something' traveling in the opposite direction than the particle rather than speak of ontological probabilities. For example, perhaps the 'waves' may start at a point off in infinity and travel at the speed of light toward the particle source, and there is a new 'wave' for every Plank moment and they only interfere with waves from the same moment. Perhaps that is the reason there is no interference. I prefer to think of the question in terms of if we assume something is traveling in the opposite direction as the particle what can we infer about its nature? However, if it does lead to a logical contradiction then the theory must be cast aside. And we must apply the same standard to QM.

In video form again. Couldn't find this analysis in text. about 1:30 to 11:00An experiment contradicts wave-particle dualityhttp://youtu.be/3cBm6xDYbKE

I don't feel a need to defend the video production, but I will mix it up about the content. My understanding is that TEW makes different predictions than QM on a few experiments that have been borne out. That is to say that TEW makes better predictions than QM, but I'm not sure that either are very good with the explanations. "then all of our experiments that measure momentum cannot be explained." Can you unpack that one for me? Are you saying there is a contradiction, or that TEW has no explanation. Either way, what is the contradiction or what was the previous explanation and why does it not fit with TEW? "That requires a change in momentum, which is not experimentally observed.[/font]" Nothing about the trajectory from gun to target has been observed. The trajectory could bend at anytime between the gun and the target, but yes it is a challenge to explain the break. I'm not sure qm had a good explanation for this either.

After qm came up in the free will thread I wanted the community to be aware of TEW. Here are some links: Theory of Elementary Waves - Making sense of the double slit experiment.http://youtu.be/XEkWLQXEozgQuantum Physics Fairy Tale - 6mins (1h20-7h33m) The Philosophic Corruption of Physics (Lectures 1-5) by David Harriman http://peacerevolution.podomatic.com/entry/2012-08-12T08_45_48-07_00

Confession, I haven't read up on the thread and I might be repeating something here. This post is in response to Stef's suggestion that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon and so consciousness may have free will even though basic matter is deterministic. My observation is that emergent phenomena inherit all of the characteristics of their base elements, but require new vocabulary to describe the new emergent patterns. Consider water and a stream. The emergent pattern of a stream doesn't change anything about the water. And everything about water is inherited by the stream. As water boils so will the stream. As water reacts so will the stream. As dense is the water so is the stream. As water is deterministic so is the stream. But the stream does require some more vocabulary to talk about current, direction, temperature, etc. You may not logically speak of current changing the nature of water. As the matter of life is deterministic so is life. You may not argue around the determinism of matter with the higher level vocabulary of life. Actions and choice are from the vocabulary of life. Is this the fallacy of the stolen concept? Lastly, I wish I had the episode number but in Stef's treatment of this issue he invoked 'even a child can see the difference between life and non-life'. I wish to point out that is far from philosphical to appeal to the conceptions of others, especially children who are easily manipulated. You've probably seen the video of the 12 year old environmentalist, or the 4 year old preacher. I appreciate Stef's work and so want to help keep it of the highest integrity.

Further meditation on UPB has taken me further. Tell me if any of this makes sense. Voluntary interactions are symetric. A trades with B means the same as B trades with A. Giving merely means that the counter gift is hidden. Involuntary interactions are asymetric. A doing involuntary act to B is not the same as B doing involuntary act to A. 'Universalization' assumes that all individuals are moral peers to be universalized. And for some small enough category, perhaps everybody, or perhaps only, say, productive white blonde men. Either way, there is a category of peers. To say they are peers that can be 'universalized' is to say that you cannot make moral categories out of them by asymetric (involuntary) interactions. If this is close to the message of UPB, this language of 'symetry' and 'moral peers' makes MUCH more sense to me than talking about bob and doug trying to rape each other in a cube.

These are questions that seem most clear and potentially insightful to me, with respect to UPB. Can any UPB masters tell me if these do in fact hold the keys to UPB? Or if these questions can be made yet simpler? Or if there are simpler unrelated questions to meditate upon? *Can a man and a woman mutually rape each other?*Does holding rape as a moral ideal prevent one from resisting sex?

I think of consumption essentially as the final use. A resource may be used by different individuals over time. Rather than trying to talk about a resource at one time, it might be simpler to talk of final use or consumption, but the argument can be made both ways.

This is a half baked frame work for property and other 'rights'. Perhaps somebody can translate it into a non-rights based argument. Only individuals consume. No resource may be consumed by more than one individual. All justly consumed resources are consumed by right. If an individual justly exclusively consumes the resource then he had the exclusive right to consume that resources. You can use the same process for all owned property making the harmony or rights, including self ownship. That is exclusive consumption is more foundational than self ownership. Thoughts? Anyone?