Записи из ленты Google+, а также фрагменты диспутов из ResearchGate (выделены цветным фоном, для понимания контекста), в хронологическом порядке, as is. Курсивом выделены цитирования. {В фигурные скобки взяты комментарии, добавленные позже}, в репликах из ResearchGate местами изменено форматирование текста для акцентирования внимания.
♠ ♥ ♣ ♦
Jan 2, 2018
Marcel M. Lambrechts | How often do people reconstruct the history of science despite the fact that these people were not there when it happened and these people are not able to read the mind of others.... ?
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Marcel M. Lambrechts
you are -exaggerating:
I met, you must have met people who do not understand even
the terminology on what they are writing historic accounts.. :))
Happy Newest New Year
Aleksandar
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Dear A.,
Accepting that as a scientist I cannot read the mind of other people, and there might exist a discrepancy between what people think and write, I will not be able to understand the level of understanding of other people, right?
{Emilio Betti + Michael Polanyi
Smith, M. K. ‘Michael Polanyi and tacit knowledge’, The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education
2003
1989 | WorldCat.org | pdf }
Happy New(er) Year,
Marcel
Aleksandar Jovanovic | yes Marcel M. Lambrechts
But sometimes when it is exceedingly stupid
there are no such dilemmas.
All the best
Aleksandar
Marcel M. Lambrechts | How can Something be 'stupid' when 'Nature' allowed its expression after billions of years of evolution ?
For instance, producer of claim A has Framework A in mind whereas a perceiver of claim A has Framework B in mind? For instance, each expression allowed by 'Nature' has at least one benefit in at least one Framework/scale of analysis?
Cheers again
PS: I still do not have a clear idea why a photon can survive billions of years of travelling across billions of substances, including dark matter.
Accepting that the photons accessible to (scientific) observers might be entangled with (distant) photons not directly accessible to (scientific) observers, how to estimate the age of the universe and the age of (distant) galaxies estimated via light/photon patterns?
Aleksandar Jovanovic | all in concordia.. :)
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Dear A.,
A search for 'concordia' gives 15.500.000 results on the web. What 'Framework' do you have in mind?
Cheers,
M
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Dear M.,
simply as it is,
greetings
Aleksandar
Marcel M. Lambrechts | The simplest approach is to observe a word without interpreting it....
If you ask 100 people to read one word (e.g. concordia) and ask for an interpretation expressed in 15 words , you will likely get 100 different answers
Why is 'communication' so complex after billions of years of evolution?
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Marcel,
within our deep ancestorship, it is less than 1 million and then people
were not using abstract contents in the sequential language which remained
identical, just enriched in expression, but structurally/informationally - no change
incl. modern times.
Hopefully, transition to the new telepathic languages with variety of abstraction hierarchies is not really distant in future, only if humanity survives and the nature
survives humanity.
Then - no problems with concordia or anything else..
Greetings
Aleksandar
Marcel M. Lambrechts | The appearance of new telepathic languages would indeed be great
Marcel M. Lambrechts | How often do people reconstruct the history of science despite the fact that these people were not there when it happened and these people are not able to read the mind of others.... ?
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Marcel M. Lambrechts
you are -exaggerating:
I met, you must have met people who do not understand even
the terminology on what they are writing historic accounts.. :))
Happy Newest New Year
Aleksandar
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Dear A.,
Accepting that as a scientist I cannot read the mind of other people, and there might exist a discrepancy between what people think and write, I will not be able to understand the level of understanding of other people, right?
{Emilio Betti + Michael Polanyi
Smith, M. K. ‘Michael Polanyi and tacit knowledge’, The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education
2003
"My real concern was and is philosophic: not what we do or what we ought to do, but what happens to us over and above our wanting and doing"Hans-Georg Gadamer. Truth and Method
1989 | WorldCat.org | pdf }
Happy New(er) Year,
Marcel
Aleksandar Jovanovic | yes Marcel M. Lambrechts
But sometimes when it is exceedingly stupid
there are no such dilemmas.
All the best
Aleksandar
Marcel M. Lambrechts | How can Something be 'stupid' when 'Nature' allowed its expression after billions of years of evolution ?
For instance, producer of claim A has Framework A in mind whereas a perceiver of claim A has Framework B in mind? For instance, each expression allowed by 'Nature' has at least one benefit in at least one Framework/scale of analysis?
Cheers again
PS: I still do not have a clear idea why a photon can survive billions of years of travelling across billions of substances, including dark matter.
Accepting that the photons accessible to (scientific) observers might be entangled with (distant) photons not directly accessible to (scientific) observers, how to estimate the age of the universe and the age of (distant) galaxies estimated via light/photon patterns?
Aleksandar Jovanovic | all in concordia.. :)
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Dear A.,
A search for 'concordia' gives 15.500.000 results on the web. What 'Framework' do you have in mind?
Cheers,
M
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Dear M.,
simply as it is,
greetings
Aleksandar
Marcel M. Lambrechts | The simplest approach is to observe a word without interpreting it....
If you ask 100 people to read one word (e.g. concordia) and ask for an interpretation expressed in 15 words , you will likely get 100 different answers
Why is 'communication' so complex after billions of years of evolution?
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Marcel,
within our deep ancestorship, it is less than 1 million and then people
were not using abstract contents in the sequential language which remained
identical, just enriched in expression, but structurally/informationally - no change
incl. modern times.
Hopefully, transition to the new telepathic languages with variety of abstraction hierarchies is not really distant in future, only if humanity survives and the nature
survives humanity.
Then - no problems with concordia or anything else..
Greetings
Aleksandar
Marcel M. Lambrechts | The appearance of new telepathic languages would indeed be great
Jan 3, 2018
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Hw can 'photons' survive billions of years of travelling across billions of substances, being the basic assumption to calculate the age of the universe/BigBang/etc??
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Or why is the destiny of a 'photon' a space voyage of millions/billions of years across millions/billions of substances (including so-called dark matter) to be ultimately destroyed after the 'photon' touches the retina of a biological eye?
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Another remark from a human facing perception constraints:
What happens when a photon hits the retina of a human eye?
The photon will be destroyed.....(?)
So imagine the photon that travel(l)ed for billions of years and then arrives on planet Earth to be destroyed because of contact with a physical object, like a biological eye.... Why was the photon that traveled for billions of years not destroyed before it arrived on planet Earth and then hit a tree trunk or a human eye?
If we cannot answer this simple former question how can when answer questions about gravity waves assumed to have travel(l)ed with the speed of photons, called 'light'?
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Hw can 'photons' survive billions of years of travelling across billions of substances, being the basic assumption to calculate the age of the universe/BigBang/etc??
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Or why is the destiny of a 'photon' a space voyage of millions/billions of years across millions/billions of substances (including so-called dark matter) to be ultimately destroyed after the 'photon' touches the retina of a biological eye?
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Another remark from a human facing perception constraints:
What happens when a photon hits the retina of a human eye?
The photon will be destroyed.....(?)
So imagine the photon that travel(l)ed for billions of years and then arrives on planet Earth to be destroyed because of contact with a physical object, like a biological eye.... Why was the photon that traveled for billions of years not destroyed before it arrived on planet Earth and then hit a tree trunk or a human eye?
If we cannot answer this simple former question how can when answer questions about gravity waves assumed to have travel(l)ed with the speed of photons, called 'light'?
Jan 4, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Marcel,
"...it is erased from the chalkboard of the universe." - it is difficult to agree with this unfortunate formulation (in the ansver on the question under your link to quora), since the information/energy of the photon does not disappear from the Universe, reaching your body. Your reflections on a single photon and the impression of the scale of his journey through the Universe will not be complete until you think about the number of photons in the Universe that are continually being born and absorbed.
Firstly, the photon does not destroyed, but integrates into the matter structure and processes of your body (via retina, for example).
Secondly, the conservation laws are not yet abrogated, why should it destroy on the way to the first obstacle, even if we forget about the re-emission, which takes place, for example, on a very very long road of a photon from the deepest core of a star. In what other kind of destruction photon can be destroyed if it is the energy that is "looking" for place to own application on the way?
However, it makes sense to understand what a photon in relation to structures that can absorb it, converting energy into a restructuring of itself in a certain way. This "interface" works according to the "regulated protocol" (this applies to all force carriers).
NB 1: As far as I know, everything we have at the moment about the speed of gravity waves on the basis of available detectors is here
Article Bounding the Speed of Gravity with Gravitational Wave Observations,
and there is no sufficient guarantee that the events compared are really interrelated, there are still very few statistics.
NB 2: On the account of the problems of communication and interpretation, which perfectly correspond with the emission and absorption of photons, I recommend the very interesting ideas voiced in the interpretation theory of Emilio Betty. Communication is so complex precisely because of a "billions of years of evolution". But, I think, you will agree, it is much more interesting to live a man's life than an atom's. It has as much more variety and less routine as it is shorter.
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Dear Vasil,
I personally do not believe it will be 'destroyed', just 'transformed in something different'
Then...
accepting there is a continuous 'birth' and/or 'absorpion' of photons how can you estimate their true age of light based on a set of photons 'X', e.g. when 'new light' is continuously emerging? How to estimate the true age of the universe/galaxies when we assume that 'photons' accessible to scientists to estimate the age of the universe/galaxies via telescopes are entangled with 'photons' not accesible to scientists?
Vasyl Komarov | Marcel, here I agree with you. Your words just refer to the interpretation of which you spoke to Alexandar earlier and I spoke to you. It always contains a model of what you are interpreting. And the model is a purely internal component and the state of the interpreter; it is subjective by definition.
One can start with what one put into the meaning of the word Universe. If you have stars there - this is one thing, if you want to know something about the time before the formation of the first stars - this is a completely different story. Perhaps, in your opinion, the stars in this universe have always existed, and you do not in any way share any views related with the big bang hypothesis. However, then the detailed set of various models of objects around, with models associated with conservation laws included, that you have, should cause you anxiety in the form of the Olbers' paradox, etc...
The nearer you get to the supposed moment of the birth of the Universe, you must have less confidence in any predictions based on the natural everyday perception of reality, where there is a place for the Sun, the rotation of the Earth around it and the definition of a second. And also in any models of objects, such as star, planet, atom, photon, etc., available for study in the Universe, which we know from this everyday perception.
All predictions have an applied meaning (with more reservations, in fact) only in those limits where the models of objects that you use as beacons are certainly applicable.
All that can be said with sufficient confidence that the Universe, as we well it know, existed after the time of hypothetical recombination. At the same time, one must be pedantic and suspicious, even in such confidence. It is not worth it to prove something to anyone "with foam at the mouth" and to "burn on the bonfires" those who do not agree with your opinion.
imo
Mustafa Ali Khan | That is why we need telescopes like the Hubble that are so sensitive that they can detect the tiny fraction of the total number of photons that left from the most distant galaxies/stars. it is very possible that the Universe is older than what it is estimated to be, because there still may be photons that have not reached us yet or with our current technology we cannot make telescopes that are orders of magnitude more sensitive than the Hubble. we may have underestimated the age of the Universe, but as far as the origin of the Universe is concerned, we can be quite sure that it is the result of a Big Bang. When we look at the distant galaxies we see them moving away from us and the farther they are the faster they are traveling. All this leads to the conclusion that there was a moment back in time when these galaxies were very close to each other. this leads us to the next conclusion that at one time the galaxies were all merged into one super massive galaxy or a super massive collection of stars. through this regression process we can say that all matter and energy in the universe must have existed as an extremely dense and tiny, almost a point but not quite, entity of energy. The quantum physics allows such a tiny and dense energy entity to go through sudden, quantum, change. This quantum change is the Big Bang. Thanks.
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Perhaps and thanks!
Why some photons 'survived' (e.g. not transformed into Something else) billions of years of traveling whereas other fellow photons did not 'survive' (e.g. transformed into Something else), also accepting that all these photons followed the same road towards the retina of the human eye where all 'photon survivors' are ultimately transformed into Something else? What a 'waste of time' before the transformation took finally place.....
Vasyl Komarov | However, it makes no chances to search for photons with z>inf, no matter how sensitive the instruments are. It doesn't even matter if the universe can expand faster than the speed of light. The value of the order of 1000 corresponds to the microwave background, and according to even the classical knowledge, which corresponds to the theory of the big bang, it is a solid wall, or rather, a porridge of the recombination epoch. Everything that are suitable even for future telescopes in optical range happened much later.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Marcel,
"...it is erased from the chalkboard of the universe." - it is difficult to agree with this unfortunate formulation (in the ansver on the question under your link to quora), since the information/energy of the photon does not disappear from the Universe, reaching your body. Your reflections on a single photon and the impression of the scale of his journey through the Universe will not be complete until you think about the number of photons in the Universe that are continually being born and absorbed.
Firstly, the photon does not destroyed, but integrates into the matter structure and processes of your body (via retina, for example).
Secondly, the conservation laws are not yet abrogated, why should it destroy on the way to the first obstacle, even if we forget about the re-emission, which takes place, for example, on a very very long road of a photon from the deepest core of a star. In what other kind of destruction photon can be destroyed if it is the energy that is "looking" for place to own application on the way?
However, it makes sense to understand what a photon in relation to structures that can absorb it, converting energy into a restructuring of itself in a certain way. This "interface" works according to the "regulated protocol" (this applies to all force carriers).
NB 1: As far as I know, everything we have at the moment about the speed of gravity waves on the basis of available detectors is here
Article Bounding the Speed of Gravity with Gravitational Wave Observations,
and there is no sufficient guarantee that the events compared are really interrelated, there are still very few statistics.
NB 2: On the account of the problems of communication and interpretation, which perfectly correspond with the emission and absorption of photons, I recommend the very interesting ideas voiced in the interpretation theory of Emilio Betty. Communication is so complex precisely because of a "billions of years of evolution". But, I think, you will agree, it is much more interesting to live a man's life than an atom's. It has as much more variety and less routine as it is shorter.
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Dear Vasil,
I personally do not believe it will be 'destroyed', just 'transformed in something different'
Then...
accepting there is a continuous 'birth' and/or 'absorpion' of photons how can you estimate their true age of light based on a set of photons 'X', e.g. when 'new light' is continuously emerging? How to estimate the true age of the universe/galaxies when we assume that 'photons' accessible to scientists to estimate the age of the universe/galaxies via telescopes are entangled with 'photons' not accesible to scientists?
Vasyl Komarov | Marcel, here I agree with you. Your words just refer to the interpretation of which you spoke to Alexandar earlier and I spoke to you. It always contains a model of what you are interpreting. And the model is a purely internal component and the state of the interpreter; it is subjective by definition.
One can start with what one put into the meaning of the word Universe. If you have stars there - this is one thing, if you want to know something about the time before the formation of the first stars - this is a completely different story. Perhaps, in your opinion, the stars in this universe have always existed, and you do not in any way share any views related with the big bang hypothesis. However, then the detailed set of various models of objects around, with models associated with conservation laws included, that you have, should cause you anxiety in the form of the Olbers' paradox, etc...
The nearer you get to the supposed moment of the birth of the Universe, you must have less confidence in any predictions based on the natural everyday perception of reality, where there is a place for the Sun, the rotation of the Earth around it and the definition of a second. And also in any models of objects, such as star, planet, atom, photon, etc., available for study in the Universe, which we know from this everyday perception.
All predictions have an applied meaning (with more reservations, in fact) only in those limits where the models of objects that you use as beacons are certainly applicable.
All that can be said with sufficient confidence that the Universe, as we well it know, existed after the time of hypothetical recombination. At the same time, one must be pedantic and suspicious, even in such confidence. It is not worth it to prove something to anyone "with foam at the mouth" and to "burn on the bonfires" those who do not agree with your opinion.
imo
Mustafa Ali Khan | That is why we need telescopes like the Hubble that are so sensitive that they can detect the tiny fraction of the total number of photons that left from the most distant galaxies/stars. it is very possible that the Universe is older than what it is estimated to be, because there still may be photons that have not reached us yet or with our current technology we cannot make telescopes that are orders of magnitude more sensitive than the Hubble. we may have underestimated the age of the Universe, but as far as the origin of the Universe is concerned, we can be quite sure that it is the result of a Big Bang. When we look at the distant galaxies we see them moving away from us and the farther they are the faster they are traveling. All this leads to the conclusion that there was a moment back in time when these galaxies were very close to each other. this leads us to the next conclusion that at one time the galaxies were all merged into one super massive galaxy or a super massive collection of stars. through this regression process we can say that all matter and energy in the universe must have existed as an extremely dense and tiny, almost a point but not quite, entity of energy. The quantum physics allows such a tiny and dense energy entity to go through sudden, quantum, change. This quantum change is the Big Bang. Thanks.
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Perhaps and thanks!
Why some photons 'survived' (e.g. not transformed into Something else) billions of years of traveling whereas other fellow photons did not 'survive' (e.g. transformed into Something else), also accepting that all these photons followed the same road towards the retina of the human eye where all 'photon survivors' are ultimately transformed into Something else? What a 'waste of time' before the transformation took finally place.....
Vasyl Komarov | However, it makes no chances to search for photons with z>inf, no matter how sensitive the instruments are. It doesn't even matter if the universe can expand faster than the speed of light. The value of the order of 1000 corresponds to the microwave background, and according to even the classical knowledge, which corresponds to the theory of the big bang, it is a solid wall, or rather, a porridge of the recombination epoch. Everything that are suitable even for future telescopes in optical range happened much later.
Jan 5, 2018
Mustafa Ali Khan | I do not know how you can have z>inf? how can anything be greater than infinity, let alone the cosmological redshift, z? actually, the z for the most distant galaxies does show that the universe is expanding at a speed greater than c! the fact that we can detect the microwave background, which is in the radiowave and not optical region, gives us the possibility to breakthrough the "solid wall" or the "porridge". the future telescopes do not have to be optical. we can always "amplify" the signal into the optical range to see through the "porridge". if not the EM spectrum then we will find other ways. if the GWs do turn out to be real then we can certainly go right upto the moment of the Big Bang. Underestimating human ingenuity is a big mistake and the history of science has proven it many times. thanks.
Vasyl Komarov | OK, let z=inf, and it is sure "solid wall" of infinite wavelength.
By the way, I do not insist that it is impossible to look beyond these limits.
Mustafa Ali Khan | 1) z cannot be infinite. nothing can be infinite. infinity is an abstract concept with no real correlate.
2) from #1 there cannot be infinite wavelength. this means there is no "solid wall" of infinite wavelength.
3) therefore it is possible to look beyond the limits you have placed in your first statement.
thanks.
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Thinking outside the 'box'!
Just take a biological approach for a second:
1) (Bio)Photons have a brief biological lifespan
Example: When you are in a dark room (e.g. without an external light source) you can have a lucid dream with bright colours/light. These Dreams are only possible when the brain produces what you might call (bio)photons. Because the dream has a short lifespan and an external observer in the same room will not perceive the (bio)photons that are associated with such a dream, individual (bio)photons are assumed to have a brief lifespan, e.g. based on phenomena like 'birth' and 'absorption to be transformed into Something else'.
Article Dreams and neuroholography: An interdisciplinary. Interpreta...
Accepting for simplicity that the characteristics of photons are the same everywhere in the universe, it is very unlikely that
A) A photon that is produced in the middle of a star will every be able to leave that star because of the process of 'birth' and obsorption to be transformed into Something else;
B) An individual photon X will probably not survive a voyage of millions/billions of years (?)
PS: If light can be a carier of consciousness, how can photons be the same everywhere in the universe?
Marcel
Vasyl Komarov | Mustafa, I did not say that the universe is infinite, it does not matter what meaning I put in the value of the inf. A wavelength of 50 billion light-years is enough that it can not exist in a given universe (or overcome the cosmological singularity.) You, in any case, are not physically able to make a telescope even for a quarter of this magnitude.
Vasyl Komarov | If I really talked about infinity, apparently Planck's constant and speed of light c would have been a big problem.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Mustafa Ali Khan
1) z cannot be infinite. nothing can be infinite. infinity is an abstract concept with no real correlate.
This is wrong. We have at least two great candidates:
- imagine:
there is a largest natural number n, but there is no set {0,1,2,..., n} = n+1,
very hard.
- imagine two different points A and B and the line interval between them;
then imagine there are only finitely many points between the two, or that there
are always some extra.
In the former, there would be two different points (between the original two),
such that there are no (more) points between them. very hard (to imagine).
AT least in this way we derive infinity existence in the ancient way.
2) the mathematics of infinite, especially developed in antiquity and last 4-5 centuries, the methods, the results, the huge pile of knowledge has been exploited
freely in science.
If there is no infinity (in the real world) then it is very very strange how all this pile
of knowledge based on infinity was usable at all in the sciences.
OK, we can talk on approximations, but this way does not remove the total paradox of the use of non existing infinity.
Remember, everything you calculate yourself or others perform spectroscopy or whatever calculus for you, has absolutely no foundation and looses all meaning.
3) maybe better avoid so categorical statements in Mathematics. Neurology is still a little simpler.
Greetings
Aleksandar
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasyli,
Of course you know best, that even if finite Universe, at best,
is strongly infinite|: we can hardly imagine that interval between the two points as not being dense, separable, continuous, thus of powerful infinite cardinality c.
Any interval, the diameter of the Universe, or smallest imaginable ``plenk`` distance - equal cardinality.
greetings
Aleksandar
Arno Gorgels | Dear Mustafa, you have a wrong idea about infinity. Kindly study Georg Cantor. Best wishes for 2018.
Mustafa Ali Khan | I do not know how you can have z>inf? how can anything be greater than infinity, let alone the cosmological redshift, z? actually, the z for the most distant galaxies does show that the universe is expanding at a speed greater than c! the fact that we can detect the microwave background, which is in the radiowave and not optical region, gives us the possibility to breakthrough the "solid wall" or the "porridge". the future telescopes do not have to be optical. we can always "amplify" the signal into the optical range to see through the "porridge". if not the EM spectrum then we will find other ways. if the GWs do turn out to be real then we can certainly go right upto the moment of the Big Bang. Underestimating human ingenuity is a big mistake and the history of science has proven it many times. thanks.
Vasyl Komarov | OK, let z=inf, and it is sure "solid wall" of infinite wavelength.
By the way, I do not insist that it is impossible to look beyond these limits.
Mustafa Ali Khan | 1) z cannot be infinite. nothing can be infinite. infinity is an abstract concept with no real correlate.
2) from #1 there cannot be infinite wavelength. this means there is no "solid wall" of infinite wavelength.
3) therefore it is possible to look beyond the limits you have placed in your first statement.
thanks.
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Thinking outside the 'box'!
Just take a biological approach for a second:
1) (Bio)Photons have a brief biological lifespan
Example: When you are in a dark room (e.g. without an external light source) you can have a lucid dream with bright colours/light. These Dreams are only possible when the brain produces what you might call (bio)photons. Because the dream has a short lifespan and an external observer in the same room will not perceive the (bio)photons that are associated with such a dream, individual (bio)photons are assumed to have a brief lifespan, e.g. based on phenomena like 'birth' and 'absorption to be transformed into Something else'.
Article Dreams and neuroholography: An interdisciplinary. Interpreta...
Accepting for simplicity that the characteristics of photons are the same everywhere in the universe, it is very unlikely that
A) A photon that is produced in the middle of a star will every be able to leave that star because of the process of 'birth' and obsorption to be transformed into Something else;
B) An individual photon X will probably not survive a voyage of millions/billions of years (?)
PS: If light can be a carier of consciousness, how can photons be the same everywhere in the universe?
Marcel
Vasyl Komarov | Mustafa, I did not say that the universe is infinite, it does not matter what meaning I put in the value of the inf. A wavelength of 50 billion light-years is enough that it can not exist in a given universe (or overcome the cosmological singularity.) You, in any case, are not physically able to make a telescope even for a quarter of this magnitude.
Vasyl Komarov | If I really talked about infinity, apparently Planck's constant and speed of light c would have been a big problem.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Mustafa Ali Khan
1) z cannot be infinite. nothing can be infinite. infinity is an abstract concept with no real correlate.
This is wrong. We have at least two great candidates:
- imagine:
there is a largest natural number n, but there is no set {0,1,2,..., n} = n+1,
very hard.
- imagine two different points A and B and the line interval between them;
then imagine there are only finitely many points between the two, or that there
are always some extra.
In the former, there would be two different points (between the original two),
such that there are no (more) points between them. very hard (to imagine).
AT least in this way we derive infinity existence in the ancient way.
2) the mathematics of infinite, especially developed in antiquity and last 4-5 centuries, the methods, the results, the huge pile of knowledge has been exploited
freely in science.
If there is no infinity (in the real world) then it is very very strange how all this pile
of knowledge based on infinity was usable at all in the sciences.
OK, we can talk on approximations, but this way does not remove the total paradox of the use of non existing infinity.
Remember, everything you calculate yourself or others perform spectroscopy or whatever calculus for you, has absolutely no foundation and looses all meaning.
3) maybe better avoid so categorical statements in Mathematics. Neurology is still a little simpler.
Greetings
Aleksandar
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasyli,
Of course you know best, that even if finite Universe, at best,
is strongly infinite|: we can hardly imagine that interval between the two points as not being dense, separable, continuous, thus of powerful infinite cardinality c.
Any interval, the diameter of the Universe, or smallest imaginable ``plenk`` distance - equal cardinality.
greetings
Aleksandar
Arno Gorgels | Dear Mustafa, you have a wrong idea about infinity. Kindly study Georg Cantor. Best wishes for 2018.
Jan 6, 2018
Marcel M. Lambrechts | When you observe the sky with your most powerful telescopes looking at '(traces of) photons' that 'interact' with these telescopes, do you observe 'old light', 'new light' or 'old light that has been transformed into new light because of chemical interactions with substances encountered during the voyage'?
Who knows?
PS: Scientists have to assume that what you observe on planet Earth can be applied to other places in the universe without being able to visit these places physically, right?
Mustafa Ali Khan | since this discussion is turning into veiled personal attacks, i will take the advise of the person who wrote, "Neurology is still a little simpler". I will stay with Neurology and study that organ in the human being that has discovered, created (including this forum) and invented all the intellectual pursuits, including those of the "great" minds who are belittling the study of this organ. Bye.
Marcel M. Lambrechts | When you observe the sky with your most powerful telescopes looking at '(traces of) photons' that 'interact' with these telescopes, do you observe 'old light', 'new light' or 'old light that has been transformed into new light because of chemical interactions with substances encountered during the voyage'?
Who knows?
PS: Scientists have to assume that what you observe on planet Earth can be applied to other places in the universe without being able to visit these places physically, right?
Mustafa Ali Khan | since this discussion is turning into veiled personal attacks, i will take the advise of the person who wrote, "Neurology is still a little simpler". I will stay with Neurology and study that organ in the human being that has discovered, created (including this forum) and invented all the intellectual pursuits, including those of the "great" minds who are belittling the study of this organ. Bye.
Jan 7, 2018
Marcel M. Lambrechts | There is so much knowledge accumulating. Does a specialist in Cosmology/Quantum Physics focusing on what is happening at large spatiotemporal scales have the time to look at what is studied in more detail by specialists in Chemistry focusing at what is happening at a local scale?
Example:
Accepting that the behaviour of a photon is principally the same everywhere in the universe, can local phenomena provide clues about what might happen at a much broader scale?
What happens to photons after they hit objects?
When photons travel in space, what is the probability that it will encounter matter to interact with, and what are the potential consequences for the 'survival' of old light at large spatiotemporal scales?
Marcel M. Lambrechts | By the way....
Scientists 'bind photons together' to create new state of matter comparable to lightsabers
Marcel M. Lambrechts | There is so much knowledge accumulating. Does a specialist in Cosmology/Quantum Physics focusing on what is happening at large spatiotemporal scales have the time to look at what is studied in more detail by specialists in Chemistry focusing at what is happening at a local scale?
Example:
Accepting that the behaviour of a photon is principally the same everywhere in the universe, can local phenomena provide clues about what might happen at a much broader scale?
What happens to photons after they hit objects?
When photons travel in space, what is the probability that it will encounter matter to interact with, and what are the potential consequences for the 'survival' of old light at large spatiotemporal scales?
Marcel M. Lambrechts | By the way....
Scientists 'bind photons together' to create new state of matter comparable to lightsabers
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: My deepest disappointment for Nobel Prize Physics 2017 [accessed Jan 11, 2018]
Jan 8, 2018
Q: Is it physically possible to reach absolute zero kelvin (temperature of 0 K)?
Eugene F Kislyakov | Any isolated quantum system in ground state has zero temperature and entropy by definition. The question: Is the notion of temperature applicable in this case?
Q: Is it physically possible to reach absolute zero kelvin (temperature of 0 K)?
Eugene F Kislyakov | Any isolated quantum system in ground state has zero temperature and entropy by definition. The question: Is the notion of temperature applicable in this case?
Jan 9, 2018
Kåre Olaussen | If you look up Third law of thermodynamics you find two statements:
It is impossible for any process, no matter how idealized, to reduce the entropy of a system to its absolute-zero value in a finite number of operations.
The entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero is exactly equal to zero.
Together they indicate that it is impossible to reach zero temperature, ignoring the restricted realm of the second statement. And ignoring the fact that it is mathematically wrong: The exactly solved anti-ferromagnetic 2D Ising model on a triangular lattice has finite zero-temperature entropy per site (due to frustration).
Nevertheless, I believe it is impossible to cool down any physical system to zero temperature in finite time. As expressed by this textbook formulation:
"It is impossible by any procedure, no matter how idealized, to reduce the temperature of any system to zero temperature in a finite number of finite operations".
Eugene A. Machusky | The minimal temperature in centigrades is -(100*K-1/100), but value K=2.7316 is not correct sufficiently in SI. Exact K= 2.7315999984590452... (see Eugene Machusky "Quantum metric of classic physics").
Kåre Olaussen | If you look up Third law of thermodynamics you find two statements:
It is impossible for any process, no matter how idealized, to reduce the entropy of a system to its absolute-zero value in a finite number of operations.
The entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero is exactly equal to zero.
Together they indicate that it is impossible to reach zero temperature, ignoring the restricted realm of the second statement. And ignoring the fact that it is mathematically wrong: The exactly solved anti-ferromagnetic 2D Ising model on a triangular lattice has finite zero-temperature entropy per site (due to frustration).
Nevertheless, I believe it is impossible to cool down any physical system to zero temperature in finite time. As expressed by this textbook formulation:
"It is impossible by any procedure, no matter how idealized, to reduce the temperature of any system to zero temperature in a finite number of finite operations".
Eugene A. Machusky | The minimal temperature in centigrades is -(100*K-1/100), but value K=2.7316 is not correct sufficiently in SI. Exact K= 2.7315999984590452... (see Eugene Machusky "Quantum metric of classic physics").
— ResearchGate. Available from: Is it physically possible to reach absolute zero kelvin (temperature of 0 K)? [accessed Mar 20, 2018]
Vasyl Komarov |
Alexandar. The problem is not in the size of the Universe. In the long run, hypothetically, even having the available bifurcation (birth) point in our past (wich limits the size of universe) we can wait for any moment with as great z as we wish.
The problem is that a photon must in its essence represent an integral object regardless of the wavelength. Such a holistic object implies an instantaneous state for the entire object. Instantaneous means a coherent process, the conditional flow rate of which is clearly higher than the speed of the photon's propagation.
There is no problem with this, as long as the wavelength is finite and everything becomes absurd as soon as we try to think about an infinite wavelength. As I have said many times, we live on the other side of the Cantor hypothesis, in the world of finite entities, regardless of scale.
In this case, a coherent process can involve the entire Universe, since it is finite (it has a birth), without violating the cause-effect relationships and, accordingly, realism (de facto, determinizm) in understanding similar to this (arXiv:1509.00348) and ideas of Kozyrev's causal mechanics. For example, such a process for the universe, can looks from the outside as the handling of an angular momentum corresponding to the speed of light, which can easily create (explain) an identical structure of the angular momenta (i.e. spins) of the standard model everywhere within the scope of universe (when it comes to hypergeometry) [NB: The identity of the general structure of matter and physical processes in the whole Universe is one of the important issues which seems to excite not only me, but Marcel also. In my opinion, this point has long had to put an end to the idea of the spontaneity of the birth of the universe with arbitrary laws of physics.]
Trends, traced in all attempts to assess the angular momentum of black holes, pushes to this idea. In addition, I doubt the possibility of the existence of non-rotating similar objects from indirect considerations, since neutron stars with an arbitrarily big period of revolution are not yet observed. What makes me think that the Schwarzschild model (metric) should be very far from reality.
It is fundamentally impossible to have any logic of the laws of nature, if we allow in it the possibility of an infinite element, which is just a separate structural element of it. Any logic of relations (cause-effect relationships, for example) is possible only for finite entities (under the Cantor hypothesis), when correspondence is possible in principle.
Peter Schaefer | Dear Mr. Vasyl I like you’re last then tens ,it has a birth without violating the cause... thankfully forward you’re exelent corresponding work
Arno Gorgels | Mr. Komarov! I have done Lots of work to Connect fundamental physics to Cantor's infinities with amazing results. Kindly check these in my Publications. It goed without saying that physicists haven't shown any interest in Cantor or fundamental mathematics. People like Wittgenstein who has never understood mathematics is their Guide. They go astray with him.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Arno,
you are right about Wittgenstein. He was both smart and mad and it is not easy
to integrate in our mind his semantics.
It is very strange that physicists are finding inspirations in the strange lonely riders
like Wittgenstein, while completely avoiding more than a century of developments in Mathematics, especially foundational studies.
Vasili,
The CH - Cantor Hypothesis is unavoidable.
- we can live our lives and theories without touching it and related issues;
- the other side of CH - that does not exist, except as 1 line above;
- as soon as the issue touches whatever part of mathematical reality we are playing with,
it might be important (CH and related staff - axioms of Set Theory) and needs critical investigation;
- the hierarchies of infinities Cantor introduced might be related to the physical structures and needs
some clarification some day;
If geometry of reality is continuous and if we do not inspect micro structure of geometry, accepting usual mathematical properties, then we might stay away from those issues.
If the real line in reality is Suslin, the consequences are very interesting.
The continuity of the geometry is crucial in any concept of movement. If geometry is quantized,
i.e. if between 2 points there are only finitely many different points, then it is interesting, how the objects move through the sequence of separated different finitely many points, + a lot of other interesting issues.
In the pile of all fuzzy concepts and fuzzy reality in modern physics, it is hard to imagine, think and generate any conclusion.
Greetings
Aleksandar
Arno Gorgels | One important result of Cantor applied to physics is that the speed of light is related to aleph0
The problem is that a photon must in its essence represent an integral object regardless of the wavelength. Such a holistic object implies an instantaneous state for the entire object. Instantaneous means a coherent process, the conditional flow rate of which is clearly higher than the speed of the photon's propagation.
There is no problem with this, as long as the wavelength is finite and everything becomes absurd as soon as we try to think about an infinite wavelength. As I have said many times, we live on the other side of the Cantor hypothesis, in the world of finite entities, regardless of scale.
In this case, a coherent process can involve the entire Universe, since it is finite (it has a birth), without violating the cause-effect relationships and, accordingly, realism (de facto, determinizm) in understanding similar to this (arXiv:1509.00348) and ideas of Kozyrev's causal mechanics. For example, such a process for the universe, can looks from the outside as the handling of an angular momentum corresponding to the speed of light, which can easily create (explain) an identical structure of the angular momenta (i.e. spins) of the standard model everywhere within the scope of universe (when it comes to hypergeometry) [NB: The identity of the general structure of matter and physical processes in the whole Universe is one of the important issues which seems to excite not only me, but Marcel also. In my opinion, this point has long had to put an end to the idea of the spontaneity of the birth of the universe with arbitrary laws of physics.]
Trends, traced in all attempts to assess the angular momentum of black holes, pushes to this idea. In addition, I doubt the possibility of the existence of non-rotating similar objects from indirect considerations, since neutron stars with an arbitrarily big period of revolution are not yet observed. What makes me think that the Schwarzschild model (metric) should be very far from reality.
It is fundamentally impossible to have any logic of the laws of nature, if we allow in it the possibility of an infinite element, which is just a separate structural element of it. Any logic of relations (cause-effect relationships, for example) is possible only for finite entities (under the Cantor hypothesis), when correspondence is possible in principle.
Peter Schaefer | Dear Mr. Vasyl I like you’re last then tens ,it has a birth without violating the cause... thankfully forward you’re exelent corresponding work
Arno Gorgels | Mr. Komarov! I have done Lots of work to Connect fundamental physics to Cantor's infinities with amazing results. Kindly check these in my Publications. It goed without saying that physicists haven't shown any interest in Cantor or fundamental mathematics. People like Wittgenstein who has never understood mathematics is their Guide. They go astray with him.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Arno,
you are right about Wittgenstein. He was both smart and mad and it is not easy
to integrate in our mind his semantics.
It is very strange that physicists are finding inspirations in the strange lonely riders
like Wittgenstein, while completely avoiding more than a century of developments in Mathematics, especially foundational studies.
Vasili,
The CH - Cantor Hypothesis is unavoidable.
- we can live our lives and theories without touching it and related issues;
- the other side of CH - that does not exist, except as 1 line above;
- as soon as the issue touches whatever part of mathematical reality we are playing with,
it might be important (CH and related staff - axioms of Set Theory) and needs critical investigation;
- the hierarchies of infinities Cantor introduced might be related to the physical structures and needs
some clarification some day;
If geometry of reality is continuous and if we do not inspect micro structure of geometry, accepting usual mathematical properties, then we might stay away from those issues.
If the real line in reality is Suslin, the consequences are very interesting.
The continuity of the geometry is crucial in any concept of movement. If geometry is quantized,
i.e. if between 2 points there are only finitely many different points, then it is interesting, how the objects move through the sequence of separated different finitely many points, + a lot of other interesting issues.
In the pile of all fuzzy concepts and fuzzy reality in modern physics, it is hard to imagine, think and generate any conclusion.
Greetings
Aleksandar
Arno Gorgels | One important result of Cantor applied to physics is that the speed of light is related to aleph0
Jan 10, 2018
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Arno,
one important result of Cantor is that we have a problem with the definition of integral:
In the Darboux sum we have a double limes lim n->8, max Delta xi ->0 :
In fact n -> aleph0 while Delta xi -> 0 so that that we have a summation of surfaces of rectangles, height value of integrand over the base = 0-long intervals, i.e. as many as there are points in (a,b) but that is 2exp(aleph0);
- lim while n-> 8 can only be lim while n-> aleph0, but this is the # of the rectangles with small base and there are more than aleph0 of them, i.e. c = 2exp(aleph0);
- we can not have those sums longer than aleph0;
--------------------
no good :))
greetings
Aleksandar
Arno Gorgels | Dear Aleksander, this is fully unrelated to my statement. My statement was about the natural constant c.
🤗
Have a good 2018
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Dear Arno,
please, when you comment something on Cantor and mention aleph0, let me add some extras. you might then give me some ++ :)
There is plenty - huge.
Good luck
Aleksandar
Arno Gorgels | Sounds good, Aleksander. When in Berlin, visit me. I am member of DPG only, not of any other club.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | O Arno,
(did you know that Cantor was a president of Deutche Mathematishe Soc..:))
Thank you!
When in Belgrad, please visit me, we can organize some nice drinks and food :)
me in Germany - hardly, in Berlin even harder..
It must have changed a lot since it was divided. ..
I am getting older, with arthritis in the knees, moving harder..
Good luck!
Aleksandar
Vasyl Komarov | Alexandar, by "other side" I mean everything that can not be a continuum in itself. That is, everything that can only be corresponded to the Continuum (all with prefix "potential"). What by therm of holism means literally everything we can relate to, while we does not mean everything at once. We talked about this a little earlier in another topic where I criticized the Cohen's forcing method.
So I did not contradict you, just talked about the limitedness of everything we are dealing with in comparison with the abstract concept of infinity (in its actual meaning).
NB: I apologize, in the previous comment the "small" period of rotation corrected to "big". Thinking about the frequency made mistake with which the phrase completely lost meaning (arXiv:1304.6546). The reasoning does not relate to a multitude of models based on classical ideas about the atomic structure of a substance, such as a carbon atmosphere, etc. [in addition, rotation can be significantly associated with the radiation mechanism, not allowing to register objects in essentially other modes, like in some hypotheses arXiv:1307.1230 ] It is also just one more hypothesis, i.e. conclusion based on "the Hipothesis" considerations, which also may explain this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#/media/File:PPdot2.png .
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasilii,
everything is ok, that is ok..
I am not sure what do you mean by continuum - please express yourself
more expansively. I am not sure how broad is your concept of relating;
Yes, I remember you had objections on Cohen proofs, which I forgot what was that about.
However, whatever he did (there is alternative way of doing the same - Solovay's
Boolean Valued models), he starts with the Goedels results, no extra hypothesis, thus
with the countable model (existing by LS Theorem if ZF is consistent)
and converges to the standard countable models of ZFC+ not CH, ZF+ not AC.
Thus everything is regular within the usual logic/model theory.
(what is NB? in case there is a Universal rotation, there should be some torsion, for how
could the rotation remain uniform everywhere?)
Be well
Aleksandar
Demetris Christopoulos | And we have to think also beyond electromagnetic theory, since it is almost impossible not to exist other non EM kind of fields and radiations...
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Arno,
one important result of Cantor is that we have a problem with the definition of integral:
In the Darboux sum we have a double limes lim n->8, max Delta xi ->0 :
In fact n -> aleph0 while Delta xi -> 0 so that that we have a summation of surfaces of rectangles, height value of integrand over the base = 0-long intervals, i.e. as many as there are points in (a,b) but that is 2exp(aleph0);
- lim while n-> 8 can only be lim while n-> aleph0, but this is the # of the rectangles with small base and there are more than aleph0 of them, i.e. c = 2exp(aleph0);
- we can not have those sums longer than aleph0;
--------------------
no good :))
greetings
Aleksandar
Arno Gorgels | Dear Aleksander, this is fully unrelated to my statement. My statement was about the natural constant c.
🤗
Have a good 2018
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Dear Arno,
please, when you comment something on Cantor and mention aleph0, let me add some extras. you might then give me some ++ :)
There is plenty - huge.
Good luck
Aleksandar
Arno Gorgels | Sounds good, Aleksander. When in Berlin, visit me. I am member of DPG only, not of any other club.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | O Arno,
(did you know that Cantor was a president of Deutche Mathematishe Soc..:))
Thank you!
When in Belgrad, please visit me, we can organize some nice drinks and food :)
me in Germany - hardly, in Berlin even harder..
It must have changed a lot since it was divided. ..
I am getting older, with arthritis in the knees, moving harder..
Good luck!
Aleksandar
Vasyl Komarov | Alexandar, by "other side" I mean everything that can not be a continuum in itself. That is, everything that can only be corresponded to the Continuum (all with prefix "potential"). What by therm of holism means literally everything we can relate to, while we does not mean everything at once. We talked about this a little earlier in another topic where I criticized the Cohen's forcing method.
So I did not contradict you, just talked about the limitedness of everything we are dealing with in comparison with the abstract concept of infinity (in its actual meaning).
NB: I apologize, in the previous comment the "small" period of rotation corrected to "big". Thinking about the frequency made mistake with which the phrase completely lost meaning (arXiv:1304.6546). The reasoning does not relate to a multitude of models based on classical ideas about the atomic structure of a substance, such as a carbon atmosphere, etc. [in addition, rotation can be significantly associated with the radiation mechanism, not allowing to register objects in essentially other modes, like in some hypotheses arXiv:1307.1230 ] It is also just one more hypothesis, i.e. conclusion based on "the Hipothesis" considerations, which also may explain this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#/media/File:PPdot2.png .
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasilii,
everything is ok, that is ok..
I am not sure what do you mean by continuum - please express yourself
more expansively. I am not sure how broad is your concept of relating;
Yes, I remember you had objections on Cohen proofs, which I forgot what was that about.
However, whatever he did (there is alternative way of doing the same - Solovay's
Boolean Valued models), he starts with the Goedels results, no extra hypothesis, thus
with the countable model (existing by LS Theorem if ZF is consistent)
and converges to the standard countable models of ZFC+ not CH, ZF+ not AC.
Thus everything is regular within the usual logic/model theory.
(what is NB? in case there is a Universal rotation, there should be some torsion, for how
could the rotation remain uniform everywhere?)
Be well
Aleksandar
Demetris Christopoulos | And we have to think also beyond electromagnetic theory, since it is almost impossible not to exist other non EM kind of fields and radiations...
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: My deepest disappointment for Nobel Prize Physics 2017 [accessed Jan 11, 2018]
Peter Harremoës |
In its simplified formulation the third law of thermodynamics states that one cannot reach a temperature of 0 K. In an article from last year Lluis Masanes and Jonathan Oppenheims derive a lower bound on the temperature that can be reached in terms of the resources available (volume, how much work can fluctuate, time etc.) It is strange that a reference to this important result is missing in Wikipedia. I will fix that.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Is it physically possible to reach absolute zero kelvin (temperature of 0 K)? [accessed Mar 20, 2018]
11 січ. 2018 р.
10:57 | Биологи объяснили одинаковую скорость самовоспроизведения у слонов и бактерий
Ставка, с которой разные организмы (от птиц, синие кружки, до эукариотических организмов, зеленые треугольники) воспроизводят биомассу (значения на оси y) в зависимости от сухой массы тела организма (по оси x).
Энергетическая плотность биомассы (по оси y) как функция от сухой массы тела (по оси x). Сверху вниз, организмы: водоросли, бактерии, беспозвоночные, лишайники, растения, протисты, позвоночные.
Equal fitness paradigm explained by a trade-off between generation time and energy production rate
2018 | DOI: 10.1038/s41559-017-0430-1 | pdf
Most plant, animal and microbial species of widely varying body size and lifestyle are nearly equally fit as evidenced by their coexistence and persistence through millions of years. All organisms compete for a limited supply of organic chemical energy, derived mostly from photosynthesis, to invest in the two components of fitness: survival and production. All organisms are mortal because molecular and cellular damage accumulates over the lifetime; life persists only because parents produce offspring. We call this the equal fitness paradigm. The equal fitness paradigm occurs because: (1) there is a trade-off between generation time and productive power, which have equal-but-opposite scalings with body size and temperature; smaller and warmer organisms have shorter lifespans but produce biomass at higher rates than larger and colder organisms; (2) the energy content of biomass is essentially constant, ~22.4 kJ g^(−1) dry body weight; and (3) the fraction of biomass production incorporated into surviving offspring is also roughly constant, ~10–50%. As organisms transmit approximately the same quantity of energy per gram to offspring in the next generation, no species has an inherent lasting advantage in the struggle for existence. The equal fitness paradigm emphasizes the central importance of energy, biological scaling relations and power–time trade-offs.
12:47 | К проблемам топологии и размерности структуры.
Статистика помогла лингвистам разобраться в пересечениях синтаксических связей
Если структуру предложения представить в виде последовательности слов, соединенных друг с другом связями грамматической зависимости, то окажется, что в подавляющем большинстве случаев (в совершенно разных языках) предложения строятся так, чтобы эти соединения не пересекались между собой.
В качестве модели предложили использовать линейную последовательность из связанных между собой отдельных элементов. Каждый элемент обозначает одно слово в предложении, а связь между элементами — грамматическую зависимость. При этом «выгодность» той или иной конфигурации определяется стремлением минимизировать длину связей между элементами.
Рассматриваемая линейная система в таком случае характеризуется двумя параметрами: числом пересечений синтаксических связей и их суммарной длиной. Однако минимизация обоих этих параметров не приведет к нужному результату: в случае минимизации числа пересечений их количество было бы всегда равно нулю (что неверно), а стремление к минимальной суммарной длине связей сложно реализовать при реальном использовании языка.
Scarcity of crossing dependencies: A direct outcome of a specific constraint?
2017 | arXiv:1601.03210 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.96.062304
Jan 11, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Regarding the old idea of torsion, it is difficult to get rid of it form thinking about spin (Nikodem Poplawski's articles on arXiv, On the Speed of Rotation of the Isotropic Space: Insight into the Redshift Problem).
Any thoughts about the scale invariance of overall processes for the universum (which from the point of view of philosophy is a necessary condition for the immutability and continuity of existence as a process*, before and after, if we want to have space and time within our existance) is also difficult to separate from this. Otherwise (without connectedness and coherence), it should be difficult to expect any laws of nature, since its fragments will not be in interaction.
[* This is for me an intuitively most acceptable position, so as not to wonder why our universe suddenly exists, why it is happening right now, and why the existence must disappear suddenly from some point. From the point of view of the theory of probability, all the ideas of a sudden (especially one-time) existence can not withstand rational logic on the background of our existence (as noticed by Parmenides).]
As for forcing, and not only:
The starting point for this is principally attitude to the concept of idealism. Any reasoning and proof of the integrity of the formal system is already based on semantics (we are talking about system that would not exist in the absence of our existence) and can not be detached from the reality of our existence.
[Mathematics within demarcation is not worried about semantics of the alphabet, it is only limited by axioms within the framework of formalism and tautology, without even being interested in the low-level language through which the alphabet is defined (it not worried about us, i.e. worried only about internal relationships).]
That is, the "ideal" world of the individual exists inseparably from the individual. This means that any mental and computational processes are just a layering of the processes of the dynamic system that represents the individual. This is true equally for the radical position of the subjective idealism of Bishop Berkeley: you can not separate the process of existence (perception) from thinking for yourself in this case, too.
Once you realize this invariance of the connection of all processes to existence, regardless of the adherence to philosophical ideas professing dichotomy, you should have a desire to apply the cumulative hierarchy to the whole reality (physical universe), implying mental processes (in any case, for you as single individual [it is actual in case of hardest position of metaphysical sensualism]) as inseparate part of its dynamics and states. Then everything that may have to do with your existence must turn out to be "under the hood" of the total von Neumann universe; within the framework of Cantor's hypothesis. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain why physics for describing the topological structure (and predictions, respectively) can use mathematics and it works.
Hence, there are two important consequences, which are the same thing:
1. Everything has to do with V (within V).
2. We even can not think of a truly isolated system.
What for mathematics means that Cohen, being physically part of the universe V, can not assume a set, bypassing the Cantor C (V). And perhaps he underestimated the diversity of V (C).
[Most importantly, it does not contradict the potentially infinite cognitive process for any structure that has a birth point (man, humanity,... universe...), while positioning itself in an endless process of existence, which, as noted above, is most preferable and rational to be invariant.]
V means existence.
By the way, rotation really can not remain uniform everywhere. Otherwise, there would indeed be a situation of the possibility of total equilibrium as a manifestation of some absolutely invariant smooth integral transformation. Could we then discuss about existence? - This is an interesting question.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | O Vasili,
this one was rich!
maybe only:
- about Parmenides - do you remember the shape of the being and basic properties?
- V;
OK, V is V but always within a model. Ordinarily a countable model.
If we start with a suitable model M (ground model), there we have one V consisting of all Valpha (alpha ele Ord);
but this is in M;
Cohen then extends the model to contain the generic Ufulter G, thus obtaining
M[G] which contains original M. there V = Valfa (alfa ele Ord in M[G]),
so that this V (usually) is larger than original V. Thus, two V. One in M, the other in M[G] = V (in M[G])..
and so on..
Greetings
Aleksandar
Vasyl Komarov | Regarding the old idea of torsion, it is difficult to get rid of it form thinking about spin (Nikodem Poplawski's articles on arXiv, On the Speed of Rotation of the Isotropic Space: Insight into the Redshift Problem).
Any thoughts about the scale invariance of overall processes for the universum (which from the point of view of philosophy is a necessary condition for the immutability and continuity of existence as a process*, before and after, if we want to have space and time within our existance) is also difficult to separate from this. Otherwise (without connectedness and coherence), it should be difficult to expect any laws of nature, since its fragments will not be in interaction.
[* This is for me an intuitively most acceptable position, so as not to wonder why our universe suddenly exists, why it is happening right now, and why the existence must disappear suddenly from some point. From the point of view of the theory of probability, all the ideas of a sudden (especially one-time) existence can not withstand rational logic on the background of our existence (as noticed by Parmenides).]
As for forcing, and not only:
The starting point for this is principally attitude to the concept of idealism. Any reasoning and proof of the integrity of the formal system is already based on semantics (we are talking about system that would not exist in the absence of our existence) and can not be detached from the reality of our existence.
[Mathematics within demarcation is not worried about semantics of the alphabet, it is only limited by axioms within the framework of formalism and tautology, without even being interested in the low-level language through which the alphabet is defined (it not worried about us, i.e. worried only about internal relationships).]
That is, the "ideal" world of the individual exists inseparably from the individual. This means that any mental and computational processes are just a layering of the processes of the dynamic system that represents the individual. This is true equally for the radical position of the subjective idealism of Bishop Berkeley: you can not separate the process of existence (perception) from thinking for yourself in this case, too.
Once you realize this invariance of the connection of all processes to existence, regardless of the adherence to philosophical ideas professing dichotomy, you should have a desire to apply the cumulative hierarchy to the whole reality (physical universe), implying mental processes (in any case, for you as single individual [it is actual in case of hardest position of metaphysical sensualism]) as inseparate part of its dynamics and states. Then everything that may have to do with your existence must turn out to be "under the hood" of the total von Neumann universe; within the framework of Cantor's hypothesis. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain why physics for describing the topological structure (and predictions, respectively) can use mathematics and it works.
Hence, there are two important consequences, which are the same thing:
1. Everything has to do with V (within V).
2. We even can not think of a truly isolated system.
What for mathematics means that Cohen, being physically part of the universe V, can not assume a set, bypassing the Cantor C (V). And perhaps he underestimated the diversity of V (C).
[Most importantly, it does not contradict the potentially infinite cognitive process for any structure that has a birth point (man, humanity,... universe...), while positioning itself in an endless process of existence, which, as noted above, is most preferable and rational to be invariant.]
V means existence.
By the way, rotation really can not remain uniform everywhere. Otherwise, there would indeed be a situation of the possibility of total equilibrium as a manifestation of some absolutely invariant smooth integral transformation. Could we then discuss about existence? - This is an interesting question.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | O Vasili,
this one was rich!
maybe only:
- about Parmenides - do you remember the shape of the being and basic properties?
- V;
OK, V is V but always within a model. Ordinarily a countable model.
If we start with a suitable model M (ground model), there we have one V consisting of all Valpha (alpha ele Ord);
but this is in M;
Cohen then extends the model to contain the generic Ufulter G, thus obtaining
M[G] which contains original M. there V = Valfa (alfa ele Ord in M[G]),
so that this V (usually) is larger than original V. Thus, two V. One in M, the other in M[G] = V (in M[G])..
and so on..
Greetings
Aleksandar
Jan 12, 2018
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Hello,
Is there a substantial difference between the underlying mechanisms that cause biodiversity and the underlying mechanisms that cause mental diversity? E.g. Phenotypic/mental expression (e.g. body size, biophotons, thinking) is adjusted to the local environment?
Or what animal on Earth is communicating the Truth, and why should humans be the best intellectual performers in the universe?
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=animal+images&qpvt=animal+images&FORM=IARRSM
Example:
When an ant is at the border of a road, can it image what is Inside a car passing by, etc....
versus
When a human is at the border of a universe, can it/he/she imagine what is Inside the universe, etc...?
Greetings,
Marcel
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Marcel M.,
....
no way :)
very similar position :))
Greetings
Aleksandar
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasilii,
as reported in "Parmenides"
he said : a Sphere; static,..
Greetings
Aleksandar
Vasyl Komarov | Aleksandar, I draw your attention to the fact that you immediately translated all the arguments into the limits of the formal system, removing from the field of view the key point about which I spoke.
I propose another version of the suggestive question. As you noted earlier in the conversation, imagination is unlimited. But, will the writer be able to voice his idea by sound waves, or convert into paper book or electronic text file, with or without illustrations, or to other means of conveying the meaning, if the conceived can not be realized in the form of a certain dynamical topological structure of air or physical book or other material medium?
Is only the structure of language constrains the thinking? Obviously, it limits formal thinking. But this does not mean that the concrete thinking is not limited to the physical processes related to the body (brain).
I have long been unwilling to mystify even the thought processes in the head of writer. Any book, any symbol (V, M, G...) is meaningless and, strictly speaking, does not exist without the topological structure of his, or your or my body and, accordingly, the brain of interpretators with physical structure representing semantics of symbols, words, images or other memes. So your formal universe and the second one you have been thinking about are only part of the topological structure of your body and, accordingly, of this reality. Both of them is limited and counted in your brain in the hierarhy (it is my opinion, which is a logical consequence of the rejection of the idea of idealism).
Obviously, all this is a countable model, man, in principle, has learned to count (bending fingers, literally). I do not know yet such a section of reality, the data about which is available in the form of any experience of observations that would not be part of the hierarchy. Studying the world, we all time was only discovered new levels of hierarchy. It was realized by mankind at a certain moment and fixed in the principle of mediocrity. Moreover, this certain applies to any formal system, since you immediately have a limited set of basic elements and build them into a hierarchy.
Here lies the biggest problem that you ignore. Any base element, any new axiom is not possible without the system in which it is introduced on semanthical level: the birth of something occurs after bifurcation in an already (before!) existing system. This is known for everything we deal with, except one system that we do not have data about, being in the hierarchy its internal part.
Therefore, the concept of a point in geometry, the concept of simplest entity of mentioned formal universe V, the concept of a bit in information theory, the concept of elementary particle in physics, etc. have serious problems. These concepts are impossible without a cumulative system representing interacting reality.
{
}
All modern models based on a limited system of elementary entities (interactions, which is relevant for physics) are deliberately flawed for description of reality. imo
Vasyl Komarov | Static means immutability. All cultures reflecting on the eternal status of beings come to the same thing. This is not only Parmenides... Hinduism... nothing can change what has an eternal status. Further it is necessary to continue the dialogue about dialectics, as usual.
By the way, any concepts based on the idea of "simplest" basic elements are not scale-invariant, and contradict self-referencing. Unambiguously, the concept of "statics" is not applicable to them.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | O Vasilii!
After 50 years in Logic you gave me nice explanations and resolutions.
I must tell you a few things.
1st I AM an idealist - it is not possible to be a Mathematician and not to be an
IDEALIST.
The concepts, the whole of Logic, the History of mathematics and Logic - those things were not invented by me. I just found them there as a young student, I liked it and I came to it.
V is a serious thing and demands some devotion. The same about models, cardinals, ordinals, constructibles and generic extensions. You MUST devote some energy-time in order to understand it. The way you freely write about it
demonstrates you do not understand what is going on there.
V, M, G, Ord, Card, aleph0, continuum,.. those things we reach with the faculties
in our brain. Evidently, sometimes, some of those might receive importance in physics- "what we in our brain have for what we believe is the external world"
to put some of your kind wording.
The Sphere. Do not relativise- this is not about Physics, nor reference systems, nor Universe. This is about the Supreme - God- Atman. The way how Parmenides described it in "Parmenides". The joke was inspired by you - you mentioned Parmenides and I just wanted you to tell me what I had to tell you..
No matter.
All fine.
Be well
Aleksandar
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Hello,
Is there a substantial difference between the underlying mechanisms that cause biodiversity and the underlying mechanisms that cause mental diversity? E.g. Phenotypic/mental expression (e.g. body size, biophotons, thinking) is adjusted to the local environment?
Or what animal on Earth is communicating the Truth, and why should humans be the best intellectual performers in the universe?
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=animal+images&qpvt=animal+images&FORM=IARRSM
Example:
When an ant is at the border of a road, can it image what is Inside a car passing by, etc....
versus
When a human is at the border of a universe, can it/he/she imagine what is Inside the universe, etc...?
Greetings,
Marcel
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Marcel M.,
....
no way :)
very similar position :))
Greetings
Aleksandar
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasilii,
as reported in "Parmenides"
he said : a Sphere; static,..
Greetings
Aleksandar
Vasyl Komarov | Aleksandar, I draw your attention to the fact that you immediately translated all the arguments into the limits of the formal system, removing from the field of view the key point about which I spoke.
I propose another version of the suggestive question. As you noted earlier in the conversation, imagination is unlimited. But, will the writer be able to voice his idea by sound waves, or convert into paper book or electronic text file, with or without illustrations, or to other means of conveying the meaning, if the conceived can not be realized in the form of a certain dynamical topological structure of air or physical book or other material medium?
Is only the structure of language constrains the thinking? Obviously, it limits formal thinking. But this does not mean that the concrete thinking is not limited to the physical processes related to the body (brain).
I have long been unwilling to mystify even the thought processes in the head of writer. Any book, any symbol (V, M, G...) is meaningless and, strictly speaking, does not exist without the topological structure of his, or your or my body and, accordingly, the brain of interpretators with physical structure representing semantics of symbols, words, images or other memes. So your formal universe and the second one you have been thinking about are only part of the topological structure of your body and, accordingly, of this reality. Both of them is limited and counted in your brain in the hierarhy (it is my opinion, which is a logical consequence of the rejection of the idea of idealism).
Obviously, all this is a countable model, man, in principle, has learned to count (bending fingers, literally). I do not know yet such a section of reality, the data about which is available in the form of any experience of observations that would not be part of the hierarchy. Studying the world, we all time was only discovered new levels of hierarchy. It was realized by mankind at a certain moment and fixed in the principle of mediocrity. Moreover, this certain applies to any formal system, since you immediately have a limited set of basic elements and build them into a hierarchy.
Here lies the biggest problem that you ignore. Any base element, any new axiom is not possible without the system in which it is introduced on semanthical level: the birth of something occurs after bifurcation in an already (before!) existing system. This is known for everything we deal with, except one system that we do not have data about, being in the hierarchy its internal part.
Therefore, the concept of a point in geometry, the concept of simplest entity of mentioned formal universe V, the concept of a bit in information theory, the concept of elementary particle in physics, etc. have serious problems. These concepts are impossible without a cumulative system representing interacting reality.
{
i found it, the best illustration in a work of philosophy pic.twitter.com/gdXId4LsEM
— dethe :) (@BosniaPM) July 9, 2020
...ever, fundamental
— Vasyl Komarov (@vfkomarov) July 10, 2020
cause it is the actual definition of a point at all.
All modern models based on a limited system of elementary entities (interactions, which is relevant for physics) are deliberately flawed for description of reality. imo
Vasyl Komarov | Static means immutability. All cultures reflecting on the eternal status of beings come to the same thing. This is not only Parmenides... Hinduism... nothing can change what has an eternal status. Further it is necessary to continue the dialogue about dialectics, as usual.
By the way, any concepts based on the idea of "simplest" basic elements are not scale-invariant, and contradict self-referencing. Unambiguously, the concept of "statics" is not applicable to them.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | O Vasilii!
After 50 years in Logic you gave me nice explanations and resolutions.
I must tell you a few things.
1st I AM an idealist - it is not possible to be a Mathematician and not to be an
IDEALIST.
The concepts, the whole of Logic, the History of mathematics and Logic - those things were not invented by me. I just found them there as a young student, I liked it and I came to it.
V is a serious thing and demands some devotion. The same about models, cardinals, ordinals, constructibles and generic extensions. You MUST devote some energy-time in order to understand it. The way you freely write about it
demonstrates you do not understand what is going on there.
V, M, G, Ord, Card, aleph0, continuum,.. those things we reach with the faculties
in our brain. Evidently, sometimes, some of those might receive importance in physics- "what we in our brain have for what we believe is the external world"
to put some of your kind wording.
The Sphere. Do not relativise- this is not about Physics, nor reference systems, nor Universe. This is about the Supreme - God- Atman. The way how Parmenides described it in "Parmenides". The joke was inspired by you - you mentioned Parmenides and I just wanted you to tell me what I had to tell you..
No matter.
All fine.
Be well
Aleksandar
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: My deepest disappointment for Nobel Prize Physics 2017 [accessed Jan 20, 2018]
Jan 12, 2018
Botan Jawdat Abdullah | Dear Amir W. Al-Khafaji,
Please stick to opinion discussion
Andrei Klyndyuk | According to the third law of thermodynamics, temperature of 0 K is unattainable. in other words, this temperature can not be reached in a finite number of stages of cooling of the thermodynamic system.
Peter Harremoës | Reference to the number of stages in the cooling and to the heat theorem was first made by Nernst, but as explained in
A general derivation and quantification of the third law of thermodynamics
his derivation misses the point because the third law does not rely on the heat theorem.
Eugene A. Machusky | There is no Absolute Zero in Nature, because 1/(N+1)>0.
Botan Jawdat Abdullah | Dear Amir W. Al-Khafaji,
Please stick to opinion discussion
Andrei Klyndyuk | According to the third law of thermodynamics, temperature of 0 K is unattainable. in other words, this temperature can not be reached in a finite number of stages of cooling of the thermodynamic system.
Peter Harremoës | Reference to the number of stages in the cooling and to the heat theorem was first made by Nernst, but as explained in
A general derivation and quantification of the third law of thermodynamics
his derivation misses the point because the third law does not rely on the heat theorem.
Eugene A. Machusky | There is no Absolute Zero in Nature, because 1/(N+1)>0.
Jan 13, 2018
Ahmed Saeed Hassanien | I strongly concur Kåre Olaussen.
Yes, It is impossible to reach the Zero Kelvin under any conditions by any procedure, no matter how idealized.
It can not reduce the temperature of any system to zero Kelvin temperature in a finite number of finite operations by any process.
Ahmed Saeed Hassanien | I strongly concur Kåre Olaussen.
Yes, It is impossible to reach the Zero Kelvin under any conditions by any procedure, no matter how idealized.
It can not reduce the temperature of any system to zero Kelvin temperature in a finite number of finite operations by any process.
Jan 14, 2018
Kåre Olaussen | James Garry> ...if you're content with that definition of temperature, then even negative temperatures are possible.
Yes, in some systems (with energy bounded from above, when considered in isolation) this is a reasonable description. But keep in mind that negative absolute temperatures are actually warmer than positive! This looks more understandable when parametrising in terms of β=1/(kBT), with absolute zero corresponding to β=+∞.
A. El-Denglawey | Good discussion, till now our knowledge is restricted at zero K and we have zero K behind ignorance. Also, we should taking into account that there is a big difference between system zero K and a system but in zero K medium. In the near future, quantum physics will give us more information about this lower zero K states.
Eugene A. Machusky | Exact K = e + 1/100/(1.11111111111...)^3 + Sum[602214183/10^(3*n+11)] = 2.7315999984590452... ( base of natural logarithm, plus one percent of inverse cubed qubit of Schrodinger, plus Avogadro's integral). There is no absolute Zero in natural set, and no absolute Zero of temperature.
Kåre Olaussen | James Garry> ...if you're content with that definition of temperature, then even negative temperatures are possible.
Yes, in some systems (with energy bounded from above, when considered in isolation) this is a reasonable description. But keep in mind that negative absolute temperatures are actually warmer than positive! This looks more understandable when parametrising in terms of β=1/(kBT), with absolute zero corresponding to β=+∞.
A. El-Denglawey | Good discussion, till now our knowledge is restricted at zero K and we have zero K behind ignorance. Also, we should taking into account that there is a big difference between system zero K and a system but in zero K medium. In the near future, quantum physics will give us more information about this lower zero K states.
Eugene A. Machusky | Exact K = e + 1/100/(1.11111111111...)^3 + Sum[602214183/10^(3*n+11)] = 2.7315999984590452... ( base of natural logarithm, plus one percent of inverse cubed qubit of Schrodinger, plus Avogadro's integral). There is no absolute Zero in natural set, and no absolute Zero of temperature.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Is it physically possible to reach absolute zero kelvin (temperature of 0 K)? [accessed Mar 20, 2018]
Arno Gorgels |
With a proper fundamental mathematical theory that explains facts and events in/of Nature nobody should ever think of gravitational waves... Set theory is such a theory
Marcel M. Lambrechts | The wavelength prison hypothesis explaining perception constraints?:
How can a set of conscious light/biophoton with wavelengths 'X' involved in thinking (e.g. logical thinking) truly capture/understand the characteristics of a set of photons with wavelengths 'Z'?
E. g. Accepting that 'Mathematics' results from a biased set of 'biophoton actions' expressed in the individual brain, does this set of wavelengths from biophotons overlap with sets of wavelengths of other photons expressed at other spaces/dimensions in the Universe, and if not, what might be the consequences for the understanding of actions in other dimensions involving other wavelengths?
Vasyl Komarov | I can not imagine existence in the absence of dynamics.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | This comment is no longer available
Marcel M. Lambrechts | The wavelength prison hypothesis explaining perception constraints?:
How can a set of conscious light/biophoton with wavelengths 'X' involved in thinking (e.g. logical thinking) truly capture/understand the characteristics of a set of photons with wavelengths 'Z'?
E. g. Accepting that 'Mathematics' results from a biased set of 'biophoton actions' expressed in the individual brain, does this set of wavelengths from biophotons overlap with sets of wavelengths of other photons expressed at other spaces/dimensions in the Universe, and if not, what might be the consequences for the understanding of actions in other dimensions involving other wavelengths?
Vasyl Komarov | I can not imagine existence in the absence of dynamics.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | This comment is no longer available
Jan 15, 2018
Arno Gorgels | Dear Marcel, I don't believe in Wittgenstein
Vasyl Komarov | Alexandar, I did not say that it is impossible to imagine, I said that existence and transient processes for me are synonyms.
We already discussed similar topic in the summer in another thread (can the God evolve{?!!} :)
Vasyl Komarov | ...and for everything else there is a Plato's invariant world of "eternal love".
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Anyway, what Mathematics describes are 'effects' (e.g. perceived patterns, perceived correlations), not 'causes of effects' (e.g. what people call 'forces per se' which cannot be perceived as physical entities), whatever the Theory?
PS: You can mathmatically describe the effects of a 'feeling', not the 'feeling per se'?
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Arno,
Wittgenstein is definitely very interesting author,
about as much as he is mad - these attributes are in proportion with him.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasilii,
God can not evolve:
- evolution takes place in time;
- god is immaterial and thus, not existing;
---------------
No evolution for God
{...so, як то кажуть:
NO EVOLUTION = NO CREATION, тобто, NO ACT OF CREATION ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ }
Another issue if the knowledge of God somehow, or elsewhere expands?
Can it solve a Mathematical problem that it did not consider and solve "earlier" -
in some mega-time/existence in the Eternity?
Plato and love. Especially - "eternal love".
This is rather problematic issue - they were (probably) all homosexual
in that circle - I don't know for Aristoteles.
This kind of people might be somehow even eternally hooked, as he describes
in some dialogue the origin of halves and combinations - (very imbecilic)..
But, as distortions of nature, they can hardly experience the love beyond the limits = HS,
for they should not be within the cone of HS mercy..
Greetings
Aleksandar
Vasyl Komarov | Accordingly, returning to the topic, can a specially selected inanimate ("static") basis eliminate the wave (i.e., transient) processes of existence? If this is even beyond the power of God, who, being inanimated (non-existing), can not act in principle. (It was a rhetorical question.)
Alexandar, you was looked too literally at the words in quotes, which simply mean the "ideal". Here is the song of "Агата Кристи", which was today's motivation to such label of the ideal world of Plato :)
Hovewer, it is obvious that even Plato's personal attractions have not stood the test of time (he died ~350BC), all this is about dynamics.
As we have discussed, the term "static" can be applied without any restrictions only to the term "eternity". I see no reason to be serious in discussion. Перефразируя классиков... "Мне не нужна вечная игла (для примуса), я не могу жить вечно."
Aleksandar Jovanovic | This comment is no longer available
Arno Gorgels | Dear Marcel, I don't believe in Wittgenstein
Vasyl Komarov | Alexandar, I did not say that it is impossible to imagine, I said that existence and transient processes for me are synonyms.
We already discussed similar topic in the summer in another thread (can the God evolve{?!!} :)
Vasyl Komarov | ...and for everything else there is a Plato's invariant world of "eternal love".
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Anyway, what Mathematics describes are 'effects' (e.g. perceived patterns, perceived correlations), not 'causes of effects' (e.g. what people call 'forces per se' which cannot be perceived as physical entities), whatever the Theory?
PS: You can mathmatically describe the effects of a 'feeling', not the 'feeling per se'?
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Arno,
Wittgenstein is definitely very interesting author,
about as much as he is mad - these attributes are in proportion with him.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasilii,
God can not evolve:
- evolution takes place in time;
- god is immaterial and thus, not existing;
---------------
No evolution for God
{...so, як то кажуть:
NO EVOLUTION = NO CREATION, тобто, NO ACT OF CREATION ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ }
Another issue if the knowledge of God somehow, or elsewhere expands?
Can it solve a Mathematical problem that it did not consider and solve "earlier" -
in some mega-time/existence in the Eternity?
Plato and love. Especially - "eternal love".
This is rather problematic issue - they were (probably) all homosexual
in that circle - I don't know for Aristoteles.
This kind of people might be somehow even eternally hooked, as he describes
in some dialogue the origin of halves and combinations - (very imbecilic)..
But, as distortions of nature, they can hardly experience the love beyond the limits = HS,
for they should not be within the cone of HS mercy..
Greetings
Aleksandar
Vasyl Komarov | Accordingly, returning to the topic, can a specially selected inanimate ("static") basis eliminate the wave (i.e., transient) processes of existence? If this is even beyond the power of God, who, being inanimated (non-existing), can not act in principle. (It was a rhetorical question.)
Alexandar, you was looked too literally at the words in quotes, which simply mean the "ideal". Here is the song of "Агата Кристи", which was today's motivation to such label of the ideal world of Plato :)
Hovewer, it is obvious that even Plato's personal attractions have not stood the test of time (he died ~350BC), all this is about dynamics.
As we have discussed, the term "static" can be applied without any restrictions only to the term "eternity". I see no reason to be serious in discussion. Перефразируя классиков... "Мне не нужна вечная игла (для примуса), я не могу жить вечно."
Aleksandar Jovanovic | This comment is no longer available
Jan 16, 2018
Arno Gorgels | Dear Alexander, neither an author nor being mad qualifies to understand the fundamental role of maths in nature. Without playing this role nature should be completely unstable. In your opinion, what stabilizes nature ?
Aleksandar Jovanovic | This comment is no longer available
Arno Gorgels | Dear Alexander, neither an author nor being mad qualifies to understand the fundamental role of maths in nature. Without playing this role nature should be completely unstable. In your opinion, what stabilizes nature ?
Aleksandar Jovanovic | This comment is no longer available
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: My deepest disappointment for Nobel Prize Physics 2017 [accessed Jan 20, 2018]
16 січ. 2018 р.
22:42 | Лимбическая система решает.
Ученые обнаружили нейронные связи креативного мышления
Robust prediction of individual creative ability from brain functional connectivity
2018 | DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1713532115
Jan 17, 2018
Anatolie Casian | In accordance with the laws of thermodynamics and the temperature definition it is impossible to reach zero Kelvin in a macroscopic system.
Kåre Olaussen | Regarding the value of absolute zero temperature, this was very clearly explained in a famous short paper by Beck, Bethe and Riezler, Die Naturwissenschaften, (1931) vol. 2, pp.38-9 ;)
In english translation
Remarks on the quantum theory of the absolute zero of temperature
by G. Beck, H. Bethe, and W. Riezler
Let us consider a hexagonal crystal lattice. The absolute zero temperature is characterized by the condition that all degrees of freedom are frozen. That means that all inner movements of the lattice cease. This of course does not hold for an electron on a Bohr orbital. According to Eddington, each electron has 1/α degrees of freedom, where α is the Sommerfeld fine structure constant. Beside the electrons, the crystal contains only protons for which the number of degrees of freedom is the same since, according to Dirac, the proton can be viewed as a hole in the electron gas. To obtain absolute zero temperature we therefore have to remove from the substance 2/α - 1 degrees of freedom per neutron. (The crystal as a whole is supposed to be electrically neutral; 1 neutron = 1 electron + 1 proton. One degree of freedom remains because of the orbital movement.)
For the absolute zero temperature we therefore obtain
T0 = -(2/α - 1) degrees.
If we take T0 = -273 we obtain for 1/α the value of 137 which agrees within limits with the number obtained by an entirely different method. It can be shown easily that this result is independent of the choice of crystal structure.
Anatolie Casian | In accordance with the laws of thermodynamics and the temperature definition it is impossible to reach zero Kelvin in a macroscopic system.
Kåre Olaussen | Regarding the value of absolute zero temperature, this was very clearly explained in a famous short paper by Beck, Bethe and Riezler, Die Naturwissenschaften, (1931) vol. 2, pp.38-9 ;)
In english translation
Remarks on the quantum theory of the absolute zero of temperature
by G. Beck, H. Bethe, and W. Riezler
Let us consider a hexagonal crystal lattice. The absolute zero temperature is characterized by the condition that all degrees of freedom are frozen. That means that all inner movements of the lattice cease. This of course does not hold for an electron on a Bohr orbital. According to Eddington, each electron has 1/α degrees of freedom, where α is the Sommerfeld fine structure constant. Beside the electrons, the crystal contains only protons for which the number of degrees of freedom is the same since, according to Dirac, the proton can be viewed as a hole in the electron gas. To obtain absolute zero temperature we therefore have to remove from the substance 2/α - 1 degrees of freedom per neutron. (The crystal as a whole is supposed to be electrically neutral; 1 neutron = 1 electron + 1 proton. One degree of freedom remains because of the orbital movement.)
For the absolute zero temperature we therefore obtain
T0 = -(2/α - 1) degrees.
If we take T0 = -273 we obtain for 1/α the value of 137 which agrees within limits with the number obtained by an entirely different method. It can be shown easily that this result is independent of the choice of crystal structure.
Jan 18, 2018
Eugene F Kislyakov | Interesting point, Kare.
Vasyl Komarov | In addition to this very interesting paper about degrees of freedom from Kåre, and Botan's words "I think it's hard to keep atoms from vibrating": If guided by the Schrodinger equation, it is impossible to take the energy completely from oscillator, since 1/2 remains.
Obviously, if the entire structure of matter is dynamic, it is important which components of the motion are understood as temperature (how it defines, what influence, for example, subatomic level has on molecular motion, etc.)
Since the temperature in the classical sense is meaningful only for the equilibrium state, it in itself already have filter effect for "non-contributory" components of the degrees of freedom in time average. In other (nonequilibrium) cases, the concept of temperature is strongly tied to various separate processes.
As for the laser (by the way, it also reminded me of the negative electrical resistance for the arc in the plasma torch). There energy will still be transmitted in the right direction, despite the formal counterintuitive value, which is from another side of infinity.
Abdul Malek | "I think it's hard to keep atoms from vibrating":
It is not only "hard", but it is impossible to keep atoms from "moving" and that will imply some sort of "energy" in the system. A "zero-pont" energy will always remain in a closed system according to the uncertainty principle; which will mean finite temperature; no matter how small.
From experimental attempts, people have claimed (Ref. not ready at hand) a temperature down to one millionth of a degree Kelvin.
From a dialectical (philosophical) point of view, "absolute rest" (no motion) is impossible. "There can be no matter without motion and no motion without matter".
There can never be absolute "void" or "nothing". In any volume of space (closed or open) in addition to tangible matter particle there must always be "virtual particles" (hence finite energy) according to QED and dialectics!
Eugene F Kislyakov | "Zero-point" means at absolute zero temperature, Abdul. Temperature and energy are not related directly. Usually in physics we can not observe (measure and even define!) absolute values of physical quantities (also energy), but only compare their changes (differences).
Abdul Malek | We ARE talking about "absolute (and not relative) zero temperature", which also means absolute rest; Eugene!
What about "Black Holes" that "your kind of physics" talks about so loudly?
Eugene F Kislyakov | No, Abdul. Zero temperature and entropy mean absolute order (which, of course, is not observable), not absolute rest. Consider superconductivity, for example.
Vasyl Komarov | Every joke provokes us think about something interesting.
Abdul Malek | "No, Abdul. Zero temperature and entropy mean absolute order (which, of course, is not observable), not absolute rest."
This is exactly what dialectics says and what I am saying! If it is not observable or no possibility of being observable, then what is the point of talking about it at all, as a subject of physics? Only theology may probably can do it!
But your kind of "physics" not only talks about the unobservables, but also the unknowables and "proves" them!! Big Bang, Black Holes etc. are examples.
Cheers Eugene! You, me and the the rest of EXISTING WORLD are observables and knowable - these are not illusions (or māyā in Sanskrit)!
Please see: QUASARS – RETROSPECT, PROSPECT AND AS A POINT OF DEPARTURE
Botan Jawdat Abdullah | Thank you very much for the clarification
Botan Jawdat Abdullah | Plus there is always motion at a quantum level!
Botan Jawdat Abdullah | Dear all,
Thank you for your readings, your ideas, suggestions and constructive comments.
I appreciate them.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Interesting point, Kare.
Vasyl Komarov | In addition to this very interesting paper about degrees of freedom from Kåre, and Botan's words "I think it's hard to keep atoms from vibrating": If guided by the Schrodinger equation, it is impossible to take the energy completely from oscillator, since 1/2 remains.
Obviously, if the entire structure of matter is dynamic, it is important which components of the motion are understood as temperature (how it defines, what influence, for example, subatomic level has on molecular motion, etc.)
Since the temperature in the classical sense is meaningful only for the equilibrium state, it in itself already have filter effect for "non-contributory" components of the degrees of freedom in time average. In other (nonequilibrium) cases, the concept of temperature is strongly tied to various separate processes.
As for the laser (by the way, it also reminded me of the negative electrical resistance for the arc in the plasma torch). There energy will still be transmitted in the right direction, despite the formal counterintuitive value, which is from another side of infinity.
Abdul Malek | "I think it's hard to keep atoms from vibrating":
It is not only "hard", but it is impossible to keep atoms from "moving" and that will imply some sort of "energy" in the system. A "zero-pont" energy will always remain in a closed system according to the uncertainty principle; which will mean finite temperature; no matter how small.
From experimental attempts, people have claimed (Ref. not ready at hand) a temperature down to one millionth of a degree Kelvin.
From a dialectical (philosophical) point of view, "absolute rest" (no motion) is impossible. "There can be no matter without motion and no motion without matter".
There can never be absolute "void" or "nothing". In any volume of space (closed or open) in addition to tangible matter particle there must always be "virtual particles" (hence finite energy) according to QED and dialectics!
Eugene F Kislyakov | "Zero-point" means at absolute zero temperature, Abdul. Temperature and energy are not related directly. Usually in physics we can not observe (measure and even define!) absolute values of physical quantities (also energy), but only compare their changes (differences).
Abdul Malek | We ARE talking about "absolute (and not relative) zero temperature", which also means absolute rest; Eugene!
What about "Black Holes" that "your kind of physics" talks about so loudly?
Eugene F Kislyakov | No, Abdul. Zero temperature and entropy mean absolute order (which, of course, is not observable), not absolute rest. Consider superconductivity, for example.
Vasyl Komarov | Every joke provokes us think about something interesting.
Abdul Malek | "No, Abdul. Zero temperature and entropy mean absolute order (which, of course, is not observable), not absolute rest."
This is exactly what dialectics says and what I am saying! If it is not observable or no possibility of being observable, then what is the point of talking about it at all, as a subject of physics? Only theology may probably can do it!
But your kind of "physics" not only talks about the unobservables, but also the unknowables and "proves" them!! Big Bang, Black Holes etc. are examples.
Cheers Eugene! You, me and the the rest of EXISTING WORLD are observables and knowable - these are not illusions (or māyā in Sanskrit)!
Please see: QUASARS – RETROSPECT, PROSPECT AND AS A POINT OF DEPARTURE
Botan Jawdat Abdullah | Thank you very much for the clarification
Botan Jawdat Abdullah | Plus there is always motion at a quantum level!
Botan Jawdat Abdullah | Dear all,
Thank you for your readings, your ideas, suggestions and constructive comments.
I appreciate them.
Jan 19, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Abdul, about the unobservable (at the moment) makes sense to talk. At least for the reason that otherwise it is impossible to put forward hypotheses.
Just think, if Leucippus and Democritus were not talking about atoms in their time? Or if Tycho Brahe was not talking about the parallax of stars in the fifteenth century?... For their contemporaries, and even for them, the atoms and the universe in which the Earth revolves around the Sun were just an illusion, almost nothing better than any other illusion (here "almost" is the keyword.)
I must quote again words (slightly in the free form) that reflects the essence of matter: "It is important to realize that agnosticism means not only a lack of faith that God exists or does not exist, but no faith at all. That is, the agnostic does not believe in anything. He may allow anything, assume as probable, but believe (or even "absolutely precisely know" what is essentially the same faith) - no, it can not. In fact, agnosticism is cognition, which is based on doubts, lack of confidence. The scientist is obliged to be agnostic (not an atheist!), Because all of science is based on the absence of dogma (in any direction) and also the opportunity to refute any scientific theory (see. Popper's criterion). Otherwise, premature affirmative answer to unprovable at the moment question immediately sends it to archive. After this, termination of finding answers to a number of other questions will follow (such as: Is there life on Mars, how many molecules in one liter, etc.), which inevitably leads to the death of science and the lack of any progress."
Vasyl Komarov | There is an important interesting point in connection of thermodynamics with quantum theory, I quote self from the old discussion in ZEUS project of dear Erkki:
At the macro level classical thermodynamics deals with entropy. Is this a manifestation of uncertainty? ("Uncertainty - the lack of certainty. A state of having limited knowledge where it is impossible to exactly describe the existing state.")
After all, in thermodynamics we assumed that we can specify the exact values of dynamical state. But in practice we must for this purpose get down to the molecular level and further, so we, in principle, not able to identify exact instantaneous state of the parts of dynamical system (in accordance with QM). I.e., in fact, the statistical description is not only a consequence of the desire to get away from the complete set of parameters of large number of objects of a thermodynamic system.
In addition, "first principles" for statistical derivation of the thermodynamic quantities ends on an sufficiently idealized model of particles. There is a clear problem - the gap between real dynamic system and used as a model of thermodynamics - this is the second plus to macro uncertainty. Which implies that the macroscopic level in the thermodynamic model have separate life without "backward compatibility" with mechanics of real system. This gap is interesting from the point of view of Universality (independence macro parameters of the dynamic system from dynamical parts of it).
Abdul Malek | Dear Eugene,
I just piled up one more recommendation for your comment (addressed to me), but only to “honour” the big name “physicists” of RG; who had recommended you, earlier! You are in good company Eugene! Monetary value; Awards from the Vatican and the Nobel Committee; the blessing of the international Public Press and good old “popular vote” (but not the rational intellect) determines the merit of “New Physics”!
We also “honoured” the even bigger named "physicists" of RG in the forum by Dr. Wolfgang Engelhardt: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory
We honoured them even more by seeing off the “challenge” to them, from the “Quixotes” of "New Physics"; who dishonour the holy and divine congregation of “New Physics”, in the name of “scientific debate”! Few of us including (ailing) Engelhardt, celebrated this “honouring” very recently, in the historic pub (Hofbrauhaus Freising, now Weissbräu Huber) over ‘German Beer and Sausage’; in the oldest Bavarian town - Freising, near München.
München happens to be a favourite city for us to celebrate the “Achievements of New Physics”. Also in München some years back; few of us including (now Late) Chip Arp, celebrated the greatest discovery of the 20th century (if not of ALL times!) – “The Face of God” by George Smoot of COBE fame! Cheers!
Eugene A. Machusky | Vasil Komarov gave the best answer.
Eugene F Kislyakov | @Eugene A. Machusky,
Correct spelling is Vasil', Belarus'... and so on.
Eugene A. Machusky | Так, згоден, він Василь, а ми - Євгени.
Eugene F Kislyakov | In belarussian, Яуген.
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasyl,
I think by now, I have given enough reason in RG forums, for my assertion that Einsteinian “New Physics” is nothing but pure and simple theology! As I said to Eugene above, we even celebrated this triumph of “New Physics” recently in Freising near München!
You do not have to try to convince this insignificant fellow like me (with no one even to recommend my post!) about your kind of “physics”! This “physics” has been “proved” with Nobel recognition of Eugene’s “unobservable absolute order” i.e., “Black Holes”, even recently with the help of GW, and the “face” of “unobservable God” through COBE in 1992! What more convincing you need to do?
The fact of the matter is that your kind of “physics” is in a fix; because of its reliance on the world view of what Hegel called “the view of understanding” or the “either/or" category (with an excluded middle) - or Dualism of Cartesian materialism at its best. This Dualism leads your physics, on the one extreme to crass mechanical materialism of de La Mettrie; and on the other to the theological God through the mathematical phantasm of Plato and Einstein. There is no escape from this fate of your kind of physics; no matter how much you try either one way or the other! The laws of both classical physics and thermodynamics have limited or no validity for "real and dialectical physics" specially at quantum level.
Just compare what your celebrated “philosopher of science” Karl Popper says about the relation of evolution and quantum theory on the end of crass mechanical materialism; and your prophet Albert Einstein says on the other end, namely theology!
Karl Popper: "Yet the doctrine that man is a machine was argued most forcefully in 1751, long before the theory of evolution became generally accepted, by de La Mettrie; and the theory of evolution gave the problem an even sharper edge, by suggesting there may be no clear distinction between living matter and dead matter. And, in spite of the victory of the new quantum theory, and the conversion of so many physicists to indeterminism de La Mettrie's doctrine that man is a machine has perhaps more defenders than before among physicists, biologists and philosophers; especially in the form of the thesis that man is a computer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_a_Machine
Eugene F Kislyakov | What You are speaking about (GW and so on), Abdul, are social problems, and they can not be solved in RG.
Your last Einstein's citation is totally logical and I can sign it also.
On the other hand, it is interesting for me, what logic do You see in quantum mechanics?
Vasyl Komarov | Abdul, about the unobservable (at the moment) makes sense to talk. At least for the reason that otherwise it is impossible to put forward hypotheses.
Just think, if Leucippus and Democritus were not talking about atoms in their time? Or if Tycho Brahe was not talking about the parallax of stars in the fifteenth century?... For their contemporaries, and even for them, the atoms and the universe in which the Earth revolves around the Sun were just an illusion, almost nothing better than any other illusion (here "almost" is the keyword.)
I must quote again words (slightly in the free form) that reflects the essence of matter: "It is important to realize that agnosticism means not only a lack of faith that God exists or does not exist, but no faith at all. That is, the agnostic does not believe in anything. He may allow anything, assume as probable, but believe (or even "absolutely precisely know" what is essentially the same faith) - no, it can not. In fact, agnosticism is cognition, which is based on doubts, lack of confidence. The scientist is obliged to be agnostic (not an atheist!), Because all of science is based on the absence of dogma (in any direction) and also the opportunity to refute any scientific theory (see. Popper's criterion). Otherwise, premature affirmative answer to unprovable at the moment question immediately sends it to archive. After this, termination of finding answers to a number of other questions will follow (such as: Is there life on Mars, how many molecules in one liter, etc.), which inevitably leads to the death of science and the lack of any progress."
Vasyl Komarov | There is an important interesting point in connection of thermodynamics with quantum theory, I quote self from the old discussion in ZEUS project of dear Erkki:
At the macro level classical thermodynamics deals with entropy. Is this a manifestation of uncertainty? ("Uncertainty - the lack of certainty. A state of having limited knowledge where it is impossible to exactly describe the existing state.")
After all, in thermodynamics we assumed that we can specify the exact values of dynamical state. But in practice we must for this purpose get down to the molecular level and further, so we, in principle, not able to identify exact instantaneous state of the parts of dynamical system (in accordance with QM). I.e., in fact, the statistical description is not only a consequence of the desire to get away from the complete set of parameters of large number of objects of a thermodynamic system.
In addition, "first principles" for statistical derivation of the thermodynamic quantities ends on an sufficiently idealized model of particles. There is a clear problem - the gap between real dynamic system and used as a model of thermodynamics - this is the second plus to macro uncertainty. Which implies that the macroscopic level in the thermodynamic model have separate life without "backward compatibility" with mechanics of real system. This gap is interesting from the point of view of Universality (independence macro parameters of the dynamic system from dynamical parts of it).
Abdul Malek | Dear Eugene,
I just piled up one more recommendation for your comment (addressed to me), but only to “honour” the big name “physicists” of RG; who had recommended you, earlier! You are in good company Eugene! Monetary value; Awards from the Vatican and the Nobel Committee; the blessing of the international Public Press and good old “popular vote” (but not the rational intellect) determines the merit of “New Physics”!
We also “honoured” the even bigger named "physicists" of RG in the forum by Dr. Wolfgang Engelhardt: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory
We honoured them even more by seeing off the “challenge” to them, from the “Quixotes” of "New Physics"; who dishonour the holy and divine congregation of “New Physics”, in the name of “scientific debate”! Few of us including (ailing) Engelhardt, celebrated this “honouring” very recently, in the historic pub (Hofbrauhaus Freising, now Weissbräu Huber) over ‘German Beer and Sausage’; in the oldest Bavarian town - Freising, near München.
München happens to be a favourite city for us to celebrate the “Achievements of New Physics”. Also in München some years back; few of us including (now Late) Chip Arp, celebrated the greatest discovery of the 20th century (if not of ALL times!) – “The Face of God” by George Smoot of COBE fame! Cheers!
Eugene A. Machusky | Vasil Komarov gave the best answer.
Eugene F Kislyakov | @Eugene A. Machusky,
Correct spelling is Vasil', Belarus'... and so on.
Eugene A. Machusky | Так, згоден, він Василь, а ми - Євгени.
Eugene F Kislyakov | In belarussian, Яуген.
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasyl,
I think by now, I have given enough reason in RG forums, for my assertion that Einsteinian “New Physics” is nothing but pure and simple theology! As I said to Eugene above, we even celebrated this triumph of “New Physics” recently in Freising near München!
You do not have to try to convince this insignificant fellow like me (with no one even to recommend my post!) about your kind of “physics”! This “physics” has been “proved” with Nobel recognition of Eugene’s “unobservable absolute order” i.e., “Black Holes”, even recently with the help of GW, and the “face” of “unobservable God” through COBE in 1992! What more convincing you need to do?
The fact of the matter is that your kind of “physics” is in a fix; because of its reliance on the world view of what Hegel called “the view of understanding” or the “either/or" category (with an excluded middle) - or Dualism of Cartesian materialism at its best. This Dualism leads your physics, on the one extreme to crass mechanical materialism of de La Mettrie; and on the other to the theological God through the mathematical phantasm of Plato and Einstein. There is no escape from this fate of your kind of physics; no matter how much you try either one way or the other! The laws of both classical physics and thermodynamics have limited or no validity for "real and dialectical physics" specially at quantum level.
Just compare what your celebrated “philosopher of science” Karl Popper says about the relation of evolution and quantum theory on the end of crass mechanical materialism; and your prophet Albert Einstein says on the other end, namely theology!
Karl Popper: "Yet the doctrine that man is a machine was argued most forcefully in 1751, long before the theory of evolution became generally accepted, by de La Mettrie; and the theory of evolution gave the problem an even sharper edge, by suggesting there may be no clear distinction between living matter and dead matter. And, in spite of the victory of the new quantum theory, and the conversion of so many physicists to indeterminism de La Mettrie's doctrine that man is a machine has perhaps more defenders than before among physicists, biologists and philosophers; especially in the form of the thesis that man is a computer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_a_Machine
“Our experience hitherto justifies us in believing that nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas. I am convinced that we can discover by means of purely mathematical constructions the concepts and the laws connecting them with each other, which furnish the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. … In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed”You are making a lame comparison of Leucippus, Democritus and Tycho Brahe who were materialists, observing tangible material objects and made rationally valid conclusion about some physical operations (like breaking a piece of matter to smaller and smaller until you could cut no more); with the phantasm of “pure thought” – a "shadow on the wall of a cave" for Plato, or a “blackhole” of “absolute order” of Einstein!
— A. Einstein, “Essays in Science”, Translated by Alan Harris from “Mein Weltbild, Quedro Verlag, Amsterdam, 1933), The Wisdom Library, N.Y., p48 – 49, (1934).
Eugene F Kislyakov | What You are speaking about (GW and so on), Abdul, are social problems, and they can not be solved in RG.
Your last Einstein's citation is totally logical and I can sign it also.
On the other hand, it is interesting for me, what logic do You see in quantum mechanics?
— ResearchGate. Available from: Is it physically possible to reach absolute zero kelvin (temperature of 0 K)? [accessed Mar 20, 2018]
Jan 19, 2018
Vijay Kumar | Agreed. (Marcel M. Lambrechts and Aleksandar Jovanovic)
We actually don't prove anything. What we do is make as many hypothesis as we can and all we do is eliminate the wrong(s) ones,(falsifiability) so one can always propose a new theory (which has to satisfy criteria of conservatism , that is the new proposed theory should , in some limits agree with the tested exiting theorem. ) this is where science bifurcate from religions, we more interested in falsifiable unifying theorem rather permanent theories.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | O Arno,
then you are a happy man :)
Greetings
Aleksandar
Vijay Kumar | Agreed. (Marcel M. Lambrechts and Aleksandar Jovanovic)
We actually don't prove anything. What we do is make as many hypothesis as we can and all we do is eliminate the wrong(s) ones,(falsifiability) so one can always propose a new theory (which has to satisfy criteria of conservatism , that is the new proposed theory should , in some limits agree with the tested exiting theorem. ) this is where science bifurcate from religions, we more interested in falsifiable unifying theorem rather permanent theories.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | O Arno,
then you are a happy man :)
Greetings
Aleksandar
Jan 20, 2018
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Given you don't prove anything, just look for robust patterns/robust associations? You cannot falsify robust patterns/associations, you only can falsify 'interpretations' why these patterns/associations exist? Can you falsify in general given that falsification might be scale-dependent, e.g. an…
Demetris Christopoulos | No dear Arturo Tozzi,
All that you mentioned is a mass collection of data, an overdose of data, nothing else.
The main game is still being played under the guides of your famous compatriot Niccolò Machiavelli...
Please do not confuse data quantity with data quality.
Read a relevant paper of me, (...)
Marcel M. Lambrechts | I agree that you might gather long-term data in Framework X without necessarily being able to correctly interpret changes in patterns/associations... Note that in Cosmology you cannot design experiments, you only perceive patterns.
Example:
Let's assume that Cosmology is based on the description of the movements of clusters of flickering lights without being able to design an experiment. Imagine now that an Ornithologist would only have access to a powerful telescope to observe a flock of moving birds. Would the ornithologist be able to truly understand the biology of birds in general based on observations of the movements of distant bird flocks?
Vasyl Komarov | Marcel, you are right, with a little caveat: the principle of mediocrity - for example, the LHC is built here, and not at the back end of the telescopes. But, of course, all the controversies about models, even for ornithologists, who can touch the birds with their hands - everything is known through qualia. A discussion of interpretations, which, in addition, in the process of communication are the next interpretation.
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Vasyl, if you have 100 satellites moving around planet Earth, and all having vibration measurement devices, I would predict that when a 'gravity wave' is passing by that is disassociated from Earth geology movements per se, that the vibration should be expressed simultaneously in all 100 satellites (...)
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Marcel,
sensitivity of scientific instrumentation counts.
Talib Abbas | Marcel,
Any hypothesis should be simulated mathematically to reveal its consequences.
Vasyl Komarov | Marcel, for start it makes sense to wait more detectors, at least on Earth. We have poor eyesight. For example, it's very interesting for me. And statistics on linking with events in other types of detectors. Most of the questions will fall off.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasili,
it is just the question of (short) time..
the issue is big enough, they will invest.
Vasyl Komarov | Aleksandar, of course. Further, mankind will have to deal with even more ambitious projects, such as the colonization of the Solar system. Evolution suggests no other way.
All the possible processes connected with the Earth's crust can be easily distinguished, since they are essentially limited by reflections inside the cyclic orbit corresponding to the surface of the planet. And for this, we do not need a lot of detectors to see the dynamics.
Vasyl Komarov | ...ambitions evolves with mankind.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasili,
the concept of physical colonization of other planets and worlds
is very primitive and very limited.
Imagine only the Milky way..
In order to make trans galactic and Universal journeys we need some
modifications. E.g. if we are converted to the EM essence, encoding even
peripheral staff, which all might be solvable sooner,
we could be beamed elsewhere.
Then only remaining issues:
- could we stay and live while riding the EM beam;
- eventual trivial materialization at the appropriate sites..
The former seem to be solvable; The later more complex right now,
but human history is full of tricks.
Never give up.
Vasyl Komarov | Aleksandar, this is a question of the self-sufficiency of the structure. I do not yet see such an opportunity for the memory solely in the form of force carriers. Evolutionary memory, which survives invariant, relies on all components of the system. So it is necessary to act by what we have. Without making attempts today, we can be dissipated sooner than we want, not satisfied with insatiable curiosity.
Perhaps, someday we will learn how to recreate the necessary part of the dynamic system in another part of the universe by the right influence on the whole set of processes from this part (what is called teleportation).
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Given you don't prove anything, just look for robust patterns/robust associations? You cannot falsify robust patterns/associations, you only can falsify 'interpretations' why these patterns/associations exist? Can you falsify in general given that falsification might be scale-dependent, e.g. an…
Demetris Christopoulos | No dear Arturo Tozzi,
All that you mentioned is a mass collection of data, an overdose of data, nothing else.
The main game is still being played under the guides of your famous compatriot Niccolò Machiavelli...
Please do not confuse data quantity with data quality.
Read a relevant paper of me, (...)
Marcel M. Lambrechts | I agree that you might gather long-term data in Framework X without necessarily being able to correctly interpret changes in patterns/associations... Note that in Cosmology you cannot design experiments, you only perceive patterns.
Example:
Let's assume that Cosmology is based on the description of the movements of clusters of flickering lights without being able to design an experiment. Imagine now that an Ornithologist would only have access to a powerful telescope to observe a flock of moving birds. Would the ornithologist be able to truly understand the biology of birds in general based on observations of the movements of distant bird flocks?
Vasyl Komarov | Marcel, you are right, with a little caveat: the principle of mediocrity - for example, the LHC is built here, and not at the back end of the telescopes. But, of course, all the controversies about models, even for ornithologists, who can touch the birds with their hands - everything is known through qualia. A discussion of interpretations, which, in addition, in the process of communication are the next interpretation.
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Vasyl, if you have 100 satellites moving around planet Earth, and all having vibration measurement devices, I would predict that when a 'gravity wave' is passing by that is disassociated from Earth geology movements per se, that the vibration should be expressed simultaneously in all 100 satellites (...)
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Marcel,
sensitivity of scientific instrumentation counts.
Talib Abbas | Marcel,
Any hypothesis should be simulated mathematically to reveal its consequences.
Vasyl Komarov | Marcel, for start it makes sense to wait more detectors, at least on Earth. We have poor eyesight. For example, it's very interesting for me. And statistics on linking with events in other types of detectors. Most of the questions will fall off.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasili,
it is just the question of (short) time..
the issue is big enough, they will invest.
Vasyl Komarov | Aleksandar, of course. Further, mankind will have to deal with even more ambitious projects, such as the colonization of the Solar system. Evolution suggests no other way.
All the possible processes connected with the Earth's crust can be easily distinguished, since they are essentially limited by reflections inside the cyclic orbit corresponding to the surface of the planet. And for this, we do not need a lot of detectors to see the dynamics.
Vasyl Komarov | ...ambitions evolves with mankind.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasili,
the concept of physical colonization of other planets and worlds
is very primitive and very limited.
Imagine only the Milky way..
In order to make trans galactic and Universal journeys we need some
modifications. E.g. if we are converted to the EM essence, encoding even
peripheral staff, which all might be solvable sooner,
we could be beamed elsewhere.
Then only remaining issues:
- could we stay and live while riding the EM beam;
- eventual trivial materialization at the appropriate sites..
The former seem to be solvable; The later more complex right now,
but human history is full of tricks.
Never give up.
Vasyl Komarov | Aleksandar, this is a question of the self-sufficiency of the structure. I do not yet see such an opportunity for the memory solely in the form of force carriers. Evolutionary memory, which survives invariant, relies on all components of the system. So it is necessary to act by what we have. Without making attempts today, we can be dissipated sooner than we want, not satisfied with insatiable curiosity.
Perhaps, someday we will learn how to recreate the necessary part of the dynamic system in another part of the universe by the right influence on the whole set of processes from this part (what is called teleportation).
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: My deepest disappointment for Nobel Prize Physics 2017 [accessed Jan 20, 2018]
Jan 20, 2018
Abdul Malek | @Eugene F Kislyakov,
“What You are speaking about (GW and so on), Abdul, are social problems, and they can not be solved in RG.”
Dear Eugene, With these words and recommending my (a heretic!) comment, you are committing a sacrilege! I must warn you that your admirers in RG (including the big-name physicists like Prof. Kåre Olaussen, who recommended you) and the whole army of so-called “atheist physicists” will be up in arms against you! “GW and so on” are not “social problems” as you suggest! For them these are the “truths of all truth” of modern physics and the “fundamental basis of objective reality” and so on!
“Your last Einstein's citation is totally logical and I can sign it also.”
I am not sure most scientists will agree with you! If you accept what Einstein says, then what is the need or meaning of doing natural science and all the mega experiments, at all! You can know everything in the world by doing only simple mathematics!
“On the other hand, it is interesting for me, what logic do You see in quantum mechanics?”
Quantum phenomena of “chance & necessity; is the best representation of dialectics. Hegel distinguished his dialectics (“the View of Reason”) as being superior to the philosophy based on causality or what he called (“the View of Understanding”). Causality in an iterative way always and without fail, leads to a “first cause” - the “effect” of a “cause” that always remain unknown and hence a mystery, like God, Big Bang, etc. So, no matter how you proceed, causality will only bring mystery for you and no positive knowledge – scientific, philosophical or theological! You are forever doomed to deal only with mystery, one after the other! With causality you have to depend on either the grass determinism of only pure necessity or the esoteric multiverse of pure chance!
For dialectics, on the contrary, everything or every process (or any existence at all) is a contradiction of the “unity of the opposites”. The opposites (like both “being & nothing”, “chance & necessity”, “good & bad” etc., for examples) reside together in a single unit; which is obviously a logical contradiction! But because “reason” of dialectics cannot remain in a contradiction; this contradiction must be resolved or removed. But the irony of dialectics is that the resolution of one contradiction leads to other contradictions in a never-ending process of change, evolution, motion, development etc., forever; giving rise to the manifestation of this dynamic, eternal and infinite universe as a self-guided process!
To know the universe without any mystery at all, you only have to unveil (through empirical investigation) the two opposites in the major contradiction of a thing or a process and understanding the dialectical leaps through which any change, evolution etc., takes place to resolve this contradiction. This way you get a mystery-free understanding of Nature, the cosmos and the universe; as far as natural science has given us the level of empirical knowledge so far.
Hegel, Marx, Engels and Lenin used dialectics for an understanding of the dynamics of human history, society and thought. Following Frederick Engels on Dialectics of Nature, I have used the dialectical method in attempts for an understanding of cosmology and the quantum world. Others are using dialectics to understand the dynamics of the evolution of life and biology in general. You have to read and understand the works of these people and my humble works and publications (an on going process) to see how this can be done! For quantum electrodynamics (as you seem to show interest) please see my article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for the Resolution of Wave-Particle Duality and Other Anomalies of the Quantum Phenomena.
Eugene F Kislyakov | I think, that resolution of contradictions gives new reality, Abdul. Science is also reality. May be the resolution of contradictions of quantum mechanics will give us new reality after some time.
Abdul Malek | The resolution of the contradictions of the quantum processes is the most fundamental condition and the ultimate basis of all existence and everything that “comes into being, evolves (individually and collectively as species) and goes out of existence” in this eternal and infinite universe. There is no existence in which the contradictions of the quantum state are not being resolved continually and eternally. You do not have to wait for “a new reality after some time”, Eugene!
This is the very reason the answer to the question of this forum: “Is it physically possible to reach absolute zero kelvin?” is an emphatic NO! This is not possible even theoretically! For quantum dynamics and dialectics, there can never be perfect order or perfect rest; an idea wrongly conceived by Parmenides and all other idealist philosophers, including Hegel’s “Absolute Idea” and Einstein’s perfect “primordial atom” before the "Big Bang" creation. There can be no matter without motion and no motion without matter.
The idea of a perfect and existing “primordial atom” which suddenly exploded in a “Big Bang” to give rise to this universe, or matter collecting back into the perfect (motionless) order in a so-called “Black Holes” are fictions and Fairy Tales made up by our minds and our mathematics! Cheers!
Abdul Malek | @Eugene F Kislyakov,
“What You are speaking about (GW and so on), Abdul, are social problems, and they can not be solved in RG.”
Dear Eugene, With these words and recommending my (a heretic!) comment, you are committing a sacrilege! I must warn you that your admirers in RG (including the big-name physicists like Prof. Kåre Olaussen, who recommended you) and the whole army of so-called “atheist physicists” will be up in arms against you! “GW and so on” are not “social problems” as you suggest! For them these are the “truths of all truth” of modern physics and the “fundamental basis of objective reality” and so on!
“Your last Einstein's citation is totally logical and I can sign it also.”
I am not sure most scientists will agree with you! If you accept what Einstein says, then what is the need or meaning of doing natural science and all the mega experiments, at all! You can know everything in the world by doing only simple mathematics!
“On the other hand, it is interesting for me, what logic do You see in quantum mechanics?”
Quantum phenomena of “chance & necessity; is the best representation of dialectics. Hegel distinguished his dialectics (“the View of Reason”) as being superior to the philosophy based on causality or what he called (“the View of Understanding”). Causality in an iterative way always and without fail, leads to a “first cause” - the “effect” of a “cause” that always remain unknown and hence a mystery, like God, Big Bang, etc. So, no matter how you proceed, causality will only bring mystery for you and no positive knowledge – scientific, philosophical or theological! You are forever doomed to deal only with mystery, one after the other! With causality you have to depend on either the grass determinism of only pure necessity or the esoteric multiverse of pure chance!
For dialectics, on the contrary, everything or every process (or any existence at all) is a contradiction of the “unity of the opposites”. The opposites (like both “being & nothing”, “chance & necessity”, “good & bad” etc., for examples) reside together in a single unit; which is obviously a logical contradiction! But because “reason” of dialectics cannot remain in a contradiction; this contradiction must be resolved or removed. But the irony of dialectics is that the resolution of one contradiction leads to other contradictions in a never-ending process of change, evolution, motion, development etc., forever; giving rise to the manifestation of this dynamic, eternal and infinite universe as a self-guided process!
To know the universe without any mystery at all, you only have to unveil (through empirical investigation) the two opposites in the major contradiction of a thing or a process and understanding the dialectical leaps through which any change, evolution etc., takes place to resolve this contradiction. This way you get a mystery-free understanding of Nature, the cosmos and the universe; as far as natural science has given us the level of empirical knowledge so far.
Hegel, Marx, Engels and Lenin used dialectics for an understanding of the dynamics of human history, society and thought. Following Frederick Engels on Dialectics of Nature, I have used the dialectical method in attempts for an understanding of cosmology and the quantum world. Others are using dialectics to understand the dynamics of the evolution of life and biology in general. You have to read and understand the works of these people and my humble works and publications (an on going process) to see how this can be done! For quantum electrodynamics (as you seem to show interest) please see my article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for the Resolution of Wave-Particle Duality and Other Anomalies of the Quantum Phenomena.
Eugene F Kislyakov | I think, that resolution of contradictions gives new reality, Abdul. Science is also reality. May be the resolution of contradictions of quantum mechanics will give us new reality after some time.
Abdul Malek | The resolution of the contradictions of the quantum processes is the most fundamental condition and the ultimate basis of all existence and everything that “comes into being, evolves (individually and collectively as species) and goes out of existence” in this eternal and infinite universe. There is no existence in which the contradictions of the quantum state are not being resolved continually and eternally. You do not have to wait for “a new reality after some time”, Eugene!
This is the very reason the answer to the question of this forum: “Is it physically possible to reach absolute zero kelvin?” is an emphatic NO! This is not possible even theoretically! For quantum dynamics and dialectics, there can never be perfect order or perfect rest; an idea wrongly conceived by Parmenides and all other idealist philosophers, including Hegel’s “Absolute Idea” and Einstein’s perfect “primordial atom” before the "Big Bang" creation. There can be no matter without motion and no motion without matter.
The idea of a perfect and existing “primordial atom” which suddenly exploded in a “Big Bang” to give rise to this universe, or matter collecting back into the perfect (motionless) order in a so-called “Black Holes” are fictions and Fairy Tales made up by our minds and our mathematics! Cheers!
(Mar 20, 2018)
Anil Gite | if physically it is possible to achieve the zero kelvin temperature then what about the entropy of the system at this ideal temp. it like to be ideal and can not be achieved in practical purposes.
Eugene A. Machusky | Central background temperature of dynamic space is number E - base of natural logarithm (universal temporal number). Field of background temperature is limited by Euler number E and Kelvin number K. Exact K unit is sum of E, Schrodinger qubit number AS = 1/100/(1.111...)^3 = 0.00729 and Avogadro qubit number BS = Sum{602214183/10^(3*N+11) = 0.00602817. Exact kelvin is sum of one transcendental number and two rational numbers K=E+AS+BS = 2.7315999984590452... < 2.7316. But you never can reach the end of transcendental number. There is no absolute Zero in nature: (N+1) < Infinity and 1/(N+1) > Zero. Quantum physics is calculus of finite differentials where absolute zero of temperature is minus (100*K-1/100) = - 273.14999984590452... > -273.15 = T0. It is fatal mistake quantum thermodynamics!
Anil Gite | if physically it is possible to achieve the zero kelvin temperature then what about the entropy of the system at this ideal temp. it like to be ideal and can not be achieved in practical purposes.
Eugene A. Machusky | Central background temperature of dynamic space is number E - base of natural logarithm (universal temporal number). Field of background temperature is limited by Euler number E and Kelvin number K. Exact K unit is sum of E, Schrodinger qubit number AS = 1/100/(1.111...)^3 = 0.00729 and Avogadro qubit number BS = Sum{602214183/10^(3*N+11) = 0.00602817. Exact kelvin is sum of one transcendental number and two rational numbers K=E+AS+BS = 2.7315999984590452... < 2.7316. But you never can reach the end of transcendental number. There is no absolute Zero in nature: (N+1) < Infinity and 1/(N+1) > Zero. Quantum physics is calculus of finite differentials where absolute zero of temperature is minus (100*K-1/100) = - 273.14999984590452... > -273.15 = T0. It is fatal mistake quantum thermodynamics!
— ResearchGate. Available from: Is it physically possible to reach absolute zero kelvin (temperature of 0 K)? [accessed Mar 20, 2018]
26 січ. 2018 р.
17:24 | В догонку, к вопросам участия лимбической системы в креативном процессе, методам Монте-Карло ...можно добраться до перколяции, как физического процесса в системе?
Модель случайного блуждания описала процесс появления новых научных идей
Network Dynamics of Innovation Processes
2018 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.048301 | pdf
Математики научились моделировать процесс появления инноваций
Dynamics on expanding spaces: modeling the emergence of novelties
2017 | arXiv:1701.00994 | DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-24403-7_5
Feb 1, 2018
Yin Zhu | Dear friends, The key for Einstein’s theory of relativity is that whether or not the relative space and time (the length contraction and time dilation) is true. If it was true, in any sense, the theory of relativity should be a great theory. But, it is the fact that the relative space and time only is a faked story. The determined evidence is that, in the high energy accelerator, the speed of particles is highest close to the speed of light and the condition is stable, precession and repeatable. But, not length contraction and time dilation were observed in it. Then, why the relative space and time was observed in other object? It is certain, these observations are false. For example, it is not true that the life of the high speed mesons is longer than that of the stationary ones. First, there are not the stationary particles. Second, the mesons decay with N(t)=N0e-ikt. The life of some mesons is longer than others. Third, determinedly, if the number N0 of the so-called stationary mesons are larger than that of the high speed ones, the mean life of the so-called stationary mesons may longer than that of the high speed ones.
As the relative space and time only is a faked story, the coordinate transformation for it, including the Lorentz transformation, also is only a faked story. So, may I advise the friends who try to advance the theory of relativity or to develop new theory from it. If the space and time are not relative, these tries are not sense.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Yin Zhu, association of a number N_0 with stationary particles, especially when applied to transient (fundamentally unstable) mesons (having integer spin, like gauge bosons or in other words, carriers of forces) is an absurd logic. The standard model in the form of a table of "particles" is just a set of labels. Behind them lies a single physical process, but this does not mean that you can apply unified approach to these labels in your understanding.
It's time to think about what particles are, when you think about them at the level of the logic of pre-quantum physics.
Yin Zhu | Dear Dr. Vasyl Fedorovych Komarov,
Thank you very much for your comment.
I am unable to understand your words well.
Do you mean that N(t)=N0e-ikt is unsuitable for the unstable mesons?
I do not think so. In my knowledge, it is just for the unstable particles.
And, the relativists (experts of the theory of relativity) also used it although they introduced the Lorentz factor in it.
Best
Vasyl Komarov | I just pointed out that mesons should have virtual status in relation to the "stable" material world, therefore, you can not talk freely about the values of N_0 more than 1.
Vasyl Komarov | In other words, physics collects statistics of their whole dynamical life, rather than counts the number of decayed entities.
Yin Zhu | Dear friends, The key for Einstein’s theory of relativity is that whether or not the relative space and time (the length contraction and time dilation) is true. If it was true, in any sense, the theory of relativity should be a great theory. But, it is the fact that the relative space and time only is a faked story. The determined evidence is that, in the high energy accelerator, the speed of particles is highest close to the speed of light and the condition is stable, precession and repeatable. But, not length contraction and time dilation were observed in it. Then, why the relative space and time was observed in other object? It is certain, these observations are false. For example, it is not true that the life of the high speed mesons is longer than that of the stationary ones. First, there are not the stationary particles. Second, the mesons decay with N(t)=N0e-ikt. The life of some mesons is longer than others. Third, determinedly, if the number N0 of the so-called stationary mesons are larger than that of the high speed ones, the mean life of the so-called stationary mesons may longer than that of the high speed ones.
As the relative space and time only is a faked story, the coordinate transformation for it, including the Lorentz transformation, also is only a faked story. So, may I advise the friends who try to advance the theory of relativity or to develop new theory from it. If the space and time are not relative, these tries are not sense.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Yin Zhu, association of a number N_0 with stationary particles, especially when applied to transient (fundamentally unstable) mesons (having integer spin, like gauge bosons or in other words, carriers of forces) is an absurd logic. The standard model in the form of a table of "particles" is just a set of labels. Behind them lies a single physical process, but this does not mean that you can apply unified approach to these labels in your understanding.
It's time to think about what particles are, when you think about them at the level of the logic of pre-quantum physics.
Yin Zhu | Dear Dr. Vasyl Fedorovych Komarov,
Thank you very much for your comment.
I am unable to understand your words well.
Do you mean that N(t)=N0e-ikt is unsuitable for the unstable mesons?
I do not think so. In my knowledge, it is just for the unstable particles.
And, the relativists (experts of the theory of relativity) also used it although they introduced the Lorentz factor in it.
Best
Vasyl Komarov | I just pointed out that mesons should have virtual status in relation to the "stable" material world, therefore, you can not talk freely about the values of N_0 more than 1.
Vasyl Komarov | In other words, physics collects statistics of their whole dynamical life, rather than counts the number of decayed entities.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Feb 1, 2018]
10 лют. 2018 р.
12:50 | Thinking in a second language drains the imagination of vividness
Один из {негативных} побочных эффектов формализации мышления, особенно вредный для образного мышления. Чем больше фильтров проходит информация, тем более сухая "инвариантная к ним" она становится. Об этом стоит иногда задумываться, особенно научному сообществу, зачастую вынужденному использовать как минимум также английский.
Using a foreign language reduces mental imagery
2018 | DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.12.010
12 лют. 2018 р.
14:07 |
This seems like magic, but it’s just Fourier transforms (expressing a function as a sum of periodic functions). Which are a kind of magic, I admit. https://t.co/zbrGppYcxU
— Sean Carroll (@seanmcarroll) February 11, 2018
13 лют. 2018 р.
14:02 | Квантовый предел скорости оказался не таким уж квантовым
Quantum Speed Limit is Not Quantum
2017 | arXiv:1710.03498 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.070402
The quantum speed limit (QSL), or the energy-time uncertainty relation, describes the fundamental maximum rate for quantum time evolution and has been regarded as being unique in quantum mechanics. In this study, we obtain a classical speed limit corresponding to the QSL using the Hilbert space for the classical Liouville equation. Thus, classical mechanics has a fundamental speed limit, and QSL is not a purely quantum phenomenon but a universal dynamical property of the Hilbert space. Furthermore, we obtain similar speed limits for the imaginary-time Schroedinger equations such as the master equation.
Feb 21, 2018
Q: Why the Copernican Principle is today still adopted by modern science although all evidence we have says otherwise?
Cole C. Pazar | I appreciate your honesty and the depth of your question. This question deals with our deepest human and religious emotions, so it is important to not get caught up in these. The copernican principle does present a strong paradox, but I think the majority of the evidence and philosophical arguments support the principle in all sense of its definition. You state the lack of evidence of life existing beyond the Earth, however, I think the existence of life on Earth is evidence in itself that the universe is conductive to the development of life.
Start with the most abundant elements: C, H, O, N (or S, P, O, N, C, H) is it a coincidence that the most abundant elements that go on to form planets, are also the main building blocks for life itself? Here we see that peering into the smallest scales of the universe, that life is in our favor. I agree with you that we are special in our uniqueness and in our small corner of the galaxy. However, what removes this feeling is the sheer vastness of our universe. From what I understand about modern cosmology, and our place in the universe, is that the existence of life on Earth is so far the only reference frame we have to what consciousness and observation is, and that's where the dilemma lies.
You argue that our reference point is special, however, due to the vastness of the universe, this gives us a humble realization about our existence. There is no reason why we should think we are special, when it is expected that there are ∼10^10 Earth-sized planets that lie within the HZ of their stars in the Milky Way (Marcy et al. 2014; Winn & Fabrycky 2015). The elements that make up life on our planet are ubiquitous and commonplace throughout the universe. We even find essential amino acids in unexpected places (comets and asteroids, etc.). The only privileged aspect of the human experience is that our eyes and consciousness has seemingly evolved to make life observable on a terrestrial planet around a g-type star. Beings around other star systems would have a different view of the world, and may see in different wavelengths of light, and even have a different experience of time.
Lastly, the axis of evil viewpoint and argument is flawed because the accepted theory is that the universe started from a single infinitely small point, and therefore every part of the universe is its own center, and any relative observer anywhere in the universe would think the CMB is a sphere.
Now I pass the reigns to Carl Sagan, who put it so well:
Paul Pistea | as the earth is located right/ in the middle of everywhere/, mankind resides quite/ in the middle of there/, wherefrom/, no matter in which direction you look/ to the outer space/, you merely can see equidistant from earth to any place. as mankind resides right/ in the middle of nowhere oversize// the earth is situated in that light/, which comes to one’s eyes// from each direction of the outer space/ equidistant from the moving horizon far out to our place/, ergo: earth is the hub of the world, one central center of the visible space.
Paul Pistea | in an observable universe every()thing is in the middle, the sun, as the Earth, or a star... I`d claim that the earth is the most bizarre singularity one has ever seen.
Vasyl Komarov | Because the principle of mediocrity is perfectly combined with the anthropic principle (-;
Uniqueness of something is possible only in an unpredictable world, and in such a world there will be no laws of nature. Asymptotically no one will have choice other then to reconcile with the uniqueness of everything...
Paul Pistea | whereat the strong anthropic principle or the weak one is meant :))
Abdul Malek | “… however many millions of suns and earths may arise and pass away, however long it may last before the conditions for organic life develop, however innumerable the organic beings that have to arise and pass away before animals with a brain capable of thought are developed from their midst, and for a short span of time find conditions suitable for life, only to be exterminated later without mercy, we have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can ever be lost, and therefore also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the earth its highest creation, the thinking mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it.” Frederick Engels, Dialectics of Nature.
Emmanouil Markoulakis | Dear Cole C. Pazar,
Thank you for your input.
Firstly, I never meant by the term Special necessarily Unique although possible extremely rare even at a cosmological scale.
Your input is most valuable for me because it allows me to unfold my arguments and please don't take me wrong all the info you state is truly the accepted mainstream science today on this matter. So let me get the blame for being the heretic here, I can take it, although I never understood how someone can use this term in science which directly refers to dogma?
I quote: "You state the lack of evidence of life existing beyond the Earth, however, I think the existence of life on Earth is evidence in itself that the universe is conductive to the development of life."
That is not scientific evidence but merely a speculation.
" Start with the most abundant elements: C, H, O, N (or S, P, O, N, C, H) is it a coincidence that the most abundant elements that go on to form planets, are also the main building blocks for life itself? "
This is not correct, these are building blocks of matter not organic life. This is a nice story very widely spread mainly to the public but also among non immediate disciplines of science to biology and genetics through documentaries and other media almost like a cliche, that these are the building blocks of life, almost propaganda. No they are NOT!
The process where organic life is produced by inorganic matter has not been found yet, if it was, we would hear it from the Nobel committee.
" Lastly, the axis of evil viewpoint and argument is flawed because the accepted theory is that the universe started from a single infinitely small point, and therefore every part of the universe is its own center, and any relative observer anywhere in the universe would think the CMB is a sphere. "
How can evidence be flawed because it doesn't fit the "accepted theory" ? Sounds more like a doctrine to me than science.
You can not deny scientific evidence in favor of status quo or else you have no progress.
A study will reveal that the so called axis of evil as the call it is real and they had to launch two separate science satellites to confirm it, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and Planck Space Telescope later on, both came with the same results. They call it an anomaly that does not fit their model and not willing to confront with these results and accepting that they might be wrong after all about the "accepted theory" however the evidence is valid and no official explanation has been given yet.
Reference: Why is the solar system cosmically aligned?
Dragan Huterer
quote from above reference:
ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes. In addition, the Sun’s direction of motion through the universe is only 10° from lying in the same plane.
Kind Regards,
Emmanouil Markoulakis
[Q17_p5_pga_mason_9531.JPG]
Q: Why the Copernican Principle is today still adopted by modern science although all evidence we have says otherwise?
Cole C. Pazar | I appreciate your honesty and the depth of your question. This question deals with our deepest human and religious emotions, so it is important to not get caught up in these. The copernican principle does present a strong paradox, but I think the majority of the evidence and philosophical arguments support the principle in all sense of its definition. You state the lack of evidence of life existing beyond the Earth, however, I think the existence of life on Earth is evidence in itself that the universe is conductive to the development of life.
Start with the most abundant elements: C, H, O, N (or S, P, O, N, C, H) is it a coincidence that the most abundant elements that go on to form planets, are also the main building blocks for life itself? Here we see that peering into the smallest scales of the universe, that life is in our favor. I agree with you that we are special in our uniqueness and in our small corner of the galaxy. However, what removes this feeling is the sheer vastness of our universe. From what I understand about modern cosmology, and our place in the universe, is that the existence of life on Earth is so far the only reference frame we have to what consciousness and observation is, and that's where the dilemma lies.
You argue that our reference point is special, however, due to the vastness of the universe, this gives us a humble realization about our existence. There is no reason why we should think we are special, when it is expected that there are ∼10^10 Earth-sized planets that lie within the HZ of their stars in the Milky Way (Marcy et al. 2014; Winn & Fabrycky 2015). The elements that make up life on our planet are ubiquitous and commonplace throughout the universe. We even find essential amino acids in unexpected places (comets and asteroids, etc.). The only privileged aspect of the human experience is that our eyes and consciousness has seemingly evolved to make life observable on a terrestrial planet around a g-type star. Beings around other star systems would have a different view of the world, and may see in different wavelengths of light, and even have a different experience of time.
Lastly, the axis of evil viewpoint and argument is flawed because the accepted theory is that the universe started from a single infinitely small point, and therefore every part of the universe is its own center, and any relative observer anywhere in the universe would think the CMB is a sphere.
Now I pass the reigns to Carl Sagan, who put it so well:
“Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.[Pale_Blue_Dot_annotated.png]
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.
Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.”
Paul Pistea | as the earth is located right/ in the middle of everywhere/, mankind resides quite/ in the middle of there/, wherefrom/, no matter in which direction you look/ to the outer space/, you merely can see equidistant from earth to any place. as mankind resides right/ in the middle of nowhere oversize// the earth is situated in that light/, which comes to one’s eyes// from each direction of the outer space/ equidistant from the moving horizon far out to our place/, ergo: earth is the hub of the world, one central center of the visible space.
Paul Pistea | in an observable universe every()thing is in the middle, the sun, as the Earth, or a star... I`d claim that the earth is the most bizarre singularity one has ever seen.
Vasyl Komarov | Because the principle of mediocrity is perfectly combined with the anthropic principle (-;
Uniqueness of something is possible only in an unpredictable world, and in such a world there will be no laws of nature. Asymptotically no one will have choice other then to reconcile with the uniqueness of everything...
Paul Pistea | whereat the strong anthropic principle or the weak one is meant :))
Abdul Malek | “… however many millions of suns and earths may arise and pass away, however long it may last before the conditions for organic life develop, however innumerable the organic beings that have to arise and pass away before animals with a brain capable of thought are developed from their midst, and for a short span of time find conditions suitable for life, only to be exterminated later without mercy, we have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can ever be lost, and therefore also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the earth its highest creation, the thinking mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it.” Frederick Engels, Dialectics of Nature.
Emmanouil Markoulakis | Dear Cole C. Pazar,
Thank you for your input.
Firstly, I never meant by the term Special necessarily Unique although possible extremely rare even at a cosmological scale.
Your input is most valuable for me because it allows me to unfold my arguments and please don't take me wrong all the info you state is truly the accepted mainstream science today on this matter. So let me get the blame for being the heretic here, I can take it, although I never understood how someone can use this term in science which directly refers to dogma?
I quote: "You state the lack of evidence of life existing beyond the Earth, however, I think the existence of life on Earth is evidence in itself that the universe is conductive to the development of life."
That is not scientific evidence but merely a speculation.
" Start with the most abundant elements: C, H, O, N (or S, P, O, N, C, H) is it a coincidence that the most abundant elements that go on to form planets, are also the main building blocks for life itself? "
This is not correct, these are building blocks of matter not organic life. This is a nice story very widely spread mainly to the public but also among non immediate disciplines of science to biology and genetics through documentaries and other media almost like a cliche, that these are the building blocks of life, almost propaganda. No they are NOT!
The process where organic life is produced by inorganic matter has not been found yet, if it was, we would hear it from the Nobel committee.
" Lastly, the axis of evil viewpoint and argument is flawed because the accepted theory is that the universe started from a single infinitely small point, and therefore every part of the universe is its own center, and any relative observer anywhere in the universe would think the CMB is a sphere. "
How can evidence be flawed because it doesn't fit the "accepted theory" ? Sounds more like a doctrine to me than science.
You can not deny scientific evidence in favor of status quo or else you have no progress.
A study will reveal that the so called axis of evil as the call it is real and they had to launch two separate science satellites to confirm it, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and Planck Space Telescope later on, both came with the same results. They call it an anomaly that does not fit their model and not willing to confront with these results and accepting that they might be wrong after all about the "accepted theory" however the evidence is valid and no official explanation has been given yet.
Reference: Why is the solar system cosmically aligned?
Dragan Huterer
quote from above reference:
ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes. In addition, the Sun’s direction of motion through the universe is only 10° from lying in the same plane.
Kind Regards,
Emmanouil Markoulakis
[Q17_p5_pga_mason_9531.JPG]
Feb 23, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Paul, strong, of course, but all the formulations (beginning with Carter) is unsatisfactory. Anthropic principle does not need a prefix, it is a legacy of quantum-mechanical reasoning.
Vasyl Komarov | I did not joke, combining these principles. It was just irony, Paul.
Andrew Wutke | No one knows whether our location is something special, but no one found that it is. Since the earth moves and rotates it is not the absolute rest frame and if anything, it is 350 000 km/s away from it.
Geocentrism is coming back
The Principle {documentary film - Wikipedia}
as well as exorcists are raising in numbers.
Emmanouil Markoulakis | "No one knows whether our location is something special, but no one found that it is. "
Who says that?... this is not correct.
I disagree, all the real and NON SPECULATIVE evidence we have so far discovered says we ARE SPECIAL. You can not deny that. And this has nothing to do with geocentrisism or uniqueness, you could be at the rim of the universe and among 1 million same others, and still be special compared to the billions of trillions out there.
Andrew Wutke | When you said, Copernican Principle I understood it Copernican Principle literally. I did not know this term was hijacked by cosmologists and assigned to something else remotely related. Copernican Principle was about relativity of motion in the classical sense and this is not pseudoscience. And the fact that we see something locally special, is not a proof . There are vast spaces in the universe that cannot be comprehended and the science is still not solid on these kind of things.
Emmanouil Markoulakis | Dear Andrew Wutke,
quote
"And the fact that we see something locally special, is not a proof . "
Well if you existing data evidence says, No (to the Copernican principle), it is frankly insane to say Yes! Against the evidence in hand.
It is more scientific correct to say, I don't know because my data set is too small relative to the sum.
But this is not the case with the Copernican principle, it absolutely states in a nutshell, and excuse me but i know my English, "we are not special in the universe" it does not say unique it says special. Special here means a few were unique means one and only. Of course we are not unique, nothing in nature is unique and probability and statistical science can prove that for our universe, unless we are the exception.
But absolutely stating that we are not special is a total different beast.
Even with today statistics saying there must be millions of the same worlds with us among the billions of trillions, this makes us still special, not unique but special yes.
For me the CP has no more ground in our days an obsolete anachronistic pseudoscience (not by the scientific method) speculative 500 years old limited data and lacking analysis statement implying directly and wrongly by the "not special" that there are many! In contrast to all the information we have today speaking against it namely all the physical information and statistical analysis, that there are might be relative compared to our vast universe a few millions intelligent Earths so that makes us still special and that we are located at the axis of evil that we now know exists, and we actually are in a special place on the CMB map.
I submit, so yes by all means. "We Are Privileged Observers of our Universe." according to today's evidence.
The funny thing is that at the same time of these modern science findings, science today still holds true the CP!... and as an axiom almost like a dogma. This is not science.
I wonder why?
... Copernican Principle... R.I.P.
Kind Regards,
Emmanouil Markoulakis
Vasyl Komarov | Paul, strong, of course, but all the formulations (beginning with Carter) is unsatisfactory. Anthropic principle does not need a prefix, it is a legacy of quantum-mechanical reasoning.
Vasyl Komarov | I did not joke, combining these principles. It was just irony, Paul.
Andrew Wutke | No one knows whether our location is something special, but no one found that it is. Since the earth moves and rotates it is not the absolute rest frame and if anything, it is 350 000 km/s away from it.
Geocentrism is coming back
The Principle {documentary film - Wikipedia}
as well as exorcists are raising in numbers.
Emmanouil Markoulakis | "No one knows whether our location is something special, but no one found that it is. "
Who says that?... this is not correct.
I disagree, all the real and NON SPECULATIVE evidence we have so far discovered says we ARE SPECIAL. You can not deny that. And this has nothing to do with geocentrisism or uniqueness, you could be at the rim of the universe and among 1 million same others, and still be special compared to the billions of trillions out there.
Andrew Wutke | When you said, Copernican Principle I understood it Copernican Principle literally. I did not know this term was hijacked by cosmologists and assigned to something else remotely related. Copernican Principle was about relativity of motion in the classical sense and this is not pseudoscience. And the fact that we see something locally special, is not a proof . There are vast spaces in the universe that cannot be comprehended and the science is still not solid on these kind of things.
Emmanouil Markoulakis | Dear Andrew Wutke,
quote
"And the fact that we see something locally special, is not a proof . "
Well if you existing data evidence says, No (to the Copernican principle), it is frankly insane to say Yes! Against the evidence in hand.
It is more scientific correct to say, I don't know because my data set is too small relative to the sum.
But this is not the case with the Copernican principle, it absolutely states in a nutshell, and excuse me but i know my English, "we are not special in the universe" it does not say unique it says special. Special here means a few were unique means one and only. Of course we are not unique, nothing in nature is unique and probability and statistical science can prove that for our universe, unless we are the exception.
But absolutely stating that we are not special is a total different beast.
Even with today statistics saying there must be millions of the same worlds with us among the billions of trillions, this makes us still special, not unique but special yes.
For me the CP has no more ground in our days an obsolete anachronistic pseudoscience (not by the scientific method) speculative 500 years old limited data and lacking analysis statement implying directly and wrongly by the "not special" that there are many! In contrast to all the information we have today speaking against it namely all the physical information and statistical analysis, that there are might be relative compared to our vast universe a few millions intelligent Earths so that makes us still special and that we are located at the axis of evil that we now know exists, and we actually are in a special place on the CMB map.
I submit, so yes by all means. "We Are Privileged Observers of our Universe." according to today's evidence.
The funny thing is that at the same time of these modern science findings, science today still holds true the CP!... and as an axiom almost like a dogma. This is not science.
I wonder why?
... Copernican Principle... R.I.P.
Kind Regards,
Emmanouil Markoulakis
Feb 24, 2018
Andrew Worsley | Emmanouil.
Depends on your perspective, yes from our perspective we may be special.
But evolved from monkeys -is that special?
Compared to a highly advanced civilization - are we that special?
What's intersting is that in special relativity the corrolary is that the stationary body is the surface of any body in space, in stable orbit.
So everyone on a fixed point on Earth or indeed any graviational object is special.
Emmanouil Markoulakis | " Compared to a highly advanced civilization - are we that special? "
What you mean Sir? Are you aware of such an more advanced civilization ? or any else apart of us?
Andrew Worsley | Emmanouil.
Depends on your perspective, yes from our perspective we may be special.
But evolved from monkeys -is that special?
Compared to a highly advanced civilization - are we that special?
What's intersting is that in special relativity the corrolary is that the stationary body is the surface of any body in space, in stable orbit.
So everyone on a fixed point on Earth or indeed any graviational object is special.
Emmanouil Markoulakis | " Compared to a highly advanced civilization - are we that special? "
What you mean Sir? Are you aware of such an more advanced civilization ? or any else apart of us?
Feb 26, 2018
George Dishman | EM: But this is not the case with the Copernican principle, it absolutely states in a nutshell, and excuse me but i know my English, "we are not special in the universe" it does not say unique it says special. Special here means a few were unique means one and only.
No, that I think is where the confusion lies. "Special" in this context means occupying a unique position in space, for example within the Milky Way being at the exact centre of the galaxy would be a special position (but we lie about 2/3 of the distance to the edge, not anywhere special).
The Copernican Principle in cosmology is applies at the level of superclusters and above. The Laniakea supercluster is not considered special in comparison to others.
Obviously within a supercluster, there are local flows as well illustrated by this video.
I would suggest the only "special" location within Laniakea would be the great Attractor. Nearer to us, the major groupings are the clusters shown on this map. Our "Local Group" is irrelevant compared to the Virgo, Fornax and Eridanus clusters for example.
The Virgo Supercluster
Emmanouil Markoulakis | You can look to it in this way, from all the desolate places in the universe, our corner permits and has the exact conditions for intelligent life to flourish therefore it can't be nothing else than Special . And as far as we know it is not just special but also unique.
George Dishman | EM: But this is not the case with the Copernican principle, it absolutely states in a nutshell, and excuse me but i know my English, "we are not special in the universe" it does not say unique it says special. Special here means a few were unique means one and only.
No, that I think is where the confusion lies. "Special" in this context means occupying a unique position in space, for example within the Milky Way being at the exact centre of the galaxy would be a special position (but we lie about 2/3 of the distance to the edge, not anywhere special).
The Copernican Principle in cosmology is applies at the level of superclusters and above. The Laniakea supercluster is not considered special in comparison to others.
Obviously within a supercluster, there are local flows as well illustrated by this video.
I would suggest the only "special" location within Laniakea would be the great Attractor. Nearer to us, the major groupings are the clusters shown on this map. Our "Local Group" is irrelevant compared to the Virgo, Fornax and Eridanus clusters for example.
The Virgo Supercluster
Emmanouil Markoulakis | You can look to it in this way, from all the desolate places in the universe, our corner permits and has the exact conditions for intelligent life to flourish therefore it can't be nothing else than Special . And as far as we know it is not just special but also unique.
Feb 27, 2018
George Dishman | EM: our corner permits and has the exact conditions for intelligent life to flourish
So does every other large galaxy in the universe, there is nothing unusual about the Milky Way. There are a hundred billion others just like it and that is just in the little bit we can observe.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Emmanouil, if the Copernican principle R.I.P., you will no more be able to make hypotheses about the distant unexplored.
In the observable universe I do not know any examples where it does not work, regardless of the covered scope. Physics can not abandon what is used daily (not just by Newton extrapolating gravity from the scale of "apple" to the Moon distance).
With regard to the presence of us... Modern physics is at a complacent archaic level of understanding its position with respect to the observer. Any reasoning by physics and physicists about the observer, while physics does not contain at least one model of consciousness, is essentially speculative.
There is the lack of a sufficiently accurate model of the evolving universe, which will make it possible to see complete logic of Goldilocks zones sequences in time dynamics and, accordingly, estimate density function for the fractal structure of a certain level of complexity. This model of universe is impossible without constructing an essentially formalized model of consciousness. imo
Emmanouil Markoulakis | Dear Professor Thierry De Mees,
Sorry but experimental science is not concerned about lacks only proves.
And besides we are not discussing here QM or any other complicated physics matter just that the CP is not valid with the word "Special" in it and totally anachronistic.
For god sake these people were imagining that there must be a civilization on the moon at that time 500 years ago. It came naturally to them to say the word special implying that they are many, and not the "unique" in which case CP would hold true even for today.
I am talking from an experimental standpoint. So, I don't really am concerned about these status quo theoretical formalism rules.
Here is the only rule for experimental science: When there is sufficient prove against a theory and its hypothesis these must be on error.
The only sustainable arguement here is the word sufficient. I give you that.
A theory (how and why) supports an hypothesis (what), the must come in pair in order both to be valid. So where is the initial theory for supporting the CP hypothesis. For me this was not even an hypothesis 500 years ago just a bad statement made in a rush, narrow sighted just to emphasize that the sun is at the center of our solar system and never meant initially to be generalized at a universal scale. This was exploited later on and still used 500 years later although all evidence in hand says other wise.
I myself like to believe that there are other special places in the universe like ours but relative rare (this is also the general believe and statistical data) but please don't say that we are not special, this frankly offends my logic and degrades what human civilization has accomplished so far.
This is not a mediocracy principle but rather mediocrity.
Kind Regards,
Emmanouil Markoulakis
Emmanouil Markoulakis | "if the Copernican principle R.I.P., you will no more be able to make hypotheses about the distant unexplored."
Dear Vasyl Fedorovych Komarov,
I fail to see how admitting that we are special but not unique will inhibit us from exploring other special places in the universe.
Kind Regards,
Emmanouil Markoulakis
George Dishman | EM: our corner permits and has the exact conditions for intelligent life to flourish
So does every other large galaxy in the universe, there is nothing unusual about the Milky Way. There are a hundred billion others just like it and that is just in the little bit we can observe.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Emmanouil, if the Copernican principle R.I.P., you will no more be able to make hypotheses about the distant unexplored.
In the observable universe I do not know any examples where it does not work, regardless of the covered scope. Physics can not abandon what is used daily (not just by Newton extrapolating gravity from the scale of "apple" to the Moon distance).
With regard to the presence of us... Modern physics is at a complacent archaic level of understanding its position with respect to the observer. Any reasoning by physics and physicists about the observer, while physics does not contain at least one model of consciousness, is essentially speculative.
There is the lack of a sufficiently accurate model of the evolving universe, which will make it possible to see complete logic of Goldilocks zones sequences in time dynamics and, accordingly, estimate density function for the fractal structure of a certain level of complexity. This model of universe is impossible without constructing an essentially formalized model of consciousness. imo
Emmanouil Markoulakis | Dear Professor Thierry De Mees,
Sorry but experimental science is not concerned about lacks only proves.
And besides we are not discussing here QM or any other complicated physics matter just that the CP is not valid with the word "Special" in it and totally anachronistic.
For god sake these people were imagining that there must be a civilization on the moon at that time 500 years ago. It came naturally to them to say the word special implying that they are many, and not the "unique" in which case CP would hold true even for today.
I am talking from an experimental standpoint. So, I don't really am concerned about these status quo theoretical formalism rules.
Here is the only rule for experimental science: When there is sufficient prove against a theory and its hypothesis these must be on error.
The only sustainable arguement here is the word sufficient. I give you that.
A theory (how and why) supports an hypothesis (what), the must come in pair in order both to be valid. So where is the initial theory for supporting the CP hypothesis. For me this was not even an hypothesis 500 years ago just a bad statement made in a rush, narrow sighted just to emphasize that the sun is at the center of our solar system and never meant initially to be generalized at a universal scale. This was exploited later on and still used 500 years later although all evidence in hand says other wise.
I myself like to believe that there are other special places in the universe like ours but relative rare (this is also the general believe and statistical data) but please don't say that we are not special, this frankly offends my logic and degrades what human civilization has accomplished so far.
This is not a mediocracy principle but rather mediocrity.
Kind Regards,
Emmanouil Markoulakis
Emmanouil Markoulakis | "if the Copernican principle R.I.P., you will no more be able to make hypotheses about the distant unexplored."
Dear Vasyl Fedorovych Komarov,
I fail to see how admitting that we are special but not unique will inhibit us from exploring other special places in the universe.
Kind Regards,
Emmanouil Markoulakis
— ResearchGate. Available from: Why the Copernican Principle is today still adopted by modern science although all evidence we have says otherwise? [accessed May 20, 2019]
Q: Who am I And what is my place in the MULTIVERSE
Vasyl Komarov | A man will know well who he is when he will completely lost ability to determine his place.
Vasyl Komarov | A man will know well who he is when he will completely lost ability to determine his place.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Who am I And what is my place in the MULTIVERSE [accessed Feb 27, 2018]
Mar 3, 2018
Marcel Van de Vel | Geng Ouyang,
"[...] but many people don’ t think so [about Zeno's paradox].
For instance, .... (names of prominent mathematicians, not philosphers).
"[...] no one is able to get even a single 100000000000000000000000000000 with the operation of "bracketing” [...]"
No one has ever determined the 100000000000000000000000000000-th prime number. No one ever determined the 100000000000000000000000000000-th decimal digit of π or of e (the Euler number). So what?
"[...] even try to run away from infinite related paradoxes"
I explained Galileo's paradox to undergraduate students, I gave the source of Russell's paradox (use of a logical contradiction ¬∃x∀y(P(y,x)⇔¬P(y,y)) ) , I justified Cantor's proof (that a set has smaller cardinal than its power set), I explained the nature of the Banach-Tarski paradox (on doubling the volume of a sphere): preservation of mass or volume is a physical principle, not a logical one and mathematical operatons are not physical operations.
Anything else I can run away from?
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Marcel,
(some decades ago somebody calculated the 1.000.000th digit of π :)
...
Marcel Van de Vel | Geng Ouyang,
"[...] but many people don’ t think so [about Zeno's paradox].
For instance, .... (names of prominent mathematicians, not philosphers).
"[...] no one is able to get even a single 100000000000000000000000000000 with the operation of "bracketing” [...]"
No one has ever determined the 100000000000000000000000000000-th prime number. No one ever determined the 100000000000000000000000000000-th decimal digit of π or of e (the Euler number). So what?
"[...] even try to run away from infinite related paradoxes"
I explained Galileo's paradox to undergraduate students, I gave the source of Russell's paradox (use of a logical contradiction ¬∃x∀y(P(y,x)⇔¬P(y,y)) ) , I justified Cantor's proof (that a set has smaller cardinal than its power set), I explained the nature of the Banach-Tarski paradox (on doubling the volume of a sphere): preservation of mass or volume is a physical principle, not a logical one and mathematical operatons are not physical operations.
Anything else I can run away from?
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Marcel,
(some decades ago somebody calculated the 1.000.000th digit of π :)
...
Mar 4, 2018
Marcel Van de Vel | I spent an afternoon looking up some literature on philosophy and on viewpoints on Zeno's "Achilles and tortoise" problem. I checked the literature on the mathematician/philosopher H. Poincare who is known for his critical attitude towards set theory (I found no connections with Zeno). I checked A.N. Whitehead (logician/philosopher) who discusses Zeno and breaks him down completely in 14 lines, using words like "ignorance", "illegitimate", "fallacy". I checked two encyclopedias of philosophy (the peer-reviewed Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the famous Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Nowhere did I find any remark indicating that the integrity of mathematical foundations is at stake. It is generally observed that the standard solution to Zeno’s Paradoxes makes use of calculus and there is little hesitation on its being appropriate.
I found few publications which were positive about Zeno's argument. Notably, there is the book of
Grünbaum, A., 1967, Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes, Middletown: Connecticut Wesleyan University Press.
I also found a related paper
John R. McKie, The Persuasiveness of Zeno's Paradoxes, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol XLVII (4), June 1987, pp 631-639.
Mc Kie attacks the arguments of Grunbaum and brings his own argument of why Zeno is persuasive (mind this word!). He is kind enough to summarize his own reason in one sentence: [...] is persuasive because there are a number of different conceptual and linguistic problems inherent in it and because the resolution of these problems require the acceptance of some rather counterintitive notions. Huh?
That's it. Let me summarize.
1. Around 2500 years ago, Zeno of Elea described a process of a rapid runner catching a slow tortoise before him by dividing the whole process in an infinite sequence of sub-processes (catching the previous position of the tortoise). Literally speaking, this is a never-ending sequence of events. Judging by the sound of these words, Zeno draws the "mathematical conclusion" that the total elapsed time catching the tortoise must be infinite. Paradox!
2. This "argument" attracts the attention of Aristotle who points at the obvious fact that there is no actual infinity involved (the whole route has finite length) and hence completing an infinitely subdivided process is not appropriate.
3. In medieval times, the proper notion of (constant) speed, namely, (moved length)/(elapsed time) allows to compute exactly at which time or place the tortoise is catched without considering sub-processes. After Newton, the true error of Zeno's argument has been exposed by mathematics (bluntly neglecting Aristotle's physical remarks) by taking the limit-sum of the ever smaller, infinitely many time intervals, reproducing the above exact result.
End of Zeno?
Enter Mr. Geng, turning the story upside down. His great hero is Zeno, and Aristotle becomes a supporter of Zeno: using actual infinity is the only cause of this profoundly universe-shaking paradox. And those bad, bad, mathematicians used actually infinite sets (it's not physical, as Aristotle meant it, so they can afford it). Mathematics, offering the only real solutions, is to be blamed and must be reformed in a revolutionary way.
As to Zeno's blatant error on infinite sums, Mr. Geng claims that mathematical methods of determining limits are completely wrong, to be illustrated with the harmonic sequence 1+1/2+1/3+.... Mr. Geng neglects a sensible (finite) proof that the sum of 1/n for n between 2^k and 2^(k+m) is at least m/2 by asking me to compute this sum exactly in case of 100000000000000000000000000000 successive terms: if I can't do, the result must be wrong (Geng-logic, I assume). I replied with a challenge to produce the 100000000000000000000000000000th prime number (which should exist by Euclid's theorem). Mr. Geng reacted on my criticism: These two questions have nothing to do with each other!
* I noticed a change in Geng's preceding comment: he now claims that my question can be answered by working hard enough. I know that. Does Mr. Geng know it for the other question?. My argument shows that the proposed sum (starting with 1) is at least 48 (I used that 2-logarithm of 100000000000000000000000000000 is 96.33591476). Summing the first 2^20 terms gives 14.44015 (Maple), the prediction being 10. So Geng's sum is probably closer to 70. Geng?
I really got enough of this messy stuff-- or should I call it a hoax? Is there any one out there still following this discussion?
Marcel Van de Vel | Aleksandar Jovanovic,
I know. I do not remember the name or the website but I do remember that this person went far beyond the 1 000 000-th digit (rather, many 1 000 000 000's). The novelty was that (s)he did not have to compute any preceding digits.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Marcel Van de Vel,
OK.
About Zeno.
Have it this way:
Take 1 interval length 1: e.g. [0, 1];
then take a (e.g.) second half, e.g. [0.5, 1];
then continue so taking second half of the current half.
We got that progression {1/2**n | n>=0};
the sum of the sequence is 2. But it was not understood by Zeno - presumably,
the sum of infinite sequence for him was infinite.
End of Paradox;
Poincare could like or prefer whatever he did;
There were other mathematicians of the time, Cantor, Lebesgue, Borell, Peano, then
ZERMELLO, then Hilbert - please remind you on famous Hilbert's speech at the exposition of Hilbert
problems in Mathematics at the World congress in Paris, 1900.
etc..
Vasyl Komarov | Not sum infinite, it is a process is infinite. Jump to actual value is not a single step despite, that it is a single act. Nothing paradoxical, but process infinite.
It can be afforded only because we stand with feet on both sides of the gap. We know the answers through analysis of algorithms, even, when they not halting.
Vasyl Komarov | So, in a pedantic world, where causality is not violated, the actual value has never been achieved, ever not will be achieved (without intervention in algorithm)
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasilii,
wrong solution:
if you put the whole sequence concatenated on the real line, what you get?
The length of the whole infinite sequence = 2.
Archimedes all the way to us now.
Vasyl Komarov | Aleksandar, an exact algorithm in which the mantissa width representing a metric between objects increases on demand, will never stop.This scale-invariant process. It is not about the length, it is about the rest.
Vasyl Komarov | Such an algorithm should be implemented on a machine with Turing completeness. However, we can confine ourselves to a formal cycle without the possibility of going out. Just the problem of halting, which is not algoritmical. For Zeno answer is very easy.
Marcel Van de Vel | I spent an afternoon looking up some literature on philosophy and on viewpoints on Zeno's "Achilles and tortoise" problem. I checked the literature on the mathematician/philosopher H. Poincare who is known for his critical attitude towards set theory (I found no connections with Zeno). I checked A.N. Whitehead (logician/philosopher) who discusses Zeno and breaks him down completely in 14 lines, using words like "ignorance", "illegitimate", "fallacy". I checked two encyclopedias of philosophy (the peer-reviewed Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the famous Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Nowhere did I find any remark indicating that the integrity of mathematical foundations is at stake. It is generally observed that the standard solution to Zeno’s Paradoxes makes use of calculus and there is little hesitation on its being appropriate.
I found few publications which were positive about Zeno's argument. Notably, there is the book of
Grünbaum, A., 1967, Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes, Middletown: Connecticut Wesleyan University Press.
I also found a related paper
John R. McKie, The Persuasiveness of Zeno's Paradoxes, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol XLVII (4), June 1987, pp 631-639.
Mc Kie attacks the arguments of Grunbaum and brings his own argument of why Zeno is persuasive (mind this word!). He is kind enough to summarize his own reason in one sentence: [...] is persuasive because there are a number of different conceptual and linguistic problems inherent in it and because the resolution of these problems require the acceptance of some rather counterintitive notions. Huh?
That's it. Let me summarize.
1. Around 2500 years ago, Zeno of Elea described a process of a rapid runner catching a slow tortoise before him by dividing the whole process in an infinite sequence of sub-processes (catching the previous position of the tortoise). Literally speaking, this is a never-ending sequence of events. Judging by the sound of these words, Zeno draws the "mathematical conclusion" that the total elapsed time catching the tortoise must be infinite. Paradox!
2. This "argument" attracts the attention of Aristotle who points at the obvious fact that there is no actual infinity involved (the whole route has finite length) and hence completing an infinitely subdivided process is not appropriate.
3. In medieval times, the proper notion of (constant) speed, namely, (moved length)/(elapsed time) allows to compute exactly at which time or place the tortoise is catched without considering sub-processes. After Newton, the true error of Zeno's argument has been exposed by mathematics (bluntly neglecting Aristotle's physical remarks) by taking the limit-sum of the ever smaller, infinitely many time intervals, reproducing the above exact result.
End of Zeno?
Enter Mr. Geng, turning the story upside down. His great hero is Zeno, and Aristotle becomes a supporter of Zeno: using actual infinity is the only cause of this profoundly universe-shaking paradox. And those bad, bad, mathematicians used actually infinite sets (it's not physical, as Aristotle meant it, so they can afford it). Mathematics, offering the only real solutions, is to be blamed and must be reformed in a revolutionary way.
As to Zeno's blatant error on infinite sums, Mr. Geng claims that mathematical methods of determining limits are completely wrong, to be illustrated with the harmonic sequence 1+1/2+1/3+.... Mr. Geng neglects a sensible (finite) proof that the sum of 1/n for n between 2^k and 2^(k+m) is at least m/2 by asking me to compute this sum exactly in case of 100000000000000000000000000000 successive terms: if I can't do, the result must be wrong (Geng-logic, I assume). I replied with a challenge to produce the 100000000000000000000000000000th prime number (which should exist by Euclid's theorem). Mr. Geng reacted on my criticism: These two questions have nothing to do with each other!
* I noticed a change in Geng's preceding comment: he now claims that my question can be answered by working hard enough. I know that. Does Mr. Geng know it for the other question?. My argument shows that the proposed sum (starting with 1) is at least 48 (I used that 2-logarithm of 100000000000000000000000000000 is 96.33591476). Summing the first 2^20 terms gives 14.44015 (Maple), the prediction being 10. So Geng's sum is probably closer to 70. Geng?
I really got enough of this messy stuff-- or should I call it a hoax? Is there any one out there still following this discussion?
Marcel Van de Vel | Aleksandar Jovanovic,
I know. I do not remember the name or the website but I do remember that this person went far beyond the 1 000 000-th digit (rather, many 1 000 000 000's). The novelty was that (s)he did not have to compute any preceding digits.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Marcel Van de Vel,
OK.
About Zeno.
Have it this way:
Take 1 interval length 1: e.g. [0, 1];
then take a (e.g.) second half, e.g. [0.5, 1];
then continue so taking second half of the current half.
We got that progression {1/2**n | n>=0};
the sum of the sequence is 2. But it was not understood by Zeno - presumably,
the sum of infinite sequence for him was infinite.
End of Paradox;
Poincare could like or prefer whatever he did;
There were other mathematicians of the time, Cantor, Lebesgue, Borell, Peano, then
ZERMELLO, then Hilbert - please remind you on famous Hilbert's speech at the exposition of Hilbert
problems in Mathematics at the World congress in Paris, 1900.
etc..
Vasyl Komarov | Not sum infinite, it is a process is infinite. Jump to actual value is not a single step despite, that it is a single act. Nothing paradoxical, but process infinite.
It can be afforded only because we stand with feet on both sides of the gap. We know the answers through analysis of algorithms, even, when they not halting.
Vasyl Komarov | So, in a pedantic world, where causality is not violated, the actual value has never been achieved, ever not will be achieved (without intervention in algorithm)
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasilii,
wrong solution:
if you put the whole sequence concatenated on the real line, what you get?
The length of the whole infinite sequence = 2.
Archimedes all the way to us now.
Vasyl Komarov | Aleksandar, an exact algorithm in which the mantissa width representing a metric between objects increases on demand, will never stop.This scale-invariant process. It is not about the length, it is about the rest.
Vasyl Komarov | Such an algorithm should be implemented on a machine with Turing completeness. However, we can confine ourselves to a formal cycle without the possibility of going out. Just the problem of halting, which is not algoritmical. For Zeno answer is very easy.
Mar 5, 2018
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasilii,
enough bombs!?
Just simple addition of the time sequence as
writen above. Thus 2.
You can observe something very else:
How do we know there are no time quanta = atoms of time;
that would mean - no infinite division by 2;
then, no infinite sequence;
then no sum = 2, but up to the time-atom length
addition, thus stopping before reaching 2.
---------------
No paradox.
All & all
---------------
no paradox.
Vasili please do not involve extra nonsence - really it is enough what
Geng is doing.
If you like you two can make a nice jazz in nonsensing.
Good luck.
Aleksandar
Vasyl Komarov | Alexandar, the Turing machine has an infinite tape. So it head can not fall between atoms, unlike the hero of the story of Philip K. Dick.
There is no need to quantize the time (which for the Turing machine, by the way, is absolutely discrete - step of a head). Any real process is easy quantized for dynamic system (real physical computer, for example) by cycles - you are either inside the loop, or in a position to repeat it, despite any scale.
And the time of our universe is a mere trifle for the Turing machine (because of infinite tape). In a single universe with bifurcation point of birth no room for the tape, maybe, only half of the tape, which is also Turing complete.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasilii we are talking about distant things..?!
If something is twice shorter, then iterated,
where do you see a TM equally lasting head moving per cell?
**
2. TM - we have a tape which is nonzero on finitely, but unlimited many cells.
you can have 2 instruction TM which never ends. So what? Zeno?
--
Vasyl Komarov | It's just a question of the prospect of a selected characteristic size, and, accordingly, where your view is directed, into the past or the future. In the first case, you set the (new) half step as characteristic, in the second - (old) step.
In order to follow Zeno's algorithm it is necessary to increase the scale of the area in question invariantly. We can even forget about the absolute scale, if we have an eternity of time and we sinchronized only with characterisic size. Zeno has the beginning of the race, but for such a truly scale-invariant process, it does not matter. Every step can be considered tabula rasa.
Alexandar, it does not matter whether the machine uses the same time for every step. The problem of a real computer is that it must be coherent, that is, an integral mechanism, in order to be a discrete computer and correspond to Turing, where process is quantized by steps. It is vital for the content of its memory, for which all the tacts looks the same (the discreteness means linearity).
Same with universe, it does not matter how time enters the expression for the Planck constant, it corresponds always to the invariant cycle of the physical process (despite that time is not quantized, as you said). This is the characteristic measure by which you operate. It does not mean that it is absolute or not, until you in the "field of vision" use only this measure (directly or indirectly through the speed of light). You can take constant as a unit 1, but you will never know the size of this measure unit without having another object (universe) with which the unit can be correlated. It matters only in relation.
Sorry to distract you and Geng from the conversation here. I'm interested in other aspects of aporias.
NB: If you take into account that the computer must formally divide the distance, in the form of a numerical value, the difference in the calculation time of iteration at step n and, for example, n+1000000 does not matter. Even if it does not have enough of the universe as a memory for storing such a "small" number.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasilii,
enough bombs!?
Just simple addition of the time sequence as
writen above. Thus 2.
You can observe something very else:
How do we know there are no time quanta = atoms of time;
that would mean - no infinite division by 2;
then, no infinite sequence;
then no sum = 2, but up to the time-atom length
addition, thus stopping before reaching 2.
---------------
No paradox.
All & all
---------------
no paradox.
Vasili please do not involve extra nonsence - really it is enough what
Geng is doing.
If you like you two can make a nice jazz in nonsensing.
Good luck.
Aleksandar
Vasyl Komarov | Alexandar, the Turing machine has an infinite tape. So it head can not fall between atoms, unlike the hero of the story of Philip K. Dick.
There is no need to quantize the time (which for the Turing machine, by the way, is absolutely discrete - step of a head). Any real process is easy quantized for dynamic system (real physical computer, for example) by cycles - you are either inside the loop, or in a position to repeat it, despite any scale.
And the time of our universe is a mere trifle for the Turing machine (because of infinite tape). In a single universe with bifurcation point of birth no room for the tape, maybe, only half of the tape, which is also Turing complete.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasilii we are talking about distant things..?!
If something is twice shorter, then iterated,
where do you see a TM equally lasting head moving per cell?
**
2. TM - we have a tape which is nonzero on finitely, but unlimited many cells.
you can have 2 instruction TM which never ends. So what? Zeno?
--
Vasyl Komarov | It's just a question of the prospect of a selected characteristic size, and, accordingly, where your view is directed, into the past or the future. In the first case, you set the (new) half step as characteristic, in the second - (old) step.
In order to follow Zeno's algorithm it is necessary to increase the scale of the area in question invariantly. We can even forget about the absolute scale, if we have an eternity of time and we sinchronized only with characterisic size. Zeno has the beginning of the race, but for such a truly scale-invariant process, it does not matter. Every step can be considered tabula rasa.
Alexandar, it does not matter whether the machine uses the same time for every step. The problem of a real computer is that it must be coherent, that is, an integral mechanism, in order to be a discrete computer and correspond to Turing, where process is quantized by steps. It is vital for the content of its memory, for which all the tacts looks the same (the discreteness means linearity).
Same with universe, it does not matter how time enters the expression for the Planck constant, it corresponds always to the invariant cycle of the physical process (despite that time is not quantized, as you said). This is the characteristic measure by which you operate. It does not mean that it is absolute or not, until you in the "field of vision" use only this measure (directly or indirectly through the speed of light). You can take constant as a unit 1, but you will never know the size of this measure unit without having another object (universe) with which the unit can be correlated. It matters only in relation.
Sorry to distract you and Geng from the conversation here. I'm interested in other aspects of aporias.
NB: If you take into account that the computer must formally divide the distance, in the form of a numerical value, the difference in the calculation time of iteration at step n and, for example, n+1000000 does not matter. Even if it does not have enough of the universe as a memory for storing such a "small" number.
— ResearchGate. Available from the Project: A Revolution in Modern Philosophy of Mathematics -------“A Newly Constructed Infinite System” [accessed Mar 5, 2018]
Mar 8, 2018
Q: What does Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tell us about epistemology?
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Willem~
Your account of QM is certainly in reasonable alignment with the standard approach. Yet alone, though I am convinced that QM is mathematically sound and empirically adequate, I tend to share a criticism of QM well expressed by E.T. Jaynes:
In my (maybe limited understanding), QM in the form of the Schrödinger equation can (and must) be derived from Dirac's equation. Then the question arises, how to derive Dirac theory. I suggested an "Ansatz" based on an algebra of "classical" (in mathematical sense) Hamiltonian phase space in
Minkowski Spacetime and QED from Ontology of Time
2015 | arXiv:1409.5338 | DOI: 10.1142/9781786341419_0009 | pdf
which is just a very basic scetch, of course...
Q: What does Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tell us about epistemology?
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Willem~
Your account of QM is certainly in reasonable alignment with the standard approach. Yet alone, though I am convinced that QM is mathematically sound and empirically adequate, I tend to share a criticism of QM well expressed by E.T. Jaynes:
"Because of their empirical origins, QM and QED are not physical theories at all. In contrast, Newtonian celestial mechanics, Relativity, and Mendelian genetics are physical theories, because their mathematics was developed by reasoning out the consequences of clearly stated physical principles from which constraint the possibilities."I will only be content with QM if we have a derivation of the mathematical form of QM on the basis of reasonable principles. If these principles will be physical or logical in nature, is a different question.
"To this day we have no constraining principle from which one can deduce the mathematics of QM and QED; [...] In other words, the mathematical system of the present quantum theory is [...] unconstrained by any physical principle."
— in "The Electron", Edt. Hestenes & Weingartshofer, Kluver 1991
In my (maybe limited understanding), QM in the form of the Schrödinger equation can (and must) be derived from Dirac's equation. Then the question arises, how to derive Dirac theory. I suggested an "Ansatz" based on an algebra of "classical" (in mathematical sense) Hamiltonian phase space in
Minkowski Spacetime and QED from Ontology of Time
2015 | arXiv:1409.5338 | DOI: 10.1142/9781786341419_0009 | pdf
which is just a very basic scetch, of course...
— ResearchGate. Available from: What does Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tell us about epistemology? [accessed Mar 12, 2018]
Mar 10, 2018
F. Leyvraz | Surely, philosophers, no matter how wise, who had to speak on subjects such as space and time in ignorance of the more important experimental data on the subject, cannot be taken too seriously with respect to these opinions. Kant himself stressed the importance of not allowing oneself to indulge in unbridled fantasy, uncontrolled by actual experience. Since he himself could not know the data relevant to the nature of space and time, we can easily respect him while disregarding his claims. Modern supporters of outdated views of space and time do not command the same respect.
Vasyl Komarov | I can not agree with the statement of Stephen Hawking that philosophy is dead. Because if the language is completely left to linguists, whole science will die. In today's world not philosophy died, it is understanding of what it means to be a philosopher died.
To be a philosopher becomes more and more beyond human capabilities, simply, human life is not enough to gain sufficient knowledge and experience, and the most terrible thing is that even the physicists, who claims to build a unified theory, already poorly aware of this.
Abdul Malek | Vasyl,
Official philosophy and physics are both dead!
Philosophy came to an end with Hegel. Because if the aim of all previous philosophy was to find the final truth of the world; Hegel’s dialectics showed that such truth does not exist and hence the stated aim of philosophy can never be fulfilled. It is imperative that one must now deal only with relative truth along the path positive sciences using dialectics as the tool of enquiry.
But what’s of post-Hegelian philosophy? If natural science, in spite of its phenomenal achievements now finds itself begging at the door of theology, it has the satisfaction of seeing philosophy sink lower still. Modern philosophy maintains (as Engels put it) a pseudo existence in the state appointed academia, where, position-hunting, cobweb-spinning eclectic flea-crackers occupy the chairs of philosophy. Instead of looking for profound truths in the wide world of nature and human society like their predecessors, these namesakes either work openly as the apologists of monopoly capitalism or look inwards to “self” (existentialism) or to language (linguistic philosophy) etc. ad nauseam to hunt for absolute truth.
Stephen Hawking is absolutely right when he says: “In the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science, to be their field and discussed questions such as: Did the universe have a beginning? However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of this century, said, ‘The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language.’ What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!”.
But it is modern natural science that is hiding its bankruptcy and confusion under the mystery of mathematics and like an ostrich is burying its head in the sand of causality and determinism. The philosophy of Heraclitus, Kant, Hegel and Marx means nothing to it. Modern natural science, has come under total subjugation of monopoly capital, and has dishonored the great tradition set by Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin. A natural science, which was once inspired by the revolutionary bourgeoisie and created these giants of science, has now become a lap dog of reactionary monopoly capitalism. Modern natural science wants to bring back the absolutist and obscurantist science of feudalism to serve the interest of moribund monopoly capital. It is churning up a “complete theory” of exquisite mathematical beauty and of absolute validity for all eternity, a theory, which is not empirically verifiable. Like modern official philosophy, present day natural science has reduced its scope to mere application of the absolute truth it has attained in the realm of nature. Only those facts that conform to this truth are of interest to science, those that do not, remains in the realms of the Creator or at best are Kantian “thing in itself”. Thus we have not only a “comedown from the great tradition of philosophy” but a comedown from the great tradition of natural science too.
Vasyl Komarov | Abdul Malek, speaking of the linguistic above I criticized the demarcation, which makes any branch of science almost blind to information from another branch (which, strictly, is not a science within), and in addition push you (philosopher) out of any branch (as a specialist). At a certain stage of information gathering, classification (a necessary precursor of synthesis) as instrument of cognition is necessary, but until synthesis it leads to strong cognitive biases within boundaries of demarcation.
In fact, it was a reference to my year-old reasoning... {▲}
NB: Earlier, I promised you to show where in the deterministic world we can get indeterminism. I say this to show that I have not forgotten about that dialogue.
By the way, refusal of the anthropic principle leads to big arbitrariness in the choice of constraints of the model. With all due respect, "A Smooth Exit from Eternal Inflation" has obvious problems already at the conceptual level, while you are ignoring biology, you have much more freedom and opportunities for unreasonable guessing.
And of course I completely agree with the words of dear F. Leyvraz - whatever archaic "giants" of some epoch looks later, their position is respected now (in contrast to modern "Flat Earth Society").
F. Leyvraz | Surely, philosophers, no matter how wise, who had to speak on subjects such as space and time in ignorance of the more important experimental data on the subject, cannot be taken too seriously with respect to these opinions. Kant himself stressed the importance of not allowing oneself to indulge in unbridled fantasy, uncontrolled by actual experience. Since he himself could not know the data relevant to the nature of space and time, we can easily respect him while disregarding his claims. Modern supporters of outdated views of space and time do not command the same respect.
Vasyl Komarov | I can not agree with the statement of Stephen Hawking that philosophy is dead. Because if the language is completely left to linguists, whole science will die. In today's world not philosophy died, it is understanding of what it means to be a philosopher died.
To be a philosopher becomes more and more beyond human capabilities, simply, human life is not enough to gain sufficient knowledge and experience, and the most terrible thing is that even the physicists, who claims to build a unified theory, already poorly aware of this.
Abdul Malek | Vasyl,
Official philosophy and physics are both dead!
Philosophy came to an end with Hegel. Because if the aim of all previous philosophy was to find the final truth of the world; Hegel’s dialectics showed that such truth does not exist and hence the stated aim of philosophy can never be fulfilled. It is imperative that one must now deal only with relative truth along the path positive sciences using dialectics as the tool of enquiry.
But what’s of post-Hegelian philosophy? If natural science, in spite of its phenomenal achievements now finds itself begging at the door of theology, it has the satisfaction of seeing philosophy sink lower still. Modern philosophy maintains (as Engels put it) a pseudo existence in the state appointed academia, where, position-hunting, cobweb-spinning eclectic flea-crackers occupy the chairs of philosophy. Instead of looking for profound truths in the wide world of nature and human society like their predecessors, these namesakes either work openly as the apologists of monopoly capitalism or look inwards to “self” (existentialism) or to language (linguistic philosophy) etc. ad nauseam to hunt for absolute truth.
Stephen Hawking is absolutely right when he says: “In the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science, to be their field and discussed questions such as: Did the universe have a beginning? However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of this century, said, ‘The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language.’ What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!”.
But it is modern natural science that is hiding its bankruptcy and confusion under the mystery of mathematics and like an ostrich is burying its head in the sand of causality and determinism. The philosophy of Heraclitus, Kant, Hegel and Marx means nothing to it. Modern natural science, has come under total subjugation of monopoly capital, and has dishonored the great tradition set by Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin. A natural science, which was once inspired by the revolutionary bourgeoisie and created these giants of science, has now become a lap dog of reactionary monopoly capitalism. Modern natural science wants to bring back the absolutist and obscurantist science of feudalism to serve the interest of moribund monopoly capital. It is churning up a “complete theory” of exquisite mathematical beauty and of absolute validity for all eternity, a theory, which is not empirically verifiable. Like modern official philosophy, present day natural science has reduced its scope to mere application of the absolute truth it has attained in the realm of nature. Only those facts that conform to this truth are of interest to science, those that do not, remains in the realms of the Creator or at best are Kantian “thing in itself”. Thus we have not only a “comedown from the great tradition of philosophy” but a comedown from the great tradition of natural science too.
Vasyl Komarov | Abdul Malek, speaking of the linguistic above I criticized the demarcation, which makes any branch of science almost blind to information from another branch (which, strictly, is not a science within), and in addition push you (philosopher) out of any branch (as a specialist). At a certain stage of information gathering, classification (a necessary precursor of synthesis) as instrument of cognition is necessary, but until synthesis it leads to strong cognitive biases within boundaries of demarcation.
In fact, it was a reference to my year-old reasoning... {▲}
"Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied ... from Aristotle to Kant!" / A Brief History of Time /...about where in a world subject to the laws of dynamic chaos one can find pure chaos (where I mean a series of monotonous events in an open scale-invariant system that form a sequence that similar to the Chaitin's Constant - infinite series of black holes collisions).
It's funny, perhaps, language is the only thing in which we can actually face pure chaos and uncertainty.
— +g/posts/LSxwA4M4jRE (▲) dated on 18.03.2017 (It was ironical reaction on Hawkin's reasoning about demarcation and my previous thoughts +g/posts/XbZBwYUUjcf (▲) dated on 14.03.2017)
NB: Earlier, I promised you to show where in the deterministic world we can get indeterminism. I say this to show that I have not forgotten about that dialogue.
By the way, refusal of the anthropic principle leads to big arbitrariness in the choice of constraints of the model. With all due respect, "A Smooth Exit from Eternal Inflation" has obvious problems already at the conceptual level, while you are ignoring biology, you have much more freedom and opportunities for unreasonable guessing.
And of course I completely agree with the words of dear F. Leyvraz - whatever archaic "giants" of some epoch looks later, their position is respected now (in contrast to modern "Flat Earth Society").
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Mar 10, 2018]
Mar 12, 2018
Filippo Arnaldo Salustri | Philosophy is basically about HOW to reason well; physics is about WHAT to reason about. While the two are both necessary to understand reality, the Uncertainty Principle does not relate to epistemology because the UP is a "what" and epistemology is a "how".
Filippo Arnaldo Salustri | Philosophy is basically about HOW to reason well; physics is about WHAT to reason about. While the two are both necessary to understand reality, the Uncertainty Principle does not relate to epistemology because the UP is a "what" and epistemology is a "how".
— ResearchGate. Available from: What does Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tell us about epistemology? [accessed Mar 12, 2018]
12 бер. 2018 р.
17:55 | Связь между эмпатией и шизофренией объяснили генетически
"оказалось, что вариативность в способности к эмпатии отрицательно коррелирует с аутизмом, а положительно — с предрасположенностью к развитию шизофрении, а также с повышенной экстраверсией"
08:34 (2018-03-23) | Оппозиции аутизм-шизофрения и интроверсия-экстраверсия воспринимается неоднозначно, возможно, некоторые предположения, сделанные в "Прогулке" верны с точностью до наоборот.
Тогда на поверхности был другой набор признаков. Интроверсия-экстраверсия не была в поле зрения.
И эмпатию я тоже склонен разделять на две составляющих, коммуникативную, которая характерна для экстравертов и избыточно детализированное восприятие поведенческих реакций окружающих, что вписывается в общую схему "перевозбужденного" сенсорного восприятия интровертами.
Во втором случае можно иметь все признаки аутизма, поскольку коммуникация сводится к минимуму.
14 бер. 2018 р.
07:55 | Феномен его воли к жизни воспринимался одновременно как чудо и как нечто само собой разумеющееся. Настоящий философ, у которого есть чему поучиться.
15 бер. 2018 р.
21:48 | All disk galaxies rotate once every billion years, no matter their size or mass.
Cosmic clocks: a tight radius–velocity relationship for H_I-selected galaxies
2018 | arXiv:1803.04716 | DOI: 10.1093/mnras/sty275
17 бер. 2018 р.
10:57 | "an eternal roiling chaos could have spawned the universe"
...приближение к корректным формулировкам {in the framework of H1 bias}
Forget the big bang – an eternal roiling chaos could have spawned the universe https://t.co/CxvoE5iqJn pic.twitter.com/shZSG4578p
— New Scientist (@newscientist) March 17, 2018
19 бер. 2018 р.
09:09 | The Multiworse Is Coming
Fact is, we presently have no evidence – neither experimental nor theoretical evidence – that a next larger collider would find new particles. The absolutely last thing particle physicists need right now is to weaken their standards even more and appeal to multiversal math magic that can explain everything and anything. But that seems to be exactly where we are headed.
09:57 (2018-03-23) | Никакой магии для этого {*} не требуется, увы, это бегство от чудес, как всегда.
{* Подразумевалась модель МУЛЬТИВСЕЛЕННОЙ, базирующаяся на рациональных предпосылках, которые, по меньшей мере, один человек вынужден принять поневоле, ислючительно для того, чтобы исключить или свести к минимуму раздражитель в виде квалиа сильного когнитивного диссонанса, которое, собственно, спровоцировало рациональные предпосылки, несмотря и вопреки всей иррациональности, сопутствовавшей процессу.}
Mar 26, 2018
Halim Boutayeb | Dear Eric,
You said that you are afraid that if we abandon relativity we will be nowhere.
Maxwell developped his theory of electromagnetism with a certain medium in his mind. He probably made some hypothesis on this medium. Both Lord Kelvin and Maxwell were inspired by Stockes work on fluid. We probably need to reconsider their model by tacking into account ideas that came later such as Planck constant and Lennard-Jones potential.
I suggest that we start from Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Faraday, Weber, Ampere and Ritz's works and see if we can develop a classical model that can merge with quantum mechanics.
Best regards
Eric Lord | Dear Halim ~
"You said that you are afraid that if we abandon relativity we will be nowhere"
I didn’t say that. What I actually said, I think, was that if we abandon the concept of continuity physics would be nowhere. {+100500}
"Maxwell developed his theory of electromagnetism with a certain medium in his mind.”
Yes: in his mind. But his electromagnetic equations "in empty space" don’t require it and reveal no justification for it.
Halim Boutayeb | Dear Eric,
you said:"But his electromagnetic equations don’t require it and reveal no justification for it."
I wonder how you can be sure about it. If we read his work
"On Physical Lines of Force"
1861 | pdf
and this one
"On a mechanichal representation of electric, magnetic and galvanic forces" by Thomson (Lord Kelvin)
1882 | DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511996009.028
they explicitly talk about an elastic medium and use Stokes work about elastic medium. I wonder how can someone develop the same theory without any hypothesis about such medium. In other words, how can we find Maxwell's equations differently from the method used by Maxwell?
Best regards
Valentin Danci | Sorry Eric, you don't know much what you are talking about regarding the need of a medium in the EM equations. There *is* something in space which *has* permanently the electric and magnetic properties ε0 and μ0. Those properties are present in the electromagnetic equations. Therefore Maxwell's (...)
Eric Lord | Yes, Valentin and Halim − I'm not unaware of what you tell. But there is no reason to believe that ε0 and μ0 are not just physical constants. Why and how should they be expected to vary? If they are not constants but properties of a material "aether" we ought to be able to detect its motion. As you know, Michelson-Morley type experiments designed to do that detect nothing.
No-one can prove that aether doesn't exist. But theoretical physics has been getting along pretty well without it (-;
Halim Boutayeb | Dear Eric,
You said that you are afraid that if we abandon relativity we will be nowhere.
Maxwell developped his theory of electromagnetism with a certain medium in his mind. He probably made some hypothesis on this medium. Both Lord Kelvin and Maxwell were inspired by Stockes work on fluid. We probably need to reconsider their model by tacking into account ideas that came later such as Planck constant and Lennard-Jones potential.
I suggest that we start from Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Faraday, Weber, Ampere and Ritz's works and see if we can develop a classical model that can merge with quantum mechanics.
Best regards
Eric Lord | Dear Halim ~
"You said that you are afraid that if we abandon relativity we will be nowhere"
I didn’t say that. What I actually said, I think, was that if we abandon the concept of continuity physics would be nowhere. {+100500}
"Maxwell developed his theory of electromagnetism with a certain medium in his mind.”
Yes: in his mind. But his electromagnetic equations "in empty space" don’t require it and reveal no justification for it.
Halim Boutayeb | Dear Eric,
you said:"But his electromagnetic equations don’t require it and reveal no justification for it."
I wonder how you can be sure about it. If we read his work
"On Physical Lines of Force"
1861 | pdf
and this one
"On a mechanichal representation of electric, magnetic and galvanic forces" by Thomson (Lord Kelvin)
1882 | DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511996009.028
they explicitly talk about an elastic medium and use Stokes work about elastic medium. I wonder how can someone develop the same theory without any hypothesis about such medium. In other words, how can we find Maxwell's equations differently from the method used by Maxwell?
Best regards
Valentin Danci | Sorry Eric, you don't know much what you are talking about regarding the need of a medium in the EM equations. There *is* something in space which *has* permanently the electric and magnetic properties ε0 and μ0. Those properties are present in the electromagnetic equations. Therefore Maxwell's (...)
Eric Lord | Yes, Valentin and Halim − I'm not unaware of what you tell. But there is no reason to believe that ε0 and μ0 are not just physical constants. Why and how should they be expected to vary? If they are not constants but properties of a material "aether" we ought to be able to detect its motion. As you know, Michelson-Morley type experiments designed to do that detect nothing.
No-one can prove that aether doesn't exist. But theoretical physics has been getting along pretty well without it (-;
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Mar 26, 2017]
Q: Is time an illusion?
Hossein Javadi | The internal clock that drives the daily activities of all living things, from wild flowers to whales, is wound by Earth’s rotation. The 24-hour cycle, tied to one turn of the planet on its axis, embodies a biological clock mimicked by timepieces invented to measure the human day.
But these external clocks don’t exactly match the biological tickings inside ourselves. Many measurements led to the conclusion that the internal clock period is actually closer to 25 hours; that is, the biological clock was thought to drift toward a 25-hour day unless it is set back an hour each day by exposure to morning light and to external clocks. This situation is blamed for a long list of sleep problems.
Now, the most accurate measurements to date, made by researchers at Harvard University, reveal that our natural daily rhythm is much closer to that of other living things than previously believed. The better match opens the way for experts to more effectively treat sleep problems involving night work, jet lag, Earth-orbiting astronauts, or just not being able to go to sleep and wake up on time.
Human Biological Clock Set Back an Hour
Hossein Javadi | The internal clock that drives the daily activities of all living things, from wild flowers to whales, is wound by Earth’s rotation. The 24-hour cycle, tied to one turn of the planet on its axis, embodies a biological clock mimicked by timepieces invented to measure the human day.
But these external clocks don’t exactly match the biological tickings inside ourselves. Many measurements led to the conclusion that the internal clock period is actually closer to 25 hours; that is, the biological clock was thought to drift toward a 25-hour day unless it is set back an hour each day by exposure to morning light and to external clocks. This situation is blamed for a long list of sleep problems.
Now, the most accurate measurements to date, made by researchers at Harvard University, reveal that our natural daily rhythm is much closer to that of other living things than previously believed. The better match opens the way for experts to more effectively treat sleep problems involving night work, jet lag, Earth-orbiting astronauts, or just not being able to go to sleep and wake up on time.
Human Biological Clock Set Back an Hour
Mar 27, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Hossein, the suprachiasmatic nucleus (and whole organism) is a partially autochthon oscillator, but at the same time, it is a product of the evolution of the solar system - it's autochonity is a product of coherent evolution. The arguments about to what the cycles of that oscillator correspond in the absence of the external (rest, synchronizing) part of the system are based on the obviously incorrect logic.
Hossein Javadi | Dear Vasyl,
Yes, you are right, thank you for your mention.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Hossein, I wrote and later noted for myself the ambiguity of the term "autochthon". The point is that I meant it's use in psychology (as arising out of connection with any external causes - that is, mechanism that can work independently as a "thing-in-itself"), while the use in biological (or, for example, ethnographic) sense literally corresponds to the meaning that is embedded in the whole comment - formed under the given conditions and for the given conditions here. So, the whole comment got into a tautology, and it was enough to use one that term.
Research from reference (which you gave) are interesting for another reason - from the point of view of control systems and understanding how the general synchronization of the internal oscillator with cyclic processes of the adaptive landscape occurs. Therefore, it is interesting in which direction the quaziautonomous (already formed) internal clock runs away in the absence of external part of the natural feedbacks through the adaptive landscape.
Hossein Javadi | Dear Vasyl,
Thank you for useful mentions.
I'm not specialized in this field because my expertise is theoretical physics.
But in my opinion, the internal clock in the process of genetic and evolutionary changes must change.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Hossein, this "clock" is the result of adjusting the system to the current state of the environment (ie, adaptive landscape). In order for them to change significantly, the environment must change first.
In any case, the stable state of the biological system is dynamically regenerating memory, which is provoked by the landscape in conjunction with the system.
For example, in the absence of gravity, the muscles will atrophy. With a long absence of the influence of changing the time of daylight, tidal forces, etc, the feeling of time also will be transformed losing these effects, partially in the process of life of one individual, more if a species in the new landscape be for a long time (if the dynamics of changes will be within the limits that the species is able to "digest" with its adaptive capacity and dynamics). Whole bio-chemical processes will also be transformed in certain range (the limits of adaptation of living organic matter are not unlimited), losing unnecessary, not corresponding to experience in the current environment, i.e. losing memory that is not vital and does not have reinforcements (native feedback effect through natural selection on all structural levels).
So, do not expect a significant change in the mechanism, which corresponds to the current conditions. (imo)
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Hossein, the suprachiasmatic nucleus (and whole organism) is a partially autochthon oscillator, but at the same time, it is a product of the evolution of the solar system - it's autochonity is a product of coherent evolution. The arguments about to what the cycles of that oscillator correspond in the absence of the external (rest, synchronizing) part of the system are based on the obviously incorrect logic.
Hossein Javadi | Dear Vasyl,
Yes, you are right, thank you for your mention.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Hossein, I wrote and later noted for myself the ambiguity of the term "autochthon". The point is that I meant it's use in psychology (as arising out of connection with any external causes - that is, mechanism that can work independently as a "thing-in-itself"), while the use in biological (or, for example, ethnographic) sense literally corresponds to the meaning that is embedded in the whole comment - formed under the given conditions and for the given conditions here. So, the whole comment got into a tautology, and it was enough to use one that term.
Research from reference (which you gave) are interesting for another reason - from the point of view of control systems and understanding how the general synchronization of the internal oscillator with cyclic processes of the adaptive landscape occurs. Therefore, it is interesting in which direction the quaziautonomous (already formed) internal clock runs away in the absence of external part of the natural feedbacks through the adaptive landscape.
Hossein Javadi | Dear Vasyl,
Thank you for useful mentions.
I'm not specialized in this field because my expertise is theoretical physics.
But in my opinion, the internal clock in the process of genetic and evolutionary changes must change.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Hossein, this "clock" is the result of adjusting the system to the current state of the environment (ie, adaptive landscape). In order for them to change significantly, the environment must change first.
In any case, the stable state of the biological system is dynamically regenerating memory, which is provoked by the landscape in conjunction with the system.
For example, in the absence of gravity, the muscles will atrophy. With a long absence of the influence of changing the time of daylight, tidal forces, etc, the feeling of time also will be transformed losing these effects, partially in the process of life of one individual, more if a species in the new landscape be for a long time (if the dynamics of changes will be within the limits that the species is able to "digest" with its adaptive capacity and dynamics). Whole bio-chemical processes will also be transformed in certain range (the limits of adaptation of living organic matter are not unlimited), losing unnecessary, not corresponding to experience in the current environment, i.e. losing memory that is not vital and does not have reinforcements (native feedback effect through natural selection on all structural levels).
So, do not expect a significant change in the mechanism, which corresponds to the current conditions. (imo)
— ResearchGate. Available from: Is time an illusion? [accessed Mar 27, 2018]
Mar 28, 2018
Valentin Danci | How can the "physical implications" of theories not require hypotheses, since it is clear that the theories *require* such hypotheses???
Your lack of logic is astonishing, Eric.
Vasyl Komarov | Valentin, an illustration to today's tweet about the differences between continental and analytical philosophy is just in time, it explains a little the essence of misunderstanding. Despite the fact that it is slightly about politics, given the names of people who are mentioned. Here it is necessary to mention Edmunt Husserl to explain how the native (naive) phenomenological hypotheses and the hypotheses of model built from the first principles differ.
Phenomenology is the absence of prerequisites. The first principles are prerequisites. Perhaps, word "hypothesis" for native phenomenological premises (primal qualia) is too loud.
Maxwell's electrodynamics and the theory of relativity are theories from almost the first principles. Although, the reason for this lies, most likely, in the terminal simplicity and limited range of the patterns of nature relations that are covered by these theories.
As you approach the model from the first principles, native phenomenological labels gradually (one by one) disappears from your theory, phenomenology is replaced step by step by models. This formalization of experience is the natural path of science.
Valentin Danci | How can the "physical implications" of theories not require hypotheses, since it is clear that the theories *require* such hypotheses???
Your lack of logic is astonishing, Eric.
Vasyl Komarov | Valentin, an illustration to today's tweet about the differences between continental and analytical philosophy is just in time, it explains a little the essence of misunderstanding. Despite the fact that it is slightly about politics, given the names of people who are mentioned. Here it is necessary to mention Edmunt Husserl to explain how the native (naive) phenomenological hypotheses and the hypotheses of model built from the first principles differ.
Философ Алексей Глухов о континентальной и аналитической школах, причинах расхождения и способах постижения истины в современной философии:https://t.co/ceHKR6qJf2
— ПостНаука (@postnauka) March 28, 2018
Картинка из паблика ВКонтакте «Выхинская критика французской мысли». pic.twitter.com/8yUgJHBSHO
Phenomenology is the absence of prerequisites. The first principles are prerequisites. Perhaps, word "hypothesis" for native phenomenological premises (primal qualia) is too loud.
Maxwell's electrodynamics and the theory of relativity are theories from almost the first principles. Although, the reason for this lies, most likely, in the terminal simplicity and limited range of the patterns of nature relations that are covered by these theories.
As you approach the model from the first principles, native phenomenological labels gradually (one by one) disappears from your theory, phenomenology is replaced step by step by models. This formalization of experience is the natural path of science.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Mar 28, 2018]
Mar 29, 2018
{Интересные мысли...}
Lori Gardi | To all,
Although Maxwell's equation appear to have stood the test of time, a recent discovery by IBM seems to indicate that Maxwell's equations are incomplete:
A New Effect in Electromagnetism Discovered
If Maxwell's equations are incomplete, then maybe we should go back and have another look to see where he went wrong. I already did that and I know where he went wrong. There is a "bug" in his displacement current derivation which means that his plane wave derivation is also inherently flawed. Light is NOT the plane waves of Maxwell's imagination but corresponds to the normal waves defined in the domain of the complex numbers. Phi = e^(i 2pi f t)
In other words, the electro and magnetic components of light waves are 90 degrees out of phase with each other (as it is with ALL other waves), unlike Maxwell's plane waves.
Mystery solved.
Lori Gardi | Andrew,
I recently discovered something interesting, that (uo x c) have the units of resistance and (eo x c) have the units of conductance. When coupled with the constant, c, permittivity and permeability are reciprocals of each other. In other words:
(eo x c) x (uo x c) = 1
Now, it is clear why E = m c^2 (E = m c c). One "c" belongs to permittivity and one "c" belongs to permeability. Permittivity and permeability are two components of the medium for the propagation of light. Speed of light is not a "speed", it is really a "rate of induction" of an electric medium where permittivity governs the move from potential energy to kinetic energy and permeability governs the move from kinetic to back to potential energy. Think capacitors and inductors in an LC oscillating circuit. Light is clearly analogous to an LC circuit.
Also, 1/c^2 = eo x uo and since E = m c^2, m = E x uo x eo.
This seems to be saying that permittivity and permeability of free space are responsible for mass as well as the "speed of light".
So much to do...so little time.
{Интересные мысли...}
Lori Gardi | To all,
Although Maxwell's equation appear to have stood the test of time, a recent discovery by IBM seems to indicate that Maxwell's equations are incomplete:
A New Effect in Electromagnetism Discovered
If Maxwell's equations are incomplete, then maybe we should go back and have another look to see where he went wrong. I already did that and I know where he went wrong. There is a "bug" in his displacement current derivation which means that his plane wave derivation is also inherently flawed. Light is NOT the plane waves of Maxwell's imagination but corresponds to the normal waves defined in the domain of the complex numbers. Phi = e^(i 2pi f t)
In other words, the electro and magnetic components of light waves are 90 degrees out of phase with each other (as it is with ALL other waves), unlike Maxwell's plane waves.
Mystery solved.
Lori Gardi | Andrew,
I recently discovered something interesting, that (uo x c) have the units of resistance and (eo x c) have the units of conductance. When coupled with the constant, c, permittivity and permeability are reciprocals of each other. In other words:
(eo x c) x (uo x c) = 1
Now, it is clear why E = m c^2 (E = m c c). One "c" belongs to permittivity and one "c" belongs to permeability. Permittivity and permeability are two components of the medium for the propagation of light. Speed of light is not a "speed", it is really a "rate of induction" of an electric medium where permittivity governs the move from potential energy to kinetic energy and permeability governs the move from kinetic to back to potential energy. Think capacitors and inductors in an LC oscillating circuit. Light is clearly analogous to an LC circuit.
Also, 1/c^2 = eo x uo and since E = m c^2, m = E x uo x eo.
This seems to be saying that permittivity and permeability of free space are responsible for mass as well as the "speed of light".
So much to do...so little time.
— ResearchGate. Available from ResearchGate [accessed Mar 29, 2018]
Mar 30, 2018
Abdul Malek | Dear Eric,
I can (for the sake of discussion) agree with you that is possible to conceive in thought, a “mathematical vacuum” and the theories of relativity are in conformity with this concept.
1) But I must point out that there is a disconnect of your “mathematical vacuum” and the ponderable “physical (or classical) vacuum” of “empty space”, which contains according to various estimates starting from Arthur Eddington (I believe) about 4/5 atoms per cubic Km.
Then there is the “quantum vacuum” with virtual particles that is very well demonstrated by the Lamb Shift, Casimir Force, even physical production of “real” matter particles from “nothing” of the “quantum vacuum: - “creation out of nothing”!. The Hegelian dialectical concept of space-time-matter-motion that I am working on; describes popping in and out of the virtual particles as the primary ontological contradiction of the “Being-Nothing” dynamic, through which the “becoming” or the "opposite “ - going out of existence matter particles happen. Now, according to dialectical contradiction of the “unity of the opposites”, each one of the opposite must exist simultaneously, meaning that there can never be only “nothing” or only “being”. So it means that like the uncertainty principle there can never be absolute or “mathematical vacuum” that you propose. Your “mathematical vacuum” can never exist in reality. This also invalidates all the inferences and theories including the theories of relativity as far as objective reality is concerned and according to the interpretation that you propose. Do you agree?
2) The main part of my indictment of modern official physics that I made through you still remains unanswered. Even if I agree with you that mathematically conceived theories of relativity are consistent “in and within themselves” ; whether or not these reflect reality has to be demonstrated through empirical, experimental etc., means. So far in the discussion (in this forum) you have admiringly remained consistent with this view and you admit that time dilation, length contraction, mass increase etc. at very high velocities are only apparent but not real as has been claimed in textbooks etc. Why this disconnect?
3) Official physics as is presented to us through books, media, formal education and training and research projects, experiments, “testing” etc. have claimed the “never-failing truth” of the very phenomena arising from the theories (or the modification of those) you now assert are not real. Not only that; these theories have become the main vehicle for an understanding of the cosmos on the one hand and of the quantum world on the other. As you already admitted, fantastic claims of all sorts are being made and more and more “mysteries” are being “discovered” by Nobel winning scientists and high profile professors in those realms. Do you agree with them?
I hope you would take the trouble to give your opinion on these three issues in a more specific and concrete way. Thanks and best regards.
Vasyl Komarov | Abdul, (about 1): even saying "physical vacuum" you mean a certain model in accordance with some of your representations of reality. Neither you nor anyone else can claim that you are talking about reality, just about a model. Mathematics is a language too. You distinguish just two various description of fenomenon. What really must bother you is how the vaccum ("nothing" in yours representations) produces everywhere particles with systematic properties in full compliance with some small set of limitations.
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasyl,
You say, “Neither you nor anyone else can claim that you are talking about reality, just about a model”
Totally wrong and I categorically reject this assertion! What you are talking about is Kantian “unknowable thing-in-itself”. Materialist dialectics, most post-Kantian philosophers (idealists or not, including Hegel) and materialist natural science categorically rejected this Kantian bugbear. Philosophical propositions and truths do not need empirical verification, because these are “self-evident” and are dogmatically posited as such – end of story.
But in natural science things are different. Even Albert Einstein who mimicked Kant’s subjective idealism (logical categories) with his own (equally subjective) mathematical (logical) categories needed the validity of his theories, truths, propositions etc., as he was obliged to make predictions that can be verified through experiment to “prove” their relevance to “objective reality”. Unlike Kantian categories, official physics feels obliged to “prove” the theories of relativity and other even more fantastic theories to claim scientific validity. As I always emphasized in this forum (specially with Prof. Lord), ALL the so-called “theories” (your “models”) are based on fantasy (for some of which even Prof. Lord agrees to) and “proofs” are claimed through contrived or even faked experimental/observational results, to establish these theories with scientific validity.
Materialist dialectics, even classical materialism asserts that man is capable of gaining positive knowledge of objective reality progressively with better approximation along the route of historical evolution. Classical mechanics and Newtonian physics is a testimony to this claim. It totally rejects Kantian unknowable thing-in-itself. Modern ruling class and its representatives invokes the “unknowable thing-in-itself” even in natural science (since Einsteinian esoteric theories)) by taking resort to abstract “modelling” to cover-up the trickery of “proofs “ of their theories. You are unfortunately doing no better.
For man, there is only one (seule) criteria for positive knowledge of the objective reality and stated by Karl Marx, “The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but a practical question. In practice man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the “this-sidedness” of his thinking. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question".Theses on Feuerbach
None of the “field” based esoteric theories of "New Physics", including the theories of relativity, SM, SS etc. ad nauseum has yet fulfilled this fundamental criteria of objective truth! Regards, Abdul
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, imo, no views (belief) system can establish "objective truth", even if it positions itself in this way. The Buddha's words that Eric referred to Einstein are also relevant here. Even your favorite dialectical materialism determines the truth relative (by the process, what is at the root of the concept of dialectics, from what, by the way, I find your position regarding relativism as funny.)
I did not say that "positive knowledge" is impossible. I have nothing against it. You can refine the knowledge of reality dialectically as much as you want, starting with some subjective judgment, but you can not translate this knowledge into "objective truth" by using a single act of refinement of the original judgment, just as you can not translate a finite set into an infinite one by adding single element.
I just accentuated that any knowledge of reality is not equal to reality, but is a conditional (relative) description. At the same time, any knowledge, including your knowledge, like information accumulated in the form of some structure, for example, your body, is a part of reality. I do not want to argue here, we already discussed this in the comments of Christian's article.
I was talking to Valentin about phenomenology early. Problem of the phenomenological approach to knowledge about something is that such knowledge can not yield complex (dynamic) forecasts. This, in fact, data collection without further processing. In order to be able to make more and more powerful forecasts (what is essence of cognitive being), it is necessary to involve the computational (thought) processes, resulting in complex models. Based on undoubtedly "positive" phenomenological knowledge, models are also "positive" knowledge - they are part of the structure of knowledge (complex structure of information, gained from rest of reality.)
You did not pay attention to the main thing in my comment, the last sentence. You not see a contradiction in the fact that the whole observed material structure consists of mutually consistent ordered objects, which is taken for granted from measurements (the standard model, practically at the phenomenological level), while reflections on the spontaneity of this state of affairs and the idea of arbitrariness of reality physics is still popular and continues.
This is causelessy accepted faith, in fact, like any phenomenology. Understanding of something (i.e. knowing of causes via models) saves from unreasonable contradictory assumptions (hypotheses.)
Abdul Malek | Dear Eric,
I can (for the sake of discussion) agree with you that is possible to conceive in thought, a “mathematical vacuum” and the theories of relativity are in conformity with this concept.
1) But I must point out that there is a disconnect of your “mathematical vacuum” and the ponderable “physical (or classical) vacuum” of “empty space”, which contains according to various estimates starting from Arthur Eddington (I believe) about 4/5 atoms per cubic Km.
Then there is the “quantum vacuum” with virtual particles that is very well demonstrated by the Lamb Shift, Casimir Force, even physical production of “real” matter particles from “nothing” of the “quantum vacuum: - “creation out of nothing”!. The Hegelian dialectical concept of space-time-matter-motion that I am working on; describes popping in and out of the virtual particles as the primary ontological contradiction of the “Being-Nothing” dynamic, through which the “becoming” or the "opposite “ - going out of existence matter particles happen. Now, according to dialectical contradiction of the “unity of the opposites”, each one of the opposite must exist simultaneously, meaning that there can never be only “nothing” or only “being”. So it means that like the uncertainty principle there can never be absolute or “mathematical vacuum” that you propose. Your “mathematical vacuum” can never exist in reality. This also invalidates all the inferences and theories including the theories of relativity as far as objective reality is concerned and according to the interpretation that you propose. Do you agree?
2) The main part of my indictment of modern official physics that I made through you still remains unanswered. Even if I agree with you that mathematically conceived theories of relativity are consistent “in and within themselves” ; whether or not these reflect reality has to be demonstrated through empirical, experimental etc., means. So far in the discussion (in this forum) you have admiringly remained consistent with this view and you admit that time dilation, length contraction, mass increase etc. at very high velocities are only apparent but not real as has been claimed in textbooks etc. Why this disconnect?
3) Official physics as is presented to us through books, media, formal education and training and research projects, experiments, “testing” etc. have claimed the “never-failing truth” of the very phenomena arising from the theories (or the modification of those) you now assert are not real. Not only that; these theories have become the main vehicle for an understanding of the cosmos on the one hand and of the quantum world on the other. As you already admitted, fantastic claims of all sorts are being made and more and more “mysteries” are being “discovered” by Nobel winning scientists and high profile professors in those realms. Do you agree with them?
I hope you would take the trouble to give your opinion on these three issues in a more specific and concrete way. Thanks and best regards.
Vasyl Komarov | Abdul, (about 1): even saying "physical vacuum" you mean a certain model in accordance with some of your representations of reality. Neither you nor anyone else can claim that you are talking about reality, just about a model. Mathematics is a language too. You distinguish just two various description of fenomenon. What really must bother you is how the vaccum ("nothing" in yours representations) produces everywhere particles with systematic properties in full compliance with some small set of limitations.
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasyl,
You say, “Neither you nor anyone else can claim that you are talking about reality, just about a model”
Totally wrong and I categorically reject this assertion! What you are talking about is Kantian “unknowable thing-in-itself”. Materialist dialectics, most post-Kantian philosophers (idealists or not, including Hegel) and materialist natural science categorically rejected this Kantian bugbear. Philosophical propositions and truths do not need empirical verification, because these are “self-evident” and are dogmatically posited as such – end of story.
But in natural science things are different. Even Albert Einstein who mimicked Kant’s subjective idealism (logical categories) with his own (equally subjective) mathematical (logical) categories needed the validity of his theories, truths, propositions etc., as he was obliged to make predictions that can be verified through experiment to “prove” their relevance to “objective reality”. Unlike Kantian categories, official physics feels obliged to “prove” the theories of relativity and other even more fantastic theories to claim scientific validity. As I always emphasized in this forum (specially with Prof. Lord), ALL the so-called “theories” (your “models”) are based on fantasy (for some of which even Prof. Lord agrees to) and “proofs” are claimed through contrived or even faked experimental/observational results, to establish these theories with scientific validity.
Materialist dialectics, even classical materialism asserts that man is capable of gaining positive knowledge of objective reality progressively with better approximation along the route of historical evolution. Classical mechanics and Newtonian physics is a testimony to this claim. It totally rejects Kantian unknowable thing-in-itself. Modern ruling class and its representatives invokes the “unknowable thing-in-itself” even in natural science (since Einsteinian esoteric theories)) by taking resort to abstract “modelling” to cover-up the trickery of “proofs “ of their theories. You are unfortunately doing no better.
For man, there is only one (seule) criteria for positive knowledge of the objective reality and stated by Karl Marx, “The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but a practical question. In practice man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the “this-sidedness” of his thinking. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question".Theses on Feuerbach
None of the “field” based esoteric theories of "New Physics", including the theories of relativity, SM, SS etc. ad nauseum has yet fulfilled this fundamental criteria of objective truth! Regards, Abdul
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, imo, no views (belief) system can establish "objective truth", even if it positions itself in this way. The Buddha's words that Eric referred to Einstein are also relevant here. Even your favorite dialectical materialism determines the truth relative (by the process, what is at the root of the concept of dialectics, from what, by the way, I find your position regarding relativism as funny.)
I did not say that "positive knowledge" is impossible. I have nothing against it. You can refine the knowledge of reality dialectically as much as you want, starting with some subjective judgment, but you can not translate this knowledge into "objective truth" by using a single act of refinement of the original judgment, just as you can not translate a finite set into an infinite one by adding single element.
I just accentuated that any knowledge of reality is not equal to reality, but is a conditional (relative) description. At the same time, any knowledge, including your knowledge, like information accumulated in the form of some structure, for example, your body, is a part of reality. I do not want to argue here, we already discussed this in the comments of Christian's article.
I was talking to Valentin about phenomenology early. Problem of the phenomenological approach to knowledge about something is that such knowledge can not yield complex (dynamic) forecasts. This, in fact, data collection without further processing. In order to be able to make more and more powerful forecasts (what is essence of cognitive being), it is necessary to involve the computational (thought) processes, resulting in complex models. Based on undoubtedly "positive" phenomenological knowledge, models are also "positive" knowledge - they are part of the structure of knowledge (complex structure of information, gained from rest of reality.)
You did not pay attention to the main thing in my comment, the last sentence. You not see a contradiction in the fact that the whole observed material structure consists of mutually consistent ordered objects, which is taken for granted from measurements (the standard model, practically at the phenomenological level), while reflections on the spontaneity of this state of affairs and the idea of arbitrariness of reality physics is still popular and continues.
This is causelessy accepted faith, in fact, like any phenomenology. Understanding of something (i.e. knowing of causes via models) saves from unreasonable contradictory assumptions (hypotheses.)
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Mar 30, 2018]
Apr 3, 2018
Q: Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible?
Vasyl Komarov | Yes, society is extremely inertial and conservative, this is the key to the stability of its system. The theory of relativity is a dialectic product of the discrepancy between observational data and two theories. If you have a desire to cancel what glues Newtonian mechanics and electrodynamics in the simplest and most clear form, what is applicable in practice, you must offer the society something new, which is effective enough or/and explained more. You need to fill this void, since theory of relativity is already here.
In any case, such a theory should take into account the data that generated the theory of relativity, it anyway will not spare Euclidean geometry, so beloved by common sense of the naked eye.
Eric, it is normal that in the process of accumulation of contradictions, a set of ad hoc hypotheses arise first. In the aftermath, any new theory spins from them.
NB: In fact, the theory of relativity is a punishment because of the wave functions of quantum mechanics. If the material world were be arranged in accordance with the model of the Bohr atom, it would be not necessary to bother. If you want to abandon relativity, first abolish the wave nature of matter. It is only road back to cozy Euclidian world.
(The Earth looks flat because horizon is limited to a small area. Just look from a greater distance. With the Universe is the same.)
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Abdul Malek~
firstly I would recommend to not mix up questions about STR and GTR. STR concerns electrodynamics while GTR concerns gravity. It is possible to consider a world where STR holds while GTR is wrong, while the reverse is pretty unlikely.
Secondly I advise you to search for "Lorentz violation" in title of articles published just in APS journals https://journals.aps.org/search/
and you shall find 217 papers, 3 already from 2018 - only for this search term. Thus your pompous statement that physics does not consider, discuss and test STR is not based on facts but on your personal prejudice. I did not even try to count the number of papers on gravitational models suggested to replace, modify or refuse Einstein's GTR.
There is no legitimization for any snivelling complaint that "official physics" (whatever that means) ignores doubts or criticism of STR/GTR. However, to date no resilient experimental indication for a failure of STR has been documented.
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasyl,
Thanks for your comment. I am sorry to say that unfortunately and accidentally I deleted your response to my last comment in Dr. W.W. Engelhardt’s forum. I modified my comment (just to correct a typing mistake) without noticing that you had replied to that comment. The modification removed your response as well!
I saw your comment later in my home page. I am very sorry for this unintended mishap. But I could not alert you about this accident in that forum, since I decided to discontinue commenting in that forum. You can post your comment there back again if you like and I will urge you to do that again. Regards, Abdul
Abdul Malek | Dear Christian Baumgarten,
1. It is not me alone who is mixing SR and GR – the very name given by Einstein “Special” and “General” are adjectives of one term “Relativity”! And we all know that SR and GR relates to non-Newtonian (at very high) constant and accelerated motion; which are also related to electrodynamics and gravity!. So, your complain to me has no meaning. By saying this you want to point out my “ignorance” about these theories and discredit me a priori, any comment I could make about them! Also, I am very curious to know why you want to (so radically) distinguish between these two theories. Do you think one is more valid than the other or do you have doubt for one relative to the other?
2. "There is no legitimization for any snivelling complaint that "official physics" (whatever that means) ignores doubts or criticism of STR/GTR. However, to date no resilient experimental indication for a failure of STR has been documented."
You could make this statement without the "advice" in the previous paragraph! Prof. Eric Lord now admits that (unlike what is stated in many textbooks or asserted by many physicists) "time dilation", "length contraction", "mass increase" etc. at very high speed are only "apparent" and not "real". I am not sure how you can make "resilient experimental" without being in a vehicle with velocity comparable to that of light. May be you can explain.
I think I made my position clear on these issues in my works, publications and comments including the various RG forums, particularly in the one by Dr. Engelhardt. If you follow the very recent dialogue I had with Prof. Eric Lord in that forum; you will see my position more clearly.
“Testing” of these theories (I made it clear on many occasions) by itself has no meaning for me. ALL the testing to “prove” these theories are motivated, subjective and prone to confirmation bias. Do you think anybody will finance a billion dollar project unless you are sure that the result would be what you want? Even the much trumpeted ”discovery of the God Particle” is contrived. I say this because I myself have shown this in a discussion with one of the prominent scientists involved in this “discovery”! A previous project in Texas to find the “God Particle” was aborted after the US Congress refused to fund it, because they were not convinced or no guaranty could be given that this particle would be discovered!
As it would be evident even in my comments in Dr. Engelhardt’s forum; I take a principled stand in my opposition to the theories of relativity, based on a dialectical method. I do not have much confidence in the mathematical/geometrical method that others use in their criticism, as Dr. Engelhardt do for example. This is the very reason I decided to open up this discussion. I remember commenting in one of your forums on similar issues. For my judgement on any theory, I rely on the Marxist criteria of knowledge. The theories of “New Physics” (except QED) including the theories of relativity (even after a century) have not fulfilled that criteria. I quoted Marx many times before on this, “The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but a practical question. In practice man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the “this-sidedness” of his thinking.. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question”. Theses on Fauerbach.
A principled and principal materialist dialectics based stand against GR in particular (as I pointed out to Prof. Lord), can be found as the anti-thesis of the following statement by Einstein, “Since the theory of general relativity (GR) implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles and material points cannot play a fundamental part and neither can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density is particularly high”. Einstein, A. On the General Theory of Relativity, in David Levy (Ed.). The Scientific American Book of the Cosmos, N.Y., 2000, pp. 13.
You can very easily see that GR contains arbitrary presupposition that are the exact opposite of the fundamental premises of materialist dialectics namely, the primacy of matter, motion and the infinite! I can in turn make the "legitimate" claim that no "official physicist" so far have any "resilient" counter argument against my position.
My position may be more clear to you if you care to go through my short article on "The Infinite" at the following link:
Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, I just noted that with long contemplation of that discussion ("Free Fall...") the obsession of prejudiced groups and the unwillingness to think over the arguments of opponents are becoming apparent. Thread is useful in the sense of such experience, as some other long discussions here. Last comment did not have any other value, I just shared personal feelings with you. Interesting episodes of RG discussions usually I save for myself.
Q: Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible?
Vasyl Komarov | Yes, society is extremely inertial and conservative, this is the key to the stability of its system. The theory of relativity is a dialectic product of the discrepancy between observational data and two theories. If you have a desire to cancel what glues Newtonian mechanics and electrodynamics in the simplest and most clear form, what is applicable in practice, you must offer the society something new, which is effective enough or/and explained more. You need to fill this void, since theory of relativity is already here.
In any case, such a theory should take into account the data that generated the theory of relativity, it anyway will not spare Euclidean geometry, so beloved by common sense of the naked eye.
Eric, it is normal that in the process of accumulation of contradictions, a set of ad hoc hypotheses arise first. In the aftermath, any new theory spins from them.
NB: In fact, the theory of relativity is a punishment because of the wave functions of quantum mechanics. If the material world were be arranged in accordance with the model of the Bohr atom, it would be not necessary to bother. If you want to abandon relativity, first abolish the wave nature of matter. It is only road back to cozy Euclidian world.
(The Earth looks flat because horizon is limited to a small area. Just look from a greater distance. With the Universe is the same.)
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Abdul Malek~
firstly I would recommend to not mix up questions about STR and GTR. STR concerns electrodynamics while GTR concerns gravity. It is possible to consider a world where STR holds while GTR is wrong, while the reverse is pretty unlikely.
Secondly I advise you to search for "Lorentz violation" in title of articles published just in APS journals https://journals.aps.org/search/
and you shall find 217 papers, 3 already from 2018 - only for this search term. Thus your pompous statement that physics does not consider, discuss and test STR is not based on facts but on your personal prejudice. I did not even try to count the number of papers on gravitational models suggested to replace, modify or refuse Einstein's GTR.
There is no legitimization for any snivelling complaint that "official physics" (whatever that means) ignores doubts or criticism of STR/GTR. However, to date no resilient experimental indication for a failure of STR has been documented.
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasyl,
Thanks for your comment. I am sorry to say that unfortunately and accidentally I deleted your response to my last comment in Dr. W.W. Engelhardt’s forum. I modified my comment (just to correct a typing mistake) without noticing that you had replied to that comment. The modification removed your response as well!
I saw your comment later in my home page. I am very sorry for this unintended mishap. But I could not alert you about this accident in that forum, since I decided to discontinue commenting in that forum. You can post your comment there back again if you like and I will urge you to do that again. Regards, Abdul
Abdul Malek | Dear Christian Baumgarten,
1. It is not me alone who is mixing SR and GR – the very name given by Einstein “Special” and “General” are adjectives of one term “Relativity”! And we all know that SR and GR relates to non-Newtonian (at very high) constant and accelerated motion; which are also related to electrodynamics and gravity!. So, your complain to me has no meaning. By saying this you want to point out my “ignorance” about these theories and discredit me a priori, any comment I could make about them! Also, I am very curious to know why you want to (so radically) distinguish between these two theories. Do you think one is more valid than the other or do you have doubt for one relative to the other?
2. "There is no legitimization for any snivelling complaint that "official physics" (whatever that means) ignores doubts or criticism of STR/GTR. However, to date no resilient experimental indication for a failure of STR has been documented."
You could make this statement without the "advice" in the previous paragraph! Prof. Eric Lord now admits that (unlike what is stated in many textbooks or asserted by many physicists) "time dilation", "length contraction", "mass increase" etc. at very high speed are only "apparent" and not "real". I am not sure how you can make "resilient experimental" without being in a vehicle with velocity comparable to that of light. May be you can explain.
I think I made my position clear on these issues in my works, publications and comments including the various RG forums, particularly in the one by Dr. Engelhardt. If you follow the very recent dialogue I had with Prof. Eric Lord in that forum; you will see my position more clearly.
“Testing” of these theories (I made it clear on many occasions) by itself has no meaning for me. ALL the testing to “prove” these theories are motivated, subjective and prone to confirmation bias. Do you think anybody will finance a billion dollar project unless you are sure that the result would be what you want? Even the much trumpeted ”discovery of the God Particle” is contrived. I say this because I myself have shown this in a discussion with one of the prominent scientists involved in this “discovery”! A previous project in Texas to find the “God Particle” was aborted after the US Congress refused to fund it, because they were not convinced or no guaranty could be given that this particle would be discovered!
As it would be evident even in my comments in Dr. Engelhardt’s forum; I take a principled stand in my opposition to the theories of relativity, based on a dialectical method. I do not have much confidence in the mathematical/geometrical method that others use in their criticism, as Dr. Engelhardt do for example. This is the very reason I decided to open up this discussion. I remember commenting in one of your forums on similar issues. For my judgement on any theory, I rely on the Marxist criteria of knowledge. The theories of “New Physics” (except QED) including the theories of relativity (even after a century) have not fulfilled that criteria. I quoted Marx many times before on this, “The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but a practical question. In practice man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the “this-sidedness” of his thinking.. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question”. Theses on Fauerbach.
A principled and principal materialist dialectics based stand against GR in particular (as I pointed out to Prof. Lord), can be found as the anti-thesis of the following statement by Einstein, “Since the theory of general relativity (GR) implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles and material points cannot play a fundamental part and neither can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density is particularly high”. Einstein, A. On the General Theory of Relativity, in David Levy (Ed.). The Scientific American Book of the Cosmos, N.Y., 2000, pp. 13.
You can very easily see that GR contains arbitrary presupposition that are the exact opposite of the fundamental premises of materialist dialectics namely, the primacy of matter, motion and the infinite! I can in turn make the "legitimate" claim that no "official physicist" so far have any "resilient" counter argument against my position.
My position may be more clear to you if you care to go through my short article on "The Infinite" at the following link:
Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, I just noted that with long contemplation of that discussion ("Free Fall...") the obsession of prejudiced groups and the unwillingness to think over the arguments of opponents are becoming apparent. Thread is useful in the sense of such experience, as some other long discussions here. Last comment did not have any other value, I just shared personal feelings with you. Interesting episodes of RG discussions usually I save for myself.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible? [accessed Apr 3, 2018]
Apr 16, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Hossein, accidentally I saw the picture on my feed and I want to warn you about the fact that it is completely based on pre-quantum ideas about matter. Therefore, it can interfere with thinking, provoking the inertia of thinking. Such a bubbly symbols as labels of structural elements for a model is well appropriate only for the level of Bohr atomic model or mind mapping with clear understanding of such a formal misconception. It need to keep it in mind!
On the occasion, here some (may be interesting) link: Physicists Zoom in on Gluons' Contribution to Proton Spin (doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.011501, arXiv:1510.02317). It is about how understanding of the interactions within the proton has evolved with measurements last thirty years.
Hans van Leunen | Vasyl,
Please draw an atom as it really is. Even for hydrogen that is impossible.
Can you draw a spherical shock front? These objects constitute elementary particles. They are the simplest field excitations.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Hossein, accidentally I saw the picture on my feed and I want to warn you about the fact that it is completely based on pre-quantum ideas about matter. Therefore, it can interfere with thinking, provoking the inertia of thinking. Such a bubbly symbols as labels of structural elements for a model is well appropriate only for the level of Bohr atomic model or mind mapping with clear understanding of such a formal misconception. It need to keep it in mind!
On the occasion, here some (may be interesting) link: Physicists Zoom in on Gluons' Contribution to Proton Spin (doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.011501, arXiv:1510.02317). It is about how understanding of the interactions within the proton has evolved with measurements last thirty years.
Hans van Leunen | Vasyl,
Please draw an atom as it really is. Even for hydrogen that is impossible.
Can you draw a spherical shock front? These objects constitute elementary particles. They are the simplest field excitations.
Apr 17, 2018
Hossein Javadi | Dear Vasyl
Thank you for mention and link.
Pay attention to the article mentioned, in this paper, they speak about energy, without really knowing what is the electromagnetic field made up of.
Hossein Javadi | Dear Vasyl
Thank you for mention and link.
Pay attention to the article mentioned, in this paper, they speak about energy, without really knowing what is the electromagnetic field made up of.
Apr 18, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Hossein, yes, I agree that it is necessary to understand what an electromagnetic field is. In my opinion, this question relates to the problem of the distribution and relationships of degrees of freedom in the system, and ultimately to the topology of the dynamic process (decoding the phase portrait of the system as a whole), which can not be done without taking into account all possible scales of degrees of freedom, in the absence of strong periodic (asymthotic) constrains outside the system, which must lead to (scale)invariance. There are many arguments and hints (in the data that we have) for the last assumption, it is very rational (forces to discard all cosmological forecasts in favor of a non-alternative process, this is the subject of a separate conversation.)
As the formalization of the description of nature intensifies, the phenomenological concepts must "die" one by one. In the hypothetical limit (the so-called final theory) they must be almost vanished by models formalism. Those, traces of semantics will remain only in a fundamentally unanswered philosophical question and we will never know what the dynamics (process) consists of, because of self-reference.
Redistribution of the spin between objects that represent discrete standard blocks in the representation of the standard model (from above link) is one of a good reasons to consider the whole structure as a single continuous entity or a continuous physical process in whose topology it is possible to conditionally distinguish characteristic repetitive patterns that are associated to abstract elementary particles by the standard model.
In the theory of dynamical systems (more precisely, the mechanics of continuous media) there is a suitable term for such a phenomenon - Lagrangian coherent structure (LCS). They have own evolution "time", which does not coincide with the physical "time" of the carrier, but has a direct functional connection with it. In this case, I do not mean the carrier as a continuous medium in Euclidean space (that is, the classical concept of "ether"). From the formal point of view, the analogy of emulating the Turing machine on another Turing machine is more appropriate here. Although it is also not true, since this is a case of the other extreme - the Turing machine is discrete, it corresponds to a linear process and is too close to quantum concepts. That is, I'm talking about an operation of expanding the phase space for a dynamic system.
All possible patterns of instability of dynamical systems should manifest themselves at any level of formalism (here a link arXiv:1710.03498 to one of the potentially interesting examples), since in understanding of processes the line between formalism and semantics must be erased. Rational reasoning says that all in connectedness, otherwise it is impossible to explain the phenomenon of mathematics and its predictive power. Not accepting this condition as a starting point, it is very difficult to find adequate explanation of the possibility of computers or a man to make calculations and the fact that the parameters of the models (in fact, some dynamic systems) coincide with the parameters of other dynamical systems, to which we match the calculation processes in "some dynamical systems" (brains, computers etc.) ...I have said many times about this, in fact, banal thing.
NB: Hans, in fact, you can not imagine a shock wave without placing objects in space, you think by the categories of space and objects, I'm thinking in the categories of orbits and associated attractions in a dynamic system. It slightly changes the views on abstractions related to the idea of space, such as point, surface, shock waves etc... try to imagine something unusual for everyday feelings, like fracton in hypergeometry, space of which consist of relations between orbits.
Hossein Javadi | Dear Vasyl
Thank you for your description. I would prefer to directly define the properties of a fundamental particle relative to its the constant of mass and the amount of speed, as expressed before. I will repeat here:
In CPH Theory, mass/energy and the amount of speed of fundamental particle must be constant and not turn into other particles. While in the Standard Model, fundamental particles have variable mass and speed, so they are not fundamental particles.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Hossein, yes, I agree that it is necessary to understand what an electromagnetic field is. In my opinion, this question relates to the problem of the distribution and relationships of degrees of freedom in the system, and ultimately to the topology of the dynamic process (decoding the phase portrait of the system as a whole), which can not be done without taking into account all possible scales of degrees of freedom, in the absence of strong periodic (asymthotic) constrains outside the system, which must lead to (scale)invariance. There are many arguments and hints (in the data that we have) for the last assumption, it is very rational (forces to discard all cosmological forecasts in favor of a non-alternative process, this is the subject of a separate conversation.)
As the formalization of the description of nature intensifies, the phenomenological concepts must "die" one by one. In the hypothetical limit (the so-called final theory) they must be almost vanished by models formalism. Those, traces of semantics will remain only in a fundamentally unanswered philosophical question and we will never know what the dynamics (process) consists of, because of self-reference.
Redistribution of the spin between objects that represent discrete standard blocks in the representation of the standard model (from above link) is one of a good reasons to consider the whole structure as a single continuous entity or a continuous physical process in whose topology it is possible to conditionally distinguish characteristic repetitive patterns that are associated to abstract elementary particles by the standard model.
In the theory of dynamical systems (more precisely, the mechanics of continuous media) there is a suitable term for such a phenomenon - Lagrangian coherent structure (LCS). They have own evolution "time", which does not coincide with the physical "time" of the carrier, but has a direct functional connection with it. In this case, I do not mean the carrier as a continuous medium in Euclidean space (that is, the classical concept of "ether"). From the formal point of view, the analogy of emulating the Turing machine on another Turing machine is more appropriate here. Although it is also not true, since this is a case of the other extreme - the Turing machine is discrete, it corresponds to a linear process and is too close to quantum concepts. That is, I'm talking about an operation of expanding the phase space for a dynamic system.
All possible patterns of instability of dynamical systems should manifest themselves at any level of formalism (here a link arXiv:1710.03498 to one of the potentially interesting examples), since in understanding of processes the line between formalism and semantics must be erased. Rational reasoning says that all in connectedness, otherwise it is impossible to explain the phenomenon of mathematics and its predictive power. Not accepting this condition as a starting point, it is very difficult to find adequate explanation of the possibility of computers or a man to make calculations and the fact that the parameters of the models (in fact, some dynamic systems) coincide with the parameters of other dynamical systems, to which we match the calculation processes in "some dynamical systems" (brains, computers etc.) ...I have said many times about this, in fact, banal thing.
NB: Hans, in fact, you can not imagine a shock wave without placing objects in space, you think by the categories of space and objects, I'm thinking in the categories of orbits and associated attractions in a dynamic system. It slightly changes the views on abstractions related to the idea of space, such as point, surface, shock waves etc... try to imagine something unusual for everyday feelings, like fracton in hypergeometry, space of which consist of relations between orbits.
Hossein Javadi | Dear Vasyl
Thank you for your description. I would prefer to directly define the properties of a fundamental particle relative to its the constant of mass and the amount of speed, as expressed before. I will repeat here:
In CPH Theory, mass/energy and the amount of speed of fundamental particle must be constant and not turn into other particles. While in the Standard Model, fundamental particles have variable mass and speed, so they are not fundamental particles.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Project: Quantum Field Theory: What are virtual particles? | Update: What are drawbacks of the Standard Model of elementary particles? [accessed Apr 18, 2018]
21 квіт. 2018 р.
09:31 | Небольшой исторический экскурс в геометрию Лобачевского...
Неевклидова геометрия Лобачевского
24 квіт. 2018 р.
19:08 | [перевод] Попрощайтесь с информационной эрой: наступает эпоха репутации
Say goodbye to the information age: it’s all about reputation now
Кроме масштабов ничего не поменялось. Авторитет, репутация... суть не меняется. Социум и система на доверии являются давно инструментом обработки потока информации для индивидуума. Это, в частности, и вопрос доверия Wikipedia, как системе с самой широкой выборкой редколлегии на человеческой цивилизации.
25 квіт. 2018 р.
21:40 | {комментарии под видео}
Забавно осознавать что природа не оставляет вам шанса на эти размышления, только fine tuning, только хардкор... иначе без привлечения "веры" и "акта творения" даже самая простая физика не должна функционировать.
Но, как недавно пытался объяснить в одной беседе на RG, чем феноменология отличается от ab initio - всякая идея "творения" ничего не объясняет. Объяснение - это знание причины, феноменология не знает причин. Стандартная модель, например, - хороший пример феноменологии, квантовая механика где-то рядом. Причина - методология измерения, легшая в основу.
Впрочем, кто всё это понимает - не нуждается в моих комментариях. Жизнь с другим набором "(cognitive) bias" - это такое чувство, будто мы все из "параллельных" вселенных.
Apr 26, 2018
Manuel S Morales | Gentelman, has any one of you stepped back and noticed that each and everyone are talking about how effects of existence are causal of effects of existence?
Other than myself, no one here has addressed the origin of the effects of the natural world. If you do not know how effects of existence (objects) came to be you then bypass its origin function in order to substitute origin for its effects. This "substitution" is nothing short of a fundamental violation of how nature works.
Unambiguous empirical evidence has confirmed effects of existence are NOT causal because their mutually exclusive function is that of an effect. Only motion is causal of effects of existence as can be confirmed by everyone via the Final Selection Thought Experiment. (see pgs 88-89 in article)
Article WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH, NATURE OR MAN?
As confirmed by comments made here, physics does not address how nature obtains effects of existence. This means that physics is an incomplete systematic study of nature because it violates the initial function of the system being studied by bypassing how the system can be studied in the first place.
This epic blunder needs to be corrected in order to advance science. As you have eloquently and succinctly commented, we can indeed do better than this.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Manuel, physics is incomplete because of the demarcation system in principle. For this reason, cognitive bias, specific to the selected ontology cutoff, comes in the kit. What really raises the serious question of the limits of a correct understanding of the subject of research even within the demarcation limits, since the reality is not limited and, moreover, is not fragmented into specific models of cognition (branches of science, et al.)
I can not say for the whole thread, but I must note that you did not carefully read my messages here. Moreover, you were not attentively present in some other old interesting discussions. And, most likely, you did not see some last comments in the Free Fall in Gravitational Theory, where I tried, for example, to explain to Abdul what is different about the phenomenological approach to the subject and the ab initio mode.
Knowledge of the causes is very important for understanding and, especially, the possibility of forecasting (Newton will not let me lie :-)
You are not original in causality quest, same as I am, since Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev was a pioneer in this matter (provided that was no Newton before...)
As you can see, you have at least 1 like-minded people here. But I definitely can not agree that the "mutually exclusive function" (word dualism is more appropriate here) is evidence of no causality of existence, if I understood what you said at all.
NB: You have come close to the eternal question, to which there is no answer forever. And this impossibility of obtaining the answer is obvious from the position of causality same as the knowledge that a time machine will never be invented. Self-reference is a general keyword of all problems. But, even eternity can benefit, if you sacrifice own mortal nature for the Kali, Goddess of Time, Creation, Destruction and Power (hinduism). Knowledge of the boundary conditions for the system is a not bad payment for the loss of existential illusions. After all, it's more interesting to feel a short cognitive life than to be forever inanimated guarantor of the eternity invariance (-;
Manuel S Morales | Gentelman, has any one of you stepped back and noticed that each and everyone are talking about how effects of existence are causal of effects of existence?
Other than myself, no one here has addressed the origin of the effects of the natural world. If you do not know how effects of existence (objects) came to be you then bypass its origin function in order to substitute origin for its effects. This "substitution" is nothing short of a fundamental violation of how nature works.
Unambiguous empirical evidence has confirmed effects of existence are NOT causal because their mutually exclusive function is that of an effect. Only motion is causal of effects of existence as can be confirmed by everyone via the Final Selection Thought Experiment. (see pgs 88-89 in article)
Article WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH, NATURE OR MAN?
As confirmed by comments made here, physics does not address how nature obtains effects of existence. This means that physics is an incomplete systematic study of nature because it violates the initial function of the system being studied by bypassing how the system can be studied in the first place.
This epic blunder needs to be corrected in order to advance science. As you have eloquently and succinctly commented, we can indeed do better than this.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Manuel, physics is incomplete because of the demarcation system in principle. For this reason, cognitive bias, specific to the selected ontology cutoff, comes in the kit. What really raises the serious question of the limits of a correct understanding of the subject of research even within the demarcation limits, since the reality is not limited and, moreover, is not fragmented into specific models of cognition (branches of science, et al.)
I can not say for the whole thread, but I must note that you did not carefully read my messages here. Moreover, you were not attentively present in some other old interesting discussions. And, most likely, you did not see some last comments in the Free Fall in Gravitational Theory, where I tried, for example, to explain to Abdul what is different about the phenomenological approach to the subject and the ab initio mode.
Knowledge of the causes is very important for understanding and, especially, the possibility of forecasting (Newton will not let me lie :-)
You are not original in causality quest, same as I am, since Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev was a pioneer in this matter (provided that was no Newton before...)
As you can see, you have at least 1 like-minded people here. But I definitely can not agree that the "mutually exclusive function" (word dualism is more appropriate here) is evidence of no causality of existence, if I understood what you said at all.
NB: You have come close to the eternal question, to which there is no answer forever. And this impossibility of obtaining the answer is obvious from the position of causality same as the knowledge that a time machine will never be invented. Self-reference is a general keyword of all problems. But, even eternity can benefit, if you sacrifice own mortal nature for the Kali, Goddess of Time, Creation, Destruction and Power (hinduism). Knowledge of the boundary conditions for the system is a not bad payment for the loss of existential illusions. After all, it's more interesting to feel a short cognitive life than to be forever inanimated guarantor of the eternity invariance (-;
— ResearchGate. Available from: Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible? [accessed Apr 26, 2018]
30 квіт. 2018 р.
12:53 |
"waiting for... bang the gong"BICEP2: The day the multiverse turned to dust - and so did someone’s Nobel, as a result
— Lady Gaga
Противостояние будет как и в случае с теорией Дарвина - это было очевидно с самого начала, как весь религиозный подтекст и споры.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", because evolution had combined what at first seemed as incoherent facts into a consistent knowledge system, explaining and predicting various facts about life on Earth
— Theodosius Dobzhansky
Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more - it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow - this is what evolution is.Nothing in Biology Makes Sense except in the Light of Evolution
— Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
1973 | DOI: 10.2307/4444260 | pdf
Здесь всё также нечего добавить, разве что выкинуть лишнее слово "биология":
"Nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution".
Дарвин нуждается в новых бульдогах, all is theory of evolution extension.
PS: Констатируя профессиональную деформацию физиков (и не только, о чём в своё время метко сказал коллективный псевдоним Козьма Прутков), то есть cognitive bias, приводящую к массовой слепоте.
13:46 | Извини, Брайан, как говорится, ничего личного, это просто, комментарии, созерцая хайп в Твиттере {по поводу книги}. Тегмарку тоже "доставалось" здесь {▲} за мысли по поводу поколений интеллекта в отрыве от эволюции.
21:19 | ...the elusive quantum mechanical phenomenon of entanglement has been generated and detected in a massive object. Researchers managed to bring the motions of two individual vibrating drumheads into an entangled quantum state
A paper in Nature reports that the elusive quantum mechanical phenomenon of entanglement has been generated and detected in a massive object. Researchers managed to bring the motions of two individual vibrating drumheads into an entangled quantum state https://t.co/02WSkgbcwH pic.twitter.com/VejLIusFHE
— Nature (@nature) April 30, 2018
Entangled massive mechanical oscillators
2017 | arXiv:1711.01640 | DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0038-x | pdf
May 2, 2018
Q: Can special relativity be categorized as metaphysics?
Abdul Malek | EG> “Christian would not have a job in Newton's world, l and many others neither. Contradictions, abound, even theoretically, in form and substance.”
Dear Ed,
This is an honest assessment of Einsteinian physics and its adherents. This supports the theme of this forum and my own assertion that the theories of relativity are superfluous and redundant to physics – a fundamental discipline of human endeavour that started with the fashioning of stones into tools and getting mastery over one of the forces of Nature, namely, heat/fire!
The modern practitioners of the theories of relativity and its mathematical idealism, at best practice elitist and impotent medieval scholasticism that has no relevance to physics, to the society at large and to humanity in general.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, it is useful to recall here some words that I once wrote to Stefano Quattrini in the "Free Fall in..." thread, because the understanding of nature by science, nevertheless, is on the road from the simplest "scholasticism" towards understanding of complex interrelated processes....
The idea behind Eulerian and Lagrangian Observers (Lagrangian_and Eulerian specification of the flow field) is a good to demonstrate the difference between understanding of space in the "classical" sense (Newtonian, where matter and space as abstract concepts are exist by itself) and "relativistic" sense (holistic, where matter has functional connection with space).
Eulerian observer (#1) implies at first abstract absolute space, that exists independently of entities placed in it. Lagrangian observer (#2) conversely implies the independent entity placed in a space. So, in classical mechanics (with Euclidean space) transition between both descriptions of motion is painless and does not change anything.
Since RT (, Mach principle, etc...) this is no longer the case (matter has functional connection with space). The problem revelaled within SRT: Whatever the specific Lagrangian system (consisting of an arbitrary set of entities) you are considering, you should take into account all the entities, and even in this case, lack of knowledge (information) does not exempt from limitations on the speed of information communication.
Within the framework of SRT (in fact, within the framework of Galilean transformation), the observer always has a lack of information about the state of system. Ignoring this moments in thinking leads to emergence of a well-known and frequently discussed paradoxes of SRT or, often, principal rejection of the theory of relativity. You can, for example, accidentally see the "event horizon" (violation of causality), by mistake through ignorance of own velocity locally relative to encirclement (by thinking of the non-existent privileged frame of reference i.e absolute space, the same one that people like to associate with independent abstract space of classical mechanics).
Yes, we can not identify movement with respect to what the concept of space implies, however, the speed of light as an invariant is even more serious guarantor of the impossibility of causality violation in the world, where matter linked with space.
Here the meaninglessness of consideration of isolated unitary entity is worth noting!
It is for this reason understanding the nature by classical mechanics (where we can put an unitary entity in abstract space as a thing in itself) is far from reality, as Ed rightly noted.
It is for this reason the abstract space of classical mechanics and the concept of a material point are the more scholasticism.
Both ideas (#1 and #2) in the basis of various descriptions of motion are misguiding since time of RT (more precisely, since the level of understanding of reality that began with these theories and the era of QM and still is not realised at a sufficient level), and it is fair for many factors, regardless of the degree of reliability of SRT or/and GR.
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasyl,
For a materialist dialectical view of space-time-matter-motion please see my Amazon listed booklet linked below or Hegel’ s "Naturphilosophie" in German or English Tr. [Hegel, G.W.F., Philosophy of Nature, Ed. E. Behler, Tr. S.A. Taubneck, Continuum 1990, 1 Mathematics, Space, § 197.]
“The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?”
I have attempted a QED interpretation of Hegel’s view on this topic. Unfortunately, for copyright reason I am unable to upload my work in RG:
Among the modern thinkers, I think that only Hermann Weyl in his book “RAUM—ZEIT—MATERIE” discloses a philosophical position of the dynamical relation of space, time, matter and motion, which is close to that of Hegel. Weyl said, “Space and time are commonly regarded as the forms of existence of the real world, matter as its substance. A definite portion of matter occupies a definite part of space at a definite moment of time. It is in the composite idea of motion that these three fundamental conceptions enter into intimate relationship.” Weyl, H. “SPACE—TIME—MATTER” (Dover Publications, Inc.) 1921.
Q: Can special relativity be categorized as metaphysics?
Abdul Malek | EG> “Christian would not have a job in Newton's world, l and many others neither. Contradictions, abound, even theoretically, in form and substance.”
Dear Ed,
This is an honest assessment of Einsteinian physics and its adherents. This supports the theme of this forum and my own assertion that the theories of relativity are superfluous and redundant to physics – a fundamental discipline of human endeavour that started with the fashioning of stones into tools and getting mastery over one of the forces of Nature, namely, heat/fire!
The modern practitioners of the theories of relativity and its mathematical idealism, at best practice elitist and impotent medieval scholasticism that has no relevance to physics, to the society at large and to humanity in general.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, it is useful to recall here some words that I once wrote to Stefano Quattrini in the "Free Fall in..." thread, because the understanding of nature by science, nevertheless, is on the road from the simplest "scholasticism" towards understanding of complex interrelated processes....
The idea behind Eulerian and Lagrangian Observers (Lagrangian_and Eulerian specification of the flow field) is a good to demonstrate the difference between understanding of space in the "classical" sense (Newtonian, where matter and space as abstract concepts are exist by itself) and "relativistic" sense (holistic, where matter has functional connection with space).
Eulerian observer (#1) implies at first abstract absolute space, that exists independently of entities placed in it. Lagrangian observer (#2) conversely implies the independent entity placed in a space. So, in classical mechanics (with Euclidean space) transition between both descriptions of motion is painless and does not change anything.
Since RT (, Mach principle, etc...) this is no longer the case (matter has functional connection with space). The problem revelaled within SRT: Whatever the specific Lagrangian system (consisting of an arbitrary set of entities) you are considering, you should take into account all the entities, and even in this case, lack of knowledge (information) does not exempt from limitations on the speed of information communication.
Within the framework of SRT (in fact, within the framework of Galilean transformation), the observer always has a lack of information about the state of system. Ignoring this moments in thinking leads to emergence of a well-known and frequently discussed paradoxes of SRT or, often, principal rejection of the theory of relativity. You can, for example, accidentally see the "event horizon" (violation of causality), by mistake through ignorance of own velocity locally relative to encirclement (by thinking of the non-existent privileged frame of reference i.e absolute space, the same one that people like to associate with independent abstract space of classical mechanics).
Yes, we can not identify movement with respect to what the concept of space implies, however, the speed of light as an invariant is even more serious guarantor of the impossibility of causality violation in the world, where matter linked with space.
Here the meaninglessness of consideration of isolated unitary entity is worth noting!
It is for this reason understanding the nature by classical mechanics (where we can put an unitary entity in abstract space as a thing in itself) is far from reality, as Ed rightly noted.
It is for this reason the abstract space of classical mechanics and the concept of a material point are the more scholasticism.
Both ideas (#1 and #2) in the basis of various descriptions of motion are misguiding since time of RT (more precisely, since the level of understanding of reality that began with these theories and the era of QM and still is not realised at a sufficient level), and it is fair for many factors, regardless of the degree of reliability of SRT or/and GR.
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasyl,
For a materialist dialectical view of space-time-matter-motion please see my Amazon listed booklet linked below or Hegel’ s "Naturphilosophie" in German or English Tr. [Hegel, G.W.F., Philosophy of Nature, Ed. E. Behler, Tr. S.A. Taubneck, Continuum 1990, 1 Mathematics, Space, § 197.]
“The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?”
I have attempted a QED interpretation of Hegel’s view on this topic. Unfortunately, for copyright reason I am unable to upload my work in RG:
Among the modern thinkers, I think that only Hermann Weyl in his book “RAUM—ZEIT—MATERIE” discloses a philosophical position of the dynamical relation of space, time, matter and motion, which is close to that of Hegel. Weyl said, “Space and time are commonly regarded as the forms of existence of the real world, matter as its substance. A definite portion of matter occupies a definite part of space at a definite moment of time. It is in the composite idea of motion that these three fundamental conceptions enter into intimate relationship.” Weyl, H. “SPACE—TIME—MATTER” (Dover Publications, Inc.) 1921.
May 3, 2018
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Azzam~
"If your problems in physics are because of the fake Minkowski geometry that is keeping on the independent reality as Minkowski proposed, then what can I do for you!!?"
I have no problem with special relativity whatsoever. But you can do something: Give a short explanation of what you consider to be an alternative.
"Relativists understand well how to separate between the problems in order to propose a bedtime story for each problem in order to appear as the problems in physics are not related to SRT and GR!"
Your statement is too vague and general to be meaningful. What problems do you mean? (Hopefully there will always be problems in physics otherwise is becomes boring!)
"This is only a game how to convince people in the illusions and fakes resulted from SRT and GR by the fake geometry. If you want from me to be deceptive and a liar, then you must give me the justification and reasons that can convince me why I must be deceitful and liar. There is no power in this universe that makes me convinced why I must live in this universe and I know that I am a liar and a deceitful. When I go to sleep I want to sleep and I know that I will sleep comfortably and peacefully."
I don't care about your convictions. And since you say that no power could convince you anyway (not even the power of arguments or facts!?), then I don't see any sense in continuing this discussion. All the best.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, you have a professional deformation, which usually characterizes physicists. This is an unequivocal merit of materialism.
I have long been aware of your book, but should note that it expresses your subjective position rather than the common position of dialectical materialism.
The middle of March, for some reason, is full of biographical drama, including for the scientific sphere, and if the date of birth is fairly easy to explain (Google suggests that "legends born in march" takes the third position by relevance among 12 months, giving first places to February and April contrary to the distribution of Gauss, perhaps because the middle of the summer is too hot :-), with deaths it is not so unambiguous.
I say this to the fact that Karl Marx died on March 14, 1883, and he was not 27 at all. {В кожному жарті є "крапля жарту".}
This event took place long before the formation of theories of relativity, before the formation of quantum mechanics, before the discovery of Francis Crick and James Watson, before than Freud and Jung happened in psychology, before many other interesting events that occurred during the 20th and early 21st centuries.
I, of course, would be curious to hear Marx's opinion about all this now and I think, he would also be interested to see that dialectics continues to work in spite of all logic (as Karl Popper rightly noted).
NB: From the last century in philosophy I was impressed by J. C. Smuts in the first place, I think, but it is also subjective.
Sorry for the good mood (-;
Abdul Malek | VFK> Sorry for the good mood (-;
Dear Vasyl,
You do not have to be sorry for anything. Thankfully one can say anything in RG. Epistemology (a dialectical unity of the opposites with Ontology) is always subjective to man, both individually and collectively. The only point of importance is how far a particular epistemology corresponds to ontology (objective reality). I gave reference to my work and those of Hegel and Weyl only after your rather long and diffuse (unfortunately, I always find it difficult to understand your responses directed to me) response to my comment; where you speak about Newtonian concept of absolute space and time and that of (probably) Minkowski-Einstein “spacetime”.
I just wanted to point out that other (and much better) concepts of space-time-matter-motion exists. As I said in my book, no thinkers or philosophers of history could ever even imagine in their wildest dream about the quantum phenomena (before it was discovered). Only Hegel’s dialectics vaguely anticipated the quantum phenomena, through its law of the “unity of the opposites” and the mediation of “chance and necessity” in a thing or a process.
For Einstein’s “spacetime”; “matter” and “motion” (the most fundamental elements of materialism, physics and natural science!) do not even exist! Einstein said it himself, “Since the theory of general relativity (GR) implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles and material points cannot play a fundamental part and neither can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density is particularly high”. Einstein, A. On the General Theory of Relativity, in David Levy (Ed.). The Scientific American Book of the Cosmos, N.Y., 2000, pp. 13.
But Einstein did import “matter and “motion” (from nowhere!)through the backdoor, probably with help from his God (“The Old One”). This is the very reason of my assertion that the theories of relativity “are superfluous and redundant to physics.”. For materialist dialectics, “Motion” is the most fundamental element of any existence. Also, “there can be no matter without motion and no motion without matter.”
The “philosophers” and the psychologists you mention means very little to me; least of all Karl Popper – a renegade “Marxist” who sold himself to the highest bidder, namely Anglo-American led world monopoly finance capitalism. Philosophy in its conventional sense came to an end with Hegel’s dialectics – the science of all sciences, which now runs along the streams of the positive sciences as an integral part!
But what’s of post-Hegelian philosophy? If natural science, in spite of its phenomenal achievements still finds itself begging at the door of theology, it has the satisfaction of seeing philosophy sink lower still. Modern philosophy maintains (as Engels put it) "a pseudo existence in the state appointed academia, where, position-hunting, cobweb-spinning eclectic flea-crackers occupy the chairs of philosophy". Instead of looking for profound truths in the wide world of nature and human society like their predecessors, these namesakes either work openly as the apologists of monopoly capitalism or look inwards to “self” (existentialism) or to language (linguistic philosophy) etc. ad nauseam to hunt for absolute truth!
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Azzam~
"If your problems in physics are because of the fake Minkowski geometry that is keeping on the independent reality as Minkowski proposed, then what can I do for you!!?"
I have no problem with special relativity whatsoever. But you can do something: Give a short explanation of what you consider to be an alternative.
"Relativists understand well how to separate between the problems in order to propose a bedtime story for each problem in order to appear as the problems in physics are not related to SRT and GR!"
Your statement is too vague and general to be meaningful. What problems do you mean? (Hopefully there will always be problems in physics otherwise is becomes boring!)
"This is only a game how to convince people in the illusions and fakes resulted from SRT and GR by the fake geometry. If you want from me to be deceptive and a liar, then you must give me the justification and reasons that can convince me why I must be deceitful and liar. There is no power in this universe that makes me convinced why I must live in this universe and I know that I am a liar and a deceitful. When I go to sleep I want to sleep and I know that I will sleep comfortably and peacefully."
I don't care about your convictions. And since you say that no power could convince you anyway (not even the power of arguments or facts!?), then I don't see any sense in continuing this discussion. All the best.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, you have a professional deformation, which usually characterizes physicists. This is an unequivocal merit of materialism.
I have long been aware of your book, but should note that it expresses your subjective position rather than the common position of dialectical materialism.
The middle of March, for some reason, is full of biographical drama, including for the scientific sphere, and if the date of birth is fairly easy to explain (Google suggests that "legends born in march" takes the third position by relevance among 12 months, giving first places to February and April contrary to the distribution of Gauss, perhaps because the middle of the summer is too hot :-), with deaths it is not so unambiguous.
I say this to the fact that Karl Marx died on March 14, 1883, and he was not 27 at all. {В кожному жарті є "крапля жарту".}
This event took place long before the formation of theories of relativity, before the formation of quantum mechanics, before the discovery of Francis Crick and James Watson, before than Freud and Jung happened in psychology, before many other interesting events that occurred during the 20th and early 21st centuries.
I, of course, would be curious to hear Marx's opinion about all this now and I think, he would also be interested to see that dialectics continues to work in spite of all logic (as Karl Popper rightly noted).
NB: From the last century in philosophy I was impressed by J. C. Smuts in the first place, I think, but it is also subjective.
Sorry for the good mood (-;
Abdul Malek | VFK> Sorry for the good mood (-;
Dear Vasyl,
You do not have to be sorry for anything. Thankfully one can say anything in RG. Epistemology (a dialectical unity of the opposites with Ontology) is always subjective to man, both individually and collectively. The only point of importance is how far a particular epistemology corresponds to ontology (objective reality). I gave reference to my work and those of Hegel and Weyl only after your rather long and diffuse (unfortunately, I always find it difficult to understand your responses directed to me) response to my comment; where you speak about Newtonian concept of absolute space and time and that of (probably) Minkowski-Einstein “spacetime”.
I just wanted to point out that other (and much better) concepts of space-time-matter-motion exists. As I said in my book, no thinkers or philosophers of history could ever even imagine in their wildest dream about the quantum phenomena (before it was discovered). Only Hegel’s dialectics vaguely anticipated the quantum phenomena, through its law of the “unity of the opposites” and the mediation of “chance and necessity” in a thing or a process.
For Einstein’s “spacetime”; “matter” and “motion” (the most fundamental elements of materialism, physics and natural science!) do not even exist! Einstein said it himself, “Since the theory of general relativity (GR) implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles and material points cannot play a fundamental part and neither can the concept of motion. The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density is particularly high”. Einstein, A. On the General Theory of Relativity, in David Levy (Ed.). The Scientific American Book of the Cosmos, N.Y., 2000, pp. 13.
But Einstein did import “matter and “motion” (from nowhere!)through the backdoor, probably with help from his God (“The Old One”). This is the very reason of my assertion that the theories of relativity “are superfluous and redundant to physics.”. For materialist dialectics, “Motion” is the most fundamental element of any existence. Also, “there can be no matter without motion and no motion without matter.”
The “philosophers” and the psychologists you mention means very little to me; least of all Karl Popper – a renegade “Marxist” who sold himself to the highest bidder, namely Anglo-American led world monopoly finance capitalism. Philosophy in its conventional sense came to an end with Hegel’s dialectics – the science of all sciences, which now runs along the streams of the positive sciences as an integral part!
But what’s of post-Hegelian philosophy? If natural science, in spite of its phenomenal achievements still finds itself begging at the door of theology, it has the satisfaction of seeing philosophy sink lower still. Modern philosophy maintains (as Engels put it) "a pseudo existence in the state appointed academia, where, position-hunting, cobweb-spinning eclectic flea-crackers occupy the chairs of philosophy". Instead of looking for profound truths in the wide world of nature and human society like their predecessors, these namesakes either work openly as the apologists of monopoly capitalism or look inwards to “self” (existentialism) or to language (linguistic philosophy) etc. ad nauseam to hunt for absolute truth!
— ResearchGate. Available from: Can special relativity be categorized as metaphysics? [accessed May 10, 2018]
4 трав. 2018 р.
18:01 | New proof reveals fundamental limits of scientific knowledge
The proof starts by mathematically formalizing the way an "inference device," say, a scientist armed with a supercomputer, fabulous experimental equipment, etc., can have knowledge about the state of the universe around them. Whether that scientist's knowledge is acquired by observing their universe, controlling it, predicting what will happen next, or inferring what happened in the past, there's a mathematical structure that restricts that knowledge. The key is that the inference device, their knowledge, and the physical variable that they (may) know something about, are all subsystems of the same universe.
Constraints on physical reality arising from a formalization of knowledge
2017 | arXiv:1711.03499
Ну да, предсказание не может справиться с сингулярностью т.е. самореференцией, той самой, которая "вносит ненормализуемый вклад в пропагатор".
Но сначала надо было задаться вопросом, может ли полная информация о вселенной находиться во вселенной (быть её частью), не будучи при этом топологически всей вселенной, вместе взятой?
18:08 | Честно говоря, давно не могу уже себе представить, как можно думать, что мыслительные и информационные процессы происходят где-то не во вселенной. И это воспринимается настолько простой и банальной вещью, что старая логика мышления о математике выглядит дикой.
18:18 | Законы самоорганизации детерминированы. Поэтому, всё же, единственное, с чем не может справиться "оратор" - некогерентностью в данных (в том числе, в предсказаниях).
18:28 | По всей видимости, вселенная, в которой возможно абсолютное предсказание, должна быть когерентна, и, автоматически, по этой причине, статична. Тогда, что такое ДЕЙСТВИЕ {ПРОЦЕСС}?
18:30 | Откуда возвращаемся к проблеме симметрии.
May 5, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Abdul > "no thinkers or philosophers of history could ever even imagine in their wildest dream about the quantum phenomena (before it was discovered)."
It should be noted that everything started with Max Planck's theoretical assumption about oscillators a priori, i.e. hypothesis in the full accordance with the position on which Karl Popper insisted. And I do not see any contradictions here for the cognitive process, only within the measurement, that is already part of an interpretation of the subject of ontology.
The statistical data of some process can not say that you are dealing with what you measured. It depends on the sample, model of fit. Plus the uncertainty principle that stands between you and the object should remind you once again (in addition to the materialistic position), that the detector with the object is "blood brothers" for which rules of nature is the same.
What you mean by "discovery" is the formation of (abstract) model of some dynamical process (in this case), it is by that model you fits measurement data into observables (in this case), which are inalienable part of the model. This model has no privileges over any other abstract models interpreting these or other data, including models of the theory of relativity.
You can not link absolute truth to any limited model. And the cognitive process can not offer you anything other than information (data) that is not the object itself except for a single case of self!
By the way, dear Abdul, I congratulate you on the anniversary of respected legend. Today is 200 years since the birth of Karl Marx.
Vasyl Komarov | Abdul > "no thinkers or philosophers of history could ever even imagine in their wildest dream about the quantum phenomena (before it was discovered)."
It should be noted that everything started with Max Planck's theoretical assumption about oscillators a priori, i.e. hypothesis in the full accordance with the position on which Karl Popper insisted. And I do not see any contradictions here for the cognitive process, only within the measurement, that is already part of an interpretation of the subject of ontology.
The statistical data of some process can not say that you are dealing with what you measured. It depends on the sample, model of fit. Plus the uncertainty principle that stands between you and the object should remind you once again (in addition to the materialistic position), that the detector with the object is "blood brothers" for which rules of nature is the same.
What you mean by "discovery" is the formation of (abstract) model of some dynamical process (in this case), it is by that model you fits measurement data into observables (in this case), which are inalienable part of the model. This model has no privileges over any other abstract models interpreting these or other data, including models of the theory of relativity.
You can not link absolute truth to any limited model. And the cognitive process can not offer you anything other than information (data) that is not the object itself except for a single case of self!
By the way, dear Abdul, I congratulate you on the anniversary of respected legend. Today is 200 years since the birth of Karl Marx.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Can special relativity be categorized as metaphysics? [accessed May 10, 2018]
8 трав. 2018 р.
19:31 | Измерения запутанных фотонов доказали существование небинарных корреляций
Как и все процессы в квантовой механике, измерения описываются наборами операторов. Так, бинарное измерение (измерение с двумя возможными исходами) задается оператором Ê, который обязательно должен быть положительно полуопределен, то есть все его собственные значения должны быть неотрицательны. Аналогично, измерение с n возможными исходами задается n операторами и считается возможным только в том случае, если оно может быть сведено постобработкой к бинарному измерению с эффективным оператором Ê’. Следовательно, любое измерение в квантовой теории можно описать следующим процессом, состоящим из двух шагов: на первом шаге некоторые классические механизмы исключают n−2 возможных исходов, а на следующем шаге система выбирает одно из оставшихся состояний в ходе подлинно квантового бинарного процесса.
Тем не менее, сведе́ние к бинарному процессу не означает, что в системе не может быть сложных корреляций между исходами измерений, выполненных для различных ее частей.
Из квантовой теории следует, что помимо бинарных несвязанных корреляций должны существовать и более сложные типы связей между результатами измерений в подобной системе, при которых нетривиально большее число исходов, однако показать это в эксперименте пока никому не удавалось...
Observation of Stronger-than-Binary Correlations with Entangled Photonic Qutrits
2017 | arXiv:1712.06557 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.180402
May 9, 2018
Stam Nicolis | PG> Social interactions shouldn't be confused with physics. There are so many ways of making the contents of a paper known these days-through preprint servers, for instance, or social media-that there's simply no way a scientific result can be ``suppressed''. Whether certain specific people take notice of it is just a particular form of social recognition.
That more applied work, where financial issues are of relevance, has other challenges, shouldn't be conflated with whether the technical work is correct or not. Whether it is, or not, is independent of whether certain people recognize it as such (there's a famous quote by Max Planck on the subject).
Manuel S Morales | Stam and many others here like to talk about "what makes sense" regarding the topic of this thread while at the same time ignore the very foundation of Einstein's Theory of Relativity and that is the assumption of energy being conserved.
So the question that needs to be asked instead of being avoided is:
How can Einstein's Theory of Relativity be valid if unambiguous empirical evidence confirms that energy is not conserved?
Please advise.
Abdul Malek | "No matter what happens, the theory is always right, and never has any credible contra-evidence ... because evidence is never considered credible until it can be explained away within the context of the theory."
Eric Baird, The first commenter in this forum.
Vasyl Komarov | Manuel, energy is not conserved where?
All your reasoning about it is based on the physical models that you accept on.
This can be overlooked, but, it's just a belief in a set of models. The lack of knowledge beyond the limits of models (i.e., beyond your beliefs) does not allow you to be sure even of possible forms of energy.
You are not able to give an answer without a model, because complete, and most likely, unlimited data will not be available to you.
Decide at first, your system is closed or open? Without complete data correct decision is uncertain. So, your cannot claim, that some theory is wrong with or without conservation of energy. What is energy?
Abdul quotes the correct words, the discussion of which has long been boring.
One can repeat for the hundredth time that truth conception makes sense within the system (i.e., the theory, i.e., the model), on the basis of its foundation (i.e., the carrier, i.e., semantics, i.e. axioms).
Axioms within any theory are considered true statements, on the basis of which, together with the rules and the alphabet, a formal system (i.e., theory) is constructed.
Beyond theory they are hypotheses and can be challenged. In order to be able to challenge the truth of the whole theory (i.e., it's foundation), it is necessary to have access to the system "beyond" the theory.
For these reasons, theories are falsifying, not proving. For the latter there is no mechanism, in principle.
NB: The (not bad) belief that energy should be preserved in common was accepted intuitively on the basis of limited experience, but this hypothesis is still in the field of falsified statements (along with foundation of CPT-symmetry).
And even with the fact that classical mechanics, for example, is already falsified, it finds application, being a full part of cumulative knowledge. See the Dougem-Quine thesis.
Christian Baumgarten | It is not so that in Newtonian mechanics physical quantities would not depend on the reference frame of the observer (like momentum or kinetic energy). Yet alone, this is so trivial, that nobody bothered. Thus, if we did not consider something unreal (or irrelevant) if it was not invariant under Galilean transformation, why should we now consider something unreal or irrelevant if it is not invariant under Lorentz transformations?
What can be measured is as real as can be and it is completely irrelevant that other "observers" might measure something else - since we have a valid theory that provides the transformation rules. This was so before STR and it is still so with STR.
Manuel S Morales | @ Vasyl, & ALL,
in order to have a state of conservation it is necessary for effects of existence to have no origin, i.e., isolated system. In essence, effects of existence are necessarily their own origin in order to be conserved. Note, when I use the term "effects of existence", I literally mean the domain of any and all effects that exist, e.g., fundamental forces, energy, mass, etc.
Human beings are also an effect of existence. Therefore, our existence is governed by the same laws that govern fundamental forces, energy, mass, etc. To test if the energy of our mass is indeed conserved and thus universal of all effects of existence, we can use our own existence to test indirectly as a thought experiment or directly test in real life if energy is indeed conserved via the Final Selection Thought Experiment (see pgs. 88-89):
Article WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH, NATURE OR MAN?
If energy is indeed conserved, then everyone can conduct the thought experiment in real life and continue their energy conserved existence. If not, then we simply have it all wrong and therefore we must, if we are talking about a valid intellectual systematic study of the natural world, correct our misguided thinking.
Physics is an effectual intellectual systematic study of the natural world, as such, it does not address how nature initially obtains the effects of existence. This incomplete practice violates the initial function of the system being studied by bypassing how the system can be studied in the first place. Unfortunately, effectual science as currently practiced is a violation of the predetermined origin functions of selection that govern our existence much less the practice of science itself.
Surely we can do better than this?
Stam Nicolis | In special relativity energy is conserved, since time translation invariance is a global symmetry.
In any theory, there are quantities that are invariant and quantities that aren't invariant, under the transformations, that define the theory. Only the invariant quantities matter, not those that aren't invariant.
Abdul Malek | "What can be measured is as real as can be and it is completely irrelevant that other "observers" might measure something else"
This is pure nonsense and undiluted solipsism. I "measure" the frequency of the whistle of a train from a platform, while the train is moving away from me. Do I "measure" the true (real) frequency of the train's whistle? I "measure" the size of a star with my eye, is it the real size of the star!
Christian Baumgarten | "This is pure nonsense and undiluted solipsism."
I thought you were educated (at least) in philosophy. Solipsism has nothing to do with it.
Abdul Malek | "I thought you were educated (at least) in philosophy. Solipsism has nothing to do with it."
I thought you were educated at least in physics! "Measurement" is done by a subject, it cannot happen on its own! So. "What can be measured is as real as can be", is only true with respect to the "subject" that makes the measurement. And if the subject "believes" that what he/she measures is the only truth that there can be, as Berkeley and Bohr would do; then it is as pure solipsism "as can be"!
It seems that I not only have to explain materialist dialectics (my world view) and new view of physics based on dialectics, in RG; I have to explain conventional physics to some of the physicists who claim expertise on it!
Christian Baumgarten | Abdul~
The notion of "measurement" is not identical to "perception". A (physical) measurement is by definition something that anyone can do and it usually invokes an apparatus. Again: This is by no means related to any kind of solipsism.
"measure" the frequency of the whistle of a train from a platform, while the train is moving away from me. Do I "measure" the true (real) frequency of the train's whistle? I "measure" the size of a star with my eye, is it the real size of the star! "
The Doppler shift in the spectra of real stars is not "real" then? But we can conclude a "real" velocity from it? How can that be? Something is definitely wrong with your version of "dialectic materialism". The frequency of the light as we measure it is real. And, since we are not devoted to solipsism, we of course assume that the spectrum is shifted and we conclude that the distant stars are in motion. If the frequency shift wasn't real why should we try to explain it and how should we conclude something from it?
Can you offer more of these physics lectures for straw-men?
Stam Nicolis | PG> Social interactions shouldn't be confused with physics. There are so many ways of making the contents of a paper known these days-through preprint servers, for instance, or social media-that there's simply no way a scientific result can be ``suppressed''. Whether certain specific people take notice of it is just a particular form of social recognition.
That more applied work, where financial issues are of relevance, has other challenges, shouldn't be conflated with whether the technical work is correct or not. Whether it is, or not, is independent of whether certain people recognize it as such (there's a famous quote by Max Planck on the subject).
Manuel S Morales | Stam and many others here like to talk about "what makes sense" regarding the topic of this thread while at the same time ignore the very foundation of Einstein's Theory of Relativity and that is the assumption of energy being conserved.
So the question that needs to be asked instead of being avoided is:
How can Einstein's Theory of Relativity be valid if unambiguous empirical evidence confirms that energy is not conserved?
Please advise.
Abdul Malek | "No matter what happens, the theory is always right, and never has any credible contra-evidence ... because evidence is never considered credible until it can be explained away within the context of the theory."
Eric Baird, The first commenter in this forum.
Vasyl Komarov | Manuel, energy is not conserved where?
All your reasoning about it is based on the physical models that you accept on.
This can be overlooked, but, it's just a belief in a set of models. The lack of knowledge beyond the limits of models (i.e., beyond your beliefs) does not allow you to be sure even of possible forms of energy.
You are not able to give an answer without a model, because complete, and most likely, unlimited data will not be available to you.
Decide at first, your system is closed or open? Without complete data correct decision is uncertain. So, your cannot claim, that some theory is wrong with or without conservation of energy. What is energy?
Abdul quotes the correct words, the discussion of which has long been boring.
One can repeat for the hundredth time that truth conception makes sense within the system (i.e., the theory, i.e., the model), on the basis of its foundation (i.e., the carrier, i.e., semantics, i.e. axioms).
Axioms within any theory are considered true statements, on the basis of which, together with the rules and the alphabet, a formal system (i.e., theory) is constructed.
Beyond theory they are hypotheses and can be challenged. In order to be able to challenge the truth of the whole theory (i.e., it's foundation), it is necessary to have access to the system "beyond" the theory.
For these reasons, theories are falsifying, not proving. For the latter there is no mechanism, in principle.
NB: The (not bad) belief that energy should be preserved in common was accepted intuitively on the basis of limited experience, but this hypothesis is still in the field of falsified statements (along with foundation of CPT-symmetry).
And even with the fact that classical mechanics, for example, is already falsified, it finds application, being a full part of cumulative knowledge. See the Dougem-Quine thesis.
Christian Baumgarten | It is not so that in Newtonian mechanics physical quantities would not depend on the reference frame of the observer (like momentum or kinetic energy). Yet alone, this is so trivial, that nobody bothered. Thus, if we did not consider something unreal (or irrelevant) if it was not invariant under Galilean transformation, why should we now consider something unreal or irrelevant if it is not invariant under Lorentz transformations?
What can be measured is as real as can be and it is completely irrelevant that other "observers" might measure something else - since we have a valid theory that provides the transformation rules. This was so before STR and it is still so with STR.
Manuel S Morales | @ Vasyl, & ALL,
in order to have a state of conservation it is necessary for effects of existence to have no origin, i.e., isolated system. In essence, effects of existence are necessarily their own origin in order to be conserved. Note, when I use the term "effects of existence", I literally mean the domain of any and all effects that exist, e.g., fundamental forces, energy, mass, etc.
Human beings are also an effect of existence. Therefore, our existence is governed by the same laws that govern fundamental forces, energy, mass, etc. To test if the energy of our mass is indeed conserved and thus universal of all effects of existence, we can use our own existence to test indirectly as a thought experiment or directly test in real life if energy is indeed conserved via the Final Selection Thought Experiment (see pgs. 88-89):
Article WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH, NATURE OR MAN?
If energy is indeed conserved, then everyone can conduct the thought experiment in real life and continue their energy conserved existence. If not, then we simply have it all wrong and therefore we must, if we are talking about a valid intellectual systematic study of the natural world, correct our misguided thinking.
Physics is an effectual intellectual systematic study of the natural world, as such, it does not address how nature initially obtains the effects of existence. This incomplete practice violates the initial function of the system being studied by bypassing how the system can be studied in the first place. Unfortunately, effectual science as currently practiced is a violation of the predetermined origin functions of selection that govern our existence much less the practice of science itself.
Surely we can do better than this?
Stam Nicolis | In special relativity energy is conserved, since time translation invariance is a global symmetry.
In any theory, there are quantities that are invariant and quantities that aren't invariant, under the transformations, that define the theory. Only the invariant quantities matter, not those that aren't invariant.
Abdul Malek | "What can be measured is as real as can be and it is completely irrelevant that other "observers" might measure something else"
This is pure nonsense and undiluted solipsism. I "measure" the frequency of the whistle of a train from a platform, while the train is moving away from me. Do I "measure" the true (real) frequency of the train's whistle? I "measure" the size of a star with my eye, is it the real size of the star!
Christian Baumgarten | "This is pure nonsense and undiluted solipsism."
I thought you were educated (at least) in philosophy. Solipsism has nothing to do with it.
Abdul Malek | "I thought you were educated (at least) in philosophy. Solipsism has nothing to do with it."
I thought you were educated at least in physics! "Measurement" is done by a subject, it cannot happen on its own! So. "What can be measured is as real as can be", is only true with respect to the "subject" that makes the measurement. And if the subject "believes" that what he/she measures is the only truth that there can be, as Berkeley and Bohr would do; then it is as pure solipsism "as can be"!
It seems that I not only have to explain materialist dialectics (my world view) and new view of physics based on dialectics, in RG; I have to explain conventional physics to some of the physicists who claim expertise on it!
Christian Baumgarten | Abdul~
The notion of "measurement" is not identical to "perception". A (physical) measurement is by definition something that anyone can do and it usually invokes an apparatus. Again: This is by no means related to any kind of solipsism.
"measure" the frequency of the whistle of a train from a platform, while the train is moving away from me. Do I "measure" the true (real) frequency of the train's whistle? I "measure" the size of a star with my eye, is it the real size of the star! "
The Doppler shift in the spectra of real stars is not "real" then? But we can conclude a "real" velocity from it? How can that be? Something is definitely wrong with your version of "dialectic materialism". The frequency of the light as we measure it is real. And, since we are not devoted to solipsism, we of course assume that the spectrum is shifted and we conclude that the distant stars are in motion. If the frequency shift wasn't real why should we try to explain it and how should we conclude something from it?
Can you offer more of these physics lectures for straw-men?
May 10, 2018
Ed Gerck | Hello Abdul and all,
To the physics, itself, of course measurements can be done without a subject, without using the Subjective view. The Subjective view is always right, which is a problem. Leśniewski ignored this in mereolgy ca. 1938, but the law of the excluded middle does not have to be valid, mathematics does deal with what lies between RIGHT and WRONG. You can look into medical diagnosis cases, be more Intersubjective, see what "can be" instead of what "is" -- which is probably Objectively false.
Materialist dialectics, please correct me if I am wrong, seems to be based on false conflicts of one's view of RIGHT versus WRONG, leading to a philosophy of change, with a -- forcibly -- law of excluded middle. Its logic is Aristotelian, its dialectics is false in a wider worldview.
There is no fatal crash that will doom any human endeavor, including physics. Karl Marx was wrong on the cost of machine work dooming profits, and he knew it ... but persisted, affirming that the “Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall” must, "scientifically", exist as a force in society. Today, it all seems risible.
Either you win, or you learn. One can always win, by betting on both sides of an issue. Hedging has been mathematically modelled, and is used in physics. Nature seems to be based more on cooperation than competition, to disallow the Aristotelian law of the excluded middle. We progress by cooperation, even when we blunder -- in science, a NO is an answer.
To complement the reference in your question, offering a different view, more Intersubjective: Science and the Search for Truth: Scientific Method
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Vasyl Komarov | Manuel, earlier in this topic I talked about universal principles of self-organisation, on which complex structures (including you and me) arise. Then there was my joke about eternity and the Goddess of Hinduism for you with also transparent hints about invariants, their significance, and what consequences of the previous experience of physics with respect to the existence and necessity of scale invariance (which is only one of a series of rational reasons)...
Stam, Christian, and I too, talking about simple conceptual thing that is not special to the theory of relativity, but is much more fundamental.
After realizing this moment, we can talk about many things... conservation of energy, or, for example, why the information capacity of the electromagnetic channel does not depend on the topology of the interferences, why, in this case, the Lyapunov exponents are preserved (are invariant), what are dissipative systems, and what means non-zero values of exponents for the dynamic system, etc...
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Ed, measurement, even in physics, can not be done without subject, because subject is a necessary cause of detector formation in nature. There is no appropriate complexity detectors without animated organics complexity. (If, of course, the fundamental failure of the Boltzmann brain idea is obvious for you due to its inconsistency with everything that we already know at the level of biology.)
Abdul Malek | Christian~
It is not rocket science and does not need physics lecture, you and anybody else know it; it just that we express it differently. In the Doppler shift, what I measure is not the "real" frequency ; it is "apparent" with respect to me. But when you say, "What can be measured is as real as can be", you are taking what is "apparent" to be "real". Now, if you "believe" that what you "measure" is "real ", because of your principle, "What can be measured is as real as can be", then it becomes solipsism; because you are taking your (apparent) perception as the only truth. Time dialtion, etc. like Doppler shift; are only "apparent" to a distant observer in a RF.
But of course in practice we can find the "real" frequency of the whistle of the train when it is not moving relative to us; or the real frequency of the light emitted by a known atom on the star, by measuring the frequency of emission of the same atom here on earth. It is precisely because of this knowledge of the "real" frequency that we can infer about the relative motion of the train or the star from the measurement of the "apparent" frequency!
If we rely on the principle, "What can be measured is as real as can be", without any further ado, we take "our perception" as the only standard for any measurement and it becomes solipsism. We will mistake the "apparent" to be the "only real"!
Ed Gerck | Hello Vasyl,
You can contradict me, of course. But this is just your, Subjective, view. If one measures the diameter of a sphere, it seems that a reference frame must be defined first, and one does, but for every reference frame chosen, the measured diameter stays the same... then, one might think that there is an inner cancellation mechanism at play. In fact, there is, a reference frame is not even needed, and this was chosen by Einstein as the mathematical background of GR.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Christian Baumgarten | Abdul~
Apparently you are, contrary to previous statements, an idealist who believes in the theory based corrections of what is "apparent" in order to calculate the "real". I am pleased to read this. I never claimed that a measured result is the "only truth" or that a measurement is related to "my personal perception".
Only that Newtonian mechanics is - in this respect - not different from relativity: There are quantities that depend on the observer and its state of motion and others that do not; in both theories.
Abdul Malek | Dear Ed,
Unfortunately, I have to say that in my view you are wrong on all counts in your comment to me including your view on dialectics and that Karl Marx was wrong on the cost of machine work dooming profits.
You are mixing up the formal logic of Aristotle with dialectics. There is a big difference between the two. Very crudely speaking the difference is similar, (but much more extensive to what we see in Boolean (digital) and Fuzzy logic in computer programming. Dialectics stands in the same relation to quantum physics as causality is to Newtonian (classical) physics.
Both the laws of dialectics and quantum physics represent the background complexities and uncertainties of microcosmic processes and phenomena, while the laws of causality and classical physics reflect only the averaged out, apparent, superficial and simplified picture at the macroscopic scale of everyday life experience. Cuasality works only in the case of very simple sysytem like classical mechanics, where the cause and the corresponding effect can be clearly identified and quantified. In more complex systems like biology for example, this simple cause effect relation breaks down.The distinction between causality based formal (Aristotelian) logic and dialectics in philosophy existed from the early Greeks onwards, what Hegel later termed as “the view of understanding” and “the view of reason” respectively as two broad world views. These existed throughout later history and both developed through the dialectical contradiction between the two and still continue!
I have discussed the differences between causality and dialectics in my booklet “The Einsteinian Universe? A Dialectical Perspective of Modern Theoretical Physics and Cosmology” that Prof. Kåre Olaussen referred to above. I have posted a chapter of the book - “Causality and Dialectics” in my RG profile. You may have a look at the following link: CAUSALITY AND DIALECTICS: THEIR CONFLICTING ROLES IN MODERN PHILOSOPHY AND NATURAL SCIENCE, PARTICULARLY IN THEORETICAL PHYSICS.
Ed Gerck | Hello Abdul and all,
Fortunately, you may be right in all counts, and the Universe will not care. All we can do, is try to understand the "game" and learn some of its rules, but we may not change the game. In science, we don't affirm things because "so and so said it, and so and so were very illustrious, German, or Greek, or whatever" but because Nature agrees.
The great Omar Khayyam had presented a better calendar than Europe used 500 years later, better in the sense of agreeing with Nature. Time was needed for humans to accept it, but not for Nature, of course.
The dialectic view ends in synthesis, why not already use one's time and energy toward that end?
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Abdul Malek | CB> “Apparently you are, contrary to previous statements”
Sorry Christian, you are very wrong. It seems that you did not understand me before and you do not now! Please do not make such a simplistic and impulsive judgement of my views and my position.,it has a much deeper basis than you think. If I was so flippant, I could not possibly continue this debate in modern physics for more than a decade! T
he problem I find with you guys is that you have become so much overwhelmed with the beauty, complexity and challenge of tensor math., that the heavy burden beats you down within the box and prevents you from looking outside and you do not care about the logic of what you are doing. Marx called this condition as alienation – like a Frankenstein monster you become a victim of your own creation. You do not manipulate mathematics, mathematics manipulates you!
Unfortunately, (as I know you so far) you do not seem to see the difference between idealism (mathematical or not) and classical materialism; not to speak of more intricate difference of dialectical materialism from both idealism and classical materialism. For idealism (including mathematical idealism) abstract “thought”/idea is real, matter and the material world is apparent, illusion , mirage, “Maya” (in Sanskrit) etc. For materialism the exact opposite is true. Newtonian physics is based on classical materialism, theories of relativity are based on (mathematical) idealism, even though both are based on the world view of causality (a primary difference with dialectical materialism). Einstein himself on innumerable instances hammered at this difference.
Let us take the example of space and time. For classical materialism and even for Kantian idealism, space and time are abstract concept that have no tangible material/physical reality and are independent of any manipulation; hence the bending, contraction of space, dilation of time, etc., as “real” effect on space and time are absurd and do not make any sense at all! For Einstein and for you (supporters of Einstein) 4D spacetime is a “real entity” with tangible physical and metrical attribute, and matter is only incidental. Mathematics describes the 4D geometry beautifully and consistently; hence time dilation., length contraction etc., must be real and “matter is unreal! Prof. Eric Lord has taken the materialist position, the reason I support him.
You disagree with Prof. Lord; because you and Einstein think that time dilation etc., are “real” . “Experiments” “proved” these theories; many times over and; so the theories survive; because these could. If this was the only thing wrong with these theories, then these could not be materialism based scientific theories. I can bring many more cases against these theories from a dialectical materialist point of view!
Manuel S Morales | @ Stam, you stated "Only the invariant quantities matter, not those that aren't invariant."
So what you are saying is that only effects of existence matter. However you failed to address how the effect of invariant quantities come to exist? You have exposed a huge discrepancy in your logic by stating only effects of existence matter, not its origin.
Manuel S Morales | @ Vasyl, you stated "...I talked about universal principles of self-organisation, on which complex structures (including you and me) arise."
It appears you do not realize that you are talking about conservation when you talk about "self-organisation". As the Final Selection Thought Experiment confirms energy is not conserved.
Christian Baumgarten | Abdul~
"Sorry Christian, you are very wrong. It seems that you did not understand me before and you do not now! Please do not make such a simplistic and impulsive judgement of my views and my position."
Dito. Maybe the dialogue would be more interesting if we could resist to put each other into predefined categories like "idealist" or "materialist", "relativist", "true believer" or whatever.
Gregor L. Grabenbauer | Dear Abdul,
I'd recommend You to attend some lectures in mathematics or basics of computer science in order to learn about the 'Verhexungseffekt' (L.Wittgenstein). If you listen a maths prof talking about real objects, e.g. operating systems, he talks about a five-tupel, not about executable pieces of code. You probably would learn that people tend to use language always the most convenient way. A mathematician is able to think about a problem only if he has a formal picture (formulae) of it. And, if he gives a talk about some denoted entities he would even name the formal objects just like the real ones (the formal model of space is called spacetime) and in all cases the modeI's name is given a formal model only is referred. Therefore the formal approach is incapable to depict the entities entirely at a very basic level! Just imagine the mass of the sun residing in one point.
Your critics
· "space and time are abstract concept that have no tangible material/physical reality and are independent of any manipulation"
· "hence the bending, contraction of space..time are absurd"
· "for Einstein and his supporters the 4D spacetime is a “real entity” with real physical properties "
do not hit the targets because they all use models of reality only.
It is your personal responsibility to learn, e.g. about the linguistic turn. Please do not try to promote a single stage of intellectual evolution as the latest one. You seem trying to make them understand that they are using a wrong language (which is Wittgenstein I, tractatus stage).
It was the preoperational thinking of Einstein (as being incapable to discern between real objects and formal or abstract objects) that was established in modern physics which is just a collection of mystified ideas today. (Example: The digits printed on a clock are assumed to be numbers. The clock is assumed to make the time.)
It seems the bad end of the story about science that the most uneducated people today tell the more uneducated that black holes exist in our universe. Just ask the same people next time You talk to them where they did buy the electrons to drive their computer.
Sergey Shevchenko | “…You probably would learn that people tend to use language always the most convenient way…”
Yeah, and The Great Prophet Lupstrag also said that "all true believers brake their eggs at the convenient end”…
Cheers
Abdul Malek | EG> “Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall” must, "scientifically", exist as a force in society. Today, it all seems risible.
Dear Ed, although it is unrelated to the topic of this forum, I would still like to make a response; but would like to avoid making this as a topic of discussion in this forum.
Contrary to your view modern economic order of finance capital and the fact that global industrial production has shifted from the industrialized countries to the underdeveloped and poor Third World countries proves the correctness of Marx’s assertion - "the cost of machine work (is indeed) dooming profits" and driving capital to shift to low tech and more labour intensive production for higher profit margin! Even Mr. Trump with all this bombastic talk can do very little to reverse this trend; it is because the laws of capitalist economy are driving these developments.
If you have some idea about Marx’s theory of “surplus value” and Adam Smith’s theory of “value” of a commodity based on socially necessary “labour”; then it is easy to see why Marx was right. The “Value” (not the “price” that depend on temporary supply and demand situation) of a commodity is the socially necessary labour (it varies with the level of technological developments) to produce that commodity. Air, so vital for life, has no economic “value” (at least so far!) because no human labour is necessary for its production!
In capitalist production, “profit” can only be derived only from “surplus value” and the only source of "surplus value" is human labour! It is because, “labour” is also a commodity, like raw materials, machines, energy etc. for industrial production that the capitalist has to buy; paying the right “value” for each commodity; but only “labour” can give him profit! It is because the commodity “labour” has the peculiar property (unlike any other commodities) that when used in production it can generate far more “value” than its own worth or that paid to buy it! Automated Machines could produce far more products than human labour, but it would not give “surplus” value and no profit for the capitalist!
Also, the reason why the corporations move to the poor under-developed countries is because labour is so dirt cheap and the margin of "surplus value " and hence profit is much higher than it would be in the developed countries where the labour cost is necessarily very high!
Vasyl Komarov | Ed,
you also in this case spoke about invariance of some property, I do not see any contradiction.
I just pointed out that what is happening (interaction as physical process) between two entities acquires the sense of measurement on the subject side (part of the complex structure of which any detector is), without doubting that all on the subject side (with you inclusive) is a physical process under common laws too.
What we usually mean by metric is an inalienable property of the topology of connected (interacted) entities. It (structure) exists for physical (observable) entities regardless of any reference frames, coordinate systems, the concept of coordinates and other abstract concepts, regardless of any our thought process and our concrete detector devices and our existence.
I agree with it, but this must be said with important notice. Entity (whose property is being measured) participates in the interaction in any case, in other words, the establishment of a link between the individual (measured) property of the entity and the information on your side implies the exchange of information for both sides (for example, in the optical measurement of the metric of an object, photons are involved and interacted on both sides), and interaction may destroy the considered (measured) parameter of entity structure or may not.
NB (imho):
Measurement, transformation and independence from something is united by common word "existence", the word "process" is the synonym of which. Only the process can establish a connection between entities physically. It is communication (interaction, the exchange of information), it is simple and universal (no matter, it involved in existence - gluons is one of examples, or measurement - mentioned above photons is another example). The transformation is (anyway) a functional relation of communication.
So, invariance with respect to the second entity (the subject in our case or device, or detector) is coexistence, i.e. coherent (or, simply) the existence of a system of these objects as a stable relation between parameters or stable structure. It can be said that the invariant property is most likely not destroyed in the process of interaction or reproducible.
Self-invariance of set of system parameters in the physical process means no transformation or, more exactly, invariant transformation, which in relation to itself is stable or coherent existence (means abscence of acyclical changes within intrasystemic interactions for this set of parameters relative to the phase flow for some system of entities - I talk about dynamic systems).
Since communication (including measurement) means the exchange of information, and if measured property of an entity may remains unchanged, the measuring entity (or/and the environment) in the process of interaction changes (undergoes transformation) anyway (otherwise, all is remain coherent and you can not say that something is measured). That is, the observer is not invariant with respect to the measured object (otherwise there is no special process and there is no fact of measurement).
Thus, from the position of the process of self-organization (in the most rough primitive approximation) interaction is anyway receiver-dependent, because it certainly change the observer, and measurement is observer-dependent anyway, regardless of whether the measurement change the observable parameter of the entity (which participates in the interaction) under the measurement.
I apologize for the verbosity, I tried to touch on several important aspects of invariance from a physical (not formal) point of view. Under the observer, of course, one must understand any receiver-entity that is a side of the interaction. Under the entity one must understand system (an aready complex structure of reality), what for appropriate understanding of physical processes can not have more trivial idealisation (can not be a material point, for example).
Manuel,
even implying conservative self-organization you should keep in mind that quasi-equilibrium is just idealisation, not actual equilibrium, not symmetry, i.e. is not conservation, you, at least, have overlooked the phase flow, i.e. changes in time, and you can not consider, for example, DNA in isolation from the environment, because in this case you also have overlooked system in which structural elements of DNA were evolutionarily formed. For dissipative self-organization one can not talk about conservation initially, as it implies an open system. You can not talk about conservation without specifying the system. Nevertheless, I support the concept of conservation, otherwise the determinism (i.e. existence of all the laws of nature) is highly questionable.
Ed Gerck | Hello Abdul and all,
To the physics, itself, of course measurements can be done without a subject, without using the Subjective view. The Subjective view is always right, which is a problem. Leśniewski ignored this in mereolgy ca. 1938, but the law of the excluded middle does not have to be valid, mathematics does deal with what lies between RIGHT and WRONG. You can look into medical diagnosis cases, be more Intersubjective, see what "can be" instead of what "is" -- which is probably Objectively false.
Materialist dialectics, please correct me if I am wrong, seems to be based on false conflicts of one's view of RIGHT versus WRONG, leading to a philosophy of change, with a -- forcibly -- law of excluded middle. Its logic is Aristotelian, its dialectics is false in a wider worldview.
There is no fatal crash that will doom any human endeavor, including physics. Karl Marx was wrong on the cost of machine work dooming profits, and he knew it ... but persisted, affirming that the “Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall” must, "scientifically", exist as a force in society. Today, it all seems risible.
Either you win, or you learn. One can always win, by betting on both sides of an issue. Hedging has been mathematically modelled, and is used in physics. Nature seems to be based more on cooperation than competition, to disallow the Aristotelian law of the excluded middle. We progress by cooperation, even when we blunder -- in science, a NO is an answer.
To complement the reference in your question, offering a different view, more Intersubjective: Science and the Search for Truth: Scientific Method
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Vasyl Komarov | Manuel, earlier in this topic I talked about universal principles of self-organisation, on which complex structures (including you and me) arise. Then there was my joke about eternity and the Goddess of Hinduism for you with also transparent hints about invariants, their significance, and what consequences of the previous experience of physics with respect to the existence and necessity of scale invariance (which is only one of a series of rational reasons)...
Stam, Christian, and I too, talking about simple conceptual thing that is not special to the theory of relativity, but is much more fundamental.
After realizing this moment, we can talk about many things... conservation of energy, or, for example, why the information capacity of the electromagnetic channel does not depend on the topology of the interferences, why, in this case, the Lyapunov exponents are preserved (are invariant), what are dissipative systems, and what means non-zero values of exponents for the dynamic system, etc...
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Ed, measurement, even in physics, can not be done without subject, because subject is a necessary cause of detector formation in nature. There is no appropriate complexity detectors without animated organics complexity. (If, of course, the fundamental failure of the Boltzmann brain idea is obvious for you due to its inconsistency with everything that we already know at the level of biology.)
Abdul Malek | Christian~
It is not rocket science and does not need physics lecture, you and anybody else know it; it just that we express it differently. In the Doppler shift, what I measure is not the "real" frequency ; it is "apparent" with respect to me. But when you say, "What can be measured is as real as can be", you are taking what is "apparent" to be "real". Now, if you "believe" that what you "measure" is "real ", because of your principle, "What can be measured is as real as can be", then it becomes solipsism; because you are taking your (apparent) perception as the only truth. Time dialtion, etc. like Doppler shift; are only "apparent" to a distant observer in a RF.
But of course in practice we can find the "real" frequency of the whistle of the train when it is not moving relative to us; or the real frequency of the light emitted by a known atom on the star, by measuring the frequency of emission of the same atom here on earth. It is precisely because of this knowledge of the "real" frequency that we can infer about the relative motion of the train or the star from the measurement of the "apparent" frequency!
If we rely on the principle, "What can be measured is as real as can be", without any further ado, we take "our perception" as the only standard for any measurement and it becomes solipsism. We will mistake the "apparent" to be the "only real"!
Ed Gerck | Hello Vasyl,
You can contradict me, of course. But this is just your, Subjective, view. If one measures the diameter of a sphere, it seems that a reference frame must be defined first, and one does, but for every reference frame chosen, the measured diameter stays the same... then, one might think that there is an inner cancellation mechanism at play. In fact, there is, a reference frame is not even needed, and this was chosen by Einstein as the mathematical background of GR.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Christian Baumgarten | Abdul~
Apparently you are, contrary to previous statements, an idealist who believes in the theory based corrections of what is "apparent" in order to calculate the "real". I am pleased to read this. I never claimed that a measured result is the "only truth" or that a measurement is related to "my personal perception".
Only that Newtonian mechanics is - in this respect - not different from relativity: There are quantities that depend on the observer and its state of motion and others that do not; in both theories.
Abdul Malek | Dear Ed,
Unfortunately, I have to say that in my view you are wrong on all counts in your comment to me including your view on dialectics and that Karl Marx was wrong on the cost of machine work dooming profits.
You are mixing up the formal logic of Aristotle with dialectics. There is a big difference between the two. Very crudely speaking the difference is similar, (but much more extensive to what we see in Boolean (digital) and Fuzzy logic in computer programming. Dialectics stands in the same relation to quantum physics as causality is to Newtonian (classical) physics.
Both the laws of dialectics and quantum physics represent the background complexities and uncertainties of microcosmic processes and phenomena, while the laws of causality and classical physics reflect only the averaged out, apparent, superficial and simplified picture at the macroscopic scale of everyday life experience. Cuasality works only in the case of very simple sysytem like classical mechanics, where the cause and the corresponding effect can be clearly identified and quantified. In more complex systems like biology for example, this simple cause effect relation breaks down.The distinction between causality based formal (Aristotelian) logic and dialectics in philosophy existed from the early Greeks onwards, what Hegel later termed as “the view of understanding” and “the view of reason” respectively as two broad world views. These existed throughout later history and both developed through the dialectical contradiction between the two and still continue!
I have discussed the differences between causality and dialectics in my booklet “The Einsteinian Universe? A Dialectical Perspective of Modern Theoretical Physics and Cosmology” that Prof. Kåre Olaussen referred to above. I have posted a chapter of the book - “Causality and Dialectics” in my RG profile. You may have a look at the following link: CAUSALITY AND DIALECTICS: THEIR CONFLICTING ROLES IN MODERN PHILOSOPHY AND NATURAL SCIENCE, PARTICULARLY IN THEORETICAL PHYSICS.
Ed Gerck | Hello Abdul and all,
Fortunately, you may be right in all counts, and the Universe will not care. All we can do, is try to understand the "game" and learn some of its rules, but we may not change the game. In science, we don't affirm things because "so and so said it, and so and so were very illustrious, German, or Greek, or whatever" but because Nature agrees.
The great Omar Khayyam had presented a better calendar than Europe used 500 years later, better in the sense of agreeing with Nature. Time was needed for humans to accept it, but not for Nature, of course.
The dialectic view ends in synthesis, why not already use one's time and energy toward that end?
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Abdul Malek | CB> “Apparently you are, contrary to previous statements”
Sorry Christian, you are very wrong. It seems that you did not understand me before and you do not now! Please do not make such a simplistic and impulsive judgement of my views and my position.,it has a much deeper basis than you think. If I was so flippant, I could not possibly continue this debate in modern physics for more than a decade! T
he problem I find with you guys is that you have become so much overwhelmed with the beauty, complexity and challenge of tensor math., that the heavy burden beats you down within the box and prevents you from looking outside and you do not care about the logic of what you are doing. Marx called this condition as alienation – like a Frankenstein monster you become a victim of your own creation. You do not manipulate mathematics, mathematics manipulates you!
Unfortunately, (as I know you so far) you do not seem to see the difference between idealism (mathematical or not) and classical materialism; not to speak of more intricate difference of dialectical materialism from both idealism and classical materialism. For idealism (including mathematical idealism) abstract “thought”/idea is real, matter and the material world is apparent, illusion , mirage, “Maya” (in Sanskrit) etc. For materialism the exact opposite is true. Newtonian physics is based on classical materialism, theories of relativity are based on (mathematical) idealism, even though both are based on the world view of causality (a primary difference with dialectical materialism). Einstein himself on innumerable instances hammered at this difference.
Let us take the example of space and time. For classical materialism and even for Kantian idealism, space and time are abstract concept that have no tangible material/physical reality and are independent of any manipulation; hence the bending, contraction of space, dilation of time, etc., as “real” effect on space and time are absurd and do not make any sense at all! For Einstein and for you (supporters of Einstein) 4D spacetime is a “real entity” with tangible physical and metrical attribute, and matter is only incidental. Mathematics describes the 4D geometry beautifully and consistently; hence time dilation., length contraction etc., must be real and “matter is unreal! Prof. Eric Lord has taken the materialist position, the reason I support him.
You disagree with Prof. Lord; because you and Einstein think that time dilation etc., are “real” . “Experiments” “proved” these theories; many times over and; so the theories survive; because these could. If this was the only thing wrong with these theories, then these could not be materialism based scientific theories. I can bring many more cases against these theories from a dialectical materialist point of view!
Manuel S Morales | @ Stam, you stated "Only the invariant quantities matter, not those that aren't invariant."
So what you are saying is that only effects of existence matter. However you failed to address how the effect of invariant quantities come to exist? You have exposed a huge discrepancy in your logic by stating only effects of existence matter, not its origin.
Manuel S Morales | @ Vasyl, you stated "...I talked about universal principles of self-organisation, on which complex structures (including you and me) arise."
It appears you do not realize that you are talking about conservation when you talk about "self-organisation". As the Final Selection Thought Experiment confirms energy is not conserved.
Christian Baumgarten | Abdul~
"Sorry Christian, you are very wrong. It seems that you did not understand me before and you do not now! Please do not make such a simplistic and impulsive judgement of my views and my position."
Dito. Maybe the dialogue would be more interesting if we could resist to put each other into predefined categories like "idealist" or "materialist", "relativist", "true believer" or whatever.
Gregor L. Grabenbauer | Dear Abdul,
I'd recommend You to attend some lectures in mathematics or basics of computer science in order to learn about the 'Verhexungseffekt' (L.Wittgenstein). If you listen a maths prof talking about real objects, e.g. operating systems, he talks about a five-tupel, not about executable pieces of code. You probably would learn that people tend to use language always the most convenient way. A mathematician is able to think about a problem only if he has a formal picture (formulae) of it. And, if he gives a talk about some denoted entities he would even name the formal objects just like the real ones (the formal model of space is called spacetime) and in all cases the modeI's name is given a formal model only is referred. Therefore the formal approach is incapable to depict the entities entirely at a very basic level! Just imagine the mass of the sun residing in one point.
Your critics
· "space and time are abstract concept that have no tangible material/physical reality and are independent of any manipulation"
· "hence the bending, contraction of space..time are absurd"
· "for Einstein and his supporters the 4D spacetime is a “real entity” with real physical properties "
do not hit the targets because they all use models of reality only.
It is your personal responsibility to learn, e.g. about the linguistic turn. Please do not try to promote a single stage of intellectual evolution as the latest one. You seem trying to make them understand that they are using a wrong language (which is Wittgenstein I, tractatus stage).
It was the preoperational thinking of Einstein (as being incapable to discern between real objects and formal or abstract objects) that was established in modern physics which is just a collection of mystified ideas today. (Example: The digits printed on a clock are assumed to be numbers. The clock is assumed to make the time.)
It seems the bad end of the story about science that the most uneducated people today tell the more uneducated that black holes exist in our universe. Just ask the same people next time You talk to them where they did buy the electrons to drive their computer.
Sergey Shevchenko | “…You probably would learn that people tend to use language always the most convenient way…”
Yeah, and The Great Prophet Lupstrag also said that "all true believers brake their eggs at the convenient end”…
Cheers
Abdul Malek | EG> “Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall” must, "scientifically", exist as a force in society. Today, it all seems risible.
Dear Ed, although it is unrelated to the topic of this forum, I would still like to make a response; but would like to avoid making this as a topic of discussion in this forum.
Contrary to your view modern economic order of finance capital and the fact that global industrial production has shifted from the industrialized countries to the underdeveloped and poor Third World countries proves the correctness of Marx’s assertion - "the cost of machine work (is indeed) dooming profits" and driving capital to shift to low tech and more labour intensive production for higher profit margin! Even Mr. Trump with all this bombastic talk can do very little to reverse this trend; it is because the laws of capitalist economy are driving these developments.
If you have some idea about Marx’s theory of “surplus value” and Adam Smith’s theory of “value” of a commodity based on socially necessary “labour”; then it is easy to see why Marx was right. The “Value” (not the “price” that depend on temporary supply and demand situation) of a commodity is the socially necessary labour (it varies with the level of technological developments) to produce that commodity. Air, so vital for life, has no economic “value” (at least so far!) because no human labour is necessary for its production!
In capitalist production, “profit” can only be derived only from “surplus value” and the only source of "surplus value" is human labour! It is because, “labour” is also a commodity, like raw materials, machines, energy etc. for industrial production that the capitalist has to buy; paying the right “value” for each commodity; but only “labour” can give him profit! It is because the commodity “labour” has the peculiar property (unlike any other commodities) that when used in production it can generate far more “value” than its own worth or that paid to buy it! Automated Machines could produce far more products than human labour, but it would not give “surplus” value and no profit for the capitalist!
Also, the reason why the corporations move to the poor under-developed countries is because labour is so dirt cheap and the margin of "surplus value " and hence profit is much higher than it would be in the developed countries where the labour cost is necessarily very high!
Vasyl Komarov | Ed,
you also in this case spoke about invariance of some property, I do not see any contradiction.
I just pointed out that what is happening (interaction as physical process) between two entities acquires the sense of measurement on the subject side (part of the complex structure of which any detector is), without doubting that all on the subject side (with you inclusive) is a physical process under common laws too.
What we usually mean by metric is an inalienable property of the topology of connected (interacted) entities. It (structure) exists for physical (observable) entities regardless of any reference frames, coordinate systems, the concept of coordinates and other abstract concepts, regardless of any our thought process and our concrete detector devices and our existence.
I agree with it, but this must be said with important notice. Entity (whose property is being measured) participates in the interaction in any case, in other words, the establishment of a link between the individual (measured) property of the entity and the information on your side implies the exchange of information for both sides (for example, in the optical measurement of the metric of an object, photons are involved and interacted on both sides), and interaction may destroy the considered (measured) parameter of entity structure or may not.
NB (imho):
Measurement, transformation and independence from something is united by common word "existence", the word "process" is the synonym of which. Only the process can establish a connection between entities physically. It is communication (interaction, the exchange of information), it is simple and universal (no matter, it involved in existence - gluons is one of examples, or measurement - mentioned above photons is another example). The transformation is (anyway) a functional relation of communication.
So, invariance with respect to the second entity (the subject in our case or device, or detector) is coexistence, i.e. coherent (or, simply) the existence of a system of these objects as a stable relation between parameters or stable structure. It can be said that the invariant property is most likely not destroyed in the process of interaction or reproducible.
Self-invariance of set of system parameters in the physical process means no transformation or, more exactly, invariant transformation, which in relation to itself is stable or coherent existence (means abscence of acyclical changes within intrasystemic interactions for this set of parameters relative to the phase flow for some system of entities - I talk about dynamic systems).
Since communication (including measurement) means the exchange of information, and if measured property of an entity may remains unchanged, the measuring entity (or/and the environment) in the process of interaction changes (undergoes transformation) anyway (otherwise, all is remain coherent and you can not say that something is measured). That is, the observer is not invariant with respect to the measured object (otherwise there is no special process and there is no fact of measurement).
Thus, from the position of the process of self-organization (in the most rough primitive approximation) interaction is anyway receiver-dependent, because it certainly change the observer, and measurement is observer-dependent anyway, regardless of whether the measurement change the observable parameter of the entity (which participates in the interaction) under the measurement.
I apologize for the verbosity, I tried to touch on several important aspects of invariance from a physical (not formal) point of view. Under the observer, of course, one must understand any receiver-entity that is a side of the interaction. Under the entity one must understand system (an aready complex structure of reality), what for appropriate understanding of physical processes can not have more trivial idealisation (can not be a material point, for example).
Manuel,
even implying conservative self-organization you should keep in mind that quasi-equilibrium is just idealisation, not actual equilibrium, not symmetry, i.e. is not conservation, you, at least, have overlooked the phase flow, i.e. changes in time, and you can not consider, for example, DNA in isolation from the environment, because in this case you also have overlooked system in which structural elements of DNA were evolutionarily formed. For dissipative self-organization one can not talk about conservation initially, as it implies an open system. You can not talk about conservation without specifying the system. Nevertheless, I support the concept of conservation, otherwise the determinism (i.e. existence of all the laws of nature) is highly questionable.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Can special relativity be categorized as metaphysics? [accessed May 10, 2018]
10 трав. 2018 р.
10:32 | Геймеры помогли доказать нелокальность законов природы
"события, которые в данном случае генерировались благодаря «свободной воле» игроков нажимать ноль или единицу на клавиатуре, прямо противоречит концепции причинного детерминизма"
А сделать предположение о локальности вселенной религия не позволяет?
Не вижу конфликта с детерминизмом, если вся система насквозь дырявая (т.е. открытая), отчего в ней полно источников энтропии.
Challenging local realism with human choices
2018 | arXiv:1805.04431 | DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0085-3
May 12, 2018
Stam Nicolis | Whatever. All this history and sociology doesn't affect the technical content of special and general relativity. So it doesn't matter, who thought what or did something or the other, that can't be reproduced by anyone else, following impersonal methods; only what can matters. It's possible to understand special and general relativity and cosmology, without having to care about such issues. Whether any scientist ``believed'' (or didn't believe) something is completely irrelevant to whether the ``something'' is true or false, as a mathematical statement and whether it can be measured to a certain precision by a specific apparatus. What does matter, historically, is that the measurement did occur.
Issues that were confusing 60 years ago are now completely understood in these subjects, so why anyone would write long articles about them is really an indication that some people have really not that much to occupy their time. It would have been better spent studying a textbook.
Abdul Malek | To all it may concern:
We can see repeated attempts in this forum by certain individuals (representing official science and claiming exceptional authority to knowledge like a priest or a Guru) to shut us up (or dismiss our views as spurious) from discussing the unpleasant aspects (the real truth) of the theories of relativity. They invoke the lack of our formal training and indoctrination (at least to the extent that is necessary), our general “ignorance” as scientists , our inability for mathematical manipulations and lack of geometrical intuition that are necessary to “understand” those “heavy” stuff etc., etc.! In other words it is an instruction to us to join them inside the dungeon for some necessary spiritual initiation, preferably by a Guru.
We are also told that history is of no significance or consequence at all! “All that happens (in history) is not always true; what you compose is the only truth” - said Brahma (the supreme Hindu God) to the poet Vyasnava (also known as Balmiki) when he sought Brahma’s help in writing his historical Epic of Mahabharata.
These deliberations are coupled with the necessary sermon that our “time would have been better spent studying a textbook”. By the way, the textbooks prescribed for our ignorance, contain the same nonsense that they speak in these forums and even by the account of some of their own, "are full of errors and confusion” - and truely the same that they themslves display in these forums !!!
All these (in disguise) are the real indications of their bankruptcy and the fact that they have run out of logical and rational ammunitions. To their greatest embarrassment the nakedness of the emperor is increasingly coming in full view of everybody; mystery, awe, wonders, reverence etc., are fading away! As it was always the case in such situation in the past history, it is time to re-commission the Guillotines and the Stakes and call out the armed forces to use “real/material ammunitions” – the last resort!
Vasyl Komarov | (As an epigraph...)
Abdul, recently, near to the historical date ("April 12th, 1961 Exactly 57 years ago first man occurred in Space orbit of Earth") I got question shared ("Which date is in your opinion important for humankind development?"), where dear F. Leyvraz very aptly noted that tomorrow is the most significant date for humankind.
It's hard not to agree with this, because it's creepy to thought that best days for humanity is in the past.
The paradox of evolution is (as noticed by one lady in black with a drop of red) that it is necessary to run with all might in order to remain unchanged.
The value of the past consists only in what is invariant to the process - it is common mechanism of the memory in nature. The rest is usefull dust on the way... mistakes, subjective attractions... all that will be indifferently milled with phase flow (the passage of time), like all the other dynamic details of landscape.
I do not call for being complete indifferent (neutral), of course, emotions and local attractions, even in relation to the whole humankind or even Universe - all these manifestations of selfishness, all subjectivity - it is what makes ALIVE! So, dear Abdul, thank you and all RG community for emotional disputes and contradictory arguments, sometimes leading out of balance.
Forget about "official science", "Guru", "autority" and other nonsense. All that matters, as we are integral mechanism of the system (humankind), is the your expression (i.e. communication with all of us) of your personal reasoning (i.e., interpretation). The structural bureaucracy is formed and destroyed on all scales itself, it is a matter of time and statistics (it is manifestation of the same memory, it is foundation of every system... personal belief system in your brain, the Science, the Wikipedia...), all that is required - is to strike day by day at points with high internal stresses, provoking dissonance, delicately helping the efforts of the environment (delicately, since as intrasystem elements we have slightly different interests against the rest of adaptive landscape).
NB: All that remains (of the past, i.e. of experience), "when a fairy tales has been told" - are legends and imagination (filtered evolved knowledge, i.e. information, and the ability to think). I can understand your Brahma's quote only this way. It's my interpretation.
You are wasting efforts on memory that are most likely will stand the long test of time without serious fundamental losses. I mean structural part of knowledge, not historical or biographical, you reminded me of an elderly acquaintance who often said that the whole history of ancient Egypt was twisted by the germans :-) There are a lot of more terribly problematic issues, starting with the problem of demarcation.
Stam Nicolis | Whatever. All this history and sociology doesn't affect the technical content of special and general relativity. So it doesn't matter, who thought what or did something or the other, that can't be reproduced by anyone else, following impersonal methods; only what can matters. It's possible to understand special and general relativity and cosmology, without having to care about such issues. Whether any scientist ``believed'' (or didn't believe) something is completely irrelevant to whether the ``something'' is true or false, as a mathematical statement and whether it can be measured to a certain precision by a specific apparatus. What does matter, historically, is that the measurement did occur.
Issues that were confusing 60 years ago are now completely understood in these subjects, so why anyone would write long articles about them is really an indication that some people have really not that much to occupy their time. It would have been better spent studying a textbook.
Abdul Malek | To all it may concern:
We can see repeated attempts in this forum by certain individuals (representing official science and claiming exceptional authority to knowledge like a priest or a Guru) to shut us up (or dismiss our views as spurious) from discussing the unpleasant aspects (the real truth) of the theories of relativity. They invoke the lack of our formal training and indoctrination (at least to the extent that is necessary), our general “ignorance” as scientists , our inability for mathematical manipulations and lack of geometrical intuition that are necessary to “understand” those “heavy” stuff etc., etc.! In other words it is an instruction to us to join them inside the dungeon for some necessary spiritual initiation, preferably by a Guru.
We are also told that history is of no significance or consequence at all! “All that happens (in history) is not always true; what you compose is the only truth” - said Brahma (the supreme Hindu God) to the poet Vyasnava (also known as Balmiki) when he sought Brahma’s help in writing his historical Epic of Mahabharata.
These deliberations are coupled with the necessary sermon that our “time would have been better spent studying a textbook”. By the way, the textbooks prescribed for our ignorance, contain the same nonsense that they speak in these forums and even by the account of some of their own, "are full of errors and confusion” - and truely the same that they themslves display in these forums !!!
All these (in disguise) are the real indications of their bankruptcy and the fact that they have run out of logical and rational ammunitions. To their greatest embarrassment the nakedness of the emperor is increasingly coming in full view of everybody; mystery, awe, wonders, reverence etc., are fading away! As it was always the case in such situation in the past history, it is time to re-commission the Guillotines and the Stakes and call out the armed forces to use “real/material ammunitions” – the last resort!
Vasyl Komarov | (As an epigraph...)
Этот рассказ мы с загадки начнём —---------
Даже Алиса ответит едва ли:
Что остаётся от сказки потом,
После того как её рассказали?
Где, например, волшебный рожок?
Добрая фея куда улетела?
А? Э-э! Так-то, дружок,
В этом-то всё и дело:
Они не испаряются, они не растворяются,
Рассказанные в сказке, промелькнувшие во сне,
В Страну Чудес волшебную они переселяются,
Мы их, конечно, встретим в этой сказочной стране...
Много неясного в странной стране —
Можно запутаться и заблудиться...
Даже мурашки бегут по спине,
Если представить, что может случиться.
Вдруг будет пропасть — и нужен прыжок.
Струсишь ли сразу? Прыгнешь ли смело?
А? Э-э! Так-то, дружок,
В этом-то всё и дело.
***
— Vladimir Vysotsky, The song of Carroll from the audioshow "Alice in Wonderland", 1973, The song of Carroll from the audioshow "Alice in Wonderland"
Abdul, recently, near to the historical date ("April 12th, 1961 Exactly 57 years ago first man occurred in Space orbit of Earth") I got question shared ("Which date is in your opinion important for humankind development?"), where dear F. Leyvraz very aptly noted that tomorrow is the most significant date for humankind.
It's hard not to agree with this, because it's creepy to thought that best days for humanity is in the past.
The paradox of evolution is (as noticed by one lady in black with a drop of red) that it is necessary to run with all might in order to remain unchanged.
The value of the past consists only in what is invariant to the process - it is common mechanism of the memory in nature. The rest is usefull dust on the way... mistakes, subjective attractions... all that will be indifferently milled with phase flow (the passage of time), like all the other dynamic details of landscape.
I do not call for being complete indifferent (neutral), of course, emotions and local attractions, even in relation to the whole humankind or even Universe - all these manifestations of selfishness, all subjectivity - it is what makes ALIVE! So, dear Abdul, thank you and all RG community for emotional disputes and contradictory arguments, sometimes leading out of balance.
Forget about "official science", "Guru", "autority" and other nonsense. All that matters, as we are integral mechanism of the system (humankind), is the your expression (i.e. communication with all of us) of your personal reasoning (i.e., interpretation). The structural bureaucracy is formed and destroyed on all scales itself, it is a matter of time and statistics (it is manifestation of the same memory, it is foundation of every system... personal belief system in your brain, the Science, the Wikipedia...), all that is required - is to strike day by day at points with high internal stresses, provoking dissonance, delicately helping the efforts of the environment (delicately, since as intrasystem elements we have slightly different interests against the rest of adaptive landscape).
NB: All that remains (of the past, i.e. of experience), "when a fairy tales has been told" - are legends and imagination (filtered evolved knowledge, i.e. information, and the ability to think). I can understand your Brahma's quote only this way. It's my interpretation.
You are wasting efforts on memory that are most likely will stand the long test of time without serious fundamental losses. I mean structural part of knowledge, not historical or biographical, you reminded me of an elderly acquaintance who often said that the whole history of ancient Egypt was twisted by the germans :-) There are a lot of more terribly problematic issues, starting with the problem of demarcation.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible? [accessed May 12, 2018]
12 трав. 2018 р.
08:53 | Weak charge of the proton measured
It is straightforward to see that parity symmetry is broken in the macroscopic world, particularly in biological systems. For example, most humans are right-handed. If parity symmetry were conserved for the handedness of humans, half of the population would be right-handed and half would be left-handed.
Remarkably, all subatomic particles violate parity symmetry when they interact with one another through the weak force. Weak charges can therefore be determined by comparing the behaviour of left- and right-handed versions of particles.
May 16, 2018
Q: Can rational thought exist without language?
Eric Lord |
Are Crows the Ultimate Problem Solvers?
A demonstration of an octopus learning through observation
Wild Inside the National Zoo: Elephant Intelligence
etc...
Q: Can rational thought exist without language?
Eric Lord |
"The words of the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanisms of thought. Conventional words or other signs have to be sought for laboriously at a second stage."Causal understanding of water displacement by a crow
— Albert Einstein
Are Crows the Ultimate Problem Solvers?
A demonstration of an octopus learning through observation
Wild Inside the National Zoo: Elephant Intelligence
etc...
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Can rational thought exist without language? [accessed May 16, 2018]
25 трав. 2018 р.
23:57 | Случайно (за счёт гиперактивных "коллег") по весьма узнаваемоу скетчу в ленте обнаружил, что Amrit Sorli не полностью устранился из ResearchGate, а "сменил явку". Как обычно, в данном случае интересно, по собственной ли воле был удалён из сети, каковы общие мотивы.
28 трав. 2018 р.
11:25 | Computation and construction universality of reversible cellular automata
2018 | DOI: 10.1016/S0022-0000(77)80007-X
Jun 2, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, if someone had told me 10 years ago that I would be defending the theories of relativity now, I would be surprised at least. I'm educated as a specialist in the nonequilibrium processes. The mechanics of a continuous medium lives practically in the realm of Newtonian physics (although it sometimes allows to replace variables for curvilinear coordinates or get rid of redundant variables like time or space-time combinations for self-similar processes, or do other "tricks", which do not change the essence of the processes.) In general, mechanics of a continuous medium form a "disdainful" attitude to the structure of models and matter, while at the same time, due to a great deal with theoretical and numerical simulation, focuses attention on the instability of various dynamic systems, from the simulated object to the algorithmical models used for simulation).
Defending the theory of relativity, I defend the ability to rational reasoning and, accordingly rational laws of nature.
I completely agree with you, infinity must be humbly included in the physical theory. But at the same time, if science has any ambitions for unification, I must humbly exclude demarcation (in the sense that modern science and philosophy operate on it.) Because, it can be stated with full responsibility, physics (actually being biased) does not have any priorities in terms of humankind cognitive practice (same as your favourable materialism).
It is the more correct (noncontradictory within set of my personal knowledge) understanding of infinity in conjunction with theory of evolution led me to the necessity of kind of patterns that were obtained as the deductive consequences of the common postulates of relativity. This turned out to be necessary for the ability of further understanding of evolution, the concept of self-organized criticality (turns statistically originated baesian brain idea to the deterministically originated teleonomy) and lead to the obviousness of serious problems in the generally accepted philosophy of science (which, in conjunction with your classification, is a "social practice", i.e. statistically represents the current backbone of the system of society).
Abdul, that sense, the function that you put into the concept of infinite space, must be perceived in a different way. I understand well what kind of thought you want to convey, opposing your position to relativity and the big bang idea. Invariance is a most native intuitive and logically consistent state for being because of many rational reasons and hints within observable law's of nature (conservation, etc.) It must be considered as yet another significant hypothesis (postulate), which is in opposition to any idea based on spontaniety (like the big bang conception) and modern key motives of the scenarios of future evolution of our Universe. It is principal moment!
But #1, you inevitably must came to the problems of singularities. This is definitely stalemate, because on the opposite cups of scales are: on the one hand - the "official science" with causal-effect relations, limitations on information exchange and electrodynamics (i.e. theories of relativity); on the other - inconsistency of the infinite unitary evolution without logical loops, i.e. self-reference (which is the direct consequence of the classical understanding of time), i.e. the impossibility of the applicability of infinity to the classical (Euclidean) world of complicating and/or just still evolving Universe (with thermodynamics and old "dusty skeletons from the closet", i.e. bunch of forgotten paradoxes... of Olber's, Bentley's, Fermi's, Boltzmann's brain and so on).
But #2, it is impossible to move forward without a fundamental realisation that any thinking processes and any processes at al are the manifestation of "real" dynamic systems, i.e. are inalienable property of the reality. With realisation of this any reasoning about mathematical idealism or logic outside of communication processes in the dynamic system looks wild, because the reality provides the topological structure and states of your and my thinking brains, our bodies and rest of world. I have repeatedly said this in various formulations within RG forums and do not see a correct understanding of that second principle moment among many people. This is a key "mainstream" problem of the bureaucratic structure that you call "official science." In addition, the problem of religiosity of thought is superimposed on this problem by the strongest background, archaic views are widely spreaded even within RG community.
Quite frankly, without a key shift in the philosophical paradigm of thinking, I see no point in further discussion about technical details. Otherwise science is doomed to stay frozen within modern crisis of uncertainty (dead end.)
If you want to feel like a heretic, start fight for the correct understanding of demarcation. For this, one must first overcome the bureaucrat in personal beliefs about idealism. I had it once for myself. Later it is easy to make sure that there will not be a return trip.
It is the complex enough (over-the-biochemistry) systems will be the next game changer for the Science. I am sure of this from the rational position.
Like Eric Lord, I am in agreement with Sir William Thomson and see no other possibility than mechanical (dynamical) understanding of the whole reality (with you and me and with infinity.)
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
Just a few thought arising from your most recent Researchgate essay.
You place far too much emphasis on “the practical needs of social life” and “tangible human needs”. A human society that valued that and nothing more would be a pathetic thing. I doubt that any such society exists, or ever did.
Humanity from its earliest beginnings exhibited behaviours quite apart from and outside the realm of practical needs, that your “materialist” philosophy does not seem to pay sufficient attention to. I’m thinking here of “the Arts” − music, dance, sculpture, painting, etc. (and mathematics, which became an “art” once it left behind its beginnings in the practical needs of such matters as trade, carpentry, land surveying etc). Also, human beings are born with an innate sense of wonder and curiosity about the mysterious universe they unaccountably find themselves belonging to: why is the sky blue and the grass green?; what makes a rainbow?; what are stars?; why do things fall down but not up?;...
“Mathematics is not the a priori determinant of the universe”
Probably not, but things in the universe never contradict mathematical laws, which obey the laws of logic. By thinking logically we can (to some extent...) “make sense” of the behaviour of physical phenomena. That is why mathematics is effective in the science of Physics.
Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Scienses
1960 | pdf
You see Einstein’s contribution to Physics as a discontinuity in the development of that science (and, indeed as a catastrophic step backwards!). I see no justification at all for that assessment. Newton had already magnificently demonstrated the value of abstract mathematical ideas in understanding the dynamical behaviour of matter. “Fields” (as opposed to “material objects”) were already there in the work of Faraday when he spoke of “lines of force” to explain the results of his experimental investigations into the behaviour of electricity and magnetism. So much of the astonishing technology we enjoy today is the direct consequence of investigations into the behaviour of electromagnetism by Faraday, Ampere, Coulomb and others. It would be absurd to claim that “the practical needs of social life” was what motivated those investigators! Maxwell unified those discoveries in a set of abstract mathematical equations, an archetypal “Field Theory”. Einstein, like Newton, “stood on the shoulders of giants”. He made a “modest proposal” in 1905 when he offered a plausible resolution of a puzzle that had already been worrying the physicists of the 19th century. It was an idea whose time had come − “one small step” in the continuous chain of ideas and investigations that constitute the history of the science we call Physics. Whether that “one small step” was a “giant leap for mankind” is highly questionable. But nothing physicists know at present indicates that it was “wrong”.
He then turned to Riemannian geometry as an abstract mathematical tool that could lead to a better understanding of gravity (why things fall down but not up...) than the one Newton proposed (which works “pretty well” but clashes with other aspects of physics − intolerance for logical inconsistences being a natural characteristic of the human mind in its “curiosity mode"). Nothing physicists know at present indicates that the theory is “wrong”.
Einstein’s work most certainly has no connection whatever with “regressive world monopoly capitalism”.
Maybe the science of physics can be charactrized as “hunting down the golden deer”. Why should it not be hunted down if that’s what physicists wish to do? The hunt sometimes loses its way; I tend to agree with you on that. And it’s true that the hunt has become enormously expensive. It’s exploration. Explorations have always been expensive for societies that embark on them. But is it being hunted “on behalf of mathematical idealism”. I don’t think so.
Manuel S Morales | “Mathematics is not the a priori determinant of the universe” - Probably not, but things in the universe never contradict mathematical laws, which obey the laws of logic. By thinking logically we can (to some extent...) “make sense” of the behaviour of physical phenomena. That is why mathematics is effective in the science of Physics.
Eric, I find your statement highlights the fundamental problem of practicing effectual science. It uses effectual logic, i.e., effects of existence cause effects of existence, which is a violation of cause preceding effect which in turn makes such logic illogical.
Abdul Malek | Dear Eric,
Thanks for your excellently expressed views and your opinion on my position on mathematics and physics - not that I am unaware of them. The very fact that you care to engage with me (also with others) in a discussion is a great honour for me. Formal physicists would not value any discussion without mathematics; which for them is mere empty verbiage; and also anything beyond their pristine “expertise” and cosy little corner as high priests of physics. But the sad fact is that their claim to authority on their subject is false. Physics or anything else as a discipline cannot be practiced in isolation from the society and its history at large – because all are organically linked in a single whole. So like a branch of a tree, physics without link to the collective whole body cannot remain healthy. I see an admirable difference in you, as this (in my view) is also the the reason you find “rubbish in SRT” that have to “be swept way” and possibly more in GR also! But I think that unfortunately, you do not go far enough. You do not take into account the role of the larger context of the economic class base of society and its super-structure of culture, arts etc. that influence the course of civilization and particularly the growth of positive knowledge gained through the natural sciences; most of all physics. [By the way, you seem to have a wrong impression that I worry for the high cost of scientific research, please be sure that it is the least of my concern about modern physics!]
Also, knowledge of any kind can have any meaning only in relation to man (matter) and society. Thought (abstraction), even being the highest attribute of man; by itself and without any links to society can have no meaning. Knowledge must have a home i.e. man. “It is not the consciousness of man that determines their being, but their social being that determines their consciousness”. This materialist dialectical contention and its fundamental difference from idealism (mathematical idealism included) cannot be denied. This realization in philosophy first came with Aristotle. I often link to the brilliant painting of “The School of Athens” by Raphael; where the central figures – an old and uncertain Plato points his fingers to the heavens while a young and confident Aristotle gestures down to the earth.
I think that you misunderstand my world view. I am not a crass mechanical materialist of the French variety, proposed by de La Mettrie (L’homme Machine) and followed in modern times by biologists like Jacques Monod ( a Nobel Laureate!), Richard Dawkins et al. in biology and the crude determinism in physics. Modern physics suffers from the dualism of Descartes, where he made a sharp differentiation of his physics (pure mechanical materialism) and his philosophy (pure idealism). This is the characteristics of what Hegel called the “view of understanding” (or crudely speaking…
Abdul Malek | Dear Eric,
I would like to add a further note to my comments on the theories of relativity posted above. I must emphasize that my comments are directed mostly to GR, as it makes a complete point of departure from Newtonian physics with its abstract 4D geometric manifold but having tangible material, mechanical, physical, metric etc. attributes like those of matter.
I accept Newtonian physics as a first order of approximation of objective reality even if it is based on classical materialism and causality (The “view of understanding”); because these relate to social practice and satisfy the criteria of positive knowledge. I now accept SR after you have “swept away the rubbish” (probably at the risk of conflict with mainstream physicists) and as an extension of Newtonian physics at very high relative velocity. But I do not yet know what form and content SR will now have after you have cleaned the Stables and how well it will reflect Newtonian mechanics at very high relative velocity. But I admire your profound insight and clean thinking and your courage to criticize the officially accepted notions of the theories of relativity even at the cost of breaking ranks with your peers. This in my view is a profound contribution to physics as a discipline of knowledge as it clarifies many anomalies and misconceptions related to SR; even if you reject many of my dialectics based criticism of modern physics.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, if someone had told me 10 years ago that I would be defending the theories of relativity now, I would be surprised at least. I'm educated as a specialist in the nonequilibrium processes. The mechanics of a continuous medium lives practically in the realm of Newtonian physics (although it sometimes allows to replace variables for curvilinear coordinates or get rid of redundant variables like time or space-time combinations for self-similar processes, or do other "tricks", which do not change the essence of the processes.) In general, mechanics of a continuous medium form a "disdainful" attitude to the structure of models and matter, while at the same time, due to a great deal with theoretical and numerical simulation, focuses attention on the instability of various dynamic systems, from the simulated object to the algorithmical models used for simulation).
Defending the theory of relativity, I defend the ability to rational reasoning and, accordingly rational laws of nature.
I completely agree with you, infinity must be humbly included in the physical theory. But at the same time, if science has any ambitions for unification, I must humbly exclude demarcation (in the sense that modern science and philosophy operate on it.) Because, it can be stated with full responsibility, physics (actually being biased) does not have any priorities in terms of humankind cognitive practice (same as your favourable materialism).
It is the more correct (noncontradictory within set of my personal knowledge) understanding of infinity in conjunction with theory of evolution led me to the necessity of kind of patterns that were obtained as the deductive consequences of the common postulates of relativity. This turned out to be necessary for the ability of further understanding of evolution, the concept of self-organized criticality (turns statistically originated baesian brain idea to the deterministically originated teleonomy) and lead to the obviousness of serious problems in the generally accepted philosophy of science (which, in conjunction with your classification, is a "social practice", i.e. statistically represents the current backbone of the system of society).
Abdul, that sense, the function that you put into the concept of infinite space, must be perceived in a different way. I understand well what kind of thought you want to convey, opposing your position to relativity and the big bang idea. Invariance is a most native intuitive and logically consistent state for being because of many rational reasons and hints within observable law's of nature (conservation, etc.) It must be considered as yet another significant hypothesis (postulate), which is in opposition to any idea based on spontaniety (like the big bang conception) and modern key motives of the scenarios of future evolution of our Universe. It is principal moment!
But #1, you inevitably must came to the problems of singularities. This is definitely stalemate, because on the opposite cups of scales are: on the one hand - the "official science" with causal-effect relations, limitations on information exchange and electrodynamics (i.e. theories of relativity); on the other - inconsistency of the infinite unitary evolution without logical loops, i.e. self-reference (which is the direct consequence of the classical understanding of time), i.e. the impossibility of the applicability of infinity to the classical (Euclidean) world of complicating and/or just still evolving Universe (with thermodynamics and old "dusty skeletons from the closet", i.e. bunch of forgotten paradoxes... of Olber's, Bentley's, Fermi's, Boltzmann's brain and so on).
But #2, it is impossible to move forward without a fundamental realisation that any thinking processes and any processes at al are the manifestation of "real" dynamic systems, i.e. are inalienable property of the reality. With realisation of this any reasoning about mathematical idealism or logic outside of communication processes in the dynamic system looks wild, because the reality provides the topological structure and states of your and my thinking brains, our bodies and rest of world. I have repeatedly said this in various formulations within RG forums and do not see a correct understanding of that second principle moment among many people. This is a key "mainstream" problem of the bureaucratic structure that you call "official science." In addition, the problem of religiosity of thought is superimposed on this problem by the strongest background, archaic views are widely spreaded even within RG community.
Quite frankly, without a key shift in the philosophical paradigm of thinking, I see no point in further discussion about technical details. Otherwise science is doomed to stay frozen within modern crisis of uncertainty (dead end.)
If you want to feel like a heretic, start fight for the correct understanding of demarcation. For this, one must first overcome the bureaucrat in personal beliefs about idealism. I had it once for myself. Later it is easy to make sure that there will not be a return trip.
It is the complex enough (over-the-biochemistry) systems will be the next game changer for the Science. I am sure of this from the rational position.
Like Eric Lord, I am in agreement with Sir William Thomson and see no other possibility than mechanical (dynamical) understanding of the whole reality (with you and me and with infinity.)
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
Just a few thought arising from your most recent Researchgate essay.
You place far too much emphasis on “the practical needs of social life” and “tangible human needs”. A human society that valued that and nothing more would be a pathetic thing. I doubt that any such society exists, or ever did.
Humanity from its earliest beginnings exhibited behaviours quite apart from and outside the realm of practical needs, that your “materialist” philosophy does not seem to pay sufficient attention to. I’m thinking here of “the Arts” − music, dance, sculpture, painting, etc. (and mathematics, which became an “art” once it left behind its beginnings in the practical needs of such matters as trade, carpentry, land surveying etc). Also, human beings are born with an innate sense of wonder and curiosity about the mysterious universe they unaccountably find themselves belonging to: why is the sky blue and the grass green?; what makes a rainbow?; what are stars?; why do things fall down but not up?;...
“Mathematics is not the a priori determinant of the universe”
Probably not, but things in the universe never contradict mathematical laws, which obey the laws of logic. By thinking logically we can (to some extent...) “make sense” of the behaviour of physical phenomena. That is why mathematics is effective in the science of Physics.
Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Scienses
1960 | pdf
You see Einstein’s contribution to Physics as a discontinuity in the development of that science (and, indeed as a catastrophic step backwards!). I see no justification at all for that assessment. Newton had already magnificently demonstrated the value of abstract mathematical ideas in understanding the dynamical behaviour of matter. “Fields” (as opposed to “material objects”) were already there in the work of Faraday when he spoke of “lines of force” to explain the results of his experimental investigations into the behaviour of electricity and magnetism. So much of the astonishing technology we enjoy today is the direct consequence of investigations into the behaviour of electromagnetism by Faraday, Ampere, Coulomb and others. It would be absurd to claim that “the practical needs of social life” was what motivated those investigators! Maxwell unified those discoveries in a set of abstract mathematical equations, an archetypal “Field Theory”. Einstein, like Newton, “stood on the shoulders of giants”. He made a “modest proposal” in 1905 when he offered a plausible resolution of a puzzle that had already been worrying the physicists of the 19th century. It was an idea whose time had come − “one small step” in the continuous chain of ideas and investigations that constitute the history of the science we call Physics. Whether that “one small step” was a “giant leap for mankind” is highly questionable. But nothing physicists know at present indicates that it was “wrong”.
He then turned to Riemannian geometry as an abstract mathematical tool that could lead to a better understanding of gravity (why things fall down but not up...) than the one Newton proposed (which works “pretty well” but clashes with other aspects of physics − intolerance for logical inconsistences being a natural characteristic of the human mind in its “curiosity mode"). Nothing physicists know at present indicates that the theory is “wrong”.
Einstein’s work most certainly has no connection whatever with “regressive world monopoly capitalism”.
Maybe the science of physics can be charactrized as “hunting down the golden deer”. Why should it not be hunted down if that’s what physicists wish to do? The hunt sometimes loses its way; I tend to agree with you on that. And it’s true that the hunt has become enormously expensive. It’s exploration. Explorations have always been expensive for societies that embark on them. But is it being hunted “on behalf of mathematical idealism”. I don’t think so.
Manuel S Morales | “Mathematics is not the a priori determinant of the universe” - Probably not, but things in the universe never contradict mathematical laws, which obey the laws of logic. By thinking logically we can (to some extent...) “make sense” of the behaviour of physical phenomena. That is why mathematics is effective in the science of Physics.
Eric, I find your statement highlights the fundamental problem of practicing effectual science. It uses effectual logic, i.e., effects of existence cause effects of existence, which is a violation of cause preceding effect which in turn makes such logic illogical.
Abdul Malek | Dear Eric,
Thanks for your excellently expressed views and your opinion on my position on mathematics and physics - not that I am unaware of them. The very fact that you care to engage with me (also with others) in a discussion is a great honour for me. Formal physicists would not value any discussion without mathematics; which for them is mere empty verbiage; and also anything beyond their pristine “expertise” and cosy little corner as high priests of physics. But the sad fact is that their claim to authority on their subject is false. Physics or anything else as a discipline cannot be practiced in isolation from the society and its history at large – because all are organically linked in a single whole. So like a branch of a tree, physics without link to the collective whole body cannot remain healthy. I see an admirable difference in you, as this (in my view) is also the the reason you find “rubbish in SRT” that have to “be swept way” and possibly more in GR also! But I think that unfortunately, you do not go far enough. You do not take into account the role of the larger context of the economic class base of society and its super-structure of culture, arts etc. that influence the course of civilization and particularly the growth of positive knowledge gained through the natural sciences; most of all physics. [By the way, you seem to have a wrong impression that I worry for the high cost of scientific research, please be sure that it is the least of my concern about modern physics!]
Also, knowledge of any kind can have any meaning only in relation to man (matter) and society. Thought (abstraction), even being the highest attribute of man; by itself and without any links to society can have no meaning. Knowledge must have a home i.e. man. “It is not the consciousness of man that determines their being, but their social being that determines their consciousness”. This materialist dialectical contention and its fundamental difference from idealism (mathematical idealism included) cannot be denied. This realization in philosophy first came with Aristotle. I often link to the brilliant painting of “The School of Athens” by Raphael; where the central figures – an old and uncertain Plato points his fingers to the heavens while a young and confident Aristotle gestures down to the earth.
I think that you misunderstand my world view. I am not a crass mechanical materialist of the French variety, proposed by de La Mettrie (L’homme Machine) and followed in modern times by biologists like Jacques Monod ( a Nobel Laureate!), Richard Dawkins et al. in biology and the crude determinism in physics. Modern physics suffers from the dualism of Descartes, where he made a sharp differentiation of his physics (pure mechanical materialism) and his philosophy (pure idealism). This is the characteristics of what Hegel called the “view of understanding” (or crudely speaking…
Abdul Malek | Dear Eric,
I would like to add a further note to my comments on the theories of relativity posted above. I must emphasize that my comments are directed mostly to GR, as it makes a complete point of departure from Newtonian physics with its abstract 4D geometric manifold but having tangible material, mechanical, physical, metric etc. attributes like those of matter.
I accept Newtonian physics as a first order of approximation of objective reality even if it is based on classical materialism and causality (The “view of understanding”); because these relate to social practice and satisfy the criteria of positive knowledge. I now accept SR after you have “swept away the rubbish” (probably at the risk of conflict with mainstream physicists) and as an extension of Newtonian physics at very high relative velocity. But I do not yet know what form and content SR will now have after you have cleaned the Stables and how well it will reflect Newtonian mechanics at very high relative velocity. But I admire your profound insight and clean thinking and your courage to criticize the officially accepted notions of the theories of relativity even at the cost of breaking ranks with your peers. This in my view is a profound contribution to physics as a discipline of knowledge as it clarifies many anomalies and misconceptions related to SR; even if you reject many of my dialectics based criticism of modern physics.
Jun 3, 2018
Abdul Malek | Dear Hugo and Thierry,
I support your contention that photons must have some tangible mass, no matter how small that may be. Einstein’s photoelectric effect, pair production and annihilation, Casimir force from virtual particles of the quantum vacuum, Lamb shifts (even if only from the charges of the virtual particle) and Prof. Lord’s claim that mass is an invariable quantity, contrary to SR etc., al point to a photon as a particle with mass. Momentum without mass has little meaning.
From a materialist dialectical point of view, a discrete entity is defined by a boundary and you cannot have boundary within the same phase and between two fields, which have no mass. “Field” is an extended property of matter, for materialism there cannot be fields independent of matter. I have attempted a QED interpretation of Hegel’s philosophy of space-time-matter-motion in my booklet, “The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?”
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
"Also, knowledge of any kind can have any meaning only in relation to man (matter) and society. Thought (abstraction), even being the highest attribute of man; by itself and without any links to society can have no meaning. Knowledge must have a home i.e. man. “It is not the consciousness of man that determines their being, but their social being that determines their consciousness”."
I hold those truths to be self-evident!
Physicists and Mathematicians are members of society, are thy not? They have their place in society, as men and women and in particular in their role as specialists in their professions. Their specialized knowledge is a product of society and is linked to society no less that the specialized knowledge of the Butcher, the Baker and the Candlestick maker. Much of the specialized knowledge contained in Mathematics and Physics is inaccessible to “society at large”. In that sense it can be labeled “abstract” and “esoteric”. I cannot see why it should on that account be denigrated as misguided and deemed irrelevant to the “needs of society”. “Practicality” is not all that matters to a society. The freedom of individuals and groups of individuals to follow their thinking about and investigations into the nature of the Physical World, without preconceptions, wherever that exploration might lead, is the mark of an enlightened society. The Physical World encompasses human society, which is after all an incidental product of it. Yet we know so little about the “why” and “how” of that World. According to Alexander Pope, “the proper study of Mankind is Man”. I say “No, it is much more than that!”
Abdul Malek | Dear Hugo and Thierry,
I support your contention that photons must have some tangible mass, no matter how small that may be. Einstein’s photoelectric effect, pair production and annihilation, Casimir force from virtual particles of the quantum vacuum, Lamb shifts (even if only from the charges of the virtual particle) and Prof. Lord’s claim that mass is an invariable quantity, contrary to SR etc., al point to a photon as a particle with mass. Momentum without mass has little meaning.
From a materialist dialectical point of view, a discrete entity is defined by a boundary and you cannot have boundary within the same phase and between two fields, which have no mass. “Field” is an extended property of matter, for materialism there cannot be fields independent of matter. I have attempted a QED interpretation of Hegel’s philosophy of space-time-matter-motion in my booklet, “The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?”
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
"Also, knowledge of any kind can have any meaning only in relation to man (matter) and society. Thought (abstraction), even being the highest attribute of man; by itself and without any links to society can have no meaning. Knowledge must have a home i.e. man. “It is not the consciousness of man that determines their being, but their social being that determines their consciousness”."
I hold those truths to be self-evident!
Physicists and Mathematicians are members of society, are thy not? They have their place in society, as men and women and in particular in their role as specialists in their professions. Their specialized knowledge is a product of society and is linked to society no less that the specialized knowledge of the Butcher, the Baker and the Candlestick maker. Much of the specialized knowledge contained in Mathematics and Physics is inaccessible to “society at large”. In that sense it can be labeled “abstract” and “esoteric”. I cannot see why it should on that account be denigrated as misguided and deemed irrelevant to the “needs of society”. “Practicality” is not all that matters to a society. The freedom of individuals and groups of individuals to follow their thinking about and investigations into the nature of the Physical World, without preconceptions, wherever that exploration might lead, is the mark of an enlightened society. The Physical World encompasses human society, which is after all an incidental product of it. Yet we know so little about the “why” and “how” of that World. According to Alexander Pope, “the proper study of Mankind is Man”. I say “No, it is much more than that!”
Jun 4, 2018
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
“Momentum without mass has little meaning.”
A photon, though massless, undeniably has energy (E= hν, as we all know). And it moves. Therefore it has momentum.
The “meaning” of a word is what we define it to be.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” − Lewis Carrol
“A physical quantity is defined by the series of operations and calculations of which it is the result” − A S Eddington
“Momentum” is a property of a moving particle. Newtonian dynamics defines it to be p = mv where the mass of the particle m is invariant − independent of velocity. According to Newtonian dynamics, therefore, there can be no massless particles − they would have neither momentum nor energy, which makes no sense.
Einstein’s Special Relativity defines “momentum” to be p = γmv where, again, m is invariant − independent of velocity. In that theory, photons are massless and their velocity is c. For photons therefore, that formula tells us nothing; p is in that case indeterminate: p = 0/0! However, SRT also relates the momentum and the energy of a particle: (E/c)2 − p2 = m2c2. For a massless photon p = (E/c)n where n is the unit vector in the direction of the photon’s motion. The correctness of that interpretation is amply confirmed by experiments in hight energy physics. It is a necessary consequence of energy and momentum conservation.
[Incidentally, it is unfortunate the way many authors (including myself at one time...) have called γm “relativistic mass” and then claimed that “mass increases with velocity”. That in my opinion is unnecessary and misleading. I prefer to think of the "mass" of a particle, as did Newton, as an intrinsic property that does not change . It is the total energy of a massive particle, consisting of its rest energy mc2 and its kinetic energy, that increases with increasing velocity, not its “mass”. That "claim" is not, as you suppose, "contrary to SR"! ]
Abdul Malek | Dear Eric:
1. Specialization:
I do not deny specialization! It is impossible for one person to do many tasks with equal effieciency. What I am arguing for is that in addition to being a specialist in one area a person can attain capability to do reasonably well in other areas as well and this in a dialectical and synergistic way will enhance efficiency of his/her own area of specialization as well. Creating a rigid boundary will diminish everything.
There is both uniqueness and sameness in everything in the world – the unity of the opposite. What dialectical development does is to bring them closer; but never absolutely eliminating the difference between the opposites! Because, in that case there would be no contradiction and both the opposites will mutually annihilate each other, going out of existence. For dialectics any “existence” (at all) is a contradiction of “Being-Nothing”; which then resolves into a “Becoming” – which in turn becomes a new contradiction and so on without any end.
This is the case with epistemology and ontology. Human knowledge of the world starts at a primitive level and develops through historical evolution of man, progressively reducing the gap (between epistemology and ontology) but never eliminating it! Human knowledge can never have the complete comprehension of objective reality, the so-called “absolute truth” – a “theory of everything” etc.,– a point I always try to hammer into the consciousness of the present mathematically obsessed physicists, aiming to “know the mind of God”.
Now, specialization always existed even in the primitive society at any particular epoch. One hunter could have a better aim with the arrow than another one, but it was never the case that society depended on one hunter exclusively or this is the only task he/she could or did perform.. Even at the time of Renaissance in Europe and following scientific revolution; there were not as much “specialization” as we have now and most notable persons were capable and contributed in many areas of knowledge. Leonaado Da Vinci was not only a great painter, but also a physicist, engineer, biologist, technician etc. This is the sign of a vibrant and dynamic society.
Sterile specialization steps into a fragmented and stagnant society like in early India (that still in some form persists even today), where society was divided based on profession (specialists) – a priest class, warrior class, cobbler, barber etc. classes, for generations in a mere subsistence economy; when population increased, a similar but separate unit modelled in the same way was established and remained so for centuries. Modern monopoly capitalism has brought us similar “specialization” now. A physicist is supposed to be “specialist” only in his subject and is not supposed to encroach into the field of other similar “specialists”, the same way that he/she would not welcome encroachment from other “specialists” - an excercise of an end in itself.. But what is the result? – we lose communication between the specialists who go their own capriccios way; we have a society of fragmented specialists; similar to stagnant ancient India! The meaning of “specialization has been taken beyond limit – to the opposite of what was supposed to be i.e., to do a better job for common good! This is the working of the polar world view of (Hegel’s) “understanding” - “unity, Opposition and the Excluded Middle” .
An individual human intellect now has the great potential of acquiring much wider knowledge of the world; the same way that a single worker can do the task, what was possible only for say 100 workers before! The progressive historical development of scientific knowledge and technology has made it possible and there is potential for even further development. The dialectical mode of thought and the conscious subjective efforts and acts (to “change” the world and man himself, and not just the idle contemplation of the isolated “specialists”) can enhance both the intellectual and the technical abilities of individual man by reducing the extent of polarity between the opposites, by reducing the divisions between “specializations’, “expertise” etc. and in the process reducing the class division of society and the division between man and man and towards a common goal. Hegel was a polymath; Marx and Engels wrote on philosophy, natural sciences, biology (evolution), mathematics, economics, sociology, politics etc. Marx also was a journalist. Engels was engaged in business, fought wars and even went fox hunting!
Dialectical development follows a helical path like a DNA molecule, reaching a similar position, but at a much higher level of development. The future development of humanity (unless it is meanwhile annihilated through nuclear Armageddon or from an extraterrestrial event) has the potential to reduce the difference between uniqueness and sameness to the similar level that existed in the primitive society but at a much higher level of intellectual, social and technical existence.
Abdul Malek | EL> [Incidentally, it is unfortunate the way many authors (including myself at one time...) have called γm “relativistic mass” and then claimed that “mass increases with velocity”.
Dear Eric,
This is the case not only with the mainstream physicists, but also with the physicists who claim to be the opponents of the theories of relativity (!)– one of the main reasons for my difference with them (as a dialectical materialist) as well, in other forums of RG and elsewhere. If you now claim “to have swept away the rubbish from SRT”, it still does not automatically reduce to a Newtonian theory at very high relative velocity. It is because Newtonian theory is a first order of “approximation” of physical Nature, biological and quantum Nature are successively of much higher orders (levels) of approximation. What is true for one level is not necessarily true for the other and may even be false as we see with the quantum phenomena! A common characteristics of all these levels is that there is nothing (or no) Absolute in any of them (except Newton’s somewhat irrelevant notion of Absolute space and time in physics). This is the reason all of these levels of natural science conforms to dialectics.
Einstein for the first time introduced absolutism in Nature with his axiom that the velocity of light is an absolute constant; the result is that any other parameters (such as mass, space and time!) related to the velocity of light has to change to keep this velocity absolute. For dialectics, there is nothing absolute in the universe because any existence is a contradiction that must resolve in a change, development etc. One can say that “un-interrupted change” is the only absolute for dialectics; but even this has its negative (opposite) side also, because dialectics allows relative and temporary stages in this eternal change , but only so far, change is permanent! So, only non-relativistic natural science that has no absolute in it conforms to dialectics.
SRT can only conform to Newtonian physics (also dialectics) by abolishing the notion of the absolute velocity of light. It is true that compared to our human scale the velocity of light is enormously high and our instruments, no matter how precise can never see any difference. For all practical purposes the velocity of light can be "assumed" to be constant; but if you make it a matter of principle that the velocity of light is absolute, you introduce contradictions that is bound to lead to paradoxes, antinomies, infinities etc. that we see in the case of SRT. By introducing (absolute) axioms in physics (which is an approximate science) Einstein made physics into a part of geometry (negation of dialectics!), which has absolute character, making “motion” impossible to conceive and hence making physics amenable to Zeno type paradoxes; when extended beyond certain limits.
Dialectics is formally introduced into physics by the incorporation of infinitesimal calculus (by Leibniz and Newton) to describe motion in a quantitative way (and that was the only way, because “motion” is a primary dialectical category!). But the entity dy/dx may be “almost nothing” (the monads of Leibniz) but never absolutely “nothing” or zero. If that was so, there could never be any change (motion etc.) in physics! For dialectics “nothing” can never persist by itself; it must always have its opposite “being” with it, in a contradiction. From this philosophical position alone, an entity like photon can never have absolutely zero (or "nothing:) mass under any condition. More on this in my nest comment on “momentum”.
For SRT, a photon must have zero rest mass – an absolute, to keep the other axiomatic absolute, namely the constancy of the speed of light along with all of Einsteinan physics valid; if not, everything will collapse! This is an impasse that (approximate) physics got into by importing axiom (the absolute) from geometry! It is the very reason why the whole physics establishment was shaken up with the claim that the neutrino has superluminal velocity, even if very little but by a tangible amount! From the point of view of QED (which corresponds to dialectics) all the photons in a wave front can never have the same exact velocity, because it will violate the uncertainty principle. The velocities in the wave front of EM radiation even of the same frequency must have a Gaussian type distribution. In fact I came across reports of experimental evidence by some German scientists who claimed such a distribution of photon velocities in a wave front. For dialectics, the claim of time dilation, length contraction is absurd, because time and space are abstract entities and cannot show any physical change! I will try to make the case of invariable matter-mass from the point of view of Hegel's philosophy of space-time-matter-motion; in my next comment. Regards Abdul
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
The idea of the modern theoretical physicist as a creature isolated from society and obsessed with his or her narrow specialization to the exclusion of other interests is a myth. No doubt there are obsessive personalities with one track minds. They are rare and I doubt that they are more prevalent in the communities of mathematicians and physicists than in the general population. Have you ever encounteed anyone who fits that description? I haven’t. On the contrary, the theoreticians I’ve known and interacted with have been highly intelligent individuals keenly interested in and knowledgeable about a wide range of topics and activities.
I don’t think that the physicist’s dream of a “Theory of Everything”, expressed in Hawking’s “...then we would know the mind of God” need be taken seriously. I regard them as metaphors that have arisen from the fact that many major breakthroughs in scientific knowledge have been unifications − arising when apparently distinct kinds of phenomena are seen to have a common explanation. The desire for “ultimate truth” and the search for it are nothing new. They have existed throughout history. Perhaps there is no “ultimate truth”, or at least none that the human mind could be capable of comprehending. But the search for “it” (the holy grail, the philosopher’s stone, the golden deer, the T.O.E, or whatever...) provides motivation. It is the adventure that matters and the curious things encountered along the way, rather than the elusive goal, which may not even exist...
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
“If you now claim “to have swept away the rubbish from SRT”, it still does not automatically reduce to a Newtonian theory at very high relative velocity.”
Of course it doesn’t! I don’t understand why you felt the need to say that.
The rubbish that I "claim" to have swept away refers to the misinterpretations, misunderstandings and mutually incompatible statements that I discern in the literature of SRT, not in the Theory itself. I don’t see anything original or controversial in my way of understanding the theory (arrived at as a result of long familiarity with the theory). I have no doubt that many “relativists” would express views similar to my own (though I have no intention of searching the literature to find them!).
“Einstein for the first time introduced absolutism in Nature with his axiom that the velocity of light is an absolute constant.”
There are many “fundamental constants” in physics. Why, I wonder, do I never come across anyone suggesting, for example, that Planck’s constant or the charge on an electron might not be constants?
Building a theory of any kind must begin with something. (“Nothing will come of nothing...” − King Lear). A theory necessarily begins from some reasonable assumptions (or postulates). Those assumptions must be consistent with previous knowledge. Einstein, of course, already knew about electromagnetism and that light is an electromagnetic phenomenon. Unless “the vacuum” or “empty space “ is a material substance with physical properties, a variable speed of light would make a mess of Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory. That was Einstein’s prior knowledge, which renders his constancy of light speed a reasonable assumption. “Relativists” don’t accept the postulate “because Einstein said so”; they deduce its implications and test them against experiments and observations. That has been done successfully.
“...but if you make it a matter of principle that the velocity of light is absolute, you introduce contradictions that is bound to lead to paradoxes, antinomies, infinities etc. that we see in the case of SRT.”
No , no, NO!! Don't you "get it"? The “contradictions, paradoxes, antinomies, infinities etc” belong to the “rubbish” I spoke of that needs to be “swept away” from what the theory actually implies. I’ve been wearing myself out trying to get that point across in various Researchgate discussions. (I don’t know why I continue to waste my time doing that.)-:
“For dialectics, the claim of time dilation, length contraction is absurd, because time and space are abstract entities and cannot show any physical change.”
According to SRT, properly understood, “time and space are abstract entities and cannot show any physical change!” That’s what I’ve been trying to say all along!
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
“Momentum without mass has little meaning.”
A photon, though massless, undeniably has energy (E= hν, as we all know). And it moves. Therefore it has momentum.
The “meaning” of a word is what we define it to be.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” − Lewis Carrol
“A physical quantity is defined by the series of operations and calculations of which it is the result” − A S Eddington
“Momentum” is a property of a moving particle. Newtonian dynamics defines it to be p = mv where the mass of the particle m is invariant − independent of velocity. According to Newtonian dynamics, therefore, there can be no massless particles − they would have neither momentum nor energy, which makes no sense.
Einstein’s Special Relativity defines “momentum” to be p = γmv where, again, m is invariant − independent of velocity. In that theory, photons are massless and their velocity is c. For photons therefore, that formula tells us nothing; p is in that case indeterminate: p = 0/0! However, SRT also relates the momentum and the energy of a particle: (E/c)2 − p2 = m2c2. For a massless photon p = (E/c)n where n is the unit vector in the direction of the photon’s motion. The correctness of that interpretation is amply confirmed by experiments in hight energy physics. It is a necessary consequence of energy and momentum conservation.
[Incidentally, it is unfortunate the way many authors (including myself at one time...) have called γm “relativistic mass” and then claimed that “mass increases with velocity”. That in my opinion is unnecessary and misleading. I prefer to think of the "mass" of a particle, as did Newton, as an intrinsic property that does not change . It is the total energy of a massive particle, consisting of its rest energy mc2 and its kinetic energy, that increases with increasing velocity, not its “mass”. That "claim" is not, as you suppose, "contrary to SR"! ]
Abdul Malek | Dear Eric:
1. Specialization:
I do not deny specialization! It is impossible for one person to do many tasks with equal effieciency. What I am arguing for is that in addition to being a specialist in one area a person can attain capability to do reasonably well in other areas as well and this in a dialectical and synergistic way will enhance efficiency of his/her own area of specialization as well. Creating a rigid boundary will diminish everything.
There is both uniqueness and sameness in everything in the world – the unity of the opposite. What dialectical development does is to bring them closer; but never absolutely eliminating the difference between the opposites! Because, in that case there would be no contradiction and both the opposites will mutually annihilate each other, going out of existence. For dialectics any “existence” (at all) is a contradiction of “Being-Nothing”; which then resolves into a “Becoming” – which in turn becomes a new contradiction and so on without any end.
This is the case with epistemology and ontology. Human knowledge of the world starts at a primitive level and develops through historical evolution of man, progressively reducing the gap (between epistemology and ontology) but never eliminating it! Human knowledge can never have the complete comprehension of objective reality, the so-called “absolute truth” – a “theory of everything” etc.,– a point I always try to hammer into the consciousness of the present mathematically obsessed physicists, aiming to “know the mind of God”.
Now, specialization always existed even in the primitive society at any particular epoch. One hunter could have a better aim with the arrow than another one, but it was never the case that society depended on one hunter exclusively or this is the only task he/she could or did perform.. Even at the time of Renaissance in Europe and following scientific revolution; there were not as much “specialization” as we have now and most notable persons were capable and contributed in many areas of knowledge. Leonaado Da Vinci was not only a great painter, but also a physicist, engineer, biologist, technician etc. This is the sign of a vibrant and dynamic society.
Sterile specialization steps into a fragmented and stagnant society like in early India (that still in some form persists even today), where society was divided based on profession (specialists) – a priest class, warrior class, cobbler, barber etc. classes, for generations in a mere subsistence economy; when population increased, a similar but separate unit modelled in the same way was established and remained so for centuries. Modern monopoly capitalism has brought us similar “specialization” now. A physicist is supposed to be “specialist” only in his subject and is not supposed to encroach into the field of other similar “specialists”, the same way that he/she would not welcome encroachment from other “specialists” - an excercise of an end in itself.. But what is the result? – we lose communication between the specialists who go their own capriccios way; we have a society of fragmented specialists; similar to stagnant ancient India! The meaning of “specialization has been taken beyond limit – to the opposite of what was supposed to be i.e., to do a better job for common good! This is the working of the polar world view of (Hegel’s) “understanding” - “unity, Opposition and the Excluded Middle” .
An individual human intellect now has the great potential of acquiring much wider knowledge of the world; the same way that a single worker can do the task, what was possible only for say 100 workers before! The progressive historical development of scientific knowledge and technology has made it possible and there is potential for even further development. The dialectical mode of thought and the conscious subjective efforts and acts (to “change” the world and man himself, and not just the idle contemplation of the isolated “specialists”) can enhance both the intellectual and the technical abilities of individual man by reducing the extent of polarity between the opposites, by reducing the divisions between “specializations’, “expertise” etc. and in the process reducing the class division of society and the division between man and man and towards a common goal. Hegel was a polymath; Marx and Engels wrote on philosophy, natural sciences, biology (evolution), mathematics, economics, sociology, politics etc. Marx also was a journalist. Engels was engaged in business, fought wars and even went fox hunting!
Dialectical development follows a helical path like a DNA molecule, reaching a similar position, but at a much higher level of development. The future development of humanity (unless it is meanwhile annihilated through nuclear Armageddon or from an extraterrestrial event) has the potential to reduce the difference between uniqueness and sameness to the similar level that existed in the primitive society but at a much higher level of intellectual, social and technical existence.
Abdul Malek | EL> [Incidentally, it is unfortunate the way many authors (including myself at one time...) have called γm “relativistic mass” and then claimed that “mass increases with velocity”.
Dear Eric,
This is the case not only with the mainstream physicists, but also with the physicists who claim to be the opponents of the theories of relativity (!)– one of the main reasons for my difference with them (as a dialectical materialist) as well, in other forums of RG and elsewhere. If you now claim “to have swept away the rubbish from SRT”, it still does not automatically reduce to a Newtonian theory at very high relative velocity. It is because Newtonian theory is a first order of “approximation” of physical Nature, biological and quantum Nature are successively of much higher orders (levels) of approximation. What is true for one level is not necessarily true for the other and may even be false as we see with the quantum phenomena! A common characteristics of all these levels is that there is nothing (or no) Absolute in any of them (except Newton’s somewhat irrelevant notion of Absolute space and time in physics). This is the reason all of these levels of natural science conforms to dialectics.
Einstein for the first time introduced absolutism in Nature with his axiom that the velocity of light is an absolute constant; the result is that any other parameters (such as mass, space and time!) related to the velocity of light has to change to keep this velocity absolute. For dialectics, there is nothing absolute in the universe because any existence is a contradiction that must resolve in a change, development etc. One can say that “un-interrupted change” is the only absolute for dialectics; but even this has its negative (opposite) side also, because dialectics allows relative and temporary stages in this eternal change , but only so far, change is permanent! So, only non-relativistic natural science that has no absolute in it conforms to dialectics.
SRT can only conform to Newtonian physics (also dialectics) by abolishing the notion of the absolute velocity of light. It is true that compared to our human scale the velocity of light is enormously high and our instruments, no matter how precise can never see any difference. For all practical purposes the velocity of light can be "assumed" to be constant; but if you make it a matter of principle that the velocity of light is absolute, you introduce contradictions that is bound to lead to paradoxes, antinomies, infinities etc. that we see in the case of SRT. By introducing (absolute) axioms in physics (which is an approximate science) Einstein made physics into a part of geometry (negation of dialectics!), which has absolute character, making “motion” impossible to conceive and hence making physics amenable to Zeno type paradoxes; when extended beyond certain limits.
Dialectics is formally introduced into physics by the incorporation of infinitesimal calculus (by Leibniz and Newton) to describe motion in a quantitative way (and that was the only way, because “motion” is a primary dialectical category!). But the entity dy/dx may be “almost nothing” (the monads of Leibniz) but never absolutely “nothing” or zero. If that was so, there could never be any change (motion etc.) in physics! For dialectics “nothing” can never persist by itself; it must always have its opposite “being” with it, in a contradiction. From this philosophical position alone, an entity like photon can never have absolutely zero (or "nothing:) mass under any condition. More on this in my nest comment on “momentum”.
For SRT, a photon must have zero rest mass – an absolute, to keep the other axiomatic absolute, namely the constancy of the speed of light along with all of Einsteinan physics valid; if not, everything will collapse! This is an impasse that (approximate) physics got into by importing axiom (the absolute) from geometry! It is the very reason why the whole physics establishment was shaken up with the claim that the neutrino has superluminal velocity, even if very little but by a tangible amount! From the point of view of QED (which corresponds to dialectics) all the photons in a wave front can never have the same exact velocity, because it will violate the uncertainty principle. The velocities in the wave front of EM radiation even of the same frequency must have a Gaussian type distribution. In fact I came across reports of experimental evidence by some German scientists who claimed such a distribution of photon velocities in a wave front. For dialectics, the claim of time dilation, length contraction is absurd, because time and space are abstract entities and cannot show any physical change! I will try to make the case of invariable matter-mass from the point of view of Hegel's philosophy of space-time-matter-motion; in my next comment. Regards Abdul
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
The idea of the modern theoretical physicist as a creature isolated from society and obsessed with his or her narrow specialization to the exclusion of other interests is a myth. No doubt there are obsessive personalities with one track minds. They are rare and I doubt that they are more prevalent in the communities of mathematicians and physicists than in the general population. Have you ever encounteed anyone who fits that description? I haven’t. On the contrary, the theoreticians I’ve known and interacted with have been highly intelligent individuals keenly interested in and knowledgeable about a wide range of topics and activities.
I don’t think that the physicist’s dream of a “Theory of Everything”, expressed in Hawking’s “...then we would know the mind of God” need be taken seriously. I regard them as metaphors that have arisen from the fact that many major breakthroughs in scientific knowledge have been unifications − arising when apparently distinct kinds of phenomena are seen to have a common explanation. The desire for “ultimate truth” and the search for it are nothing new. They have existed throughout history. Perhaps there is no “ultimate truth”, or at least none that the human mind could be capable of comprehending. But the search for “it” (the holy grail, the philosopher’s stone, the golden deer, the T.O.E, or whatever...) provides motivation. It is the adventure that matters and the curious things encountered along the way, rather than the elusive goal, which may not even exist...
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
“If you now claim “to have swept away the rubbish from SRT”, it still does not automatically reduce to a Newtonian theory at very high relative velocity.”
Of course it doesn’t! I don’t understand why you felt the need to say that.
The rubbish that I "claim" to have swept away refers to the misinterpretations, misunderstandings and mutually incompatible statements that I discern in the literature of SRT, not in the Theory itself. I don’t see anything original or controversial in my way of understanding the theory (arrived at as a result of long familiarity with the theory). I have no doubt that many “relativists” would express views similar to my own (though I have no intention of searching the literature to find them!).
“Einstein for the first time introduced absolutism in Nature with his axiom that the velocity of light is an absolute constant.”
There are many “fundamental constants” in physics. Why, I wonder, do I never come across anyone suggesting, for example, that Planck’s constant or the charge on an electron might not be constants?
Building a theory of any kind must begin with something. (“Nothing will come of nothing...” − King Lear). A theory necessarily begins from some reasonable assumptions (or postulates). Those assumptions must be consistent with previous knowledge. Einstein, of course, already knew about electromagnetism and that light is an electromagnetic phenomenon. Unless “the vacuum” or “empty space “ is a material substance with physical properties, a variable speed of light would make a mess of Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory. That was Einstein’s prior knowledge, which renders his constancy of light speed a reasonable assumption. “Relativists” don’t accept the postulate “because Einstein said so”; they deduce its implications and test them against experiments and observations. That has been done successfully.
“...but if you make it a matter of principle that the velocity of light is absolute, you introduce contradictions that is bound to lead to paradoxes, antinomies, infinities etc. that we see in the case of SRT.”
No , no, NO!! Don't you "get it"? The “contradictions, paradoxes, antinomies, infinities etc” belong to the “rubbish” I spoke of that needs to be “swept away” from what the theory actually implies. I’ve been wearing myself out trying to get that point across in various Researchgate discussions. (I don’t know why I continue to waste my time doing that.)-:
“For dialectics, the claim of time dilation, length contraction is absurd, because time and space are abstract entities and cannot show any physical change.”
According to SRT, properly understood, “time and space are abstract entities and cannot show any physical change!” That’s what I’ve been trying to say all along!
Jun 5, 2018
Paul Pistea | < You object to the idea of c as a “fundamental constant” > case c²>c, why do they write mc² and do not substitute c² by aprox. 10^11?
Paul Pistea | < “relativistic mass” and then claimed that “mass increases with velocity”. > if mass increases with velocity, then it should decrease when slowing down...
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
“It is not like a communication (exchange of views) you are trying to do in RG to enhance knowledge. Their's is just a one-way phenomenon – to pacify the general public through evangelical preaching...”
When someone has spent many years gaining in-depth knowledge about a subject and then devoted their working life to actively contributing to that body of knowledge takes time out to explain the nature of their work to those who have not, it’s extremely unfair and insulting to call that activity “evangelical preaching”. “Dissenters” who know far less about the subject but are genuinely interested are free to offer opinions; and they do so. No-one is shutting them up. But it’s hardly a “level playing field” for a two-way exchange of ideas between equals.
It is an unfortunate fact that Relativistic Physics is one of those branches of science that attracts a large “fringe” of cranks and crackpots. I was shocked and dismayed when I saw the extent of that when I first joined Researchgate several years ago. They are “entitled to their opinions” but one cannot expect genuine scientists to waste much time debating with them.
Another prominant example is the ongoing “evolution versus creation science” debate (lots of examples of that on Youtube!).
“Nature is what she is! She does not care for man’s wish or will or convenience!”
Precisely! You’ve hit he nail on the head!! That is why the essential prerequisite in any attempt at understanding Nature is an open mind free of a priori beliefs (or, dare I say it...: philosophical dogmas). That is not so easy for a human being to achieve, and comes with its own dangers: “the trouble with keeping an open mind is that people come along and throw rubbish into it.” (-:
“ EL> “The idea of an upper limit to velocities − a speed “than which nothing can go faster” seems very reasonable to me.” AM> No, it is not reasonable at all! Simply because is it chosen arbitrarily and for mathematical convenience only.
It’s not “chosen arbitrarily”! It’s a logical inference drawn from pre-existing knowledge of the behaviour of electromagnetism (including “light waves”). That’s not a wild assertion on my part; I can justify it mathematically from Maxwell’s electrodynamics. But then that’s just “abstract esoteric mathematics” which doesn’t count! So I can’t win, can I? The “rules of the game” are stacked against me!
Mathematics is not just juggling with symbols. As the head of Liverpool’s Department of Mathematics said in 1964 in a talk to graduating students (including me): “You’re not mathematicians just because you can make squiggles on a piece of paper.” In other words: mathematical equations are not “abstract” or “esoteric” to a mathematician or a theoretical physicist worthy of the name. They speak to him, more eloquently than words.
“I consider all “fundamental" physical constants valid only within certain limit. There can be no universal “fundamental” constant”
Long ago I toyed with the idea of “unit transformations”: one can arbitrarily vary the units of measure – using (non-dynamical) scalar fields as factors transforming lengths, times, masses, etc. I concluded that the underlying physics is unaffected, just as it is unaffected by coordinate transformations. Taking various parameters as constants by definition is a matter of expediency, nothing more.
It could be that, in the hunt for a “Theory of Everything”, mathematical physicists who study “supersymmetries”, “string theories”, “multiverses” etc, have become intoxicated on their fascination with meaningless abstractions and have strayed far from the path of real Physics. I tend to agree with you about that (though not with 100% certainty...). But I disagree absolutely that Einstein’s 1905 insights belong in that category!
Vasyl Komarov | Abdul, physics did not at all give up speeds above a certain conventional limit. Continuous research in the field of quantum entanglement confirms this state of affairs (arXiv:1611.06985, arXiv:1805.04431...). Nevertheless, the interpretation of any incoming data can radically change the perception of the nature. For example, I can not share the opinion of the authors of second paper that the nonlocality of the laws of nature contradicts the concept of causal determinism (as it looks within the stereotypes of quantum-mechanical concept.)
It is necessary to search agreement with warious patterns in models, and always strive to build a logically consistent, mutual structure of knowledge, otherwise the logic of understanding will be distorted or totally violated, in other words, it is always necessary to choose the way with minimized the number of paradoxes in the knowledge system.
If we ignore electrodynamics altogether, if we forget that light from the solar photosphere to the Earth comes only after 8 minutes, perhaps we would be satisfied with the absence of any limitation on the speed... while the atoms are "balls" in the abstract space of classical mechanics. But besides that photons are rather slow by nature, you and I have known for a long time about the wave nature of massive material objects, such as electrons, atomic nuclei... (quantum mechanics is here)
It's fun, but in that case we should be alarmed by the knowledge of the old "forgotten" ether. After all, if material objects are a product of the wave nature, and there is a factor that generates coherence of all processes (which literally means mutual compatibility of all objects at the level of the standard model, for example), a reorganization in such a connected and interacted (moreover, continuously complicating... since we both know about evolution) system without destroying the order (structure) is possible only if a constraint on the propagation of disturbances there is. This constraint is even not a ban (not a rule), in this case, logically there should be a physical process (logically expected effect) of dissipation (by cause) of incoherent states falling out of the some eigen-rhythm of the system. Any faster processes elementary must lead to instability and destruction of integrity of ordered complex enough coherent structure of matter, respectively, destroying themselves first.
All this is relatively easy to show by the example (analogy) of simulation of physical processes on discrete computers where it is impossible to get rid of the pacemaker in the form of system cycles (which for an abstract representation in the form of a Turing machine means the discreteness of the head steps, and physically means that the integrity of the "program" with "data" cells is provided over cyclical "discreteness" of the dynamic system representing the carrier computer itself.) The possibility of the existence of a continuum as an integral stable structure (or a continuous medium) over cyclic systems must have a limiting factor, which includes the amount of information that "neighboring" discrete elements (subsystems) can exchange.
I suggest you just think about how much reality (with Planck's constant), as a continuous environment for the Newton model, should play by the same rules of dynamic systems, so that you perceive the world not in the form of a "quantum" standing-wave structure, but as smooth invariant solid Newtonian objects with the continuous space.
In addition, a few more words about entanglement and coherence. It does not violate causal relationships. Because, in order to obtain a coherent state of objects spaced a great distance, a process with a singular event in the past is always necessary, which, apparently, will always act as a guarantor of cause-effect non-violation. Moreover, you simply can not use the entangled state without having synchronized (that is, coherently created within causal relations framework) equipment at both ends.
I suggest you also look from this position to the event conventionally known at the moment as the "big bang", against the background of infinity often mention by you. The data contradictory within the bounds of the known to you views, under such a "different angle" can have a consequent, logically consistent explanation. Moreover, in this way it becomes possible to explain why the material structure is totally universally compatible for the visible (local) Universe. Especially if we take into account that modern physics does not have any answer to this question at all and for the idea of spontaneity, popularized by quantum theory this state of affairs even is a paradox (quantum mechanics can not at all explain why spontaneity should be limited by some predetermined (sic!) uncertainty relation.)
Paul Pistea | < You object to the idea of c as a “fundamental constant” > case c²>c, why do they write mc² and do not substitute c² by aprox. 10^11?
Paul Pistea | < “relativistic mass” and then claimed that “mass increases with velocity”. > if mass increases with velocity, then it should decrease when slowing down...
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
“It is not like a communication (exchange of views) you are trying to do in RG to enhance knowledge. Their's is just a one-way phenomenon – to pacify the general public through evangelical preaching...”
When someone has spent many years gaining in-depth knowledge about a subject and then devoted their working life to actively contributing to that body of knowledge takes time out to explain the nature of their work to those who have not, it’s extremely unfair and insulting to call that activity “evangelical preaching”. “Dissenters” who know far less about the subject but are genuinely interested are free to offer opinions; and they do so. No-one is shutting them up. But it’s hardly a “level playing field” for a two-way exchange of ideas between equals.
It is an unfortunate fact that Relativistic Physics is one of those branches of science that attracts a large “fringe” of cranks and crackpots. I was shocked and dismayed when I saw the extent of that when I first joined Researchgate several years ago. They are “entitled to their opinions” but one cannot expect genuine scientists to waste much time debating with them.
Another prominant example is the ongoing “evolution versus creation science” debate (lots of examples of that on Youtube!).
“Nature is what she is! She does not care for man’s wish or will or convenience!”
Precisely! You’ve hit he nail on the head!! That is why the essential prerequisite in any attempt at understanding Nature is an open mind free of a priori beliefs (or, dare I say it...: philosophical dogmas). That is not so easy for a human being to achieve, and comes with its own dangers: “the trouble with keeping an open mind is that people come along and throw rubbish into it.” (-:
“ EL> “The idea of an upper limit to velocities − a speed “than which nothing can go faster” seems very reasonable to me.” AM> No, it is not reasonable at all! Simply because is it chosen arbitrarily and for mathematical convenience only.
It’s not “chosen arbitrarily”! It’s a logical inference drawn from pre-existing knowledge of the behaviour of electromagnetism (including “light waves”). That’s not a wild assertion on my part; I can justify it mathematically from Maxwell’s electrodynamics. But then that’s just “abstract esoteric mathematics” which doesn’t count! So I can’t win, can I? The “rules of the game” are stacked against me!
Mathematics is not just juggling with symbols. As the head of Liverpool’s Department of Mathematics said in 1964 in a talk to graduating students (including me): “You’re not mathematicians just because you can make squiggles on a piece of paper.” In other words: mathematical equations are not “abstract” or “esoteric” to a mathematician or a theoretical physicist worthy of the name. They speak to him, more eloquently than words.
“I consider all “fundamental" physical constants valid only within certain limit. There can be no universal “fundamental” constant”
Long ago I toyed with the idea of “unit transformations”: one can arbitrarily vary the units of measure – using (non-dynamical) scalar fields as factors transforming lengths, times, masses, etc. I concluded that the underlying physics is unaffected, just as it is unaffected by coordinate transformations. Taking various parameters as constants by definition is a matter of expediency, nothing more.
It could be that, in the hunt for a “Theory of Everything”, mathematical physicists who study “supersymmetries”, “string theories”, “multiverses” etc, have become intoxicated on their fascination with meaningless abstractions and have strayed far from the path of real Physics. I tend to agree with you about that (though not with 100% certainty...). But I disagree absolutely that Einstein’s 1905 insights belong in that category!
Vasyl Komarov | Abdul, physics did not at all give up speeds above a certain conventional limit. Continuous research in the field of quantum entanglement confirms this state of affairs (arXiv:1611.06985, arXiv:1805.04431...). Nevertheless, the interpretation of any incoming data can radically change the perception of the nature. For example, I can not share the opinion of the authors of second paper that the nonlocality of the laws of nature contradicts the concept of causal determinism (as it looks within the stereotypes of quantum-mechanical concept.)
It is necessary to search agreement with warious patterns in models, and always strive to build a logically consistent, mutual structure of knowledge, otherwise the logic of understanding will be distorted or totally violated, in other words, it is always necessary to choose the way with minimized the number of paradoxes in the knowledge system.
If we ignore electrodynamics altogether, if we forget that light from the solar photosphere to the Earth comes only after 8 minutes, perhaps we would be satisfied with the absence of any limitation on the speed... while the atoms are "balls" in the abstract space of classical mechanics. But besides that photons are rather slow by nature, you and I have known for a long time about the wave nature of massive material objects, such as electrons, atomic nuclei... (quantum mechanics is here)
It's fun, but in that case we should be alarmed by the knowledge of the old "forgotten" ether. After all, if material objects are a product of the wave nature, and there is a factor that generates coherence of all processes (which literally means mutual compatibility of all objects at the level of the standard model, for example), a reorganization in such a connected and interacted (moreover, continuously complicating... since we both know about evolution) system without destroying the order (structure) is possible only if a constraint on the propagation of disturbances there is. This constraint is even not a ban (not a rule), in this case, logically there should be a physical process (logically expected effect) of dissipation (by cause) of incoherent states falling out of the some eigen-rhythm of the system. Any faster processes elementary must lead to instability and destruction of integrity of ordered complex enough coherent structure of matter, respectively, destroying themselves first.
All this is relatively easy to show by the example (analogy) of simulation of physical processes on discrete computers where it is impossible to get rid of the pacemaker in the form of system cycles (which for an abstract representation in the form of a Turing machine means the discreteness of the head steps, and physically means that the integrity of the "program" with "data" cells is provided over cyclical "discreteness" of the dynamic system representing the carrier computer itself.) The possibility of the existence of a continuum as an integral stable structure (or a continuous medium) over cyclic systems must have a limiting factor, which includes the amount of information that "neighboring" discrete elements (subsystems) can exchange.
I suggest you just think about how much reality (with Planck's constant), as a continuous environment for the Newton model, should play by the same rules of dynamic systems, so that you perceive the world not in the form of a "quantum" standing-wave structure, but as smooth invariant solid Newtonian objects with the continuous space.
In addition, a few more words about entanglement and coherence. It does not violate causal relationships. Because, in order to obtain a coherent state of objects spaced a great distance, a process with a singular event in the past is always necessary, which, apparently, will always act as a guarantor of cause-effect non-violation. Moreover, you simply can not use the entangled state without having synchronized (that is, coherently created within causal relations framework) equipment at both ends.
I suggest you also look from this position to the event conventionally known at the moment as the "big bang", against the background of infinity often mention by you. The data contradictory within the bounds of the known to you views, under such a "different angle" can have a consequent, logically consistent explanation. Moreover, in this way it becomes possible to explain why the material structure is totally universally compatible for the visible (local) Universe. Especially if we take into account that modern physics does not have any answer to this question at all and for the idea of spontaneity, popularized by quantum theory this state of affairs even is a paradox (quantum mechanics can not at all explain why spontaneity should be limited by some predetermined (sic!) uncertainty relation.)
Jun 6, 2018
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
The view of the history of science and of the nature of human society, expressed in your latest remarks, is so widely separated from my own understanding of these highly complex issues, that I find myself unable to enter into any meaningful dialogue with it. It is so unrelentingly simplistic in its determination to reduce everything to polar opposites (materialism versus abstraction, the ruling classes versus the proletariat, etc).
What are these “ideas of the ruling class”? As I see it (apart from very rare historical examples of aristocrats who dabbled in science − or “natural philosophy” as it was then called − as a “hobby"), in matters of science the “ruling class” doesn’t have any ideas! Where is the connection between the “ruling class” and the work of Einstein? (for goodness sake! − a clerk in a patents office when he published his "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies").
Newton was isolated from “society” in his village home when he investigated the laws of optics, invented differential calculus and came up with his gravitational theory. (The university had been shut down because of the plague). Throughout his life, he isolated himself from “society” as much as he could
You decry Einstein’s contribution to physics because of it’s alleged “mathematical abstraction”. Yet you never mention the crucially important work of Maxwell − a “mathematical abstraction” that became the foundation stone on which modern technology was built. In denouncing “abstract” reasoning because it doesn’t fit well with your “materialistic” world view, you are cutting off the branch on which you sit.
Newton - Maxwell - Einstein: links in the continuous (and, with hindsight, inevitable) chain of reasoning that constitutes the human endeavour to explore and try to understand the nature of the physical world. Einstein’s contribution was no break with tradition. The history of physics prior to 1905, from Maxwell onwards, reveals that Einsteinian relativity was not at all a break with tradition − it was an insight that was already “in the air” and destined to arrive. Newton and Einstein are not "polar opposites"; that's sheer fantasy generated by your determination so see everything in terms of dichotomies.
Practical technological applications are not the raison d'être of the human exploration of "physical laws". They are an incidental bonus.
Abdul Malek | Dear Eric,
The great value I find in you is not that you agree with me (as you youself pointed out earlier), but because you present the position of generally accepted views of physics (I call it official physics) in a clear and well-defied way (even recognizing and negating some of its weaknesses). Being an opponent, it forces me to match the quality you present. If you think that it is too much of a taxation, too demanding or it distracts you from some other more important things, then we can call for a “truce” again without any hard feeling. Or may be we should quit such general philosophical issues and go back to more specific ones. I still have to respond to your question on my assertion: “Momentum without mass has little meaning.” But so far it has been of great value for me and I must thank you again for this.
In fact this is the very essence of dialectics – the opposites define and qualify each other in any contradiction; both are necessary and important. Any resolution (synthesis) of the contradiction does not mean a victory of one or the other opposite; the synthesis extracts the significant elements (the truth) of both opposites and acquires some new of its own in what Hegel called in the German term “Aufhebung” - meaning both preserving and overcoming at the same time. But of course one of the two opposites remains dominant at any particular time, but the quality of both determines the outcome in any synthesis, like the sperm and the egg for example.
Our discussion on physics involves ( as even Prof. Rojas pointed out in his comment above), the fact that there is a general sense of qualitative change or difference between the contribution of the physics associated with the name of Newton and that of Einstein. To understand this difference and to take lesson from the historical development of physics, I look at the issues in terms of dialectical contradictions, which necessarily also has to take into consideration the socio-political context in which this development played out. You take a different approach and use different criteria of judgement, which certainly have value.
But I think (following others) that any change, development etc. in a thing or a process takes place through discrete qualitative leap propelled primarily by the resolution of the contradictions within the thing or the process itself. And the best way to understand or follow this development is by trying to identify the primary contradictions and following the course of their resolution. Ordinary thinking prefers Identity over contradiction; this very preferance distingushes ordinary from speculative thinking. The latter for Hegel is precisely the thinking that “holds fast to contradiction and in it, its own self!” Contradiction according to Hegel is “the root of all movement and vitality, it is only in so far as something has a contradiction within it that it moves, has an urge and activity”. Any existance of a thought or a material entity or a process without its opposite for Hegel is impossible and meaningless. Even almighty God of theology is forced to tolerates His opposite Evil Satan; for Himself to meaningful to humanity!
As you correctly pointed out, my comment indeed involved reduction of “highly complex” issues. I myself decry reductionism in modern biology, physics, cosmology etc., where profound claims are made based on few (even spurious) facts to score easy points and for cheap sound bite. Reduction is indeed necessary in any investigation, but the merit or profoundness of such reduction (theory) depends on the quality and quantity of facts (truths) it encompasses and to the extent it correctly describes reality. Where we would be without the quantum theory or the Periodic Table of the elements – just to take two examples?
Hegel with his encyclopedic knowledge of history, Nature, society, religion, Law, Arts, Thought or anything else under the sun, reduced his understanding to three laws of dialectics; which objectively govern the manifestation and the phenomenology of the world. Marx understood human history and its developments in terms of class contradiction and the key to the growth and accumulation of capital in terms of “surplus value” extracted from exploited human labor. But the merit of such reduction depends on how thoroughly and how well these reflect the facts (truth) of reality. Best regards, Abdul
Manuel S Morales | "What about dimensionless “constants” such as the fine structure constant?...] Is it not reasonable to suppose that these parameters can be assumed constant until experiments reveal that they are not? To the best of my knowledge, no experiment has ever provided a plausible reason to suspect that Einstein’s “axiom”, that c is a constant, is incorrect."
Dear Eric,
i have indeed informed you here at RG over the years that unambiguous empirical evidence has confirmed that effects of existence, that includes light, are not constant for the simple reason they are effects, not origin functions. In addition, I have also provided the means for you and everyone to contest my findings via a simple thought experiment in real life.
For you to continue to insist that you have no knowledge that c is not a constant is not an accurate statement. Perhaps you meant to say that your personal beliefs prevent you from accepting unambiguous empirical evidence that c is not a constant?
Article WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH, NATURE OR MAN?
Eric Lord | Dear Manuel ~
Look at the definition of the unit of length, “one meter”, agreed upon internationally by the physics community:
https://www.nist.gov/pml/weights-and-measures/si-units-length
That the speed of light in a vacuuum (relative to an inertial frame) is 299,792,458 meters per second is not my “belief”, nor anyone else's “belief”. It is a convention adopted by physicists to establish mutual understanding concerning measurements. Contradicting a definition doesn’t make any sense.
Mankind’s theories about Nature and Nature herself are not the same thing. Nature doesn’t measure, doesn’t set up “reference systems”, doesn’t calculate! Seeking correlations between our mental models of reality and our observations of reality is what Physics is about.
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
Our long converstion seems to have been an excellent instance of “dialectics” in action:
“...the dialectical method, is at base a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments.” − Wikipedia
(-;
Although the process doesn’t seem in this case to have established “the truth”, it has nevertheless been of considerable value to both of us.
“If you think that it is too much of a taxation, too demanding or it distracts you from some other more important things, then we can call for a “truce” again without any hard feeling”.
I shall accept that proposal (at least for a while).
Thank you for your stimulating thoughts and your patience with my opposition! {+1}
Kind regards and best wishes
~ Eric
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
The view of the history of science and of the nature of human society, expressed in your latest remarks, is so widely separated from my own understanding of these highly complex issues, that I find myself unable to enter into any meaningful dialogue with it. It is so unrelentingly simplistic in its determination to reduce everything to polar opposites (materialism versus abstraction, the ruling classes versus the proletariat, etc).
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”“The ruling ideas of an epoch are the ideas of its ruling class”
— Einstein
What are these “ideas of the ruling class”? As I see it (apart from very rare historical examples of aristocrats who dabbled in science − or “natural philosophy” as it was then called − as a “hobby"), in matters of science the “ruling class” doesn’t have any ideas! Where is the connection between the “ruling class” and the work of Einstein? (for goodness sake! − a clerk in a patents office when he published his "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies").
Newton was isolated from “society” in his village home when he investigated the laws of optics, invented differential calculus and came up with his gravitational theory. (The university had been shut down because of the plague). Throughout his life, he isolated himself from “society” as much as he could
You decry Einstein’s contribution to physics because of it’s alleged “mathematical abstraction”. Yet you never mention the crucially important work of Maxwell − a “mathematical abstraction” that became the foundation stone on which modern technology was built. In denouncing “abstract” reasoning because it doesn’t fit well with your “materialistic” world view, you are cutting off the branch on which you sit.
Newton - Maxwell - Einstein: links in the continuous (and, with hindsight, inevitable) chain of reasoning that constitutes the human endeavour to explore and try to understand the nature of the physical world. Einstein’s contribution was no break with tradition. The history of physics prior to 1905, from Maxwell onwards, reveals that Einsteinian relativity was not at all a break with tradition − it was an insight that was already “in the air” and destined to arrive. Newton and Einstein are not "polar opposites"; that's sheer fantasy generated by your determination so see everything in terms of dichotomies.
Practical technological applications are not the raison d'être of the human exploration of "physical laws". They are an incidental bonus.
Abdul Malek | Dear Eric,
The great value I find in you is not that you agree with me (as you youself pointed out earlier), but because you present the position of generally accepted views of physics (I call it official physics) in a clear and well-defied way (even recognizing and negating some of its weaknesses). Being an opponent, it forces me to match the quality you present. If you think that it is too much of a taxation, too demanding or it distracts you from some other more important things, then we can call for a “truce” again without any hard feeling. Or may be we should quit such general philosophical issues and go back to more specific ones. I still have to respond to your question on my assertion: “Momentum without mass has little meaning.” But so far it has been of great value for me and I must thank you again for this.
In fact this is the very essence of dialectics – the opposites define and qualify each other in any contradiction; both are necessary and important. Any resolution (synthesis) of the contradiction does not mean a victory of one or the other opposite; the synthesis extracts the significant elements (the truth) of both opposites and acquires some new of its own in what Hegel called in the German term “Aufhebung” - meaning both preserving and overcoming at the same time. But of course one of the two opposites remains dominant at any particular time, but the quality of both determines the outcome in any synthesis, like the sperm and the egg for example.
Our discussion on physics involves ( as even Prof. Rojas pointed out in his comment above), the fact that there is a general sense of qualitative change or difference between the contribution of the physics associated with the name of Newton and that of Einstein. To understand this difference and to take lesson from the historical development of physics, I look at the issues in terms of dialectical contradictions, which necessarily also has to take into consideration the socio-political context in which this development played out. You take a different approach and use different criteria of judgement, which certainly have value.
But I think (following others) that any change, development etc. in a thing or a process takes place through discrete qualitative leap propelled primarily by the resolution of the contradictions within the thing or the process itself. And the best way to understand or follow this development is by trying to identify the primary contradictions and following the course of their resolution. Ordinary thinking prefers Identity over contradiction; this very preferance distingushes ordinary from speculative thinking. The latter for Hegel is precisely the thinking that “holds fast to contradiction and in it, its own self!” Contradiction according to Hegel is “the root of all movement and vitality, it is only in so far as something has a contradiction within it that it moves, has an urge and activity”. Any existance of a thought or a material entity or a process without its opposite for Hegel is impossible and meaningless. Even almighty God of theology is forced to tolerates His opposite Evil Satan; for Himself to meaningful to humanity!
As you correctly pointed out, my comment indeed involved reduction of “highly complex” issues. I myself decry reductionism in modern biology, physics, cosmology etc., where profound claims are made based on few (even spurious) facts to score easy points and for cheap sound bite. Reduction is indeed necessary in any investigation, but the merit or profoundness of such reduction (theory) depends on the quality and quantity of facts (truths) it encompasses and to the extent it correctly describes reality. Where we would be without the quantum theory or the Periodic Table of the elements – just to take two examples?
Hegel with his encyclopedic knowledge of history, Nature, society, religion, Law, Arts, Thought or anything else under the sun, reduced his understanding to three laws of dialectics; which objectively govern the manifestation and the phenomenology of the world. Marx understood human history and its developments in terms of class contradiction and the key to the growth and accumulation of capital in terms of “surplus value” extracted from exploited human labor. But the merit of such reduction depends on how thoroughly and how well these reflect the facts (truth) of reality. Best regards, Abdul
Manuel S Morales | "What about dimensionless “constants” such as the fine structure constant?...] Is it not reasonable to suppose that these parameters can be assumed constant until experiments reveal that they are not? To the best of my knowledge, no experiment has ever provided a plausible reason to suspect that Einstein’s “axiom”, that c is a constant, is incorrect."
Dear Eric,
i have indeed informed you here at RG over the years that unambiguous empirical evidence has confirmed that effects of existence, that includes light, are not constant for the simple reason they are effects, not origin functions. In addition, I have also provided the means for you and everyone to contest my findings via a simple thought experiment in real life.
For you to continue to insist that you have no knowledge that c is not a constant is not an accurate statement. Perhaps you meant to say that your personal beliefs prevent you from accepting unambiguous empirical evidence that c is not a constant?
Article WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH, NATURE OR MAN?
Eric Lord | Dear Manuel ~
Look at the definition of the unit of length, “one meter”, agreed upon internationally by the physics community:
https://www.nist.gov/pml/weights-and-measures/si-units-length
That the speed of light in a vacuuum (relative to an inertial frame) is 299,792,458 meters per second is not my “belief”, nor anyone else's “belief”. It is a convention adopted by physicists to establish mutual understanding concerning measurements. Contradicting a definition doesn’t make any sense.
Mankind’s theories about Nature and Nature herself are not the same thing. Nature doesn’t measure, doesn’t set up “reference systems”, doesn’t calculate! Seeking correlations between our mental models of reality and our observations of reality is what Physics is about.
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
Our long converstion seems to have been an excellent instance of “dialectics” in action:
“...the dialectical method, is at base a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments.” − Wikipedia
(-;
Although the process doesn’t seem in this case to have established “the truth”, it has nevertheless been of considerable value to both of us.
“If you think that it is too much of a taxation, too demanding or it distracts you from some other more important things, then we can call for a “truce” again without any hard feeling”.
I shall accept that proposal (at least for a while).
Thank you for your stimulating thoughts and your patience with my opposition! {+1}
Kind regards and best wishes
~ Eric
“We dance around in a ring and suppose/ but the Secret sits in the middle a knows”R.K. Mandal | Great Eric. I enjoyed reading your comments. {+1}
— Robert Frost
Jun 7, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Abdul, in talking about the atomic clock you objected (in other thread) that you do not know all the factors that can influence them. Today the news line caught an interesting work about a team that tries to identify such factors (which may violate the invariance of the laws of physics). In the light of our discussion I decided to share a link. Of course, we are talking about metrologists again :)
And, of course, when speaking of the assumption of identical laws that are valid everywhere, in the wired's article, speaker forgot to mention that this principle was first used by Copernicus and is called the "principle of mediocrity." Then Galileo and invariance appeared.
These Physicists Watched a Clock Tick for 14 Years
A null test of General Relativity: New limits on Local Position Invariance and the variation of fundamental constants
2017 | arXiv:1706.10244
A null test of general relativity based on a long-term comparison of atomic transition frequencies
2018 | DOI: 10.1038/s41567-018-0156-2
NB: By the way, metrology and the theory of interchangeability are some of the greatest achievements of "social practice" of mankind (no less significant than the printing press and the World Wide Web), without which the industrial revolution would not be possible. However, in setting standards, society always plays a passive role against individuals and other factors that are weakly dependent on society.
Society affects standards only by indirect, statistical means, de facto. Actually, this is how we live together as system, moving "forward", being born and dying individually, giving birth to physical structures and ideas that are also developing and dying through statistical "practice", same as we. It is a struggle, in which invariants of current adaptive landscape survives only. Robust structures (memory) exists over dynamics this way.
Paul Pistea | < "AS FAR AS THE LAWS OF MATHEMATICS REFER TO REALITY, THEY ARE NOT CERTAIN, AND AS FAR AS THEY ARE CERTAIN, THEY DO NOT REFER TO REALITY. ALBERT EINSTEIN" >
one can use mathematics to analyse physics and the laws of physics. case axiomatic is introduced, then the theory of physics should be built like maths (its merely about the axiomatic system).
Manuel S Morales | "Mankind’s theories about Nature and Nature herself are not the same thing. Nature doesn’t measure, doesn’t set up “reference systems”, doesn’t calculate!" - Eric Lord
WOW, so you are saying anything mankind fabricates about its origin is valid because we measure and calculate its effects? By your definition science is the religious belief of measured and calculated effects, not about how nature allows us to measure and calculate to begin with.
"Seeking correlations between our mental models of reality and our observations of reality is what Physics is about."
Eric, you are sadly mistaken. Physics is about the systematic study of the effects of nature (see diagram above). This simple fact is why physics is an incomplete study of nature because it tries to use the substitution of effects of existence, such as scale, as origin of itself. This paradoxical logic gives us the belief of constant states without origin. EPIC MISTAKE!
[The_Scientific_Universe.png]
Eric Lord | Dear Manuel ~
“WOW, so you are saying anything mankind fabricates about its origin is valid because we measure and calculate its effects? By your definition science is the religious belief of measured and calculated effects, not about how nature allows us to measure and calculate to begin with.”
What?? You’re reading very strange nonsense into my simple remarks that's just not there, and that I do not in fact believe.
Manuel S Morales | "Mankind’s theories about Nature and Nature herself are not the same thing."
Eric, these are your words are they not? If theories about nature are not reflective of nature then such theories are nothing more than beliefs/opinions. In addition, by ignoring unambiguous empirical evidence that reveals physical reality are effects of origin functions that are not physical exposes a fundamental hypocrisy is being practiced, i.e., an incomplete intellectual systematic study of the natural world.
Eric, if we are being honest with each other then we should not talk about an incomplete study of nature pretending to be a complete study of nature. Time to face the music and admit...
"Surely, someday, we can believe, we will grasp the central idea of it all as so simple, so beautiful, so compelling that we will all say to each other, 'Oh, how could it have been otherwise! How could we all have been so blind for so long!' - John A Wheeler
Abdul Malek | PP> one can use mathematics to analyse physics and the laws of physics. case axiomatic is introduced, then the theory of physics should be built like maths (its merely about the axiomatic system).
Dear Paul,
This is exactly what is being done in modern theoretical physics since Einstein; axioms rule physics; like the way axioms rule geometry. But geometry is abstracted from the physical world; the physical world is not a manifestation or the materialization of geometrical axioms, the way they think it is! Even then it is an abstraction of a very tiny part of the world. The very process of abstraction limits modern theoretical physics to only those aspects of its abstraction where it can apply symmetry and idealized mathematics, field equation etc. without any limit. It sees the world in terms of “continuous fields (spacetime, quantum, Higgs etc.) – "Matter is a Myth"! As I said above, modern theoretical physicists do not deal with the world we live in, they talk about totally different world of their own thought and axioms.
Th axioms are conceived by the mind, but the mind is not an invariable absolute! It is a product of historical evolution and determined by any particular epoch and the circumstances involved. The absolute truth of Euclid’s axioms and 3D space (which even formed the basis of the philosophy of Descartes and Spinoza) are now biting the dust after Riemannian multidimensional space was recognized!
Vasyl Komarov | It is the Gilbert should be blamed for the axiomatic approach, not Einstein (at the same time, it is necessary to blame the accomplices of the "conspiracy" - Galileo with Karl Popper, that turned the process of cognition into algorithmical routine, called the "scientific method.") But, in the end, he is dialectically supplemented by Kurt Godel.
And if you want to blame the founders of the scientific method and axiomatisation, you should also blame their dialectical successors - Thomas Kuhn, Pierre Duhem and Willard Quine, and therefore Imre Lakatos for the company (in unison with Godel).
Thanks to these people, it is possible to observe in the third-person mode the process of cognition, as the continuous state of the catastrophe in the informational system within us, with us and in relation to the rest of the world, the new structure of information is endless product of which.
Axioms (postulates) are nothing but hypotheses that satisfy our qualia at the moment. They are in Newton too. To some of them we not pay attention for a long time just because they already seem too obvious (like apple + apple = 2 apple).
Manuel S Morales | Dear Abdul.
After nine years of conducting the Tempt Destiny experiment, I finally had a successful result, i.e., a direct selection event, out of nine attempts. In order for me to understand the findings I turned to coordinate systems in order to represent the dichotomous functions of direct and indirect selection. Since my experiment was about absolute predetermined origin functions, I could not use effectual statistical inference, conjecture, or assumptions.
Instead, I needed to come up with an absolute system. I used a two dimensional non-directional coordinate system to represent the two components of the dichotomy of selection whereas X represents motion (direct and indirect acts of selection) and Y represented its potential (potential function of selection). Note, X and Y axes are not directional only the Z axis is directional. Since both direct and indirect dichotomies are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive so too are the Z axes, Z, -Z, which represents strong and weak attractive origin functions. This is how I obtain right and left handed angular momentum - E = G2:
Article Spin States of Selection: Predetermined Variables of 'bit'
Eric Lord | Dear Manuel ~
I didn’t say “theories of nature are not reflective of nature”, did I? I said that theories about Nature and Nature herself are not the same thing. That’s obvious if you care to think about it!
I also said “seeking correlations between our mental models of reality and our observations of reality is what Physics is about.”
A theory makes predictions, the validity of which can be tested by experiments. The data provided by experiments in Physics are the result of measurements. A (provisionally) successful theory is one that has not failed those tests. This testing is what distinguishes a statement in physics from an “opininion” or a “belief”.
I’m saying nothing controversial here. I’m merely summarizing the essential characteristics of the work of a Physicist. My definition of Physics (take it or leave it!) is “Physics is what Physicists do.”
“Eric, if we are being honest with each other then we should not talk about an incomplete study of nature pretending to be a complete study of nature.”
I don’t! What have I ever said on Researchgate to give you that impression of me? You are attacking a "straw man"... (-;
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasyl,
The two strands of contemporary epistemology that Hegel called “the view of understanding” or crudely speaking causality and “the view of reason” or dialectics; which are dialectical (not polar) opposites; originated from Pythagorus and Parmrnides for the former and Heraclitus for the later. They were more or less contemporaries within a span of about 100 year starting from around 530 B.C. to about 430 B.C. Causality later split into idealism and materialism represented by Plato and Aristotle respectively. In some amalgamated form idealism and materialism exits in theology, empiricism, pure materialism of the “scientific method”, in scholasticism and, (in various vulgarized form) of academic philosophies of the type you name in your comment. These in essence degenerated to what Engels called ” cobweb spinning, eclectic flea cracking”.
Causality, which in its simple form is “good old commonsense” found some real success in classical mechanics and to a lesser extent in Newtonian physics - the first level of approximation of objective Nature. The down fall of causality in philosophy came by the time of Hume and Kant to the extent that, to save causality Kant denied objective reality, declaring it as unknowable thing-in-itself; because causality leads to mysteries, contradiction, antinomies etc. beyond ordinary life experience. Causality (of both idealism and materialism) in essence met its doom with the recognition of evolution in organic Nature and particularly with the recognition of the quantum phenomena; but is now kept alive on life support through the mathematical idealism of Albert Einstein.
Mathematics – the epitome of idealism and causality reached its highest form with Plato and more of less (except for some remarkable development during the scientific revolution) retained its Platonic form till today and even found resurgence in modern theoretical physics. Most mathematicians who feign to form various groups (logicism, formalism, structuralism etc. ad nausum) are all in fact closet Platonists and will show their real (Platonist) identity only when pushed to the wall!
Dialectics retained its consistent materialist form through the atomists like Democritus, Leucippus and already found its major development with Epicurus; but deviated a little towards idealism through the rationalists Spinoza, Kant and particularly Hegel. Marx Engels and Lenin re-established it full materialist form. Materialist dialectics in spite of being the superior form of epistemology, never found its proper long term role in history. The reason in simple to understand: In the evolution of life, of history and of human thought, development, change, or progress makes its appearance by the negation or destruction of what exists. Of necessity, and because of their very nature as the conservative, the resisting, the preserving side of what exists, idealism and the view of understanding always was the preferred choice of the ruling class of the time, while dialectics represented the revolutionary side, because dialectics denies the stability or the permanence of what exists. Like the development of a cell; the dialectical contradiction goes through various stages: first a tiny particularization within the mother cell, then successively differentiation, competition, antagonism and finally conflict that leads to negation (separation) of the two cells and the process starts all over again in each cell. This process is similar in form but different in content, time scale, the nature of the opposites, the condition in which this process takes place etc. be it in Nature, society or thought etc.
Throughout the past history since the early Greek, these two forms of epistemology developed through the contradiction of the "unity of the opposites". But since the turn of the 20th century, the revolutionary social and scientific developments (specially evolution and quantum theories) have pushed the contradiction to its highest level; making a dialectical synthesis or Aufhebung an imperative for modern physics in particular and natural science in general.
Some concrete cases to be discussed below:-
Abdul Malek | @ Vasyl
Immediately after he came to know of Darwin’s theory of evolution, Engels differentiated the “view of understanding” and the “view of reason” or dialectics on evolution in the following way: “Until Darwin, what was stressed by his present adherents was precisely the harmonious cooperative working of organic Nature, how the plant kingdom supplies animals with nourishment and oxygen, and animals supply plants with, manure, ammonia and carbonic acid. Hardly was Darwin recognized before these same people saw everywhere nothing but struggle. Both views are justified within narrow limits, but both are equally one-sided and prejudiced. The interaction of dead natural bodies includes both harmony and collisions that of living bodies conscious and unconscious co-operation equally with conscious and unconscious struggle. Hence, in regards to Nature, it is not permissible one-sidedly to inscribe only “struggle” on one’s banner. But it is absolutely childish to desire to sum up the whole manifold wealth of historical evolution and complexity in the meagre and one-sided phrase “struggle for life”. That says less than nothing.
The whole Darwinian theory of the struggle for life is simply the transference from society to organic Nature of Hobbes’ theory of bellum omnium contra omnes, and of the bourgeois economic theory of competition, as well as the Malthusian theory of population”. Dialectics of Nature, page 208.
I have made humble attempts to illustrate the difference between the epistemology of the “View of understanding” and that of dialectics in the following short article:
1. On Cosmology:
Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*
2. On Gravity:
Article THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR ‘FREE FALL’: A DIALECTICAL REASSESSMENT OF KEPLER’S LAWS
3. On Wave/Prticle Duality:
Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for the Resolution of Wave-Particle Duality and Other Anomalies of the Quantum Phenomena
Manuel S Morales | "A theory makes predictions, the validity of which can be tested by experiments. The data provided by experiments in Physics are the result of measurements. A (provisionally) successful theory is one that has not failed those tests. This testing is what distinguishes a statement in physics from an “opininion” or a “belief”." – “Physics is what Physicists do.”
Dear Eric,
You claim that predictions are made valid when successfully tested. Please enlighten me on how a single prediction can be tested without a selection first being made?
This simple question reveals the fallacy of what physicists do. They ignore the selection function necessary to conduct their tests so that they can obtain data to suit their predictions.
In summary, physics is an effectual intellectual systematic study of the natural world, as such, it does not address how nature initially obtains the effects of existence being observed. In essence, this incomplete practice we call science violates the initial function of the system being studied by bypassing how the system can be studied in the first place. Unfortunately, effectual science, as currently practiced, is a violation of the predetermined origin functions of selection that govern our existence much less the practice of science itself.
Surely we can do better than this?
Vasyl Komarov | Abdul, in talking about the atomic clock you objected (in other thread) that you do not know all the factors that can influence them. Today the news line caught an interesting work about a team that tries to identify such factors (which may violate the invariance of the laws of physics). In the light of our discussion I decided to share a link. Of course, we are talking about metrologists again :)
And, of course, when speaking of the assumption of identical laws that are valid everywhere, in the wired's article, speaker forgot to mention that this principle was first used by Copernicus and is called the "principle of mediocrity." Then Galileo and invariance appeared.
These Physicists Watched a Clock Tick for 14 Years
A null test of General Relativity: New limits on Local Position Invariance and the variation of fundamental constants
2017 | arXiv:1706.10244
A null test of general relativity based on a long-term comparison of atomic transition frequencies
2018 | DOI: 10.1038/s41567-018-0156-2
NB: By the way, metrology and the theory of interchangeability are some of the greatest achievements of "social practice" of mankind (no less significant than the printing press and the World Wide Web), without which the industrial revolution would not be possible. However, in setting standards, society always plays a passive role against individuals and other factors that are weakly dependent on society.
Society affects standards only by indirect, statistical means, de facto. Actually, this is how we live together as system, moving "forward", being born and dying individually, giving birth to physical structures and ideas that are also developing and dying through statistical "practice", same as we. It is a struggle, in which invariants of current adaptive landscape survives only. Robust structures (memory) exists over dynamics this way.
Paul Pistea | < "AS FAR AS THE LAWS OF MATHEMATICS REFER TO REALITY, THEY ARE NOT CERTAIN, AND AS FAR AS THEY ARE CERTAIN, THEY DO NOT REFER TO REALITY. ALBERT EINSTEIN" >
one can use mathematics to analyse physics and the laws of physics. case axiomatic is introduced, then the theory of physics should be built like maths (its merely about the axiomatic system).
Manuel S Morales | "Mankind’s theories about Nature and Nature herself are not the same thing. Nature doesn’t measure, doesn’t set up “reference systems”, doesn’t calculate!" - Eric Lord
WOW, so you are saying anything mankind fabricates about its origin is valid because we measure and calculate its effects? By your definition science is the religious belief of measured and calculated effects, not about how nature allows us to measure and calculate to begin with.
"Seeking correlations between our mental models of reality and our observations of reality is what Physics is about."
Eric, you are sadly mistaken. Physics is about the systematic study of the effects of nature (see diagram above). This simple fact is why physics is an incomplete study of nature because it tries to use the substitution of effects of existence, such as scale, as origin of itself. This paradoxical logic gives us the belief of constant states without origin. EPIC MISTAKE!
[The_Scientific_Universe.png]
Eric Lord | Dear Manuel ~
“WOW, so you are saying anything mankind fabricates about its origin is valid because we measure and calculate its effects? By your definition science is the religious belief of measured and calculated effects, not about how nature allows us to measure and calculate to begin with.”
What?? You’re reading very strange nonsense into my simple remarks that's just not there, and that I do not in fact believe.
Manuel S Morales | "Mankind’s theories about Nature and Nature herself are not the same thing."
Eric, these are your words are they not? If theories about nature are not reflective of nature then such theories are nothing more than beliefs/opinions. In addition, by ignoring unambiguous empirical evidence that reveals physical reality are effects of origin functions that are not physical exposes a fundamental hypocrisy is being practiced, i.e., an incomplete intellectual systematic study of the natural world.
Eric, if we are being honest with each other then we should not talk about an incomplete study of nature pretending to be a complete study of nature. Time to face the music and admit...
"Surely, someday, we can believe, we will grasp the central idea of it all as so simple, so beautiful, so compelling that we will all say to each other, 'Oh, how could it have been otherwise! How could we all have been so blind for so long!' - John A Wheeler
Abdul Malek | PP> one can use mathematics to analyse physics and the laws of physics. case axiomatic is introduced, then the theory of physics should be built like maths (its merely about the axiomatic system).
Dear Paul,
This is exactly what is being done in modern theoretical physics since Einstein; axioms rule physics; like the way axioms rule geometry. But geometry is abstracted from the physical world; the physical world is not a manifestation or the materialization of geometrical axioms, the way they think it is! Even then it is an abstraction of a very tiny part of the world. The very process of abstraction limits modern theoretical physics to only those aspects of its abstraction where it can apply symmetry and idealized mathematics, field equation etc. without any limit. It sees the world in terms of “continuous fields (spacetime, quantum, Higgs etc.) – "Matter is a Myth"! As I said above, modern theoretical physicists do not deal with the world we live in, they talk about totally different world of their own thought and axioms.
Th axioms are conceived by the mind, but the mind is not an invariable absolute! It is a product of historical evolution and determined by any particular epoch and the circumstances involved. The absolute truth of Euclid’s axioms and 3D space (which even formed the basis of the philosophy of Descartes and Spinoza) are now biting the dust after Riemannian multidimensional space was recognized!
Vasyl Komarov | It is the Gilbert should be blamed for the axiomatic approach, not Einstein (at the same time, it is necessary to blame the accomplices of the "conspiracy" - Galileo with Karl Popper, that turned the process of cognition into algorithmical routine, called the "scientific method.") But, in the end, he is dialectically supplemented by Kurt Godel.
And if you want to blame the founders of the scientific method and axiomatisation, you should also blame their dialectical successors - Thomas Kuhn, Pierre Duhem and Willard Quine, and therefore Imre Lakatos for the company (in unison with Godel).
Thanks to these people, it is possible to observe in the third-person mode the process of cognition, as the continuous state of the catastrophe in the informational system within us, with us and in relation to the rest of the world, the new structure of information is endless product of which.
Axioms (postulates) are nothing but hypotheses that satisfy our qualia at the moment. They are in Newton too. To some of them we not pay attention for a long time just because they already seem too obvious (like apple + apple = 2 apple).
Manuel S Morales | Dear Abdul.
After nine years of conducting the Tempt Destiny experiment, I finally had a successful result, i.e., a direct selection event, out of nine attempts. In order for me to understand the findings I turned to coordinate systems in order to represent the dichotomous functions of direct and indirect selection. Since my experiment was about absolute predetermined origin functions, I could not use effectual statistical inference, conjecture, or assumptions.
Instead, I needed to come up with an absolute system. I used a two dimensional non-directional coordinate system to represent the two components of the dichotomy of selection whereas X represents motion (direct and indirect acts of selection) and Y represented its potential (potential function of selection). Note, X and Y axes are not directional only the Z axis is directional. Since both direct and indirect dichotomies are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive so too are the Z axes, Z, -Z, which represents strong and weak attractive origin functions. This is how I obtain right and left handed angular momentum - E = G2:
Article Spin States of Selection: Predetermined Variables of 'bit'
Eric Lord | Dear Manuel ~
I didn’t say “theories of nature are not reflective of nature”, did I? I said that theories about Nature and Nature herself are not the same thing. That’s obvious if you care to think about it!
I also said “seeking correlations between our mental models of reality and our observations of reality is what Physics is about.”
A theory makes predictions, the validity of which can be tested by experiments. The data provided by experiments in Physics are the result of measurements. A (provisionally) successful theory is one that has not failed those tests. This testing is what distinguishes a statement in physics from an “opininion” or a “belief”.
I’m saying nothing controversial here. I’m merely summarizing the essential characteristics of the work of a Physicist. My definition of Physics (take it or leave it!) is “Physics is what Physicists do.”
“Eric, if we are being honest with each other then we should not talk about an incomplete study of nature pretending to be a complete study of nature.”
I don’t! What have I ever said on Researchgate to give you that impression of me? You are attacking a "straw man"... (-;
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasyl,
The two strands of contemporary epistemology that Hegel called “the view of understanding” or crudely speaking causality and “the view of reason” or dialectics; which are dialectical (not polar) opposites; originated from Pythagorus and Parmrnides for the former and Heraclitus for the later. They were more or less contemporaries within a span of about 100 year starting from around 530 B.C. to about 430 B.C. Causality later split into idealism and materialism represented by Plato and Aristotle respectively. In some amalgamated form idealism and materialism exits in theology, empiricism, pure materialism of the “scientific method”, in scholasticism and, (in various vulgarized form) of academic philosophies of the type you name in your comment. These in essence degenerated to what Engels called ” cobweb spinning, eclectic flea cracking”.
Causality, which in its simple form is “good old commonsense” found some real success in classical mechanics and to a lesser extent in Newtonian physics - the first level of approximation of objective Nature. The down fall of causality in philosophy came by the time of Hume and Kant to the extent that, to save causality Kant denied objective reality, declaring it as unknowable thing-in-itself; because causality leads to mysteries, contradiction, antinomies etc. beyond ordinary life experience. Causality (of both idealism and materialism) in essence met its doom with the recognition of evolution in organic Nature and particularly with the recognition of the quantum phenomena; but is now kept alive on life support through the mathematical idealism of Albert Einstein.
Mathematics – the epitome of idealism and causality reached its highest form with Plato and more of less (except for some remarkable development during the scientific revolution) retained its Platonic form till today and even found resurgence in modern theoretical physics. Most mathematicians who feign to form various groups (logicism, formalism, structuralism etc. ad nausum) are all in fact closet Platonists and will show their real (Platonist) identity only when pushed to the wall!
Dialectics retained its consistent materialist form through the atomists like Democritus, Leucippus and already found its major development with Epicurus; but deviated a little towards idealism through the rationalists Spinoza, Kant and particularly Hegel. Marx Engels and Lenin re-established it full materialist form. Materialist dialectics in spite of being the superior form of epistemology, never found its proper long term role in history. The reason in simple to understand: In the evolution of life, of history and of human thought, development, change, or progress makes its appearance by the negation or destruction of what exists. Of necessity, and because of their very nature as the conservative, the resisting, the preserving side of what exists, idealism and the view of understanding always was the preferred choice of the ruling class of the time, while dialectics represented the revolutionary side, because dialectics denies the stability or the permanence of what exists. Like the development of a cell; the dialectical contradiction goes through various stages: first a tiny particularization within the mother cell, then successively differentiation, competition, antagonism and finally conflict that leads to negation (separation) of the two cells and the process starts all over again in each cell. This process is similar in form but different in content, time scale, the nature of the opposites, the condition in which this process takes place etc. be it in Nature, society or thought etc.
Throughout the past history since the early Greek, these two forms of epistemology developed through the contradiction of the "unity of the opposites". But since the turn of the 20th century, the revolutionary social and scientific developments (specially evolution and quantum theories) have pushed the contradiction to its highest level; making a dialectical synthesis or Aufhebung an imperative for modern physics in particular and natural science in general.
Some concrete cases to be discussed below:-
Abdul Malek | @ Vasyl
Immediately after he came to know of Darwin’s theory of evolution, Engels differentiated the “view of understanding” and the “view of reason” or dialectics on evolution in the following way: “Until Darwin, what was stressed by his present adherents was precisely the harmonious cooperative working of organic Nature, how the plant kingdom supplies animals with nourishment and oxygen, and animals supply plants with, manure, ammonia and carbonic acid. Hardly was Darwin recognized before these same people saw everywhere nothing but struggle. Both views are justified within narrow limits, but both are equally one-sided and prejudiced. The interaction of dead natural bodies includes both harmony and collisions that of living bodies conscious and unconscious co-operation equally with conscious and unconscious struggle. Hence, in regards to Nature, it is not permissible one-sidedly to inscribe only “struggle” on one’s banner. But it is absolutely childish to desire to sum up the whole manifold wealth of historical evolution and complexity in the meagre and one-sided phrase “struggle for life”. That says less than nothing.
The whole Darwinian theory of the struggle for life is simply the transference from society to organic Nature of Hobbes’ theory of bellum omnium contra omnes, and of the bourgeois economic theory of competition, as well as the Malthusian theory of population”. Dialectics of Nature, page 208.
I have made humble attempts to illustrate the difference between the epistemology of the “View of understanding” and that of dialectics in the following short article:
1. On Cosmology:
Article Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies*
2. On Gravity:
Article THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR ‘FREE FALL’: A DIALECTICAL REASSESSMENT OF KEPLER’S LAWS
3. On Wave/Prticle Duality:
Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for the Resolution of Wave-Particle Duality and Other Anomalies of the Quantum Phenomena
Manuel S Morales | "A theory makes predictions, the validity of which can be tested by experiments. The data provided by experiments in Physics are the result of measurements. A (provisionally) successful theory is one that has not failed those tests. This testing is what distinguishes a statement in physics from an “opininion” or a “belief”." – “Physics is what Physicists do.”
Dear Eric,
You claim that predictions are made valid when successfully tested. Please enlighten me on how a single prediction can be tested without a selection first being made?
This simple question reveals the fallacy of what physicists do. They ignore the selection function necessary to conduct their tests so that they can obtain data to suit their predictions.
In summary, physics is an effectual intellectual systematic study of the natural world, as such, it does not address how nature initially obtains the effects of existence being observed. In essence, this incomplete practice we call science violates the initial function of the system being studied by bypassing how the system can be studied in the first place. Unfortunately, effectual science, as currently practiced, is a violation of the predetermined origin functions of selection that govern our existence much less the practice of science itself.
Surely we can do better than this?
Jun 8, 2018
Eric Lord | "Surely we can do better than this? "
Dear Manuel ~
Please explain how. The Physics community will be most enlightened, I'm sure, to be told they've been getting it wrong all this time and will be eager to seek your advice! (-;
James Marsen | The question:
Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible?
My short answer: Yes.
The two postulates of Special Relativity imply that the speed of electromagnetic waves are independent of the motion of the receiver with respect to any reference frame. If these postulates are accepted as true physical reality, Special Relativity follows as an internally self-consistent representation of true physical reality (that many think is irrefutable). Since General Relativity is founded on Special Relativity, it follows as well.
Therefore the most effective (and probably only) way to refute Special Relativity is to decisively demonstrate that its postulates are contradicted by experimental facts. It is also necessary to provide an alternative physical model that is consistent with the physical facts. Hopefully this alternative model is simple and restores the classical concepts of absolute time and three dimensional space.
I believe such an alternative model exists. And that it suggests an experimental test that would convincingly contradict the postulates of Special Relativity.
The test is simple in concept: perform a Michelson-Morley type experiment with an interferometer on a spacecraft in low Earth orbit. Or better, launch the spacecraft into interplanetary space orbiting the Sun.
It is predicted that there will be a positive result equivalent to the spacecraft’s orbital velocity: ~7.5 km/sec for low Earth orbit; ~30 km/sec for orbiting the Sun in interplanetary space.
Special Relativity would (of course) predict null results for both. So positive results would directly contradict the reason Special Relativity was originally proposed. And since the null results of Michelson-Morley experiments done on Earth is so often cited as the fundamental proof of Special Relativity, a positive result might actually force a reevaluation of the concept of Special Relativity.
This is based on the concepts described in "A local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave" by the late Prof. Ching-Chuan Su in 2001 (athttp://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf {here}).
Please also see his 2005 "Quantum Electromagnetics" (at http://www.qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw) for further details on how he provides alternative explanations of established physical facts and how he extends his model to unify quantum and gravitational phenomena.
Prof. Su postulates that there is a medium for propagating electromagnetic waves which he calls the Local-Ether. It is an ether concept that is very different from the universal ether concepts of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Local-Ether is associated with the scalar gravitational potential fields that surround astronomical bodies. Local-Ether can be visualized as a halo that comoves with the gravitational potential of each body (for example the Earth) and extends out to where the magnitude of the gravitational potential of another astronomical body (such as the Sun) becomes dominant. This implies that the Earth’s Local-Ether extends out to approximately one million kilometers. For the Sun and Solar System the boundary is ~2 light years from the Sun.
Prof. Su further postulates that the Local-Ether halo doesn’t rotate with the body. For the Earth, it is stationary with respect to the Earth-centered Inertial frame (the ECI); the Earth rotates within it. The Sun's Local-Ether is stationary with respect to the heliocentric inertial frame. These Local-Ethers form preferred reference frames for the propagation of electromagnetic waves within their boundaries.
Prof. Su further postulates that the speed of electromagnetic radiation is a function of the local gravitational potential. This is shown to account for the phenomena of General Relativity.
Based on the Local-Ether model, all experiments done on the Earth’s surface are within the Earth’s Local-Ether and are shielded from the Earth’s orbital velocity around the Sun. The only motion of the experiment with respect to the Earth’s Local-Ether is due to the Earth’s diurnal rotation (~0.4 km/sec at the equator). This is too small to be detected by Michelson-Morley experiments that have been done to date. In low Earth orbit, the experiment would also be within the Earth’s Local-Ether and therefore also shielded from the Earth’s orbital velocity around the Sun. However, the experiment would be moving within the Earth’s Local-Ether as it orbits the Earth at ~7.5 km/s and should register that motion. If launched into interplanetary space, the experiment would enter the Sun’s Local-Ether and register its ~30 km/sec orbital velocity with respect to the heliocentric inertial frame.
Eric Lord | "Surely we can do better than this? "
Dear Manuel ~
Please explain how. The Physics community will be most enlightened, I'm sure, to be told they've been getting it wrong all this time and will be eager to seek your advice! (-;
James Marsen | The question:
Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible?
My short answer: Yes.
The two postulates of Special Relativity imply that the speed of electromagnetic waves are independent of the motion of the receiver with respect to any reference frame. If these postulates are accepted as true physical reality, Special Relativity follows as an internally self-consistent representation of true physical reality (that many think is irrefutable). Since General Relativity is founded on Special Relativity, it follows as well.
Therefore the most effective (and probably only) way to refute Special Relativity is to decisively demonstrate that its postulates are contradicted by experimental facts. It is also necessary to provide an alternative physical model that is consistent with the physical facts. Hopefully this alternative model is simple and restores the classical concepts of absolute time and three dimensional space.
I believe such an alternative model exists. And that it suggests an experimental test that would convincingly contradict the postulates of Special Relativity.
The test is simple in concept: perform a Michelson-Morley type experiment with an interferometer on a spacecraft in low Earth orbit. Or better, launch the spacecraft into interplanetary space orbiting the Sun.
It is predicted that there will be a positive result equivalent to the spacecraft’s orbital velocity: ~7.5 km/sec for low Earth orbit; ~30 km/sec for orbiting the Sun in interplanetary space.
Special Relativity would (of course) predict null results for both. So positive results would directly contradict the reason Special Relativity was originally proposed. And since the null results of Michelson-Morley experiments done on Earth is so often cited as the fundamental proof of Special Relativity, a positive result might actually force a reevaluation of the concept of Special Relativity.
This is based on the concepts described in "A local-ether model of propagation of electromagnetic wave" by the late Prof. Ching-Chuan Su in 2001 (at
Please also see his 2005 "Quantum Electromagnetics" (at http://www.qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw) for further details on how he provides alternative explanations of established physical facts and how he extends his model to unify quantum and gravitational phenomena.
Prof. Su postulates that there is a medium for propagating electromagnetic waves which he calls the Local-Ether. It is an ether concept that is very different from the universal ether concepts of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Local-Ether is associated with the scalar gravitational potential fields that surround astronomical bodies. Local-Ether can be visualized as a halo that comoves with the gravitational potential of each body (for example the Earth) and extends out to where the magnitude of the gravitational potential of another astronomical body (such as the Sun) becomes dominant. This implies that the Earth’s Local-Ether extends out to approximately one million kilometers. For the Sun and Solar System the boundary is ~2 light years from the Sun.
Prof. Su further postulates that the Local-Ether halo doesn’t rotate with the body. For the Earth, it is stationary with respect to the Earth-centered Inertial frame (the ECI); the Earth rotates within it. The Sun's Local-Ether is stationary with respect to the heliocentric inertial frame. These Local-Ethers form preferred reference frames for the propagation of electromagnetic waves within their boundaries.
Prof. Su further postulates that the speed of electromagnetic radiation is a function of the local gravitational potential. This is shown to account for the phenomena of General Relativity.
Based on the Local-Ether model, all experiments done on the Earth’s surface are within the Earth’s Local-Ether and are shielded from the Earth’s orbital velocity around the Sun. The only motion of the experiment with respect to the Earth’s Local-Ether is due to the Earth’s diurnal rotation (~0.4 km/sec at the equator). This is too small to be detected by Michelson-Morley experiments that have been done to date. In low Earth orbit, the experiment would also be within the Earth’s Local-Ether and therefore also shielded from the Earth’s orbital velocity around the Sun. However, the experiment would be moving within the Earth’s Local-Ether as it orbits the Earth at ~7.5 km/s and should register that motion. If launched into interplanetary space, the experiment would enter the Sun’s Local-Ether and register its ~30 km/sec orbital velocity with respect to the heliocentric inertial frame.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible? [accessed Jun 10, 2018]
Q: Why Albert Einstein didn't make any breakthroughs after General Relativity?
Marco Pereira | I wrote a posting about General Relativity failure and how much of a mistake it was for Einstein to guide Mankind into the Geodesics Paradigm (as opposed to let Science progress towards a velocity dependent Gravitational theory, similarly to the velocity dependent model for Electromagnetism).
In the posting I provide evidence of an extra spatial dimension and for the topology my theory uses - the Universe as a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface.
Why didn't Einstein do anything major after general relativity?
I write this also to challenge the people who cannot think without writing or asking for a metric.
Enjoy
Vasyl Komarov | It is impossible to fail when you can go some limited path only. Was the idea of the hypergeometric structure of the universe possible without the existence of a general theory of relativity and the names Einstein and De Sitter? Maybe they were the same giants, on the shoulders of which we can see the horizon, which is a little further? (rhetorical questions)
Dear Marco, I like the progress of your thinking since our very brief conversation about understanding of rotation in hypergeometry (Does the existence of Hyperspherical Acoustic Waves Rebut General Relativity?)
But. I do not like the idea of absolute space (not only due to the same reasons as in conception of relativity) because it leads to evolutionary paradoxes, and, therefore, fundamentally contradicts the philosophical concept of "being." In other words, such a universe is centered causally, hence, it requires spontaneity (i.e., "divine intervention") to do the origin, which is very poorly consistent with the existence of any rational laws of nature. There are other contradictions.
Nature creates laws consciously from "rational despair", they can not be spontaneously generated. Otherwise you cannot expect their compliance by the nature itself.
Marco Pereira | Yes.
My theory does not use General Relativity. My point is that the geodesics paradigm which Einstein used to kick aside equally predicting velocity-dependent theories is wrong and that the process was underhanded.
That said, that past is past.
Any overt, direct, ostensive criticism I have about the theory is because of the theory and the network externalities associated with it.
For instance, instead of you confirming my discovery of an extra spatial dimension, you spent your time defending Einstein's, de Sitter grandiose achievements (which the existence of a 4th dimension erases).
So, disregard the shock effect of my criticism. The aim of my criticism is not to personally attack Einstein or de Sitter. It is to force people like you (network externalities) to focus you attention the infinitesimal possibility that the framework you use is wrong and cannot be used..>:)
With respect to your Religious defense of how you think Nature should behave, I provided a logical framework that refutes the requirement of "Divine Intervention".
Not liking Absolute Spatial Framework is refuted by the CMB. You can put there an absolute framework and that is an observation. IF you choose to neglect reality, your understanding of the Universe will suffer and be primitive. There are no 'evolutionary" paradoxes anywhere.
How can anyone reply to a statement like this:
"Nature creates laws consciously from "rational despair", they can not be spontaneously generated. "
Religion is not a good guide for Physics.
Please leave your preconceived ideas and return with a Rational Argument based upon observations.
Vasyl Komarov | I do not see at all how you got rid of the "divine intervention", because for you there remains the fact of the singular event point in the past (not predetermined by known laws, so, not logical, not expected, not argumented), i.e. spontaneous creation of universe and the existing a priori space of predetermined rational configuration. How your model explain why the current state of the system is observable today, and not half a billion years ago or half eternity ahead? What is the half of eternity for this a priori space in evolutionary sense? The variant of existence of "special" predetermined space structure specifically "created" for the expansion of this universe (in which universe can evolve without hindrance) from the point of view of rational thinking is nothing more than yet another non-harmonious "sandbox", as other known cosmogonic epics without rational prehistory, in other word, not ideal axiom or belief. Otherwise why this universe should have priority, expanding without mutual interfering with the environment in that space at all? A logical question arises, from where comes hope for maintaining the integrity of the hypergeometrical structure of the expansion of this universe?
I just pointed out that you do not pay attention to the existence of an observer, pay very little attention to self-organization of complex-enough structures - we are using very different data sets and knowledge bases in the discussion. I aware of this, same as aware that you and I have cognitive biases, which differs but definitely are for you and me.
What the idea of locality lacks is self-referencing, which does not give a quiet life to either formal systems or evolving complex-enough structures like you and me.
By the way, the last statement was not a criticism.
Marco Pereira | It is very clear that you didn't read my work and somehow is commenting on it.
My theory and the proposed (later confirmed) topology precludes the formation of a singular event point (if you are mentioning singular in the sense of Singularity, Big Bang).
My theory makes use of what we observe - Inherent Uncertainty. This is used as a matter of fact without explanation, in the same way people uses Quantum Mechanics. The Heisenberg Principle is observed in Reality.
If you are clamoring for an Super Being to just create the Heisenberg Principle, that is ok. It seem overdone. Your idea sounds like the self-opening Umbrella below. Creating a Super Being just to create a simple Heisenberg Principle is like that Umbrella device. It defies Occam's Razor. You invoke a complex being to justify the existence of a simple construct (which is observed and can be takes as a matter of fact or as part of reality) without the need for explanation.
This is the only place where it is ok to invoke the Anthropic Principle.
I do not pay attention to the existence of an observer in macroscopic constructs and the Universe is macroscopic. In my theory, the Universe was never microscopic. It started with a 147 light-seconds radius, hence I don't pay attention to observer. In addition there was none at the beginning of this cycle.
Also, if you are talking about a theory, try to use the language of the theory. For instance:"pay very little attention to self-organization of complex-enough structures " - what am I suppose to infer from this. Are you speaking of the formation of galaxies, self-organizing cells.... robots... human societies.. If it is galaxies, I provides a correction to Keplerian laws and showed the seeding of galaxies by hyperspherical neutroniun acoustic oscillations. I didn't discuss cell organizing cells or bacteria colonies.. or human.
So, try to be clear. I tell you that you are not clear. And if you really want answers. Ask one question per exchange. Then we will know if I understood you and I will know if you understand my answers.
Read the work. Don't ask dissonating questions in the comment section as insinuating that I didn't address your point in my work.
[self-openingUmbrellaRubeGoldberg.png]
Marco Pereira | I do not see at all how you got rid of the "divine intervention", because for you there remains the fact of the singular event point in the past (not predetermined by known laws, so, not logical, not expected, not argumented), i.e. spontaneous creation of universe and the existing a priori space of predetermined rational configuration. How your model explain why the current state of the system is observable today, and not half a billion years ago or half eternity ahead? What is the half of eternity for this a priori space in evolutionary sense? The variant of existence of "special" predetermined space structure specifically "created" for the expansion of this universe (in which universe can evolve without hindrance) from the point of view of rational thinking is nothing more than yet another non-harmonious "sandbox", as other known cosmogonic epics without rational prehistory, in other word, not ideal axiom or belief. Otherwise why this universe should have priority, expanding without mutual interfering with the environment in that space at all? A logical question arises, from where comes hope for maintaining the integrity of the hypergeometrical structure of the expansion of this universe?
Answer: The Universe was created in my theory with:
a) Heisenberg Principle
b) Matter is made of coherences between stationary states of deformation of space (generator and subject of force)
c) Space has elasticity, that is, supports traveling waves (carrier of force)
You only need these three items to create the Universe
Marco Pereira | What the idea of locality lacks is self-referencing, which does not give a quiet life to either formal systems or evolving complex-enough structures like you and me.
How am I suppose to interpret this sentence? What are you trying to convey? How from Physics, we are talking about you and me..:)
Marco Pereira | I wrote a posting about General Relativity failure and how much of a mistake it was for Einstein to guide Mankind into the Geodesics Paradigm (as opposed to let Science progress towards a velocity dependent Gravitational theory, similarly to the velocity dependent model for Electromagnetism).
In the posting I provide evidence of an extra spatial dimension and for the topology my theory uses - the Universe as a lightspeed expanding hyperspherical hypersurface.
Why didn't Einstein do anything major after general relativity?
I write this also to challenge the people who cannot think without writing or asking for a metric.
Enjoy
Vasyl Komarov | It is impossible to fail when you can go some limited path only. Was the idea of the hypergeometric structure of the universe possible without the existence of a general theory of relativity and the names Einstein and De Sitter? Maybe they were the same giants, on the shoulders of which we can see the horizon, which is a little further? (rhetorical questions)
Dear Marco, I like the progress of your thinking since our very brief conversation about understanding of rotation in hypergeometry (Does the existence of Hyperspherical Acoustic Waves Rebut General Relativity?)
But. I do not like the idea of absolute space (not only due to the same reasons as in conception of relativity) because it leads to evolutionary paradoxes, and, therefore, fundamentally contradicts the philosophical concept of "being." In other words, such a universe is centered causally, hence, it requires spontaneity (i.e., "divine intervention") to do the origin, which is very poorly consistent with the existence of any rational laws of nature. There are other contradictions.
Nature creates laws consciously from "rational despair", they can not be spontaneously generated. Otherwise you cannot expect their compliance by the nature itself.
Marco Pereira | Yes.
My theory does not use General Relativity. My point is that the geodesics paradigm which Einstein used to kick aside equally predicting velocity-dependent theories is wrong and that the process was underhanded.
That said, that past is past.
Any overt, direct, ostensive criticism I have about the theory is because of the theory and the network externalities associated with it.
For instance, instead of you confirming my discovery of an extra spatial dimension, you spent your time defending Einstein's, de Sitter grandiose achievements (which the existence of a 4th dimension erases).
So, disregard the shock effect of my criticism. The aim of my criticism is not to personally attack Einstein or de Sitter. It is to force people like you (network externalities) to focus you attention the infinitesimal possibility that the framework you use is wrong and cannot be used..>:)
With respect to your Religious defense of how you think Nature should behave, I provided a logical framework that refutes the requirement of "Divine Intervention".
Not liking Absolute Spatial Framework is refuted by the CMB. You can put there an absolute framework and that is an observation. IF you choose to neglect reality, your understanding of the Universe will suffer and be primitive. There are no 'evolutionary" paradoxes anywhere.
How can anyone reply to a statement like this:
"Nature creates laws consciously from "rational despair", they can not be spontaneously generated. "
Religion is not a good guide for Physics.
Please leave your preconceived ideas and return with a Rational Argument based upon observations.
Vasyl Komarov | I do not see at all how you got rid of the "divine intervention", because for you there remains the fact of the singular event point in the past (not predetermined by known laws, so, not logical, not expected, not argumented), i.e. spontaneous creation of universe and the existing a priori space of predetermined rational configuration. How your model explain why the current state of the system is observable today, and not half a billion years ago or half eternity ahead? What is the half of eternity for this a priori space in evolutionary sense? The variant of existence of "special" predetermined space structure specifically "created" for the expansion of this universe (in which universe can evolve without hindrance) from the point of view of rational thinking is nothing more than yet another non-harmonious "sandbox", as other known cosmogonic epics without rational prehistory, in other word, not ideal axiom or belief. Otherwise why this universe should have priority, expanding without mutual interfering with the environment in that space at all? A logical question arises, from where comes hope for maintaining the integrity of the hypergeometrical structure of the expansion of this universe?
I just pointed out that you do not pay attention to the existence of an observer, pay very little attention to self-organization of complex-enough structures - we are using very different data sets and knowledge bases in the discussion. I aware of this, same as aware that you and I have cognitive biases, which differs but definitely are for you and me.
What the idea of locality lacks is self-referencing, which does not give a quiet life to either formal systems or evolving complex-enough structures like you and me.
By the way, the last statement was not a criticism.
Marco Pereira | It is very clear that you didn't read my work and somehow is commenting on it.
My theory and the proposed (later confirmed) topology precludes the formation of a singular event point (if you are mentioning singular in the sense of Singularity, Big Bang).
My theory makes use of what we observe - Inherent Uncertainty. This is used as a matter of fact without explanation, in the same way people uses Quantum Mechanics. The Heisenberg Principle is observed in Reality.
If you are clamoring for an Super Being to just create the Heisenberg Principle, that is ok. It seem overdone. Your idea sounds like the self-opening Umbrella below. Creating a Super Being just to create a simple Heisenberg Principle is like that Umbrella device. It defies Occam's Razor. You invoke a complex being to justify the existence of a simple construct (which is observed and can be takes as a matter of fact or as part of reality) without the need for explanation.
This is the only place where it is ok to invoke the Anthropic Principle.
I do not pay attention to the existence of an observer in macroscopic constructs and the Universe is macroscopic. In my theory, the Universe was never microscopic. It started with a 147 light-seconds radius, hence I don't pay attention to observer. In addition there was none at the beginning of this cycle.
Also, if you are talking about a theory, try to use the language of the theory. For instance:"pay very little attention to self-organization of complex-enough structures " - what am I suppose to infer from this. Are you speaking of the formation of galaxies, self-organizing cells.... robots... human societies.. If it is galaxies, I provides a correction to Keplerian laws and showed the seeding of galaxies by hyperspherical neutroniun acoustic oscillations. I didn't discuss cell organizing cells or bacteria colonies.. or human.
So, try to be clear. I tell you that you are not clear. And if you really want answers. Ask one question per exchange. Then we will know if I understood you and I will know if you understand my answers.
Read the work. Don't ask dissonating questions in the comment section as insinuating that I didn't address your point in my work.
[self-openingUmbrellaRubeGoldberg.png]
Marco Pereira | I do not see at all how you got rid of the "divine intervention", because for you there remains the fact of the singular event point in the past (not predetermined by known laws, so, not logical, not expected, not argumented), i.e. spontaneous creation of universe and the existing a priori space of predetermined rational configuration. How your model explain why the current state of the system is observable today, and not half a billion years ago or half eternity ahead? What is the half of eternity for this a priori space in evolutionary sense? The variant of existence of "special" predetermined space structure specifically "created" for the expansion of this universe (in which universe can evolve without hindrance) from the point of view of rational thinking is nothing more than yet another non-harmonious "sandbox", as other known cosmogonic epics without rational prehistory, in other word, not ideal axiom or belief. Otherwise why this universe should have priority, expanding without mutual interfering with the environment in that space at all? A logical question arises, from where comes hope for maintaining the integrity of the hypergeometrical structure of the expansion of this universe?
Answer: The Universe was created in my theory with:
a) Heisenberg Principle
b) Matter is made of coherences between stationary states of deformation of space (generator and subject of force)
c) Space has elasticity, that is, supports traveling waves (carrier of force)
You only need these three items to create the Universe
Marco Pereira | What the idea of locality lacks is self-referencing, which does not give a quiet life to either formal systems or evolving complex-enough structures like you and me.
How am I suppose to interpret this sentence? What are you trying to convey? How from Physics, we are talking about you and me..:)
Jun 9, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Marco, the Heisenberg uncertainty do not help to create the Universe, it is just a consequence of the Fourier transform participation in the statistical processing of measurement cyclical data. Claiming this you just confirm words about "divine intervention", no more.
From the standpoint of modern physics we can not speak about you and me, since physics was isolated by demarcation, and then completely withdrew from consideration of complex-enough systems. That's problem of physics. Actually, that's top of the iceberg only. I said the incompleteness of isolated systems.
Vasyl Komarov | Marco, the Heisenberg uncertainty do not help to create the Universe, it is just a consequence of the Fourier transform participation in the statistical processing of measurement cyclical data. Claiming this you just confirm words about "divine intervention", no more.
From the standpoint of modern physics we can not speak about you and me, since physics was isolated by demarcation, and then completely withdrew from consideration of complex-enough systems. That's problem of physics. Actually, that's top of the iceberg only. I said the incompleteness of isolated systems.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Project: Expand the Hypergeometrical Universe Standard Model | Update: Why Albert Einstein didn't make any breakthroughs after General Relativity? [accessed Jun 10, 2018]
Abdul Malek |
Dear James,
Thanks for bringing the papers of Prof. Ching-Chuan Su to our attention. I hope others in this forum, specially experts on the theories of relativity, particularly Prof. Lord would give their opinion on this. After a first glance, it seems to me that Prof. Su’s claims seem to be too good to be true! He seems to have found a much cherished “theory of everything”; combining classical dynamics (Galilean-Newtonian), Maxwell’s electromagnetism, gravity, quantum mechanics, anisotropy of CMBR etc., in other words ALL of modern physics, except a very tiny aspect of stellar aberration.
He seems to base his theory on a so-called (stationary) “Local-Ether” theory. But except for his claim that these “Local-Ethers” form preferred reference frames for the propagation of electromagnetic waves within their boundaries; he seems to have not much use of this “Local-Ether” in his deliberations. He seems to provide a reasonable explanation of the null result of Michaelson–Morley experiment, Sagnac Effect, GPS. Doppler Effect etc., (sans theories of relativity) and based on the rotation of the earth and the motions of the satellites alone. But then makes almost identical claims of various phenomena like the theories of relativity, including velocity dependent mass (relativistic mass?) etc.; which Prof. Lord discounts even for the theories of relativity!
In any case, it would be interesting to hear views from others, including further explanations from you. Regards, Abdul
Manuel S Morales | "Dear Manuel ~ Please explain how. The Physics community will be most enlightened, I'm sure, to be told they've been getting it wrong all this time and will be eager to seek your advice! (-; "
Dear Eric,
First, in order to advance science practitioners of the art need to come to terms with the fundamental error in the logic of using effects to supersede cause both in its theories and its systematic methods.
Second, moving forward we need to establish how the two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive predetermined origin functions of selection are being used to obtain the effects of the experiment. As empirically confirmed, an experiment constructed in this manner will remove ambiguity from experimental data by eliminating false-positive results.
Third, reevaluate failed experiments with that of successful experiments in order to determine which selection functions were used in both outcomes. This reevaluation will reveal hidden information that was previously ignored.
This is just for starters....
Manuel S Morales | "He seems to provide a reasonable explanation of the null result of Michaelson–Morley experiment, Sagnac Effect, GPS. Doppler Effect etc., (sans theories of relativity) and based on the rotation of the earth and the motions of the satellites alone."
Dear Abdul,
Did Prof. Ching-Chuan Su address the omission error that these experiments are based on? If not, then you have nothing more than incomplete science absent of everything.
James Marsen | Dear Abdul,
Thanks for reading my answer and taking the time to check the links to Prof. Su’s work.
He actually published over 30 papers related to his ideas. I’ve collected them into a cloud folder for your convenience at 1drv.ms/...
I agree that the scope of Prof. Su’s work to unify electromagnetism with Quantum Mechanics and gravitation is very ambitious but I suggest we initially focus on the fundamental question of the validity of the Local-Ether model vs the paradigm of Special and General Relativity.
It may be true that Local-Ether is not directly mentioned in his later work but it is crucially important as the basic foundation on which the rest of his work is built.
The phenomena of Stellar Aberration has traditionally been used to dismiss entrained ether theories. However the late Prof. Petr Beckmann showed in his 1987 book “Einstein Plus Two” that aberration can be explained for entrained ether: the alteration of the wave front angles of remote stars occurs in a transition zone at the Local-Ether boundary. Prof. Su’s difficulty with aberration comes from not being able to describe an exact physical description of the transition zone.
I suggest that you also check out Prof. Beckmann’s book (if you can get it) which describes a theory very similar to Prof. Su’s. I even suggest he deserves priority for the theory.
As far as mass increase is concerned, I suggest you look more carefully at how Prof. Su derives it. It is not related to relativity or the Lorentz transformation. It is an effective increase that arises from the equations he derives for quantum phenomena and the velocity of particles relative to the Local-Ether. Prof. Beckmann derives it as effective electromagnetic mass.
Finally, I suggest that Prof. Su’s and Prof. Beckmann’s ideas can potentially lead to the paradigm shift that physics needs to break out of the stagnation that many have identified.
Regards,
Jim Marsen
Eric Lord | Dear James and Abdul ~
AM: “...[Ching-Chuan Su] seems to base his theory on a so-called (stationary) “Local-Ether” theory. But except for his claim that these “Local-Ethers” form preferred reference frames for the propagation of electromagnetic waves within their boundaries; he seems to have not much use of this “Local-Ether” in his deliberations.”
Agreed.
Newton postulated the existence of what he called “absolute space”, yet that postulate (unlike his postulate of “absolute time”...) is not needed or appealed to in the dynamical theories he proposed. The “local-ether” of Ching-Chuan Su is, similarly, a redundant hypothesis.
The glaring logical error in the proposal of Ching-Chuan Su is its failure to realize that “localized inertial frames” are merely reference systems. When the same physical phenomenon is described in two different reference systems, there cannot be any difference in the intrinsic physical properties of the phenomenon so described.
In the nineteenth century the concept of “ether” arose because all well-understood wave phenomena (sound, vibrating strings, ripples on a liquid surface, etc) where explicable as the result of stresses and strains in material media. It was reasonable to assume that that is the case also for light waves, that even in the absence of a tangible, detectable medium (in “the void”, “in vacuo”, in “empty space”...) there must necessarily be “something” to support and "explain" the propagation of light.
It surprises me that so many physicists still cling to the “ether” notion more than a century after Einstein showed that the “ether hypothesis” is a redundant hypothesis.
The “luminiferous ether” should have quietly died a natural death in 1905. It puzzles me that so many contributors to these discussions still don’t want it to die! They believe that it exists in spite of a century of accumulated evidence that it does not. They cook up contorted sophistry (reminiscent of the arguments of the flat earthers and the young-earth creationists...) to try to prop up that belief.
Science does not deal in beliefs.
Maxwell established that light waves are an electromagnetic phenomenon. Let us apply Galileo's “Principle of Relativity” to the known laws of electromagnetism: "the laws of electromagnetism take the same form in every inertial frame". It then follows from the “empty space” Maxwell equations that μ0 and ε0 are constants, and the same constants in every inertial frame. Therefore, the speed of light in a vacuum, c = 1/ √μ0ε0 is a constant, and the same constant in every inertial frame.
Abdul Malek | Dear Eric,
Thanks for your input. But I am not so sure about your description of Einstein’s view viz-a-viz ether. It is true that Einstein denied the existence of ether when he proposed SRT, but later after GRT he seemed to have brought back the existence of ether. The following is what Einstein said in an address on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden. "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Even Wikipedia says this: "Einstein æther theory, also called æ-theory, is a generally covariant modification of general relativity which describes a spacetime endowed with both a metric and a unit timelike vector field named the æther. The theory has a preferred reference frame and hence violates Lorentz invariance."
James Marsen | Dear Dr. Lord (and anyone reading this post),
Would you agree that the Einstein Relativity paradigm would be falsified if a Michelson-Morley type experiment were performed in low earth orbit and registered positive results equivalent to its orbital velocity of ~7.5 km/sec?
Would you be convinced if the experiment was launched into interplanetary space and registered a result equivalent to ~30 km/sec?
Regards,
Jim Marsen
Vasyl Komarov | Dear James, how about the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun in interplanetary space at desired speed, or we still in the ptolematic realm? All that is required is navigational skills on the ground (-;
Thierry De Mees | Dear all,
There are astonishing suppositions that have been made since 1905, expressed in one recent post here:
"The glaring logical error in the proposal of Ching-Chuan Su is its failure to realize that “localized inertial frames” are merely reference systems."
Not at all.
Reference systems are non-physical, mathematical systems. They are based upon the supposition that the Galilean relativity would be right.
However, it is only locally correct for one reference system at once. Not for more than one at once.
Galileo Galilei gave the example of the inside of a ship, in which the flies will fly the same wrt the walls, whatever the speed of the ship is. He forgot about the ship at 100 km distance. If you connect the ships with a pipe, there will be a shift in the velocities at some place, and the flies wil not fly the same way wrt the walls.
If you connect the ships with a bellow, at every place, it 'appears' that the flies fly the same way and that falling stones don't move wrt the walls. But seen from either ship, the flies move differently.
In kinematics, one could suppose that reference frames are useful. However, in systems that include masses, hence inertia and gravity, that is wrong.
Reference systems must be connected to masses, more precisely, gravitational potentials.
"It surprises me that so many physicists still cling to the “ether” notion more than a century after Einstein showed that the “ether hypothesis” is a redundant hypothesis."
That is of course wrong. There is nothing redundant about the aether, to the same extend that it is not redundant for waves in water, air, ropes and so on. It is a necessity.
The fact that the wave equations don't explicitely express the presence of a medium doesn't change the fact of the existence of a medium as a necessity.
The dismissal of aether was only a trick to make the Galileo relativity keep its importance in SRT.
The alleged "proof" of the redundancy of aether is given by the Michelson Morley experiment.
However, Michelson and Morley tested the following hypothesis: assuming that light is carried by an aether and that this aether is global, and that the Earth is moving w.r.t. this aether, what is its direction and velocity? The experiment was negative, which confirms that: either assuming that light is carried by an aether or that this aether is global, or that the Earth is moving w.r.t. this aether, is wrong. Hence, many possibilities remain open w.r.t. aether.
It strikes me that the lack of logic still continues to exist in nowadays science.
The nowadays scientists have a lot to learn from pre-1905 physics, and it is time for post-1905 physics to die...
With best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul,
there is almost no dialectics in cell division, just symmetry and natural course of decay. Dialectics implies, firstly communication (logical connection), and secondly, an asymmetrical experience (different trajectories).
Since, dialectics implies communication (i.e. process), the flow of "time" (i.e., change, dynamics, i.e. evolution) is essential for it. So, dialectics is definitely presented between the generations of cells
...different trajectories means inherent in dialectics unavoidable (topological, i.e. space-time) gap, the same as Kozyrev noted as an inherent fundamental common property of the cause-effect relationship.
Dialectics is a product (effect) of the twin counter-process of propagation and the inverse relaxation, if we speak in terms of the theory of self-organized criticality (the same "thesis & antithesis -> synthesis"). This, on the one hand, is the product of the critical state which not always successful (as single act), and on the other hand, the stable, i.e. invariant structure respect to this continuous counter-directional process, which only means. As it is effect, inalienable functional connection of effect and cause ("->") is there, i.e. mentioned process, i.e. transformation (of dialectics), which can be associated with understructure cause-effect gap.
So, actually dialectics tends to the absence of dialectics. By the way, it is for this reason the exponent plays such a crucial role in the math and nature (-;
Not mathematics, but the theory of computation is the quintessence of causality.
As you can see, I can not able to separate the understanding-cause-effect-dialectics. "Ergo cogito ergo sum": in order to "feel" the difference in something (gradient), you need a process (mentioned communication, whicht is not statics in principle), the same must be said about understanding - it is a "thinking" process of communication within brain and so on.
Here it makes sense to talk about universal "primordial experiential loop" (keystone of computing interrelation of nature), starting with chemotaxis, and deeper. This is very simple but at the same time it is difficult to say in a few words.
It is a cycle, single act of the dialectical process is meaningless, if not correlated with the existent system. So unlike you and the materialists mentioned by you above, I see well, how it works during a long history, not only of science, but of mankind and the whole Universe.
Excuse me for being short-spoken, and therefore fragmented, I do not like to comment on too long messages, they need to be gutted into coherent thoughts, where in addition tedious repetitive cues is needed. We have already discussed the problem of the symmetry of the dichotomy against the background of the concept of infinity in "Free fall..."
Manuel,
you are too overly hoping for the function of selection. The thing is that in order for it to work, it is necessary that there is something incoming (ready or "static") for selecting from. Unlike Abdul, you are focused on the process (the mentioned functional connection of cause and effect). You are trying to state that the "egg" is more important than "chicken."
But in order to see something it is necessary to grow eyes, in order to hear one must first grow ears, but in order to grow ears or eyes one need to know in advance that they make sense. For this reason I told you earlier that self-reference is a key word for problems (of logic and evolution). The whole cycle with static memory actually matters, it represents the system.
In nature the system only makes sense, any isolation to the level of static abstract primitives or functional relation between are meaningless without semantics, i.e. linking system.
That's why isolated idea of empty space or empty set is absurdity. Knowledge of emptiness is already not emptiness. Even nothing cannot exists without semantics, i.e. already system, already information. That's why, for example, in semiotics not only the bundle, but each of the three components (object, sign, observer) lose meaning in the absence of one of them.
This is the fundamental essence of holism and existence. The System has properties that are absent for it's any structural elements. The existence of structural elements is guaranteed by the system and vice versa - it is integrity. And system is a process (existence), as I said to Abdul (means communication, where place of selection is - it is interpretation of incoming information by nature itself).
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
“But I am not so sure about your description of Einstein’s view viz-a-viz ether. It is true that Einstein denied the existence of ether when he proposed SRT, but later after GRT he seemed to have brought back the existence of ether.”
I know what Einstein was saying in 1920. But I’m not a follower of Einstein’s opinions. I follow only where the implications of my own understanding of the principles of Relativity lead me.
The discussion here has centered around the Special theory, whose “postulates” follow, in the manner I’ve just outlined, from Galileo’s “Principle” and the known laws of electromagnetism. Those postulates, and the Lorentz transformation laws they imply, require no “ether”.
Of course, it's always possible (and all too easy) for people to deny the validity of any generally accepted principle of Physics. Many contributors to these RG discussions do just that, as we have seen. I am all in favour of questioning well established and generally accepted principles. What we have to ask is whether the arguments of SRT (or GRT) doubters hold up logically and in the face of experimental and observational data. From what I have seen, they do not! I have spent far too much of my time on RG trying to explain, as clearly as I can, precisely where those arguments are going wrong.
It could be that Galileo’s Principle is not applicable to electromagnetism. It could be that the laws of electromagnetism as we know them are not the same in every inertial reference system. But in the absence of evidence that is nothing more than wild speculation. Nature is what it is, whatever it is − it doesn’t give a damn about Physicists and their Theories!
Einstein’s gravitational theory, GRT, is a different kettle of fish. It does, however, follow quite logically and rationally from SRT and the Equivalence Principle. Einstein didn’t just arbitrarily “make it up”! It postulates a gravitational field whose source is the energy-momentum of “matter”, that acts on its sources − just as the electromagnetic field, whose sources are the charges and electric currents of “matter”, acts on those sources.
The feature of the gravitational field that distinguishes it from an electromagnetic field, that seems to worry people unduly (and that misled Einstein into a false analogy between the gravitational field and the 19th century “ether”) is that, through its interaction with “matter”, the gravitational field causes modifications of measurements of distances and times, deduced from observations of “matter”, which (unlike the observer-dependent “length contractions” and “time dilations” of SRT) are objectively real. It follows that Riemannian geometry rather than Minkowskian geometry becomes appropriate for the mathematical formulation of the theory. In that formulation gravitational “potentials” are identified with the “metric of spacetime”. But that does NOT imply that “spacetime” has the same kind of “substantial existence” as “matter”. That is a confusion of ontological categories.
To anyone claiming that SRT and/or GRT are “wrong" I say only this:
Show us; produce for us better theories that account for the same observational data.
Eric Lord | Dear Jim ~
Your hypothetical “what if” questions are easily answered:
Yes, of course I would accept conclusive evidence that anything that seems to me to be true were in fact false!
But faced with conclusive evidence that a well-established explanation of physical phenomena were false I would want to know: What, then, is the true explanation?
Thierry De Mees | Dear all,
There are made quite a lot shocking affirmations here, against all logic.
We are here talking of a thought experiment that has been interpreted as "right", while in fact, all the experiments trying to prove it right are made ad hoc, and many of them besides the theory itself.
Saying : "What, then, is the true explanation?" is not relevant to the dismissal of a wrong theory.
Saying : "Those postulates, and the Lorentz transformation laws they imply, require no “ether”." is not relevant.
Pre-1905 physics has proven over and over that a medium must exist in order to get waves. The only reason to dismiss the aether is the maintenance of the false Galilei relativity principle for more than one reference frame at revelant distances from each-other. There is no proof whatsover.
Now, the relativists try to reverse the requirement of proof. Just because a thought experiment for masses has in fact copied the Liénard-Wiechert equations, which are electromagnetic equations that fully explain all the findings at CERN wrt the velocity of charges. And these relativists don't see any issue in SRT spites that all the proofs are only made for light beams or for charges, not masses!
"...through its interaction with “matter”, the gravitational field causes modifications of measurements of distances and times, deduced from observations of “matter”, which (unlike the observer-dependent “length contractions” and “time dilations” of SRT) are objectively real."
Of course, optical instruments always change the measurements of length and clock tick rates. It is not different for the bending of light by masses, and it is not different if the Doppler effect is involved.
So what? Do we need to make a relativity theory out of every optical instrument? Of course not! The bending of light fits perfectly in the Euclid system with gravitomagnetism!
With best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Thanks for bringing the papers of Prof. Ching-Chuan Su to our attention. I hope others in this forum, specially experts on the theories of relativity, particularly Prof. Lord would give their opinion on this. After a first glance, it seems to me that Prof. Su’s claims seem to be too good to be true! He seems to have found a much cherished “theory of everything”; combining classical dynamics (Galilean-Newtonian), Maxwell’s electromagnetism, gravity, quantum mechanics, anisotropy of CMBR etc., in other words ALL of modern physics, except a very tiny aspect of stellar aberration.
He seems to base his theory on a so-called (stationary) “Local-Ether” theory. But except for his claim that these “Local-Ethers” form preferred reference frames for the propagation of electromagnetic waves within their boundaries; he seems to have not much use of this “Local-Ether” in his deliberations. He seems to provide a reasonable explanation of the null result of Michaelson–Morley experiment, Sagnac Effect, GPS. Doppler Effect etc., (sans theories of relativity) and based on the rotation of the earth and the motions of the satellites alone. But then makes almost identical claims of various phenomena like the theories of relativity, including velocity dependent mass (relativistic mass?) etc.; which Prof. Lord discounts even for the theories of relativity!
In any case, it would be interesting to hear views from others, including further explanations from you. Regards, Abdul
Manuel S Morales | "Dear Manuel ~ Please explain how. The Physics community will be most enlightened, I'm sure, to be told they've been getting it wrong all this time and will be eager to seek your advice! (-; "
Dear Eric,
First, in order to advance science practitioners of the art need to come to terms with the fundamental error in the logic of using effects to supersede cause both in its theories and its systematic methods.
Second, moving forward we need to establish how the two mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive predetermined origin functions of selection are being used to obtain the effects of the experiment. As empirically confirmed, an experiment constructed in this manner will remove ambiguity from experimental data by eliminating false-positive results.
Third, reevaluate failed experiments with that of successful experiments in order to determine which selection functions were used in both outcomes. This reevaluation will reveal hidden information that was previously ignored.
This is just for starters....
Manuel S Morales | "He seems to provide a reasonable explanation of the null result of Michaelson–Morley experiment, Sagnac Effect, GPS. Doppler Effect etc., (sans theories of relativity) and based on the rotation of the earth and the motions of the satellites alone."
Dear Abdul,
Did Prof. Ching-Chuan Su address the omission error that these experiments are based on? If not, then you have nothing more than incomplete science absent of everything.
James Marsen | Dear Abdul,
Thanks for reading my answer and taking the time to check the links to Prof. Su’s work.
He actually published over 30 papers related to his ideas. I’ve collected them into a cloud folder for your convenience at 1drv.ms/...
I agree that the scope of Prof. Su’s work to unify electromagnetism with Quantum Mechanics and gravitation is very ambitious but I suggest we initially focus on the fundamental question of the validity of the Local-Ether model vs the paradigm of Special and General Relativity.
It may be true that Local-Ether is not directly mentioned in his later work but it is crucially important as the basic foundation on which the rest of his work is built.
The phenomena of Stellar Aberration has traditionally been used to dismiss entrained ether theories. However the late Prof. Petr Beckmann showed in his 1987 book “Einstein Plus Two” that aberration can be explained for entrained ether: the alteration of the wave front angles of remote stars occurs in a transition zone at the Local-Ether boundary. Prof. Su’s difficulty with aberration comes from not being able to describe an exact physical description of the transition zone.
I suggest that you also check out Prof. Beckmann’s book (if you can get it) which describes a theory very similar to Prof. Su’s. I even suggest he deserves priority for the theory.
As far as mass increase is concerned, I suggest you look more carefully at how Prof. Su derives it. It is not related to relativity or the Lorentz transformation. It is an effective increase that arises from the equations he derives for quantum phenomena and the velocity of particles relative to the Local-Ether. Prof. Beckmann derives it as effective electromagnetic mass.
Finally, I suggest that Prof. Su’s and Prof. Beckmann’s ideas can potentially lead to the paradigm shift that physics needs to break out of the stagnation that many have identified.
Regards,
Jim Marsen
Eric Lord | Dear James and Abdul ~
AM: “...[Ching-Chuan Su] seems to base his theory on a so-called (stationary) “Local-Ether” theory. But except for his claim that these “Local-Ethers” form preferred reference frames for the propagation of electromagnetic waves within their boundaries; he seems to have not much use of this “Local-Ether” in his deliberations.”
Agreed.
Newton postulated the existence of what he called “absolute space”, yet that postulate (unlike his postulate of “absolute time”...) is not needed or appealed to in the dynamical theories he proposed. The “local-ether” of Ching-Chuan Su is, similarly, a redundant hypothesis.
The glaring logical error in the proposal of Ching-Chuan Su is its failure to realize that “localized inertial frames” are merely reference systems. When the same physical phenomenon is described in two different reference systems, there cannot be any difference in the intrinsic physical properties of the phenomenon so described.
In the nineteenth century the concept of “ether” arose because all well-understood wave phenomena (sound, vibrating strings, ripples on a liquid surface, etc) where explicable as the result of stresses and strains in material media. It was reasonable to assume that that is the case also for light waves, that even in the absence of a tangible, detectable medium (in “the void”, “in vacuo”, in “empty space”...) there must necessarily be “something” to support and "explain" the propagation of light.
It surprises me that so many physicists still cling to the “ether” notion more than a century after Einstein showed that the “ether hypothesis” is a redundant hypothesis.
The “luminiferous ether” should have quietly died a natural death in 1905. It puzzles me that so many contributors to these discussions still don’t want it to die! They believe that it exists in spite of a century of accumulated evidence that it does not. They cook up contorted sophistry (reminiscent of the arguments of the flat earthers and the young-earth creationists...) to try to prop up that belief.
Science does not deal in beliefs.
Maxwell established that light waves are an electromagnetic phenomenon. Let us apply Galileo's “Principle of Relativity” to the known laws of electromagnetism: "the laws of electromagnetism take the same form in every inertial frame". It then follows from the “empty space” Maxwell equations that μ0 and ε0 are constants, and the same constants in every inertial frame. Therefore, the speed of light in a vacuum, c = 1/ √μ0ε0 is a constant, and the same constant in every inertial frame.
Abdul Malek | Dear Eric,
Thanks for your input. But I am not so sure about your description of Einstein’s view viz-a-viz ether. It is true that Einstein denied the existence of ether when he proposed SRT, but later after GRT he seemed to have brought back the existence of ether. The following is what Einstein said in an address on 5 May 1920 at the University of Leiden. "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
Ether and the Theory of Relativity
Even Wikipedia says this: "Einstein æther theory, also called æ-theory, is a generally covariant modification of general relativity which describes a spacetime endowed with both a metric and a unit timelike vector field named the æther. The theory has a preferred reference frame and hence violates Lorentz invariance."
James Marsen | Dear Dr. Lord (and anyone reading this post),
Would you agree that the Einstein Relativity paradigm would be falsified if a Michelson-Morley type experiment were performed in low earth orbit and registered positive results equivalent to its orbital velocity of ~7.5 km/sec?
Would you be convinced if the experiment was launched into interplanetary space and registered a result equivalent to ~30 km/sec?
Regards,
Jim Marsen
Vasyl Komarov | Dear James, how about the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun in interplanetary space at desired speed, or we still in the ptolematic realm? All that is required is navigational skills on the ground (-;
Thierry De Mees | Dear all,
There are astonishing suppositions that have been made since 1905, expressed in one recent post here:
"The glaring logical error in the proposal of Ching-Chuan Su is its failure to realize that “localized inertial frames” are merely reference systems."
Not at all.
Reference systems are non-physical, mathematical systems. They are based upon the supposition that the Galilean relativity would be right.
However, it is only locally correct for one reference system at once. Not for more than one at once.
Galileo Galilei gave the example of the inside of a ship, in which the flies will fly the same wrt the walls, whatever the speed of the ship is. He forgot about the ship at 100 km distance. If you connect the ships with a pipe, there will be a shift in the velocities at some place, and the flies wil not fly the same way wrt the walls.
If you connect the ships with a bellow, at every place, it 'appears' that the flies fly the same way and that falling stones don't move wrt the walls. But seen from either ship, the flies move differently.
In kinematics, one could suppose that reference frames are useful. However, in systems that include masses, hence inertia and gravity, that is wrong.
Reference systems must be connected to masses, more precisely, gravitational potentials.
"It surprises me that so many physicists still cling to the “ether” notion more than a century after Einstein showed that the “ether hypothesis” is a redundant hypothesis."
That is of course wrong. There is nothing redundant about the aether, to the same extend that it is not redundant for waves in water, air, ropes and so on. It is a necessity.
The fact that the wave equations don't explicitely express the presence of a medium doesn't change the fact of the existence of a medium as a necessity.
The dismissal of aether was only a trick to make the Galileo relativity keep its importance in SRT.
The alleged "proof" of the redundancy of aether is given by the Michelson Morley experiment.
However, Michelson and Morley tested the following hypothesis: assuming that light is carried by an aether and that this aether is global, and that the Earth is moving w.r.t. this aether, what is its direction and velocity? The experiment was negative, which confirms that: either assuming that light is carried by an aether or that this aether is global, or that the Earth is moving w.r.t. this aether, is wrong. Hence, many possibilities remain open w.r.t. aether.
It strikes me that the lack of logic still continues to exist in nowadays science.
The nowadays scientists have a lot to learn from pre-1905 physics, and it is time for post-1905 physics to die...
With best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul,
there is almost no dialectics in cell division, just symmetry and natural course of decay. Dialectics implies, firstly communication (logical connection), and secondly, an asymmetrical experience (different trajectories).
Since, dialectics implies communication (i.e. process), the flow of "time" (i.e., change, dynamics, i.e. evolution) is essential for it. So, dialectics is definitely presented between the generations of cells
...different trajectories means inherent in dialectics unavoidable (topological, i.e. space-time) gap, the same as Kozyrev noted as an inherent fundamental common property of the cause-effect relationship.
Dialectics is a product (effect) of the twin counter-process of propagation and the inverse relaxation, if we speak in terms of the theory of self-organized criticality (the same "thesis & antithesis -> synthesis"). This, on the one hand, is the product of the critical state which not always successful (as single act), and on the other hand, the stable, i.e. invariant structure respect to this continuous counter-directional process, which only means. As it is effect, inalienable functional connection of effect and cause ("->") is there, i.e. mentioned process, i.e. transformation (of dialectics), which can be associated with understructure cause-effect gap.
So, actually dialectics tends to the absence of dialectics. By the way, it is for this reason the exponent plays such a crucial role in the math and nature (-;
this might be my favorite gif pic.twitter.com/fUa5qbTYRS
— Zan (@Zan004) November 23, 2017
Not mathematics, but the theory of computation is the quintessence of causality.
As you can see, I can not able to separate the understanding-cause-effect-dialectics. "Ergo cogito ergo sum": in order to "feel" the difference in something (gradient), you need a process (mentioned communication, whicht is not statics in principle), the same must be said about understanding - it is a "thinking" process of communication within brain and so on.
Here it makes sense to talk about universal "primordial experiential loop" (keystone of computing interrelation of nature), starting with chemotaxis, and deeper. This is very simple but at the same time it is difficult to say in a few words.
It is a cycle, single act of the dialectical process is meaningless, if not correlated with the existent system. So unlike you and the materialists mentioned by you above, I see well, how it works during a long history, not only of science, but of mankind and the whole Universe.
Excuse me for being short-spoken, and therefore fragmented, I do not like to comment on too long messages, they need to be gutted into coherent thoughts, where in addition tedious repetitive cues is needed. We have already discussed the problem of the symmetry of the dichotomy against the background of the concept of infinity in "Free fall..."
Manuel,
you are too overly hoping for the function of selection. The thing is that in order for it to work, it is necessary that there is something incoming (ready or "static") for selecting from. Unlike Abdul, you are focused on the process (the mentioned functional connection of cause and effect). You are trying to state that the "egg" is more important than "chicken."
But in order to see something it is necessary to grow eyes, in order to hear one must first grow ears, but in order to grow ears or eyes one need to know in advance that they make sense. For this reason I told you earlier that self-reference is a key word for problems (of logic and evolution). The whole cycle with static memory actually matters, it represents the system.
In nature the system only makes sense, any isolation to the level of static abstract primitives or functional relation between are meaningless without semantics, i.e. linking system.
That's why isolated idea of empty space or empty set is absurdity. Knowledge of emptiness is already not emptiness. Even nothing cannot exists without semantics, i.e. already system, already information. That's why, for example, in semiotics not only the bundle, but each of the three components (object, sign, observer) lose meaning in the absence of one of them.
This is the fundamental essence of holism and existence. The System has properties that are absent for it's any structural elements. The existence of structural elements is guaranteed by the system and vice versa - it is integrity. And system is a process (existence), as I said to Abdul (means communication, where place of selection is - it is interpretation of incoming information by nature itself).
Eric Lord | Dear Abdul ~
“But I am not so sure about your description of Einstein’s view viz-a-viz ether. It is true that Einstein denied the existence of ether when he proposed SRT, but later after GRT he seemed to have brought back the existence of ether.”
I know what Einstein was saying in 1920. But I’m not a follower of Einstein’s opinions. I follow only where the implications of my own understanding of the principles of Relativity lead me.
The discussion here has centered around the Special theory, whose “postulates” follow, in the manner I’ve just outlined, from Galileo’s “Principle” and the known laws of electromagnetism. Those postulates, and the Lorentz transformation laws they imply, require no “ether”.
Of course, it's always possible (and all too easy) for people to deny the validity of any generally accepted principle of Physics. Many contributors to these RG discussions do just that, as we have seen. I am all in favour of questioning well established and generally accepted principles. What we have to ask is whether the arguments of SRT (or GRT) doubters hold up logically and in the face of experimental and observational data. From what I have seen, they do not! I have spent far too much of my time on RG trying to explain, as clearly as I can, precisely where those arguments are going wrong.
It could be that Galileo’s Principle is not applicable to electromagnetism. It could be that the laws of electromagnetism as we know them are not the same in every inertial reference system. But in the absence of evidence that is nothing more than wild speculation. Nature is what it is, whatever it is − it doesn’t give a damn about Physicists and their Theories!
Einstein’s gravitational theory, GRT, is a different kettle of fish. It does, however, follow quite logically and rationally from SRT and the Equivalence Principle. Einstein didn’t just arbitrarily “make it up”! It postulates a gravitational field whose source is the energy-momentum of “matter”, that acts on its sources − just as the electromagnetic field, whose sources are the charges and electric currents of “matter”, acts on those sources.
The feature of the gravitational field that distinguishes it from an electromagnetic field, that seems to worry people unduly (and that misled Einstein into a false analogy between the gravitational field and the 19th century “ether”) is that, through its interaction with “matter”, the gravitational field causes modifications of measurements of distances and times, deduced from observations of “matter”, which (unlike the observer-dependent “length contractions” and “time dilations” of SRT) are objectively real. It follows that Riemannian geometry rather than Minkowskian geometry becomes appropriate for the mathematical formulation of the theory. In that formulation gravitational “potentials” are identified with the “metric of spacetime”. But that does NOT imply that “spacetime” has the same kind of “substantial existence” as “matter”. That is a confusion of ontological categories.
To anyone claiming that SRT and/or GRT are “wrong" I say only this:
Show us; produce for us better theories that account for the same observational data.
Eric Lord | Dear Jim ~
Your hypothetical “what if” questions are easily answered:
Yes, of course I would accept conclusive evidence that anything that seems to me to be true were in fact false!
But faced with conclusive evidence that a well-established explanation of physical phenomena were false I would want to know: What, then, is the true explanation?
Thierry De Mees | Dear all,
There are made quite a lot shocking affirmations here, against all logic.
We are here talking of a thought experiment that has been interpreted as "right", while in fact, all the experiments trying to prove it right are made ad hoc, and many of them besides the theory itself.
Saying : "What, then, is the true explanation?" is not relevant to the dismissal of a wrong theory.
Saying : "Those postulates, and the Lorentz transformation laws they imply, require no “ether”." is not relevant.
Pre-1905 physics has proven over and over that a medium must exist in order to get waves. The only reason to dismiss the aether is the maintenance of the false Galilei relativity principle for more than one reference frame at revelant distances from each-other. There is no proof whatsover.
Now, the relativists try to reverse the requirement of proof. Just because a thought experiment for masses has in fact copied the Liénard-Wiechert equations, which are electromagnetic equations that fully explain all the findings at CERN wrt the velocity of charges. And these relativists don't see any issue in SRT spites that all the proofs are only made for light beams or for charges, not masses!
"...through its interaction with “matter”, the gravitational field causes modifications of measurements of distances and times, deduced from observations of “matter”, which (unlike the observer-dependent “length contractions” and “time dilations” of SRT) are objectively real."
Of course, optical instruments always change the measurements of length and clock tick rates. It is not different for the bending of light by masses, and it is not different if the Doppler effect is involved.
So what? Do we need to make a relativity theory out of every optical instrument? Of course not! The bending of light fits perfectly in the Euclid system with gravitomagnetism!
With best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Jun 10, 2018
Marco Pereira | Here I explained how General Relativists, Epistemologists are discussing how impossible it is to refute General Relativity while EVIDENCE tells everyone otherwise.
The question to be asked is: Do people really want to learn how to comply with Reality or do they just want to talk about Gedanken Experiments ad infinitum and other highfalutin and yet still incorrect arguments?
Is the theory of general relativity incorrect and in need of major adjustments?
Abdul Malek | Dear Eric,
As always, I respect the fact that you make your judgements of things by your own independent intellect; going against the stream if necessary or defying officially accepted notion even those of Einstein. But unfortunately, I (as I said in Dr. Engelhardt’s forum) I do not share your conviction that the theories of relativity have “experimental/observational proofs” in their favour or are valid reflections of objective reality. To make my point clear, I have to temporarily break our agreed upon “truce” to assert again the criteria of positive knowledge (both SRT and GRT fails on that count) and the fact that “Ruling ideas of an epoch are the ideas of its ruling class”. Einstein's theories of relativity are being used as ruling ideas of regressive monopoly capitalism the same way that Ptolemy's Epycycles were used in medieval decadency.
As I asserted many times before, ALL the major experimental “proofs” of the theories of relativity are subjective, contrived and inferred from data signals that are very close to the background electronic noise; were motivated by vested interest groups who commissioned and financed those “proofs” for political/ideological point-scoring. The explanation of spurious 2% or so discrepancy of Mercury’s perihelion advance is even now being paraded (Steven Weinberg- “Dream of a Final Theory) as a major Coup in modern physics; even though (as Dr. Engelhardt has shown ) Einstein’s claim of the derivation of Gerber’s relation from GRT is either erroneous or false. Similar is the case of Authur Eddigton’s “proof” of GR from the bending of star-light that for the first time brought Einstein to fame through newspaper headlines all over the world.and is sustained through many more such claims.
Einstein was deliberately promoted to the role of a Sage (a Hebrew "Chazal" or a Hindu " Maha Rishi") of modern physics by monopoly capitalism in this way. It is obvious if you critically look at the history of the political and scientific developments since the turn of the 20th century. We must bear in mind that science (and technology) after the bourgeois democratic revolution were developed at the behest of the “men of money” whose interest predominantly influenced the practice of science (theoretical physics included) and still does so.
You countered my argument by pointing out that Newton or Einstein were hardly the persons of the ruling class. It is true, they were not; but the ruling idea of an epoch does not necessarily come from the members of the ruling class alone! It can originate from anybody as the “necessity” of the time. If that particular person "Einstein" did not steer physics towards mathematical idealism, someone else would have done it. The ruling idea reflects the “mood” of the particular epoch. More over, Einstein was very ambiguous, inconsistent often contradicting himself (as you yourself point out) surrounded himself with a cloud of mystery and the veneer of a spiritual Guru. This was a bonus for a ruling idea; because anything which is suitable for the ruling interest can be selectively chosen, rejecting the ones that are not. This is what has been done in practice! Einstein’s objection to GW and his grave concern about the validity of “continuous fields” as the basis of objective reality (used in most areas of theoretical physics), for example, are being humiliatingly ignored! Einstein just as a symbol is used to make physics preach theology!
In the same way also, the revolutionary ideas not necessarily always arise from the oppressed class alone. The Rationalists and thinkers of the renaissance (like Voltaire for example) did not belong to the oppressed and working people. Hegel being the official philosopher in the court of Frederick Wilhelm 111 of despotic Prussia, turned out to be the epoch making revolutionary thinker! Best regards, Abdul
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasyl,
I always find your comments addressed to me too obscure in the fashion of modern academic philosophy and your understanding of dialectics really too abstract and inadequate. So, it is difficult for me to respond to your latest post in any meaningful way. It is better if you discuss dialectics in more concrete terms. Hegel, Marx , Engels all talked and used dialectics in the context of history, society, Nature and thought. Engels more than anyone else of the trio, devoted his efforts in using dialectics in natural science.
J.B.S. Haldane., J.D. Bernal, I. Oparin followed Engels’ approach in biology and still being followed for example by Levine, Leontin et al. (“Dialectical Biologists”) at Harvard. Except for some early Japanese theoretical physicists like S. Sakata et al; to my knowledge it is probably only me who is consciously using dialectics in physics at present. If you wish to discuss dialectics with me, it would be better if you take concrete cases from my work, for few of which I have given references in my comments above. Cheers!
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, I am primarily interested in the formalisation and hence logically consistent universal structure of a rational, mechanical understanding of evolutionary process. Separate areas, on which the listed names were focused, are of little interest, except the point of view of the history of science.
Thanks for the interesting list, although I prefer raw information and ideas that, in my opinion, are more harmoniously integrated into a single structure. Biology, astronomy and the rest of sciences in the last 50 years have obtained so much information that these people could only envy us.
Vasyl Komarov | In addition to a series of recent comments.
Abdul: "Materialist dialectics in spite of being the superior form of epistemology, never found its proper long term role in history."
It is the exactly selective ignoring of experience since time of mentioned Gilbert and Popper does not allow to see the logical relations, particularly using classical logic.
The knowledge that so-called revolutions are of a recurring nature already not allows us to say that there is no continuous influence on the process of evolution.
The scientific method has integrated the contradiction due to the idea of axiomatization. It is a dialectical continuous mechanism. Therefore Popper in his lectures argued, criticizing empiricism, that the theory should be put forward as a hypothesis. This means that thinking is primary in relation to qualia. Literally, this means that first a system has to be, the strength of which is refuted through experience of its existence. It's simple and reliable to work in nature thanks to selection, which Manuel constantly talks about. It is necessary just do not narrow focus on the chosen scale of window function in favor of the certain dichotomy from the whole continuous process.
Some actual lecture about logic of the scientific method (falsification via testing of modus ponens conclusions of forwarded hypotheses/axioms), or how contradiction are incorporated in the theories and the whole cumulative formal system of science (Duhem + Quine + Lakatos) is there:
Dialetheic Solutions to the Liar Paradox: on non-classical logic, Curry’s paradox, and modus ponens (in russian Решения парадокса лжеца: о неклассической логике, парадоксе Карри и принципе modus ponens)
Abdul, I have consistently talked about logically related things throughout the thread and even the whole RG discourse, mentioning names, concepts, theories, talking about Lyapunov's exponents here, self-organized criticality or jokingly inserting a link to a tweet with animated gif explaining the native mechanism of invariants...
Excuse, but I should recommend for acquaintance the ideas of Prigogine and the theory of self-organized criticality. Perhaps, then, some of my replicas will become more meaningful. I can not imagine physics after the second half of the twentieth century without the theory of dynamic systems.
(...and excuse for partially off topic, it's all not special about "relativity", but about "effective refutation")
Marco Pereira | Here I explained how General Relativists, Epistemologists are discussing how impossible it is to refute General Relativity while EVIDENCE tells everyone otherwise.
The question to be asked is: Do people really want to learn how to comply with Reality or do they just want to talk about Gedanken Experiments ad infinitum and other highfalutin and yet still incorrect arguments?
Is the theory of general relativity incorrect and in need of major adjustments?
Abdul Malek | Dear Eric,
As always, I respect the fact that you make your judgements of things by your own independent intellect; going against the stream if necessary or defying officially accepted notion even those of Einstein. But unfortunately, I (as I said in Dr. Engelhardt’s forum) I do not share your conviction that the theories of relativity have “experimental/observational proofs” in their favour or are valid reflections of objective reality. To make my point clear, I have to temporarily break our agreed upon “truce” to assert again the criteria of positive knowledge (both SRT and GRT fails on that count) and the fact that “Ruling ideas of an epoch are the ideas of its ruling class”. Einstein's theories of relativity are being used as ruling ideas of regressive monopoly capitalism the same way that Ptolemy's Epycycles were used in medieval decadency.
As I asserted many times before, ALL the major experimental “proofs” of the theories of relativity are subjective, contrived and inferred from data signals that are very close to the background electronic noise; were motivated by vested interest groups who commissioned and financed those “proofs” for political/ideological point-scoring. The explanation of spurious 2% or so discrepancy of Mercury’s perihelion advance is even now being paraded (Steven Weinberg- “Dream of a Final Theory) as a major Coup in modern physics; even though (as Dr. Engelhardt has shown ) Einstein’s claim of the derivation of Gerber’s relation from GRT is either erroneous or false. Similar is the case of Authur Eddigton’s “proof” of GR from the bending of star-light that for the first time brought Einstein to fame through newspaper headlines all over the world.and is sustained through many more such claims.
Einstein was deliberately promoted to the role of a Sage (a Hebrew "Chazal" or a Hindu " Maha Rishi") of modern physics by monopoly capitalism in this way. It is obvious if you critically look at the history of the political and scientific developments since the turn of the 20th century. We must bear in mind that science (and technology) after the bourgeois democratic revolution were developed at the behest of the “men of money” whose interest predominantly influenced the practice of science (theoretical physics included) and still does so.
You countered my argument by pointing out that Newton or Einstein were hardly the persons of the ruling class. It is true, they were not; but the ruling idea of an epoch does not necessarily come from the members of the ruling class alone! It can originate from anybody as the “necessity” of the time. If that particular person "Einstein" did not steer physics towards mathematical idealism, someone else would have done it. The ruling idea reflects the “mood” of the particular epoch. More over, Einstein was very ambiguous, inconsistent often contradicting himself (as you yourself point out) surrounded himself with a cloud of mystery and the veneer of a spiritual Guru. This was a bonus for a ruling idea; because anything which is suitable for the ruling interest can be selectively chosen, rejecting the ones that are not. This is what has been done in practice! Einstein’s objection to GW and his grave concern about the validity of “continuous fields” as the basis of objective reality (used in most areas of theoretical physics), for example, are being humiliatingly ignored! Einstein just as a symbol is used to make physics preach theology!
In the same way also, the revolutionary ideas not necessarily always arise from the oppressed class alone. The Rationalists and thinkers of the renaissance (like Voltaire for example) did not belong to the oppressed and working people. Hegel being the official philosopher in the court of Frederick Wilhelm 111 of despotic Prussia, turned out to be the epoch making revolutionary thinker! Best regards, Abdul
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasyl,
I always find your comments addressed to me too obscure in the fashion of modern academic philosophy and your understanding of dialectics really too abstract and inadequate. So, it is difficult for me to respond to your latest post in any meaningful way. It is better if you discuss dialectics in more concrete terms. Hegel, Marx , Engels all talked and used dialectics in the context of history, society, Nature and thought. Engels more than anyone else of the trio, devoted his efforts in using dialectics in natural science.
J.B.S. Haldane., J.D. Bernal, I. Oparin followed Engels’ approach in biology and still being followed for example by Levine, Leontin et al. (“Dialectical Biologists”) at Harvard. Except for some early Japanese theoretical physicists like S. Sakata et al; to my knowledge it is probably only me who is consciously using dialectics in physics at present. If you wish to discuss dialectics with me, it would be better if you take concrete cases from my work, for few of which I have given references in my comments above. Cheers!
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, I am primarily interested in the formalisation and hence logically consistent universal structure of a rational, mechanical understanding of evolutionary process. Separate areas, on which the listed names were focused, are of little interest, except the point of view of the history of science.
Thanks for the interesting list, although I prefer raw information and ideas that, in my opinion, are more harmoniously integrated into a single structure. Biology, astronomy and the rest of sciences in the last 50 years have obtained so much information that these people could only envy us.
Vasyl Komarov | In addition to a series of recent comments.
Abdul: "Materialist dialectics in spite of being the superior form of epistemology, never found its proper long term role in history."
It is the exactly selective ignoring of experience since time of mentioned Gilbert and Popper does not allow to see the logical relations, particularly using classical logic.
The knowledge that so-called revolutions are of a recurring nature already not allows us to say that there is no continuous influence on the process of evolution.
The scientific method has integrated the contradiction due to the idea of axiomatization. It is a dialectical continuous mechanism. Therefore Popper in his lectures argued, criticizing empiricism, that the theory should be put forward as a hypothesis. This means that thinking is primary in relation to qualia. Literally, this means that first a system has to be, the strength of which is refuted through experience of its existence. It's simple and reliable to work in nature thanks to selection, which Manuel constantly talks about. It is necessary just do not narrow focus on the chosen scale of window function in favor of the certain dichotomy from the whole continuous process.
Some actual lecture about logic of the scientific method (falsification via testing of modus ponens conclusions of forwarded hypotheses/axioms), or how contradiction are incorporated in the theories and the whole cumulative formal system of science (Duhem + Quine + Lakatos) is there:
Dialetheic Solutions to the Liar Paradox: on non-classical logic, Curry’s paradox, and modus ponens (in russian Решения парадокса лжеца: о неклассической логике, парадоксе Карри и принципе modus ponens)
Abdul, I have consistently talked about logically related things throughout the thread and even the whole RG discourse, mentioning names, concepts, theories, talking about Lyapunov's exponents here, self-organized criticality or jokingly inserting a link to a tweet with animated gif explaining the native mechanism of invariants...
Excuse, but I should recommend for acquaintance the ideas of Prigogine and the theory of self-organized criticality. Perhaps, then, some of my replicas will become more meaningful. I can not imagine physics after the second half of the twentieth century without the theory of dynamic systems.
(...and excuse for partially off topic, it's all not special about "relativity", but about "effective refutation")
— ResearchGate. Available from: Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible? [accessed Jun 10, 2018]
Marco Pereira |
"Marco, the Heisenberg uncertainty do not help to create the Universe"
Just because you say so, I will believe it...
Did you ever read about Occam's Razor. What I proposed is the simplest solution.
That is the requirement of Science, to follow the simplest solution that replicates observations.
You, stating that my simplest solution which is pervasive on any quantum system, is not correct does not make any sense, My dear Vasyl
Unless you have a simpler solution, you should refrain to try to correct the simplest one.
Marco Pereira | You seem to be considering that we as observers are relevant to macroscopic physics in a Quantum Mechanical sense. That is an error that seems to be very common. If so, what is the evidence.
Vasyl Komarov | I just pointed to the nature of the QM uncertainty. The Occam's razor, alas, does not allow me to make plans on a knowingly incorrect premise (exchanged cause and consequence). This is too much crazy optimism, which contradicts the hopes to resist in the process of natural selection, if you have a sense of rationality.
I hate to tell you, but you are not coherent. What you say reads like a Mumbo-Jumbo.
Hence:
a) Space Deformation is Quantized (my hypothesis).
b) Quantum Systems obey Heisenberg Principle
-> Initial State could be created by Quantum Fluctuation
Can't you think logically and state your ideas clearly?
Just because you say so, I will believe it...
Did you ever read about Occam's Razor. What I proposed is the simplest solution.
That is the requirement of Science, to follow the simplest solution that replicates observations.
You, stating that my simplest solution which is pervasive on any quantum system, is not correct does not make any sense, My dear Vasyl
Unless you have a simpler solution, you should refrain to try to correct the simplest one.
Marco Pereira | You seem to be considering that we as observers are relevant to macroscopic physics in a Quantum Mechanical sense. That is an error that seems to be very common. If so, what is the evidence.
Vasyl Komarov | I just pointed to the nature of the QM uncertainty. The Occam's razor, alas, does not allow me to make plans on a knowingly incorrect premise (exchanged cause and consequence). This is too much crazy optimism, which contradicts the hopes to resist in the process of natural selection, if you have a sense of rationality.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."Marco Pereira | I asked for evidence because pointing out the nature of QM does not preclude it from being applicable to the Quantum System of Space Deformation. In fact, if the system is quantum (if space deformation is quantized), Heisenberg Principle is applicable.
I hate to tell you, but you are not coherent. What you say reads like a Mumbo-Jumbo.
Hence:
a) Space Deformation is Quantized (my hypothesis).
b) Quantum Systems obey Heisenberg Principle
-> Initial State could be created by Quantum Fluctuation
Can't you think logically and state your ideas clearly?
— ResearchGate. Available from: Project: Expand the Hypergeometrical Universe Standard Model | Update: Why Albert Einstein didn't make any breakthroughs after General Relativity? [accessed Jun 10, 2018]
Jun 11, 2018
Q: Do we need to abandon the Standard Model in physics?
Herb Spencer | Dear Christian and Thierry:
The SRT/LT is only about the relative speed of the Observer's Frame of Reference, NOT the relative motion between two interacting electrons. Einstein invented a mental solution involving magical "rigid" rods and micro-clocks.
WE (humans) can define any scheme we like for our Frames of Reference (FOR) but in the end each of us is stuck in our own PRIVATE FOR. I gave this interpretation a few years ago but few read BIG papers anymore.
Classical Two-Electron Relativistic Dynamics
Ed Gerck | Hello all,
"If one is stationary in the lab frame, and an electron passes by at 0.7c, where c is the speed of light, one can do a Lorentz transformation, which is the correct transformation to use for relativistic speeds, and one can stay at rest at the electron frame, and see the lab passing by at 0.7c in the other direction!
No unphysical mass increase occurs. The relative speed is all that matters, in calculating what changes are seen from the now-movable frame. In the reference frame of the electron, the charge is at rest, and there is no magnetic field. By changing back to the lab frame, the magnetic field appears. This is the physical model, where the B field source becomes the Lorentz transformation of the E field."
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Christian Baumgarten | Herb~
"WE (humans) can define any scheme we like for our Frames of Reference (FOR) but in the end each of us is stuck in our own PRIVATE FOR."
Fully agreed.
"The SRT/LT is only about the relative speed of the Observer's Frame of Reference, NOT the relative motion between two interacting electrons. Einstein invented a mental solution involving magical "rigid" rods and micro-clocks."
Well, nothing in STR says that an electron's FOR can't be considered.
btw: What is "magical" concerning rigid rods?
Herb Spencer | Gentlemen:
The electron interaction only involves the relative velocity and distance between the two electrons themselves at the TWO INSTANTS of interaction AT the two electrons. Third-party observers (like us) can only interfere AFTER the interaction. Again, I give details in my UET series of papers but few will have time to read these 'Monsters' in a time of intense professional competition when only adding some 'Bricks to the Wall of Orthodoxy' get published. For time-stressed readers checkout page 84 below.
Classical Two-Electron Relativistic Dynamics
Herb Spencer | Dear Christian:
Rigid Rods was another of Einstein's bizarre imaginary inventions that have NO reality, where Zillions of crystallized atoms are needed in real rods. There are finite internal propagation effects needed to move a finite displacement from one end of a rod to another [Drat! there goes another simplification: simultaneity.]
[see my UET4 p. 47].
Classical Two-Electron Relativistic Dynamics
Christian Baumgarten | Herb~
"Rigid Rods was another of Einstein's bizarre imaginary inventions that have NO reality, where Zillions of crystallized atoms are needed in real rods."
Well, I agree insofar as they are an imaginary invention, kindof Newton's axioms of absolute space and time, but not worse than those. Btw, Einstein himself noted the arbitrariness of inventing "self-sufficient" clocks and rods.
I thought quite long about it and I believe that this question has significance. It's subtle in detail, but in a short summary of summary, it concerns the trivial but evident requirement that any thinkable "physical reality" must by definition provide constant quantities as references for measurements, or more generally, for perception.
See my pubs
Article Minkowski Spacetime and QED from Ontology of Time
Article Old Game, New Rules: Rethinking the Form of Physics
and
Article The Final Theory of Physics -a Tautology?
for a more detailed account of my position towards this invention.
Ed Gerck | Hello Christian and all,
Let us think of it a bit more, I suggest. Is it true that although any thinkable "physical reality" must by definition provide constant quantities as references for measurements, or more generally, for perception, that any Frame Of Reference (FOR) is actually needed? No matter what FOR as reference you choose, the end result must be the same. Thus, there must be an inner cancellation mechanism at play.
The answer for that inner cancellation mechanism was already found, centuries ago, and the result is that in NO situation except time (yet, see [1]) we need "constant quantities as references for measurements, or more generally, for perception". Einstein had to use it in GR, and it was due to Gauss originally, in differential geometry.
That answer became important on the Internet, where NO "constant quantities as references for measurements, or more generally, for perception" can be ever found! See my RG page, for more details on the Internet significance and its use as a perfect physical isolator of actions, showing quantum behavior.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
[1] Research: Do we have a physical model for the quantization of time?
Ed Gerck | Hello Christian and all,
You wrote, "Fully agreed", to "WE (humans) can define any scheme we like for our Frames of Reference (FOR) but in the end each of us is stuck in our own PRIVATE FOR."
This is not true, we (humans, qua thought) can go to any reference frame we want, for examples, to that of an electron moving at 0.7c to us, to a neutrino leaving the Bubble Nebula 8,000 light-years way, or even to non-physical ones, as in Feynman Diagrams, and calculate physically significant results; they are not wild dreams or speculation!
Reference frame transformations is one of the most useful tools for any physicst, and very visual, leading to some of the simplest physical models, such as given by my quoted comment above, in 2 paragraphs and no explicit math, instead of 3 Mb files:
"...where the B field source becomes the Lorentz transformation of the E field."
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Q: Do we need to abandon the Standard Model in physics?
Herb Spencer | Dear Christian and Thierry:
The SRT/LT is only about the relative speed of the Observer's Frame of Reference, NOT the relative motion between two interacting electrons. Einstein invented a mental solution involving magical "rigid" rods and micro-clocks.
WE (humans) can define any scheme we like for our Frames of Reference (FOR) but in the end each of us is stuck in our own PRIVATE FOR. I gave this interpretation a few years ago but few read BIG papers anymore.
Classical Two-Electron Relativistic Dynamics
Ed Gerck | Hello all,
"If one is stationary in the lab frame, and an electron passes by at 0.7c, where c is the speed of light, one can do a Lorentz transformation, which is the correct transformation to use for relativistic speeds, and one can stay at rest at the electron frame, and see the lab passing by at 0.7c in the other direction!
No unphysical mass increase occurs. The relative speed is all that matters, in calculating what changes are seen from the now-movable frame. In the reference frame of the electron, the charge is at rest, and there is no magnetic field. By changing back to the lab frame, the magnetic field appears. This is the physical model, where the B field source becomes the Lorentz transformation of the E field."
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Christian Baumgarten | Herb~
"WE (humans) can define any scheme we like for our Frames of Reference (FOR) but in the end each of us is stuck in our own PRIVATE FOR."
Fully agreed.
"The SRT/LT is only about the relative speed of the Observer's Frame of Reference, NOT the relative motion between two interacting electrons. Einstein invented a mental solution involving magical "rigid" rods and micro-clocks."
Well, nothing in STR says that an electron's FOR can't be considered.
btw: What is "magical" concerning rigid rods?
Herb Spencer | Gentlemen:
The electron interaction only involves the relative velocity and distance between the two electrons themselves at the TWO INSTANTS of interaction AT the two electrons. Third-party observers (like us) can only interfere AFTER the interaction. Again, I give details in my UET series of papers but few will have time to read these 'Monsters' in a time of intense professional competition when only adding some 'Bricks to the Wall of Orthodoxy' get published. For time-stressed readers checkout page 84 below.
Classical Two-Electron Relativistic Dynamics
Herb Spencer | Dear Christian:
Rigid Rods was another of Einstein's bizarre imaginary inventions that have NO reality, where Zillions of crystallized atoms are needed in real rods. There are finite internal propagation effects needed to move a finite displacement from one end of a rod to another [Drat! there goes another simplification: simultaneity.]
[see my UET4 p. 47].
Classical Two-Electron Relativistic Dynamics
Christian Baumgarten | Herb~
"Rigid Rods was another of Einstein's bizarre imaginary inventions that have NO reality, where Zillions of crystallized atoms are needed in real rods."
Well, I agree insofar as they are an imaginary invention, kindof Newton's axioms of absolute space and time, but not worse than those. Btw, Einstein himself noted the arbitrariness of inventing "self-sufficient" clocks and rods.
I thought quite long about it and I believe that this question has significance. It's subtle in detail, but in a short summary of summary, it concerns the trivial but evident requirement that any thinkable "physical reality" must by definition provide constant quantities as references for measurements, or more generally, for perception.
See my pubs
Article Minkowski Spacetime and QED from Ontology of Time
Article Old Game, New Rules: Rethinking the Form of Physics
and
Article The Final Theory of Physics -a Tautology?
for a more detailed account of my position towards this invention.
Ed Gerck | Hello Christian and all,
Let us think of it a bit more, I suggest. Is it true that although any thinkable "physical reality" must by definition provide constant quantities as references for measurements, or more generally, for perception, that any Frame Of Reference (FOR) is actually needed? No matter what FOR as reference you choose, the end result must be the same. Thus, there must be an inner cancellation mechanism at play.
The answer for that inner cancellation mechanism was already found, centuries ago, and the result is that in NO situation except time (yet, see [1]) we need "constant quantities as references for measurements, or more generally, for perception". Einstein had to use it in GR, and it was due to Gauss originally, in differential geometry.
That answer became important on the Internet, where NO "constant quantities as references for measurements, or more generally, for perception" can be ever found! See my RG page, for more details on the Internet significance and its use as a perfect physical isolator of actions, showing quantum behavior.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
[1] Research: Do we have a physical model for the quantization of time?
Ed Gerck | Hello Christian and all,
You wrote, "Fully agreed", to "WE (humans) can define any scheme we like for our Frames of Reference (FOR) but in the end each of us is stuck in our own PRIVATE FOR."
This is not true, we (humans, qua thought) can go to any reference frame we want, for examples, to that of an electron moving at 0.7c to us, to a neutrino leaving the Bubble Nebula 8,000 light-years way, or even to non-physical ones, as in Feynman Diagrams, and calculate physically significant results; they are not wild dreams or speculation!
Reference frame transformations is one of the most useful tools for any physicst, and very visual, leading to some of the simplest physical models, such as given by my quoted comment above, in 2 paragraphs and no explicit math, instead of 3 Mb files:
"...where the B field source becomes the Lorentz transformation of the E field."
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Jun 12, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, logic of abstract reference frames ends where interaction takes place, for example, where logic of abstract Feymann diagrams take place.
To be closer to reality it is necessary to treat reference frames in thinking same as continuous vector field associated with each distinguishable material objects piece, but people often in thinking place the whole world in each of them, forgetting what clock synchronization means and coherence are.
By the way, this is one of the biggest logical pitfalls associated with the abstract essence of reference frames, which often catch antagonists of the theory of relativity, when they try to find a contradiction through a mental experiment with moving towards each other frames of reference.
Reality is characterized by the continuity of the structure, speaking of the rays of light it is impossible to avoid the abstraction of the Feynman diagram. And frames pass through each other only in the absence of interaction. But in this case there is nothing to talk about sinchronisation and the whole theory of relativity :)
NB: Reference frames of the theory of relativity in principle can not pass through each other with full coincidence of origins, since this means the combination of pair of material objects at single point in space and time (it is exactly what people have fun building the LHC.) RFs are in principle not applicable to empty space, not applicable to space, only to objects!
A completely non-abstract term "event" corresponds the situation, which exactly coincide with sense of term "event" of theory of relativity (since the emission of a photon is an event in accordance with the Feynman diagram too).
Ed Gerck | Hello Vasyl and all,
My posting is hereby confirmed. Btw, you may take a look into quaternions as a reference frame in 3D rotations, and the absence of a gimball lock they offer, that's why no one uses Euler angles for videogame programming in 3D, for example. Some reference frames, like 3 Euler angles, cannot describe the whole reality that, nonetheless, exists. But, if they can, the results must coincide, and that is a sign all is OK
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Ed Gerck | Hello all,
An example where changing reference frames works, showing that there is no limitation of interactions at all?
Even when lots of interactions take place, and the observer can go forth and back, or non-physical events can happen (as long as it is not revealed "how to do it" by the observer), even become two observers in faster-than-light (FTL) communication by some hypothetical means, or somehow go back in time and see it twice or 1,000,000 times in different positions, an example is offered by the-often-misexplained bouncing ball experiment.
A slide presentation and a video are available at
Data LJL 2-Gerck-BigIdeas PhysicsBiology
I will likely abstain from further answers on this topic, please, or origin of magnetism (I hereby confirm, the simplest model says that the B field source is the Lorentz transformation of the E field), or SR, or Lorentz transformation, time dilation, but future papers in my lab may revisit them, if some not known explanation is needed.
Therefore, please keep the questions coming if you think they are important or new, but I will likely not repeat answers, especially already given in this thread, or debate what is, in my view, a settled question. This also leaves more space for others to expound their view.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Manuel S Morales | Ed, please define what "interactions" mean in the SM?
Ed Gerck | Hello Manuel,
I see that you have not yet corrected misquoting my words, even though I have (rightly!) requested it. Apologies if you have edited your posting meanwhile.
Regarding your question on the definition of "interactions" in the SM, my opinion (physicists of other schools of thought may disagree) is that you can use whatever you prefer, as long as you have some testable link or testable absence of a link between them.
For example: causality, correlation, synchronicity, or just chance, or absence of, in some model. It does not have to be a physically describable model, or else we could only describe what we know, not what we know we ignore, and not what we ignore we ignore.
As a physicist, my first question is the later point, looking first into what interactions I ignore I ignore, and I do not work with or formulate a hypothesis at first... Of course, this is important when looking for dark matter/energy.
This method of treating interactions, reduces, but does not eliminate, bias. See my presentations on the Scientific Method, where it is also explained that a YES in science should be seen as NOT YET FALSE, and a NO as MAYBE FALSE Truth is not provable by science, even though we use science to successfully, albeit limitedly, look for truth.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Christian Baumgarten | Ed~
"This is not true, we (humans, qua thought) can go to any reference frame we want, ..."
Well, this is what I described as "considering".
"That answer became important on the Internet, where NO "constant quantities as references for measurements, or more generally, for perception" can be ever found! "
Don't know what you mean by finding "on the internet". Maybe you misunderstood me? Any arbitrary measurement of any arbitrary physical quantity always requires a "reference", namely a unit. If it does not, then it is by definition not a physical quantity. You can measure a length as 3.14159 meter or some time interval to be 42 seconds, but you can't measure "3" and say that this is a physical quantity.
It has been shown that modern physics contains enough conversion factors (c, hbar, e...) such that every quantity can be expressed in units of time (i.e. frequency, i.e. energy). Consequently any arbitrary positive definite constant quantity suffices to provide a reference. But we have to presume that it is a constant (unless our measurements are meaningless) and I argued in the above mentioned papers that it must be a constant of motion. This alone suffices to formulate a Hamiltonian theory in any thinkable physical world. That is, the "laws of physics" are (logically, conceptually) a consequence of constants of motion, not vice versa.
There is no demon or higher being that wrote down "laws of physics" and all natural objects obey "magically". The believe in "laws" is superstition.
Ed Gerck | Hello Christian,
Thank you. By finding "on the Internet" I tried to qualify that a "reference" refers to a coordinate, a position, such as "a reference point". But if you want to also include a unit, a quantity, as being a "reference" then you run the risk of not being understood:
"There are two classes of units in the SI: base units and derived units. The base units provide the reference used to define all the measurement units of the system, whilst the derived units are products of base units and are used as measures of derived quantities....".
Usually, we reserve the word "unit" for that, a quantity not a position, as we can see above, where the word "reference" is also used, but not with the same meaning as "unit", and that is why it can be used in the same sentence, above, distinguishing "reference units" from "derived units". We should not overload them.
So, in my reply, I used the word "reference" as a position, as in "the reference used to provide a measurement", not as a "unit" as "a quantity chosen as a standard in terms of which other quantities may be expressed".
Now, if we use the word reference in that precise meaning, not as a quantity, but as a position, then our postings are speaking of different things. I suggest this simple distinction may have been the disconnect between us, now overcome.
If that is agreed, which is irrelevant now as we notice it, we can focus on what you mean, rather than what you said.
The Planck system has no units, where c = 1, a dimensionless and exact number, and it is useful because it makes (e.g.) the units of electric field E and magnetic field B be exactly the same! This is an important hint, to consider the source of all magnetic fields B exactly as the Lorentz transformation of the electric field E. The word "reference" cannot be used in this context, in lieu of "unit".
I talked about the Internet as a measurement system, in defining references when no reference is possible, but it offers also another challenge on defining units --as one would want to, conventionaly, but it is truly impossible. Yet, measurements are made every second, nothing goes unmeasured on the Internet, believe me (and, more importantly, the IETF protocols).
In conclusion,
1. defining a unit (as a quantity) is not needed in a physical measurement system (Planck) nor on cyberspace (Internet);
2. defining a reference (as a position) is not needed either, in both cases.
It may turn out to be turtles all the way down... or, we live in a reality bubble, sustained all by itself, no longer in the objectively fictitious but subjectively comforting space and time of Newtonian mechanics.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Vasyl Komarov | Trying to focus on one side of the problem, usually (afterwards, after quickly writing something) one can catch oneself, that the chosen illustrative example allows an ambiguous interpretation from the other end.
Of course, no one forbids to choose RF in such a way that the material object (or the observer) with which associated will be not in its center. This does not negate the fact that the rest of the world will be accessible in this frame through interaction only. This is the meaning of the fact that the frame of reference is a mental abstract construction. Nobody forbids to prolonge it asymptotically, representing abstract infinite three-dimensional Euclidean space. All reality just is projected into this virtual space (of interpretation) through interactions that are the (incoming) cause of perception.
As a result, of course, we can easily assume two intersecting at certain points (mental construction) coordinate systems (here we should dive to the understanding of problem of clock synchronization and simultaneity, as usual) - with the same success two virtual realities exchanging information can coincide, in both sandboxes of which this intersection is simulated (what is literally equal to mental experiments on both sides) - the usual situation of multiplayer computer games.
The main principal and obvious thing in all my arguments and examples is topological gap between objects in space (and time), which distinguishes parts of interacting systems, allowing to speak about two frames of reference within finite "field of vision" (what does not contradict the SM). All that I have said is just an attempt to demonstrate trough my understanding the literal meaning of locality via illustrative examples.
Ed, it is noteworthy that you are paying attention to the universal nature of the transformations that are applicable in this case to the mental construction (reference frames). This raises a related question concerning the understanding of the physical place of mental (thinking) processes and laws that allow formalism in the structure of reality. I often talk about this, but the prevailing majority of people tend to talk about mathematics stereotypically, as an instrument that miraculously works outside the reality, and which can be selectively applied to elements of reality, where it is convenient or understandable, without worrying how the brain must topologically form a linked structure that guarantees the functioning of the relationships of formalism itself, and how this ensures the observance of mathematical laws by physical nature.
It is noteworthy that there are problems like hinged lock in the rotation hierarchy with loss of information about degrees of freedom for three-dimensional space, is noteworthy that quaternions have such interesting properties with respect to (including spatial) transformations, it is noteworthy that finite-dimensional associative algebras with division over the field of real numbers terminated on 4, it is noteworthy that the "complete" properties of scale invariance for this dimension number of the structure of the degrees of freedom in nature is, it is noteworthy that the critical state is characterized by scale invariance, etc., etc.
My opinion, as to the topic. The standard model is the same manifestation of listed (and many not mentioned native patterns of topological relations), in spite of the fact that it is also a mental construction, i.e. formal representation of the limited part of their structure. No matter how the physics will be developed, it must harmoniously include this system of interrelations, at least, explaining its origin, i.e. causes. Your view of what is called dark matter certainly implies kind of belief, which is definitely biased (inertia of thinking too tied to the categories of SM), what causes contradictory emotions in relation to the stated topic. The forces associated with rotation are much easier to explain in the case of the Universe with integral structure. It is much easier to get into a dead end by losing the causes in this matter via empowering reference frame idea with some fundamental properties (there on RG a person promoting the "theory of reference frames" already is).
As for the mental experiment concerned the absence of speed limits, I still do not see any global signs of violation of cause-effect relationships, their logic is more significant than the logic of hypothetical experiments (for reasons already listed above - there is a large "arbitrariness for fantasy" over four degrees of freedom, unfortunately, with a loss to have a reverse effect on the existing reality). Known experiments with entanglement (in my opinion) still allow a logically consistent explanation that does not violate cause-effect relationships. Although the standard model definitely is not sufficient for these purposes, since, same as with problems of rotation, the principle of locality must be invariantly expanded to the scale of the Universe for ability of its integrity.
And, I do not understand "non-physical event" (it is beyond my rational limit as far as I have no any qualia, that I can not relate to what I understand as reality and realism, I associate myself with holistic understanding of reality).
{Последнее утверждение следует рассматривать в контексте обсуждения аксиомы выбора. Это взаимосвязанные проблемы.}
Christian Baumgarten | Ed~
Thanks for clarifying. I admit that I did not express myself precisely enough.
"In conclusion, defining a unit (as a quantity) is not needed in a physical measurement system (Planck) nor on cyberspace."
It is unclear to me what can be measured in physics without using units in the sense I mentioned. Can you give an example?
Ed Gerck | Hello Vasyl and all,
You wrote an important contribution to this debate, and I would just add two points.
1. Belief, in my understading and as used before, is the probabability that events support the claim. This definition renders discussion properly intersubjective, and communicable, to acquire objectivity. If not, we just stay in the subjective area, potentially incommunicado, and forget about objectivity. Both are useful.
2. The term "non-physical event" is used frequently with Feynman Diagrams, for example, and simply means something we cannot explain (yet, or never...) but is supposed ("if") to exist. Most physicists are willing to accept the existence of things that cannot be proven. Most mathematicians are willing to accept the existence of things without any relation to phenomena — e.g.things that we, at present, cannot observe or construct in the physical world. Whether or not we can observe something directly, contemplating its possible existence and reference frames may allow us to understand how it might play a role in how the world works.
For it is impossible for science to pursue the truth, because we do not know where truth is and so we have to base ourselves on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. This, of course, can lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements can never be confused with truth.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Ed Gerck | Hello Christian and all,
You asked, "It is unclear to me what can be measured in physics without using units in the sense I mentioned. Can you give an example?"
Short answer: any quantized system, e.g., the Lyman alpha spectrum lines are the same, irrespective of units or position; c=1 in Planck notation (there are actually no "Planck units"); strangeness applied to quarks; any apparently divergent system; length; time; energy; momentum; and so on. In all these systems, the metric can be local (in the mathematical sense) and NOT constant, yet a physical result can be measured.
As another example, consider the "correct order of operations" to interpret a mathematical expression such as "2+3 * 5". This is a human convention. It has nothing to do with logic or "right". The concept of "order of operations" or units is not intrinsic to the structure of physics or mathematics, but rather to mathematical notation. Take, for example, "2+3×5". If you would use an HP calculator (with RPN) you would have "235×+" as the correct order, from left to right. The same applies to units, metaphorically. Modern handheld calculators, such as TI Nspire CAS, can calculate correctly the units mixed in a sum, without pre-conversion to the same units, mixing feet with meters. Multivectors can do the same but with dimensions, in Clifford algebra, as you know well, adding together volume and area, z.B.
Longer answer: following, mutatis mutandis, what was measured and verified on the Internet protocols as a quantum-like system, and computer science [1], as a draft (comments welcome):
For two elements in interaction, consider that all possible measurement patterns fall in two models: extrinsic and intrinsic, with a combined mode.
Known measurement patterns in physics tend to correspond to the extrinsic model -- which depends on references that are extrinsic to the current interaction, with measurements that must be relative to a third-element or past events.
The intrinsic model is a new pattern that can be found even in many extrinsic model systems. The intrinsic model was motivated by the Internet as presenting an absolute barrier in non-physical, quantum-like systems. It depends on references and units that are intrinsic to the current iinteraction, with a metric obtained by measurements that rely upon intrinsic proofs.
The combined mode is also a new pattern, affording a "learning mode", which allows the controlled use of extrinsic references. Extrinsic references are to be seen as "unsafe" in the sense of security.
It is possible to prove, using Information Theory, that multiple independent real-time channels of information can allow an arbitrarily high level of reliability and fault-tolerance to be reached in intrinsic certification procedures even in the presence of malicious interference, without hierarchy or central control of any kind. The same can apply for combined but not for extrinsic measurement procedures.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
[1] Certification: Extrinsic, Intrinsic and Combined [accessed Jun 12 2018].
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, logic of abstract reference frames ends where interaction takes place, for example, where logic of abstract Feymann diagrams take place.
To be closer to reality it is necessary to treat reference frames in thinking same as continuous vector field associated with each distinguishable material objects piece, but people often in thinking place the whole world in each of them, forgetting what clock synchronization means and coherence are.
By the way, this is one of the biggest logical pitfalls associated with the abstract essence of reference frames, which often catch antagonists of the theory of relativity, when they try to find a contradiction through a mental experiment with moving towards each other frames of reference.
Reality is characterized by the continuity of the structure, speaking of the rays of light it is impossible to avoid the abstraction of the Feynman diagram. And frames pass through each other only in the absence of interaction. But in this case there is nothing to talk about sinchronisation and the whole theory of relativity :)
NB: Reference frames of the theory of relativity in principle can not pass through each other with full coincidence of origins, since this means the combination of pair of material objects at single point in space and time (it is exactly what people have fun building the LHC.) RFs are in principle not applicable to empty space, not applicable to space, only to objects!
A completely non-abstract term "event" corresponds the situation, which exactly coincide with sense of term "event" of theory of relativity (since the emission of a photon is an event in accordance with the Feynman diagram too).
Ed Gerck | Hello Vasyl and all,
My posting is hereby confirmed. Btw, you may take a look into quaternions as a reference frame in 3D rotations, and the absence of a gimball lock they offer, that's why no one uses Euler angles for videogame programming in 3D, for example. Some reference frames, like 3 Euler angles, cannot describe the whole reality that, nonetheless, exists. But, if they can, the results must coincide, and that is a sign all is OK
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Ed Gerck | Hello all,
An example where changing reference frames works, showing that there is no limitation of interactions at all?
Even when lots of interactions take place, and the observer can go forth and back, or non-physical events can happen (as long as it is not revealed "how to do it" by the observer), even become two observers in faster-than-light (FTL) communication by some hypothetical means, or somehow go back in time and see it twice or 1,000,000 times in different positions, an example is offered by the-often-misexplained bouncing ball experiment.
A slide presentation and a video are available at
Data LJL 2-Gerck-BigIdeas PhysicsBiology
I will likely abstain from further answers on this topic, please, or origin of magnetism (I hereby confirm, the simplest model says that the B field source is the Lorentz transformation of the E field), or SR, or Lorentz transformation, time dilation, but future papers in my lab may revisit them, if some not known explanation is needed.
Therefore, please keep the questions coming if you think they are important or new, but I will likely not repeat answers, especially already given in this thread, or debate what is, in my view, a settled question. This also leaves more space for others to expound their view.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Manuel S Morales | Ed, please define what "interactions" mean in the SM?
Ed Gerck | Hello Manuel,
I see that you have not yet corrected misquoting my words, even though I have (rightly!) requested it. Apologies if you have edited your posting meanwhile.
Regarding your question on the definition of "interactions" in the SM, my opinion (physicists of other schools of thought may disagree) is that you can use whatever you prefer, as long as you have some testable link or testable absence of a link between them.
For example: causality, correlation, synchronicity, or just chance, or absence of, in some model. It does not have to be a physically describable model, or else we could only describe what we know, not what we know we ignore, and not what we ignore we ignore.
As a physicist, my first question is the later point, looking first into what interactions I ignore I ignore, and I do not work with or formulate a hypothesis at first... Of course, this is important when looking for dark matter/energy.
This method of treating interactions, reduces, but does not eliminate, bias. See my presentations on the Scientific Method, where it is also explained that a YES in science should be seen as NOT YET FALSE, and a NO as MAYBE FALSE Truth is not provable by science, even though we use science to successfully, albeit limitedly, look for truth.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Christian Baumgarten | Ed~
"This is not true, we (humans, qua thought) can go to any reference frame we want, ..."
Well, this is what I described as "considering".
"That answer became important on the Internet, where NO "constant quantities as references for measurements, or more generally, for perception" can be ever found! "
Don't know what you mean by finding "on the internet". Maybe you misunderstood me? Any arbitrary measurement of any arbitrary physical quantity always requires a "reference", namely a unit. If it does not, then it is by definition not a physical quantity. You can measure a length as 3.14159 meter or some time interval to be 42 seconds, but you can't measure "3" and say that this is a physical quantity.
It has been shown that modern physics contains enough conversion factors (c, hbar, e...) such that every quantity can be expressed in units of time (i.e. frequency, i.e. energy). Consequently any arbitrary positive definite constant quantity suffices to provide a reference. But we have to presume that it is a constant (unless our measurements are meaningless) and I argued in the above mentioned papers that it must be a constant of motion. This alone suffices to formulate a Hamiltonian theory in any thinkable physical world. That is, the "laws of physics" are (logically, conceptually) a consequence of constants of motion, not vice versa.
There is no demon or higher being that wrote down "laws of physics" and all natural objects obey "magically". The believe in "laws" is superstition.
Ed Gerck | Hello Christian,
Thank you. By finding "on the Internet" I tried to qualify that a "reference" refers to a coordinate, a position, such as "a reference point". But if you want to also include a unit, a quantity, as being a "reference" then you run the risk of not being understood:
"There are two classes of units in the SI: base units and derived units. The base units provide the reference used to define all the measurement units of the system, whilst the derived units are products of base units and are used as measures of derived quantities....".
Usually, we reserve the word "unit" for that, a quantity not a position, as we can see above, where the word "reference" is also used, but not with the same meaning as "unit", and that is why it can be used in the same sentence, above, distinguishing "reference units" from "derived units". We should not overload them.
So, in my reply, I used the word "reference" as a position, as in "the reference used to provide a measurement", not as a "unit" as "a quantity chosen as a standard in terms of which other quantities may be expressed".
Now, if we use the word reference in that precise meaning, not as a quantity, but as a position, then our postings are speaking of different things. I suggest this simple distinction may have been the disconnect between us, now overcome.
If that is agreed, which is irrelevant now as we notice it, we can focus on what you mean, rather than what you said.
The Planck system has no units, where c = 1, a dimensionless and exact number, and it is useful because it makes (e.g.) the units of electric field E and magnetic field B be exactly the same! This is an important hint, to consider the source of all magnetic fields B exactly as the Lorentz transformation of the electric field E. The word "reference" cannot be used in this context, in lieu of "unit".
I talked about the Internet as a measurement system, in defining references when no reference is possible, but it offers also another challenge on defining units --as one would want to, conventionaly, but it is truly impossible. Yet, measurements are made every second, nothing goes unmeasured on the Internet, believe me (and, more importantly, the IETF protocols).
In conclusion,
1. defining a unit (as a quantity) is not needed in a physical measurement system (Planck) nor on cyberspace (Internet);
2. defining a reference (as a position) is not needed either, in both cases.
It may turn out to be turtles all the way down... or, we live in a reality bubble, sustained all by itself, no longer in the objectively fictitious but subjectively comforting space and time of Newtonian mechanics.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Vasyl Komarov | Trying to focus on one side of the problem, usually (afterwards, after quickly writing something) one can catch oneself, that the chosen illustrative example allows an ambiguous interpretation from the other end.
Of course, no one forbids to choose RF in such a way that the material object (or the observer) with which associated will be not in its center. This does not negate the fact that the rest of the world will be accessible in this frame through interaction only. This is the meaning of the fact that the frame of reference is a mental abstract construction. Nobody forbids to prolonge it asymptotically, representing abstract infinite three-dimensional Euclidean space. All reality just is projected into this virtual space (of interpretation) through interactions that are the (incoming) cause of perception.
As a result, of course, we can easily assume two intersecting at certain points (mental construction) coordinate systems (here we should dive to the understanding of problem of clock synchronization and simultaneity, as usual) - with the same success two virtual realities exchanging information can coincide, in both sandboxes of which this intersection is simulated (what is literally equal to mental experiments on both sides) - the usual situation of multiplayer computer games.
The main principal and obvious thing in all my arguments and examples is topological gap between objects in space (and time), which distinguishes parts of interacting systems, allowing to speak about two frames of reference within finite "field of vision" (what does not contradict the SM). All that I have said is just an attempt to demonstrate trough my understanding the literal meaning of locality via illustrative examples.
Ed, it is noteworthy that you are paying attention to the universal nature of the transformations that are applicable in this case to the mental construction (reference frames). This raises a related question concerning the understanding of the physical place of mental (thinking) processes and laws that allow formalism in the structure of reality. I often talk about this, but the prevailing majority of people tend to talk about mathematics stereotypically, as an instrument that miraculously works outside the reality, and which can be selectively applied to elements of reality, where it is convenient or understandable, without worrying how the brain must topologically form a linked structure that guarantees the functioning of the relationships of formalism itself, and how this ensures the observance of mathematical laws by physical nature.
It is noteworthy that there are problems like hinged lock in the rotation hierarchy with loss of information about degrees of freedom for three-dimensional space, is noteworthy that quaternions have such interesting properties with respect to (including spatial) transformations, it is noteworthy that finite-dimensional associative algebras with division over the field of real numbers terminated on 4, it is noteworthy that the "complete" properties of scale invariance for this dimension number of the structure of the degrees of freedom in nature is, it is noteworthy that the critical state is characterized by scale invariance, etc., etc.
My opinion, as to the topic. The standard model is the same manifestation of listed (and many not mentioned native patterns of topological relations), in spite of the fact that it is also a mental construction, i.e. formal representation of the limited part of their structure. No matter how the physics will be developed, it must harmoniously include this system of interrelations, at least, explaining its origin, i.e. causes. Your view of what is called dark matter certainly implies kind of belief, which is definitely biased (inertia of thinking too tied to the categories of SM), what causes contradictory emotions in relation to the stated topic. The forces associated with rotation are much easier to explain in the case of the Universe with integral structure. It is much easier to get into a dead end by losing the causes in this matter via empowering reference frame idea with some fundamental properties (there on RG a person promoting the "theory of reference frames" already is).
As for the mental experiment concerned the absence of speed limits, I still do not see any global signs of violation of cause-effect relationships, their logic is more significant than the logic of hypothetical experiments (for reasons already listed above - there is a large "arbitrariness for fantasy" over four degrees of freedom, unfortunately, with a loss to have a reverse effect on the existing reality). Known experiments with entanglement (in my opinion) still allow a logically consistent explanation that does not violate cause-effect relationships. Although the standard model definitely is not sufficient for these purposes, since, same as with problems of rotation, the principle of locality must be invariantly expanded to the scale of the Universe for ability of its integrity.
And, I do not understand "non-physical event" (it is beyond my rational limit as far as I have no any qualia, that I can not relate to what I understand as reality and realism, I associate myself with holistic understanding of reality).
{Последнее утверждение следует рассматривать в контексте обсуждения аксиомы выбора. Это взаимосвязанные проблемы.}
Christian Baumgarten | Ed~
Thanks for clarifying. I admit that I did not express myself precisely enough.
"In conclusion, defining a unit (as a quantity) is not needed in a physical measurement system (Planck) nor on cyberspace."
It is unclear to me what can be measured in physics without using units in the sense I mentioned. Can you give an example?
Ed Gerck | Hello Vasyl and all,
You wrote an important contribution to this debate, and I would just add two points.
1. Belief, in my understading and as used before, is the probabability that events support the claim. This definition renders discussion properly intersubjective, and communicable, to acquire objectivity. If not, we just stay in the subjective area, potentially incommunicado, and forget about objectivity. Both are useful.
2. The term "non-physical event" is used frequently with Feynman Diagrams, for example, and simply means something we cannot explain (yet, or never...) but is supposed ("if") to exist. Most physicists are willing to accept the existence of things that cannot be proven. Most mathematicians are willing to accept the existence of things without any relation to phenomena — e.g.things that we, at present, cannot observe or construct in the physical world. Whether or not we can observe something directly, contemplating its possible existence and reference frames may allow us to understand how it might play a role in how the world works.
For it is impossible for science to pursue the truth, because we do not know where truth is and so we have to base ourselves on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. This, of course, can lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements can never be confused with truth.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
Ed Gerck | Hello Christian and all,
You asked, "It is unclear to me what can be measured in physics without using units in the sense I mentioned. Can you give an example?"
Short answer: any quantized system, e.g., the Lyman alpha spectrum lines are the same, irrespective of units or position; c=1 in Planck notation (there are actually no "Planck units"); strangeness applied to quarks; any apparently divergent system; length; time; energy; momentum; and so on. In all these systems, the metric can be local (in the mathematical sense) and NOT constant, yet a physical result can be measured.
As another example, consider the "correct order of operations" to interpret a mathematical expression such as "2+3 * 5". This is a human convention. It has nothing to do with logic or "right". The concept of "order of operations" or units is not intrinsic to the structure of physics or mathematics, but rather to mathematical notation. Take, for example, "2+3×5". If you would use an HP calculator (with RPN) you would have "235×+" as the correct order, from left to right. The same applies to units, metaphorically. Modern handheld calculators, such as TI Nspire CAS, can calculate correctly the units mixed in a sum, without pre-conversion to the same units, mixing feet with meters. Multivectors can do the same but with dimensions, in Clifford algebra, as you know well, adding together volume and area, z.B.
Longer answer: following, mutatis mutandis, what was measured and verified on the Internet protocols as a quantum-like system, and computer science [1], as a draft (comments welcome):
For two elements in interaction, consider that all possible measurement patterns fall in two models: extrinsic and intrinsic, with a combined mode.
Known measurement patterns in physics tend to correspond to the extrinsic model -- which depends on references that are extrinsic to the current interaction, with measurements that must be relative to a third-element or past events.
The intrinsic model is a new pattern that can be found even in many extrinsic model systems. The intrinsic model was motivated by the Internet as presenting an absolute barrier in non-physical, quantum-like systems. It depends on references and units that are intrinsic to the current iinteraction, with a metric obtained by measurements that rely upon intrinsic proofs.
The combined mode is also a new pattern, affording a "learning mode", which allows the controlled use of extrinsic references. Extrinsic references are to be seen as "unsafe" in the sense of security.
It is possible to prove, using Information Theory, that multiple independent real-time channels of information can allow an arbitrarily high level of reliability and fault-tolerance to be reached in intrinsic certification procedures even in the presence of malicious interference, without hierarchy or central control of any kind. The same can apply for combined but not for extrinsic measurement procedures.
Cheers, Ed Gerck
[1] Certification: Extrinsic, Intrinsic and Combined [accessed Jun 12 2018].
Jun 13, 2018
Eric Lord | Dear Christian ~
“It is unclear to me what can be measured in physics without using units in the sense I mentioned. Can you give an example?”
The ratio of the mass of a proton to the mass of an electron; the ratio of the electric charges on two objects; the ratio of a period of time to the tick of a clock; the ratio of the speed of an object to the speed of light; the fine structure constant; etc, etc. These are all dimensionless numbers, independent of any particular system of units. Every measurements in physics is in that sense a dimensionless number that expresses an intrinsic property of a pair of compared quantities. A “system of units” is an expedient but arbitrary choice of a set of quantities with which to compare other physical quantites of the same kind. The results of measurements expressed in that chosen system are ratios − ie., dimensionless numbers.
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Eric~
Ratios are trivially possible as they include the "unit" for free. But a ratio is a numerical quantity, not a physical quantity. A physical quantity is an amount of something (eggs, socks, mass). The fine-structure-constant is a physical parameter - it is certainly not an amount of something.
If we think about fundamental physics (and it seems this is the topic), then we need to think systematically, in the right order. Before we measure some quantity (weight, time, distance) we have to define a corresponding unit (rods, clocks) - not only "in principle", but in reality. Einstein knew this.
Christian Baumgarten | Ed~
"You asked, "It is unclear to me what can be measured in physics without using units in the sense I mentioned. Can you give an example?"
Short answer: any quantized system, e.g., the Lyman alpha spectrum lines are the same, irrespective of units or position; c=1 in Planck notation (there are actually no "Planck units"); strangeness applied to quarks; any apparently divergent system; length; time; energy; momentum; and so on. In all these systems, the metric can be local (in the mathematical sense) and NOT constant, yet a physical result can be measured."
Any quantized system? Aha, you think that counting is not measuring? If a farmer makes an inventory of his animals, you think 15-30-23 would suffice to characterize the result (instead of 15 pigs, 30 chickens, 23 cows)? Certainly not. Any result of any quantification requires a reference or unit. "15-30-23" are just numbers and, without reference, contains no information whatsoever. To say that we can measure ratios as numbers confirms what I say because ratios have their reference build in (are relative).
And in order to have a meaningful result, the unit (reference) must be constant enough that someone else can reproduce your result (using the same unit). How can this be controversial at all?
Christian Baumgarten | @All
The key point why I insist on (constant) units is that Einstein's rod must by itself be explainable by the "laws of physics" and, since no one believes that a rigid rod of constant length is a fundamental thing, then
"one should always be aware that the presupposition of the existence in principle of rigid rods is a presupposition suggested by approximate experience but is, in principle, arbitrary." (Einstein)
But, in fact, one can also draw a different, more simple, conclusion: By using reference quantities like rigid rods, we (maybe unknowingly) presume the existence of certain constants of motion. Since a rod is (as we now know) a complicated collection of atoms and molecules subject to continuous motion, then its length can, quite obviously, be regarded as a constant of motion. Once this is understood, we can continue with the self-deception and demand that the constants of motion which we implicitly presumed from the beginning, should emerge from the so-called "physical laws" or, alternatively we can reduce the amount of unjustifiable assumptions (axioms) and derive the "laws of physics" from those assumptions we have to make anyway, namely from constants of motion. I prefer the latter approach and I showed (in the mentioned papers) that this leads right away to the Hamiltonian formalism and, combined with other formal considerations, to the Dirac equation. This does not solve any world riddle but it clarifies what exactly the riddle is.
(...)
Eric Lord | Dear Christian ~
“It is unclear to me what can be measured in physics without using units in the sense I mentioned. Can you give an example?”
The ratio of the mass of a proton to the mass of an electron; the ratio of the electric charges on two objects; the ratio of a period of time to the tick of a clock; the ratio of the speed of an object to the speed of light; the fine structure constant; etc, etc. These are all dimensionless numbers, independent of any particular system of units. Every measurements in physics is in that sense a dimensionless number that expresses an intrinsic property of a pair of compared quantities. A “system of units” is an expedient but arbitrary choice of a set of quantities with which to compare other physical quantites of the same kind. The results of measurements expressed in that chosen system are ratios − ie., dimensionless numbers.
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Eric~
Ratios are trivially possible as they include the "unit" for free. But a ratio is a numerical quantity, not a physical quantity. A physical quantity is an amount of something (eggs, socks, mass). The fine-structure-constant is a physical parameter - it is certainly not an amount of something.
If we think about fundamental physics (and it seems this is the topic), then we need to think systematically, in the right order. Before we measure some quantity (weight, time, distance) we have to define a corresponding unit (rods, clocks) - not only "in principle", but in reality. Einstein knew this.
Christian Baumgarten | Ed~
"You asked, "It is unclear to me what can be measured in physics without using units in the sense I mentioned. Can you give an example?"
Short answer: any quantized system, e.g., the Lyman alpha spectrum lines are the same, irrespective of units or position; c=1 in Planck notation (there are actually no "Planck units"); strangeness applied to quarks; any apparently divergent system; length; time; energy; momentum; and so on. In all these systems, the metric can be local (in the mathematical sense) and NOT constant, yet a physical result can be measured."
Any quantized system? Aha, you think that counting is not measuring? If a farmer makes an inventory of his animals, you think 15-30-23 would suffice to characterize the result (instead of 15 pigs, 30 chickens, 23 cows)? Certainly not. Any result of any quantification requires a reference or unit. "15-30-23" are just numbers and, without reference, contains no information whatsoever. To say that we can measure ratios as numbers confirms what I say because ratios have their reference build in (are relative).
And in order to have a meaningful result, the unit (reference) must be constant enough that someone else can reproduce your result (using the same unit). How can this be controversial at all?
Christian Baumgarten | @All
The key point why I insist on (constant) units is that Einstein's rod must by itself be explainable by the "laws of physics" and, since no one believes that a rigid rod of constant length is a fundamental thing, then
"one should always be aware that the presupposition of the existence in principle of rigid rods is a presupposition suggested by approximate experience but is, in principle, arbitrary." (Einstein)
But, in fact, one can also draw a different, more simple, conclusion: By using reference quantities like rigid rods, we (maybe unknowingly) presume the existence of certain constants of motion. Since a rod is (as we now know) a complicated collection of atoms and molecules subject to continuous motion, then its length can, quite obviously, be regarded as a constant of motion. Once this is understood, we can continue with the self-deception and demand that the constants of motion which we implicitly presumed from the beginning, should emerge from the so-called "physical laws" or, alternatively we can reduce the amount of unjustifiable assumptions (axioms) and derive the "laws of physics" from those assumptions we have to make anyway, namely from constants of motion. I prefer the latter approach and I showed (in the mentioned papers) that this leads right away to the Hamiltonian formalism and, combined with other formal considerations, to the Dirac equation. This does not solve any world riddle but it clarifies what exactly the riddle is.
(...)
Jun 14, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, thank you for clarifying the meaning of "non-physical event", Google does not want to show anything adequately related, when I've successfully slept most of the lectures of QM, what was a long time ago.
Hence, the sentence should be understood as an idiom, the literal meaning of which {semantic} I still do not like, because
1) the application of it to an event that manifests itself in some way in the observations can not be called unphysical regardless of understanding,
2) case of hypothetical assumption implies understanding a priori, then it should be regarded as an unconfirmed probable physical event,
3) the assumption of an event that does not in principle provide a connection with reality should not be considered as event.
The latter option requires explanation, since from my point of view (and from the standpoint of information theory and rational reason) isolated system (any event in it) is impossible, in the sense that such a system does not exist for us in principle (does not interact!) With such a system even mental experiment is impossible.
For example, content of the so called black hole in the information sense, even in the modern popular understandings, can not be called an isolated system, even if we discard the very idea of looking inside with the help of invariants, since it interacts and we know about it.
As for the unitless quantities: "in general, dimensionless quantities are scale invariant." This is an important point, if we recall the significance of invariance. To my mind (and the experience of the theory of similarity), the question of "physical" units must ultimately be reduced to a minimal semantic remainder (better to say, a basis), which we yet can not close with self-reference. With complete closure (perhaps this is the case of the theory which tends to the final theory, or (even unreachable) final theory itself), non-abstract (not dimensionless) units must be completely ousted by inner and self-circular interrelations of the theory. What does not eliminate the problem of the semantics of abstract elements that support self-reference (incompleteness of any formalism), i.e. problem of life of the theory, describing reality, within reality, or problem of existence in general.
The mathematical (or even in general) formalism is almost scale-invariant, may be with exception of the Cantor's hypothesis C set (most likely, it is an occasion for thinking about holism and the integrity of reality for us). This formalism allows (with partial losing of semantics) a literal invariant loss or doubling of the degrees of freedom (integration and differentiation), the same trend traceable for all couplings (from numbers of similarity of continuous medium to the field gauge idea). But is it a loss or inavoidable functional connection (conservative determinism which unites all the degrees of freedom in the holistic C)?
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, thank you for clarifying the meaning of "non-physical event", Google does not want to show anything adequately related, when I've successfully slept most of the lectures of QM, what was a long time ago.
Hence, the sentence should be understood as an idiom, the literal meaning of which {semantic} I still do not like, because
1) the application of it to an event that manifests itself in some way in the observations can not be called unphysical regardless of understanding,
2) case of hypothetical assumption implies understanding a priori, then it should be regarded as an unconfirmed probable physical event,
3) the assumption of an event that does not in principle provide a connection with reality should not be considered as event.
The latter option requires explanation, since from my point of view (and from the standpoint of information theory and rational reason) isolated system (any event in it) is impossible, in the sense that such a system does not exist for us in principle (does not interact!) With such a system even mental experiment is impossible.
For example, content of the so called black hole in the information sense, even in the modern popular understandings, can not be called an isolated system, even if we discard the very idea of looking inside with the help of invariants, since it interacts and we know about it.
As for the unitless quantities: "in general, dimensionless quantities are scale invariant." This is an important point, if we recall the significance of invariance. To my mind (and the experience of the theory of similarity), the question of "physical" units must ultimately be reduced to a minimal semantic remainder (better to say, a basis), which we yet can not close with self-reference. With complete closure (perhaps this is the case of the theory which tends to the final theory, or (even unreachable) final theory itself), non-abstract (not dimensionless) units must be completely ousted by inner and self-circular interrelations of the theory. What does not eliminate the problem of the semantics of abstract elements that support self-reference (incompleteness of any formalism), i.e. problem of life of the theory, describing reality, within reality, or problem of existence in general.
The mathematical (or even in general) formalism is almost scale-invariant, may be with exception of the Cantor's hypothesis C set (most likely, it is an occasion for thinking about holism and the integrity of reality for us). This formalism allows (with partial losing of semantics) a literal invariant loss or doubling of the degrees of freedom (integration and differentiation), the same trend traceable for all couplings (from numbers of similarity of continuous medium to the field gauge idea). But is it a loss or inavoidable functional connection (conservative determinism which unites all the degrees of freedom in the holistic C)?
— ResearchGate. Available from: Do we need to abandon the Standard Model in physics? [accessed Jun 14, 2018]
21 лип. 2018 р.
13:50 | Целый пласт вопросов давно стал бессмысленным, как и рассуждения о другой физике в "параллельных" вселенных или том, что наша физика предопределена была моментом большого взрыва, а не потенциальными конфигурациями абстрактных соотношений причинно-следственных связей.
Реально только то, что возможно. Можно даже добавить, - возможно алгоритмически.
Q: Do irrational numbers exist in nature?
A: Are yours and my brains and bodies exist in nature, your and my arguments about irrational numbers are the physical processes in which?
The banal question has a banal answer.
In reality, in which I exist, the answer is obvious and unambiguous. Otherwise physical processes in dynamic systems will not be able to go through algorithms associated with irrational numbers, including your and my thinking processes about.
NB: In general, the answer should be sought not in acts of measurement, which are algorithmically finite. — Vasyl Komarov, Jul 21, 2018 [Available from ResearchGate]
A: If the algorithm is realized by a dynamical system having Turing completeness, it is realized physically. The literal sense of my answer was contained in a counter question: How you, as a representative of humanity, operate in the mind? I'm not inclined to separate the processes of thinking from reality in the same way as I'm not inclined to think about a soul that is separate from reality.
Dear Andre, an infinite and any cyclical process for a dynamical system requires irrational numbers including, as well as the existence of conservation laws on the same range.
A physical understanding of memory that can store irrational values is another matter (in fact, the problem also is reflected in the incompressibility of the Chaitin's numbers), which is related (equivalent) to the question of understanding the structure of reality.
Here we can recall the meaning of the number e (including Lyapunov exponentials for the dynamical system), obviously, any cyclic processes can easily cope with irrational numbers, otherwise mankind would not know about the pi, e... I'm afraid, in the case question of the existence of reality and us (as part of it) would not be on the agenda in principle.
NB: Please pay attention, the dynamic system (our bodies, for example) is more then a turing machine (in the abstract concept of which there is no energy aspect of the head movement, semantics and, accordingly, the external environment of the system) or any other (limited!) model - does not mean equality with yet another model.
In my understanding the model (in general) is just a similarity of processes by a limited set of parameters for two or more dynamic systems, which are subsystems of a connected structure - similarity means invariance, from here the portability (more precisely, the preservation) of the structure between systems comes, which is the essence of memory in the dissipative structure of reality.
It is impossible to talk about anything formal, ignoring semantics and information carriers, which realize the process of "talking" (whether it's homo sapiens, hardware-software implementation of the modern computer, etc. - physical structures).
imho — Vasyl Komarov, Jul 21, 2018 [Available from ResearchGate]
Jul 30, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, you once again unwittingly (speaking of the "first cause") set out the essence of the axiomatic method. It is for this reason I do not see the semantic difference between the words "axiom" and "dogma."
The only thing that distinguishes the actual researcher is - whether he doubt in all (without exception) own axioms, do he/she realize that all of them beyond the limits of his/her personal life-limited experience are in the status of hypotheses with various degrees of contradiction in relation to the whole (together taken) reality.
Moving away from the extreme fanatism (or infantile credulity) to the stage of complete doubt, it is possible (with full responsibility and in a clear consciousness) to declare only that "I am definitely a believer and I understand it (so I do not believe a single statement, regardless of the source of its origin, even if I successfully used it once again)" - this is the only thing the actual researcher can be completely sure of.
This paradoxical status of superposition is a normal state of agnosticism and falsificationism - a simple and obvious thing (maybe one of my favorite quote ever):
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul Malek, my comment here was also aimed more at "official" science. I agreed with your words almost, only added a little about the reasons and that we should also be critical to ourselves - drew attention that you, in fact, voiced the problem of circular reasoning in induction, what can not be avoided anywhere because of the mentioned "axioms".
I do not challenge you on the question of God, I just noted that issue from the standpoint of logic and rationalism should be postponed without a solution - nothing in this issue can be done within framework of critical thinking that is available now. Moreover, even two people discussing God necessarily face the problem of synchronizing the extremely wide semantics related to this meme.
As for the "root cause", I do not like the word "first" as its usual semantics does not digest infinity [unlimited system], what can be an easy trap for thinking. God is the easiest answer historically in the case, and because of the obvious self-reference it is a yet another circular argument and good example of the trap. His problem same as problem of the Big Bang theory is - in both cases there is a 100% non-alternative fact (of a creation or already existence - it is no matter), but from the point of view of the logic of cause-effect relations almost any causal prehistory of this fact can be replaced almost consistently by a (hypotetical) spontaneous act that really took place (similar to jump to initial address within computer memory, which CPU do not take into account of user, who pressed RESET button or any other cause of jump).
The logic of spontaneity is groundless in these cases and can not exceed 50% (for the actual binary opposition). In addition to the fact that the definition of spontaneity literally covers everything that does not depend on us and what we can not explain (both can have causes) - statistical incomings are not synonimous to spontaneity and does not provide a guaranteed understanding or the absence of causes.
Fortunately, such a cut-off can not be made for completely evolutionary process, which can be described self-referentially, what is clearly traced. Self-referencing transparently hints that spontaneity is no more than convenient excuse to termination of something without further explanation (i.e. forced limitation of a process).
The overwhelming majority of God's concepts are not able to resolve self-referencing (all naive cosmogony are easily crushed by it) and can be taken seriously only if we turn a blind eye to the various inconsistencies with a world that is accessible to us sensorily. To find the complete "root cause" within the framework of self-reference is impossible (in an infinite unlimited world this question will always be beyond any volume of knowledge and duration of cognitive process) even with "cheating" (see nota bene below).
NB: "Proud natural science" always been "begging at the door" even in those times when did not realize this, because inductive proofs by empirical evidence can not be.
I certainly can be called a fan of uniformitarianism, but I realize well that it is impossible to overcome self-referencing (constancy of causality) without "cheating". I do not think that there is another way except "axioms" to overcome irreversibility and move "against the tide".
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, you once again unwittingly (speaking of the "first cause") set out the essence of the axiomatic method. It is for this reason I do not see the semantic difference between the words "axiom" and "dogma."
The only thing that distinguishes the actual researcher is - whether he doubt in all (without exception) own axioms, do he/she realize that all of them beyond the limits of his/her personal life-limited experience are in the status of hypotheses with various degrees of contradiction in relation to the whole (together taken) reality.
Moving away from the extreme fanatism (or infantile credulity) to the stage of complete doubt, it is possible (with full responsibility and in a clear consciousness) to declare only that "I am definitely a believer and I understand it (so I do not believe a single statement, regardless of the source of its origin, even if I successfully used it once again)" - this is the only thing the actual researcher can be completely sure of.
This paradoxical status of superposition is a normal state of agnosticism and falsificationism - a simple and obvious thing (maybe one of my favorite quote ever):
When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. Like Dante,NB: By the way, for this reason Einstein in mature age like Darwin's bulldog referred himself to agnostics (My position concerning God is that of an agnostic), and for the same reason a deliberately categorical answer about the absence of God can not be found in his words.
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
Mi ritrovai per una selva oscura,
but, unlike Dante, I cannot add,
Che la diritta via era smarrita.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul Malek, my comment here was also aimed more at "official" science. I agreed with your words almost, only added a little about the reasons and that we should also be critical to ourselves - drew attention that you, in fact, voiced the problem of circular reasoning in induction, what can not be avoided anywhere because of the mentioned "axioms".
I do not challenge you on the question of God, I just noted that issue from the standpoint of logic and rationalism should be postponed without a solution - nothing in this issue can be done within framework of critical thinking that is available now. Moreover, even two people discussing God necessarily face the problem of synchronizing the extremely wide semantics related to this meme.
As for the "root cause", I do not like the word "first" as its usual semantics does not digest infinity [unlimited system], what can be an easy trap for thinking. God is the easiest answer historically in the case, and because of the obvious self-reference it is a yet another circular argument and good example of the trap. His problem same as problem of the Big Bang theory is - in both cases there is a 100% non-alternative fact (of a creation or already existence - it is no matter), but from the point of view of the logic of cause-effect relations almost any causal prehistory of this fact can be replaced almost consistently by a (hypotetical) spontaneous act that really took place (similar to jump to initial address within computer memory, which CPU do not take into account of user, who pressed RESET button or any other cause of jump).
The logic of spontaneity is groundless in these cases and can not exceed 50% (for the actual binary opposition). In addition to the fact that the definition of spontaneity literally covers everything that does not depend on us and what we can not explain (both can have causes) - statistical incomings are not synonimous to spontaneity and does not provide a guaranteed understanding or the absence of causes.
Fortunately, such a cut-off can not be made for completely evolutionary process, which can be described self-referentially, what is clearly traced. Self-referencing transparently hints that spontaneity is no more than convenient excuse to termination of something without further explanation (i.e. forced limitation of a process).
The overwhelming majority of God's concepts are not able to resolve self-referencing (all naive cosmogony are easily crushed by it) and can be taken seriously only if we turn a blind eye to the various inconsistencies with a world that is accessible to us sensorily. To find the complete "root cause" within the framework of self-reference is impossible (in an infinite unlimited world this question will always be beyond any volume of knowledge and duration of cognitive process) even with "cheating" (see nota bene below).
NB: "Proud natural science" always been "begging at the door" even in those times when did not realize this, because inductive proofs by empirical evidence can not be.
I certainly can be called a fan of uniformitarianism, but I realize well that it is impossible to overcome self-referencing (constancy of causality) without "cheating". I do not think that there is another way except "axioms" to overcome irreversibility and move "against the tide".
"The method of ‘postulating’ what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil."
— Russell, Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, 1919, p 71.
— ResearchGate. Available from {disclaimer}: Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: Does God exist? [accessed Jul 30, 2018]
9 серп. 2018 р.
22:56 | Наличие инварианта, между прочим, в рамках гипотезы позволяет продолжить хорошую традицию с принципом эквивалентности, учитывая тотальную универсальность механизма памяти на инвариантах для самоорганизующихся структур динамических систем, установив прямое соответствие между информацией (в виде топологии произвольной структуры) и энергией (необходимой для переноса этой информации).
Надо это осмыслить и корректно сформулировать (осмыслив и сам процесс обработки информации с энергетической точки зрения). И ещё, здесь также должна быть прямая связь с энтропией.
Практически, ничего оригинального - прямая необходимость сохранения законов сохранения на всех масштабах; т.е. прямое следствие cause invariance. Убедительных примеров обратного (другими словами, нарушения необратимости) пока не наблюдается, а интуитивно - вряд-ли они когда либо будут (как и путешествия во времени).
23:04 | Равенство {возможность сопоставить количественно} с энергией есть прямое следствие того, что всякий "стабильный" или "статический" материальный объект является динамической структурой.
Aug 31, 2018
Q: Is physics necessarily empiricist?
Madhusudhana Kamath | In my opinion, all the science hypotheses are empirical one! when they turn nonempirical one only during development of null hypotheses.
Regards
Dr. Kamath Madhusudhana
Vasyl Komarov | So the general idea of spontaneity is a pure H_0 for the whole science: it is high time for quantum physics to be concerned about enviable prospects in the realm of connectivity.
Q: Is physics necessarily empiricist?
Madhusudhana Kamath | In my opinion, all the science hypotheses are empirical one! when they turn nonempirical one only during development of null hypotheses.
Regards
Dr. Kamath Madhusudhana
Vasyl Komarov | So the general idea of spontaneity is a pure H_0 for the whole science: it is high time for quantum physics to be concerned about enviable prospects in the realm of connectivity.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Is physics necessarily empiricist? [accessed Aug 31, 2018]
Sep 3, 2018
Q: What is the dimensionality of spacetime?
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Ioan,
The critical state of a dynamical system for which there are still cyclic orbits in the phase space, but also an active evolution with a complication of the structure, is characterized by a set of degrees of freedom somewhere in the neighborhood of percolation constant. This is a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of self-organized criticality; an obligatory condition for the existence of us as part of reality. Hence, the conclusion about the infinite dimensionality of space is inevitable, and, of course, this is a characteristic of the Multiverse. The critical state is characterized by scale invariance, traces of which are easily detected in all areas, for example, all sorts of gauge theories rely on this, processes in biological systems, etc. So, reasoning about integer finite dimensionality are meaningless, even computers in such a world would not be possible.
Christian Baumgarten | Dear All,
the "dimension of space-time" is essentially not a property of some fictious non-entity called space-time, but a property of the "dominant" (i.e. electromagnetic) interaction.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Ioan, as for the topic header, I think it will be interesting for you to read about Cayley and Klein ideas:
An eye as the tool of a choice of the Euclidean metric for the description of real physical space
It is even not about dimensionality (that we perceive through a receivier of same nature), it is rather about the kind of space.
Comprehension of the problem together with problems of cyclic orbits of dynamic systems raise even more serious and reasonable consequences for understanding - awareness of the illusory nature of the abstract concept of a point of space. Cyclic orbits (which are equivalent to the appropriate attractions in the system) are enough; then, just dynamic of pure hypergeometry (not curved space with placed objects) is the case. Perceived linearity of structures associated with "discreteness" (cycles) is a separate question.
NB: The continuum, apparently, is similar to the scenery in the theater, which presentable from the visible side only: only what interacts is exist, wherever we look, feel it, or think about it, it always gives the impression of something solid - this forms our natural habitual feeling of macroworld illusion. Interaction is the essence of connectivity/continuity.
Q: What is the dimensionality of spacetime?
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Ioan,
The critical state of a dynamical system for which there are still cyclic orbits in the phase space, but also an active evolution with a complication of the structure, is characterized by a set of degrees of freedom somewhere in the neighborhood of percolation constant. This is a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of self-organized criticality; an obligatory condition for the existence of us as part of reality. Hence, the conclusion about the infinite dimensionality of space is inevitable, and, of course, this is a characteristic of the Multiverse. The critical state is characterized by scale invariance, traces of which are easily detected in all areas, for example, all sorts of gauge theories rely on this, processes in biological systems, etc. So, reasoning about integer finite dimensionality are meaningless, even computers in such a world would not be possible.
Christian Baumgarten | Dear All,
the "dimension of space-time" is essentially not a property of some fictious non-entity called space-time, but a property of the "dominant" (i.e. electromagnetic) interaction.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Ioan, as for the topic header, I think it will be interesting for you to read about Cayley and Klein ideas:
An eye as the tool of a choice of the Euclidean metric for the description of real physical space
It is even not about dimensionality (that we perceive through a receivier of same nature), it is rather about the kind of space.
Comprehension of the problem together with problems of cyclic orbits of dynamic systems raise even more serious and reasonable consequences for understanding - awareness of the illusory nature of the abstract concept of a point of space. Cyclic orbits (which are equivalent to the appropriate attractions in the system) are enough; then, just dynamic of pure hypergeometry (not curved space with placed objects) is the case. Perceived linearity of structures associated with "discreteness" (cycles) is a separate question.
NB: The continuum, apparently, is similar to the scenery in the theater, which presentable from the visible side only: only what interacts is exist, wherever we look, feel it, or think about it, it always gives the impression of something solid - this forms our natural habitual feeling of macroworld illusion. Interaction is the essence of connectivity/continuity.
Sep 4, 2018
Ioan. Hadjidakis | Dear all,
As we should have realized the issue is still open, though nobody feels comfortable to talk about it and tries to transfer the discussion to advanced incomprehensible areas of modern science (e.g. mathematics).
Please put forward to this thread (again if necessary) whether a strong argument against (2+1)D spacetime, compared to (3+1)D spacetime, has expressed here or elsewhere.
@ Ed Gerck : “This was said and done long ago, it is not a matter of research anymore, nor questions in RG, not even in history.”, “The answer is, the dimensionality of spacetime is >=4D.”, or historical evidences do not sound as strong arguments for spacetime 4D dimentionality. I am not a specialist (and do not want either) to be able to deepen into this kind of fields (quaternions, Clifford algebras, ...).
@ Vasyl Fedorovych Komarov : (as a non mathematician, I would try to express my reservations to some points of your reply, to the extend I am able to understand of what you are saying) The different phases within phase space correspond to different entities that could be in cyclic orbit according to the conditions applied (e.g. gas-liquid). Each of these entities exist within spacetime of a certain dimensionality. If we try to represent all of them together, at the same time, within the same reference system we are not dealing with spacetime anymore but an arbitrary reference system of properties, that may include as many properties/dimensions we like.
“The critical state is characterized by scale invariance” This is not so, e.g. liquid needs a certain number of gas(molecules) in order to be characterized as liquid, the same with solid in liquid-solid phase system.
Why: Is it “an obligatory condition for the existence of us as part of reality”, or “the infinite dimensionality of space is inevitable”, or “even computers in such a world would not be possible.”?
@ Christian Baumgarten : Are “interactions” (“dominant” or not) entities by their own, or they relate entities (the second)? Are these entities, interactions are dealing with, have space and time properties as dominant ones (yes)? Where these properties are referred to (spacetime, fictitious or NOT)?
@ Dwight Hoxie : “The three dimensionality of the space we occupy together with the addition of time appears to be a necessary and sufficient condition for there to be a Universe like our own. Abbott's "Flatland" does not provide a viable living space.” Time is included to the three dimensions of space (and not “... with the addition of time ...”). We occupy a 2D space that is changing with time and becomes a 3D. Is there any sound argument against it? It is sometime useful to remember the pre-Einstein point of view but the notion of physical reality tries to change since then.
PS: I think, advanced mathematical theoretical structures obscure the issue, even more if they do not serve to a solution to an existed problem. I may be wrong and science (as a try to explain Nature) is a matter of specialists that could discuss only among themselves.
Ioan. Hadjidakis | Dear all,
As we should have realized the issue is still open, though nobody feels comfortable to talk about it and tries to transfer the discussion to advanced incomprehensible areas of modern science (e.g. mathematics).
Please put forward to this thread (again if necessary) whether a strong argument against (2+1)D spacetime, compared to (3+1)D spacetime, has expressed here or elsewhere.
@ Ed Gerck : “This was said and done long ago, it is not a matter of research anymore, nor questions in RG, not even in history.”, “The answer is, the dimensionality of spacetime is >=4D.”, or historical evidences do not sound as strong arguments for spacetime 4D dimentionality. I am not a specialist (and do not want either) to be able to deepen into this kind of fields (quaternions, Clifford algebras, ...).
@ Vasyl Fedorovych Komarov : (as a non mathematician, I would try to express my reservations to some points of your reply, to the extend I am able to understand of what you are saying) The different phases within phase space correspond to different entities that could be in cyclic orbit according to the conditions applied (e.g. gas-liquid). Each of these entities exist within spacetime of a certain dimensionality. If we try to represent all of them together, at the same time, within the same reference system we are not dealing with spacetime anymore but an arbitrary reference system of properties, that may include as many properties/dimensions we like.
“The critical state is characterized by scale invariance” This is not so, e.g. liquid needs a certain number of gas(molecules) in order to be characterized as liquid, the same with solid in liquid-solid phase system.
Why: Is it “an obligatory condition for the existence of us as part of reality”, or “the infinite dimensionality of space is inevitable”, or “even computers in such a world would not be possible.”?
@ Christian Baumgarten : Are “interactions” (“dominant” or not) entities by their own, or they relate entities (the second)? Are these entities, interactions are dealing with, have space and time properties as dominant ones (yes)? Where these properties are referred to (spacetime, fictitious or NOT)?
@ Dwight Hoxie : “The three dimensionality of the space we occupy together with the addition of time appears to be a necessary and sufficient condition for there to be a Universe like our own. Abbott's "Flatland" does not provide a viable living space.” Time is included to the three dimensions of space (and not “... with the addition of time ...”). We occupy a 2D space that is changing with time and becomes a 3D. Is there any sound argument against it? It is sometime useful to remember the pre-Einstein point of view but the notion of physical reality tries to change since then.
PS: I think, advanced mathematical theoretical structures obscure the issue, even more if they do not serve to a solution to an existed problem. I may be wrong and science (as a try to explain Nature) is a matter of specialists that could discuss only among themselves.
Sep 7, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Ioan, under phase space I used the common meaning from theory of dynamic systems - that is, space of states of the system. For an unclosed system, it evolves along with the system, in fact, it is an extended phase space.
Any phase transitions, including (thermodynamic), of course, are directly related to changes in the degrees of freedom of the system and, accordingly, to the rearrangement of topology, but I meant common mechanism.
For example, if the rails is bent at point - this will lead to the catastrophe, the transition between rails with jump of the second derivative (from the straight line to the circle) can be easily felt with the body being in the train by sudden occurrence of acceleration, the third derivative in kinematics is called a jerk, what on good railroad track must be also taken into account - the question of the kind of manifestation of a phase transition for mechanical system is only a matter of how we, as an observers, are related to the changing degrees of freedom: something is noticeable, on something the existence of the structure of our order of complexity seriously depends (the constancy of blood temperature, etc.), something is very dangerous and leads to dissipation of the most higher levels of order (transition to the ionized state of the plasma, for example). The mankind is an extremely fine-tuned ordered superstructure on a huge (or may be it is better to say, complete) list of critical parameters.
As for the space-time - it is a matter of specific parameters undergoing a change. Obviously, this should affect all possible order parameters that are hierarchically dependent on the degrees of freedom undergoing drastic change. It is obvious that for an ordered structure of a human it is better not to experience this particular transition (at least in one of the ways).
It is difficult to discuss this if you have narrowed attention to a very limited ontology localized within the demarcation of the physics section.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Ioan, under phase space I used the common meaning from theory of dynamic systems - that is, space of states of the system. For an unclosed system, it evolves along with the system, in fact, it is an extended phase space.
Any phase transitions, including (thermodynamic), of course, are directly related to changes in the degrees of freedom of the system and, accordingly, to the rearrangement of topology, but I meant common mechanism.
For example, if the rails is bent at point - this will lead to the catastrophe, the transition between rails with jump of the second derivative (from the straight line to the circle) can be easily felt with the body being in the train by sudden occurrence of acceleration, the third derivative in kinematics is called a jerk, what on good railroad track must be also taken into account - the question of the kind of manifestation of a phase transition for mechanical system is only a matter of how we, as an observers, are related to the changing degrees of freedom: something is noticeable, on something the existence of the structure of our order of complexity seriously depends (the constancy of blood temperature, etc.), something is very dangerous and leads to dissipation of the most higher levels of order (transition to the ionized state of the plasma, for example). The mankind is an extremely fine-tuned ordered superstructure on a huge (or may be it is better to say, complete) list of critical parameters.
As for the space-time - it is a matter of specific parameters undergoing a change. Obviously, this should affect all possible order parameters that are hierarchically dependent on the degrees of freedom undergoing drastic change. It is obvious that for an ordered structure of a human it is better not to experience this particular transition (at least in one of the ways).
It is difficult to discuss this if you have narrowed attention to a very limited ontology localized within the demarcation of the physics section.
— ResearchGate. Available from: What is the dimensionality of spacetime? [accessed Sep 7, 2018]
Sep 15, 2018
Q: Can the Universe be finite and unbounded and still be Euclidean?
Vasyl Komarov | Mustafa, you should add to the reasoning the problem of possibility of an infinite unitary evolution. For an infinite (Euclidean) space, this is a logical necessity. The initial point of existence is incompatible with an infinite connected space, while the evolutionary (exponential) process always passes through 1. Of course, there is always the possibility to add spontaneity to space, which automatically calls into question the very possibility of the existence of conservation laws in the universe under consideration - compromise here is not rational.
Mustafa Ali Khan | Vasyl Fedorovych Komarov: Great! these are the kind of answers I am looking for. creative, unconventional, unique. these answers will help me in my own thinking about this question. the bookish answers I can read on my own and have done it. I got this idea and wanted to share with others and see what they think. thanks.
Abdul Malek | Physics, mathematics, theology and conventional philosophy, which are based on the world view of causality (or what Hegel called the “view of understanding”) cannot comprehend the Infinite and hence is incapable of giving an answer to this question one way or the other. Physicist Einstein (like others of the above mentioned disciplines) assumed a finite universe to formulate his theories of relativity. Modern physicists like Max Tegmark of Harvard thinks that the word “infinite” as a scientific idea is “ready for retirement") ! What scientific idea is ready for retirement?
For modern mathematics, the Infinite is a "dangerous idea", because it is the “twin of Zero or vice versa” (Charles Seife)! Giordano Bruno was burnt on the Stake by the Inquisition; for insisting that the universe is infinite etc., etc.
But long before Professors Einstein, Tegmark et al., Immanuel Kant based on the world view of causality came across this question of finite or infinite universe as one of his famous antinomies. He showed conclusively (based on causality) that both sides of this antinomy can be showed to be equally true and equally false through logical argument alone! So, causality based natural science, mathematics, philosophy, theology etc., can keep on arguing forever (as is foolishly done in modern theoretical physics in relation to the various aspects of the theories of relativity, questions of multi-verses etc.), without coming to any conclusion!
Only a dialectical world view can give an understanding of the finite and the infinite as a contradiction (of the “unity of the opposites”); and the continuous and never-ending resolution of this contradiction through evolution giving rise to the phenomenology of the Infinite universe. But this means ditching all causality and mathematical idealism based Einsteinian concept of a created universe, Big Bang origin, “inflation”, “expansion” etc. in the dust bin of history, because in an infinite universe these terms of modern physics has no meaning!
The key to the understanding of the Infinite came with the profound idea of Spinoza about “limit”, which helped Hegel to formulate the dialectical view - the contradiction of the unity of the opposite of the finite and the Infinite. Spinoza formulated the principle that “all determination is negation”. To determine a thing is to cut it off (to negate it) from other things and so to limit it. To define a thing is to set boundary for it. The Infinite in this view is therefore “undetermined”or “undefined”, but in another sense is “self-determined”or “self-defined”, meaning that the Infinite is determined only by itself. This means that the Infinite sees only itself (and its dialectical opposite finite) beyond any arbitrary limit or boundary! Please see:
Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science
Also: The Dialectical Universe - Some Reflections on Cosmology
Demetris Christopoulos | We have no clue on what a cosmology can be.
Our models are naive hypotheses based on theories that have a limited range of application and after having extreme inductions.
An example is the way relativistic formulas are derived: by using Lorentz force- which is applicable on charged bodies - and then a generalization is done for all kind of bodies..
The concept of space-time does not exist, except from our dashboards: whenever we find an integral in a theory we are not allowed to define a relevant "space" just for our convenience
All exotic object have not been observed unambiguously, just because they don't exist
Enormous amount of money are spent in accelerating charged particle just to convince us for the orthodox theory (CERN)
Almost a billion dollars was spent to convince us for the general orthodox theory (LIGO)
Personally I declare my ignorance and try to define some fundamental concepts here:
Article A new cosmological paradigm: universal locality
As for the main question:
The concept of a boundary is 100% anthropocentric, forget universe, it is not your garden!
{Да, 100%, подтвержденные фактом нашего существования, и это всё меняет, точнее, нет смысла смотреть на всё иначе, будто нас не существует.}
Mustafa Ali Khan | Demetris Christopoulos: "The concept of a boundary is 100% anthropocentric, forget universe, it is not your garden!". But, what i am interested in is to find a way such that the observable universe does not have a boundary, and on the contrary it is unbounded even though it is finite! to put it in another way, "if we assume that the universe is Euclidean, does it necessarily follow that it has to have 1) a boundary or 2) it has to be infinite? Is it not possible that it can be neither, i.e. finite and unbounded? Abdul Malek brought up the Hegelian dialecticism showing the contradiction of the synthesis of finite and infinite as a contradiction. But, what about the synthesis of finitism and unboundedness (which is not the same as infinite). in this case the Hegelian dialecticism does not apply since the two are not opposites and therefore their synthesis is not a contradiction. one way that comes to my mind is to use probability and make it a core or basic characteristic of the universe at all levels and not just at the quantum level. with this we can make the boundary of the universe both finite and unbounded. it will be similar to the "boundary" between my "garden" and that of my neighbor's where they merge into each other as there is no fence that separates the two. both myself and the neighbor can only guess where our gardens end and the other's begin. in this situation we both know that our gardens, despite being flat/Euclidean, are finite but unbounded. thanks.
Abdul Malek | Mustafa Ali Khan : Your term “unbounded” has no meaning and is arising from confusion - very common, if you see things from the world view of causality. The premise of the Einsteinian view that the universe is finite and “unbounded” has no meaning at all and is contradictory (not in the sense of dialectical contradiction). It is an opportunistic and mystical idea, precisely meant to be confusing to cover-up the vacuity of that premise! Your term “probability” is also meaningless in the same way as “unbounded”.
Nothing is unbounded! If you posit a “being” or a "thing", it means it has identity and is determined (and negated, according to Spinoza) and hence must be bounded by something. Even in Hegel’s dialectics, the Infinite is bounded by itself!
In dialectics, any “existence” at all (of material or thought objects) is a contradiction of the “unity of the opposites” (meaning they have both unity and opposition at the same time!) and is mutually bounded by its opposite. This is a view that is impossible for formal logic of causality, which follows Aristotle’s principle, “Unity, Opposition and the excluded Middle”; meaning that a “being” can exist alone by itself, is given once for all (perfect in itself) by an outside power or God of theology and has no contradiction.
Causality works only for everyday life experience, classical mechanics, or simple systems of Newtonian physics where the cause and its effect can be clearly determined; but beyond these, as in the complex systems like biology, cosmology and more dramatically in the quantum phenomena causality get entangled into irresolvable contradictions, and an appeal to mystery, wonder, awe and in the last resort to theological God, the ultimate “first cause” and “the unmoved mover”!
For dialectics, because any existence is a contradiction and because reason cannot rest in a contradiction, this contradiction has be resolved through the mediation of chance and necessity (and not probability alone!"). But the resolved “being” is itself a contradiction with newly added content and must undergo resolution itself and so on (“negation of the negation”) without any end; giving rise to the phenomenology of the universe. Hence for dialectics, the universe must be Infinite, Eternal and Ever-Changing!
So for dialectics the impetus for motion, change, development, evolution etc., comes from within the thing itself, but for causality it must come from outside in every instance and in the last analysis from an omnipotent and omniscient being, meaning God. A fate that causality based modern physics now faces!
Please see the references I cited (and others in my RG profile) for further details. Sorry, if I do not find opportunity to respond to any further comments from you directed to me. Dialectics is un-intuitive (as quantum physics is!) for most people who are not used with this kind of reasoning. But I can assure anyone that it is a more powerful tool than causality for any kind of epistemology. I am using this tool in my practice of physics in the realm of cosmology and the quantum microcosm, and also in biology where causality becomes severely limited. Regards.
Q: Can the Universe be finite and unbounded and still be Euclidean?
Vasyl Komarov | Mustafa, you should add to the reasoning the problem of possibility of an infinite unitary evolution. For an infinite (Euclidean) space, this is a logical necessity. The initial point of existence is incompatible with an infinite connected space, while the evolutionary (exponential) process always passes through 1. Of course, there is always the possibility to add spontaneity to space, which automatically calls into question the very possibility of the existence of conservation laws in the universe under consideration - compromise here is not rational.
Mustafa Ali Khan | Vasyl Fedorovych Komarov: Great! these are the kind of answers I am looking for. creative, unconventional, unique. these answers will help me in my own thinking about this question. the bookish answers I can read on my own and have done it. I got this idea and wanted to share with others and see what they think. thanks.
Abdul Malek | Physics, mathematics, theology and conventional philosophy, which are based on the world view of causality (or what Hegel called the “view of understanding”) cannot comprehend the Infinite and hence is incapable of giving an answer to this question one way or the other. Physicist Einstein (like others of the above mentioned disciplines) assumed a finite universe to formulate his theories of relativity. Modern physicists like Max Tegmark of Harvard thinks that the word “infinite” as a scientific idea is “ready for retirement") ! What scientific idea is ready for retirement?
For modern mathematics, the Infinite is a "dangerous idea", because it is the “twin of Zero or vice versa” (Charles Seife)! Giordano Bruno was burnt on the Stake by the Inquisition; for insisting that the universe is infinite etc., etc.
But long before Professors Einstein, Tegmark et al., Immanuel Kant based on the world view of causality came across this question of finite or infinite universe as one of his famous antinomies. He showed conclusively (based on causality) that both sides of this antinomy can be showed to be equally true and equally false through logical argument alone! So, causality based natural science, mathematics, philosophy, theology etc., can keep on arguing forever (as is foolishly done in modern theoretical physics in relation to the various aspects of the theories of relativity, questions of multi-verses etc.), without coming to any conclusion!
Only a dialectical world view can give an understanding of the finite and the infinite as a contradiction (of the “unity of the opposites”); and the continuous and never-ending resolution of this contradiction through evolution giving rise to the phenomenology of the Infinite universe. But this means ditching all causality and mathematical idealism based Einsteinian concept of a created universe, Big Bang origin, “inflation”, “expansion” etc. in the dust bin of history, because in an infinite universe these terms of modern physics has no meaning!
The key to the understanding of the Infinite came with the profound idea of Spinoza about “limit”, which helped Hegel to formulate the dialectical view - the contradiction of the unity of the opposite of the finite and the Infinite. Spinoza formulated the principle that “all determination is negation”. To determine a thing is to cut it off (to negate it) from other things and so to limit it. To define a thing is to set boundary for it. The Infinite in this view is therefore “undetermined”or “undefined”, but in another sense is “self-determined”or “self-defined”, meaning that the Infinite is determined only by itself. This means that the Infinite sees only itself (and its dialectical opposite finite) beyond any arbitrary limit or boundary! Please see:
Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science
Also: The Dialectical Universe - Some Reflections on Cosmology
Demetris Christopoulos | We have no clue on what a cosmology can be.
Our models are naive hypotheses based on theories that have a limited range of application and after having extreme inductions.
An example is the way relativistic formulas are derived: by using Lorentz force- which is applicable on charged bodies - and then a generalization is done for all kind of bodies..
The concept of space-time does not exist, except from our dashboards: whenever we find an integral in a theory we are not allowed to define a relevant "space" just for our convenience
All exotic object have not been observed unambiguously, just because they don't exist
Enormous amount of money are spent in accelerating charged particle just to convince us for the orthodox theory (CERN)
Almost a billion dollars was spent to convince us for the general orthodox theory (LIGO)
Personally I declare my ignorance and try to define some fundamental concepts here:
Article A new cosmological paradigm: universal locality
As for the main question:
The concept of a boundary is 100% anthropocentric, forget universe, it is not your garden!
{Да, 100%, подтвержденные фактом нашего существования, и это всё меняет, точнее, нет смысла смотреть на всё иначе, будто нас не существует.}
Mustafa Ali Khan | Demetris Christopoulos: "The concept of a boundary is 100% anthropocentric, forget universe, it is not your garden!". But, what i am interested in is to find a way such that the observable universe does not have a boundary, and on the contrary it is unbounded even though it is finite! to put it in another way, "if we assume that the universe is Euclidean, does it necessarily follow that it has to have 1) a boundary or 2) it has to be infinite? Is it not possible that it can be neither, i.e. finite and unbounded? Abdul Malek brought up the Hegelian dialecticism showing the contradiction of the synthesis of finite and infinite as a contradiction. But, what about the synthesis of finitism and unboundedness (which is not the same as infinite). in this case the Hegelian dialecticism does not apply since the two are not opposites and therefore their synthesis is not a contradiction. one way that comes to my mind is to use probability and make it a core or basic characteristic of the universe at all levels and not just at the quantum level. with this we can make the boundary of the universe both finite and unbounded. it will be similar to the "boundary" between my "garden" and that of my neighbor's where they merge into each other as there is no fence that separates the two. both myself and the neighbor can only guess where our gardens end and the other's begin. in this situation we both know that our gardens, despite being flat/Euclidean, are finite but unbounded. thanks.
Abdul Malek | Mustafa Ali Khan : Your term “unbounded” has no meaning and is arising from confusion - very common, if you see things from the world view of causality. The premise of the Einsteinian view that the universe is finite and “unbounded” has no meaning at all and is contradictory (not in the sense of dialectical contradiction). It is an opportunistic and mystical idea, precisely meant to be confusing to cover-up the vacuity of that premise! Your term “probability” is also meaningless in the same way as “unbounded”.
Nothing is unbounded! If you posit a “being” or a "thing", it means it has identity and is determined (and negated, according to Spinoza) and hence must be bounded by something. Even in Hegel’s dialectics, the Infinite is bounded by itself!
In dialectics, any “existence” at all (of material or thought objects) is a contradiction of the “unity of the opposites” (meaning they have both unity and opposition at the same time!) and is mutually bounded by its opposite. This is a view that is impossible for formal logic of causality, which follows Aristotle’s principle, “Unity, Opposition and the excluded Middle”; meaning that a “being” can exist alone by itself, is given once for all (perfect in itself) by an outside power or God of theology and has no contradiction.
Causality works only for everyday life experience, classical mechanics, or simple systems of Newtonian physics where the cause and its effect can be clearly determined; but beyond these, as in the complex systems like biology, cosmology and more dramatically in the quantum phenomena causality get entangled into irresolvable contradictions, and an appeal to mystery, wonder, awe and in the last resort to theological God, the ultimate “first cause” and “the unmoved mover”!
For dialectics, because any existence is a contradiction and because reason cannot rest in a contradiction, this contradiction has be resolved through the mediation of chance and necessity (and not probability alone!"). But the resolved “being” is itself a contradiction with newly added content and must undergo resolution itself and so on (“negation of the negation”) without any end; giving rise to the phenomenology of the universe. Hence for dialectics, the universe must be Infinite, Eternal and Ever-Changing!
So for dialectics the impetus for motion, change, development, evolution etc., comes from within the thing itself, but for causality it must come from outside in every instance and in the last analysis from an omnipotent and omniscient being, meaning God. A fate that causality based modern physics now faces!
Please see the references I cited (and others in my RG profile) for further details. Sorry, if I do not find opportunity to respond to any further comments from you directed to me. Dialectics is un-intuitive (as quantum physics is!) for most people who are not used with this kind of reasoning. But I can assure anyone that it is a more powerful tool than causality for any kind of epistemology. I am using this tool in my practice of physics in the realm of cosmology and the quantum microcosm, and also in biology where causality becomes severely limited. Regards.
Sep 16, 2018
Igael Azoulay | I wonder how someone can seriously answer such metaphysical question: no one will ever know!
Vasyl Komarov | Abdul, causal invariance is perfectly combined with logic, self-reference, evolution and infinity. But it, unequivocally, not friends with spontaneity, Euclidean space and, accordingly, with quantum physics, which, because of methodology, does not try to find out the causes of statistical data. The problem is not in quantum physics, it is a global problem of demarcation. Spontaneity really should be regarded as a null hypothesis or as an indicator that a system of the right scale is not included in the consideration.
Try to get rid of self-referencing in logic at first... it is the Science is a "world view of causality" in it's essence.
Vasyl Komarov | By the way, dialectics is causally invariant in principle.
Vasyl Komarov | Igael, it is a question of terminology - the concept of the "universe" is transformed along with the expanding horizon (since the time of geocentric views it repeatedly tipped over prefix "multi").
But unlike Mustafa, I can not exclude metaphysics, it's a matter of "existence", literally (-; And it dramatically affects the reasoning.
Abdul Malek | VFK> “Try to get rid of self-referencing in logic at first... it is the Science is a "world view of causality" in it's essence.”
Vasyl, As I already explained to Dr. Khan, that my participation in this forum unfortunately would to be limited for unavoidable reason, also I think we discussed this issue before and I don’t think further discussion here would be of any benefit. But I would like to respond to the two points you raised in your quote above, because both are true; but I have very good reasons for both and I am sensitive to any accusations about those points.
To take the second part first, I have to say that yes, natural science (so far) selectively used the world view of causality, even though it is a poorer tool of epistemology than the world view of dialectics and there is a perfectly good reason/explanation for this. In fact this is the primary point that I always emphasize in my discussion on modern natural science, specially the theories of relativity. The world view of dialectics and causality arose in early Greek philosophy more or less simultaneously (as dialectical unity of the opposites!) with (near) contemporaries like Heraclitus (544 – 483 B.C.) on the side of dialectics and Pythagoras of Samoa (580 (?) – 520 B.C.) and Permenides (515 – 450 B.C.) on the side of causality. While Heraclitus claimed “change due to inner conflict – (the brilliant germ of dialectics!”) as the primary attribute of the universe, the other two on the contrary emphasized stasis and claimed that change, motion are only illusions and not real.
In the evolution of life, of history and of human thought, development, change, or progress makes its appearance by the negation (the “negation of the negation” and the Portentous Power of the Negative” for Hegel) or destruction of what exists. Of necessity, and because of their very nature as the conservative, the resisting, the preserving side of what exists, the world view of causalty always sided with the established order of the time, while dialectics represented the revolutionary side, because dialectics denies the stability or the permanence of what exists. It is a standard Marxist contention that, “The ruling ideas of an epoch are the ideas of its ruling class”. Present parasitic monopoly capitalism has made the mathematical idealism based theories of relativity as the ruling ideas as a substitute of God of equally parasitic feudalism. Monopoly capitalism with the help of its “scientist serfs” is forcing physics to preach theology!
Please see the RG forum: Am I the only one that is doubtful of LIGO’s detection of gravitational wave GW150914?
To be continued later on!
Igael Azoulay | I wonder how someone can seriously answer such metaphysical question: no one will ever know!
Vasyl Komarov | Abdul, causal invariance is perfectly combined with logic, self-reference, evolution and infinity. But it, unequivocally, not friends with spontaneity, Euclidean space and, accordingly, with quantum physics, which, because of methodology, does not try to find out the causes of statistical data. The problem is not in quantum physics, it is a global problem of demarcation. Spontaneity really should be regarded as a null hypothesis or as an indicator that a system of the right scale is not included in the consideration.
Try to get rid of self-referencing in logic at first... it is the Science is a "world view of causality" in it's essence.
Vasyl Komarov | By the way, dialectics is causally invariant in principle.
Vasyl Komarov | Igael, it is a question of terminology - the concept of the "universe" is transformed along with the expanding horizon (since the time of geocentric views it repeatedly tipped over prefix "multi").
But unlike Mustafa, I can not exclude metaphysics, it's a matter of "existence", literally (-; And it dramatically affects the reasoning.
Abdul Malek | VFK> “Try to get rid of self-referencing in logic at first... it is the Science is a "world view of causality" in it's essence.”
Vasyl, As I already explained to Dr. Khan, that my participation in this forum unfortunately would to be limited for unavoidable reason, also I think we discussed this issue before and I don’t think further discussion here would be of any benefit. But I would like to respond to the two points you raised in your quote above, because both are true; but I have very good reasons for both and I am sensitive to any accusations about those points.
To take the second part first, I have to say that yes, natural science (so far) selectively used the world view of causality, even though it is a poorer tool of epistemology than the world view of dialectics and there is a perfectly good reason/explanation for this. In fact this is the primary point that I always emphasize in my discussion on modern natural science, specially the theories of relativity. The world view of dialectics and causality arose in early Greek philosophy more or less simultaneously (as dialectical unity of the opposites!) with (near) contemporaries like Heraclitus (544 – 483 B.C.) on the side of dialectics and Pythagoras of Samoa (580 (?) – 520 B.C.) and Permenides (515 – 450 B.C.) on the side of causality. While Heraclitus claimed “change due to inner conflict – (the brilliant germ of dialectics!”) as the primary attribute of the universe, the other two on the contrary emphasized stasis and claimed that change, motion are only illusions and not real.
In the evolution of life, of history and of human thought, development, change, or progress makes its appearance by the negation (the “negation of the negation” and the Portentous Power of the Negative” for Hegel) or destruction of what exists. Of necessity, and because of their very nature as the conservative, the resisting, the preserving side of what exists, the world view of causalty always sided with the established order of the time, while dialectics represented the revolutionary side, because dialectics denies the stability or the permanence of what exists. It is a standard Marxist contention that, “The ruling ideas of an epoch are the ideas of its ruling class”. Present parasitic monopoly capitalism has made the mathematical idealism based theories of relativity as the ruling ideas as a substitute of God of equally parasitic feudalism. Monopoly capitalism with the help of its “scientist serfs” is forcing physics to preach theology!
Please see the RG forum: Am I the only one that is doubtful of LIGO’s detection of gravitational wave GW150914?
To be continued later on!
Sep 17, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Yes, Abdul Malek, we discussed this, including the topic "Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible?" you created, where just in june we discussed the (historical) long-term influence of dialectics and the integrated contradiction of the scientific method, so I will not bore you here again with logical paradoxes provoked by self-reference.
I see well in which aspects my and your interpretations converge. I sometimes react to your statements, because the contradictions in them help to think and transform my own thoughts, for which I am grateful, of course.
Vasyl Komarov | Yes, Abdul Malek, we discussed this, including the topic "Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible?" you created, where just in june we discussed the (historical) long-term influence of dialectics and the integrated contradiction of the scientific method, so I will not bore you here again with logical paradoxes provoked by self-reference.
I see well in which aspects my and your interpretations converge. I sometimes react to your statements, because the contradictions in them help to think and transform my own thoughts, for which I am grateful, of course.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Can the Universe be finite and unbounded and still be Euclidean? [accessed Sep 17, 2018]
17 вер. 2018 р.
23:12 | 10^2126 {Наглядная демонстрация к дискуссии о том, что возможность манипуляции иррациональными числами определяется "длительностью" алгоритма или измерения и физической ёмкостью носителя информации о числе.}
19 вер. 2018 р.
02:24 | ...хотел закинуть подвернувшийся ролик с просчетом большого динамического диапазона множества Мандельброта в тему "Do irrational numbers exist in nature?", вспомнив о заметно проигрывающей в детализации, написанной лет двадцать назад собственной программке, которая прямым способом попиксельно строила картинку по скорости убегания от 0, имея ограничения в диапазоне с оптимизированным для скорости кодом в пределах стека FPU и форматом чисел Extended, и не циклической цветовой палитрой, а потом передумал.
1. Любое измерение не зависимо от структуры алгоритма, как конечный процесс, не может дать иррациональное значение на семантике дискретного представления.
2. Спорить о возможности бесконечности (вечности) с позиции процесса, а значит существования - это чистая метафизика, которая имеет абсолютное право быть в виде гипотезы вечно (ну, во всяком случае, пока существует мир {локальный источник гипотезы и её же носитель, в виде памяти} :).
Забавно, но этот последний момент принципиально меняет космологическую перспективу, несмотря на метафизическую суть проблемы, и надо быть очень наивным, чтобы здесь и в целом игнорировать метафизику. Всё точно так же, как с идеей антропного принципа.
Нужно ли пытаться в чем либо убеждать "верующих" в квантовый мир, или они когда-то сами "вымрут"?
В надеждах они правы, что "believe this kind of question is key to answering fundamental philosophical questions of Quantum Theory". Но так думать: "complex quantities exist in Nature also, but their existence can never be proved or disproved either" могут только заложники формализма.
Сколько людей должно начать задумываться о том, каким образом формализм существует вообще, и что такое семантика, чтобы человечество вырвалось из плена пост-Платоновского идеализма, взращённого на дремучем эмпирицизме? {Здесь ещё эмоции по поводу какого-то эпизода в диспуте "Do irrational numbers exist in nature?"}
Sep 19, 2018
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasyl, To continue my comment on “self-referencing":
So far as I am aware of, I am the only one who is trying to extend materialist dialectics to cosmology and quantum physics, in my various published books and journal articles. Examples are:
1. Cosmology:
Article THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR ‘FREE FALL’: A DIALECTICAL REASSESSMENT OF KEPLER’S LAWS
2. Quantum Physics:
Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for the Resolution of Wave-Particle Duality and Other Anomalies of the Quantum Phenomena
So, I can only cite myself in my various writings and comments! I continue to follow Frederick Engels who first formally initiated the application of materialist dialectics in natural science as a division of labour with Karl Marx in their extensively shared collaboration. After Engels’ death only (except from Lenin’s “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism) some Japanese physicists like Shoichi Sakata, Nambu et al. continued Engels’ approach significantly, in physics for a while in the thirties; but nothing else was done after them. In biology of course, Engels’ approach continues; starting from J.B.S. Haldane, I. Oparin. J.D. Bernal et al and continues till to day with Levin, Lewontin et al..
But in physics I see none and the simple answer why I have to reference my own works! I very often refer to Engels' work though, because I depend mostly on his lead. In my efforts to extend dialectics to new and revolutionary developments in physics after Marx and Engels; I find it necessary to extend (though controversial to some people I know) the scope of materialist dialectics itself! Please see (if you wish) my book, "The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?", at the following link:
“The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?”
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasyl, To continue my comment on “self-referencing":
So far as I am aware of, I am the only one who is trying to extend materialist dialectics to cosmology and quantum physics, in my various published books and journal articles. Examples are:
1. Cosmology:
Article THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR ‘FREE FALL’: A DIALECTICAL REASSESSMENT OF KEPLER’S LAWS
2. Quantum Physics:
Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for the Resolution of Wave-Particle Duality and Other Anomalies of the Quantum Phenomena
So, I can only cite myself in my various writings and comments! I continue to follow Frederick Engels who first formally initiated the application of materialist dialectics in natural science as a division of labour with Karl Marx in their extensively shared collaboration. After Engels’ death only (except from Lenin’s “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism) some Japanese physicists like Shoichi Sakata, Nambu et al. continued Engels’ approach significantly, in physics for a while in the thirties; but nothing else was done after them. In biology of course, Engels’ approach continues; starting from J.B.S. Haldane, I. Oparin. J.D. Bernal et al and continues till to day with Levin, Lewontin et al..
But in physics I see none and the simple answer why I have to reference my own works! I very often refer to Engels' work though, because I depend mostly on his lead. In my efforts to extend dialectics to new and revolutionary developments in physics after Marx and Engels; I find it necessary to extend (though controversial to some people I know) the scope of materialist dialectics itself! Please see (if you wish) my book, "The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?", at the following link:
“The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?”
Sep 20, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Abdul, dialectics occurs naturally. In retrospect it is not difficult to observe it everywhere, what Thomas Kuhn wrote in "the structure of revolutions". Sometimes it is useful to try on the skin of the "inductive donkey".
Abdul Malek | VFK> “Abdul, dialectics occurs naturally. In retrospect it is not difficult to observe it everywhere”
Dear Vasyl,
You have a correct description of dialectics and in fact it is its great merit as a science of all sciences. Scientifically we can know only the past, the reality that has already happened or experienced. Idle dreaming and speculation, predictability and so on of the future without a solid basis in the past may please one’s ego and psyche; but is of little importance for acquiring positive knowledge. Trying on the skin of the ‘inductive donkey’ does not turn you into a “Superman” to have a vision of the future and be a good “Fortune Teller”; it can only turn you into a deceiver!
In view of your quote from Thomas Kuhn, I provide two below from the masters of dialectics:
“Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva, takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering.” Hegel, “Philosophy of Right”
“We know only a single science, the science of history. One can look at history from two sides and divide it into the history of nature and the history of men. The two sides are, however, inseparable; the history of nature and the history of men are dependent on each other so long as men exist.” Marx and Engels, “The German Ideology”.
Vasyl Komarov | Abdul, dialectics occurs naturally. In retrospect it is not difficult to observe it everywhere, what Thomas Kuhn wrote in "the structure of revolutions". Sometimes it is useful to try on the skin of the "inductive donkey".
Abdul Malek | VFK> “Abdul, dialectics occurs naturally. In retrospect it is not difficult to observe it everywhere”
Dear Vasyl,
You have a correct description of dialectics and in fact it is its great merit as a science of all sciences. Scientifically we can know only the past, the reality that has already happened or experienced. Idle dreaming and speculation, predictability and so on of the future without a solid basis in the past may please one’s ego and psyche; but is of little importance for acquiring positive knowledge. Trying on the skin of the ‘inductive donkey’ does not turn you into a “Superman” to have a vision of the future and be a good “Fortune Teller”; it can only turn you into a deceiver!
In view of your quote from Thomas Kuhn, I provide two below from the masters of dialectics:
“Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva, takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering.” Hegel, “Philosophy of Right”
“We know only a single science, the science of history. One can look at history from two sides and divide it into the history of nature and the history of men. The two sides are, however, inseparable; the history of nature and the history of men are dependent on each other so long as men exist.” Marx and Engels, “The German Ideology”.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Can the Universe be finite and unbounded and still be Euclidean? [accessed Sep 20, 2018]
21 вер. 2018 р.
06:26 | Why Animal Extinction Is Crippling Computer Science
Да, но следующая стадия понимания - безразличие. Адаптивный ландшафт меняется и уходит в прошлое также, как и виды.
21:45 | На значении метрики 20000 построю график статистики посещения отдельных страниц.
Sep 21, 2018
Abdul Malek | “Is physics necessarily empiricist?”
The answer is definitely yes! But the further question is which form of empiricism – causality or materialist dialectics - two possible forms of epistemology? The following discussion and comments in another forum would give some explanation of the second question: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible?view=5ba4e9d0f4d3ec3bb17f0986
[PJ> “As every omelette has required the breaking of eggs, every advancement in understanding has required the destruction of long cherished beliefs. Yet it seems only a few, only the analytical visionaries, are able to mount the challenges to beliefs leading to advancements.”
Dear Peter,
This is a veritable dialectical statement! Not only every omelette, but every chick required the breaking of an egg - a development! But the omelette is a cause and effect (causality) process -an end in itself that does not go any further; while the chick is a dialectical development leading to many other future chicks and so on!
Natural science (so far) selectively used the world view of causality, even though it is a poorer tool of epistemology than the world view of dialectics and there is a perfectly good reason/explanation for this. In fact this is the primary point that I always emphasize in my discussion on modern natural science, specially with regards to the theories of relativity.
The world view of “dialectics” and its contrary view causality” arose in early Greek philosophy more or less simultaneously (as dialectical unity of the opposites!) with (almost) contemporaries like Heraclitus (544 – 483 B.C.) on the side of dialectics and Pythagoras of Samoa (580 (?) – 520 B.C.) and Permenides (515 – 450 B.C.) on the side of causality. While Heraclitus claimed “change due to inner conflict - from the egg to the chick (the brilliant germ of dialectics!”) as the primary attribute of the universe, the other two on the contrary emphasized stasis and claimed that change, motion are only illusions and not real.
In the evolution of Nature, of life, of history and of human thought; development, change, or progress makes its appearance by the negation (the “negation of the negation” - the Portentous Power of the Negative” for Hegel) or destruction of what exists.
The dominant class in a class society wants the permanence of its rule and is against any change of the status quo! Of necessity, and because of its very nature as the conservative, the resisting, the preserving side of what exists, the world view of causality always sided with the established order (class rule) of the time, while dialectics represented the revolutionary side, because dialectics denies the stability or the permanence of what exists.
It is a standard Marxist contention that, “The ruling ideas of an epoch are the ideas of its ruling class”. Present parasitic monopoly capitalism has made the mathematical idealism based theories of relativity as the ruling idea as a substitute of God of equally parasitic feudalism. Monopoly capitalism with the help of its “scientist serfs” is forcing physics to preach theology - the permanence of what exists!]
Abdul Malek | “Is physics necessarily empiricist?”
The answer is definitely yes! But the further question is which form of empiricism – causality or materialist dialectics - two possible forms of epistemology? The following discussion and comments in another forum would give some explanation of the second question: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible?view=5ba4e9d0f4d3ec3bb17f0986
[PJ> “As every omelette has required the breaking of eggs, every advancement in understanding has required the destruction of long cherished beliefs. Yet it seems only a few, only the analytical visionaries, are able to mount the challenges to beliefs leading to advancements.”
Dear Peter,
This is a veritable dialectical statement! Not only every omelette, but every chick required the breaking of an egg - a development! But the omelette is a cause and effect (causality) process -an end in itself that does not go any further; while the chick is a dialectical development leading to many other future chicks and so on!
Natural science (so far) selectively used the world view of causality, even though it is a poorer tool of epistemology than the world view of dialectics and there is a perfectly good reason/explanation for this. In fact this is the primary point that I always emphasize in my discussion on modern natural science, specially with regards to the theories of relativity.
The world view of “dialectics” and its contrary view causality” arose in early Greek philosophy more or less simultaneously (as dialectical unity of the opposites!) with (almost) contemporaries like Heraclitus (544 – 483 B.C.) on the side of dialectics and Pythagoras of Samoa (580 (?) – 520 B.C.) and Permenides (515 – 450 B.C.) on the side of causality. While Heraclitus claimed “change due to inner conflict - from the egg to the chick (the brilliant germ of dialectics!”) as the primary attribute of the universe, the other two on the contrary emphasized stasis and claimed that change, motion are only illusions and not real.
In the evolution of Nature, of life, of history and of human thought; development, change, or progress makes its appearance by the negation (the “negation of the negation” - the Portentous Power of the Negative” for Hegel) or destruction of what exists.
The dominant class in a class society wants the permanence of its rule and is against any change of the status quo! Of necessity, and because of its very nature as the conservative, the resisting, the preserving side of what exists, the world view of causality always sided with the established order (class rule) of the time, while dialectics represented the revolutionary side, because dialectics denies the stability or the permanence of what exists.
It is a standard Marxist contention that, “The ruling ideas of an epoch are the ideas of its ruling class”. Present parasitic monopoly capitalism has made the mathematical idealism based theories of relativity as the ruling idea as a substitute of God of equally parasitic feudalism. Monopoly capitalism with the help of its “scientist serfs” is forcing physics to preach theology - the permanence of what exists!]
Sep 22, 2018
Ed Gerck | Hello all: An empirical answer cannot be manipulated by human actions, friend or foe, dialectic or Marxist (different things), or capitalist, or any political system or control. There are no two forms of empirical answers, and it is revealing for its motives when this is conflated with epistemology.
Special relativity, as an example bandied around in RG, exists indepently of humans, and for time immemorial, and we can see that empirically with today's time machines (aka telescopes).
RG will likely one day have to step in an independent review board, to curb the willy-nilly discussions when they are the ones that pay for doing it, which brings a responsibility to society. Much like Craigs list and prostitution, disguised as "personal" ads, that end up tainting also the good services, such as selling and buying, where people lost their lives, physically, in the hands of dishonest posters. Or, will enjoin the same fate.
No one should pretend here that special relativity is to be revoked, when proofs in the 1,000s abound around us, and billions of years in the past, that we can see today. No one should use their time to write otherwise, but this is habit in our society today, still in its infancy. That is also why we need empirical results in physics, as the only resort to what is unfalsiable.
Vasyl Komarov | Unlike the hero of the animated series for little children "Luntik and his friends", no real subject is able to instantly declare "Я родился" immediately after the birth. It's funny that sense of sentence spoken immediately by the protagonist in the initial episode of animated series are difficult to translate into English.
Abdul Malek | Hello Vasyl,
It is difficult to understand your allegory or metaphor. Does it mean that you are supporting the call for the revival of the Inquisition?
Ed Gerck | Hello all: An empirical answer cannot be manipulated by human actions, friend or foe, dialectic or Marxist (different things), or capitalist, or any political system or control. There are no two forms of empirical answers, and it is revealing for its motives when this is conflated with epistemology.
Special relativity, as an example bandied around in RG, exists indepently of humans, and for time immemorial, and we can see that empirically with today's time machines (aka telescopes).
RG will likely one day have to step in an independent review board, to curb the willy-nilly discussions when they are the ones that pay for doing it, which brings a responsibility to society. Much like Craigs list and prostitution, disguised as "personal" ads, that end up tainting also the good services, such as selling and buying, where people lost their lives, physically, in the hands of dishonest posters. Or, will enjoin the same fate.
No one should pretend here that special relativity is to be revoked, when proofs in the 1,000s abound around us, and billions of years in the past, that we can see today. No one should use their time to write otherwise, but this is habit in our society today, still in its infancy. That is also why we need empirical results in physics, as the only resort to what is unfalsiable.
Vasyl Komarov | Unlike the hero of the animated series for little children "Luntik and his friends", no real subject is able to instantly declare "Я родился" immediately after the birth. It's funny that sense of sentence spoken immediately by the protagonist in the initial episode of animated series are difficult to translate into English.
Abdul Malek | Hello Vasyl,
It is difficult to understand your allegory or metaphor. Does it mean that you are supporting the call for the revival of the Inquisition?
Sep 23, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | No, dear Abdul, I can only be in the state of opposition to the Inquisition or any other kind of bureaucracy, since I'm typical mr. sinister and heretic (-;
My remark was a reference to the Plato's problem of Noam Chomsky.
In the continuous process of biological existence, if we consider a fragment in the form of a finite specimen of a person with a starting point from an egg-fertilization event, what time for the organism should be considered the beginning of the thought processes?
We perceive the whole world sensory, along with already formalized information (what is the product of communication of previous generations and peers).
The common process of cognition on human scale is the personal cognition of the world, followed by individual expression of personal perception (qualia) by all available means (science, literature, art, etc.) to share personal experiences of knowledge by others. Expression of perception (expression) is the interaction of internal (personal perception, ie qualia) with the environment ("the objective world", term adaptive landscape is more appropriate here) on all possible scales and samples from an individual to an entire civilization, etc - this is "collective practice" in terms of dear Abdul or the communication in the systems is it's essense.
It is not difficult to see position of qualia in the overall cognition process. De facto, (scientific) cognition is the continuous transformation (which means formalization) trough communication of qualia. It is part of the overall cognitive process.
We are empiricists by definition, because we even learn through communication, that is, sensory. At the same time, the whole empiricism of cognition is terminally reducible to an understanding of actually invariant things (yes, Abdul, here is what the formalized visualization of what you like to label by idealism) that are independent of us, which we already know from the outset, according to the fact that our existence is prototypically based on them (this is the sense of what Chomsky was talking about... almost).
This implies a number of important consequences associated with the interpretation of something (however, I have said all this repeatedly).
Vasyl Komarov | No, dear Abdul, I can only be in the state of opposition to the Inquisition or any other kind of bureaucracy, since I'm typical mr. sinister and heretic (-;
My remark was a reference to the Plato's problem of Noam Chomsky.
In the continuous process of biological existence, if we consider a fragment in the form of a finite specimen of a person with a starting point from an egg-fertilization event, what time for the organism should be considered the beginning of the thought processes?
We perceive the whole world sensory, along with already formalized information (what is the product of communication of previous generations and peers).
The common process of cognition on human scale is the personal cognition of the world, followed by individual expression of personal perception (qualia) by all available means (science, literature, art, etc.) to share personal experiences of knowledge by others. Expression of perception (expression) is the interaction of internal (personal perception, ie qualia) with the environment ("the objective world", term adaptive landscape is more appropriate here) on all possible scales and samples from an individual to an entire civilization, etc - this is "collective practice" in terms of dear Abdul or the communication in the systems is it's essense.
It is not difficult to see position of qualia in the overall cognition process. De facto, (scientific) cognition is the continuous transformation (which means formalization) trough communication of qualia. It is part of the overall cognitive process.
We are empiricists by definition, because we even learn through communication, that is, sensory. At the same time, the whole empiricism of cognition is terminally reducible to an understanding of actually invariant things (yes, Abdul, here is what the formalized visualization of what you like to label by idealism) that are independent of us, which we already know from the outset, according to the fact that our existence is prototypically based on them (this is the sense of what Chomsky was talking about... almost).
This implies a number of important consequences associated with the interpretation of something (however, I have said all this repeatedly).
— ResearchGate. Available from: Is physics necessarily empiricist? [accessed Sep 23, 2018]
30 вер. 2018 р.
00:53 | Абдул {Abdul Malek} прав, конечно, утверждая, что "Physics, mathematics, theology and conventional philosophy, which are based on the world view of causality (or what Hegel called the “view of understanding”)".
Строить гипотезы объединения взаимодействий, будучи в рамках демаркации физики, видя тенденции - это хорошо. Но, очевидно, находясь в рамках демаркации, понимание ("understanding") для ХОЛИЗМА невозможно.
То, чего, очевидно, не понимает сам Абдул - "прочувствовать" бесконечность можно лишь корректно осознав самореференцию.
Несмотря на формально верное "To define a thing is to set boundary for it. The Infinite in this view is therefore “undetermined” or “undefined”, but in another sense is “self-determined”or “self-defined”, meaning that the Infinite is determined only by itself. This means that the Infinite sees only itself" {по сути, здесь раскрыта затрагиваемая выше тема, что и в проблеме конечности любого (акта) измерения} и многие другие утверждения, ему не хватает для понимания своих же слов чувства алгоритмической вечности проблемы останова (и многократно обсуждаемая изоляция формальных систем в так называемый идеальный мир, что тоже есть проблема демаркации).
По этой причине его диалектическое противоречие статично, несмотря на утверждение обратного. Вечное движение и эволюция - не совсем одно и то же.
01:09 | Unus Mundus, as dear Erkki recently reminded the concept of Carl Jung.
Holism has accumulated a lot of interpretations in the history of mankind.
Oct 2, 2018
Q: Are right-/left-handers a gene-determined allocation or a learned habit? For either answer you'd prefer, why is the ratio of distributions not even?
Vasyl Komarov | Because of the continuous periodic interest in my {previous} answer to this question, it makes sense to note that at the moment I would answer a bit differently and more expandedly, because the understanding of the integrity of dynamic systems has changed significantly over five years. This is a matter of fundamental understanding of evolution.
Synchronization and unification of the glossary is necessary to begin. Then there a subject to understanding will rise, one can go to the understanding of the Superstructure, unified bidirectional processes of self-organization in dynamical systems, the general principles of periodicity (not popularized discreteness), memory (as the structure dissipation invariants) and coherent evolution. Further, it is possible to consider in detail the ordered branching from syngenesis as the brain evolves, as well as related issues on the scale of ordered branching from eukaryotic cell and rest questions of the chaos theory.
None of the classical divisions of science is able to completely understand the integrity and evolution within framework of the classical demarcation agreement that creates isolated islands of cognitive biases. For example, physics suffers from this, since even understanding of so-called full unification is beyond the limits of demarcation, same as the constantly ignored observer. For same reason, physics and physicists are poorly aware of self-reference and forced to almost recklessly rely on formalism without wondering of what physically ensures the functioning of formal logic in the thought processes of a biological organism or a computer and where semantics comes from.
It looks some out of topic (but for someone has long been obvious). This is personal message for those who pay attention to my previous comment here.
NB: By the way, biological systems hint that a direct process and a wave of relaxation are spatially (topologically) separated (humans with various behaviour, plants vs animals etc.) - it is not only the separation of time scales (by speeds) of forward and relaxation processes. From the other hand, it cannot be said that this is simple imprint of the previous dynamics in the form of a superstructure memory - synthesis and analysis occur continuously as topological structure evolves and, as usual, is for any structure scale the bunch [spectral width by duration of the cycle] must be?
Q: Are right-/left-handers a gene-determined allocation or a learned habit? For either answer you'd prefer, why is the ratio of distributions not even?
Vasyl Komarov | Because of the continuous periodic interest in my {previous} answer to this question, it makes sense to note that at the moment I would answer a bit differently and more expandedly, because the understanding of the integrity of dynamic systems has changed significantly over five years. This is a matter of fundamental understanding of evolution.
Synchronization and unification of the glossary is necessary to begin. Then there a subject to understanding will rise, one can go to the understanding of the Superstructure, unified bidirectional processes of self-organization in dynamical systems, the general principles of periodicity (not popularized discreteness), memory (as the structure dissipation invariants) and coherent evolution. Further, it is possible to consider in detail the ordered branching from syngenesis as the brain evolves, as well as related issues on the scale of ordered branching from eukaryotic cell and rest questions of the chaos theory.
None of the classical divisions of science is able to completely understand the integrity and evolution within framework of the classical demarcation agreement that creates isolated islands of cognitive biases. For example, physics suffers from this, since even understanding of so-called full unification is beyond the limits of demarcation, same as the constantly ignored observer. For same reason, physics and physicists are poorly aware of self-reference and forced to almost recklessly rely on formalism without wondering of what physically ensures the functioning of formal logic in the thought processes of a biological organism or a computer and where semantics comes from.
It looks some out of topic (but for someone has long been obvious). This is personal message for those who pay attention to my previous comment here.
NB: By the way, biological systems hint that a direct process and a wave of relaxation are spatially (topologically) separated (humans with various behaviour, plants vs animals etc.) - it is not only the separation of time scales (by speeds) of forward and relaxation processes. From the other hand, it cannot be said that this is simple imprint of the previous dynamics in the form of a superstructure memory - synthesis and analysis occur continuously as topological structure evolves and, as usual, is for any structure scale the bunch [spectral width by duration of the cycle] must be?
— ResearchGate. Available from: Are right-/left-handers a gene-determined allocation or a learned habit? For either answer you'd prefer, why is the ratio of distributions not even? [accessed Oct 2, 2018]
8 жовт. 2018 р.
11:38 | Major publishers sue ResearchGate over copyright infringement
Назойливые мастодонты никак не хотят вариться в собственном соку, всё тянут ручонки, чтобы удавить открытую для людей информацию.
{Long Live ResearchGate! С учетом всей критики, конечно.}
22:39 | What Would Happen If Everyone Truly Believed Everything Is One?
Это вопрос фокусировки центра аттракции и орбиты системы, связанный с эгоизмом, по отношению к индивиддууму. Эгоизм большего масштаба системы и его осознанное восприятие. По сути, разный порядок самосознания - разный масштаб ответственности за структуру системы вокруг тебя, частью которой ты себя воспринимаешь. {Можно сказать, вопрос состоит в локусе эго на системе определенного масштаба и соотношении данного масштаба системы и масштаба self, т.е. локус может быть внутренним либо покрывать систему большего масштаба, причем в различных аспектах для одного и того же индивиддума локус может варьироваться.}
10 жовт. 2018 р.
19:11 | {event: metrics >= 20000} This blog has more than 5 years. It is interesting to look at the visitors statistics and distribution of the interest by individual posts...
Oct 12, 2018
Q: Can consciousness be meaningfully measured by trust?
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, just recently, I had a fun conversation with an elderly retired laboratory manager. In a joking mood he asked me and another colleague: who are the experts?
It reminded me of two things: my recent dispute with dear Dragan Pavlovic here (▲) about professionalism, as well as a video interview where Feynman talked how in high school he got into the Arista, "a group of kids who got good grades", and also other his words from interview, that "You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect me to be. It’s their mistake, not my failing."
In response with a smile I asked an elderly manager: did you know that professional philosophers do not exist?
NB: Trust, as any system of authorities, is not a sign of consciousness, in contrast to the conscious ability to sacrifice personal benefits/life for the sake of winning for the structure, awareness of the involvement in which is part of self-awareness.
The ability to doubt is a sign of consciousness, and finite automata are the best professionals/experts... of course, one can be a super expert in philosophy (-;
Ed Gerck | Hello Dennis Hamilton: You will have to read ref. 2 to see the necessity, and this is not psychology, philosophy, nor sociology -- which are useful but not a science. Computer theoretic, or theoretical computer science, or TCS, is a subset of general computer science and mathematics that focuses on more mathematical topics of computing and includes the theory of computation.
The ACM's Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory (SIGACT) provides the following description:
TCS covers a wide variety of topics including algorithms, data structures, computational complexity, parallel and distributed computation, probabilistic computation, quantum computation, automata theory, information theory, cryptography, program semantics and verification, machine learning, computational biology, computational economics, computational geometry, and computational number theory and algebra. Work in this field is often distinguished by its emphasis on mathematical technique and rigor.
Computer theoretic, TCS as defined, means the computer science used on creating software, such as for Internet protocols, to define suitable data structures and rules, usually with multi-valued logic. For example, we do not use YES/NO in two-valued logic called Boolean, as it creates indeterminacy in practical implementations.
Finally, to your last point, In terms of TCS, would it be necessary for an observer to pose such a question about consciousness, tied to such a notion of trust? No, If one ignores the question, or never poses it, reality is not modified.
Whatever people understand by "trust" is included in the abstract definition given in [1], as shown in [2], where the necessity of this notion of trust is also explained, as it started to be felt in large multi-user applications in 1998, inTCS, with the opening of the Internet to the public. It was already felt, though, since about 1976, with chip technology and Moore's law.
Ed Gerck | Vasyl: this is not a space for play in words or no meaning, self-links that are off-topic, or adding irrelevant data, as you did above. Please fix this, it is against RG rules, life is a school. I expect more of you, in accretion.
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, any behavior on the protocols and compliance with them is not related to consciousness. This is a question of formalism, the integrity of the system, but not a criterion of consciousness. Since this is a mechanical reproducible action, it does not require understanding, only reaction to predetermined parameters. From the point of view of formalism, it is possible to establish an agreement that some criteria and formal model are indicator of consciousness, and then mechanically use it (as a Turing test, for example), but any conscious system to which you try to apply this agreement will have its own opinion about your consciousness and the group in which your protocol of agreement operates. (imo)
What if consciousness has a gradation, ranging from complete absence?
Vasyl Komarov | Michael Polanyi proposed the right concept of tacit (personal) knowledge. As I already said earlier in old discussion, the understanding of any hypothetical sufficiently close to object model of consciousness can only be an individual act of self-knowledge. It is impossible to understand such a model just studying others of own kind. It is my opinion.
Ed Gerck | Hello Vasyl: Trust, as in ref.1 and 2, is not about authority, and disclaims it, please read. Trust, in refs. 1 and 2, is also subjective, trust is in the eyes of the beholder, so different agents can indeed trust the same agent to different extents (see ref 2). One cannot impose objective trust. But intersubjective trust can exist, as a medical diagnosis (see ref. 2) exemplifies. It is also possible to trust (completely, as always) but on zero extent, which measures to complete absence (just like an integral on a zero set) of measured consciousness (someone else may measure differently, and this is acceptable, as a circle viewed on the directions of the normal and sideways).
The ability to doubt does not precede self-trust, or any form of trust -- doubt what? You can only doubt what you have internalized, as crossing a barrier between outside and inside for analysis, what you trust in the first place. If not internalized, it is not doubt but rejection, also possible and analized with regard to trust as a bias, in ref. 2.
Joachim Pimiskern | There is a study that tries to determine consciousness from current brain module interconnectedness.
Brain study suggests consciousness a matter of optimal degree of connectedness in neural network
Large-scale signatures of unconsciousness are consistent with a departure from critical dynamics
2016 | DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2015.1027 | pdf
Regards,
Joachim
Igael Azoulay | - is an encyclopedia conscious ? and an interactive encyclopedia ? and an encyclopedia which changes its contents after a discussion ? and if it changes without discussing with me ?
- is an autistic snail conscious ? and an autistic ape ? and an autistic human ?
- I forget that my current work needs 3 pages more and that each day lost is lost. Am I conscious ?
I wonder how we will measure this fuzzy concept but I trust this brainstorming. :)
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, I see here precisely the problem of authorization, a name that share a common root with authority. I can apply to trust only analogy with truth. The concept of truth makes sense only within a pre-established (definitely biased) system, be it a criminal code, a medical diagnosis on accepted symptoms, a formalism of mathematics or any other formal system (or other communication agrement). Medicine is very sensitive to this, because object complexity and extremelly wide semantics of its language is poorly formalizable for exchange by experience and for routines of protocol.
Anything that “breaks” the protocol is either part of the system (in a state of communication) or definitely beyond the capabilities of the protocol. If part of the system - it is already automation. Of course, as a threshold indicator an approach to assessment can always be used (what we often use in practice, IQ test is example).
Having established an agreement once about the intellect or consciousness, you “deprive” it of the possibility of further evolution.
In my understanding of the theory of evolution via self-organization, the intellect cannot be an unitary object (that is, it is always biased at any scale).
In a concurrent evolving system, it is difficult to figure out who measures whom at the moment.
The allegory of the ivory tower for advancing the intelligence must be accompanied by the understanding that this is not a guarantee of independence and protection against external factors, but the maximum one-sided communication, because your protocols of communication and areas of interest/needs (i.e. attraction centers), not complete compatible backward with more excess number of less complex surrounding systems).
It is impossible to set the standard of intelligence or consciousness. It is a quest of unlimited model. The threshold by limited criteria can be. But I must be aware that a subsystem, that fits a certain threshold, is no mean without the rest of the system: the self-organized critical state is about oppositions.
The same thing in simple words:
1) not all the people are identical for the model,
2) an individual person, if viewed in isolation from everything else, is not an example of intelligence or consciousness.
Vasyl Komarov | Yet important detail. The existence of some protocol is a coherent state. Evolution is a coherent continuous change of protocols - a cross-cutting process for all scales of the system. About evolution we can say for sure that there is no favorite preferred scale or unique system. Subsystems may die off with outdated protocols in a changing landscape, which does not change the essence of the overall process - evolution is "asimptotically" unbiased.
Ed Gerck | Trust, contrary and in distinction to confidence or authorization in a network, which requires a source, does not use authority. There are multiple ways of knowing, and none is fundamental. Some languages do not have this concept. It is missing in the social computation. So, first ask, is there a word for trust in my language, in all souces I cite, or is it somehow overloaded with confidence?
This is important, for example, in computer protocols, to defend against MITM, and in finer use. Some countries do not have it, though, originally. This happens in other areas, where Russians can see more colors than Americans, because they name them in a more comprehensive system, it is not the DNA.
In Portuguese, for example, and Latin languages in general, there is no word for trust. Portuguese speaking people only use and hear about confiança, which is confidence. But confidence requires a source, and does not represent trust as a social concept. Curiously, those societies have difficulties developing that missing linguistic concept in their collective structures, for example, requiring a Pope in their religious expression, when, actually none is required, as many organizations show. Finding the "head" of a movement can also be used repressively, and is detrimental.
In normal use, these two different concepts are confused, and manipulated. For example, an attacker in MITM, which can be used as model for social events, such as con games. Computers can also play con games, and that is a major tool in hacking techniques. Computers, for example, learned to hack chess, using techniques that humans never dreamed of in thousands of years.
Thus, the use of trust is special and necessary. Let us not overload it with confidence, to begin with -- there is no external authorization or authority in trust. It is more holistic, more inclusive, more synergistic, less dependent. In theoretical computer science, the distinction becomes critical, you must not mix these concepts -- they are different cardinal systems.
Dennis Hamilton | Thank you Vasyl, for mentioning Michael Polyani. When I first read of his notion of focal versus subordinate attention, that struck me as very relevant to the way that software is useful and even how the stored-program concept moves between procedure and data and procedure, etc. That has stayed with me to this day, and it figures in how I introduce software engineering into a model of computation. The idea of self-knowledge is also interesting with respect to consciousness.
Ed Gerck, I do not see how an appeal to Theoretical Computer Science provides a mathematical structure that can be interpreted usefully as a theory of trust and especially as a bridge from that reductive notion of trust to consciousness. I don't find this very scientific. I think you and I have exhausted this matter, however.
PS: I do commend the "1.2 Three Levels of Communication Problems" discussion in Warren Weaver's "Recent Contributions to the Mathematical Theory of Communication," found in conjunction with Shannon's paper in "The Mathematical Theory of Communication." I note that Weaver considers that Shannon's work -- which applies to the reliability of the subordinate (i.e., encoding) level -- has some bearing on the semantic and what is called the effectiveness level of communication. It appears that Level A is not the problem with successful communication on the theme of this thread, since the texts are successfully communicated. Our difficulties lie elsewhere.
Ed Gerck | Reflections on trust vs. confidence, computer theoretic methods, and references, are available in the paper
Technical Report Overview of Certification Systems: X.509, PKIX, CA, PGP & SKIP
and other versions since 1997 (search google), with more than 133 peer-reviewed citations in total, and thousands of informal use in reports. The Abstract is given below.
Cryptography and certification are considered necessary Internet features and must be used together, for example in ecommerce. This work deals with certification issues and reviews the three most common methods in use today, which are based on X.509 Certificates and Certification Authorities (CAs), PGP and, SKIP. These methods are respectively classified as directory, referral and collaborative based. For two parties in a dialogue the three methods are further classified as extrinsic, because they depend on references which are outside the scope of the dialogue. A series of conceptual, legal and implementation flaws are catalogued for each case, emphasizing X.509 and CAs, which helps to provide users with safety guidelines to be used when resolving certification issues. Governmental initiatives introducing Internet regulations on certification, such as by TTP, are also discussed with their pros and cons regarding security and privacy. Throughout, the paper stresses the basic paradox of security versus privacy when dealing with extrinsic certification systems – which is very important in voting systems. This paper has benefitted from the feedback of the Internet community and its online versions received over 250,000 Internet visitors from more than 80,000 unique Internet sites in 1997/2000. The paper was also presented by invitation at the Black Hat Conference, Las Vegas ‘99. THE BELL is publishing the first part of the paper. The footnotes, references and the full PDF version as well as the original (larger) HTML version are available at www.thebell.net/papers/
Dennis Hamilton | PPS: In mentioning Warren Weaver's "Recent Contributions to the Mathematical Theory of Communication" I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge the section 3, "The Interrelationship of the Three Levels of Communication Problems." There Weaver climbs the ladder of inference, imagining that the theory of communication applicable to the successful creation and conveyance of a communication via signaling over a channel can be raised up to apply to conveyance of the (intended?) semantics and even elicitation of an intended action. This part is pure speculation, with Weaver supposing that such an upraising is not particularly technically difficult. We are now a long way from 1949 when that prospect was suggested and I suggest we remain stuck with the speculation alone (along with contemporary speculations about quantum theory and the universe as computer). What seems apparent to me is the lack of scientific foundation to inference at higher levels than the basic notion of information with respect to signals.
Ed Gerck | Michael Polanyi is well-known, albeit tangential to this discussion. Trust, contrasted with confidence, finds an explanation in his idea of self-co-ordination of independent initiatives leading to a joint result which is unpremeditated by any of those who bring it about. This was frequently adopted by Stefferud and many in our group (see, for example. ref. 4, below), as we worked to verify the abstract definition of trust. We came to the same idea as Polanyi, as an instatiation. On that sense, his ideas, though tangential to the TCS effort, were useful.
His ideas were perhaps still too positivist, he used forced language with "all" and "any" -- frequently false in logic, even though he was against positivism. He denied that a scientific method can yield truth mechanically, which we can do today with AI, even far away in space probes. All knowing, he affirmed, no matter how formalised, relies upon commitments, but quantum mechanic collapse can be postponed, as well as computational collapse with hash-functions in TCS, for higher gain. He denied, contrary to Turing, that minds are reducible to collections of rules, and today we have AI surpassing the mind in many aspects that we considered quintessential to mind, such the games of Chess and Go. He could not envision consciousness without mind. This discussion takes the other road.
Further, Polanyi contradicted himself as a natural scientist, by arguing that the information contained in the DNA molecule is not reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry. Also, in self-contradiction, he argued that a free market economy should not be left to be wholly self-adjusting., whereas he previously deffended the absolutist, positivist like view, that "Any attempt to organize the group ... under a single authority would eliminate their independent initiatives, and thus reduce their joint effectiveness to that of the single person directing them from the centre. It would, in effect, paralyse their co-operation."
As we say in ref. 3, above, such external regulation is yet necessary for effective progress, as we see here in RG as well, in society, and civilization itself -- but a single point of control can become a single point of failure:
"The author does not believe that strengthening centralized control and making it a single handle of control is a solution, because such control then becomes a single point of failure."
and we caution that,
"... the answer does not lie in an increased centralized control, that would be impossible to attain. .. Internet control must be decentralized in order to be effective."
It turned out already that the abstract notion of trust in [1] was necessary and sufficient, proved in numerous protocols, and billions of messages every day. More details in refs. 1, 2, 3, op.cit., and 4.
The discussion now is whether that same abstract definition of trust is effective to measure consciousness, like a clock is effective to measure time, or a yardstick to measure space. Not necessarily direct in all situations, as one cannot use a yardstick when a target is moving, but it may be done indirectly.
Mind may not be necessary for consciousness, contrary to Polanyi and others, as we enlarge our vision to online, AI, extraterrestrial life, and matter itself.
[4] Technical Report On ABSTRACT, OBJECTIVE, SUBJECTIVE and INTERSUBJECTIVE Modes
Q: Can consciousness be meaningfully measured by trust?
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, just recently, I had a fun conversation with an elderly retired laboratory manager. In a joking mood he asked me and another colleague: who are the experts?
It reminded me of two things: my recent dispute with dear Dragan Pavlovic here (▲) about professionalism, as well as a video interview where Feynman talked how in high school he got into the Arista, "a group of kids who got good grades", and also other his words from interview, that "You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect me to be. It’s their mistake, not my failing."
In response with a smile I asked an elderly manager: did you know that professional philosophers do not exist?
NB: Trust, as any system of authorities, is not a sign of consciousness, in contrast to the conscious ability to sacrifice personal benefits/life for the sake of winning for the structure, awareness of the involvement in which is part of self-awareness.
The ability to doubt is a sign of consciousness, and finite automata are the best professionals/experts... of course, one can be a super expert in philosophy (-;
Ed Gerck | Hello Dennis Hamilton: You will have to read ref. 2 to see the necessity, and this is not psychology, philosophy, nor sociology -- which are useful but not a science. Computer theoretic, or theoretical computer science, or TCS, is a subset of general computer science and mathematics that focuses on more mathematical topics of computing and includes the theory of computation.
The ACM's Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory (SIGACT) provides the following description:
TCS covers a wide variety of topics including algorithms, data structures, computational complexity, parallel and distributed computation, probabilistic computation, quantum computation, automata theory, information theory, cryptography, program semantics and verification, machine learning, computational biology, computational economics, computational geometry, and computational number theory and algebra. Work in this field is often distinguished by its emphasis on mathematical technique and rigor.
Computer theoretic, TCS as defined, means the computer science used on creating software, such as for Internet protocols, to define suitable data structures and rules, usually with multi-valued logic. For example, we do not use YES/NO in two-valued logic called Boolean, as it creates indeterminacy in practical implementations.
Finally, to your last point, In terms of TCS, would it be necessary for an observer to pose such a question about consciousness, tied to such a notion of trust? No, If one ignores the question, or never poses it, reality is not modified.
Whatever people understand by "trust" is included in the abstract definition given in [1], as shown in [2], where the necessity of this notion of trust is also explained, as it started to be felt in large multi-user applications in 1998, inTCS, with the opening of the Internet to the public. It was already felt, though, since about 1976, with chip technology and Moore's law.
Ed Gerck | Vasyl: this is not a space for play in words or no meaning, self-links that are off-topic, or adding irrelevant data, as you did above. Please fix this, it is against RG rules, life is a school. I expect more of you, in accretion.
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, any behavior on the protocols and compliance with them is not related to consciousness. This is a question of formalism, the integrity of the system, but not a criterion of consciousness. Since this is a mechanical reproducible action, it does not require understanding, only reaction to predetermined parameters. From the point of view of formalism, it is possible to establish an agreement that some criteria and formal model are indicator of consciousness, and then mechanically use it (as a Turing test, for example), but any conscious system to which you try to apply this agreement will have its own opinion about your consciousness and the group in which your protocol of agreement operates. (imo)
What if consciousness has a gradation, ranging from complete absence?
Vasyl Komarov | Michael Polanyi proposed the right concept of tacit (personal) knowledge. As I already said earlier in old discussion, the understanding of any hypothetical sufficiently close to object model of consciousness can only be an individual act of self-knowledge. It is impossible to understand such a model just studying others of own kind. It is my opinion.
Ed Gerck | Hello Vasyl: Trust, as in ref.1 and 2, is not about authority, and disclaims it, please read. Trust, in refs. 1 and 2, is also subjective, trust is in the eyes of the beholder, so different agents can indeed trust the same agent to different extents (see ref 2). One cannot impose objective trust. But intersubjective trust can exist, as a medical diagnosis (see ref. 2) exemplifies. It is also possible to trust (completely, as always) but on zero extent, which measures to complete absence (just like an integral on a zero set) of measured consciousness (someone else may measure differently, and this is acceptable, as a circle viewed on the directions of the normal and sideways).
The ability to doubt does not precede self-trust, or any form of trust -- doubt what? You can only doubt what you have internalized, as crossing a barrier between outside and inside for analysis, what you trust in the first place. If not internalized, it is not doubt but rejection, also possible and analized with regard to trust as a bias, in ref. 2.
Joachim Pimiskern | There is a study that tries to determine consciousness from current brain module interconnectedness.
Brain study suggests consciousness a matter of optimal degree of connectedness in neural network
Large-scale signatures of unconsciousness are consistent with a departure from critical dynamics
2016 | DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2015.1027 | pdf
Regards,
Joachim
Igael Azoulay | - is an encyclopedia conscious ? and an interactive encyclopedia ? and an encyclopedia which changes its contents after a discussion ? and if it changes without discussing with me ?
- is an autistic snail conscious ? and an autistic ape ? and an autistic human ?
- I forget that my current work needs 3 pages more and that each day lost is lost. Am I conscious ?
I wonder how we will measure this fuzzy concept but I trust this brainstorming. :)
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, I see here precisely the problem of authorization, a name that share a common root with authority. I can apply to trust only analogy with truth. The concept of truth makes sense only within a pre-established (definitely biased) system, be it a criminal code, a medical diagnosis on accepted symptoms, a formalism of mathematics or any other formal system (or other communication agrement). Medicine is very sensitive to this, because object complexity and extremelly wide semantics of its language is poorly formalizable for exchange by experience and for routines of protocol.
Anything that “breaks” the protocol is either part of the system (in a state of communication) or definitely beyond the capabilities of the protocol. If part of the system - it is already automation. Of course, as a threshold indicator an approach to assessment can always be used (what we often use in practice, IQ test is example).
Having established an agreement once about the intellect or consciousness, you “deprive” it of the possibility of further evolution.
In my understanding of the theory of evolution via self-organization, the intellect cannot be an unitary object (that is, it is always biased at any scale).
In a concurrent evolving system, it is difficult to figure out who measures whom at the moment.
The allegory of the ivory tower for advancing the intelligence must be accompanied by the understanding that this is not a guarantee of independence and protection against external factors, but the maximum one-sided communication, because your protocols of communication and areas of interest/needs (i.e. attraction centers), not complete compatible backward with more excess number of less complex surrounding systems).
It is impossible to set the standard of intelligence or consciousness. It is a quest of unlimited model. The threshold by limited criteria can be. But I must be aware that a subsystem, that fits a certain threshold, is no mean without the rest of the system: the self-organized critical state is about oppositions.
The same thing in simple words:
1) not all the people are identical for the model,
2) an individual person, if viewed in isolation from everything else, is not an example of intelligence or consciousness.
Vasyl Komarov | Yet important detail. The existence of some protocol is a coherent state. Evolution is a coherent continuous change of protocols - a cross-cutting process for all scales of the system. About evolution we can say for sure that there is no favorite preferred scale or unique system. Subsystems may die off with outdated protocols in a changing landscape, which does not change the essence of the overall process - evolution is "asimptotically" unbiased.
Ed Gerck | Trust, contrary and in distinction to confidence or authorization in a network, which requires a source, does not use authority. There are multiple ways of knowing, and none is fundamental. Some languages do not have this concept. It is missing in the social computation. So, first ask, is there a word for trust in my language, in all souces I cite, or is it somehow overloaded with confidence?
This is important, for example, in computer protocols, to defend against MITM, and in finer use. Some countries do not have it, though, originally. This happens in other areas, where Russians can see more colors than Americans, because they name them in a more comprehensive system, it is not the DNA.
In Portuguese, for example, and Latin languages in general, there is no word for trust. Portuguese speaking people only use and hear about confiança, which is confidence. But confidence requires a source, and does not represent trust as a social concept. Curiously, those societies have difficulties developing that missing linguistic concept in their collective structures, for example, requiring a Pope in their religious expression, when, actually none is required, as many organizations show. Finding the "head" of a movement can also be used repressively, and is detrimental.
In normal use, these two different concepts are confused, and manipulated. For example, an attacker in MITM, which can be used as model for social events, such as con games. Computers can also play con games, and that is a major tool in hacking techniques. Computers, for example, learned to hack chess, using techniques that humans never dreamed of in thousands of years.
Thus, the use of trust is special and necessary. Let us not overload it with confidence, to begin with -- there is no external authorization or authority in trust. It is more holistic, more inclusive, more synergistic, less dependent. In theoretical computer science, the distinction becomes critical, you must not mix these concepts -- they are different cardinal systems.
Dennis Hamilton | Thank you Vasyl, for mentioning Michael Polyani. When I first read of his notion of focal versus subordinate attention, that struck me as very relevant to the way that software is useful and even how the stored-program concept moves between procedure and data and procedure, etc. That has stayed with me to this day, and it figures in how I introduce software engineering into a model of computation. The idea of self-knowledge is also interesting with respect to consciousness.
Ed Gerck, I do not see how an appeal to Theoretical Computer Science provides a mathematical structure that can be interpreted usefully as a theory of trust and especially as a bridge from that reductive notion of trust to consciousness. I don't find this very scientific. I think you and I have exhausted this matter, however.
PS: I do commend the "1.2 Three Levels of Communication Problems" discussion in Warren Weaver's "Recent Contributions to the Mathematical Theory of Communication," found in conjunction with Shannon's paper in "The Mathematical Theory of Communication." I note that Weaver considers that Shannon's work -- which applies to the reliability of the subordinate (i.e., encoding) level -- has some bearing on the semantic and what is called the effectiveness level of communication. It appears that Level A is not the problem with successful communication on the theme of this thread, since the texts are successfully communicated. Our difficulties lie elsewhere.
Ed Gerck | Reflections on trust vs. confidence, computer theoretic methods, and references, are available in the paper
Technical Report Overview of Certification Systems: X.509, PKIX, CA, PGP & SKIP
and other versions since 1997 (search google), with more than 133 peer-reviewed citations in total, and thousands of informal use in reports. The Abstract is given below.
Cryptography and certification are considered necessary Internet features and must be used together, for example in ecommerce. This work deals with certification issues and reviews the three most common methods in use today, which are based on X.509 Certificates and Certification Authorities (CAs), PGP and, SKIP. These methods are respectively classified as directory, referral and collaborative based. For two parties in a dialogue the three methods are further classified as extrinsic, because they depend on references which are outside the scope of the dialogue. A series of conceptual, legal and implementation flaws are catalogued for each case, emphasizing X.509 and CAs, which helps to provide users with safety guidelines to be used when resolving certification issues. Governmental initiatives introducing Internet regulations on certification, such as by TTP, are also discussed with their pros and cons regarding security and privacy. Throughout, the paper stresses the basic paradox of security versus privacy when dealing with extrinsic certification systems – which is very important in voting systems. This paper has benefitted from the feedback of the Internet community and its online versions received over 250,000 Internet visitors from more than 80,000 unique Internet sites in 1997/2000. The paper was also presented by invitation at the Black Hat Conference, Las Vegas ‘99. THE BELL is publishing the first part of the paper. The footnotes, references and the full PDF version as well as the original (larger) HTML version are available at www.thebell.net/papers/
Dennis Hamilton | PPS: In mentioning Warren Weaver's "Recent Contributions to the Mathematical Theory of Communication" I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge the section 3, "The Interrelationship of the Three Levels of Communication Problems." There Weaver climbs the ladder of inference, imagining that the theory of communication applicable to the successful creation and conveyance of a communication via signaling over a channel can be raised up to apply to conveyance of the (intended?) semantics and even elicitation of an intended action. This part is pure speculation, with Weaver supposing that such an upraising is not particularly technically difficult. We are now a long way from 1949 when that prospect was suggested and I suggest we remain stuck with the speculation alone (along with contemporary speculations about quantum theory and the universe as computer). What seems apparent to me is the lack of scientific foundation to inference at higher levels than the basic notion of information with respect to signals.
Ed Gerck | Michael Polanyi is well-known, albeit tangential to this discussion. Trust, contrasted with confidence, finds an explanation in his idea of self-co-ordination of independent initiatives leading to a joint result which is unpremeditated by any of those who bring it about. This was frequently adopted by Stefferud and many in our group (see, for example. ref. 4, below), as we worked to verify the abstract definition of trust. We came to the same idea as Polanyi, as an instatiation. On that sense, his ideas, though tangential to the TCS effort, were useful.
His ideas were perhaps still too positivist, he used forced language with "all" and "any" -- frequently false in logic, even though he was against positivism. He denied that a scientific method can yield truth mechanically, which we can do today with AI, even far away in space probes. All knowing, he affirmed, no matter how formalised, relies upon commitments, but quantum mechanic collapse can be postponed, as well as computational collapse with hash-functions in TCS, for higher gain. He denied, contrary to Turing, that minds are reducible to collections of rules, and today we have AI surpassing the mind in many aspects that we considered quintessential to mind, such the games of Chess and Go. He could not envision consciousness without mind. This discussion takes the other road.
Further, Polanyi contradicted himself as a natural scientist, by arguing that the information contained in the DNA molecule is not reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry. Also, in self-contradiction, he argued that a free market economy should not be left to be wholly self-adjusting., whereas he previously deffended the absolutist, positivist like view, that "Any attempt to organize the group ... under a single authority would eliminate their independent initiatives, and thus reduce their joint effectiveness to that of the single person directing them from the centre. It would, in effect, paralyse their co-operation."
As we say in ref. 3, above, such external regulation is yet necessary for effective progress, as we see here in RG as well, in society, and civilization itself -- but a single point of control can become a single point of failure:
"The author does not believe that strengthening centralized control and making it a single handle of control is a solution, because such control then becomes a single point of failure."
and we caution that,
"... the answer does not lie in an increased centralized control, that would be impossible to attain. .. Internet control must be decentralized in order to be effective."
It turned out already that the abstract notion of trust in [1] was necessary and sufficient, proved in numerous protocols, and billions of messages every day. More details in refs. 1, 2, 3, op.cit., and 4.
The discussion now is whether that same abstract definition of trust is effective to measure consciousness, like a clock is effective to measure time, or a yardstick to measure space. Not necessarily direct in all situations, as one cannot use a yardstick when a target is moving, but it may be done indirectly.
Mind may not be necessary for consciousness, contrary to Polanyi and others, as we enlarge our vision to online, AI, extraterrestrial life, and matter itself.
[4] Technical Report On ABSTRACT, OBJECTIVE, SUBJECTIVE and INTERSUBJECTIVE Modes
Oct 13, 2018
Dennis Hamilton | That Polyani theorized some matters in error does not invalidate all of his effort.
In addition, we now know that free market economies, if they ever exist, are not wholly self-adjusting with respect to externalities, since free market economies are not closed systems in reality. That does not imply a single-authority system, so perhaps Polyani should not be labelled as binary thinking in this case.
It strikes me that Polyani must certainly have meant truth in a fashion not corresponding to the Ed Gerck notion of truth being accessible to an AI.
I don't believe that successful chess-playing programs qualify as AI, although they do provide demonstration that intelligence is not required to play chess successfully. I don't know about the more-recent demonstration of GO mastery, but I suspect that it does not require an AI either. I conceded the achievement of successful heuristic approaches and the computing power available to apply them beyond the capacities of human opponents.
I love playing computer adventure games of the highly-animated, cinematic form. My favorites are termed third-person shooters because one can observe and operate a character without being trapped behind the character's eyes. I am currently working through "Shadow of the Tomb Raider," a great demonstration of the genre. That the operation of non-player characters and other entities that appear to exhibit agency is sometimes claimed to be evidence of AI is not much evidence for that claim, whatever its appeal in popular culture.
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, confidence is the opposite of doubt. This refers to learning/mechanical replication, not science/thinking.
I am primitive person, I like simple rational things, I don’t like lengthy or poorly structured texts, especially those based on an abundance of special terminology, abbreviations, personalities, etc.
Although some text is an excellent example of what I have said above, when even the summary appeals to (external) authority, and not to (internal) content.
I also don’t like refined formalism for losing a direct connection with semantics, I don’t like it same as the Turing tarpit. Both equally interferes with thinking.
There is a multitude of things with various formulations and definitions, but a close meaning. Of these, I prefer to choose the most simple and transparent for me (when you try to understand something, the task is to minimize the formalism or biased labels in order to see what was behind it).
Ed, I am not interested in Polanyi as a formal label of everything that can be associated with him. I just said about tacit knowledge.
Accordingly, it was about the fact that absolutely everything that the system learns (the human individual in this case) from the outside comes through system edge (sensory) by processing of incoming information flow, including any formal information. But, the understanding of any, including formal, information, is an individual act of interpretation (here it is necessary to indicate the name of Emilio Betty in addition). This is qualia.
Understanding something is a fundamentally individual act, when the understanding of consciousness is, moreover, self-referential.
At the same time, for the integrity of periodic structures (humans) the possibility of coherent evolution, i.e. possibility to be internally in the same configuration, or simply speaking, to equally perceive an identical flow of information from the outside, is fundamental. What literally means the same (coherent) understanding in this context.
What are invariants of transformations, and how they affect this process of interpretation is a separate story. It was repeatedly discussed by me (for example, in the topic of dear Abdul on the possibility of effective refutation of the model of theory of relativity).
NB: It is necessary to begin to cut off the roughest fundamentally incompatible, contradictory things. Occam's razor does not work in the opposite direction. It is effective as machete, not a surgeon's scalpel.
By the way, I don’t know if Polanyi spoke that "the information contained in the DNA molecule is not reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry", but I totally agree with this - for the frames of modern demarcation of physics and chemistry it is definitely right.
Ed Gerck | Thanks for the support. Note that this treatment of trust stands on the intersection of theoretical computer science, AI, and information theory, but it reaches out to neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy, analytical psychology, physics, maths, and other branches. That is possible, and evidence of the unity of knowledge. No matter where one starts, eventually, one is led to other areas that seem disconnected at first.
Dennis Hamilton | That Polyani theorized some matters in error does not invalidate all of his effort.
In addition, we now know that free market economies, if they ever exist, are not wholly self-adjusting with respect to externalities, since free market economies are not closed systems in reality. That does not imply a single-authority system, so perhaps Polyani should not be labelled as binary thinking in this case.
It strikes me that Polyani must certainly have meant truth in a fashion not corresponding to the Ed Gerck notion of truth being accessible to an AI.
I don't believe that successful chess-playing programs qualify as AI, although they do provide demonstration that intelligence is not required to play chess successfully. I don't know about the more-recent demonstration of GO mastery, but I suspect that it does not require an AI either. I conceded the achievement of successful heuristic approaches and the computing power available to apply them beyond the capacities of human opponents.
I love playing computer adventure games of the highly-animated, cinematic form. My favorites are termed third-person shooters because one can observe and operate a character without being trapped behind the character's eyes. I am currently working through "Shadow of the Tomb Raider," a great demonstration of the genre. That the operation of non-player characters and other entities that appear to exhibit agency is sometimes claimed to be evidence of AI is not much evidence for that claim, whatever its appeal in popular culture.
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, confidence is the opposite of doubt. This refers to learning/mechanical replication, not science/thinking.
I am primitive person, I like simple rational things, I don’t like lengthy or poorly structured texts, especially those based on an abundance of special terminology, abbreviations, personalities, etc.
Although some text is an excellent example of what I have said above, when even the summary appeals to (external) authority, and not to (internal) content.
I also don’t like refined formalism for losing a direct connection with semantics, I don’t like it same as the Turing tarpit. Both equally interferes with thinking.
There is a multitude of things with various formulations and definitions, but a close meaning. Of these, I prefer to choose the most simple and transparent for me (when you try to understand something, the task is to minimize the formalism or biased labels in order to see what was behind it).
Ed, I am not interested in Polanyi as a formal label of everything that can be associated with him. I just said about tacit knowledge.
Accordingly, it was about the fact that absolutely everything that the system learns (the human individual in this case) from the outside comes through system edge (sensory) by processing of incoming information flow, including any formal information. But, the understanding of any, including formal, information, is an individual act of interpretation (here it is necessary to indicate the name of Emilio Betty in addition). This is qualia.
Understanding something is a fundamentally individual act, when the understanding of consciousness is, moreover, self-referential.
At the same time, for the integrity of periodic structures (humans) the possibility of coherent evolution, i.e. possibility to be internally in the same configuration, or simply speaking, to equally perceive an identical flow of information from the outside, is fundamental. What literally means the same (coherent) understanding in this context.
What are invariants of transformations, and how they affect this process of interpretation is a separate story. It was repeatedly discussed by me (for example, in the topic of dear Abdul on the possibility of effective refutation of the model of theory of relativity).
NB: It is necessary to begin to cut off the roughest fundamentally incompatible, contradictory things. Occam's razor does not work in the opposite direction. It is effective as machete, not a surgeon's scalpel.
By the way, I don’t know if Polanyi spoke that "the information contained in the DNA molecule is not reducible to the laws of physics and chemistry", but I totally agree with this - for the frames of modern demarcation of physics and chemistry it is definitely right.
Ed Gerck | Thanks for the support. Note that this treatment of trust stands on the intersection of theoretical computer science, AI, and information theory, but it reaches out to neuroscience, linguistics, philosophy, analytical psychology, physics, maths, and other branches. That is possible, and evidence of the unity of knowledge. No matter where one starts, eventually, one is led to other areas that seem disconnected at first.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Can consciousness be meaningfully measured by trust? [accessed Oct 18, 2018]
Oct 16, 2018
Eugene F Kislyakov | Sofia,
time-energy uncertainty relation has different sense than impuls-coordinate because time is not quantum mechanical operator. This was well explained by Mandelstamm (published after his death in UFN in 1944 by I.E. Tamm).
Eugene F Kislyakov | Sofia,
time-energy uncertainty relation has different sense than impuls-coordinate because time is not quantum mechanical operator. This was well explained by Mandelstamm (published after his death in UFN in 1944 by I.E. Tamm).
— ResearchGate. Available from: I have a problem with ionized states of atoms, can somebody help? [accessed Oct 16, 2018]
16 жовт. 2018 р.
21:53 | эволюция ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ●
{Disclaimer: гендерный вопрос и позиция сингенезиса в эволюционной цепи становления человечества как суперструктуры принципиально не может быть игнорируема в рамках H1 framework. Непонимание этого момента и любая пуританская риторика являются, увы, индикатором того, что человек не достаточно осознаёт следствия, а значит и фундаментальные предпосылки ГИПОТЕЗЫ, либо занимается самообманом, надеясь, что можно частично эксплуатировать механизм, появившийся исключительно благодаря целостной картине. Проще говоря, данный человек является заложником очевидных когнитивных искажений, порождаемых табуированной частью его личной системы убеждений.}
I’m not a boy. I’m not a girl,Premiere: 'Fractal' Explores the Gender Spectrum in Stunning Video
I am a fractal, a fractal of this world.
— Kim Boekbinder
{Ниже приведены некоторые фрагменты диспутов на ResearchGate, которые затрагивают данную проблему...}
Waldemar Koczkodaj | Vasiliy, I a kind of agree with you that the evolution is a self-regulated process. After destroying this planet, people will begin dying like home flies and a small percentage of survivals may rebuild a new civilization.
Certainly, it is hard to predict but the current pollution evidently caused by the "smart" evolution cannot continue for long. The problem is that those who may be somehow "most evolved" will disappear first :)
This line of thinking: "I will gladly giving up driving my car if anyone else did it" leads us to one conclusion: no one will give up his/her car driving and I wonder who is more evolved those who walked the entire life (say 5K yrs ago) or we now.
Vasyl Komarov | Waldemar, It is sad to realize yourself in the camp of excessively "reasonable" people who must perish by making adjustments, being dynamic details of a coarse system on a different scale. But, the system can evolve in a balanced manner only through all scales. All "bulging" details will be cuted off regardless of the scale, including those who "cuts off the branches". They are engaged in cutting out of the system not only those who are behind (themselves) but also those who outstripped the general development and handed these unprepared "idiots" a "chainsaw" instead of a "handsaw". If the system will collapse entirely, for example, life on planet Earth, it may well be, we lacked something else, for example, star of the 4th generation, i.e. our life was an earlier fluctuation from the mainstream of evolving Universe. If something or someone dies, this does not mean that it is accidental degradation. Without this process it is impossible to grow wiser throughout the system.
{Сказанное здесь, конечно, выглядит цинично с позиции гуманизма, как и действия робота в последнем добавленном в список фильме (▲), закономерности процессов самоорганизации должны быть равнодушны к любым bias в асимптотической перспективе, в этом залог рациональности реальности, залог возможности существования как процесса.}
Short-sighted people do not worry about such problems due to the very limited scope of selfish interests. Their existence is comfortable, until it discontinued, this is somewhat reminiscent the existence of malignant tumor cells in the body. Should the rest of the people worry about the future? Should the egoists be concerned about where and how their children will live? Will they survive at all? Your (and my) fears are connected with desire to control the process and with understanding that it depends not only on you (or me), but on everyone. Hawking aptly expressed this feeling of helplessness in front of the people surrounding the "ivory tower" ( Stephen Hawking: "Most dangerous time for our Planet" because We aren't listening to our Betters ). It is easier to understand this than to be able to do something effective, to make absolutely different people hear you, understand you and also think about problems.
I care about this. I am also worried about pollution, climate, wars... and (may be in the first place) the need to have enough time to fly apart creating the structure of several civilizations. I have already voiced own argumentation in the thread recently. There are enought arguments complementing each other and revealing the need for this. Here are a few more voiced by Elon Musk:
TED2013 | The mind behind Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity... (on ~13:20)
and especially
TED2017 | The future we're building - and boring (on ~32:08)
I recommend the last video interview entirely (if you are not familiar with it yet), since it relevant and interesting enough in the light of evolution and where we are going.
Brenda Jacono | Have been following this lengthy debate about evolution with much interest. As a medical professional, and health scientist what I am most interested in, and have not seen much about, is what the next stage of evolution is for the human being? What will it look like? Some in the "pseudosciences" have said that the next blue print for humans can be found in what has been called alternatively "Indigo, crystal or star" children. These children are believed to possess special, unusual, and sometimes supernatural traits or abilities. Of course, this idea has been much criticized by "true" scientists. But if not beings like these children, then what? It is easy to put down ideas that do not fit the cultural bias of our particular scientific specialities, but what are the alternative description of this blue print?
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Brenda, since globally there we are talking about exponential process in a dynamical system (the evolution) - in the structure of a biological species there is a process of period doubling with geometric growth of degrees of freedom along with evolution. This allows, apparently, to overcome larger dynamic range of interferences on the adaptive landscape. Each bifurcation leads to new binary opposition in the structure. Continuous branching process (besides cell division) occurred at different stages and scales (the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotic diversity within animal-plant opposition is one of the good instance). The transition to syngenesis opposition was a serious start to the high-level structure of animals and continues further. With regard to the structure of our species the main events occur in the brain. We as mankind, in fact, owe our existence to the emergence at least of two serious additional binary oppositions. The subsequent process, theoretically, should continue the diversity on each of the oppositions. So, do not rely on any specific "color", humans will be very colorful :). Most strongly this will affect the further divergence between the poles of extraversion-introversion opposition. imo
{Озвученное здесь, конечно, имеет смысл лишь в случае полного исключения из рассмотрения когерентной с нами экстрасоматической составляющей цивилизации, не являющейся другими представителями нашего вида по отношению ко мне (к вам), реальная ситуация с эволюцией нашей целостной структуры (суперструктуры), как обычно, сложнее любой модели.}
NB: The "complex" order of chaos always begins with an easily traced order of first branches at each stage, then what we are accustomed to call "diversity" follows. An interesting point, in spite of the subsequent chaos of diversity, it is easy to see traces of the first bifurcations, they are literally fixed on a large extent.
— ResearchGate. Available from {disclaimer}: Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: Does time exist? [accessed July 2, 2017]
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Athanassios Nassikas,
Some participants in the discussion have long (years) been considering the related problems of metaphysics and the need to overcome the demarcation barrier for the natural sciences. One of the components of this problem can be characterized as falsifiability of the final theory, i.e. falsifiability of a semantically definitely correct structure. The second is that the scientific knowledge system will always be on the reverse side of the gap for it.
See all that is related to the Dougem-Quine thesis.
+ There on RG also were several important (for me) discussions about the origin of mathematics. It have a direct relationship to this problem, too.
Vasyl Komarov | Here there are several discussions with different biases in parallel. I apologize for ignoring some of them. Their meaning is understandable, but has long been not a subject of interest.
Revenons à nos moutons, i.e. to coherence.
The problem with coherence is that this is a purely subjective thing, unlike just existence, it depends on the point of view.
If this were not the case, Parmenides would not have asked himself the most important question, apparently, and the whole world could be like the terrible nightmare of a fossil insect, which was forever bogged down in amber, or could not be like, because the system of contradictions makes even the very idea of the possibility of the onset of equilibrium (an absolutely invariant state after a dynamic existence was there) is absurd, and otherwise there is nothing to discuss initially, as René Descartes, ahead of each of us, already said "Cogito ergo sum" and, I'm sure that even he was not original.
So, for example, a coherent state for representatives of one biological species means an identical state (our struggle for human rights ("The Story of Human Rights"), equality, freedom and so on comes from here), this applies not only on biological or social level but to any periodic structures striving for dynamic equilibrium or located in. This is what I like to call "Mirror Law", or in the language of hippies "make love, not war."
If we discard details (the superstructure is complex, starting with the degree of freedom of syngenesis, and even deeper ...from the opposition of eukaryotic cells of plants and animals, for example, and even deeper...), i.e. discard that despite the seeming simple periodic structure of individuals, the human society is in a struggle (which begins with mentioned syngenesis, to which it is necessary to add a stepped mental stratification by the psychotypes along both branches after bifurcation, leading to syngenesis [NB: human is long time not a bisexual being, it can be said (with reservations) only about the first species on phylogenetic branches, on which a degree of freedom of syngenesis there is], etc.), decoherence for the parameters of periodicity such a structure leads to this struggle (wars, inequality, etc.) and, as a result, to potential destruction of the system on some scales (destruction at some level of society's self-organization, for example, or total self-destruction and degradation of humanity).
If we consider not such a symmetrical opposition of the prey and predator, the situation is somewhat different. From the point of view of the prey, the coherent state is the state in which the victim does not intersect with the predator (is in antiphase, literally). Nevertheless, the prey and predator are in an entangled state, at some point in the evolution of the system both systems have been entangled (at least once). Moreover, the decoherence of the system on a certain localized area (for two separate individuals) leads in fact to the same process as is characteristic of a low-level physical system: either the victim survives (then the predator dies of hunger) or the predator survives (then the victim is eaten).
This is just an (rough) view on a complex physical system through a narrowly focused "window function". If now we expand our view and move from the scale of individual organisms to the scale of two species within the adaptive landscape, one of which is a prey to the other, we can again see the action of the "Mirror Law", because the system can continue to be entangled only if both species co-exist in a dynamic equilibrium. Full decoherence in this case may kill the entire entangled structure. The same is true for system of plants pollinated by insects, and so on (the predator and the prey species and each individual of both kinds, are only details of the structure of adaptive landscape, not only for each other, but also for any other sensible part of landscape).
At the same time, the causal relationship is clearly traced throughout the structure, despite the fact that the entire holistic structure is difficult to separate and it can not exist element-wise.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Michael, I am not aiming at reaching some kind of consensus within this thread. I use "endless" discussions on RG, like this, for my own purposes (I have noted many times it, they are convenient as food and background for thought process). In any such discussion, there will always be useful separate dialogues with some participants.
Your position relative to biology and other branches of science, as well as to their relationship to physics, definitely does not suit me. As I said before, what is really not good to do - is to study every system in isolation from the environment. This leads to cognitive distortions.
Having carried out the boundaries of demarcation (in this way), physics, as you understand it, has no right to any serious unified theory. At least for the reason (there are more reasons) that observations are dependent on the observer, which is taken "out of the brackets" of the theory (he, and everything connected with him, is taboo for the theory). Such a theory of nature certainly can not be objective and fundamental, avoiding some objects of the nature.
This is my opinion, for me it will not be another. As a donkey I must once and once again repeat own words from another discussion about the time arrow: One can talk about time in quantum physics or cosmology, or in whole physics, as much as one like. The conversations still fills with only one-sided speculations. It's all good. But, put an observer in the studio. Let's dissect it. Just like "inductive donkeys" in the pathological anatomy.
And the words from one of the disputes (with Azzam K Almosallami): I once again say that there are obvious problems related to the observer, which physics can not ignore. Not only physics can not ignore them (we can safely add in the list math, psychology, even philosophy). It is for this reason you and I are talking about different physics. My physics should be harmoniously integrated into the cumulative system of knowledge to eliminate the contradictions that have developed within existing demarcation system.
Vasyl Komarov | Michael, something I forgot to add for mutual understanding in previous post... also own quote from recent dialogue so that you understand that I also understand and agree with you regarding the "static" and "dynamic":
<<Any human knowledge known to at least two representatives of humanity (in other words everything that is no longer a personal tacit knowledge) corresponds to this formulation: "Positive knowledge for materialist dialectics is only that, which reveals itself through the collective historical/social practice, industry etc. of man."
All scientific practice since Popper and even Galileo (since the moment of formation of the scientific method) corresponds to this formulation: "Materialism or better, materialistic dialectics can profitably deal only with "being" that has existence; these could be material or thought objects that undergoes dialectical evolution, change etc." The place for the "section line" has already been used.
But! Systematic evolving knowledge and the scientific method are impossible without hypothetico-deductive reasoning and axiomatization. The latter implies areas of relatively stable knowledge, i.e. information that does not evolve (sic!) for at least a limited period. Almost any such knowledge is exactly related to the "collective historical/social practice".>>
In order not to clutter up the topic with redundant information, the passage is somewhat divorced from the context, I recommend whole discussion (where the source is located) and the publication of dear Christian Baumgarten (The Final Theory of Physics -a Tautology?).
Now we can return to what I, in fact, said above in the words addressed to you (mentioning Tarski), as well as in the objection to Athanassios Nassikas (mentioning Dougem-Quine): The final theory in this context is an abstract model, it must be absolutely invariant ("static") on the basis of many considerations of the philosophical plan, mathematical foundational (already evident for me) invariance and the whole intuitive historical experience of the development of science (here I mean the invariants already associated with the antinomies of (discovered via) scientific revolutions, it can be easily demonstrated on the example of physics, as I have already shown earlier to Abdul (an appeal to which I quote here) in another discussion Free Fall in Gravitational Theory).
I have to admit that we had to return to what I had avoided in the conversation about objectivity with you earlier: This is the subject for a separate serious discussion (NB: invariance is synonymous with "neutrality").
Our cumulative knowledge system tends to this model involuntarily, thanks to the principles embodied in the scientific method. In each shock with "obstacles" only invariants survive, which remain stable in application to new data/qualia and relative to old.
— ResearchGate. Available from {disclaimer}: Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: Does time exist? [accessed November 20, 2017]
Oct 17, 2018
Ed Gerck | New version, and by the responses, thank you, Michael Polanyi is cited although he was used in 1997-2005.
Ed Gerck | New version, and by the responses, thank you, Michael Polanyi is cited although he was used in 1997-2005.
Oct 18, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | It makes sense to bring the personal discourse in the topic to its logical conclusion. Given all the above I must draw attention to the role of understanding in the whole process. Consciousness is a function of understanding.
The phenomenon of understanding is the most difficult process from the point of view of understanding (sorry for tautology, literally it is about self-reference), without mention of it formalization (and even its fundamental possibility, given that all this is simultaneously in the framework of Holism in the form of reality, without any "beyond", in my opinion).
What is understanding?
One problem entails another. Understanding is a kind of sensation (feeling).
Then what is the feeling (in general)?
By the way, consciousness (as a derivative of understanding) also is a feeling.
Because existence is a process (dynamics of the system), for starters, we can decompose it into canonical conjugate components (the simplest "projections").
What we have?
At scale of single individual we have a spatial structure (energy in the form of dynamical memory) evolving along a trajectory from the conditional point of (birth) singularity to the moment of dissipation (decoherence) at the background of superstructure.
It should be noted that singularity point corresponds to a simple enough fundamentally ready system, which is able to lost a coherent state with a generating system according to some set of parameters and further away have own stable evolutionary trajectory within the framework of certain supporting supersystem.
There is a 1st signifiant reference point on this trajectory - the acquisition by the structure (system) of a new quality of self-awareness (usually happens somewhere on the way to the age of two), since the cutting off an object from non-object is a dichotomy way to cognize the object. Cutting off the subject (self) marks first fully conscious act of cognition for observer and at the same time is an act of forming a fundamentally unremovable self-reference. That's reason why consciousness only makes sense when there is an opposition of system and the rest of landscape.
Up to this point and after it, the state of the structure is continuously becoming more and more complex moving away from the pubertal stage of the fuzzy-but-initially-splited-ego (which operates in the primitive “bad-good” mode), overgrown with a complex interconnected system of mnestic sintezes along with the increased division of the brain into the hemispheres and growth of connections and the cortex.
There is a 2nd reference point of the cutoff of the process of rapid growth (synthesis stage) of the brain, before and after which there is some dynamics, the gradual alignment of asymmetry and the enhancement of introversion are manifestations of which (there are some issues related to asymmetry, because there is an uncertainty of priorities at the initial stage of brain growth with a weak division of the hemispheres similar to the leveling of skills in old age.)
We can definitely say that at each point of the trajectory starting from a certain moment (from which understanding of somethingt is there) a coherent state in the structure of an individual (such a dynamic system) is formed, with a feedback loop representing a feeling of understanding. It is a spatio-temporal structure within bondaries of the system with all internal semantical biases (mentioned tacit knowledge), which also is in the state of coherence with certain biases spreaded in surrounding landscape of superstructure (other observer-like periodical structures etc.).
Vasyl Komarov | It makes sense to bring the personal discourse in the topic to its logical conclusion. Given all the above I must draw attention to the role of understanding in the whole process. Consciousness is a function of understanding.
The phenomenon of understanding is the most difficult process from the point of view of understanding (sorry for tautology, literally it is about self-reference), without mention of it formalization (and even its fundamental possibility, given that all this is simultaneously in the framework of Holism in the form of reality, without any "beyond", in my opinion).
What is understanding?
One problem entails another. Understanding is a kind of sensation (feeling).
Then what is the feeling (in general)?
By the way, consciousness (as a derivative of understanding) also is a feeling.
Because existence is a process (dynamics of the system), for starters, we can decompose it into canonical conjugate components (the simplest "projections").
What we have?
At scale of single individual we have a spatial structure (energy in the form of dynamical memory) evolving along a trajectory from the conditional point of (birth) singularity to the moment of dissipation (decoherence) at the background of superstructure.
It should be noted that singularity point corresponds to a simple enough fundamentally ready system, which is able to lost a coherent state with a generating system according to some set of parameters and further away have own stable evolutionary trajectory within the framework of certain supporting supersystem.
There is a 1st signifiant reference point on this trajectory - the acquisition by the structure (system) of a new quality of self-awareness (usually happens somewhere on the way to the age of two), since the cutting off an object from non-object is a dichotomy way to cognize the object. Cutting off the subject (self) marks first fully conscious act of cognition for observer and at the same time is an act of forming a fundamentally unremovable self-reference. That's reason why consciousness only makes sense when there is an opposition of system and the rest of landscape.
Up to this point and after it, the state of the structure is continuously becoming more and more complex moving away from the pubertal stage of the fuzzy-but-initially-splited-ego (which operates in the primitive “bad-good” mode), overgrown with a complex interconnected system of mnestic sintezes along with the increased division of the brain into the hemispheres and growth of connections and the cortex.
There is a 2nd reference point of the cutoff of the process of rapid growth (synthesis stage) of the brain, before and after which there is some dynamics, the gradual alignment of asymmetry and the enhancement of introversion are manifestations of which (there are some issues related to asymmetry, because there is an uncertainty of priorities at the initial stage of brain growth with a weak division of the hemispheres similar to the leveling of skills in old age.)
We can definitely say that at each point of the trajectory starting from a certain moment (from which understanding of somethingt is there) a coherent state in the structure of an individual (such a dynamic system) is formed, with a feedback loop representing a feeling of understanding. It is a spatio-temporal structure within bondaries of the system with all internal semantical biases (mentioned tacit knowledge), which also is in the state of coherence with certain biases spreaded in surrounding landscape of superstructure (other observer-like periodical structures etc.).
— ResearchGate. Available from: Can consciousness be meaningfully measured by trust? [accessed Oct 18, 2018]
20 жовт. 2018 р.
07:40 | Unlocking the "Mystery" of Consciousness
08:01 | Я, конечно, не могу со всем согласиться, хотя бы по той причине, что проблема самореференции здесь оказалась в стороне. Упущена куча важных демаркационных, семантических моментов, в понимании физики, непрерывного процесса эволюции и т.д. Но с одним я согласен на 100% - "мистицизм" здесь совершенно не нужен, будучи частью "ритуала" terminal cap axiom он не является частью понимания чего-либо, как и нулевая гипотеза.
Oct 24, 2018
Q: On the fusion of time and space in special and general relativity, and cosmology
Eugene F Kislyakov | Who are inertial observers, Ed?
Ed Gerck | Eugene: There are many definitions of an inertial observer, and It is easy to find online. One has to be careful, though, to choose a definition that is not circular. It will be right, of course, but does not really help. What do you have in mind?
Q: On the fusion of time and space in special and general relativity, and cosmology
Eugene F Kislyakov | Who are inertial observers, Ed?
Ed Gerck | Eugene: There are many definitions of an inertial observer, and It is easy to find online. One has to be careful, though, to choose a definition that is not circular. It will be right, of course, but does not really help. What do you have in mind?
Oct 25, 2018
Eugene F Kislyakov | More precise question, Ed.
To be inertial observer you must have no acceleration relative to what?
Ed Gerck | Eugene and all: In the spacetime formalism, this question is answered in the absolute. The inertial observer has no worldline with curvature.
Note that, op. cit. Burgess *, absolute acceleration is geometric, a mere manifestation of the deformation of the worldline of an accelerating particle and does not imply some absolute space with respect to which the particle accelerates.
Exactly in the same way, absolute inertial motion reflects the straightness of the worldline of an inertial particle and does not imply some absolute space with respect to which the particle moves with constant velocity.
* Although it is not clear from its definition, Gauss’ Theorema Egregium states that the Gaussian curvature can be determined purely in terms of lengths and angles measured within the surface — that is, in terms of the induced metric and its derivatives — and so is a property intrinsic to the surface itself (as opposed to an extrinsic property that depends on how the surface is embedded into an external R3).
Eugene F Kislyakov | So, we have priveleged (inertial, not defined by observations!) frame, Ed.
About geometry.
We can not measure empty space.
Ed Gerck | Eugene and all: You misread, ignored intrinsic geometry. I wrote, "does not imply some absolute space with respect to which the particle moves with constant velocity." You and Vasyl can read up on Gauss and Burgess.
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, what is intrinsic geometry?
By the way, inertial - it is not about gravity, in principle.
Ed Gerck | Vasyl: You ask, "what is intrinsic geometry?" I suggest Wolfram and online to search for that answer that satisfies you. Trust no one, is my suggestion, and the efforts will be compensated by your results. Btw, I never wrote that inertial is about gravity, must be someone else.
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, I wanted to hear the answer, but it will come down like that.
Just keep in mind that this "intrinsic" geometry is a thing based on self-reference - implies an entity of other geometry on which the concept can be existed. It is also tautology.
Ed Gerck | Komarov, I suggest you read about intrinsic geometry before talking about it. It will remind you of Polanyi. For example, with Michael Polanyi, in his idea of self-coordination of independent initiatives. Different channels may measure distance differently, but what matters is leading to a joint result which is unpremeditated by any of those who bring it about. That, more than the sum of its parts, is given by intrinsic geometry.
Eugene F Kislyakov | More precise question, Ed.
To be inertial observer you must have no acceleration relative to what?
Ed Gerck | Eugene and all: In the spacetime formalism, this question is answered in the absolute. The inertial observer has no worldline with curvature.
Note that, op. cit. Burgess *, absolute acceleration is geometric, a mere manifestation of the deformation of the worldline of an accelerating particle and does not imply some absolute space with respect to which the particle accelerates.
Exactly in the same way, absolute inertial motion reflects the straightness of the worldline of an inertial particle and does not imply some absolute space with respect to which the particle moves with constant velocity.
* Although it is not clear from its definition, Gauss’ Theorema Egregium states that the Gaussian curvature can be determined purely in terms of lengths and angles measured within the surface — that is, in terms of the induced metric and its derivatives — and so is a property intrinsic to the surface itself (as opposed to an extrinsic property that depends on how the surface is embedded into an external R3).
Eugene F Kislyakov | So, we have priveleged (inertial, not defined by observations!) frame, Ed.
About geometry.
We can not measure empty space.
Ed Gerck | Eugene and all: You misread, ignored intrinsic geometry. I wrote, "does not imply some absolute space with respect to which the particle moves with constant velocity." You and Vasyl can read up on Gauss and Burgess.
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, what is intrinsic geometry?
By the way, inertial - it is not about gravity, in principle.
Ed Gerck | Vasyl: You ask, "what is intrinsic geometry?" I suggest Wolfram and online to search for that answer that satisfies you. Trust no one, is my suggestion, and the efforts will be compensated by your results. Btw, I never wrote that inertial is about gravity, must be someone else.
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, I wanted to hear the answer, but it will come down like that.
Just keep in mind that this "intrinsic" geometry is a thing based on self-reference - implies an entity of other geometry on which the concept can be existed. It is also tautology.
Ed Gerck | Komarov, I suggest you read about intrinsic geometry before talking about it. It will remind you of Polanyi. For example, with Michael Polanyi, in his idea of self-coordination of independent initiatives. Different channels may measure distance differently, but what matters is leading to a joint result which is unpremeditated by any of those who bring it about. That, more than the sum of its parts, is given by intrinsic geometry.
— ResearchGate. Available from: On the fusion of time and space in special and general relativity, and cosmology [accessed Nov 1, 2018]
Oct 25, 2018
Q: Do we need any definition of Art?
Derek Pigrum | I tend to agree with Simon Penny. Since the art movements of Romanticism and Expressionism we have tended to think of art as an expression of feelings and of self. With conceptualism art switched to an expression of concepts which might be seen as synonymous with ideas. I personally believe that the well springs of all art, including literature, are based on what Said identified in his ground breaking book, 'Beginnings'. The foundations of Said's thinking are the three functions of adjacency, parallelism and complementarity that originate with the 18th century philosopher Giambattista Vico. In other words the definition of art is poiesis or the bring forth of forms from matter that rely on certain practices. The difference between art and other forms of production, I am thinking primarily of design here, lies in Jean-Luc Nancy's notion of compositio that provides us with a definition of art as a combination of signs with things and and of signs among themselves. But more than this Nancy states 'one has to have recourse to compositio when there is no conception, that is to say when there is no immediate auto-adequation of the thing and its concept(or simultaneous production). Compositio is deficiency in conception, a deflected engenderment, a birth uncertain in its control(Nancy 1993, p.256). This for me is what art is giving rise to what I have previously said about art object/image as a signifier with an indefinite signified. This is the way I experience making(see Derek Pigrum home page on a computer not on a phone where you will get my old website). Compositio is then a highly complex practice that rest squarely on Vico's three notions.
For me art is all about practices. Again I quote the British painter Francis Bacon whose practices correspond closely to the complexity mentioned and from which we can learn a great deal. When asked what he expresses in his paintings relied 'I have nothing to express'. Let us stop looking at art as the expression of ideas and/or feelings and look at the work artists do. Their practices, their poiesis.
Q: Do we need any definition of Art?
Derek Pigrum | I tend to agree with Simon Penny. Since the art movements of Romanticism and Expressionism we have tended to think of art as an expression of feelings and of self. With conceptualism art switched to an expression of concepts which might be seen as synonymous with ideas. I personally believe that the well springs of all art, including literature, are based on what Said identified in his ground breaking book, 'Beginnings'. The foundations of Said's thinking are the three functions of adjacency, parallelism and complementarity that originate with the 18th century philosopher Giambattista Vico. In other words the definition of art is poiesis or the bring forth of forms from matter that rely on certain practices. The difference between art and other forms of production, I am thinking primarily of design here, lies in Jean-Luc Nancy's notion of compositio that provides us with a definition of art as a combination of signs with things and and of signs among themselves. But more than this Nancy states 'one has to have recourse to compositio when there is no conception, that is to say when there is no immediate auto-adequation of the thing and its concept(or simultaneous production). Compositio is deficiency in conception, a deflected engenderment, a birth uncertain in its control(Nancy 1993, p.256). This for me is what art is giving rise to what I have previously said about art object/image as a signifier with an indefinite signified. This is the way I experience making(see Derek Pigrum home page on a computer not on a phone where you will get my old website). Compositio is then a highly complex practice that rest squarely on Vico's three notions.
For me art is all about practices. Again I quote the British painter Francis Bacon whose practices correspond closely to the complexity mentioned and from which we can learn a great deal. When asked what he expresses in his paintings relied 'I have nothing to express'. Let us stop looking at art as the expression of ideas and/or feelings and look at the work artists do. Their practices, their poiesis.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Do we need any definition of Art? [accessed Oct 25, 2018]
Oct 26, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | To all (off topic). Other people's emotions and irritation are easy to ignore, if you do not pay attention to it (-;
To Ed. Discussion about authorization and trust is very interesting to me, despite the fact that I have a different set of thoughts about this (another look at old question of finite automation and incoming spontaneity/will). You asks sometimes really interesting questions, discussions about which lead sometimes to interesting personal conclusions for other participants.
Understanding that a publicly created topic can provoke third-party dialogues not in the key of the topic’s creator is the only thing that lacks. You just have to accept it (or not) as this... and be happy because the topic attracts people and not silent initially. Any controversy is good, since it is dialectics for all, not only for you.
NB: I also sometimes look who is voting for a particular answer. But I silently looked through the topic, I didn’t even have the desire to engage in controversy here, because I have other understanding of the dynamics (respectively, time too) and the limitations of a particular model by the parameters taken into account (inertial concept).
We all here are examples of absence of truth to hundred years authority, and we want to change protocols, same as you.
Ed Gerck | Hello Komarov and all: thanks for the support. In mining the gold of truth in public dialogues, it is important to keep the focus, collaborating with unpremeditated third-party dialogues also in the sense of leading to conclusions, not dispersing into a divergent nozzle before the topic can clarify it.
An example of this point is offered here, in not going into Lorentz Transformation as I know we do not need to talk about it for this discussion topic, it is badly understood, gives a sensation of accomplishing something, it is one more thing that (for example) a social scientist is asked to understand, and will by its absence prove that it is not needed here. Less is more.
The Lorentz Transformation further besets special relativity, by introducing what no one can see in their own world, comoving, such as my mass or momentum fluctuating widely all of a sudden, which does not change everytime a neutrino flies by at 0.9c, my height, ditto, or my age, ditto. We better leave this topic, which is not needed in this discussion, on the fusion of space and time, and what it means, and how it it is actually measured.
The definition of inertial reference frame, acceleration, or geodesic motion, do NOT need to include Lorentz Transformation either, and its absence may clarify this discussion, thinking of what comes ahead, in curving the spacetime we defined by ds2. There is no intent to stop any side discussion, or effect, just to postpone or direct it to other places, while we entertain what will make a difference in dealing with the topic of spacetime fusion.
It is an experiment, but a prescient one. It has guidance, not just flow. The guidance is the trust, the many ways of knowing, that cohesion can bring. We do not have to always hit the bullseye, all the time, just being close enough to the target, the rest of the discussions will bring to the target (Lyapunov), wherever it is. A way to measure prescience, the fact of knowing something before it takes place, as pre-science.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Why have we only second derivative in Newton's law? Because with more than second derivative equations have no solution in common case. More than second derivative means more than two dimensional phase space where chaos begins.
The main Newton's secrete, coded by him in anagram was:
"It is usefull to solve differential equations"
Vasyl Komarov | To all (off topic). Other people's emotions and irritation are easy to ignore, if you do not pay attention to it (-;
To Ed. Discussion about authorization and trust is very interesting to me, despite the fact that I have a different set of thoughts about this (another look at old question of finite automation and incoming spontaneity/will). You asks sometimes really interesting questions, discussions about which lead sometimes to interesting personal conclusions for other participants.
Understanding that a publicly created topic can provoke third-party dialogues not in the key of the topic’s creator is the only thing that lacks. You just have to accept it (or not) as this... and be happy because the topic attracts people and not silent initially. Any controversy is good, since it is dialectics for all, not only for you.
NB: I also sometimes look who is voting for a particular answer. But I silently looked through the topic, I didn’t even have the desire to engage in controversy here, because I have other understanding of the dynamics (respectively, time too) and the limitations of a particular model by the parameters taken into account (inertial concept).
We all here are examples of absence of truth to hundred years authority, and we want to change protocols, same as you.
Ed Gerck | Hello Komarov and all: thanks for the support. In mining the gold of truth in public dialogues, it is important to keep the focus, collaborating with unpremeditated third-party dialogues also in the sense of leading to conclusions, not dispersing into a divergent nozzle before the topic can clarify it.
An example of this point is offered here, in not going into Lorentz Transformation as I know we do not need to talk about it for this discussion topic, it is badly understood, gives a sensation of accomplishing something, it is one more thing that (for example) a social scientist is asked to understand, and will by its absence prove that it is not needed here. Less is more.
The Lorentz Transformation further besets special relativity, by introducing what no one can see in their own world, comoving, such as my mass or momentum fluctuating widely all of a sudden, which does not change everytime a neutrino flies by at 0.9c, my height, ditto, or my age, ditto. We better leave this topic, which is not needed in this discussion, on the fusion of space and time, and what it means, and how it it is actually measured.
The definition of inertial reference frame, acceleration, or geodesic motion, do NOT need to include Lorentz Transformation either, and its absence may clarify this discussion, thinking of what comes ahead, in curving the spacetime we defined by ds2. There is no intent to stop any side discussion, or effect, just to postpone or direct it to other places, while we entertain what will make a difference in dealing with the topic of spacetime fusion.
It is an experiment, but a prescient one. It has guidance, not just flow. The guidance is the trust, the many ways of knowing, that cohesion can bring. We do not have to always hit the bullseye, all the time, just being close enough to the target, the rest of the discussions will bring to the target (Lyapunov), wherever it is. A way to measure prescience, the fact of knowing something before it takes place, as pre-science.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Why have we only second derivative in Newton's law? Because with more than second derivative equations have no solution in common case. More than second derivative means more than two dimensional phase space where chaos begins.
The main Newton's secrete, coded by him in anagram was:
"It is usefull to solve differential equations"
Oct 29, 2018
Ed Gerck | Robert, Igael, and all: This is a misconception, a false controversy, and does not affect the discussion here, but can be illuminated by it.
The principle, which is due as far back as Galileo, is NOT that there are no special frames, such as the CMB or other, but that there are no frames where the laws of physics are different to inertial observers.
The original versions, by Einstein, and Galileo, are in the historic records. The current version is above, in the discussion text. Curiously, the current version is NOT a principle, without cause, but a condition on the cause -- now (since +100 years), the common metric of spacetime:
"The requirement that all inertial observers agree on the interval ds2 therefore includes as a special case the condition that all such observers agree on the free speed of light (free as in vacuo)." (above).
In other words, physical phenomena (such as the free speed of light) are the same in the CMB and all inertial reference frames because every inertial observer has his own space and time, and therefore describes the phenomena in their reference frame (i.e., in own space and time) in which is at rest.
There could also be a frame where the CMB is at rest but NOT the Universe, even if the Universe would be expanding perfectly radially regarding the CMB. And, for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as the CMB.
It is also a misconception that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons.
Ed Gerck | Robert, Igael, and all: This is a misconception, a false controversy, and does not affect the discussion here, but can be illuminated by it.
The principle, which is due as far back as Galileo, is NOT that there are no special frames, such as the CMB or other, but that there are no frames where the laws of physics are different to inertial observers.
The original versions, by Einstein, and Galileo, are in the historic records. The current version is above, in the discussion text. Curiously, the current version is NOT a principle, without cause, but a condition on the cause -- now (since +100 years), the common metric of spacetime:
"The requirement that all inertial observers agree on the interval ds2 therefore includes as a special case the condition that all such observers agree on the free speed of light (free as in vacuo)." (above).
In other words, physical phenomena (such as the free speed of light) are the same in the CMB and all inertial reference frames because every inertial observer has his own space and time, and therefore describes the phenomena in their reference frame (i.e., in own space and time) in which is at rest.
There could also be a frame where the CMB is at rest but NOT the Universe, even if the Universe would be expanding perfectly radially regarding the CMB. And, for doing any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as the CMB.
It is also a misconception that in the CMB rest frame you measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons.
Oct 30, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, "There could also be a frame where the CMB is at rest"...
It makes sense to clarify here that radiation according to all modern concepts cannot be at rest, in principle. So, with all the apparent proximity of the frame of reference which can be associated with the principally unitary cosmological singularity, it is impossible to grasp at it, since the radiation beause of speed limit is the edge that delineates the event horizon inside a coherent universe. This is the edge of non-violation of cause-effect relationships, and all the so-called here "inertial observers" can be only in the same subject relationship with it (radiation).
But if CMB as common coherent phenomenon exists and for the current Universe it does not, the continuity condition for the latter will be violated, which means that it will be impossible to extrapolate logically its structure into a cosmological singularity or to build any gravitational GR-like model. What is equivalent to the existence of tears (discontinuity) in causal relationships along the evolutionary path to the present. This is a very dubious prospect by many rational reasons.
As for SR vs GR (as you said earlier, "...both use the same spacetime, one flat and the other curved")...
It is not the same spacetime. The relationship of special and general relativity can be compared with the relationship of a straight line tangentially passing through a point on a curve. In a neighborhood of a point, linearization can be used as much as the first-order of Taylor expansion. These are just different sets of constraints selected to satisfy adherence to cause and effect relationships for models with different sets of parameters (SR and GR).
Continuity is not applicable to SR model framework because of linearization (as you said, every "inertial observer has his own space and time"). So, as I also said earlier, inertial - it is not about gravity (i.e. not about continuity, not about actual Universe), just some abstract model, useful in special case of parameters.
Ed Gerck | Komarov and all: The spacetime is, indeed, the same, in special relativity and general relativity, as (t,x,y,z). The metric is different, maybe that is what you mean, where the Christoffel symbols are zero in special relativity and non-zero in general relativity.
There is is an extrinsic “curvature as bending” and an intrinsic “curvature as stretching”. Intrinsic geometry is needed, it is not just mathematics, this is about the nature of things -- intrinsic is different nature from extrinsic. One can model that topology with a thin piece of dough, bending versus stretching, for curvature -- it is different. It is not just mathematics, the contrary is false physically.
The Gaussian curvature can be determined purely in terms of lengths measured within the surface — that is, in terms of the induced metric and its derivatives — and so is a property intrinsic to the surface itself, as opposed to an extrinsic property that depends on how the surface is embedded into an external R3, how it sits in space.
BTW, it may seem contrasensical to study general relativity in order to understand special relativity, but one can then more natutally seek to understand the correct place for curved spacetime, in terms of extrinsic versus intrinsic, before one inserts there the flat spacetime and differentiate from geodesics, which will be used to model accelerated motion and extend the idea of "straight lines" in the absence of external forces. The spacetime is the same, not the metric.
Vasyl Komarov | I used the quote from film in the narrow, humble context of waiting the statistics for estimation the value of speed of propagation of gravitational waves.
Or in a global sense I meant the accumulation of experience that kills unsuccessful hypotheses over time and reveals understanding, what can not be significantly accelerated.
My only enemies are uncertainty and entropy.
Vasyl Komarov | Ed, "There could also be a frame where the CMB is at rest"...
It makes sense to clarify here that radiation according to all modern concepts cannot be at rest, in principle. So, with all the apparent proximity of the frame of reference which can be associated with the principally unitary cosmological singularity, it is impossible to grasp at it, since the radiation beause of speed limit is the edge that delineates the event horizon inside a coherent universe. This is the edge of non-violation of cause-effect relationships, and all the so-called here "inertial observers" can be only in the same subject relationship with it (radiation).
But if CMB as common coherent phenomenon exists and for the current Universe it does not, the continuity condition for the latter will be violated, which means that it will be impossible to extrapolate logically its structure into a cosmological singularity or to build any gravitational GR-like model. What is equivalent to the existence of tears (discontinuity) in causal relationships along the evolutionary path to the present. This is a very dubious prospect by many rational reasons.
As for SR vs GR (as you said earlier, "...both use the same spacetime, one flat and the other curved")...
It is not the same spacetime. The relationship of special and general relativity can be compared with the relationship of a straight line tangentially passing through a point on a curve. In a neighborhood of a point, linearization can be used as much as the first-order of Taylor expansion. These are just different sets of constraints selected to satisfy adherence to cause and effect relationships for models with different sets of parameters (SR and GR).
Continuity is not applicable to SR model framework because of linearization (as you said, every "inertial observer has his own space and time"). So, as I also said earlier, inertial - it is not about gravity (i.e. not about continuity, not about actual Universe), just some abstract model, useful in special case of parameters.
Ed Gerck | Komarov and all: The spacetime is, indeed, the same, in special relativity and general relativity, as (t,x,y,z). The metric is different, maybe that is what you mean, where the Christoffel symbols are zero in special relativity and non-zero in general relativity.
There is is an extrinsic “curvature as bending” and an intrinsic “curvature as stretching”. Intrinsic geometry is needed, it is not just mathematics, this is about the nature of things -- intrinsic is different nature from extrinsic. One can model that topology with a thin piece of dough, bending versus stretching, for curvature -- it is different. It is not just mathematics, the contrary is false physically.
The Gaussian curvature can be determined purely in terms of lengths measured within the surface — that is, in terms of the induced metric and its derivatives — and so is a property intrinsic to the surface itself, as opposed to an extrinsic property that depends on how the surface is embedded into an external R3, how it sits in space.
BTW, it may seem contrasensical to study general relativity in order to understand special relativity, but one can then more natutally seek to understand the correct place for curved spacetime, in terms of extrinsic versus intrinsic, before one inserts there the flat spacetime and differentiate from geodesics, which will be used to model accelerated motion and extend the idea of "straight lines" in the absence of external forces. The spacetime is the same, not the metric.
Vasyl Komarov | I used the quote from film in the narrow, humble context of waiting the statistics for estimation the value of speed of propagation of gravitational waves.
Or in a global sense I meant the accumulation of experience that kills unsuccessful hypotheses over time and reveals understanding, what can not be significantly accelerated.
My only enemies are uncertainty and entropy.
Oct 31, 2018
Juan Weisz | Vasyl,
In your hope to end uncertainty, then you will have opposition for a long time.
Quantum theory carries INTRINSIC uncertainty.
Determinism has been dead for over 50 years now, except a tiny minority that was lead by Einstein (God does not play dice with the universe, he said)
An actual measurement of the speed of gravity waves would be usefull. The theorists are sure that it is c, but you cannot be too carefull.
The biblical quote (approximate) is
Just sit at the side of the road, and you will see the bodies of your enemies go by.
Of course no one means harm.
Regards, peace, Juan
Ed. What I think is that length contraction proves nothing about magnetic monopoles.
In (d) you should probably ask about mechanical work (not thermodynamic). A part of thermodynamic energy cannot be usefull work,
Otherwise the questions are reasonable
(a) is an easy yes.
Regards, Juan
Juan Weisz | Vasyl,
In your hope to end uncertainty, then you will have opposition for a long time.
Quantum theory carries INTRINSIC uncertainty.
Determinism has been dead for over 50 years now, except a tiny minority that was lead by Einstein (God does not play dice with the universe, he said)
An actual measurement of the speed of gravity waves would be usefull. The theorists are sure that it is c, but you cannot be too carefull.
The biblical quote (approximate) is
Just sit at the side of the road, and you will see the bodies of your enemies go by.
Of course no one means harm.
Regards, peace, Juan
Ed. What I think is that length contraction proves nothing about magnetic monopoles.
In (d) you should probably ask about mechanical work (not thermodynamic). A part of thermodynamic energy cannot be usefull work,
Otherwise the questions are reasonable
(a) is an easy yes.
Regards, Juan
Nov 1, 2018
Vasyl Komarov | So, Eugene, taking into account the ideas of the theory of phase transitions (like in the kinematic analogy with train for Ioan: What is the dimensionality of spacetime?), the next iteration should take into account at least the effects of the JERK (or a complete decomposition)?
...this all is a matter of understanding of hypergeometric rotation - changes of phases of system orbits along phase flow (as it seems).
Vasyl Komarov | So, Eugene, taking into account the ideas of the theory of phase transitions (like in the kinematic analogy with train for Ioan: What is the dimensionality of spacetime?), the next iteration should take into account at least the effects of the JERK (or a complete decomposition)?
...this all is a matter of understanding of hypergeometric rotation - changes of phases of system orbits along phase flow (as it seems).
— ResearchGate. Available from: On the fusion of time and space in special and general relativity, and cosmology [accessed Nov 1, 2018]
7 лист. 2018 р.
15:17 | Поймал себя на мысли, что на все размышления о структурализме, бинарных оппозициях, когнитивных привязках/искажениях, с одной стороны, имеют прямое сходство с принципами построения нейросетей.
9 лист. 2018 р.
20:36 | БАК снова начал эксперименты с ядрами свинца
{Просто, для себя отметил, что на БАК занимаются интересными вещами, близкими к тому, что обсуждалось немного ранее...
So, in mechanics such a "comoving" observers usually are called a rigid body under conditions where the length of the body can be neglected, i.e. consider it a material point.
This is not interesting, solely a matter of simplifying the model based on the criterion of the contribution ratio of various processes (as it usually is used when modeling real objects) - purely question of approximation.
For example, from the standpoint of relativity theory neglection in this way of the structure of object rotating or oscillating around some center at near-light speed is not a good idea, no mean how small its dimensions.
That's what really interesting - to look at the heavy chemical element, the maximum orbitals of which are near the "speed" limit, accelerated entirely with the electronic structure in some hypothetical accelerator. How it will fall apart? Or, how simple is the relationship between the half-life of heavy radioactive elements and high speeds?
— ResearchGate. Available from: On the fusion of time and space in special and general relativity, and cosmology [accessed Nov 6, 2018].
16 лист. 2018 р.
09:00 | It is curious that the statistics of silence is quite an effective way to measure the state of the system without interfering with it. Everyone knows each other, are in the entangled coherent state, without any communication, but measures others... if you're part of the system.
27 лист. 2018 р.
06:34 | ЕС разрабатывает правила обязательного бесплатного доступа к научным работам
{www.scienceeurope.org/making-open-access-a-reality-by-2020:
итак, 2020 год, картина следующая...
Небольшой поиск на данном ресурсе приводит к двум твитам, из которых становится ясно, что из этого вышло.}
19 груд. 2018 р.
00:11 | Респект.
Швейцария предлагает переосмыслить успех в науке
Сегодня над учёными всего мира довлеет один, но беспощадный принцип: «Я публикуюсь, следовательно, я существую». Нет публикаций — и учёного скоро объявляют с научно-практической точки зрения умершим. А это значит, что всё большее значение сейчас придаётся количественным показателям научного успеха.
По мнению критиков, излишнее внимание к количественным показателям {извращает всякую мотивацию любой деятельности, придавая вес бессмысленным целям, становясь двигателем бюрократии, которая обязательно (рано или поздно) Das Kind mit dem Bade ausschutten.
Процитирую себя: I do not want to raise another dispute about how to evaluate scientific (or any creative) activity. The scientific community is constantly trying to improve this (unsuccessfully) and is also constantly have a variety of side effects from the imperfection of any evaluation system. I do not think that contribution can be quantified at all, because it is completely diverse in each individual case, with different circumstances and resources. Do not inspire me to reflect on a comparison of the activities of Copernicus and Euler, Darwin and Paul Erdos... (once one of my esteemed colleagues preparing a report has divided the number of works of respected professor to average 14 publications per year, if not mistaken, it was a long time ago, he was smiling while telling me about it).
As for me, I pursue a single goal: to ultimately formalize what Erkki says (fundamental 'gap' in the natural laws as they should fully cover the 'road from physics to biology' {точнее сказать 'road from biology to physics'}). Then dear Aaaron finally get the opportunity to talk about evolution exclusively in the language of mathematics.
— ResearchGate. Available from {disclaimer}: Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: Do we need ... a break for vacation? [accessed Jul 11, 2017]
