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.
♠ ♥ ♣ ♦
1 січ. 2017 р.
09:46 | С глюонами должно быть то же самое - участки, где съедаются динамические детали системы в механизме универсальности?
09:46 | С глюонами должно быть то же самое - участки, где съедаются динамические детали системы в механизме универсальности?
Jan 3, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Interesting reasoning.
In view of the fact that physics, as a system of formal knowledge, distancing itself from the semantics, we can confidently assert that any system on physical constants, by definition, is a tautology - an indivisible system of cross-references at any level of development of physics.
Hypothetical Final Theory must be completely divorced from the semantics, but it can not be, due to the fact that all it information will be based on a foundation of reality, including carriers of this knowledge (us) as part of reality.
We can confidently assert that every system (including formal) has a connection with another system. This system feature in mathematics (as formal system) sounded as Gödel's theorem.
A formal system, which is part of the model of something, can not be not linked to modeled object. No matter how it is implemented, through a researcher associated with the model and the object, or in other way. Indeed, no one can know about really isolated system. With all what we have, even in a thought experiment, we carry out the exchange of information.
From a mechanistic point of view of dynamical systems it is surprising kinship of formal systems and systems in general, which should be a consequence of the Universality on the most fundamental (may be absolute) level. The reality is a connected structure, all, with what we can ever deal, is a connected structure. Mathematics can not be divorced from. There are really invariant abstract structures, which should be the "cause of everything", cause of determinism.
Vasyl Komarov | Interesting reasoning.
In view of the fact that physics, as a system of formal knowledge, distancing itself from the semantics, we can confidently assert that any system on physical constants, by definition, is a tautology - an indivisible system of cross-references at any level of development of physics.
Hypothetical Final Theory must be completely divorced from the semantics, but it can not be, due to the fact that all it information will be based on a foundation of reality, including carriers of this knowledge (us) as part of reality.
We can confidently assert that every system (including formal) has a connection with another system. This system feature in mathematics (as formal system) sounded as Gödel's theorem.
A formal system, which is part of the model of something, can not be not linked to modeled object. No matter how it is implemented, through a researcher associated with the model and the object, or in other way. Indeed, no one can know about really isolated system. With all what we have, even in a thought experiment, we carry out the exchange of information.
From a mechanistic point of view of dynamical systems it is surprising kinship of formal systems and systems in general, which should be a consequence of the Universality on the most fundamental (may be absolute) level. The reality is a connected structure, all, with what we can ever deal, is a connected structure. Mathematics can not be divorced from. There are really invariant abstract structures, which should be the "cause of everything", cause of determinism.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: The Final Theory of Physics -a Tautology? [accessed Dec 8, 2017]
Jan 9, 2017
Q: To what extent is it possible to say that Special Relativity gives accurate predictions and what are its limits?
Eugene F Kislyakov | Dear colleagues!
The key question is: Approximation to what? Answer: Nobody knows.
Axiomatic theory is not approximation. It is exact theory by definition.
Q: To what extent is it possible to say that Special Relativity gives accurate predictions and what are its limits?
Eugene F Kislyakov | Dear colleagues!
The key question is: Approximation to what? Answer: Nobody knows.
Axiomatic theory is not approximation. It is exact theory by definition.
— ResearchGate. Available from: To what extent is it possible to say that Special Relativity gives accurate predictions and what are its limits? [accessed Mar 13, 2017]
11 січ. 2017 р.
17:44 | Почему матери держат младенцев слева
Интересно, как с этим статистически обстоят дела отдельно у мам-левшей (мам-амбидекстров) и мам-правшей?
Одно дело - влияние латерализации детёныша на его собственное поведение, и другое - мамы. Такой анализ надо во всех возможных сочетаниях отдельно проводить.
Про своего малого (на сколько могу судить по поведению, правша) могу точно сказать, когда на руках - часто предпочитает целенаправленно перебираться на левое плечо, неоднократно замечал, немного озадачивало - задумывался над возможными причинами. Я связывал это с удобством позы и физической развитости рук и его тела, что, по сути, тоже проявление асимметрии.
8:16 (2017-01-13) | Желание матерей держать ребенка с левой стороны объяснили межполушарной асимметрией
Lateralization of mother–infant interactions in a diverse range of mammal species
2017 | DOI: 10.1038/s41559-016-0030
17:44 | Почему матери держат младенцев слева
Интересно, как с этим статистически обстоят дела отдельно у мам-левшей (мам-амбидекстров) и мам-правшей?
Одно дело - влияние латерализации детёныша на его собственное поведение, и другое - мамы. Такой анализ надо во всех возможных сочетаниях отдельно проводить.
Про своего малого (на сколько могу судить по поведению, правша) могу точно сказать, когда на руках - часто предпочитает целенаправленно перебираться на левое плечо, неоднократно замечал, немного озадачивало - задумывался над возможными причинами. Я связывал это с удобством позы и физической развитости рук и его тела, что, по сути, тоже проявление асимметрии.
8:16 (2017-01-13) | Желание матерей держать ребенка с левой стороны объяснили межполушарной асимметрией
Lateralization of mother–infant interactions in a diverse range of mammal species
2017 | DOI: 10.1038/s41559-016-0030
12 січ. 2017 р.
16:58 | Теоретики решили задачу о релятивистской неметалличности золота
Golden Mystery Solved
Relativistic Coupled Cluster Calculations with Variational Quantum Electrodynamics Resolve the Discrepancy between Experiment and Theory Concerning the Electron Affinity and Ionization Potential of Gold
2017 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.023002
16:58 | Теоретики решили задачу о релятивистской неметалличности золота
Golden Mystery Solved
Relativistic Coupled Cluster Calculations with Variational Quantum Electrodynamics Resolve the Discrepancy between Experiment and Theory Concerning the Electron Affinity and Ionization Potential of Gold
2017 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.023002
13 січ. 2017 р.
15:29 | Если система по параметрам очень близко смещается к точке бифуркации - она становится чувствительна к малым возмущениями, любые дальнейшие изменения приводят к неустойчивости.
Золото - это 79 номер. У элементов >= 83 существуют проблемы - то, что принято называть радиоактивностью. Она может быть объяснена как проявление динамической неустойчивости данной (под)системы.
И, опять же, точка бифуркации напрямую связана с относительными угловыми моментами (что на данный момент рассматривается как главная зацепка для упорядоченной структуры на всех масштабах системы).
Является ли этот процесс тоже следствием удвоения периода на каком-то масштабе системы? Либо он - следствие какой-либо другой схемы перестройки?
15:42 | Как кажется, экспоненциальный распад, в целом, очень хорошо должен дружить именно с процессами типа удвоения периода.
То же самое можно сказать об известной закономерности вероятности естественной смерти человеческого организма с периодом ~8 лет.
15:56 | Геометрическая прогрессия <-> long memory ? {сохранность экспонент Ляпунова в диссипативном процессе}
15:29 | Если система по параметрам очень близко смещается к точке бифуркации - она становится чувствительна к малым возмущениями, любые дальнейшие изменения приводят к неустойчивости.
Золото - это 79 номер. У элементов >= 83 существуют проблемы - то, что принято называть радиоактивностью. Она может быть объяснена как проявление динамической неустойчивости данной (под)системы.
И, опять же, точка бифуркации напрямую связана с относительными угловыми моментами (что на данный момент рассматривается как главная зацепка для упорядоченной структуры на всех масштабах системы).
Является ли этот процесс тоже следствием удвоения периода на каком-то масштабе системы? Либо он - следствие какой-либо другой схемы перестройки?
15:42 | Как кажется, экспоненциальный распад, в целом, очень хорошо должен дружить именно с процессами типа удвоения периода.
То же самое можно сказать об известной закономерности вероятности естественной смерти человеческого организма с периодом ~8 лет.
15:56 | Геометрическая прогрессия <-> long memory ? {сохранность экспонент Ляпунова в диссипативном процессе}
19 січ. 2017 р.
07:32 | Cognition vs QM
Машинное обучение справилось с исправлением ошибок в квантовых компьютерах
Prediction and real-time compensation of qubit decoherence via machine learning
2016 | arXiv:1604.03991 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms14106
07:32 | Cognition vs QM
Машинное обучение справилось с исправлением ошибок в квантовых компьютерах
Prediction and real-time compensation of qubit decoherence via machine learning
2016 | arXiv:1604.03991 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms14106
20 січ. 2017 р.
09:08 | Существование «неклассических» траекторий подтвердили в эксперименте с тремя щелями
Exotic looped trajectories of photons in three-slit interference
2017 | arXiv:1610.08585 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms13987
09:08 | Существование «неклассических» траекторий подтвердили в эксперименте с тремя щелями
Exotic looped trajectories of photons in three-slit interference
2017 | arXiv:1610.08585 | DOI: 10.1038/ncomms13987
24 січ. 2017 р.
10:20 | Chan Zuckerberg Initiative acquires and will free up science search engine Meta
Дело за малым, открыть свободный доступ ко всем результатам поиска (-;
10:20 | Chan Zuckerberg Initiative acquires and will free up science search engine Meta
Дело за малым, открыть свободный доступ ко всем результатам поиска (-;
25 січ. 2017 р.
17:02 | Трудности перевода #1. В английском языке применяя слово "consciousness" я автоматически подразумеваю "self-awareness" т.е. самосознание, способность определять своё отношение к действительности как проявление высшей нервной деятельности, проявление авторегулирования в процессе самоорганизации в динамической системе (то, что принято относить к кибернетике), а не вообще способность мыслить, рассуждать.
{Кое-что с тех пор изменилось в восприятии терминологии}
17:02 | Трудности перевода #1. В английском языке применяя слово "consciousness" я автоматически подразумеваю "self-awareness" т.е. самосознание, способность определять своё отношение к действительности как проявление высшей нервной деятельности, проявление авторегулирования в процессе самоорганизации в динамической системе (то, что принято относить к кибернетике), а не вообще способность мыслить, рассуждать.
{Кое-что с тех пор изменилось в восприятии терминологии}
An interesting nuance, BTW. Consciousness is principally (asymptotically) unitary in nature (cos of holism of self-organisation laws invariant), in contrast to self-awareness, which implies a plural form. It is also such a simple reason of the superego vs ego relationships. #H_1 https://t.co/YHxsOe6pwK
— Vasyl Komarov (@vfkomarov) May 23, 2020
17:14 |
Трудности перевода #2. Применяя слово "phenomenology" в отношении чего либо я автоматически подразумеваю экспериментальную науку в целом, либо любое экспериментальное исследование/наблюдение/опыт/квалиа, противопоставляя его теоретическим изысканиям - удобная привычка, сформировавшаяся из-за существовавших на кафедре курсов "Феноменологическая теория неравновесных процессов" и "Статистическая теория неравновесных процессов".
Феноменология — дескриптивная наука о чем либо и обо всём. Любое исследование начинается с феноменологии, как и процесс познания в целом. Неоднократно на RG упоминал, что научное познание - это непрерывная формализация квалиа. Квалиа первично, потому что оно предшествовало возникновению философии/онтологии/эпистемологии и вообще любой деятельности человека. Это соответствует любому уже сформировавшемуся (аккумулированному) знанию.
С процессом накопления знаний есть неустранимая неопределенность приоритета. Это тоже давно очевидно, как и то что Поппер справедливо критиковал эмпиризм. Для процесса первична гипотеза.
Наглядный пример. Статистическая физика позиционирует себя как "ab initio" подход для определения макропараметров систем, но максима Гуссерля «Назад, к самим вещам!» отсылает к феноменологии. Сначала мы узнали что такое "холодное" и "горячее", потом была измерена температура, коэффициент теплопроводности и т.д., кроме того мы узнали о существовании молекул... Всякий раз интуитивное понятие о различной степени нагретости тел формализовали "ab initio", но "принципы" менялись.
Менялось ли квалиа? Оно только обрастало информацией и пониманием. Возникли (формальные) системы, привязанные к квалиа. Но как минимум одна важная революция в мышлении произошла, когда удалось установить функциональную связь "температура - энергия".
Что такое ПОНИМАНИЕ? Онтология + эпистемология + теперь и герменевтика? Последняя весьма примитивно рассматривает понимание.
17:21 | Недавно для себя узнал о рациональной термодинамике - забавный эксперимент над аксиоматикой теории.
(wiki) "Понятия энергии, температуры, энтропии и химического потенциала вводятся в рациональной термодинамике одновременно; по отдельности определить их принципиально нельзя." - система есть система, всегда есть набор параметров, которые невозможно рассматривать по отдельности, то же самое с законами Ньютона и т.д.
"Методика введения этих понятий показывает, что можно ввести в рассмотрение много различных температур, отвечающих разным энергетическим потокам. Например, можно ввести температуры трансляционных и спинорных движений, температуру радиационных излучений и т. д." - не только формально, на самом деле.
Феноменология — дескриптивная наука о чем либо и обо всём. Любое исследование начинается с феноменологии, как и процесс познания в целом. Неоднократно на RG упоминал, что научное познание - это непрерывная формализация квалиа. Квалиа первично, потому что оно предшествовало возникновению философии/онтологии/эпистемологии и вообще любой деятельности человека. Это соответствует любому уже сформировавшемуся (аккумулированному) знанию.
С процессом накопления знаний есть неустранимая неопределенность приоритета. Это тоже давно очевидно, как и то что Поппер справедливо критиковал эмпиризм. Для процесса первична гипотеза.
Наглядный пример. Статистическая физика позиционирует себя как "ab initio" подход для определения макропараметров систем, но максима Гуссерля «Назад, к самим вещам!» отсылает к феноменологии. Сначала мы узнали что такое "холодное" и "горячее", потом была измерена температура, коэффициент теплопроводности и т.д., кроме того мы узнали о существовании молекул... Всякий раз интуитивное понятие о различной степени нагретости тел формализовали "ab initio", но "принципы" менялись.
Менялось ли квалиа? Оно только обрастало информацией и пониманием. Возникли (формальные) системы, привязанные к квалиа. Но как минимум одна важная революция в мышлении произошла, когда удалось установить функциональную связь "температура - энергия".
Что такое ПОНИМАНИЕ? Онтология + эпистемология + теперь и герменевтика? Последняя весьма примитивно рассматривает понимание.
17:21 | Недавно для себя узнал о рациональной термодинамике - забавный эксперимент над аксиоматикой теории.
(wiki) "Понятия энергии, температуры, энтропии и химического потенциала вводятся в рациональной термодинамике одновременно; по отдельности определить их принципиально нельзя." - система есть система, всегда есть набор параметров, которые невозможно рассматривать по отдельности, то же самое с законами Ньютона и т.д.
"Методика введения этих понятий показывает, что можно ввести в рассмотрение много различных температур, отвечающих разным энергетическим потокам. Например, можно ввести температуры трансляционных и спинорных движений, температуру радиационных излучений и т. д." - не только формально, на самом деле.
17:20 |
В 1955 г. вышла книга итальянского правоведа, историка и философа Эмилио Бетти «Общая теория интерпретации». Согласно теории интерпретации Бетти, интерпретация – это процесс, в котором задействованы три стороны: субъективность автора, субъективность интерпретатора и репрезентативная форма, выполняющая функцию посредника, через которого осуществляется их сообщение.
Центральным понятием теории Бетти является «репрезентативная форма» объекта интерпретации – понятие, которое охватывает все возможные смыслосодержащие выражения человеческой субъективности (письменный текст, произведение искусства, речь, поступок, символ, жест).
Главная функция репрезентативной формы – трансляция заключенного в ней смысла.
Репрезентативная форма прекрасно перекликается с эксплицированными (формализованными) знаниями, которые Майкл Полани противопоставлял неявному знанию (tacit knowledge), что не может быть легко передано другим.
Принципы интерпретации (Э. Бетти выделяет четыре основных принципа, или «канона», интерпретации. Их главная задача – гарантировать объективность интерпретации. Два канона относятся к объекту интерпретации, а два – к субъекту):
канон автономии интерпретируемого объекта подразумевает, что интерпретатор должен уйти от собственной субъективности, которая может исказить корректность интерпретации, иными словами, смысл должен не «вноситься», а «выноситься».
канон целостности, или смысловой связанности, требует от интерпретатора соотнесения части и целого для прояснения смысла толкуемого объекта.
канон актуальности понимания требует от интерпретатора способности перенесения чужой мысли в актуальность собственной исторической жизни.
канон герменевтического смыслового соответствия, или адекватности понимания, подразумевает открытость интерпретатора духу, создавшему произведение, необходимость настроить себя на созвучие с мыслью автора, что предполагает «широту горизонта интерпретатора, которая порождает родственное, конгениальное с объектом интерпретации состояние духа».
ИТОГО = когнитивный резонанс.
Центральным понятием теории Бетти является «репрезентативная форма» объекта интерпретации – понятие, которое охватывает все возможные смыслосодержащие выражения человеческой субъективности (письменный текст, произведение искусства, речь, поступок, символ, жест).
Главная функция репрезентативной формы – трансляция заключенного в ней смысла.
Репрезентативная форма прекрасно перекликается с эксплицированными (формализованными) знаниями, которые Майкл Полани противопоставлял неявному знанию (tacit knowledge), что не может быть легко передано другим.
Принципы интерпретации (Э. Бетти выделяет четыре основных принципа, или «канона», интерпретации. Их главная задача – гарантировать объективность интерпретации. Два канона относятся к объекту интерпретации, а два – к субъекту):
канон автономии интерпретируемого объекта подразумевает, что интерпретатор должен уйти от собственной субъективности, которая может исказить корректность интерпретации, иными словами, смысл должен не «вноситься», а «выноситься».
канон целостности, или смысловой связанности, требует от интерпретатора соотнесения части и целого для прояснения смысла толкуемого объекта.
канон актуальности понимания требует от интерпретатора способности перенесения чужой мысли в актуальность собственной исторической жизни.
канон герменевтического смыслового соответствия, или адекватности понимания, подразумевает открытость интерпретатора духу, создавшему произведение, необходимость настроить себя на созвучие с мыслью автора, что предполагает «широту горизонта интерпретатора, которая порождает родственное, конгениальное с объектом интерпретации состояние духа».
ИТОГО = когнитивный резонанс.
2 лют. 2017 р.
00:34 | Why Fractals Are So Soothing
Забавные рассуждения.
Дело, скорее всего, в симметриях. Иначе перфекционистов не раздражало бы неаккуратное пространство вокруг.
До сих пор трудновыразимая формально "гармония — (в эстетике) одна из форм прекрасного, понятие, означающее упорядоченность многообразия, целостность, обладающая согласованностью частей и уравновешенностью их напряженности."
Кстати: "They found that people overwhelmingly preferred images with a low to mid-range D (between 1.3 and 1.5.) To find out if that dimension induced a particular mental state, they used EEG to measure people’s brain waves while viewing geometric fractal images. They discovered that in that same dimensional magic zone, the subjects’ frontal lobes easily produced the feel-good alpha brainwaves of a wakefully relaxed state. This occurred even when people looked at the images for only one minute."
А что там универсальность рекомендует? 4/3=1.(3)
08:57 (2017-02-28) | c = 1.327...
00:34 | Why Fractals Are So Soothing
Забавные рассуждения.
Дело, скорее всего, в симметриях. Иначе перфекционистов не раздражало бы неаккуратное пространство вокруг.
До сих пор трудновыразимая формально "гармония — (в эстетике) одна из форм прекрасного, понятие, означающее упорядоченность многообразия, целостность, обладающая согласованностью частей и уравновешенностью их напряженности."
Кстати: "They found that people overwhelmingly preferred images with a low to mid-range D (between 1.3 and 1.5.) To find out if that dimension induced a particular mental state, they used EEG to measure people’s brain waves while viewing geometric fractal images. They discovered that in that same dimensional magic zone, the subjects’ frontal lobes easily produced the feel-good alpha brainwaves of a wakefully relaxed state. This occurred even when people looked at the images for only one minute."
А что там универсальность рекомендует? 4/3=1.(3)
08:57 (2017-02-28) | c = 1.327...
01:14 |
Философское. И всё таки, как же завершить гештальт? И нужно ли его завершать? Возможно ли его вообще завершить?
Осознавая бесконечность чувствуешь себя исчезающе малой величиной.
Осознавая бесконечность чувствуешь себя исчезающе малой величиной.
4 лют. 2017 р.
01:30 | И снова об Ахиллесе и Черепахе... Почему 0.(9)=1?!!
Как это дружит с континуум-гипотезой? Таким образом можно континуум свести в сингулярность, и в итоге сказать что 0=1. Между Эйлером и Кантором как раз ~100 лет - всего ничего.
Почему числовая прямая является/считается замкнутым множеством (многообразием)?
01:30 | И снова об Ахиллесе и Черепахе... Почему 0.(9)=1?!!
Как это дружит с континуум-гипотезой? Таким образом можно континуум свести в сингулярность, и в итоге сказать что 0=1. Между Эйлером и Кантором как раз ~100 лет - всего ничего.
Почему числовая прямая является/считается замкнутым множеством (многообразием)?
Feb 6, 2017
Gocho Sharlanov | Vasyl Komarov, Unfortunately, in the field of theoretical physics and cosmology, too much “scientists” are like parrots - to have a good “smart” career, they have to be approved by the dominating orthodox part of the physical society. In this way, they must support claims, which are even experimentally proven - that are wrong (for example “the special theory of relativity”). In this way, to defend their “ego”, their social position, and more over - to defend the meaning of their life, such “scientists” must support the “blind alley” in physics (of course without arguments).
Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich, there are too much specific links about Einstein’s theories. Please, read (before to answer) one of the dozens links:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1506.0103v7.pdf
If you want to read about:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0320v2.pdf
For additional information about the topic, you can read the short descriptions of the three parts of the book:
www.amazon.com/Kindle-Store-Gocho-Sharlanov.
(It is free - after pressing for each part of the book button "Buy now with 1 click", and then "Read more".) : Don’t buy...
Erkki J. Brändas (about “Zero Energy Universe Scenario – ZEUS”):
Dear Prof. Brändas,
We all can have a good discussion on the subject “Zero Energy Universe Scenario – ZEUS”. The “8. Epilogue: Theory of Everything or Theory of Nothingness” needs of corrections - see:
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/18268
Best Regards
Gocho Sharlanov | Vasyl Komarov, Unfortunately, in the field of theoretical physics and cosmology, too much “scientists” are like parrots - to have a good “smart” career, they have to be approved by the dominating orthodox part of the physical society. In this way, they must support claims, which are even experimentally proven - that are wrong (for example “the special theory of relativity”). In this way, to defend their “ego”, their social position, and more over - to defend the meaning of their life, such “scientists” must support the “blind alley” in physics (of course without arguments).
Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich, there are too much specific links about Einstein’s theories. Please, read (before to answer) one of the dozens links:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1506.0103v7.pdf
If you want to read about:
- the faults in the logic in the article “ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES” where Einstein publish the special theory of relativity,
- intentional errors as a consequence of using the trick “liar paradox”,
- intentionally fabricated experiments,
- unintentional error as a consequence of the “Theorems of Incompleteness”,
http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0320v2.pdf
For additional information about the topic, you can read the short descriptions of the three parts of the book:
(It is free - after pressing for each part of the book button "Buy now with 1 click", and then "Read more".) : Don’t buy...
Erkki J. Brändas (about “Zero Energy Universe Scenario – ZEUS”):
Dear Prof. Brändas,
We all can have a good discussion on the subject “Zero Energy Universe Scenario – ZEUS”. The “8. Epilogue: Theory of Everything or Theory of Nothingness” needs of corrections - see:
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/18268
Best Regards
Feb 7, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Gocho Sharlanov You're right, everything has to be tested by criticism, it does not matter whose name is behind this or that knowledge, yours, Einstein or anyone else. Do not you find a contradiction in the fact that you appeal to Gödel's theorem for the SRT criticism ( http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0320v2.pdf ) and at the same time support the criticism of Gödel's theorem ("what actually our colleague Marcia Ricci Pinheiro means")?
By the way, Einstein was aware of the problem: "Für die relative Unabhängigkeit räumlich distanter Dinge (A und B) ist die Idee characteristisch: äussere Beeinflussung von A hat keinen unmittelbaren Einfluss auf B; dies ist als «Prinzip der Nahewirkung» bekannt, das nur in der Feld-Theorie konsequent angewendet ist. Völlige Aufhebung dieses Grundsatzes würde die Idee von der Existenz (quasi-) abgeschlossener Systeme und damit die Aufstellung empirisch prüfbarer Gesetze in dem uns geläufigen Sinne unmöglich machen." ("Quanten-Mechanik und Wirklichkeit", Dialectica 2:320-324, 1948)
As you can see from the text, Einstein well realized that he defended the position in which he could be wrong. It is about adopting or not adopting the specific axiom of a theory. His apprehensions apparent to me.
I also must notice, sometimes you reasoned about things that are the product of the theory of relativity. By the way, I agree with you in question of applicability of the time usual concept for small intervals after so called "big bang" or, for example, the concept of global uncertainty in space. I do not even insist that the speed of light is a constant in vacuum in the sense that you put in mentioned article ( http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0320v2.pdf ).
It makes sense to fight the system, when you obviously know how it can be broken. Thus it is necessary in advance to be sure that you have a point of support, on which lever can be relied.
Gocho Sharlanov | Vasyl Komarov, Nobody would deny that the Gödel's theorem actually sets limits for the human logic in a certain definite sense. Very often, people thinking about the same think in the same way, appears to be opposite, if not clarified the point of view… it is my case now (my comment was not very nice).
About General Theory of Relativity: I am agree with the great idea of the General theory of relativity. However, I cannot agree with the Field Equations - not only because the speed of light is adopted constant in the entire Universe. It is because the contemporary physics ignores the Difference between Mathematical and Physical Equations (see “About General Theory of Relativity” - page 14 of
http://www.atiner.gr/papers/PHY2015-1895.pdf | Actually, the physical equations are based on the assumption that the units of the measurement systems are constants in the scope of the equations. For example:
“If a car is moving from p.A to p.B…, and during the travel the unit of time and the unit of length are changing in unexpected /uncertain way, then the simple equation "V=S/t" is not actually an equation - it is NONSENCE!”
Vyacheslav Somsikov, In this sense, I agree completely with you that “the physical ideas are primary to the mathematical apparatus”.
Vasyl Komarov | Gocho Sharlanov, just a few rhetorical questions... But what if they ("the unit of time and the unit of length") vary a predictable way? How can you determine own existence in curvilinear coordinates, for example? If I'm not mistaken, in article you just referring to Gödel's theorem, have wondered "what if the level at which the constants are defined is not available." What if this level hypothetically available to you, and you, for example, have the opportunity to verify that the model of the space which you have found previously is still working satisfactorily within the curvilinear coordinates, despite knowing distorting laws? May be there is an area (conditions) of applicability for each model (theory)?
Gocho Sharlanov | Vasyl Komarov, The answer of your question is my question: “How we can predict the change of the units, if we cannot have real equations?”. We have uncertainty in the quantum mechanics /in the micro-world/ (the questions can be the same). We have to realize that we have uncertainty and in the macro-world. An attempt to define the uncertainty in the macro-world (in the abovementioned book) is:
“The uncertainty of the macro-world consists in the fact that we cannot measure or calculate in our local time-spatial domain (where the units of time and length are defined by means of the characteristics of electromagnetic radiation):
because they all change in perfect synchrony with the change of the entire physical reality.
Also, we can judge only approximately, but we cannot measure or calculate whatever change in the physical reality in another remote time-spatial domain with different level of contraction/expansion of the space-time, because the units of measurement there are uncertainly different.”
The presented "Model of uncertainty of the Universe" is actually awareness about:
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Gocho Sharlanov, the difference between you and me is that you are supporter of stochastic nature of reality. And I really do not understand how such a thing as mathematics and, in general, any predictable laws of nature on any of its area (not only within Einstein's local realism) in "your" world there may be. What does this mean literally? Quantum mechanics must not exist as a phenomenon. Newton's laws should not work. Mechanics should not exist at al. Even such a mundane and materialized thing as commodity-money relations should not work predictably.
From my point of view reality is deterministic (lawful), invariants (which have the objectivity in every sense) under global structures there are. The irony is that people tend to attribute its symptoms to an ideal world of Plato with unicorns, demons, God, Yin-Yang and other more blured archetypes. The reality is the system, with all the consequences. On my side the Copernican principle of mediocrity, the universality of dynamical systems and hence the connectedness, and so much more, which is difficult to enumerate.
Vasyl Komarov | Gocho Sharlanov You're right, everything has to be tested by criticism, it does not matter whose name is behind this or that knowledge, yours, Einstein or anyone else. Do not you find a contradiction in the fact that you appeal to Gödel's theorem for the SRT criticism ( http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0320v2.pdf ) and at the same time support the criticism of Gödel's theorem ("what actually our colleague Marcia Ricci Pinheiro means")?
By the way, Einstein was aware of the problem: "Für die relative Unabhängigkeit räumlich distanter Dinge (A und B) ist die Idee characteristisch: äussere Beeinflussung von A hat keinen unmittelbaren Einfluss auf B; dies ist als «Prinzip der Nahewirkung» bekannt, das nur in der Feld-Theorie konsequent angewendet ist. Völlige Aufhebung dieses Grundsatzes würde die Idee von der Existenz (quasi-) abgeschlossener Systeme und damit die Aufstellung empirisch prüfbarer Gesetze in dem uns geläufigen Sinne unmöglich machen." ("Quanten-Mechanik und Wirklichkeit", Dialectica 2:320-324, 1948)
As you can see from the text, Einstein well realized that he defended the position in which he could be wrong. It is about adopting or not adopting the specific axiom of a theory. His apprehensions apparent to me.
I also must notice, sometimes you reasoned about things that are the product of the theory of relativity. By the way, I agree with you in question of applicability of the time usual concept for small intervals after so called "big bang" or, for example, the concept of global uncertainty in space. I do not even insist that the speed of light is a constant in vacuum in the sense that you put in mentioned article ( http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0320v2.pdf ).
It makes sense to fight the system, when you obviously know how it can be broken. Thus it is necessary in advance to be sure that you have a point of support, on which lever can be relied.
Gocho Sharlanov | Vasyl Komarov, Nobody would deny that the Gödel's theorem actually sets limits for the human logic in a certain definite sense. Very often, people thinking about the same think in the same way, appears to be opposite, if not clarified the point of view… it is my case now (my comment was not very nice).
About General Theory of Relativity: I am agree with the great idea of the General theory of relativity. However, I cannot agree with the Field Equations - not only because the speed of light is adopted constant in the entire Universe. It is because the contemporary physics ignores the Difference between Mathematical and Physical Equations (see “About General Theory of Relativity” - page 14 of
http://www.atiner.gr/papers/PHY2015-1895.pdf | Actually, the physical equations are based on the assumption that the units of the measurement systems are constants in the scope of the equations. For example:
“If a car is moving from p.A to p.B…, and during the travel the unit of time and the unit of length are changing in unexpected /uncertain way, then the simple equation "V=S/t" is not actually an equation - it is NONSENCE!”
Vyacheslav Somsikov, In this sense, I agree completely with you that “the physical ideas are primary to the mathematical apparatus”.
Vasyl Komarov | Gocho Sharlanov, just a few rhetorical questions... But what if they ("the unit of time and the unit of length") vary a predictable way? How can you determine own existence in curvilinear coordinates, for example? If I'm not mistaken, in article you just referring to Gödel's theorem, have wondered "what if the level at which the constants are defined is not available." What if this level hypothetically available to you, and you, for example, have the opportunity to verify that the model of the space which you have found previously is still working satisfactorily within the curvilinear coordinates, despite knowing distorting laws? May be there is an area (conditions) of applicability for each model (theory)?
Gocho Sharlanov | Vasyl Komarov, The answer of your question is my question: “How we can predict the change of the units, if we cannot have real equations?”. We have uncertainty in the quantum mechanics /in the micro-world/ (the questions can be the same). We have to realize that we have uncertainty and in the macro-world. An attempt to define the uncertainty in the macro-world (in the abovementioned book) is:
“The uncertainty of the macro-world consists in the fact that we cannot measure or calculate in our local time-spatial domain (where the units of time and length are defined by means of the characteristics of electromagnetic radiation):
- neither the change of the defined by us units,
- nor the change of all our local constants,
because they all change in perfect synchrony with the change of the entire physical reality.
Also, we can judge only approximately, but we cannot measure or calculate whatever change in the physical reality in another remote time-spatial domain with different level of contraction/expansion of the space-time, because the units of measurement there are uncertainly different.”
The presented "Model of uncertainty of the Universe" is actually awareness about:
- the local certainty (the full definiteness inside the local areas with equal intensity of the gravitational field),
- against the background of overall uncertainty in the Universe (the global indetermination that exist in the Universe),
- against the uncertainty at the micro-level (the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics – the indetermination in the micro-world).
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Gocho Sharlanov, the difference between you and me is that you are supporter of stochastic nature of reality. And I really do not understand how such a thing as mathematics and, in general, any predictable laws of nature on any of its area (not only within Einstein's local realism) in "your" world there may be. What does this mean literally? Quantum mechanics must not exist as a phenomenon. Newton's laws should not work. Mechanics should not exist at al. Even such a mundane and materialized thing as commodity-money relations should not work predictably.
From my point of view reality is deterministic (lawful), invariants (which have the objectivity in every sense) under global structures there are. The irony is that people tend to attribute its symptoms to an ideal world of Plato with unicorns, demons, God, Yin-Yang and other more blured archetypes. The reality is the system, with all the consequences. On my side the Copernican principle of mediocrity, the universality of dynamical systems and hence the connectedness, and so much more, which is difficult to enumerate.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Project: ZEUS [accessed Dec 30, 2017]
Feb 7, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | By the way, The Universality may act only as a confirmation of Einstein's apprehensions:
Vasyl Komarov | By the way, The Universality may act only as a confirmation of Einstein's apprehensions:
"Für die relative Unabhängigkeit räumlich distanter Dinge (A und B) ist die Idee characteristisch: äussere Beeinflussung von A hat keinen unmittelbaren Einfluss auf B; dies ist als «Prinzip der Nahewirkung» bekannt, das nur in der Feld-Theorie konsequent angewendet ist. Völlige Aufhebung dieses Grundsatzes würde die Idee von der Existenz (quasi-) abgeschlossener Systeme und damit die Aufstellung empirisch prüfbarer Gesetze in dem uns geläufigen Sinne unmöglich machen."
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: The Final Theory of Physics -a Tautology? [accessed Dec 8, 2017]
Feb 8, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Gocho Sharlanov, in addition, regarding the units of physical quantities I recommend you actual and fresh thoughts of dear Christian Baumgarten (The Final Theory of Physics -a Tautology).
Perhaps, after reading the article you will notice that, for example, fundamental quantities, such as time or length, have no units (in usual sense). We measure them using some standards that are similar in nature. What is the measurement units at all? They have meaning only in relationship system.
Erkki J. Brändas | @Gocho_Sharlanov, in reading your criticisms, particularly the one regarding special relativity, I am curious to which axiom(s) you contend as being the reason for not maintaining the theory. The standard axioms for the derivation of the Lorentz transformation are
So the question refers to the four assumptions above. Which one(s) is(are) in your model the one(s) to remove? Obviously you cannot refer to your disbelief in the constancy of c.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Gocho!
How can be changed selected by You units (it is your units and nobody other's!) without You?
Gocho Sharlanov | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
(About the uncertainty in the macro-world): I pointed above about “the Difference between Mathematical and Physical Equations”. The NUMBERS ARE ABSOLUTE and unchangeable and the mathematics is based on the numbers. That is why, the mathematics is real and the Mathematical Equations are exact and absolutely true (pure). Physical Equations represent the physical laws and are written on the base of adopted system of units of measurement (like SI-system).
I am not philosopher, I am not a supporter of stochastic nature of reality… My connection to the physical reality is very strong - I am I&C engineer, and in my practice I understood the importance of the units of measurement - they are our PRIMARY PHYSICAL CONSTANTS, which the mankind defined (like in SI-system) IN ORDER TO DESCRIBE THE PHYSICAL REALITY. Other physical constants in are in this sense “second hand constants” (like speed of light in vacuum, magnetic constant, electric constant, Planck constant , Boltzmann constant… and so on) - they are obtained as a consequence of the discovery of real physical laws.
I will try to explain what I mean: If we imagine that traveling in the warped space of the Universe - our reality is changing in synchrony, the wavelengths and frequencies of all electromagnetic spectrum change in synchrony… it means that the units of time and length (defined by means wavelength and frequency of certain electromagnetic radiation) are changing too. However, the physical constants will remain the same - we will obtain (using the changed units) the same numerical value (for example: for the correlation between the wavelengths and frequencies of all electromagnetic spectrum - this correlation we call the constant “the speed of light”, BECAUSE THE PHYSICAL LAWS REMAIN THE SAME.
In this way “Therefore, the perception of “absoluteness” will be perfect, and the delusion will be “irrefutable” (from the abovementioned book “THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY = THE BIGGEST DELUSION IN PHYSICS FOR 20TH CENTURY”.
(Excuse me - my explanation was not very nice… I am not good writer…)
Gocho Sharlanov | Erkki J. Brändas, Your questions are concerned in the abovementioned .pdf-s:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1506.0103v7.pdf, and
http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0320v2.pdf
You can see that the faults in the logic in the article “ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES” are undeniable! … It concerns and the “famous” incorrectly designed Michelson-Morley experiment.
My attitude about “the actual meaning of the Lorentz Transformations” - see in the abovementioned paper (5.3.Thought Experiment for the Revealing the Essence of Special Relativity). There you can see that Lorentz Transformations are only a mathematical solution of an imaginary task “the speed of light to be measured the same in all inertial frames of reference”, which does not correspond to the existing physical reality - it can be true only in imaginary mathematical field!
About the "classical" postulate - “the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference”. You can see that it is replaced by the “Thesis about the Behavior of the Electromagnetic Radiation in the Gravitational Field of the Universe”, which explains all “unexpected” and “inexplicable” results of the famous experiments related to the measurement of the speed of light.
Gocho Sharlanov | Vasyl Komarov,
(About units of physical quantities) / your recommendation for the paper of Christian Baumgarten. Obviously, it is very interesting and I will analyze after a week , because the next 5 days I am very busy).
Gocho Sharlanov | Dear Eugene! The base units of measurement are not mine or yours…
If you want to know my attitude to the Proposed redefinition of SI base units by BIPM - please read: “The new SI - another proposal on the future revision of the International System of Units”:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0077v5.pdf
Vasyl Komarov | Gocho Sharlanov, in addition, regarding the units of physical quantities I recommend you actual and fresh thoughts of dear Christian Baumgarten (The Final Theory of Physics -a Tautology).
Perhaps, after reading the article you will notice that, for example, fundamental quantities, such as time or length, have no units (in usual sense). We measure them using some standards that are similar in nature. What is the measurement units at all? They have meaning only in relationship system.
Erkki J. Brändas | @Gocho_Sharlanov, in reading your criticisms, particularly the one regarding special relativity, I am curious to which axiom(s) you contend as being the reason for not maintaining the theory. The standard axioms for the derivation of the Lorentz transformation are
- the property of space and time are homogeneous
- space is isotropic
- space is symmetric with respect to velocities
- the superposition of two positive velocities will again be a positive velocity
So the question refers to the four assumptions above. Which one(s) is(are) in your model the one(s) to remove? Obviously you cannot refer to your disbelief in the constancy of c.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Gocho!
How can be changed selected by You units (it is your units and nobody other's!) without You?
Gocho Sharlanov | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
(About the uncertainty in the macro-world): I pointed above about “the Difference between Mathematical and Physical Equations”. The NUMBERS ARE ABSOLUTE and unchangeable and the mathematics is based on the numbers. That is why, the mathematics is real and the Mathematical Equations are exact and absolutely true (pure). Physical Equations represent the physical laws and are written on the base of adopted system of units of measurement (like SI-system).
I am not philosopher, I am not a supporter of stochastic nature of reality… My connection to the physical reality is very strong - I am I&C engineer, and in my practice I understood the importance of the units of measurement - they are our PRIMARY PHYSICAL CONSTANTS, which the mankind defined (like in SI-system) IN ORDER TO DESCRIBE THE PHYSICAL REALITY. Other physical constants in are in this sense “second hand constants” (like speed of light in vacuum, magnetic constant, electric constant, Planck constant , Boltzmann constant… and so on) - they are obtained as a consequence of the discovery of real physical laws.
I will try to explain what I mean: If we imagine that traveling in the warped space of the Universe - our reality is changing in synchrony, the wavelengths and frequencies of all electromagnetic spectrum change in synchrony… it means that the units of time and length (defined by means wavelength and frequency of certain electromagnetic radiation) are changing too. However, the physical constants will remain the same - we will obtain (using the changed units) the same numerical value (for example: for the correlation between the wavelengths and frequencies of all electromagnetic spectrum - this correlation we call the constant “the speed of light”, BECAUSE THE PHYSICAL LAWS REMAIN THE SAME.
In this way “Therefore, the perception of “absoluteness” will be perfect, and the delusion will be “irrefutable” (from the abovementioned book “THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY = THE BIGGEST DELUSION IN PHYSICS FOR 20TH CENTURY”.
(Excuse me - my explanation was not very nice… I am not good writer…)
Gocho Sharlanov | Erkki J. Brändas, Your questions are concerned in the abovementioned .pdf-s:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1506.0103v7.pdf, and
http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0320v2.pdf
You can see that the faults in the logic in the article “ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES” are undeniable! … It concerns and the “famous” incorrectly designed Michelson-Morley experiment.
My attitude about “the actual meaning of the Lorentz Transformations” - see in the abovementioned paper (5.3.Thought Experiment for the Revealing the Essence of Special Relativity). There you can see that Lorentz Transformations are only a mathematical solution of an imaginary task “the speed of light to be measured the same in all inertial frames of reference”, which does not correspond to the existing physical reality - it can be true only in imaginary mathematical field!
About the "classical" postulate - “the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference”. You can see that it is replaced by the “Thesis about the Behavior of the Electromagnetic Radiation in the Gravitational Field of the Universe”, which explains all “unexpected” and “inexplicable” results of the famous experiments related to the measurement of the speed of light.
Gocho Sharlanov | Vasyl Komarov,
(About units of physical quantities) / your recommendation for the paper of Christian Baumgarten. Obviously, it is very interesting and I will analyze after a week , because the next 5 days I am very busy).
Gocho Sharlanov | Dear Eugene! The base units of measurement are not mine or yours…
If you want to know my attitude to the Proposed redefinition of SI base units by BIPM - please read: “The new SI - another proposal on the future revision of the International System of Units”:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1306.0077v5.pdf
— ResearchGate. Available from: Project: ZEUS [accessed Dec 30, 2017]
Feb 9, 2017
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Vasiliy, thank you for your comments. I have a high respect of Einstein as you might notice in my way to cite him. However, he was not always right. With respect to QM for instance it appears that he was in error, despite the fact that he contributed significantly to it. This makes his position even more interesting. In my view there are a lot of remarks of Einstein that appear as if he always remained a Newtonian physicist, despite the fact that he formulated relativity theory. But, if we like it or not, we have to admit that QM has been confirmed with an overwhelming number of predictions. Therefore QM must be considered as a fixed point for all final theories. Also from this perspective it appears that "locality" as a part of a specific kind of realism and as a fundamental building block is very likely a wrong presumption. Why should "the world" not be like a hologram?
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Vasiliy, thank you for your comments. I have a high respect of Einstein as you might notice in my way to cite him. However, he was not always right. With respect to QM for instance it appears that he was in error, despite the fact that he contributed significantly to it. This makes his position even more interesting. In my view there are a lot of remarks of Einstein that appear as if he always remained a Newtonian physicist, despite the fact that he formulated relativity theory. But, if we like it or not, we have to admit that QM has been confirmed with an overwhelming number of predictions. Therefore QM must be considered as a fixed point for all final theories. Also from this perspective it appears that "locality" as a part of a specific kind of realism and as a fundamental building block is very likely a wrong presumption. Why should "the world" not be like a hologram?
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: The Final Theory of Physics -a Tautology? [accessed Dec 8, 2017]
Erkki J. Brändas |
Gocho Sharlanov,
You did not answer my question – which axiom?
Eugene F Kislyakov | Dear Gocho,
SI units are not interesting for me. I am working in natural Planck's units.
P.S. You are correct concerning Michelson-Morly experiment, but Einstein did not know about it at all in 1905 (his own words) as well as about works of Poincare. Many people can not believe in this, but I, personally, believe Minkowski (his teacher), who described Einstein as uneducated person.
Good luck, Gocho!
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Gocho Sharlanov, I will comment on some differences in your and my thinking for maybe a better mutual understanding.
You: "the physical equations are based on the assumption that the units of the measurement systems are constants in the scope of the equations."
Not "physical equations", empirical models or just models. Yes, if for some quantity in a model the functional dependence on arbitrary parameters exist, it can not be considered as a constant. BUT I draw your attention, the functional dependence implies dependence on other parameters in the model (system) and not dependence on anything else.
Familiarity with the theory of similarity (теория подобия) in fact greatly simplifies the view on "the physical equations". I have not found an analogue of article in the english Wikipedia (it's funny, maybe my difficulties of translation).
It was in great demand in the applied sense in pre-computer era, as often eliminates the need for multiple repetitions of routine calculations for different tasks with same models. But its importance for physics does not stop there. I think it makes no sense to tell what is the Mach number, the Reynolds number, etc. They all relate to bifurcation points (before and after, less and more ...), in which the behavior of the system changes, accordingly, models may also require changes. Dimensionless quantities can be found in many places in physics. And in fact, this is a very important thing. For example, the fine structure constant (coupling constant) is a dimensionless quantity.
The measurement system depends on it. Therefore, the SI system is not something only uncontested, there GHS and anyone even can come up with something personal (as noted by dear Eugene). Appearance of models depends on it, but the meaning does not change. Physical models even can be rewritten in dimensionless form.
"Mathematical equations" can be a model of something or may not be a model of this. Here you are right, of course. BUT the interpreter is always the culprit of erroneous matching of similarity between the simulated object (system) and model (system). As an engineer, you should be well aware that in human practice (science) any real model (de facto idealisation) involves a set of assumptions / simplifications, ie axioms. Rational choice of axioms for formal model is in general a hard problem in itself, which involves logic, deductive reasoning, intuition etc. This is not difficult to see on example of our discussion.
You: "The presented "Model of uncertainty of the Universe" is actually awareness about:
Reality appear to be substantially self-centered. Any system in it can self-identify only relative to surrounding systems. Those reality itself exists in the form of these systems in the relationship. All the definiteness that there is in any system - its boundary with the outside world. Only relative to this boundary one can construct coordinate system toward uncertainty.
Neil deGrasse Tyson perfectly describes this situation, referring to the ego in the cosmic (cosmological) perspective (Neil deGrasse Tyson on Your Ego and the Cosmic Perspective).
Accordingly, in mathematics there are major reference points:
From my words above are not difficult to conclude that from my point of view, mathematics is only a manifestation of reality topology. You can take into account the fact that all sorts of calculations in its formal field whether it is in a brain, calculator, computer etc just are the changes in a physical state of the corresponding system under consideration (changes in topology, maybe I did not quite correct use the term, formally it is a branch of mathematics).
In a certain sense this means absoluteness, of course. BUT It will be more correct to say "global invariants", of which I spoke earlier. It imply objectivity in every sense: not absoluteness but independence from anything.
For this reasons, from my point of view, reality in the "remote corners" is not so unpredictable as for you ("we can judge only approximately, but we cannot measure or calculate whatever change in the physical reality in another remote time-spatial domain with different level of contraction/expansion of the space-time, because the units of measurement there are uncertainly different.") for all "domains" (reality), talks about which makes sense at all.
You did not answer my question – which axiom?
Eugene F Kislyakov | Dear Gocho,
SI units are not interesting for me. I am working in natural Planck's units.
P.S. You are correct concerning Michelson-Morly experiment, but Einstein did not know about it at all in 1905 (his own words) as well as about works of Poincare. Many people can not believe in this, but I, personally, believe Minkowski (his teacher), who described Einstein as uneducated person.
Good luck, Gocho!
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Gocho Sharlanov, I will comment on some differences in your and my thinking for maybe a better mutual understanding.
You: "the physical equations are based on the assumption that the units of the measurement systems are constants in the scope of the equations."
Not "physical equations", empirical models or just models. Yes, if for some quantity in a model the functional dependence on arbitrary parameters exist, it can not be considered as a constant. BUT I draw your attention, the functional dependence implies dependence on other parameters in the model (system) and not dependence on anything else.
Familiarity with the theory of similarity (теория подобия) in fact greatly simplifies the view on "the physical equations". I have not found an analogue of article in the english Wikipedia (it's funny, maybe my difficulties of translation).
It was in great demand in the applied sense in pre-computer era, as often eliminates the need for multiple repetitions of routine calculations for different tasks with same models. But its importance for physics does not stop there. I think it makes no sense to tell what is the Mach number, the Reynolds number, etc. They all relate to bifurcation points (before and after, less and more ...), in which the behavior of the system changes, accordingly, models may also require changes. Dimensionless quantities can be found in many places in physics. And in fact, this is a very important thing. For example, the fine structure constant (coupling constant) is a dimensionless quantity.
The measurement system depends on it. Therefore, the SI system is not something only uncontested, there GHS and anyone even can come up with something personal (as noted by dear Eugene). Appearance of models depends on it, but the meaning does not change. Physical models even can be rewritten in dimensionless form.
"Mathematical equations" can be a model of something or may not be a model of this. Here you are right, of course. BUT the interpreter is always the culprit of erroneous matching of similarity between the simulated object (system) and model (system). As an engineer, you should be well aware that in human practice (science) any real model (de facto idealisation) involves a set of assumptions / simplifications, ie axioms. Rational choice of axioms for formal model is in general a hard problem in itself, which involves logic, deductive reasoning, intuition etc. This is not difficult to see on example of our discussion.
You: "The presented "Model of uncertainty of the Universe" is actually awareness about:
- the local certainty (the full definiteness inside the local areas with equal intensity of the gravitational field),
- against the background of overall uncertainty in the Universe (the global indetermination that exist in the Universe),
- against the uncertainty at the micro-level (the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics – the indetermination in the micro-world)."
Reality appear to be substantially self-centered. Any system in it can self-identify only relative to surrounding systems. Those reality itself exists in the form of these systems in the relationship. All the definiteness that there is in any system - its boundary with the outside world. Only relative to this boundary one can construct coordinate system toward uncertainty.
Neil deGrasse Tyson perfectly describes this situation, referring to the ego in the cosmic (cosmological) perspective (Neil deGrasse Tyson on Your Ego and the Cosmic Perspective).
Accordingly, in mathematics there are major reference points:
- the absence of something [an empty set / 0],
- holistic everything / eternity [infinity / inf],
- and actually the system in question, [unity / 1];
- +interrelations (including problems caused by the fact that the holistic everything is also unity).
From my words above are not difficult to conclude that from my point of view, mathematics is only a manifestation of reality topology. You can take into account the fact that all sorts of calculations in its formal field whether it is in a brain, calculator, computer etc just are the changes in a physical state of the corresponding system under consideration (changes in topology, maybe I did not quite correct use the term, formally it is a branch of mathematics).
In a certain sense this means absoluteness, of course. BUT It will be more correct to say "global invariants", of which I spoke earlier. It imply objectivity in every sense: not absoluteness but independence from anything.
For this reasons, from my point of view, reality in the "remote corners" is not so unpredictable as for you ("we can judge only approximately, but we cannot measure or calculate whatever change in the physical reality in another remote time-spatial domain with different level of contraction/expansion of the space-time, because the units of measurement there are uncertainly different.") for all "domains" (reality), talks about which makes sense at all.
Feb 10, 2017
Maria Koleva | Congratulations on interesting discussion! I would like to add the following: the space-time is supposed inittially isotropic but it changes when mass is added thus becomes anisotropic?! Should the basic equations change ? The same problem stands for the theory of emergent phenomena: the emergent structures commence from perfectly homogeneous solution but what happens once they already have emerged. Is it a problem of feedback and if so what "controls" feedback!? Is it a matter of bi-directional hierarchy governed by mutual control?!
Maria Koleva | I am going on with the same problem this time about the time: what if the dynamics acts like a mass and distorts time?! It would also become "randomized". The question is whether the so distorted time and space remain bounded or develop singularities?
Maria Koleva | Congratulations on interesting discussion! I would like to add the following: the space-time is supposed inittially isotropic but it changes when mass is added thus becomes anisotropic?! Should the basic equations change ? The same problem stands for the theory of emergent phenomena: the emergent structures commence from perfectly homogeneous solution but what happens once they already have emerged. Is it a problem of feedback and if so what "controls" feedback!? Is it a matter of bi-directional hierarchy governed by mutual control?!
Maria Koleva | I am going on with the same problem this time about the time: what if the dynamics acts like a mass and distorts time?! It would also become "randomized". The question is whether the so distorted time and space remain bounded or develop singularities?
Feb 11, 2017
Eugene F Kislyakov | Erkki and other interested,
Logunov is not the first and the best. I know him (and also his teacher N.N. Bogolubov) and his pupils very well.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Erkki and other interested,
Logunov is not the first and the best. I know him (and also his teacher N.N. Bogolubov) and his pupils very well.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Project: ZEUS [accessed Dec 30, 2017]
Feb 12, 2017
Maria Koleva | To the idea of constancy of units: there exist natural units set by the balance of processes which proceed in any given locality (local reactions and local diffusion for example) . Then, the units are set locally. But what makes them to synchronize so that in equilibrium they are correlated so that the corresponding global variable turns covariant ( in the sense it does not signals out any specifc spatio-temporal point)?! And then is equilibrium local or global if each time it depends on the concrete synchronization.?!
Peter Kepp | Maria Koleva,
If one understands time as a consequence of the physical circumstances and not as an independent unit, then there is no doubt about the so called `distorted´ time.
A cycle of process in relation to another one is called time. If the process is changed, the related one not, we see the `distorted´.
So take: t = f(c) [time is a function of the circumstances] and you will not have a problem.
But space never is distorted!
Regards, Peter Kepp
Vasyl Komarov | Peter Kepp, "space never is distorted!" - this is just your assumption, which is well within your beliefs/axioms system, it is not indisputable, so that the exclamation mark is not pertinent. After all, "circumstances" are the coupled space and time in your words.
Vasyl Komarov | 1. (to dear Erkki J. Brändas and Gocho Sharlanov) Let's continue our thinking of uncertainty. It is really interesting (especially in the light of ideas of ZEUS project and hypothesis of the General Theory of Chaos).
What more can we say by comparison of "micro" and "macro" uncertainty?
To the external observer the first has a significant limitation (spectral width * cycle duration) by the cyclic orbit of dynamical system (autonomous state machine) under consideration.
We can not say the same about the macro uncertainty, due to the fact that we are the internal observers for dynamical system (potentially autonomous state machine) under consideration. Those, we have more stringent constraints and the entire width of spectrum, as well as the period of the potential cycle is not available to us (we are only part of the process).
2. I should note, the constants which are defined empirically are the consequence of the same fatal semantics that would haunt any formal system what people try to build (remark to dear Marcia Ricci Pinheiro, it may be hard-comprehensible to those who grew up within the boundaries of knowledge, divided by demarcation, but the fact nevertheless remains - you are not able escape from own reality, I'm about this recently said in a comment under article of Christian Baumgarten that mentioned above).
Perhaps for this reason it is necessary to talk about the degree of objectivity of the constants as criteria of optimization of the formal system of knowledge as a whole.
In its turn, for this, conception of objectivity must be more clearly state. In physics, there is no clear definition for objectivity. This is a big (I would even say the fundamental) problem in itself. We can put forward only a subjective assumptions about it (ie hypotheses), for obvious reasons. Given question has been repeatedly raised at some RG discussions, in which I participated.
Dear Maria Koleva, you have answered your own question: "balance of processes which proceed in any given locality" - ie units is invariable with respect to locality and depends only on balance.
Can part of the systemic processes be considered independently of the system as a whole? - is a separate question. In this case, of (independent) localities, comparison of processes makes no sense at all.
Peter Kepp | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
`Indisputable´ is not an expression of logical discussion in science. One has to give some ideas, which could be discussed. A fiew posts above I gave such ideas. If you are able to do also, then let hear.
Could you define any function, in which any unit is formed by space?
What is space in measure, if space is the termination for the unit?
How do you measure space? Is your measurement constant? Is your measurement based on an ideal?
Do you know, that any physical quantity has to be named by that three ones:
number (of amount), measure, unit (1[m] length e.g.)?
Erkki J. Brändas | Dear Vasily,
The uncertainty on any classical macro-level is subjective which imparts that the derivation of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics cannot be strictly proved.
Maria Koleva | To the idea of constancy of units: there exist natural units set by the balance of processes which proceed in any given locality (local reactions and local diffusion for example) . Then, the units are set locally. But what makes them to synchronize so that in equilibrium they are correlated so that the corresponding global variable turns covariant ( in the sense it does not signals out any specifc spatio-temporal point)?! And then is equilibrium local or global if each time it depends on the concrete synchronization.?!
Peter Kepp | Maria Koleva,
If one understands time as a consequence of the physical circumstances and not as an independent unit, then there is no doubt about the so called `distorted´ time.
A cycle of process in relation to another one is called time. If the process is changed, the related one not, we see the `distorted´.
So take: t = f(c) [time is a function of the circumstances] and you will not have a problem.
But space never is distorted!
Regards, Peter Kepp
Vasyl Komarov | Peter Kepp, "space never is distorted!" - this is just your assumption, which is well within your beliefs/axioms system, it is not indisputable, so that the exclamation mark is not pertinent. After all, "circumstances" are the coupled space and time in your words.
Vasyl Komarov | 1. (to dear Erkki J. Brändas and Gocho Sharlanov) Let's continue our thinking of uncertainty. It is really interesting (especially in the light of ideas of ZEUS project and hypothesis of the General Theory of Chaos).
What more can we say by comparison of "micro" and "macro" uncertainty?
To the external observer the first has a significant limitation (spectral width * cycle duration) by the cyclic orbit of dynamical system (autonomous state machine) under consideration.
We can not say the same about the macro uncertainty, due to the fact that we are the internal observers for dynamical system (potentially autonomous state machine) under consideration. Those, we have more stringent constraints and the entire width of spectrum, as well as the period of the potential cycle is not available to us (we are only part of the process).
2. I should note, the constants which are defined empirically are the consequence of the same fatal semantics that would haunt any formal system what people try to build (remark to dear Marcia Ricci Pinheiro, it may be hard-comprehensible to those who grew up within the boundaries of knowledge, divided by demarcation, but the fact nevertheless remains - you are not able escape from own reality, I'm about this recently said in a comment under article of Christian Baumgarten that mentioned above).
Perhaps for this reason it is necessary to talk about the degree of objectivity of the constants as criteria of optimization of the formal system of knowledge as a whole.
In its turn, for this, conception of objectivity must be more clearly state. In physics, there is no clear definition for objectivity. This is a big (I would even say the fundamental) problem in itself. We can put forward only a subjective assumptions about it (ie hypotheses), for obvious reasons. Given question has been repeatedly raised at some RG discussions, in which I participated.
Dear Maria Koleva, you have answered your own question: "balance of processes which proceed in any given locality" - ie units is invariable with respect to locality and depends only on balance.
Can part of the systemic processes be considered independently of the system as a whole? - is a separate question. In this case, of (independent) localities, comparison of processes makes no sense at all.
Peter Kepp | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
`Indisputable´ is not an expression of logical discussion in science. One has to give some ideas, which could be discussed. A fiew posts above I gave such ideas. If you are able to do also, then let hear.
Could you define any function, in which any unit is formed by space?
What is space in measure, if space is the termination for the unit?
How do you measure space? Is your measurement constant? Is your measurement based on an ideal?
Do you know, that any physical quantity has to be named by that three ones:
number (of amount), measure, unit (1[m] length e.g.)?
Erkki J. Brändas | Dear Vasily,
The uncertainty on any classical macro-level is subjective which imparts that the derivation of thermodynamics from statistical mechanics cannot be strictly proved.
Feb 13, 2017
Maria Koleva | I think that not only time is distorted by the dynamics but the space also. What I mean is that each and every structure gives rise to specific functionality with its own spatio-temporal structure. Alongside I proved that the relation structure-functionality is non-recursive: then the relation between the basic spatio-temporal structure and the functional one is also non-recursive. Than the question arises whether it is ever possible to discriminate between structural or functional spatio-temporal structure by means of modern day idea of experiment?! Or it is inherently impossible?!
Peter Kepp | Maria Koleva,
If two masses passes a district of space — assumed they distort it — what is with the space if they are gone? Does their `gone´ make the space flat again or was the effect only done by the presence of the two?
I can´t argue against every experiment (thought or really done) which bases not in my foundations of nature.
What flats your space after `gone´, if your proved relation structure-functionality is non-recursive?
But please also read my questions for Vasily Fedorovich Komarov.
And (experiment to think):
Three objects — the same in mass — are passing the earth at the same time.
The earth has a magnetic field.
One of the masses is of wood.
Another is of steel (is diverted by the magnetic field of the earth).
The last one has a magnetic field by its own (more diverted than the steel one).
Are there then three spaces? Don´t let me make a joke on that.
Maria Koleva | I think that not only time is distorted by the dynamics but the space also. What I mean is that each and every structure gives rise to specific functionality with its own spatio-temporal structure. Alongside I proved that the relation structure-functionality is non-recursive: then the relation between the basic spatio-temporal structure and the functional one is also non-recursive. Than the question arises whether it is ever possible to discriminate between structural or functional spatio-temporal structure by means of modern day idea of experiment?! Or it is inherently impossible?!
Peter Kepp | Maria Koleva,
If two masses passes a district of space — assumed they distort it — what is with the space if they are gone? Does their `gone´ make the space flat again or was the effect only done by the presence of the two?
I can´t argue against every experiment (thought or really done) which bases not in my foundations of nature.
What flats your space after `gone´, if your proved relation structure-functionality is non-recursive?
But please also read my questions for Vasily Fedorovich Komarov.
And (experiment to think):
Three objects — the same in mass — are passing the earth at the same time.
The earth has a magnetic field.
One of the masses is of wood.
Another is of steel (is diverted by the magnetic field of the earth).
The last one has a magnetic field by its own (more diverted than the steel one).
Are there then three spaces? Don´t let me make a joke on that.
Feb 14, 2017
Maria Koleva | Peter Kepp,
I find your remark quite relevant: what would happen if the relations structure-functionality are not non-recursive?! As a consequence of my proof, a ubiquitous noise band would appear at all experimental spectra. The noise band is continuous band of shape 1/f^alha(f). More about this one can find in my recent book "Boundedness and Self-organized Semantics Theory and Applications", IGI-Global Hershey, PA, USA 2012. A free copy of teh book is available at my profile on ResearshGate.
Maria Koleva | Peter Kepp,
I find your remark quite relevant: what would happen if the relations structure-functionality are not non-recursive?! As a consequence of my proof, a ubiquitous noise band would appear at all experimental spectra. The noise band is continuous band of shape 1/f^alha(f). More about this one can find in my recent book "Boundedness and Self-organized Semantics Theory and Applications", IGI-Global Hershey, PA, USA 2012. A free copy of teh book is available at my profile on ResearshGate.
Feb 15, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Erkki, exactly, I do not thought about thermodynamics.
It should be noted, Gocho meant "macro" uncertainty in a different way (if I understood him correctly) - the inability or absence of possibility to identification our specific location in the universum. So, in a certain sense it is a next degree macro level in relation to the thermodynamics (although we can be considered as a group of molecules).
I also in agreement with his words meant that our position (4th planet in the Solar system and beyond) in a dynamic sense was destined before the birth of our civilization and unknown for us while any position is equvivalent for us. We can only assess its quality in relation to local objects that interact with us, whether it's position relative to own star or, for example, object Saggitarius A, etc.
Ie in accordance with this criterion we can choose for themselves privileged frame of reference on any scale of the system, but it will always be local, whatever scope we take.
You touched on one more interesting aspect. 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, we just 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). Ie 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 - this is the second plus to macro uncertainty. Which implies that the macroscopic level in the thermodynamic sense have separate life without "backward compatibility" with mechanics (real system). Again, this gap is also interesting from the point of view of universality (independence macro parameters of the dynamic system from dynamical parts of it).
Maria Koleva | About the conflict between the production of negative entropy of Prigogine and positive entropy of Einstein: my guess is that the very core of the problem lies in the notion of entropy. The traditional notion of entropy is a single-valued variable which is governed by a single parameter: disorder. But the structured objects are in between: they comprise both order and disorder in a specific unique interplay. Then, obviously the notion of entropy should describe this interplay. Alongside, the traditional notion of entropy applies only for ideal gases put at a pre-determined environment (ideal heat bath or ideal closure and/or isolation). Recently I put forward a new concept of entropy which can be found in my recent book "Boundedness and Self-Organized Semantics Theory and Applications", IGI-Global, Hershey PA, USA, 2012. A free copy of this book is available at my ResearchGate profile. The greatest advantage of the new definition of entropy is that it renders the widest formulation of the Second Law to be expressed as ban over perpetuum mobile.
Vasyl Komarov | Topological entropy is also interesting, measures the exponential complexity of the system (Topological entropy).
Vasyl Komarov | I also insisted on a similar position in one of earlier discussions:
"DNA, cells, live organics are a recurring periodic information (I focused on this above*) and with the period doubling during cell division do not have a direct relation to the Shannon entropy ( if involve only information layer DNA or some other information layer), besides, the system volume is not preserved in the phase space. As you noticed, mass can grow, or something else."
* "From the common sense and logic of self-organization the thermodynamic concept of entropy, as well as the concept of information entropy are not suitable for measure of order (complexity) of dissipative systems. Firstly, dissipative structures are periodic. What in terms of entropy is already redundant information. Secondly, the most uniform thermodynamic state for dynamical system corresponds to white noise, ie maximally disordered chaotic state.
From our viewpoint of self-organization the most hard-ordered (unreachable) state is a situation with accumulation of all energy by single degree of freedom in the system. But stable dissipative structures in fact occupy an intermediate state in accordance with the internal "Goldilocks" logic.
We need a fundamentally different criterion of dissipative structure order (or complexity?)."
...from "Changes in the overall entropy of a single biological organism during lifetime?" - ResearchGate.
Maria Koleva | Vaslyii Komarov,
Thank you for finding my remark interesting. In reply to your comment I would like to add that dissipative structures are the simplest class of complex systems. Yet, the question arises whether it is possible to create any hierarchy of self-organization out of dissipative structures because each of them is vulnerable to noise and each of them persists only at specific boundary conditions. Thus, is it to be expected that they could coexist as self-constrained local patterns. Even if so, how they are connected so that to operate as stable and balanced open systems (that is systems they exchange matter/energy/information) in an ever-changing environment. Where any such specific self-organization commences and is it stable in the sense is t robust to environmental changes?
I have tried to answer these and similar questions. A systematic approach can be found in my recent book "Boundedness and Self-Organized Semantics Theory and Applications", IGI-Global, Hershey, PA, USA, 2012. A free copy is available at my profile on ResearchGate.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Maria Koleva, thanks for the link.
It seems to me, "coexisted self-constrained local patterns" contradicts the universality. It implies (hypothetically) connectedness of whole structure. One can construct hierarchy in both directions, from below upwards (out of structures), and from top to bottom (out of landscape). Self-organization in the fullest sense must not have a certain direction, I think.
Perhaps it makes sense to look for more advanced (universal) concept of dissipative structures, which includes generally complex structures? It is the most logical assumption when you allow self-organization in general. I likely can not give as an example any physical object, which is not subject to dissipation. It is determined only by the existance intervals, amplitudes of interferences or their values of dynamic changes.
Erkki J. Brändas | Regarding entropy, I have the feeling that one often mixes applications to equilibrium and non-equilibrium situations. Keeping them apart removes any uncertanties (no pun intended).
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Erkki, exactly, I do not thought about thermodynamics.
It should be noted, Gocho meant "macro" uncertainty in a different way (if I understood him correctly) - the inability or absence of possibility to identification our specific location in the universum. So, in a certain sense it is a next degree macro level in relation to the thermodynamics (although we can be considered as a group of molecules).
I also in agreement with his words meant that our position (4th planet in the Solar system and beyond) in a dynamic sense was destined before the birth of our civilization and unknown for us while any position is equvivalent for us. We can only assess its quality in relation to local objects that interact with us, whether it's position relative to own star or, for example, object Saggitarius A, etc.
Ie in accordance with this criterion we can choose for themselves privileged frame of reference on any scale of the system, but it will always be local, whatever scope we take.
You touched on one more interesting aspect. 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, we just 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). Ie 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 - this is the second plus to macro uncertainty. Which implies that the macroscopic level in the thermodynamic sense have separate life without "backward compatibility" with mechanics (real system). Again, this gap is also interesting from the point of view of universality (independence macro parameters of the dynamic system from dynamical parts of it).
Maria Koleva | About the conflict between the production of negative entropy of Prigogine and positive entropy of Einstein: my guess is that the very core of the problem lies in the notion of entropy. The traditional notion of entropy is a single-valued variable which is governed by a single parameter: disorder. But the structured objects are in between: they comprise both order and disorder in a specific unique interplay. Then, obviously the notion of entropy should describe this interplay. Alongside, the traditional notion of entropy applies only for ideal gases put at a pre-determined environment (ideal heat bath or ideal closure and/or isolation). Recently I put forward a new concept of entropy which can be found in my recent book "Boundedness and Self-Organized Semantics Theory and Applications", IGI-Global, Hershey PA, USA, 2012. A free copy of this book is available at my ResearchGate profile. The greatest advantage of the new definition of entropy is that it renders the widest formulation of the Second Law to be expressed as ban over perpetuum mobile.
Vasyl Komarov | Topological entropy is also interesting, measures the exponential complexity of the system (Topological entropy).
Vasyl Komarov | I also insisted on a similar position in one of earlier discussions:
"DNA, cells, live organics are a recurring periodic information (I focused on this above*) and with the period doubling during cell division do not have a direct relation to the Shannon entropy ( if involve only information layer DNA or some other information layer), besides, the system volume is not preserved in the phase space. As you noticed, mass can grow, or something else."
* "From the common sense and logic of self-organization the thermodynamic concept of entropy, as well as the concept of information entropy are not suitable for measure of order (complexity) of dissipative systems. Firstly, dissipative structures are periodic. What in terms of entropy is already redundant information. Secondly, the most uniform thermodynamic state for dynamical system corresponds to white noise, ie maximally disordered chaotic state.
From our viewpoint of self-organization the most hard-ordered (unreachable) state is a situation with accumulation of all energy by single degree of freedom in the system. But stable dissipative structures in fact occupy an intermediate state in accordance with the internal "Goldilocks" logic.
We need a fundamentally different criterion of dissipative structure order (or complexity?)."
...from "Changes in the overall entropy of a single biological organism during lifetime?" - ResearchGate.
Maria Koleva | Vaslyii Komarov,
Thank you for finding my remark interesting. In reply to your comment I would like to add that dissipative structures are the simplest class of complex systems. Yet, the question arises whether it is possible to create any hierarchy of self-organization out of dissipative structures because each of them is vulnerable to noise and each of them persists only at specific boundary conditions. Thus, is it to be expected that they could coexist as self-constrained local patterns. Even if so, how they are connected so that to operate as stable and balanced open systems (that is systems they exchange matter/energy/information) in an ever-changing environment. Where any such specific self-organization commences and is it stable in the sense is t robust to environmental changes?
I have tried to answer these and similar questions. A systematic approach can be found in my recent book "Boundedness and Self-Organized Semantics Theory and Applications", IGI-Global, Hershey, PA, USA, 2012. A free copy is available at my profile on ResearchGate.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Maria Koleva, thanks for the link.
It seems to me, "coexisted self-constrained local patterns" contradicts the universality. It implies (hypothetically) connectedness of whole structure. One can construct hierarchy in both directions, from below upwards (out of structures), and from top to bottom (out of landscape). Self-organization in the fullest sense must not have a certain direction, I think.
Perhaps it makes sense to look for more advanced (universal) concept of dissipative structures, which includes generally complex structures? It is the most logical assumption when you allow self-organization in general. I likely can not give as an example any physical object, which is not subject to dissipation. It is determined only by the existance intervals, amplitudes of interferences or their values of dynamic changes.
Erkki J. Brändas | Regarding entropy, I have the feeling that one often mixes applications to equilibrium and non-equilibrium situations. Keeping them apart removes any uncertanties (no pun intended).
Feb 16, 2017
Erkki J. Brändas | Maria,
You say that " ...any hierarchy of self-organization out of dissipative structures because each of them is vulnerable to noise and each of them persists only at specific boundary conditions". This is indeed true! In general thermal motion acts as noice, however in some situations thermal correlations might be constructive and if the bc's are right quantum-thermal fluctuations prompt self-organization. This is part of the present project.
Best erkki
Vasyl Komarov | I fully agree and I realize that. Based on the concept adopted for myself I have to be abused by mixing in thinking. Maybe I'm wrong, of course. Just let me explain reason.
It lies in the hypothetical assumption, which I have repeatedly referred as "static eternity": in order to the reality was uniform in all possible ranges (a philosophical term Being appropriate here), it should be a scale-invariant, in principle.
The concept of evolution, which is an unitary process, obviously, in a pure form does not satisfy this condition (from my point of view, the meaning that is embedded in the evolution term in common use would be more correct to name continuous coherent evolution). In order to satisfy it I am forced to accept the concept of self-organized criticality for basis of all processes.
This means that, in my thinking, all kind of processes (equilibrium and nonequilibrium) within the system under consideration are the manifestation of a catastrophic process (ie, nonequilibrium) at the boundary between this system and envelope system.
In the result I have become a hostage of hypothetical assumption of essentially nonequilibrium reality and now I can not talk of equilibrium itself. It may be noted, given hypothetical assumption is constantly involved in my reasoning and many of my statements, including this thread.
This is my conscious choice for the model constraints, it allows to feel comfortable with my three questions that was asked once in the topic "Universe is static!!! Yes or no?" and from time to time asked for some users, for example, dear Amrit Sorly recently:
ZEUS project concept yet not specify any such constraints. But as it seems to me, this should lead to fatal paradoxes associated with evolution. Sooner or later they will come to face and it will be need to do something.
Maybe I'm wrong, and reality is not such non-alternativistic as seems to me. In this case, it crumbles into non-interacting potentially possible fragments: it is necessary to return to the currently prevailing arbitrariness in cosmological models; philosophical problems of the existence of the phenomenon of mathematics inevitably arise again. Maybe I do not take into account something more...
Maria Koleva | Vyaveslav Somsikov,
I am afraid that the traditional notion of entropy (both for equilibrium and non-equilibrium systems) explains the arrow of time but cannot explain how complex systems operate. This is because the traditional notion is based on partitioning of a system into independent parts ( which allows summation over local entropy). Moreover, it is supposed insensitive to the way partitioning is made. However, any such definition cannot explain: (i) covariance of the phenomena since the the arrow of time signals out a special moment in the time; (ii) it cannot explain how a structured object operates; (iii) it cannot explain the notion of information since the Shannon information is grounded on teh notion of entropy and then, thus the sun raise turns a matter of prediction.
I have proposed a new idea about the notion of entropy and information which can be found in my recent book "Boundedness and Self-Organized Semantics Theory and Applications", IGI-Global, Hershey. PA, USA 2012. A free copy is available on my profile at ReserachGate.
I woll be happy to any comment on it.
Maria Koleva | Erkki Brandas,
I am very happy that our views coincide. I am very interested in the problem how correlations results in self-organization of patterns. Could you, please, send me your papers on the matter.
Erkki J. Brändas | Maria,
You say that " ...any hierarchy of self-organization out of dissipative structures because each of them is vulnerable to noise and each of them persists only at specific boundary conditions". This is indeed true! In general thermal motion acts as noice, however in some situations thermal correlations might be constructive and if the bc's are right quantum-thermal fluctuations prompt self-organization. This is part of the present project.
Best erkki
Vasyl Komarov | I fully agree and I realize that. Based on the concept adopted for myself I have to be abused by mixing in thinking. Maybe I'm wrong, of course. Just let me explain reason.
It lies in the hypothetical assumption, which I have repeatedly referred as "static eternity": in order to the reality was uniform in all possible ranges (a philosophical term Being appropriate here), it should be a scale-invariant, in principle.
The concept of evolution, which is an unitary process, obviously, in a pure form does not satisfy this condition (from my point of view, the meaning that is embedded in the evolution term in common use would be more correct to name continuous coherent evolution). In order to satisfy it I am forced to accept the concept of self-organized criticality for basis of all processes.
This means that, in my thinking, all kind of processes (equilibrium and nonequilibrium) within the system under consideration are the manifestation of a catastrophic process (ie, nonequilibrium) at the boundary between this system and envelope system.
In the result I have become a hostage of hypothetical assumption of essentially nonequilibrium reality and now I can not talk of equilibrium itself. It may be noted, given hypothetical assumption is constantly involved in my reasoning and many of my statements, including this thread.
This is my conscious choice for the model constraints, it allows to feel comfortable with my three questions that was asked once in the topic "Universe is static!!! Yes or no?" and from time to time asked for some users, for example, dear Amrit Sorly recently:
- What was before the beginning?
- What is outside?
- Is it possible to infinitely evolve?
ZEUS project concept yet not specify any such constraints. But as it seems to me, this should lead to fatal paradoxes associated with evolution. Sooner or later they will come to face and it will be need to do something.
Maybe I'm wrong, and reality is not such non-alternativistic as seems to me. In this case, it crumbles into non-interacting potentially possible fragments: it is necessary to return to the currently prevailing arbitrariness in cosmological models; philosophical problems of the existence of the phenomenon of mathematics inevitably arise again. Maybe I do not take into account something more...
Maria Koleva | Vyaveslav Somsikov,
I am afraid that the traditional notion of entropy (both for equilibrium and non-equilibrium systems) explains the arrow of time but cannot explain how complex systems operate. This is because the traditional notion is based on partitioning of a system into independent parts ( which allows summation over local entropy). Moreover, it is supposed insensitive to the way partitioning is made. However, any such definition cannot explain: (i) covariance of the phenomena since the the arrow of time signals out a special moment in the time; (ii) it cannot explain how a structured object operates; (iii) it cannot explain the notion of information since the Shannon information is grounded on teh notion of entropy and then, thus the sun raise turns a matter of prediction.
I have proposed a new idea about the notion of entropy and information which can be found in my recent book "Boundedness and Self-Organized Semantics Theory and Applications", IGI-Global, Hershey. PA, USA 2012. A free copy is available on my profile at ReserachGate.
I woll be happy to any comment on it.
Maria Koleva | Erkki Brandas,
I am very happy that our views coincide. I am very interested in the problem how correlations results in self-organization of patterns. Could you, please, send me your papers on the matter.
Feb 17, 2017
Erkki J. Brändas | Dear all,
I enclose a response to Jan Holmgren's question in another discussion concerning the Project: Understanding of human consciousness by introduction of atomic feels, where he essentially distinguishes between ontogenetic evolution and natural selection. Since this is a central topic also in my project above I paste it on here.
Dear Jan,
Thanks for your answer and for giving me the possibility to clarify my point. It is close to, but not the same as the evo-devo challenge of the modern synthesis. Starting from a microscopic perspective atoms, molecules etc. interact according to well-known physical laws. This interaction widens as the systems become more complex, I call them complex enough systems, CES, with emerging communication and functional understanding between them. This entails cellular recognition and "communication" on the most fundamental level – all as a simple consequence of the law of self-reference. This process is not limited to ontogeny, but beyond in that it becomes a semantic process that transcends higher-level perceptions incorporating both micro- and macro evolution, like social, ecological and possibly cosmological ranks.
In summary one might say that evolution- and development biology has a common "ancestor". This might seem as speculation but we have worked out the communication protocols from a basic transformation theory of the CES's exhibiting Poisson statistics which demonstrates in detail the self-organisational traits associated with the process. Within this perspective evo-devo is rooted in evolution as a communication process that appears to be universal.
My statements are strong on purpose in order to invite criticism, for which I am thankful in advance.
Best erkki
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Erkki, I can not objected, because I fully share the view on the communicative function and its importance in the process of evolution and its self-evolution from simplest exchange of information to higher-to-us-current-level, as "representative form" (according to the theory of Emilio Betty) with conjugated exchange of information. Like any other evolved object, we must be the result of the communication (exchange of information), ie we also can be called as "representative form" (on a common universal basis). I note here only (once again) that we are dealing with origin point (singularity) in considering this unitary process "since the arrow of time signals out a special moment in the time" (as noted by dear Maria). It must be borne in mind.
Erkki J. Brändas | Dear all,
I enclose a response to Jan Holmgren's question in another discussion concerning the Project: Understanding of human consciousness by introduction of atomic feels, where he essentially distinguishes between ontogenetic evolution and natural selection. Since this is a central topic also in my project above I paste it on here.
Dear Jan,
Thanks for your answer and for giving me the possibility to clarify my point. It is close to, but not the same as the evo-devo challenge of the modern synthesis. Starting from a microscopic perspective atoms, molecules etc. interact according to well-known physical laws. This interaction widens as the systems become more complex, I call them complex enough systems, CES, with emerging communication and functional understanding between them. This entails cellular recognition and "communication" on the most fundamental level – all as a simple consequence of the law of self-reference. This process is not limited to ontogeny, but beyond in that it becomes a semantic process that transcends higher-level perceptions incorporating both micro- and macro evolution, like social, ecological and possibly cosmological ranks.
In summary one might say that evolution- and development biology has a common "ancestor". This might seem as speculation but we have worked out the communication protocols from a basic transformation theory of the CES's exhibiting Poisson statistics which demonstrates in detail the self-organisational traits associated with the process. Within this perspective evo-devo is rooted in evolution as a communication process that appears to be universal.
My statements are strong on purpose in order to invite criticism, for which I am thankful in advance.
Best erkki
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Erkki, I can not objected, because I fully share the view on the communicative function and its importance in the process of evolution and its self-evolution from simplest exchange of information to higher-to-us-current-level, as "representative form" (according to the theory of Emilio Betty) with conjugated exchange of information. Like any other evolved object, we must be the result of the communication (exchange of information), ie we also can be called as "representative form" (on a common universal basis). I note here only (once again) that we are dealing with origin point (singularity) in considering this unitary process "since the arrow of time signals out a special moment in the time" (as noted by dear Maria). It must be borne in mind.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Project: ZEUS [accessed Dec 30, 2017]
Feb 18, 2017
Eugene F Kislyakov | Point of view.
Machines winned already. We all are slaves of states, which are machines. {+1}
Eugene F Kislyakov | Point of view.
Machines winned already. We all are slaves of states, which are machines. {+1}
— ResearchGate. Available from : Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: The development of human civilization [accessed Feb 18, 2017]
20 лют. 2017 р.
05:29 | Элементарные вещи иногда шокируют, это факт.
05:33 | Кстати, лишился возможности видеть метрики g+ в связи с их "инновационным" редизайном - стало скучнее, нет обратного отклика системы, так сказать.
05:29 | Элементарные вещи иногда шокируют, это факт.
05:33 | Кстати, лишился возможности видеть метрики g+ в связи с их "инновационным" редизайном - стало скучнее, нет обратного отклика системы, так сказать.
12:59 |
ИИ
○
○
○
○
○
○
●
Я должен знать, о чём ты думаешь: прозрачность мышления ИИ как необходимое условие
"...системы, которые не просто думают, но которые могут думать и объяснять." - сначала попробуйте осознать, насколько элементарную "железную" логику тяжело донести до таких же как ты (например, на примере специальной теории относительности).
Размышляя об этом надо иметь в виду - базис на основе различных систем убеждений (аксиоматик) может сделать невозможным восприятие любой логики между двумя индивидуумами/системами. ResearchGate - отличное место для наблюдений за коммуникацией и взаимопониманием людей с различными системами убеждений.
Вы просто не поймёте или откажетесь воспринимать то, о чем говорит система или человек, если её/его аксиоматика отлична (сильно отличается) от вашей либо не может быть каким-либо образом функционально соотнесена с вашей, будь она хоть в тысячу раз корректнее вашей - это обычный сценарий большинства дискуссий (из наблюдений за RG-комьюнити).
13:59 | З.Ы. В дополнение к подборке в конце статьи, + ещё неплохие фильмы, как раз о взаимном непонимании...
Automata
Transcendence
Ex Machina
{ I Am Mother }
{Кроме проблемы взаимопонимания это, традиционно, затрагивает проблему эгоистичного восприятия интеллекта любого происхождения вне множества, c которым индивидум (self) идентифицирует себя (▲).
Глубокое понимание индивидуумом механизма эволюции систем должно кардинальным образом влиять на эту логику мышления, как отражение принципа заурядности на все эволюционирующие системы. Другими словами, эгоизм эволюционно выгоден лишь до некоторого предела.
По той же причине практически все сюжеты современных фильмов biased в направлении доминирующих в обществе взглядов на "материальный" мир и целостность его эволюции (т.е., их непонимание или не полное понимание), так называемого гуманизма и позиционирования self of homo sapiens относительно rest of reality.}
Я должен знать, о чём ты думаешь: прозрачность мышления ИИ как необходимое условие
"...системы, которые не просто думают, но которые могут думать и объяснять." - сначала попробуйте осознать, насколько элементарную "железную" логику тяжело донести до таких же как ты (например, на примере специальной теории относительности).
Размышляя об этом надо иметь в виду - базис на основе различных систем убеждений (аксиоматик) может сделать невозможным восприятие любой логики между двумя индивидуумами/системами. ResearchGate - отличное место для наблюдений за коммуникацией и взаимопониманием людей с различными системами убеждений.
Вы просто не поймёте или откажетесь воспринимать то, о чем говорит система или человек, если её/его аксиоматика отлична (сильно отличается) от вашей либо не может быть каким-либо образом функционально соотнесена с вашей, будь она хоть в тысячу раз корректнее вашей - это обычный сценарий большинства дискуссий (из наблюдений за RG-комьюнити).
13:59 | З.Ы. В дополнение к подборке в конце статьи, + ещё неплохие фильмы, как раз о взаимном непонимании...
Automata
Transcendence
Ex Machina
{ I Am Mother }
{Кроме проблемы взаимопонимания это, традиционно, затрагивает проблему эгоистичного восприятия интеллекта любого происхождения вне множества, c которым индивидум (self) идентифицирует себя (▲).
Глубокое понимание индивидуумом механизма эволюции систем должно кардинальным образом влиять на эту логику мышления, как отражение принципа заурядности на все эволюционирующие системы. Другими словами, эгоизм эволюционно выгоден лишь до некоторого предела.
По той же причине практически все сюжеты современных фильмов biased в направлении доминирующих в обществе взглядов на "материальный" мир и целостность его эволюции (т.е., их непонимание или не полное понимание), так называемого гуманизма и позиционирования self of homo sapiens относительно rest of reality.}
Feb 20, 2017
Maria Koleva | Dear Vasily Fedorovich,
Could you please send me more papers about topological entropy. I prefer physically oriented papers since I am not a mathematician and formal style is difficult to me.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Maria Koleva,
Unfortunately, I do not consider myself a mathematician too. I have not yet studied the issue closely, because it is necessary to collect and analyze VERY DIVERSIFIED information. I am now focused on the basic philosophical component of the problem, because from my point of view, rethinking and revision of the demarcation problem needs at least in addition to often discussed (by me on RG) natural foundations of mathematics. I consider, it is necessary to develop an unified language (at first, on natural pre-formal level) to be able to operate enough unified structures at the level of abstraction, which does not distinguish between the low-level "physical" systems and the formal systems (math should be the subject of physical research).
If you pay attention to the topological entropy, I will also be interested in the results of your thoughts. Here are some links from which is possible to start the search:
Introduction to the Modern Theory of Dynamical Systems
An Introduction to Topological Entropy
Maria Koleva | Dear Vasily Fedorovich,
Could you please send me more papers about topological entropy. I prefer physically oriented papers since I am not a mathematician and formal style is difficult to me.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Maria Koleva,
Unfortunately, I do not consider myself a mathematician too. I have not yet studied the issue closely, because it is necessary to collect and analyze VERY DIVERSIFIED information. I am now focused on the basic philosophical component of the problem, because from my point of view, rethinking and revision of the demarcation problem needs at least in addition to often discussed (by me on RG) natural foundations of mathematics. I consider, it is necessary to develop an unified language (at first, on natural pre-formal level) to be able to operate enough unified structures at the level of abstraction, which does not distinguish between the low-level "physical" systems and the formal systems (math should be the subject of physical research).
If you pay attention to the topological entropy, I will also be interested in the results of your thoughts. Here are some links from which is possible to start the search:
Introduction to the Modern Theory of Dynamical Systems
An Introduction to Topological Entropy
Feb 24, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | It should be noted that Godel's theorem is a good indication that equilibrium in any system can not be achieved. Those any system must be considered as non-equilibrium (dependent on other systems), there are no systems that are not connected to other systems. Although about the latter discussion is necessary. This statement at least contradicts the assumption that the number line is (is considered) a closed set (manifold). The latter seems to me to be wrong.
Vasyl Komarov | It should be noted that Godel's theorem is a good indication that equilibrium in any system can not be achieved. Those any system must be considered as non-equilibrium (dependent on other systems), there are no systems that are not connected to other systems. Although about the latter discussion is necessary. This statement at least contradicts the assumption that the number line is (is considered) a closed set (manifold). The latter seems to me to be wrong.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Project: ZEUS [accessed Dec 30, 2017]
28 лют. 2017 р.
09:11 | Так. Надо внести недостающие заметки из g+ в блог, освежить в памяти. Иногда возникает желание что-то быстро найти, но уже становится неудобно.
09:11 | Так. Надо внести недостающие заметки из g+ в блог, освежить в памяти. Иногда возникает желание что-то быстро найти, но уже становится неудобно.
1 бер. 2017 р.
00:47 | "From the heat kernel expansion, we figure out that the fractal dimension of the manifold is about 1.1-1.2"
Какие-то узнаваемые цифры. А почему не 1.327..?
The fractal dimension of the Riemann zeta zeros
2011 | arXiv:1102.3764
10:18 | До кучи, для размышлений об универсальности, может пригодится...
Quantum Graphs Whose Spectra Mimic the Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function
2013 | arXiv:1307.6055 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.070406
Riemann zeta function and quantum chaos
2007 | arXiv:0708.4223 | DOI: 10.1143/PTPS.166.19
Quantum Chaos, Random Matrix Theory, and the Riemann ζ-function
2010 | pdf
Universality in Chaos: Lyapunov Spectrum and Random Matrix Theory
2017 | arXiv:1702.06935 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.97.022224
Physics of the Riemann Hypothesis
2011 | arXiv:1101.3116 | DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.307
Quantum Knots and Riemann Hypothesis
2006 | arXiv:math/0603275 | DOI:
Quantum and Arithmetical Chaos
2003 | arXiv:nlin/0312061 | DOI:
Finite Quantum Chaos
2002 | JSTOR | DOI: 10.2307/2695325
ARITHMETIC QUANTUM CHAOS
2005 | pdf
Arithmetic Quantum Chaos
1993 | pdf
00:47 | "From the heat kernel expansion, we figure out that the fractal dimension of the manifold is about 1.1-1.2"
Какие-то узнаваемые цифры. А почему не 1.327..?
The fractal dimension of the Riemann zeta zeros
2011 | arXiv:1102.3764
10:18 | До кучи, для размышлений об универсальности, может пригодится...
Quantum Graphs Whose Spectra Mimic the Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function
2013 | arXiv:1307.6055 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.070406
Riemann zeta function and quantum chaos
2007 | arXiv:0708.4223 | DOI: 10.1143/PTPS.166.19
Quantum Chaos, Random Matrix Theory, and the Riemann ζ-function
2010 | pdf
Universality in Chaos: Lyapunov Spectrum and Random Matrix Theory
2017 | arXiv:1702.06935 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.97.022224
Physics of the Riemann Hypothesis
2011 | arXiv:1101.3116 | DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.307
Quantum Knots and Riemann Hypothesis
2006 | arXiv:math/0603275 | DOI:
Quantum and Arithmetical Chaos
2003 | arXiv:nlin/0312061 | DOI:
Finite Quantum Chaos
2002 | JSTOR | DOI: 10.2307/2695325
ARITHMETIC QUANTUM CHAOS
2005 | pdf
Arithmetic Quantum Chaos
1993 | pdf
3 бер. 2017 р.
05:35 | Возможно, кто-то только сейчас начинает по-настоящему осознавать, что математика не может существовать отдельно от реальности, является её продуктом и творцом одновременно. А меня всё больше поражает количество людей, в том числе, на RG, в том числе, в среде физиков, которые "витают в облаках". Листаешь многие диалоги с ощущением, что там занимаются схоластикой.
05:35 | Возможно, кто-то только сейчас начинает по-настоящему осознавать, что математика не может существовать отдельно от реальности, является её продуктом и творцом одновременно. А меня всё больше поражает количество людей, в том числе, на RG, в том числе, в среде физиков, которые "витают в облаках". Листаешь многие диалоги с ощущением, что там занимаются схоластикой.
I affirm that the nineteenth century, and still more the twentieth, can knock the fifteenth into a cocked hat in point of susceptibility to marvels and saints and prophets and magicians and monsters and fairy tales of all kinds. The proportion of marvel to immediately credible statement in the latest edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica is enormously greater than in the Bible. The medieval doctors of divinity who did not pretend to settle how many angels could dance on the point of a needle cut a very poor figure as far as romantic credulity is concerned beside the modern physicists who have settled to the billionth of a millimetre every movement and position in the dance of the electrons.
— George Bernard Shaw | "Saint Joan"
06:07 |
За четыре года развилась новая страшилка в виде ещё одного вероятного сценария катастрофы (слияние черных дыр).
Если это беспокоит и тебя, знай, это отличный индикатор эгоизма, или, по крайней мере, того что ты живой, "в твёрдом уме и трезвой памяти" (:
06:28 | Слияние - это процесс, в некотором смысле, обратный распаду, обратный розовому шуму, обратный процессу удвоения периода (?).
Каким образом в открытой системе должны работать законы сохранения? Какую пользу можно извлечь из сохраняемой величины, которую, в принципе, невозможно знать?
Законы сохранения могут быть тесно связаны с концепцией "статической вечности", но для открытой системы это не обязательная связь.
Разрушается ли внутренняя структура? Частично или полностью? Или она начинает взаимодействовать и, в итоге, трансформируется специфическим образом (подобно тому, как, например, происходит внешне слияние галактик)?
Если это беспокоит и тебя, знай, это отличный индикатор эгоизма, или, по крайней мере, того что ты живой, "в твёрдом уме и трезвой памяти" (:
И предал я сердце мое тому, чтобы познать мудрость и познать безумие и глупость: узнал, что и это - томление духа; потому что во многой мудрости много печали; и кто умножает познания, умножает скорбь.Забавно, но утверждение «полностью счастливы бывают только дураки» никогда не потеряет актуальность.
— книга Экклезиаста | Многие знания — многие печали
06:28 | Слияние - это процесс, в некотором смысле, обратный распаду, обратный розовому шуму, обратный процессу удвоения периода (?).
Каким образом в открытой системе должны работать законы сохранения? Какую пользу можно извлечь из сохраняемой величины, которую, в принципе, невозможно знать?
Законы сохранения могут быть тесно связаны с концепцией "статической вечности", но для открытой системы это не обязательная связь.
Разрушается ли внутренняя структура? Частично или полностью? Или она начинает взаимодействовать и, в итоге, трансформируется специфическим образом (подобно тому, как, например, происходит внешне слияние галактик)?
Mar 3, 2017
Stefano Quattrini | Dear Eric,
"But then GR looks at it all in a different way, says that gravity is not a "force" and that bodies acted on only by gravity (ie, "freely falling" bodies) are inertial."
infact the GR view point is also arbitrary, the free falling body is inertial only regarding the measurement of the forces acting from within. But it does not take care of the whole picture, the test body and the big mass are always in relation. It is only due to the fact that gravitation is not screenable and acts on everything at once in the same way that it is undetectable with an accelerometer inside the spaceship. Newton and Hamilton would not be happy with such a modification. It would be enough to maintain the vision of gravitation as a FLUID (HYPERFLUID) proposed by Moller when illustrating the SCHW solution, to affirm that it is necessary (Moller does not say) as for fluids a LAGRANGIAN observer (following the single particle "from inside") and the EULERIAN observer who sees everything from outside (sitting on the back of the river).
"In the Newtonian description an observer standing on the Earth has no acceleration and is therefore "inertial", and a freely falling body has an acceleration g. "
yes at least locally the Newtonian Gravitational law (force) of 1700 is in compliance with the conservation laws, formulated in 1850 and theorems of 1920's (Noether).
That a kinematical acceleration g is measured in the IRF (to a good approx) of earth is experimentally verified.
That a force is experienced on the ground is also a fact.
Einstien wanted to make the definitions independent, like inertiality by exploiting to the max the equivalence prinicple which Newton used only in equilibrium dynamics (orbital). The extension of Einstein was useful to the extent where there is static equilibrium of forces, F=F, not F=ma which is a "dynamical non equilibrium".
In the GR description the freely falling body has no acceleration. Instead, an acceleration −gis assigned to the observer standing on the Earth. We are permitted to see it like that because the observer's (local) observations are indistinguishable from those of an observer in the absence of gravity with acceleration −g. (ie, the "weak" EP; the elevator thought experiment...)
Are we so sure that in order to have a picture of phenomena we always need only one observer??? A Lagrangian and an Eulerian observer would not agree in the whole picture of the gravitational phenomena described by GR. They would not certainly agree in the case of radial motion. The Eulerian, in the IRF of earth would spot acceleration while the Lagrangian would not.
In Kaluza-Klein theory treats gravity+electromagnetism in the same way that GR treats gravity. This comes about naturally if the extra components of the metric in the 5D analogue of GR are identified as the electromagnetic potential. (Note that Kaluza and Klein didn't postulate anything. They weren't offering a new theory, only re-formulating already existing theory.)
in this case of KK, worse would be the results, because the modifications made with GR made are not.
To make the forces apparent is a technique which sooner or later goes against experience, since there are issues with the work made by such forces which magically has to disappear....
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Stefano, how "Eulerian observer" can be sure that he is not yet another "Lagrangian observer"? In general, it makes sense to integrate only if parameter of interest is localized entirely within domain of integration. It is necessary to know for sure. For gravity we can talk about it only if we consider the whole Universe from cosmological singularity.
Stefano Quattrini | Dear Eric,
"But then GR looks at it all in a different way, says that gravity is not a "force" and that bodies acted on only by gravity (ie, "freely falling" bodies) are inertial."
infact the GR view point is also arbitrary, the free falling body is inertial only regarding the measurement of the forces acting from within. But it does not take care of the whole picture, the test body and the big mass are always in relation. It is only due to the fact that gravitation is not screenable and acts on everything at once in the same way that it is undetectable with an accelerometer inside the spaceship. Newton and Hamilton would not be happy with such a modification. It would be enough to maintain the vision of gravitation as a FLUID (HYPERFLUID) proposed by Moller when illustrating the SCHW solution, to affirm that it is necessary (Moller does not say) as for fluids a LAGRANGIAN observer (following the single particle "from inside") and the EULERIAN observer who sees everything from outside (sitting on the back of the river).
"In the Newtonian description an observer standing on the Earth has no acceleration and is therefore "inertial", and a freely falling body has an acceleration g. "
yes at least locally the Newtonian Gravitational law (force) of 1700 is in compliance with the conservation laws, formulated in 1850 and theorems of 1920's (Noether).
That a kinematical acceleration g is measured in the IRF (to a good approx) of earth is experimentally verified.
That a force is experienced on the ground is also a fact.
Einstien wanted to make the definitions independent, like inertiality by exploiting to the max the equivalence prinicple which Newton used only in equilibrium dynamics (orbital). The extension of Einstein was useful to the extent where there is static equilibrium of forces, F=F, not F=ma which is a "dynamical non equilibrium".
In the GR description the freely falling body has no acceleration. Instead, an acceleration −gis assigned to the observer standing on the Earth. We are permitted to see it like that because the observer's (local) observations are indistinguishable from those of an observer in the absence of gravity with acceleration −g. (ie, the "weak" EP; the elevator thought experiment...)
Are we so sure that in order to have a picture of phenomena we always need only one observer??? A Lagrangian and an Eulerian observer would not agree in the whole picture of the gravitational phenomena described by GR. They would not certainly agree in the case of radial motion. The Eulerian, in the IRF of earth would spot acceleration while the Lagrangian would not.
In Kaluza-Klein theory treats gravity+electromagnetism in the same way that GR treats gravity. This comes about naturally if the extra components of the metric in the 5D analogue of GR are identified as the electromagnetic potential. (Note that Kaluza and Klein didn't postulate anything. They weren't offering a new theory, only re-formulating already existing theory.)
in this case of KK, worse would be the results, because the modifications made with GR made are not.
To make the forces apparent is a technique which sooner or later goes against experience, since there are issues with the work made by such forces which magically has to disappear....
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Stefano, how "Eulerian observer" can be sure that he is not yet another "Lagrangian observer"? In general, it makes sense to integrate only if parameter of interest is localized entirely within domain of integration. It is necessary to know for sure. For gravity we can talk about it only if we consider the whole Universe from cosmological singularity.
Mar 5, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Stefano Quattrini,
The idea behind Eulerian and Lagrangian Observers is good to demonstrate the difference between understanding of space in the classical and relativistic sense.
Eulerian observer (#1) implies 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 different descriptions of motion is painless and does not change anything.
In GR this is no longer the case. Although, the problems already start in SRT: Whatever the specific Lagrangian system (consisting of an arbitrary set of entities) you are considering, you should take into account all the entities. Otherwise, lack of knowledge (information) does not exempt from limitations on the speed of information communication. Within the framework of SRT, the observer always has a lack of information about the state of system (like a constant of indefinite integral). In GR it is maintained on a slightly different level (problem with energy conservation is appended due to the fact that GR covers more processes in consideration).
Here the meaninglessness of consideration of isolated unitary entity is worth noting! Connectedness is a fundamental quality of reality, manifestations of which can be found everywhere over nature and formal systems (from holistic ideas behind GR, self-organisation and condition of universality of dynamical systems to inescapable semantics and Goedel's theorem). It is for this reason understanding the nature by classical mechanics (where we can put an unitary entity as a thing in itself in abstract space and study it) is far from reality. Lagrangian approach to description of motion starts from this point of view (as already mentioned above).
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, by mistake through ignorance of own velocity relative to the non-existent privileged frame of reference (the same one that people like to associate with independent abstract space of classical mechanics).
In reality you do not know the exact coordinates in this non-existent privileged frame of reference, but a limited portion of inalienable space occupied by the system of entities there is always (on any scope of system under consideration). It works like a turned on the wrong side uncertainty principle: in order to know exactly own state (in my opinion here should be added ...within a cyclical orbit of a dynamical system), you need to know the state of the entire system (a state over all degrees of freedom of the dynamical system up to this cyclical orbit, inclusively). This functional relationship between the observer and rest of the system is manifested in the form of entropy.
So, both ideas (#1 and #2) in the basis of various descriptions of motion are misguided since time of the theories of relativity (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.
IMHO
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Stefano Quattrini,
The idea behind Eulerian and Lagrangian Observers is good to demonstrate the difference between understanding of space in the classical and relativistic sense.
Eulerian observer (#1) implies 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 different descriptions of motion is painless and does not change anything.
In GR this is no longer the case. Although, the problems already start in SRT: Whatever the specific Lagrangian system (consisting of an arbitrary set of entities) you are considering, you should take into account all the entities. Otherwise, lack of knowledge (information) does not exempt from limitations on the speed of information communication. Within the framework of SRT, the observer always has a lack of information about the state of system (like a constant of indefinite integral). In GR it is maintained on a slightly different level (problem with energy conservation is appended due to the fact that GR covers more processes in consideration).
Here the meaninglessness of consideration of isolated unitary entity is worth noting! Connectedness is a fundamental quality of reality, manifestations of which can be found everywhere over nature and formal systems (from holistic ideas behind GR, self-organisation and condition of universality of dynamical systems to inescapable semantics and Goedel's theorem). It is for this reason understanding the nature by classical mechanics (where we can put an unitary entity as a thing in itself in abstract space and study it) is far from reality. Lagrangian approach to description of motion starts from this point of view (as already mentioned above).
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, by mistake through ignorance of own velocity relative to the non-existent privileged frame of reference (the same one that people like to associate with independent abstract space of classical mechanics).
In reality you do not know the exact coordinates in this non-existent privileged frame of reference, but a limited portion of inalienable space occupied by the system of entities there is always (on any scope of system under consideration). It works like a turned on the wrong side uncertainty principle: in order to know exactly own state (in my opinion here should be added ...within a cyclical orbit of a dynamical system), you need to know the state of the entire system (a state over all degrees of freedom of the dynamical system up to this cyclical orbit, inclusively). This functional relationship between the observer and rest of the system is manifested in the form of entropy.
So, both ideas (#1 and #2) in the basis of various descriptions of motion are misguided since time of the theories of relativity (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.
IMHO
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Mar 18, 2017]
Mar 7, 2017
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Peter, dear Vasily~ I did not receive a notification from RG and just now discovered the new "replies" button. Sorry for the delayed answer.
Peter: "How physics is selected from them?" Well, that's what I try to develop in this paper and the referenced ones, "Minkowski spacetime..." and "Old Game New Rules..."
Vasiliy: "I not have anything against the holographic principle, however, the whole object, on the edge of which (hypothetically) there may be a hologram, worries me. It can not be shaped in holographic dimensions, thus can not be discarded from consideration. Or am I wrong?"
I used to share your worries until I noticed that wave-functions (in momentum space) might allow for a reinterpretation by low-dimensional classical phase spaces, the Dirac-particle specifically by a 4-dimensional (not 8!) phase space. The motion then takes place in "proper time". A 4-dimensional phase space corresponds (in classical physics) to a 2-dimensional "real space", if (and only if) we can introduce (gauge) fields that allow to replace the canonical momentum "p" by "\dot q". Thus, if this is possible, then we could speak in some sense of a hologram, as space-coordinates enter the game only via a Fourier transformation. Hence the hologram might already be there, QED itself might be holographic in its very nature (no need for black hole horizons...), based on something that we are all familiar with (but never considered in its abstract general form, as we got used to readily insert spring-constants, masses or other phenomenological stuff): Hamiltonian phase space.
Actually, we use this phase space in accelerator physics with median plane symmetry (and readily insert quadrupole focusing strength etc), but in its general abstract form, a 4x4 phase space has exactly 10 driving terms which can (after careful analysis) be identified with 4 vector-type components and 6 bi-vector components, naturally fitting to energy, momentum + em-fields. See my papers "Use of the Dirac matrices in coupled linear optics" and "Geometrical method of decoupling".
That implies that the Dirac (or Majorana) algebra is meaningful in any linear Hamiltonian system with coupling, i.e. in any linear system with constants of motion.
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Peter, dear Vasily~ I did not receive a notification from RG and just now discovered the new "replies" button. Sorry for the delayed answer.
Peter: "How physics is selected from them?" Well, that's what I try to develop in this paper and the referenced ones, "Minkowski spacetime..." and "Old Game New Rules..."
Vasiliy: "I not have anything against the holographic principle, however, the whole object, on the edge of which (hypothetically) there may be a hologram, worries me. It can not be shaped in holographic dimensions, thus can not be discarded from consideration. Or am I wrong?"
I used to share your worries until I noticed that wave-functions (in momentum space) might allow for a reinterpretation by low-dimensional classical phase spaces, the Dirac-particle specifically by a 4-dimensional (not 8!) phase space. The motion then takes place in "proper time". A 4-dimensional phase space corresponds (in classical physics) to a 2-dimensional "real space", if (and only if) we can introduce (gauge) fields that allow to replace the canonical momentum "p" by "\dot q". Thus, if this is possible, then we could speak in some sense of a hologram, as space-coordinates enter the game only via a Fourier transformation. Hence the hologram might already be there, QED itself might be holographic in its very nature (no need for black hole horizons...), based on something that we are all familiar with (but never considered in its abstract general form, as we got used to readily insert spring-constants, masses or other phenomenological stuff): Hamiltonian phase space.
Actually, we use this phase space in accelerator physics with median plane symmetry (and readily insert quadrupole focusing strength etc), but in its general abstract form, a 4x4 phase space has exactly 10 driving terms which can (after careful analysis) be identified with 4 vector-type components and 6 bi-vector components, naturally fitting to energy, momentum + em-fields. See my papers "Use of the Dirac matrices in coupled linear optics" and "Geometrical method of decoupling".
That implies that the Dirac (or Majorana) algebra is meaningful in any linear Hamiltonian system with coupling, i.e. in any linear system with constants of motion.
Mar 9, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Christian, then enlighten, please, how is the time introduced into the 4-dimensional phase space? If the extended phase space is necessary for this, the problem persists. Or, once a constant motion and symmetry, this problem is not considered? I'll try to read your links.
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Vasiliy,
as I tried to explain, certain notions remain "unexplained", one of them is time. This is legitimized only insofar as you could not explain what physics is without talking about "change", "prediction", "repeatability" and hence the pure idea of physics can only be described to someone who knows what you mean when you speak of time. Same with "quantity" and "object". This is the key point: Physics can not explain or derive (not even define) all notions that it uses. It should not even try. However, if we take all of these primary notions and if we were able to derive physical laws on their basis, then we could say: These laws hold in any physical world as I derived them from nothing more than a description of physics so that, if these laws are not correct, then the world is not a physical world.
(The number of space dimensions is not part of these primary principles)
Eugene F Kislyakov | Dear Christian!
I want to remind You not about final theory (science), but about now existing. Because your candidate to final theory is Math, let us see the nowadays' Math. It can not solve nonlinear differential equations in common case, but it is general relativity. Common mechanical problem with two and more degrees of freedom also out of modern Math's possibilities (see V.I. Arnold, for example). How about three body problem in classical mechanics, Geodel... and so on, and so on...? It is not finallity, but more likely childhood.
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Eugene ~
thanks for your comment. You are quite right, there are few directly solvable problems in mathematical physics. If you read my essay carefully, then you will find that I keep the question open, if a final theory is possible. But this should not prevent us from thinking about inevitability and finality.
Vasyl Komarov | The fact is that each of the currently popular (cosmological) ideas (models) carries a certain projection of real processes in nature. The task is to as much as possible weed out deliberately false paths. But at the same time not to miss all the clues that these models give.
Gödel's theorem, self-referencing and the phenomenon of semantics significantly change views on many things.
NB: Linearization is obvious in discrete systems, but the world is not completely discrete. This is also only partition of more complex physical processes.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Christian, then enlighten, please, how is the time introduced into the 4-dimensional phase space? If the extended phase space is necessary for this, the problem persists. Or, once a constant motion and symmetry, this problem is not considered? I'll try to read your links.
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Vasiliy,
as I tried to explain, certain notions remain "unexplained", one of them is time. This is legitimized only insofar as you could not explain what physics is without talking about "change", "prediction", "repeatability" and hence the pure idea of physics can only be described to someone who knows what you mean when you speak of time. Same with "quantity" and "object". This is the key point: Physics can not explain or derive (not even define) all notions that it uses. It should not even try. However, if we take all of these primary notions and if we were able to derive physical laws on their basis, then we could say: These laws hold in any physical world as I derived them from nothing more than a description of physics so that, if these laws are not correct, then the world is not a physical world.
(The number of space dimensions is not part of these primary principles)
Eugene F Kislyakov | Dear Christian!
I want to remind You not about final theory (science), but about now existing. Because your candidate to final theory is Math, let us see the nowadays' Math. It can not solve nonlinear differential equations in common case, but it is general relativity. Common mechanical problem with two and more degrees of freedom also out of modern Math's possibilities (see V.I. Arnold, for example). How about three body problem in classical mechanics, Geodel... and so on, and so on...? It is not finallity, but more likely childhood.
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Eugene ~
thanks for your comment. You are quite right, there are few directly solvable problems in mathematical physics. If you read my essay carefully, then you will find that I keep the question open, if a final theory is possible. But this should not prevent us from thinking about inevitability and finality.
Vasyl Komarov | The fact is that each of the currently popular (cosmological) ideas (models) carries a certain projection of real processes in nature. The task is to as much as possible weed out deliberately false paths. But at the same time not to miss all the clues that these models give.
Gödel's theorem, self-referencing and the phenomenon of semantics significantly change views on many things.
NB: Linearization is obvious in discrete systems, but the world is not completely discrete. This is also only partition of more complex physical processes.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: The Final Theory of Physics -a Tautology? [accessed Dec 8, 2017]
11 бер. 2017 р.
20:09 | [ru] Физики впервые рассчитали вклад глюонов в протонный спин
Spinning Gluons in the Proton
Ну да, Черепаха шлёт Ахиллу пламенный привет.
20:29 | Пора бы уже отказываться от мышления отдельными частицами. Это давно ясно как божий день.
20:09 | [ru] Физики впервые рассчитали вклад глюонов в протонный спин
Spinning Gluons in the Proton
Ну да, Черепаха шлёт Ахиллу пламенный привет.
20:29 | Пора бы уже отказываться от мышления отдельными частицами. Это давно ясно как божий день.
Mar 11, 2017
Daniele Sasso | It seems to me that many physicists, whether postmodern or neoclassic, mix physics with relativism. They want to solve problems of physics through the relativism that has nothing in common with physics that is phylosophy of nature. The Principle of Relativity is one of fundamentals of physics but it has nothing in common with relativism. The Principle of Relativity is applied to laws of physics after that those laws were discovered and formulated with the Galilean scientific metjod based on experimental observations amd mathematical theorizations. We can interpret Maxwell's equations on many ways, but ot seems to me thay the more effettive way is represented by Heaviside's vector interpretation.
Daniele Sasso | It seems to me that many physicists, whether postmodern or neoclassic, mix physics with relativism. They want to solve problems of physics through the relativism that has nothing in common with physics that is phylosophy of nature. The Principle of Relativity is one of fundamentals of physics but it has nothing in common with relativism. The Principle of Relativity is applied to laws of physics after that those laws were discovered and formulated with the Galilean scientific metjod based on experimental observations amd mathematical theorizations. We can interpret Maxwell's equations on many ways, but ot seems to me thay the more effettive way is represented by Heaviside's vector interpretation.
Mar 12, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Yes, here you are obviously right. With experience we involuntarily become agnostics (-;
Too many things, from the theory of relativity to Gödel's theorem, are simply force us to become in position of Relativism. However, this allows us to better see really stable and independent things (although, the term invariants fits them better).
I can not imagine physics without philosophy no less than philosophy without physics.
Vasyl Komarov | Yes, here you are obviously right. With experience we involuntarily become agnostics (-;
Too many things, from the theory of relativity to Gödel's theorem, are simply force us to become in position of Relativism. However, this allows us to better see really stable and independent things (although, the term invariants fits them better).
I can not imagine physics without philosophy no less than philosophy without physics.
Mar 12, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Perhaps this is not obvious yet, but there are no truly closed/isolated systems (at least for that part of reality which includes us). Until we will refute Gödel's incompleteness theorem. And judging by the other available regularities for dynamical systems, this can not be done. So, there are convincing factors on the side of GR and the named problems.
Vasyl Komarov | Perhaps this is not obvious yet, but there are no truly closed/isolated systems (at least for that part of reality which includes us). Until we will refute Gödel's incompleteness theorem. And judging by the other available regularities for dynamical systems, this can not be done. So, there are convincing factors on the side of GR and the named problems.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Mar 18, 2017]
12 бер. 2017 р.
11:19 | Кстати. Спасибо Google за то что прикрутил нейросети к русскому языку в своём переводчике! Это не заметить невозможно.
11:19 | Кстати. Спасибо Google за то что прикрутил нейросети к русскому языку в своём переводчике! Это не заметить невозможно.
14 бер. 2017 р.
06:38 | То, что 3 кварка не симметричны/идентичны хорошо соответствует механизму универсальности/самоорганизации. Означает ли это постоянство приоритетности степеней свободы системы, либо это периодический/циклический или апериодический динамический процесс (типа "эстафеты") балансирующий на границе общего равновесия в системе?
06:38 | То, что 3 кварка не симметричны/идентичны хорошо соответствует механизму универсальности/самоорганизации. Означает ли это постоянство приоритетности степеней свободы системы, либо это периодический/циклический или апериодический динамический процесс (типа "эстафеты") балансирующий на границе общего равновесия в системе?
10:17 |
Первый вариант подразумевает наличие выделенной анизотропии по степеням свободы системы и, скорее всего, на этом участке противоречит хиральности.
11:16 |
Касательно адаптивного ландшафта для так называемых черных дыр, его можно рассматривать, судя по всему, как простейшую бинарную оппозицию.
Дихотомия проходит по некоторому относительному порогу. Всё, что "проще" пороговой конфигурации, "переваривается" без осложнений, всё, что "сложнее" пороговой конфигурации, поглощает или подвергает диссипации собственно структуру черной дыры. Внешне это выглядит так.
Соответственно, внешне это подразумевает примитивнейшую логику поведения и стратегию выживания, а следовательно, самую простейшую из возможной динамику активности в имеющемся адаптивном ландшафте.
Сохраняется вопрос, на сколько это справедливо с точки зрения взаимной трансформации поглощаемой и поглощающей структур, особенно в окрестности близких параметров? И может ли это влиять на адаптивный ландшафт каким либо дополнительным способом, отличным от банального увеличения гравитации по мере роста размеров и аппетита?
11:23 | Это значит, что мир для черных дыр "выглядит" в черно-белых красках с простейшим мнестическим синтезом "плохо-хорошо", который может указать лишь однозначный вектор незатейливого поведения.
17:40 (2017-03-15) | В данном контексте (для потенциальной циклической орбиты динамической системы, в силу сходства логики процесса) имеет смысл обратить внимание на константу Хайтина (Chaitin's constant), соответственно, вероятность остановки (wiki: "можно интерпретировать как меру определённого подмножества Канторова пространства при обычной вероятностной мере на Канторовом пространстве").
И, возможно, смежный очень интересный вопрос:
Является ли число e периодом?
06:36 (2017-03-18) | "первые n битов константы Ω Хайтина случайны или несжимаемы в том смысле, что мы не можем вычислить их алгоритмом короче, чем n − O(1) битов. Однако, рассмотрим короткий, но никогда не останавливающийся алгоритм, который методично перечисляет и выполняет все возможные программы; как только одна из них останавливается, её вероятность прибавляется к результату (изначально равному нулю). После конечного времени первые n битов результата больше не изменятся (не имеет значения, что само это время невычислимо). Так что существует короткий не останавливающийся алгоритм, чей результат сходится (за конечное время) к первым n битам Ω для любого n. Другими словами, перечисление первых n битов Ω хорошо сжимаемо в том смысле, что они ограничено вычислимы очень коротким алгоритмом; они не случайны по отношению к множеству перечисляющих алгоритмов."
08:22 (2017-03-18) | Universality probability - Wikipedia
Дихотомия проходит по некоторому относительному порогу. Всё, что "проще" пороговой конфигурации, "переваривается" без осложнений, всё, что "сложнее" пороговой конфигурации, поглощает или подвергает диссипации собственно структуру черной дыры. Внешне это выглядит так.
Соответственно, внешне это подразумевает примитивнейшую логику поведения и стратегию выживания, а следовательно, самую простейшую из возможной динамику активности в имеющемся адаптивном ландшафте.
Сохраняется вопрос, на сколько это справедливо с точки зрения взаимной трансформации поглощаемой и поглощающей структур, особенно в окрестности близких параметров? И может ли это влиять на адаптивный ландшафт каким либо дополнительным способом, отличным от банального увеличения гравитации по мере роста размеров и аппетита?
11:23 | Это значит, что мир для черных дыр "выглядит" в черно-белых красках с простейшим мнестическим синтезом "плохо-хорошо", который может указать лишь однозначный вектор незатейливого поведения.
17:40 (2017-03-15) | В данном контексте (для потенциальной циклической орбиты динамической системы, в силу сходства логики процесса) имеет смысл обратить внимание на константу Хайтина (Chaitin's constant), соответственно, вероятность остановки (wiki: "можно интерпретировать как меру определённого подмножества Канторова пространства при обычной вероятностной мере на Канторовом пространстве").
И, возможно, смежный очень интересный вопрос:
Является ли число e периодом?
06:36 (2017-03-18) | "первые n битов константы Ω Хайтина случайны или несжимаемы в том смысле, что мы не можем вычислить их алгоритмом короче, чем n − O(1) битов. Однако, рассмотрим короткий, но никогда не останавливающийся алгоритм, который методично перечисляет и выполняет все возможные программы; как только одна из них останавливается, её вероятность прибавляется к результату (изначально равному нулю). После конечного времени первые n битов результата больше не изменятся (не имеет значения, что само это время невычислимо). Так что существует короткий не останавливающийся алгоритм, чей результат сходится (за конечное время) к первым n битам Ω для любого n. Другими словами, перечисление первых n битов Ω хорошо сжимаемо в том смысле, что они ограничено вычислимы очень коротким алгоритмом; они не случайны по отношению к множеству перечисляющих алгоритмов."
08:22 (2017-03-18) | Universality probability - Wikipedia
12:08 |
Означает ли сохранность экспонент Ляпунова, что надежным/единственным носителем информации при коммуникации систем является диссипация/диссипативный процесс?
И не означает ли это, что система, для того чтобы долговременно хранить информацию, должна быть диссипативной структурой по той же причине?
Здесь надо разбираться, если это вообще возможно, что есть причина, а что следствие.
12:09 | Собственно, что есть процесс? Если не коммуникация/диссипация.
И не означает ли это, что система, для того чтобы долговременно хранить информацию, должна быть диссипативной структурой по той же причине?
Здесь надо разбираться, если это вообще возможно, что есть причина, а что следствие.
12:09 | Собственно, что есть процесс? Если не коммуникация/диссипация.
Mar 16, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul Malek. Obviously, you and I applaud the dialectics. In this connection I would like to draw your attention to the following thing, which is known as the Duhem-Quine thesis.
It is a statement about the impossibility of a definitive determination of the truth of the scientific theory.
Duham: The researcher can never test any hypothesis individually, but only a whole group of hypotheses. When his experience is in contradiction with predictions, he can only draw one conclusion from this, namely that at least one of these hypotheses is unacceptable and must be modified, but he can not conclude from here what hypothesis is wrong.
Quine: Any statement can be considered as true, despite the fact that we will make sufficiently drastic corrections in some other fragment of the system.
From where the principal non-falsifiability of fundamental scientific theories (cumulative humans scientific knowledge) and the possibility of their endless corrections on the basis of new data follow.
This in the end leads to ideas that are voiced in Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
Despite his criticism of cumulative knowledge, from the point of view of physics the evolution of the system is unitary process (even revolution is impossible without the accumulation of contradictions). You can not simply throw away the previous knowledge, "stumbling over a singularity" you will have to start evolution from the starting point. It does not matter for nature, but it is not wise for the egoistic position of the individual and whole humanity.
The system of humans cumulative scientific knowledge, in fact, have integrated and digested all the archaic cosmogony and worldviews systems (not just threw it out) and evolved to the current state. We are only fellow travelers on a small section of the trajectory of this system. We use this "favorable flow", which protects from the arising obstacles on the adaptive landscape, we "perish" or "survive", and as a result we improve the system. This is evolution.
Regarding your requests for objective truth, I'll duplicate the link to the essay, which I left here in one of the comments a little higher: I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts (The benefits of a post-truth society)
Abdul Malek | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
If you really “applaud” dialectics, then you would not bring in “Duhem-Quine thesis” or any others of official philosophy, for discussion. Sorry, I have no interest in this kind of “dialectics”!
For me, Post-Hegelian and modern official philosophy maintains (as good old Engels put it) “a pseudo existence in the state appointed academia, where, position-hunting, cobweb-spinning eclectic flea-crackers occupy the chairs of philosophy”.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul Malek. Obviously, you and I applaud the dialectics. In this connection I would like to draw your attention to the following thing, which is known as the Duhem-Quine thesis.
It is a statement about the impossibility of a definitive determination of the truth of the scientific theory.
Duham: The researcher can never test any hypothesis individually, but only a whole group of hypotheses. When his experience is in contradiction with predictions, he can only draw one conclusion from this, namely that at least one of these hypotheses is unacceptable and must be modified, but he can not conclude from here what hypothesis is wrong.
Quine: Any statement can be considered as true, despite the fact that we will make sufficiently drastic corrections in some other fragment of the system.
From where the principal non-falsifiability of fundamental scientific theories (cumulative humans scientific knowledge) and the possibility of their endless corrections on the basis of new data follow.
This in the end leads to ideas that are voiced in Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
Despite his criticism of cumulative knowledge, from the point of view of physics the evolution of the system is unitary process (even revolution is impossible without the accumulation of contradictions). You can not simply throw away the previous knowledge, "stumbling over a singularity" you will have to start evolution from the starting point. It does not matter for nature, but it is not wise for the egoistic position of the individual and whole humanity.
The system of humans cumulative scientific knowledge, in fact, have integrated and digested all the archaic cosmogony and worldviews systems (not just threw it out) and evolved to the current state. We are only fellow travelers on a small section of the trajectory of this system. We use this "favorable flow", which protects from the arising obstacles on the adaptive landscape, we "perish" or "survive", and as a result we improve the system. This is evolution.
Regarding your requests for objective truth, I'll duplicate the link to the essay, which I left here in one of the comments a little higher: I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts (The benefits of a post-truth society)
"It’s inherently self-critical and self-correcting. The status quo is never good enough."Just think about it.
— Julia Shaw on December 16, 2016
Abdul Malek | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
If you really “applaud” dialectics, then you would not bring in “Duhem-Quine thesis” or any others of official philosophy, for discussion. Sorry, I have no interest in this kind of “dialectics”!
For me, Post-Hegelian and modern official philosophy maintains (as good old Engels put it) “a pseudo existence in the state appointed academia, where, position-hunting, cobweb-spinning eclectic flea-crackers occupy the chairs of philosophy”.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Mar 18, 2017]
17 бер. 2017 р.
02:41 | Information Avoidance: How People Select Their Own Reality
Как ни крути, а все "пещеры Платона" (Plato's Cave) связаны :)
02:41 | Information Avoidance: How People Select Their Own Reality
Как ни крути, а все "пещеры Платона" (Plato's Cave) связаны :)
18 бер. 2017 р.
09:27 |
09:27 |
"Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why. On the other hand, the people whose business it is to ask why, the philosophers, have not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories. 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 the 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!"It's funny, perhaps, language is the only thing in which we can actually face pure chaos and uncertainty.
— Stephen Hawking | A Brief History of Time
Mar 18, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul Malek, however, you have a position that, according to your words, I can regard only as "official philosophy".
By the way, Hegel admits a significant misconception (actually, as a result of which there is K. Marx) in the assumption that true philosophy does not take its content from outside, but it is created in itself by a dialectical process. De facto, he is an idealist and has already lost sight of one dichotomy (the word "philosophy" has semantics, qualia preceded philosophy).
For this reason, I like the idea of Hegel (he is an excellent example of unresolved self-reference), I like that Marx tried to reveal this contradiction, but I do not like your attitude to mathematics. It also has semantics {!}. Alas and I'm sorry.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul Malek, however, you have a position that, according to your words, I can regard only as "official philosophy".
By the way, Hegel admits a significant misconception (actually, as a result of which there is K. Marx) in the assumption that true philosophy does not take its content from outside, but it is created in itself by a dialectical process. De facto, he is an idealist and has already lost sight of one dichotomy (the word "philosophy" has semantics, qualia preceded philosophy).
For this reason, I like the idea of Hegel (he is an excellent example of unresolved self-reference), I like that Marx tried to reveal this contradiction, but I do not like your attitude to mathematics. It also has semantics {!}. Alas and I'm sorry.
"Very timely epilogue: the way should be loved, and not the coming end point, whatever it was."
— Max Frei
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Mar 18, 2017]
18 бер. 2017 р.
05:50 | [ru] В ранних галактиках обнаружили нехватку темной материи
Early galaxies shunned dark matter
Strongly baryon-dominated disk galaxies at the peak of galaxy formation ten billion years ago
2017 | arXiv:1703.04310 | DOI: 10.1038/nature21685 | pdf
05:50 | [ru] В ранних галактиках обнаружили нехватку темной материи
Early galaxies shunned dark matter
Strongly baryon-dominated disk galaxies at the peak of galaxy formation ten billion years ago
2017 | arXiv:1703.04310 | DOI: 10.1038/nature21685 | pdf
Mar 19, 2017
Abdul Malek | To Dr. Engelhardt and others who are critical of the theories of relativity:
Your exclusively mathematics based criticism of GR and the limited attempts to point out the inconsistencies, ambiguities, logical fallacies, and even the outright manipulations, evident in the theories of relativity; however well-intended, will unfortunately lead you nowhere, because it would not even put a scratch on official physics. As the saying goes, “If you continue to pluck the loose hair off a woollen rug, nothing will be left of the rug!”
The rotten and crumbling edifice of Einsteinian physics will continue to be in place in spite of your criticism and attempts to patch-up, put plasters etc., and will continue to rot away slowly for ever, but still will stand on its ground; until some one demolishes it completely and builds a new structure in its place!
Valentin Danci | I'd say, on the contrary, it is the extensive and intensive criticism which erodes bit by bit the "edifice" of Einsteinian physics. The more critics and more criticism will be everywhere around the world, the fewer fanatics will be in the Establishment of Theoretical Physics to defend blindly and irrationally Einstein's relativity theories. The new revolution in Physics has already started.
Abdul Malek | Valentin Danci,
I would not be so easily optimistic. There were hundred scientists against Einstein more than hundred years ago, but his theories of relativity not only thrived, but are going strong till now and will continue to do so as long as there are scientists (like so many others in the past) who claim “proofs” of GR and the other esoteric theories of modern science and GR comes out “with flying colours from every test it is subjected to!”
They will continue to do so as long as monopoly capitalism can rule over the world and can manage to lumpenize and corrupt the European working class (potentially, (but not yet actually) the most advanced agent of future revolution) with bigotry, racism, consumerism and hedonism etc.; subsidized by the slave labour of the third world.
Vasyl Komarov | Gentlemens, I must admit that some aspects of this discussion involuntarily provoke to re-read Dudintsev's novel "White Garments".
Abdul Malek | To Dr. Engelhardt and others who are critical of the theories of relativity:
Your exclusively mathematics based criticism of GR and the limited attempts to point out the inconsistencies, ambiguities, logical fallacies, and even the outright manipulations, evident in the theories of relativity; however well-intended, will unfortunately lead you nowhere, because it would not even put a scratch on official physics. As the saying goes, “If you continue to pluck the loose hair off a woollen rug, nothing will be left of the rug!”
The rotten and crumbling edifice of Einsteinian physics will continue to be in place in spite of your criticism and attempts to patch-up, put plasters etc., and will continue to rot away slowly for ever, but still will stand on its ground; until some one demolishes it completely and builds a new structure in its place!
Valentin Danci | I'd say, on the contrary, it is the extensive and intensive criticism which erodes bit by bit the "edifice" of Einsteinian physics. The more critics and more criticism will be everywhere around the world, the fewer fanatics will be in the Establishment of Theoretical Physics to defend blindly and irrationally Einstein's relativity theories. The new revolution in Physics has already started.
Abdul Malek | Valentin Danci,
I would not be so easily optimistic. There were hundred scientists against Einstein more than hundred years ago, but his theories of relativity not only thrived, but are going strong till now and will continue to do so as long as there are scientists (like so many others in the past) who claim “proofs” of GR and the other esoteric theories of modern science and GR comes out “with flying colours from every test it is subjected to!”
They will continue to do so as long as monopoly capitalism can rule over the world and can manage to lumpenize and corrupt the European working class (potentially, (but not yet actually) the most advanced agent of future revolution) with bigotry, racism, consumerism and hedonism etc.; subsidized by the slave labour of the third world.
Vasyl Komarov | Gentlemens, I must admit that some aspects of this discussion involuntarily provoke to re-read Dudintsev's novel "White Garments".
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Mar 20, 2017]
20 бер. 2017 р.
10:33 |
{Просто эмоции на бесконечные схоластические рассуждения в среде RG.}
10:33 |
"Сии, облеченные в белые одежды, кто они и откуда пришли?" (Апок. 7;13). Они пришли от великой скорби
— Владимир Дудинцев | "Белые одежды"
{Просто эмоции на бесконечные схоластические рассуждения в среде RG.}
Mar 20, 2017
Abdul Malek | I hope the following quote from Karl Marx and Frederick Engels will be useful for all sides who were involved in this forum:
“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are on the whole subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relations, the dominant material relations grasped as ideas; … ” The German Ideology.
Valentin Danci | Abdul Malek,
That was in the past, when those who disagreed with Einstein's theories of relativity did not (or could not) develop a scientific counter-culture as an alternative to that absurdity. In a sense, it is a weakness of the human Science as a whole: it only allows one direction of thought, one direction of development, and once that direction is established, it is hard to change. However, things are changing quite dramatically these days. The number of those who disagree with the Establishment of Theoretical Physics grows fast, and there is no way the Establishment can stop that growth. When the balance will be tipped, and how, I don't know; and that is hard to predict, as it will depend on a large number of people. But it will happen. Until then, we can only enjoy how the relativists are scared to lose their authority and how they are scrambling now to protect their abysmal pseudo-scientific hallucinations - which they now indeed sell to the general public for big money. Anyway, I find their reactions quite funny, although they should already be subjects of psychological studies and (in some cases) subjects of criminal investigations.
W.W. Engelhardt | Dear Abdul,
I am not that pessimistic. Gutta cavat lapidem non vi sed saepe cadendo. I agree with you that the "Relativity Gospel" must be demolished completely, first of all in order to re-establish rational thinking again. The Newtonian edifice stands firmly and does not need to be replaced by an esoteric fantasy. The introduction of Planck's formula into Newton's force law is all what is missing.
Best wishes!
Wolfgang
Richard Kerner | sic fit homo doctus: non vi sed saepe studendo.
Abdul Malek | I hope the following quote from Karl Marx and Frederick Engels will be useful for all sides who were involved in this forum:
“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are on the whole subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relations, the dominant material relations grasped as ideas; … ” The German Ideology.
Valentin Danci | Abdul Malek,
That was in the past, when those who disagreed with Einstein's theories of relativity did not (or could not) develop a scientific counter-culture as an alternative to that absurdity. In a sense, it is a weakness of the human Science as a whole: it only allows one direction of thought, one direction of development, and once that direction is established, it is hard to change. However, things are changing quite dramatically these days. The number of those who disagree with the Establishment of Theoretical Physics grows fast, and there is no way the Establishment can stop that growth. When the balance will be tipped, and how, I don't know; and that is hard to predict, as it will depend on a large number of people. But it will happen. Until then, we can only enjoy how the relativists are scared to lose their authority and how they are scrambling now to protect their abysmal pseudo-scientific hallucinations - which they now indeed sell to the general public for big money. Anyway, I find their reactions quite funny, although they should already be subjects of psychological studies and (in some cases) subjects of criminal investigations.
W.W. Engelhardt | Dear Abdul,
I am not that pessimistic. Gutta cavat lapidem non vi sed saepe cadendo. I agree with you that the "Relativity Gospel" must be demolished completely, first of all in order to re-establish rational thinking again. The Newtonian edifice stands firmly and does not need to be replaced by an esoteric fantasy. The introduction of Planck's formula into Newton's force law is all what is missing.
Best wishes!
Wolfgang
Richard Kerner | sic fit homo doctus: non vi sed saepe studendo.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Mar 18, 2017]
20 бер. 2017 р.
10:45 | По поводу холизма...
10:45 | По поводу холизма...
Physics will return to holism.
The necessity of this pursues it since the time of the theory of electromagnetism and can be traced on the development of the concept of so-called Theory of Everything (ToE). But physics itself still does not realize (of course, aware, so the ambitions of the classical concept of ToE have always been modest) that it is within the limits assigned to it by demarcation. Physics does not realize that demarcation distorts even the area claimed by physics.
To construct an acceptable theory that tends to the theory of everything is necessary eliminate the demarcation between the branches of science and, indeed, the remaining ways of human cognition. It will be most "painful" and, at the same time, productive, for physics, mathematics and philosophy.
Demarcation for art is not such a big problem, because mostly art encounter a post-factual classification, which in natural sciences is inherent in the stages of paradigm shift.
The process (which is cognition, ie communication and evolution) is general to this. The process of cognition (as the process of existence) is the totality of all individual and collective processes (procedures and methods) of gaining information (knowledge about the phenomena and laws) of the umwelt and the positioning of the subject (self) in relation to it.
On the individual human scale, it is the personal cognition, followed by the individual expression of personal perception by all available means (science, literature, art, etc.) to share personal experience (information or knowledge) by others via communication. Expression of perception (or simple expression) is the interaction of internal (personal perception) with the environment (umwelt). It on all possible scales and sample structures from an individual to an entire civilization, etc.
This should be true in relation to any structure possessing the qualities of the system, respectively, inherent holism and some advantages of internal relations over relations with the external environment on all possible scales and samples.
The result of this process (communication) is the evolution of stable structures (ie systems). Systems should be studied comprehensively on a common basis, regardless of the existing demarcation structure. Communication of systems on any scale involves a language of communication, it is connected question, together with an abstract dynamical system as potentially autonomous machine of states.
Holism should be realized as ACTUAL HOLISM, outside the boundaries of demarcation. This is a necessary condition for the ability to move on.
There are several directions in which is necessary to move towards unification, conditioned by the existing borders of demarcation. On the concept of the system as a dualistic object/subject in the communication process, for example, one can extend the concept of the "representative form" from "Teoria Generale Della Interpretazione" of Emilio Betti and so on... to holism and unification.
The necessity of this pursues it since the time of the theory of electromagnetism and can be traced on the development of the concept of so-called Theory of Everything (ToE). But physics itself still does not realize (of course, aware, so the ambitions of the classical concept of ToE have always been modest) that it is within the limits assigned to it by demarcation. Physics does not realize that demarcation distorts even the area claimed by physics.
To construct an acceptable theory that tends to the theory of everything is necessary eliminate the demarcation between the branches of science and, indeed, the remaining ways of human cognition. It will be most "painful" and, at the same time, productive, for physics, mathematics and philosophy.
Demarcation for art is not such a big problem, because mostly art encounter a post-factual classification, which in natural sciences is inherent in the stages of paradigm shift.
The process (which is cognition, ie communication and evolution) is general to this. The process of cognition (as the process of existence) is the totality of all individual and collective processes (procedures and methods) of gaining information (knowledge about the phenomena and laws) of the umwelt and the positioning of the subject (self) in relation to it.
On the individual human scale, it is the personal cognition, followed by the individual expression of personal perception by all available means (science, literature, art, etc.) to share personal experience (information or knowledge) by others via communication. Expression of perception (or simple expression) is the interaction of internal (personal perception) with the environment (umwelt). It on all possible scales and sample structures from an individual to an entire civilization, etc.
This should be true in relation to any structure possessing the qualities of the system, respectively, inherent holism and some advantages of internal relations over relations with the external environment on all possible scales and samples.
The result of this process (communication) is the evolution of stable structures (ie systems). Systems should be studied comprehensively on a common basis, regardless of the existing demarcation structure. Communication of systems on any scale involves a language of communication, it is connected question, together with an abstract dynamical system as potentially autonomous machine of states.
Holism should be realized as ACTUAL HOLISM, outside the boundaries of demarcation. This is a necessary condition for the ability to move on.
There are several directions in which is necessary to move towards unification, conditioned by the existing borders of demarcation. On the concept of the system as a dualistic object/subject in the communication process, for example, one can extend the concept of the "representative form" from "Teoria Generale Della Interpretazione" of Emilio Betti and so on... to holism and unification.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Apart from Spinoza who else in the West argues for the complete unity of everything? [accessed Mar 19, 2017]
Mar 21, 2017
Q: Are all gravitational objects in stable orbits, are stationary with respect to dark energy. A modification of postulate 1, in special relativity?
Vasyl Komarov | Good question. Although this statement does not replace the postulate of the special theory of relativity:
Q: Are all gravitational objects in stable orbits, are stationary with respect to dark energy. A modification of postulate 1, in special relativity?
Vasyl Komarov | Good question. Although this statement does not replace the postulate of the special theory of relativity:
- The existing quasistationary motion obviously has the nesting of cyclic orbits, respectively, there is no complete equivalence of states of observers tied to arbitrary cycles. They are not invariant {!}.
- By virtue of 1 (and the fact that the attractor of the entire open dynamical system is divergent, this requires a separate discussion) at every point, that is, for an arbitrary cyclical orbit, there is an uncompensated components (of gravity and not only).
- By virtue of 2 the positions of any observer in reality do not correspond to the definition of an inertial frame of reference, which is an abstract concept that makes sense only in a truly equilibrium (symmetrical) case (which also applies only to abstract ideal situation, in which, at least, there is no gravity).
— ResearchGate. Available from: Are all gravitational objects in stable orbits, are stationary with respect to dark energy. A modification of postulate 1, in special relativity? [accessed Mar 21, 2017]
Mar 21, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | It should be noted (for oneself) that in a sufficiently correct theory (which tends to the ToE), indeed, infinite-stable cyclic orbits should not be obtained. Although, this is beyond the scope of this discussion (concerns open dynamical systems and Gödel's theorem).
Vasyl Komarov | It should be noted (for oneself) that in a sufficiently correct theory (which tends to the ToE), indeed, infinite-stable cyclic orbits should not be obtained. Although, this is beyond the scope of this discussion (concerns open dynamical systems and Gödel's theorem).
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed May 31, 2017]
Mar 22, 2017
Daniele Sasso | In a reference frame with central symmetry (please see the Theory of Reference Frames) two points or two cities on the earth surface with different altitudes move with the same angular velocity but with different tangential velocities. Consequently between the two points or the two cities there is a relative velocity given by the vector difference of the two tangential velocities. That relative velocity is nevertheless constant during all angular motion and therefore the two points or the two cities are into an inertial physical state each other. There aren't real relativistic effects (deriving from the Physical Principle of Relativity) but could there be unreal effects deriving from considerations of philosophical relativism. There are instead non-relativistic different physical effects due to gravitational causes because the two points or the two cities are in different states of gravitational potential.
Vasyl Komarov | These reference frames can be considered inertial only with restrictions. They do not correlate with the definition of the inertial frame of reference, in which the words "rectilinearly and translationally" appear. In fact, there is no point in talking about this obvious fact.
The unconnected atoms of the planet with all that is on the surface, as material points, in the absence of gravity in the inertial state would continue movement preserving the mutual position and the difference in velocities. In your case, the atoms will scatter in all directions, violating the mutual state while individually respecting the rules of inertial frames.
Daniele Sasso | Dear Vasily,
your comment about inertial reference frames and motions rectilinear and transational motions is solved inside the Theory of Reference Frames. I know also Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics , Standard Model and Neoclassic physics but many know only those. Here there is the difference.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Daniele, I will only note that I fundamentally disagree with your attitude to isolated system.
You are right, thinking that a some physics should work in it regardless of what is happening around. For truly isolated system environment does not exist. That is why it is pointless for an isolated system to talk about environment and its influence on the system.
There is no relativity for two isolated systems at al, they are not comparable by any parameter. You generally should not have access to them both and even be aware of them. Maximum, you can know about one of them, if you were lucky to be a part of it.
Logic of your reasoning unequivocally crumbles on this. Whether your systems are Galilean, Einsteinian or even the devilish himself. So we can even not mention the ill-fated Meyhelson-Morley experiment, person in the elevator, and others.
Daniele Sasso | Dear Vasilij,
the concept of isolated systems is opposing to interacting systems. In nature and among artificial systems whether isolated systems or interacting systems exist. Faraday cage, adiabatic systems are examples of isolated systems. A vacuum itsself is an isolated medium with respect to electric events but it allows propagation of e.m. waves. From the viewpoint of the Physical Principle of Relativity whether isolated reference frames or interacting references frames exist. Galileo considered largely isolated reference frames while Einstein considered largely interacting reference frames. In both reference frames the same Physical Principle of Relativity is valid. We can consider two physical situations:
1. Two inertial reference frames and in everybody an observer observes and measures, after the two observers are able to compare their observations and measurements.
2. The same observer is before in a resting reference frame with respect to the reference frame supposed at rest and after its reference frame is moving with inertial motion with respect to the same reference frame supposed at rest. In that case the same observer compare results and measurements in the same reference frame in two different inertial states.
Daniele Sasso | In a reference frame with central symmetry (please see the Theory of Reference Frames) two points or two cities on the earth surface with different altitudes move with the same angular velocity but with different tangential velocities. Consequently between the two points or the two cities there is a relative velocity given by the vector difference of the two tangential velocities. That relative velocity is nevertheless constant during all angular motion and therefore the two points or the two cities are into an inertial physical state each other. There aren't real relativistic effects (deriving from the Physical Principle of Relativity) but could there be unreal effects deriving from considerations of philosophical relativism. There are instead non-relativistic different physical effects due to gravitational causes because the two points or the two cities are in different states of gravitational potential.
Vasyl Komarov | These reference frames can be considered inertial only with restrictions. They do not correlate with the definition of the inertial frame of reference, in which the words "rectilinearly and translationally" appear. In fact, there is no point in talking about this obvious fact.
The unconnected atoms of the planet with all that is on the surface, as material points, in the absence of gravity in the inertial state would continue movement preserving the mutual position and the difference in velocities. In your case, the atoms will scatter in all directions, violating the mutual state while individually respecting the rules of inertial frames.
Daniele Sasso | Dear Vasily,
your comment about inertial reference frames and motions rectilinear and transational motions is solved inside the Theory of Reference Frames. I know also Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics , Standard Model and Neoclassic physics but many know only those. Here there is the difference.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Daniele, I will only note that I fundamentally disagree with your attitude to isolated system.
You are right, thinking that a some physics should work in it regardless of what is happening around. For truly isolated system environment does not exist. That is why it is pointless for an isolated system to talk about environment and its influence on the system.
There is no relativity for two isolated systems at al, they are not comparable by any parameter. You generally should not have access to them both and even be aware of them. Maximum, you can know about one of them, if you were lucky to be a part of it.
Logic of your reasoning unequivocally crumbles on this. Whether your systems are Galilean, Einsteinian or even the devilish himself. So we can even not mention the ill-fated Meyhelson-Morley experiment, person in the elevator, and others.
Daniele Sasso | Dear Vasilij,
the concept of isolated systems is opposing to interacting systems. In nature and among artificial systems whether isolated systems or interacting systems exist. Faraday cage, adiabatic systems are examples of isolated systems. A vacuum itsself is an isolated medium with respect to electric events but it allows propagation of e.m. waves. From the viewpoint of the Physical Principle of Relativity whether isolated reference frames or interacting references frames exist. Galileo considered largely isolated reference frames while Einstein considered largely interacting reference frames. In both reference frames the same Physical Principle of Relativity is valid. We can consider two physical situations:
1. Two inertial reference frames and in everybody an observer observes and measures, after the two observers are able to compare their observations and measurements.
2. The same observer is before in a resting reference frame with respect to the reference frame supposed at rest and after its reference frame is moving with inertial motion with respect to the same reference frame supposed at rest. In that case the same observer compare results and measurements in the same reference frame in two different inertial states.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed May 31, 2017]
23 бер. 2017 р.
00:27 | [перевод] История и будущее специальных функций
The History and Future of Special Functions
"Но новый вид науки, который я так долго разрабатывал, содержит ответ на этот вопрос.
Стоит помнить, что один из его фундаментальных принципов — охват всех возможных простых программ со всеми возможными системами правил. Традиционные точные науки сильно ориентированы на математику. Разговоры ведутся только о тех вещах, которые могут быть сформулированы с терминологии традиционных математических конструкций. Однако теперь — с новым видом науки — мы можем охватить гораздо больше. Мы можем исследовать всю вычислительную вселенную со всеми возможными типами основных правил."
...интересно, Вольфрам при этом задумывался о константе Хайтина?
00:45 | Судя по медальйону, который он подарил Хайтину на 60летний юбилей, возможно, задумывался. Но не факт :)
00:46 | "Получается, что сфера всех задач, в которых не имеется вычислительный неприводимости, включает в себя стандартные специальные функции гипергеометрического вида. А что за пределами этой сферы? Думаю, там полно вычислительной неприводимости. И полно разрозненности. Так что не может появиться никакая новая волшебная специальная функция, которая тут же покроет множество проблемных областей. Это немного напоминает ситуацию с солитонами и подобными вещами. Они хороши в своей области, однако уж очень специфичны. Они обитают в какой-то очень узкой области пространства всевозможных задач."
01:05 | Интересные рассуждения о гипергеометрических функциях.
00:27 | [перевод] История и будущее специальных функций
The History and Future of Special Functions
"Но новый вид науки, который я так долго разрабатывал, содержит ответ на этот вопрос.
Стоит помнить, что один из его фундаментальных принципов — охват всех возможных простых программ со всеми возможными системами правил. Традиционные точные науки сильно ориентированы на математику. Разговоры ведутся только о тех вещах, которые могут быть сформулированы с терминологии традиционных математических конструкций. Однако теперь — с новым видом науки — мы можем охватить гораздо больше. Мы можем исследовать всю вычислительную вселенную со всеми возможными типами основных правил."
...интересно, Вольфрам при этом задумывался о константе Хайтина?
00:45 | Судя по медальйону, который он подарил Хайтину на 60летний юбилей, возможно, задумывался. Но не факт :)
00:46 | "Получается, что сфера всех задач, в которых не имеется вычислительный неприводимости, включает в себя стандартные специальные функции гипергеометрического вида. А что за пределами этой сферы? Думаю, там полно вычислительной неприводимости. И полно разрозненности. Так что не может появиться никакая новая волшебная специальная функция, которая тут же покроет множество проблемных областей. Это немного напоминает ситуацию с солитонами и подобными вещами. Они хороши в своей области, однако уж очень специфичны. Они обитают в какой-то очень узкой области пространства всевозможных задач."
01:05 | Интересные рассуждения о гипергеометрических функциях.
23 бер. 2017 р.
00:00 | Интересно что "причинная механика" (Козырев Н. А.) перекликается с "нумерологическим порядком событий" (Amrit Sorly). В обоих случаях имеет место геометрическая (пространственная) интерпретация процесса.
У Козырева проработаны некоторые аспекты причинно-следственных связей больше:
Инвариантность связи причина-следствие ("В причинных связях всегда существует принципиальное отличие причин от следствий. Это отличие является абсолютным, независящим от точки зрения, то есть от системы координат.").
"Несжимаемость" или несводимость континуума в сингулярность ("Причины и следствия всегда разделяются пространством. Расстояние между причиной и следствием может быть сколько угодно малым, но не может быть равным нулю.").
Между прочим, хорошо согласовывается с ненулевым объемом циклической орбиты динамической системы.
Остальные аксиомы, в принципе, лишние, т.к. являются следствием первых двух, когда воспринимаешь пространство-время как сопряженную величину (процесс).
{Дополнение ниже (▼).}
00:00 | Интересно что "причинная механика" (Козырев Н. А.) перекликается с "нумерологическим порядком событий" (Amrit Sorly). В обоих случаях имеет место геометрическая (пространственная) интерпретация процесса.
У Козырева проработаны некоторые аспекты причинно-следственных связей больше:
Инвариантность связи причина-следствие ("В причинных связях всегда существует принципиальное отличие причин от следствий. Это отличие является абсолютным, независящим от точки зрения, то есть от системы координат.").
"Несжимаемость" или несводимость континуума в сингулярность ("Причины и следствия всегда разделяются пространством. Расстояние между причиной и следствием может быть сколько угодно малым, но не может быть равным нулю.").
Между прочим, хорошо согласовывается с ненулевым объемом циклической орбиты динамической системы.
Остальные аксиомы, в принципе, лишние, т.к. являются следствием первых двух, когда воспринимаешь пространство-время как сопряженную величину (процесс).
{Дополнение ниже (▼).}
Mar 23, 2017
Q: Is it possible to observe an unobservable entity?
Vasyl Komarov | It is necessary to distinguish the perception forming the qualia (the measurement that forms the state of the detector) from the model with which you associate it.
For example, the atomistic model of Leucippus-Democritus was based on qualia (their ideas were the result of a theoretical comprehension of the results of observation of phenomena such as evaporation, dissolution, etc.)
Do you see atoms in the views of Democritus when you look at the table? Do you see the atoms in Niels Bohr's views when you look at the table? Do you see the atoms in the views of the standard model when you look at the table?
On the other hand, what is the table? If in the structure of your brain there was no formed model (mnestic synthesis) representing the semantics of the word "table", would you be able to detect it with instruments or without? Or what about the table using an electron microscope?
The table, as you see it, is the result of a long process of formation of hypotheses and observations, including the invention of the concept of a table (yes, since some time, tables exist at least within the space of the planet Earth objectively, regardless of the individual person, and can be detected, despite the fact that their theoretical model was formed first). And still, what you think you see is only a model of what you are contacting. You perceive the table in terms of the concepts that you assign to it on basis of observations/qualia. You compare the parameters given in the sensations/observations with what the model suggests in your head to say yes or no, you see it or not.
The more spectrum and dynamic range of your senses, the more complex model you can generate, accordingly, a larger number of parameters of object will be available in your model. If, hypothetically, your model overrides the entire spectrum and dynamic range that an object possesses, your model will match as much as you see, most likely it will be identical to the object in literal sense (two similar, almost identical dynamical system).
Q: Is it possible to observe an unobservable entity?
Vasyl Komarov | It is necessary to distinguish the perception forming the qualia (the measurement that forms the state of the detector) from the model with which you associate it.
For example, the atomistic model of Leucippus-Democritus was based on qualia (their ideas were the result of a theoretical comprehension of the results of observation of phenomena such as evaporation, dissolution, etc.)
Do you see atoms in the views of Democritus when you look at the table? Do you see the atoms in Niels Bohr's views when you look at the table? Do you see the atoms in the views of the standard model when you look at the table?
On the other hand, what is the table? If in the structure of your brain there was no formed model (mnestic synthesis) representing the semantics of the word "table", would you be able to detect it with instruments or without? Or what about the table using an electron microscope?
The table, as you see it, is the result of a long process of formation of hypotheses and observations, including the invention of the concept of a table (yes, since some time, tables exist at least within the space of the planet Earth objectively, regardless of the individual person, and can be detected, despite the fact that their theoretical model was formed first). And still, what you think you see is only a model of what you are contacting. You perceive the table in terms of the concepts that you assign to it on basis of observations/qualia. You compare the parameters given in the sensations/observations with what the model suggests in your head to say yes or no, you see it or not.
The more spectrum and dynamic range of your senses, the more complex model you can generate, accordingly, a larger number of parameters of object will be available in your model. If, hypothetically, your model overrides the entire spectrum and dynamic range that an object possesses, your model will match as much as you see, most likely it will be identical to the object in literal sense (two similar, almost identical dynamical system).
— ResearchGate. Available from: Is it possible to observe an unobservable entity? [accessed Mar 23, 2017]
24 бер. 2017 р.
12:15 | Всегда ли траектория является частью циклической орбиты? Очевидно, что нет, траектория зависит от трансформации, которую претерпевает рассматриваемая система в процессе обмена информацией с другими системами.
12:15 | Всегда ли траектория является частью циклической орбиты? Очевидно, что нет, траектория зависит от трансформации, которую претерпевает рассматриваемая система в процессе обмена информацией с другими системами.
13:07 |
Надо набросать новую "повестку дня" (Agenda #2).
GTD - хорошая штука, при скромных запросах, иначе для психики полезно не относиться к ней обязательно.
GTD - хорошая штука, при скромных запросах, иначе для психики полезно не относиться к ней обязательно.
Mar 26, 2017
Abdul Malek | Dear Dr. Engelhardt and ALL others:
Your exposition of the problem of “Free Fall in Gravitational Theory”; the apparent problem of superluminal velocity involved in both Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of gravity and the lack of a physical explanation etc. and the resulting stimulating discussion in this forum; prompted me to look at these issues from a dialectical perspective.
I have initiated a new project in ResearchGate with the following rather bold and audacious proposition: THE MATERIALIST DIALECTICAL CONCEPT OF SPACE- TIME, AND THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL UNIVERSE; IS A FRONTAL CHALLENGE TO THE SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF THE THEORY OF GENERAL RELATIVITY”
I am not sure how much interest and participation I would get for this project, as dialectics is unknown to most physicists in particular and is un-welcome in natural science in general; at best it is controversial. Moreover, in the light of the great popularity of GR and its overwhelming influence in modern natural science, a challenge to its validity might seem like an act of lunacy!
ResearGate has been kind enough to provide me a link to share with possible collaborators who could contribute to this project. Consequently, I am pleased to invite any possible collaborators to join with me and of course any possible contributors who could help elaborate this issue either for or against it, hopefully in a creative discussion. Thanks in advance, Abdul Malek
Abdul Malek | Dear Dr. Engelhardt and ALL others:
Your exposition of the problem of “Free Fall in Gravitational Theory”; the apparent problem of superluminal velocity involved in both Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of gravity and the lack of a physical explanation etc. and the resulting stimulating discussion in this forum; prompted me to look at these issues from a dialectical perspective.
I have initiated a new project in ResearchGate with the following rather bold and audacious proposition: THE MATERIALIST DIALECTICAL CONCEPT OF SPACE- TIME, AND THE INFINITE AND ETERNAL UNIVERSE; IS A FRONTAL CHALLENGE TO THE SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF THE THEORY OF GENERAL RELATIVITY”
I am not sure how much interest and participation I would get for this project, as dialectics is unknown to most physicists in particular and is un-welcome in natural science in general; at best it is controversial. Moreover, in the light of the great popularity of GR and its overwhelming influence in modern natural science, a challenge to its validity might seem like an act of lunacy!
ResearGate has been kind enough to provide me a link to share with possible collaborators who could contribute to this project. Consequently, I am pleased to invite any possible collaborators to join with me and of course any possible contributors who could help elaborate this issue either for or against it, hopefully in a creative discussion. Thanks in advance, Abdul Malek
Mar 27, 2017
Abdul Malek | Sorry, for the typo! It should be ResearchGate! The inability to edit a posted comment is frustating.
Vasyl Komarov | Comments are very easy to edit - from the menu marked with a tick near the publication date.
By the way, you can start looking for ways to eliminate in your version of the concept of infinite space paradoxes of Olber's, Bentley's, Fermi's, Boltzmann's brain and so on.
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasiliy,
I tried your suggestion for editing. Unfortunately, does not seem to work or I am probably not doing things right!
From a dialectical perspective, the paradoxes you mention do not arise, because nothing, including the fundamental particles are permanent or are for ever, they “come into being and pass out of existence” as Heraclitus asserted. The universe and galaxies etc. in it, are like living beings, whose old cell die away and new ones form eternally; following (like the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum) the dialectical rules of “being-nothing-becoming” and “the negation of the negation”.
The main epistemological difference between say the dialectical approach and GR for example is that instead of being preoccupied with the mystery of a single act of creation (origin) based on causality and searching for clues in the ever-expanding horizon of the cosmos and seeking absolute truth (or God, the creator), the permanence of things etc. as GR does, the dialectical approach emphasises the efforts for ever-expanding knowledge and understanding of the finite, ourselves included. This is the task old physics was pre-occupied with, even if unconsciously and blindly.
As a dialectical contradiction (any existence is a contradiction) of the “unity of the opposites”, the finite IS the infinite and vice versa; so our knowledge (which progresses historically but is never complete!) of the finite is proportional to the knowledge of the infinite. We have the ability to know the finite only, by the way. But this way we know the infinite also! Our knowledge of the atoms, molecules and their properties for example also gives us knowledge of them even if they exist somewhere else in the universe under similar condition. We have some knowledge of fusion right here on earth; so we know the fusion process that goes on anywhere else in the universe. One sun with a life bearing planet earth and one Milky Way galaxy with its family group forms the essential basis for our knowledge of the infinite universe. For dialectics, no mystery exists in Nature; the only thing that exists is our ignorance of that mystery! Regards, Abdul
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul Malek,
What I agree with you for sure is: in the understanding of the permanence of eternity and the evaluation of universal significance of binary oppositions through the evolutionary process.
However, the most important conclusion in the comprehension of eternity as a concept was made at least in Hinduism. It is associated with the goddess of time Kali, which symbolizes eternal life: only what is immortal can be infinite, since nothing can change its nature.
From here we can draw a conclusion about the global invariance of the philosophical concept of being. Here also it is necessary to add the global invariance of the cause-effect bundle that means any process (latin processus ~ advance). You do not realize well enough what kind of power this gives to an iceberg whose top is, for example, (formal) shell, one of which we know as math.
NB 1: Einstein supposedly said that he believes in the "pantheistic" god Benedict Spinoza. He also called himself an agnostic. It is not difficult to find links to sources. I have already mentioned here above {▲} that agnosticism implies relativism and, to put it mildly, is very far from seeking absolute truth.
NB 2: Please note, you are contradicting yourself, declaring the eternity of the universe. However, I am with you in this too, deviate from agnosticism (and hence relativism). This can be called faith or belief, of course, but in science for this there is another word - a hypothesis (obviously, this is ad hook hypothesis, but very fundamental, see mentioned above Duhem–Quine problem). The main thing is not to forget to constantly try to falsify own hypotheses, this is the essence of agnosticism/relativism/falsificationism.
NB 3: What is the position of agnosticism (and falsificationism in the totality of variations), as not an algorithm programmed to search for absolute truth?
Contradictions are so good (:
Abdul Malek | Sorry, for the typo! It should be ResearchGate! The inability to edit a posted comment is frustating.
Vasyl Komarov | Comments are very easy to edit - from the menu marked with a tick near the publication date.
By the way, you can start looking for ways to eliminate in your version of the concept of infinite space paradoxes of Olber's, Bentley's, Fermi's, Boltzmann's brain and so on.
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasiliy,
I tried your suggestion for editing. Unfortunately, does not seem to work or I am probably not doing things right!
From a dialectical perspective, the paradoxes you mention do not arise, because nothing, including the fundamental particles are permanent or are for ever, they “come into being and pass out of existence” as Heraclitus asserted. The universe and galaxies etc. in it, are like living beings, whose old cell die away and new ones form eternally; following (like the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum) the dialectical rules of “being-nothing-becoming” and “the negation of the negation”.
The main epistemological difference between say the dialectical approach and GR for example is that instead of being preoccupied with the mystery of a single act of creation (origin) based on causality and searching for clues in the ever-expanding horizon of the cosmos and seeking absolute truth (or God, the creator), the permanence of things etc. as GR does, the dialectical approach emphasises the efforts for ever-expanding knowledge and understanding of the finite, ourselves included. This is the task old physics was pre-occupied with, even if unconsciously and blindly.
As a dialectical contradiction (any existence is a contradiction) of the “unity of the opposites”, the finite IS the infinite and vice versa; so our knowledge (which progresses historically but is never complete!) of the finite is proportional to the knowledge of the infinite. We have the ability to know the finite only, by the way. But this way we know the infinite also! Our knowledge of the atoms, molecules and their properties for example also gives us knowledge of them even if they exist somewhere else in the universe under similar condition. We have some knowledge of fusion right here on earth; so we know the fusion process that goes on anywhere else in the universe. One sun with a life bearing planet earth and one Milky Way galaxy with its family group forms the essential basis for our knowledge of the infinite universe. For dialectics, no mystery exists in Nature; the only thing that exists is our ignorance of that mystery! Regards, Abdul
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul Malek,
What I agree with you for sure is: in the understanding of the permanence of eternity and the evaluation of universal significance of binary oppositions through the evolutionary process.
However, the most important conclusion in the comprehension of eternity as a concept was made at least in Hinduism. It is associated with the goddess of time Kali, which symbolizes eternal life: only what is immortal can be infinite, since nothing can change its nature.
From here we can draw a conclusion about the global invariance of the philosophical concept of being. Here also it is necessary to add the global invariance of the cause-effect bundle that means any process (latin processus ~ advance). You do not realize well enough what kind of power this gives to an iceberg whose top is, for example, (formal) shell, one of which we know as math.
NB 1: Einstein supposedly said that he believes in the "pantheistic" god Benedict Spinoza. He also called himself an agnostic. It is not difficult to find links to sources. I have already mentioned here above {▲} that agnosticism implies relativism and, to put it mildly, is very far from seeking absolute truth.
NB 2: Please note, you are contradicting yourself, declaring the eternity of the universe. However, I am with you in this too, deviate from agnosticism (and hence relativism). This can be called faith or belief, of course, but in science for this there is another word - a hypothesis (obviously, this is ad hook hypothesis, but very fundamental, see mentioned above Duhem–Quine problem). The main thing is not to forget to constantly try to falsify own hypotheses, this is the essence of agnosticism/relativism/falsificationism.
NB 3: What is the position of agnosticism (and falsificationism in the totality of variations), as not an algorithm programmed to search for absolute truth?
Contradictions are so good (:
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Mar 18, 2017]
27 бер. 2017 р.
18:11 | Гравитационный парадокс — Википедия
"Карл Шарлье показал, что в иерархической модели Ламберта для устранения гравитационного парадокса достаточно предположить для каждых двух соседних уровней иерархии следующее соотношение между размерами R_k систем и средним числом N_k систем нижнего уровня в системе следующего уровня: \frac{R_{k}}{R_{k-1}} > \sqrt{N_{k}}, то есть размеры систем должны расти достаточно быстро."
...до сих пор не обращал внимания на его конкретные выводы, как всегда, масштабная инвариантность, степенной закон...
18:57 | Своего рода безразмерное условие квантования систем.
18:11 | Гравитационный парадокс — Википедия
"Карл Шарлье показал, что в иерархической модели Ламберта для устранения гравитационного парадокса достаточно предположить для каждых двух соседних уровней иерархии следующее соотношение между размерами R_k систем и средним числом N_k систем нижнего уровня в системе следующего уровня: \frac{R_{k}}{R_{k-1}} > \sqrt{N_{k}}, то есть размеры систем должны расти достаточно быстро."
...до сих пор не обращал внимания на его конкретные выводы, как всегда, масштабная инвариантность, степенной закон...
18:57 | Своего рода безразмерное условие квантования систем.
Mar 28, 2017
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasiliy,
I fundamentally disagree with you and I have to say this in a short response.. The permanence of unchanging “Being “ or “Nirvana” in Hinduism and Buddhism and also for Permenides of Greek idealism is the exact opposite of the concept of an eternal and infinite universe of dialectics, which is dynamic and based on eternal “change” and hence eternal motion. For dialectics, “There can be no matter without motion and no motion without matter”. The quantum phenomena and the uncertainty principle is a vindication of dialectics!
For dialectics “change” is the only thing that is permanent! This is because for dialectics any “existence” or a “Unity” (of Permenides or Nirvana) is actually a contradiction of the “unity of the opposites”. (Like the contradiction of the finite and infinite), this contradiction must be resolved, leading to a change, motion, development etc. to ever new contradictions and so on - “the negation of the negation” ; without this process ever coming to a termination! In contrast to Hindu or Greek idealism, “Contradiction” is the primary basis of dialectics. 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”.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul Malek,
I can easily replace the Kali label with holism as dialectical contradiction and I see no difference. All {whole} her description is impregnated with change. From Kali to Parmenides and Spinoza - the same Buddhist "yin and yang", whatever one may say.
If this were not the case, first of all, in physics there were no invariants, and hence any conservation laws. Laws of nature would be completely unpredictable making evolution as a sequence of causes and effects impossible, making in general any sequence of something impossible and, therefore, refuting the nature of time at all (even theory of relativity, special and general, has a powerful dialectical foundation).
Secondly, then in general is absolutely unclear, what the hell are we supposed to exist now? In this Parmenides is right, however, like Spinoza, and, incidentally, Hegel, implying that the contradiction must contain a thing in itself (in fact, holism) - "nihil fit ex nihilo".
Any other interpretation of holism (not as permanency or eternity) is absurd in itself.
Vasyl Komarov | Hence another direct pointing on Universality of dynamical system, which implies connectedness. For same reason, for example, arguments of dear Daniele Sasso about pair of isolated systems in his "theory of reference frames" are absurd. For same reason black holes are not so black. The Copernican principle of mediocrity thereby exists... A lot of consequences, if you think about it.
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasiliy, It seems that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of dialectics, and this discussion is getting meaningless. Dialectics is not the same thing as dualism or dichotomy. In dialectics the opposites have unity as well as opposition at the same time and there is strong interaction and relation with each other, a resolution of the contradiction leads to a synthesis (Aufhaven) in which the elements of the both side of the contradiction are retained in a new formation along with some added new component. In dualism, the opposites are absolute and form polar opposites (like a proton and an electron in hydrogen atom), in a resolution (separation of the charges) the opposites retain their identity without any change!
Simple dualism is used as an everyday concept like a binary combination, yes/no, good/bad, positive/negative, cause/effect etc. and forms a part of “good old commonsense” and formal (Aristotelian) logic; as opposed to dialectical logic. Yin-Yang, like the dualism of polar opposition is static and can remain so for ever, because the opposites are absolutely separated and there is no unity (hence no dialectical contradiction) between them. A resolution in a dialectical relation leads to development, change etc, which is not the case in dualism – the opposites retain their absolute identity, either in combination or when separated. If you read some of my articles, like “The Infinite” or “The Breeding Galaxies” etc., you will see what I mean and how dialectics is different from formal logic. In dialectics, the concept of an absolutely motionless primordial atom or a black hole, or even the formation of such entities makes no sense at all! Unfortunately, this has to be my last post on this issue for now. Regards, Abdul
Daniele Sasso | Dear Vasilij,
I didn't understand what you mean for absurd arguments in TR. Do you can clarify? Thanks.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Daniele, I previously already indicated my disagreement with the above-mentioned point. This concerns the statement "the Galilean reference systems are closed and isolated, do not interact with the universe, and are screened with respect to electromagnetic fields" from your Relativistic Effects of the Theory of Reference Frames.
That allows you to equate the rotating reference frame to the inertial one. With this approach, even Newton's laws are violated, the concept of the moment of inertia becomes absurd.
The Galilean system is no better than Einstein's system in this matter (also "open, interacting", independently of position in relation to electromagnetic fields), if you do not consider the abstract frame of reference as a thing in itself. In the latter case, you do not deal with physics, solely with geometry.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul Malek, yes, you are right, of course. My understanding of the dichotomy is different from yours. In the world, as I see it, a dichotomy can never give a symmetrical opposition {!}.
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasiliy,
I fundamentally disagree with you and I have to say this in a short response.. The permanence of unchanging “Being “ or “Nirvana” in Hinduism and Buddhism and also for Permenides of Greek idealism is the exact opposite of the concept of an eternal and infinite universe of dialectics, which is dynamic and based on eternal “change” and hence eternal motion. For dialectics, “There can be no matter without motion and no motion without matter”. The quantum phenomena and the uncertainty principle is a vindication of dialectics!
For dialectics “change” is the only thing that is permanent! This is because for dialectics any “existence” or a “Unity” (of Permenides or Nirvana) is actually a contradiction of the “unity of the opposites”. (Like the contradiction of the finite and infinite), this contradiction must be resolved, leading to a change, motion, development etc. to ever new contradictions and so on - “the negation of the negation” ; without this process ever coming to a termination! In contrast to Hindu or Greek idealism, “Contradiction” is the primary basis of dialectics. 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”.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul Malek,
I can easily replace the Kali label with holism as dialectical contradiction and I see no difference. All {whole} her description is impregnated with change. From Kali to Parmenides and Spinoza - the same Buddhist "yin and yang", whatever one may say.
If this were not the case, first of all, in physics there were no invariants, and hence any conservation laws. Laws of nature would be completely unpredictable making evolution as a sequence of causes and effects impossible, making in general any sequence of something impossible and, therefore, refuting the nature of time at all (even theory of relativity, special and general, has a powerful dialectical foundation).
Secondly, then in general is absolutely unclear, what the hell are we supposed to exist now? In this Parmenides is right, however, like Spinoza, and, incidentally, Hegel, implying that the contradiction must contain a thing in itself (in fact, holism) - "nihil fit ex nihilo".
Any other interpretation of holism (not as permanency or eternity) is absurd in itself.
Vasyl Komarov | Hence another direct pointing on Universality of dynamical system, which implies connectedness. For same reason, for example, arguments of dear Daniele Sasso about pair of isolated systems in his "theory of reference frames" are absurd. For same reason black holes are not so black. The Copernican principle of mediocrity thereby exists... A lot of consequences, if you think about it.
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasiliy, It seems that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of dialectics, and this discussion is getting meaningless. Dialectics is not the same thing as dualism or dichotomy. In dialectics the opposites have unity as well as opposition at the same time and there is strong interaction and relation with each other, a resolution of the contradiction leads to a synthesis (Aufhaven) in which the elements of the both side of the contradiction are retained in a new formation along with some added new component. In dualism, the opposites are absolute and form polar opposites (like a proton and an electron in hydrogen atom), in a resolution (separation of the charges) the opposites retain their identity without any change!
Simple dualism is used as an everyday concept like a binary combination, yes/no, good/bad, positive/negative, cause/effect etc. and forms a part of “good old commonsense” and formal (Aristotelian) logic; as opposed to dialectical logic. Yin-Yang, like the dualism of polar opposition is static and can remain so for ever, because the opposites are absolutely separated and there is no unity (hence no dialectical contradiction) between them. A resolution in a dialectical relation leads to development, change etc, which is not the case in dualism – the opposites retain their absolute identity, either in combination or when separated. If you read some of my articles, like “The Infinite” or “The Breeding Galaxies” etc., you will see what I mean and how dialectics is different from formal logic. In dialectics, the concept of an absolutely motionless primordial atom or a black hole, or even the formation of such entities makes no sense at all! Unfortunately, this has to be my last post on this issue for now. Regards, Abdul
Daniele Sasso | Dear Vasilij,
I didn't understand what you mean for absurd arguments in TR. Do you can clarify? Thanks.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Daniele, I previously already indicated my disagreement with the above-mentioned point. This concerns the statement "the Galilean reference systems are closed and isolated, do not interact with the universe, and are screened with respect to electromagnetic fields" from your Relativistic Effects of the Theory of Reference Frames.
That allows you to equate the rotating reference frame to the inertial one. With this approach, even Newton's laws are violated, the concept of the moment of inertia becomes absurd.
The Galilean system is no better than Einstein's system in this matter (also "open, interacting", independently of position in relation to electromagnetic fields), if you do not consider the abstract frame of reference as a thing in itself. In the latter case, you do not deal with physics, solely with geometry.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul Malek, yes, you are right, of course. My understanding of the dichotomy is different from yours. In the world, as I see it, a dichotomy can never give a symmetrical opposition {!}.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Mar 28, 2017]
29 бер. 2017 р.
21:34 | Mind-Blowing New Theory Connects Black Holes, Dark Matter, and Gravitational Waves
21:34 | Mind-Blowing New Theory Connects Black Holes, Dark Matter, and Gravitational Waves
30 бер. 2017 р.
12:03 |
2017 | RG
В данной работе феномен массы присутствует исключительно с феноменологической стороны, что не позволяет двигаться в противоположном направлении.
Есть встречное предложение - анализировать оптические явления с точки зрения гипергеометрии. Очевидно, что, например, влияние диэлектриков на электромагнитные волны можно объяснить с точки зрения траектории в искривленном пространстве.
Здесь должны находиться дополнительные подсказки к расшифровке пространственной (пространственно-временной) топологии так называемых частиц (материальных объектов) и нашего фазового портрета.
12:03 |
2017 | RG
В данной работе феномен массы присутствует исключительно с феноменологической стороны, что не позволяет двигаться в противоположном направлении.
Есть встречное предложение - анализировать оптические явления с точки зрения гипергеометрии. Очевидно, что, например, влияние диэлектриков на электромагнитные волны можно объяснить с точки зрения траектории в искривленном пространстве.
Здесь должны находиться дополнительные подсказки к расшифровке пространственной (пространственно-временной) топологии так называемых частиц (материальных объектов) и нашего фазового портрета.
6 квіт. 2017 р.
10:12 | Unpaywall finds free versions of paywalled papers
{Полезный сервис unpaywall.org.}
10:12 | Unpaywall finds free versions of paywalled papers
{Полезный сервис unpaywall.org.}
Apr 6, 2017
Q: "CAN AN ETERNAL LIFE START FROM THE MINIMAL FINE-TUNING FOR INTELLIGENCE?"
Vasyl Komarov | I would not say that the observed universe has a minimal fine tuning.
Q: "CAN AN ETERNAL LIFE START FROM THE MINIMAL FINE-TUNING FOR INTELLIGENCE?"
Vasyl Komarov | I would not say that the observed universe has a minimal fine tuning.
Apr 7, 2017
Vasyl Komarov |
[physics]
1. Thermodynamic method...
Lower the temperature in the room to absolute zero. Thus, the cat will become immobilized and can be easily grasped.
[mathematics]
2. The method of dichotomy...
Divide the room into two parts, now the cat is in one of them. Choose this half, divide it again. Continue until the cat collapses into singularity. It is the black cat.
3. The topological method...
Turn the room inside out. Now the room is inside the cat.
4. Method of invalid operation...
Divide the cat into zero, after which it will become infinitely large, so that it will be impossible to miss.
[information theory]
5. The Super Omega method...
[psychology]
6. Method of psychoanalysis...
Are you worried about a black cat? Do you want to talk about it?
(:
------
And seriously, the mind is a fractal structure. It is very difficult to find itself in itself without leaving itself.
Fine tuning means equality signs between the categories: multiverse = life = intelligence. Also fine tuning means invariant laws of self-organization (ie universality). Also, fine tuning means connectednes (ie universality and holism) of the multiverse.
The tuning is fine, or it absent at all. Partial self-organization is an absurd thing. The lack of "tuning" (read, self-organization) for us literally means the inability of mathematics and the unpredictability of physics in any arbitrary area of reality.
So, "eternal life" can not have a beginning. Actually, multiverse has no beginning.
Vasyl Komarov |
"It's hard to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if it's not there."Search methods:
— (the author unknown)
[physics]
1. Thermodynamic method...
Lower the temperature in the room to absolute zero. Thus, the cat will become immobilized and can be easily grasped.
[mathematics]
2. The method of dichotomy...
Divide the room into two parts, now the cat is in one of them. Choose this half, divide it again. Continue until the cat collapses into singularity. It is the black cat.
3. The topological method...
Turn the room inside out. Now the room is inside the cat.
4. Method of invalid operation...
Divide the cat into zero, after which it will become infinitely large, so that it will be impossible to miss.
[information theory]
5. The Super Omega method...
- Go to Google.
- In the Search line, type "dark room", click the "search" button.
- Now, when a dark room is found, check the box "Search in the found", type "black cat" and press the "search" button again*
- If nothing is found on request, try another search engine.
[psychology]
6. Method of psychoanalysis...
Are you worried about a black cat? Do you want to talk about it?
(:
------
And seriously, the mind is a fractal structure. It is very difficult to find itself in itself without leaving itself.
Fine tuning means equality signs between the categories: multiverse = life = intelligence. Also fine tuning means invariant laws of self-organization (ie universality). Also, fine tuning means connectednes (ie universality and holism) of the multiverse.
The tuning is fine, or it absent at all. Partial self-organization is an absurd thing. The lack of "tuning" (read, self-organization) for us literally means the inability of mathematics and the unpredictability of physics in any arbitrary area of reality.
So, "eternal life" can not have a beginning. Actually, multiverse has no beginning.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: "CAN AN ETERNAL LIFE START FROM THE MINIMAL FINE-TUNING FOR INTELLIGENCE?" [accessed Apr 07, 2017]
Q: "Who Will be the Next Albert Einstein?"
Vasyl Komarov | "...he really knows no one who can actually endorse his work. In the end, he probably ended up posting his work in a very open preprint server mostly ridiculed by the Physics community. No offense meant of course to any unpopular preprint server but he may also considers publishing his groundbreaking paper in a well-known social networking site for scientists..."
Not for scientists, task requires a simply open social network. You should also consider the experience of Charles Darwin and Nikolai Copernicus. The current situation requires the experience of at least these three episodes of the paradigm shift. This is not about the minds of physicists, unification implies all sections of knowledge, the task is to change the belief system at the household level. Common Sense subsequently will crack conservative bureaucratic system from the inside.
"...he probably will not subscribe to the idea that all Unification Theory should be based on "Quantum Theory" {+1}. He probably abhor the idea of "atomicity" of everything {+1}. This will make him a crackpot to everyone in the Physics community who likes to make everything "quantized" because his approach is in direct opposition with all the mainstream Unification Theories {+100500}."
It's very nice.
"...he will probably start with the basic in which the physical interpretation is clear."
One might even say, from scratch.
It was really interesting to read. It's amazing that you managed to get around Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
Vasyl Komarov | "...he really knows no one who can actually endorse his work. In the end, he probably ended up posting his work in a very open preprint server mostly ridiculed by the Physics community. No offense meant of course to any unpopular preprint server but he may also considers publishing his groundbreaking paper in a well-known social networking site for scientists..."
Not for scientists, task requires a simply open social network. You should also consider the experience of Charles Darwin and Nikolai Copernicus. The current situation requires the experience of at least these three episodes of the paradigm shift. This is not about the minds of physicists, unification implies all sections of knowledge, the task is to change the belief system at the household level. Common Sense subsequently will crack conservative bureaucratic system from the inside.
"...he probably will not subscribe to the idea that all Unification Theory should be based on "Quantum Theory" {+1}. He probably abhor the idea of "atomicity" of everything {+1}. This will make him a crackpot to everyone in the Physics community who likes to make everything "quantized" because his approach is in direct opposition with all the mainstream Unification Theories {+100500}."
It's very nice.
"...he will probably start with the basic in which the physical interpretation is clear."
One might even say, from scratch.
It was really interesting to read. It's amazing that you managed to get around Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Who Will be the Next Albert Einstein? [accessed Apr 07, 2017]
Apr 10, 2017
Q: CAN SCIENCE EXPLAIN EVERYTHING? ANYTHING?
let us stop agitation. God is the only thing that exists.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Sergey,
"be proved as existent in the objective reality" is nonsense, because it is impossible.
I don't want to prove anything, Sergey. "...God is the only thing that exist.." is one of the possible "definitions" of God and existence, if You want to give definitions.
Q: CAN SCIENCE EXPLAIN EVERYTHING? ANYTHING?
Some philosophers have drawn a distinction between the concept of "explanation" and "description". Science, they would claim, can describe elements of the natural world but not explain them. For many scientists, this is a distinction without a difference. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg, an eloquent advocate for science's place in the realm of ideas, takes this distinction at face value - in order to demonstrate that science does indeed explain something.Eugene F Kislyakov | Sergey,
let us stop agitation. God is the only thing that exists.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Sergey,
"be proved as existent in the objective reality" is nonsense, because it is impossible.
I don't want to prove anything, Sergey. "...God is the only thing that exist.." is one of the possible "definitions" of God and existence, if You want to give definitions.
Apr 11, 2017
Steven Wallis | Eugene F Kislyakov, as an potential interesting exercise, lets try a different path to "defining" God. Instead of arguing what "is" (which may be difficult to test/falsify) could you define Gad based on causal relationships? That is, what variables are likely to cause an increase or decrease in God? Also, please indicate how a team of researchers will measure God as a variable.
Dragan Pavlovic | Steven Wallis,
As I wrote once, measurement is NOT a criterion about what may be reality. Measurements are "comparisons" of our concepts, one that we "know" and the others that we want to know "better". We feel the heat, but want to know how much this is, in comparison with ice melting heat.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Steven,
I have sad already somewhere that my God is God of Spinoza. It needs no definitions, but thinking. How can You avoid ideal?
If everything is part of something, then, part of what?
Steven Wallis | Dragan Pavlovic perhaps measurement is comparison, that sounds reasonable - and it is important to make comparisons! And, Eugene F Kislyakov perhaps even ideals may be measured. But both perspectives avoid (I do not know if it is purposeful avoidance or not) the importance of causality.
There are many ideals and many comparisons - so why choose one (God) over another (e.g. Tea)? Because when we are studying tea, we may do so *scientifically* by identifying causal relationships. For example, when I have more of my favorite tea, I am happier.
Perhaps I don't need to tell you educated gentlemen that measurement and causality help to focus our thinking - to move us from speculation and whimsy toward science and increased ability. Certainly, speculation has its place in philosophy, but the next step is to have the speculation move forward. I hope you will not tell me that "some things should not be studied, analyzed, and advanced." For that would not be philosophy of science - that would be philosophy of purposeful ignorance.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Steven,
about what speculations are You speaking? I don't understand where You managed to see them.
To mearsure ideal is something new for me. Also, causuality is argument of Thomas Aquinat, and one of the many reasonable arguments. Where are speculations?
Also, You may invent definition and study it (aproximately, what Sergey is doing) if You want, but it is not interesting for me.
Steven Wallis | Eugene F Kislyakov, as an potential interesting exercise, lets try a different path to "defining" God. Instead of arguing what "is" (which may be difficult to test/falsify) could you define Gad based on causal relationships? That is, what variables are likely to cause an increase or decrease in God? Also, please indicate how a team of researchers will measure God as a variable.
Dragan Pavlovic | Steven Wallis,
As I wrote once, measurement is NOT a criterion about what may be reality. Measurements are "comparisons" of our concepts, one that we "know" and the others that we want to know "better". We feel the heat, but want to know how much this is, in comparison with ice melting heat.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Steven,
I have sad already somewhere that my God is God of Spinoza. It needs no definitions, but thinking. How can You avoid ideal?
If everything is part of something, then, part of what?
Steven Wallis | Dragan Pavlovic perhaps measurement is comparison, that sounds reasonable - and it is important to make comparisons! And, Eugene F Kislyakov perhaps even ideals may be measured. But both perspectives avoid (I do not know if it is purposeful avoidance or not) the importance of causality.
There are many ideals and many comparisons - so why choose one (God) over another (e.g. Tea)? Because when we are studying tea, we may do so *scientifically* by identifying causal relationships. For example, when I have more of my favorite tea, I am happier.
Perhaps I don't need to tell you educated gentlemen that measurement and causality help to focus our thinking - to move us from speculation and whimsy toward science and increased ability. Certainly, speculation has its place in philosophy, but the next step is to have the speculation move forward. I hope you will not tell me that "some things should not be studied, analyzed, and advanced." For that would not be philosophy of science - that would be philosophy of purposeful ignorance.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Steven,
about what speculations are You speaking? I don't understand where You managed to see them.
To mearsure ideal is something new for me. Also, causuality is argument of Thomas Aquinat, and one of the many reasonable arguments. Where are speculations?
Also, You may invent definition and study it (aproximately, what Sergey is doing) if You want, but it is not interesting for me.
Apr 12, 2017
Steven Wallis | Medhat Elsahookie
A definition that is not causal cannot be effectively tested. Your definition is not scientific, it leaves no room for alternative hypotheses.
Steven Wallis | Dear Eugene F Kislyakov,
It is with great sorrow that I must report to you that Spinoza is dead.
Eugene F Kislyakov | And what?
Steven Wallis | Medhat Elsahookie
A definition that is not causal cannot be effectively tested. Your definition is not scientific, it leaves no room for alternative hypotheses.
Steven Wallis | Dear Eugene F Kislyakov,
It is with great sorrow that I must report to you that Spinoza is dead.
Eugene F Kislyakov | And what?
Apr 13, 2017
Contzen Pereira | Science can explain everything and anything so long it is reduced and defined.
Eugene F Kislyakov | After You define something You are explaining your definition, Contzen.
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Spinoza is dead, long live Spinoza!
It's not about God. God is just a label. Together with own semantics it forms a meme. The God's meme is part of the meme of mankind knowledge system. Any belief system can be compared to a transformation. Speaking of the belief system, of course, one should mean the cumulative system of knowledge, for example, of an arbitrary individual. Having a reality at the entrance, transformation should give the same output. We change the adaptive landscape, i.e. reality with the help of transformation, which in turn changes us, i.e. mentioned transformation, i.e. belief system. Here, mankind is continuously engaged in the evolution and selection of a harmonious transformation.
Of course, the term "meme" I used here not in the sense of Dawkins, but in a deeper one, holistic, focusing on semantics. Meme is a system that includes everything, up to the structure of the brain of each person, persons and each atom, which interacts with meme. A structure exists by own life. There are reasons for any structure in the self-similar process. Meme as a part of the transformation, i.e. as active participant in the cross process of self-organization, contains an imprint of the adaptive landscape.
Obviously, the ideal harmonious transformation should be minimally dependent on the anchors, i.e. specific memes, which, in fact, are local parts of the adaptive landscape and also associated with local parts of the adaptive landscape, i.e. "here and now" dependent. It is also obvious that this corresponds to the asymptotic case of the equivalence of the structure of the transformation to the structure of the adaptive landscape.
Under the transformation I also mean its meme, i.e. whole structure of the meme's carrier as a system, i.e. each participant together with the brain structure, society, etc. up to entire reality.
Despite the strange combination, the position of agnosticism in conjunction with relativism is most resistant to contradictions in any meme system, with all the wealth of choice. In fact, our knowledge system is limited, it is a local function of the adaptive landscape (relativism). At the same time, from the bifurcation point, which marks its birth, it can develop absorbing the landscape as much as succesfull, but no more (agnosticism).
Dragan Pavlovic | Eugene F Kislyakov, Medhat Elsahookie, ...
Guys, please stop this nonsense.
If you offer God (that is undefined concept: even if you propose "creative power" - so what?) as an explanation, which will then always be a final explanation, you not only terminate the discussion, but accept not to explore the possible "supervening" explanations that may be essential even for a deist. If you run out of gas and your car stops at 3. a.m. in some Gang areas in Los Angeles, your explaining that it is God's will (and not try to borrow some gas) may cost you your life - will that also be God's will! Please be coherent and consequent with your arguments.
Please remove the discussion about God to some other thread.
Contzen Pereira | Science can explain everything and anything so long it is reduced and defined.
Eugene F Kislyakov | After You define something You are explaining your definition, Contzen.
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Spinoza is dead, long live Spinoza!
It's not about God. God is just a label. Together with own semantics it forms a meme. The God's meme is part of the meme of mankind knowledge system. Any belief system can be compared to a transformation. Speaking of the belief system, of course, one should mean the cumulative system of knowledge, for example, of an arbitrary individual. Having a reality at the entrance, transformation should give the same output. We change the adaptive landscape, i.e. reality with the help of transformation, which in turn changes us, i.e. mentioned transformation, i.e. belief system. Here, mankind is continuously engaged in the evolution and selection of a harmonious transformation.
Of course, the term "meme" I used here not in the sense of Dawkins, but in a deeper one, holistic, focusing on semantics. Meme is a system that includes everything, up to the structure of the brain of each person, persons and each atom, which interacts with meme. A structure exists by own life. There are reasons for any structure in the self-similar process. Meme as a part of the transformation, i.e. as active participant in the cross process of self-organization, contains an imprint of the adaptive landscape.
Obviously, the ideal harmonious transformation should be minimally dependent on the anchors, i.e. specific memes, which, in fact, are local parts of the adaptive landscape and also associated with local parts of the adaptive landscape, i.e. "here and now" dependent. It is also obvious that this corresponds to the asymptotic case of the equivalence of the structure of the transformation to the structure of the adaptive landscape.
Under the transformation I also mean its meme, i.e. whole structure of the meme's carrier as a system, i.e. each participant together with the brain structure, society, etc. up to entire reality.
Despite the strange combination, the position of agnosticism in conjunction with relativism is most resistant to contradictions in any meme system, with all the wealth of choice. In fact, our knowledge system is limited, it is a local function of the adaptive landscape (relativism). At the same time, from the bifurcation point, which marks its birth, it can develop absorbing the landscape as much as succesfull, but no more (agnosticism).
Dragan Pavlovic | Eugene F Kislyakov, Medhat Elsahookie, ...
Guys, please stop this nonsense.
If you offer God (that is undefined concept: even if you propose "creative power" - so what?) as an explanation, which will then always be a final explanation, you not only terminate the discussion, but accept not to explore the possible "supervening" explanations that may be essential even for a deist. If you run out of gas and your car stops at 3. a.m. in some Gang areas in Los Angeles, your explaining that it is God's will (and not try to borrow some gas) may cost you your life - will that also be God's will! Please be coherent and consequent with your arguments.
Please remove the discussion about God to some other thread.
Apr 14, 2017
Sundaresan Muthuswamy | It is all about the Manipulator and the manipulated.The manipulated has to function with whatever he is endowed either to shine or perish,just as a car gets abandoned in a difficult place as mentioned by one of our participants.
If the manipulated dwells in his domain entirely it is survival close to animal instinct bit more superior but will be devoid of Awareness or his roots.If science probes on what exists and creating new things that all owe from earthly matter is all very wonderful as we all exist in this manner and is really beautiful. It is like a wonderful child playing around unmindful of its parents.Truly wonderful for one who is fully aware looking from a higher perspective.
Vasyl Komarov | The car does not function in the absence of the driver. The car does not exist in the absence of the inventor. This structure is in an entangled state with the organic matter. The universe is a connected structure. The consequences in it can not exist without cause.
By the way, try to find differences between the car and the virus. In addition to the topological state outside the host domain boundary (rather than inside), there is little difference between them. It is obvious that virus was invented not on free will. Did man invent a car by own will? How much will is free in the realm of causes and consequences?
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov, here is an ad hoc answer to you question: less biological you are, more free will you have. (Reading this "wisdom" back to myself, I start to like it.)
Medhat Elsahookie | Dear Gentlemen : Some of us were talking about some things not really defined, but ,space, time, and darkness ....etc. are being used in our daily life as defined, but their real dimensions reality are still completely Undefined! Spirit, the well-known importance in all living organisms, mainly, human, but: what it is, how it comes, how it leaves and disappear,? are still very unknown,! It is a big secret of Life! Isn't an important scientific issue to be studied in Deep? Or because we have no scientific tool to test it or measure it, we say : this is not a scientific Work? It is so difficult, Right?
Vasyl Komarov | Scientific tool in any research, in fact, is a researcher with peripherals. So there is absent not a tool but a sufficiently formalized model to be able to make definition and compare systems on general grounds. We can easily exchange and compare only formalized skills (qualia / knowledge). Accordingly, the ability of the research object to fully contain own model is also an essential addition to your question. The Laplace demon is something of a type of supremum for holistic infinity. This is our problem.
Noori Abdul-nabi Nasir | all in the universe occurs for a cause, and science is man's way of explaining why these things occur. Science is depend on fact, rather than religion, which is depend on belief, and many scientific theories can in fact be proved. If those cannot be proved, then proof for them can be proposed
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Scientific theories can not be proved. They can only be falsified. It is impossible to talk about the proof of a scientific theory.
Underdetermination of Scientific Theory
This is the basics of the scientific method.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Dorogi Vasiliy Fedorovich,
you are to some extent right and to a higher extent wrong:
- it is so with experimental truth as you say;
- however good and very good design of experiments can largely expand the
application of quantification, from a single to a large amount- quantity;
the crucial experimentation have a potential to blow away earlier prevailing "theories";
- there are fields where the above does not apply; e.g. every more formalized context, like
molecular biology;
- when you plunge deeper into Mathematics, we learn more: there are no provable statements -
since all fundamental axiom systems consistency is fundamentally unprovable; i.e. we remain in the
realm of relative truths;
Consequently, your suspicion on the value of scientific truth includes Mathematics as well and we know
that we can not know for sure anything; neither knowledge is certain: that derived from experimental approach
and the other derived from mathematical derivations.
Quite poor after so long historical efforts. However, we can not exclude that even the divine subjects are not subjected to the same sort of uncertainty.
When living our lives it is just practical to accept the reality as we consume it.
Thus, we can only believe in Mathematics. It is very similar to believing in god.
I do not claim the two are identical, but in some aspects there are strange coincidences.
Petr Viscor | Dear Vasiliy,
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
This is incorrectThe first half is incorrect, the second half is correct. There are some crucial experimants that either falsify or VERIFY a theory. One recent example is Higg's boson, the other That I quite like is the Maxwell theory of Classical electromagnetism. Since its birth some 150 years or so ago, it has been tested every and up to now, has not been fasified. Even today, as you, yourself put on the cattle for your cup of coffee, you test it, whenyou open your computer, you tested, any electromagnetic phenomena around you can be used to test it again...and so on and so on. Peoples do not bother any more to devise a falsifying experiment any more, but it might come one day,perhaps. What you seem to misunderstand is that every test (they better be different though!!) confirms its validity, under yet different conditions.
as far as the mathematics is concerned, it can be, in principle at least, be overthrown by a better concept. It is a theory , like any other, just that it is very precise and self-contained and very useful !!
With best regrads
Petr
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Dorogoi Vasiliy Fedorovich,
yes, you will witness some comments of experts in some fields which have no knowledge
on the higher abstraction used in their "theories".
Mathematics is not "a theory like any other".
It is not the issue here:
"replacing Mathematics with better concept" - this is a stupid statement of a non connoisseur,
believing to understand the essence of the subject he is discussing.
Fundamental concepts of Mathematics have been so well cemented within the last 100 years,
that any serious "conceptual change" would generate a major singularity in the history of culture.
There is still much more to it than: "just that it is very precise and self-contained and very useful " - again
a very stupid statement of a fake connoisseur.
O dorogoi Vassily Fedorovich,
it is better to abandon some exceedingly complex discussions here which demand the first hand
involvement, while not proportionally contributing to the turn of balance.
Greetings to you and Donetsk
Aljosha Jovanovich
Eugene F Kislyakov | Yes, Aleksandar, believing in God and believing in Math have the same origin. Thinking.
As a whole, we are nothing without beliefs. It is natural for thinking human to believe in God. This belief covers all the others.
History shows, that if the man begin to think, he inevitably comes to God. Otherwise kumirs and idols like property, income and so on...
Aleksandar Jovanovic | dorogoi Evgenij,
Intuition.
Thinking is excellent in Mathematics as it attracts the real problem solver.
Divine: no thinking at all, just direct perception - Intuition, when/if invited.
It is not for everyone.
O Evgenij,
pozdravi
Aljosha Jovanovich
Eugene F Kislyakov | Thinking includes intuition, Aleksandar.
As a whole, Descartes was right. By the way, Spinoza was in line with him.
After Descartes equated lengths and numbers we are all on this way. They may say whatever they want, but I have never heard rejection of this postulate. Nevertheless, they try to reject God. Funny...
Steven Wallis | Petr Viscor well said. And, your "drawing a line in time" to demark science vs. religious perspectives is an interesting one. Importantly, I think you are helping to clarify a key question. That is how do we more effectively differentiate between legitimate philosophical positions and positions of faith? Your timeline is one key indicator. Another might be the ability to move the conversation forward. That is to say, if the claims are moving from untestable - toward testable that would suggest some kind of progress. Another kind of progress might be the increasing "structure" of the claims. That is to say, on the low level of structure might be simplistic claims of "is so" vs. "is not." A medium level of structure might describe some basic causal relationships. A high level of structure would include multiple causally connected propositions.
Hmmm... now that I think about it... such a framework could serve as a kind of process approach to philosophical conflicts. The view with the higher score (time, testability, structure) wins the argument - at least until the other side returns with an argument for greater time/testability/structure. If both sides are following some basic rules (that we are fairly certain lead to good and useful science) that set of rules would serve as a "philosophy accelerator." Important - so we don't waste time repeating arguments over centuries.
Steven Wallis | Is it possible to have a "philosophy accelerator"? To have a set of guidelines or rules that arguments/positions are impelled to move forward, to evolve and improve our philosophical positions? The impetus for moving things forward does not preclude even the wildest, most fanciful, ideas/claims/speculations (which, I hold, are an important part of philosophy). The acceleration process would simply require those speculations to improve. Hmm... such a guide might be very useful to young philosophers who want to make their mark in the world (without repeating/rehashing arguments of ancient philosophers).
I ask - does such a set of rules exist?
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Aleksandar Jovanovic, If "is better to abandon", the question arises of the potential contribution of the discussion in general. If the balance is based on unsuitable axioms, you can not change it any more (the belief system = axiomatic system).
With mathematics everything is bit complicated, it is more rigidly topologically attached to fabrics of reality than any arbitrary belief system, this has been repeatedly discussed here in various topics. At the dawn of axiomatization, more precisely at the dawn of mathematics (it has a natural origin), it was even unconsciously subjected to falsification, but given the many ages-old ineffectual experience, man is accustomed to perceive this absoluteness for granted: 2 + 2 = 4, whether apples, people or atoms. The problem of physics now, not that it trusts mathematics, but that it does not ask the question, "why does it work?"
Bypassing this question one can only walk in circles within a fixed axiomatic system, if you like, a belief system. Then this discussion, de facto, is useless.
All questions related to self-reference uncomfortable to discuss, because, really, "some exceedingly complex discussions demand the first hand involvement." These moments create insurmountable singularities in discussions like this. If you do not try to solve them, there is no hope to get from point A to point B, only endlessly discuss the point A.
So, I can only agree that the balance is comfortable, as long as it is a balance. But even the cave of the Plato is based on reality, of which your body is a part. Even in your personal cave, the balance can be destroyed by strangers (they can elementary destroy your body, for example).
Sometimes it is necessary to do (not destroy, of course, just put out of balance). Sometimes there simply is no any other option left, since for someone the balance is no longer a balance.
NB: "2 + 2 = 4" is just an ascertaining of the topological structure of reality (more precisely of some of its invariant), which is imprinted in the relationships whithin the very structure of reality.
Greetings from Vinnytsia.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Steven Wallis,
how you define difference betwen "legitimate philosophical positions" and "positions of faith"?
Critical thinking is the most legitimate and, perhaps, the only accelerator, throughout the history of mankind.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Petr Viscor, I have nothing to object to, because I completely agree with your words. Maybe except one, in fact you paraphrased the second part of the statement, which supposedly belongs to Einstein, without changing its essence.
Dragan Pavlovic | No.
First, there is no "faith" in science. There is evidence, there are theories, there are proofs of the scientific statements, there are inductive proofs, abductions very, very often, etc. But NO faith please, no God!!! Please stop nonsense. You can be scientists, and religious, this is no problem - as long as you do not do this what you are trying to do: introduce religion in science. And science is NOT religion, Eugene, read some Fayerabend, please, just read the great man!
For Falsification /Verification problem, you MUST read "Logik der Forschung" and later discussions (Lakatosh, Fayerabend, Carnap) to learn why Logical Positivisme failed, not WIKIPEDIA.
German: Popper_Karl_Logik_der_Forschung.pdf
English: Popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
People, Mensch! Please, read not essays, the book! And would you please stop Googleing. Keep googling and your discussions will remain unfortunately TOTALY trivial. Mensch, how to simplify this enough that "Wikipedia" scientist will grasp it? May be to simply to say:
That science can produce profs of the scientific statements but not about the truths of nature, not about how the world IS (in the sense of the correspondence theory of truth applied on reality).
Anyway, you will continue in the "googwik" style, I know.
Happy Easter anyway.
Important is to be friendly and not to lose patience.
{"there is no "faith" in science", of course, there is just "faith" in hipotheses ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Тему Википедии пропускаем мимо ушей.}
Herb Spencer | Agreed, Vasiliy, but recognize that mathematics is a human invention. A set of consistent definitions created by, extended and analyzed by a small community of mental technicians. This is not a science of nature but of human abstraction.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Who has invented primes, Herb? {отличный вопрос, кстати!}
Dragan Pavlovic | Herb Spencer, Eugene F Kislyakov,
Herb, take care. The prime numbers and number Pi are sacred to mathematicians. It is enough to mention them - they will fall into a trans.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Dorogoi Vasiliy Fedorovich,
O Dorogoi Vasiliy Fedorovich!
1.The first statement you cited in your implication- you deliberately quoted the fragment "is better to abandon" and you proceeded as you did.
The whole statement is simple and belongs to economy. Like cheap and cheaper. I like “discussions in general”, but, as scientists or technical scientists we must obey Logic in a sharper way than ordinary population does. E.g. there was a news confirming in the title yesterday that NASA discovered life on Saturn, with the picture of Andromeda M31 & M32 (obviously representing Saturn), while later in the text they localized the life on Enceladus, and the indicative replaced with maybe. We should not participate in general discussions in such ways.
You proceed with next if – then statement:
If the balance is based on unsuitable axioms, you can not change it any more (the belief system = axiomatic system).
which is unclear.
The balance is only term belonging to the economy. Somehow, it is unclear what you want to state about the axiom system – that it is unsuitable!?
As I mentioned, practically we reached perfection concerning axiomatics for Mathematics. Hardly there would be any improvements.
2. Your second paragraph,..” it is more rigidly topologically attached to fabrics of reality than any arbitrary belief system, this has been repeatedly discussed here in various topics.”
I have a feeling I kind of understand what you desired to express with this one, but have to warn you to eliminate the imprecise thinking and intuition in general discussions:
What “topologically attached” means to you – something like a stronger glue-bonded together?! Not good expression at all, especially in the comparison statements to which you attach some importance. Your next statement is simply multiply terrible. Avoiding the terrible beginning, shortly only on the part “ man is accustomed to perceive this absoluteness for granted: 2 + 2 = 4, whether apples, people or atoms.”
2+2 = 4. This is quite OK. But the issue is if 1 = 2, or 0 = 1.
The last is used as “0 = 1” as the designation of (hopefully nonexisting most powerful axiom, which some of very serious people identify with the God).
However, with the middle we have in practice the theorem of Banach-Tarski (in the prevailing axiomatization of Mathematics (including AC))
A unit ball can be divided into the finite (very small number of) fragments from which we regenerate (by simple union) two balls Identical to the original one (i.e. with no point missing).
As a corollary, we make original one equal to the four identical. If you are a physicist, you might be curious if the above theorem, as well as some others infect/affect the physical world or not.
There is a very nice book of Horst Herrlich in Springer LN on this matter with a reach variety of fascinating mathematical facts.
3. In the next paragraph, after the quotation, your statement:
These moments create insurmountable singularities in discussions like this. If you do not try to solve them, there is no hope to get from point A to point B, only endlessly discuss the point A.
I just warned you on the economic aspects: before we go to the market, we put some money in the pockets accordingly. Usually we do not take 100 x more money, nor we take 100x less money we would need when buying potatoes, salad, chicken and sausages. We obviously know in advance what are the lower and upper bounds of what we would be liking.
Very similarly here, when in the general discussions, we should have some awareness on the economic aspects and some guidance what makes sense and what does not. In the glorious exposition in Shri Gitopanishad, the lord Krishna instructs his bhakti whom he serves as a charioteer, in the chapter on Karma Yoga, that it is much better to do one owns job as well as one can than to be much better or perfect in the job not related to his social position. This suggestion is more than 25 century old and it is very practical now days too.
It might seem we can discuss everything with everyone. However, our basic need before we enter such discussions is to establish some equalization level. Otherwise the discussion will go wrong with highest probability.
Your next paragraph is semantically very undecidable. But, concerning the reality of Plato, please check his Ur-elements. It is all nice, I like them, but definitely it is all such irreparable nonsense that we can just be desperate about.
Vasili! Why do you insist so much on the balance!? It is simply economic balance in my context:
Does it make sense to pull something into general discussion which demands insurmountable efforts and investments for “general audience” or it is simply cheaper to move a little left or right and aim the discussion towards similar targets, but remaining on the firm fuzzy phylozophical grounds.
This was only the trivial warning. Not demanding, not forbidding. But I personally like the contexts you would like to exercise, but you better pull some literature and check if you would really like to spend your time in, before getting entangled. Only this.
Your final sentence:
NB: "2 + 2 = 4" is just an ascertaining of the topological structure of reality (more precisely of some of its invariant), which is imprinted in the relationships whithin the very structure of reality.
This indicates some misunderstanding as well, no matter what or whom NB is. This is first of all arithmetic which is embedded in all mathematical contexts and theories in proper sense. The terms topology, reality, structure of reality, invariant, imprinted, relationship,... are too arbitrarily used and indicate some naïve intuition of the surrounding world.
O Vasiliy,
I really did not have any intention in super-arguing you. But if you insist this is a scientific forum, then accept the scientific rules you apply in your own research.
Best greetings and all supports to you, Vinnytsa, Donetsk,
Aleksandar Jovanovich
ps. be careful with whose words you agree completely. There are wrong people around.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | O Evgenij,
everything is as it is.
God is not deducible - provable.
(all proofs of God's "existence" are substantially wrong;
God is not of material substance,
hence, nonexistent in the sense of existence available to us.
The analogy with the existence of Mathematical objects and properties, which are all
(materially) nonexistent, shows there might be other existence for nonexistent entities).
God is not refutable.
For some reasons God/divine choose subjects which would experience it/them.
God-divine is completely outside the scope of science and Mathematics,
untouchable.
However, if touched some aspects of divine might be open to our cognition.
Otherwise, closed.
Obviously, all believing in the equation
God = 1$
are far away.
O Evgenij,
Salute!
Aleksandar
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Dragane,
not just those things.
All knowledge of Mathematics is sacred to Mathematicians.
But, since in plentitude, mathematicians are generally relaxed in
exploring the sacred matters, getting excited when/if facing some
discovery.
Greetings
Aleksandar
Petr Viscor | Dear Vasiliy,
I am happy that our views are not far fromeach other . This mean that we can proceed further. s in the discussion. There is one more thing i would like to add now that you mention that the phrase is originlly due to Einstein (I did not know that). It demonstrates how important is the context. If he said "..no experiment can verify me(theory)..." /proof (I hope i qoute ~correctly), then he was contradicting himself. The general relativity theory made some predictions, not tested at the time. Some 20 years later it has been confirmed by an experiment (balloon sent up to the sky, if I remember correctly). In this sense , his own theory has been verified by this experiment, not falsified.
There is a problem here (RG) that one can not go back easily and so please forgive me if I qoute unprecisely.
With best regards
Petr
Sundaresan Muthuswamy | It is all about the Manipulator and the manipulated.The manipulated has to function with whatever he is endowed either to shine or perish,just as a car gets abandoned in a difficult place as mentioned by one of our participants.
If the manipulated dwells in his domain entirely it is survival close to animal instinct bit more superior but will be devoid of Awareness or his roots.If science probes on what exists and creating new things that all owe from earthly matter is all very wonderful as we all exist in this manner and is really beautiful. It is like a wonderful child playing around unmindful of its parents.Truly wonderful for one who is fully aware looking from a higher perspective.
Vasyl Komarov | The car does not function in the absence of the driver. The car does not exist in the absence of the inventor. This structure is in an entangled state with the organic matter. The universe is a connected structure. The consequences in it can not exist without cause.
By the way, try to find differences between the car and the virus. In addition to the topological state outside the host domain boundary (rather than inside), there is little difference between them. It is obvious that virus was invented not on free will. Did man invent a car by own will? How much will is free in the realm of causes and consequences?
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov, here is an ad hoc answer to you question: less biological you are, more free will you have. (Reading this "wisdom" back to myself, I start to like it.)
Medhat Elsahookie | Dear Gentlemen : Some of us were talking about some things not really defined, but ,space, time, and darkness ....etc. are being used in our daily life as defined, but their real dimensions reality are still completely Undefined! Spirit, the well-known importance in all living organisms, mainly, human, but: what it is, how it comes, how it leaves and disappear,? are still very unknown,! It is a big secret of Life! Isn't an important scientific issue to be studied in Deep? Or because we have no scientific tool to test it or measure it, we say : this is not a scientific Work? It is so difficult, Right?
Vasyl Komarov | Scientific tool in any research, in fact, is a researcher with peripherals. So there is absent not a tool but a sufficiently formalized model to be able to make definition and compare systems on general grounds. We can easily exchange and compare only formalized skills (qualia / knowledge). Accordingly, the ability of the research object to fully contain own model is also an essential addition to your question. The Laplace demon is something of a type of supremum for holistic infinity. This is our problem.
Noori Abdul-nabi Nasir | all in the universe occurs for a cause, and science is man's way of explaining why these things occur. Science is depend on fact, rather than religion, which is depend on belief, and many scientific theories can in fact be proved. If those cannot be proved, then proof for them can be proposed
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Scientific theories can not be proved. They can only be falsified. It is impossible to talk about the proof of a scientific theory.
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;Underdetermination — Wikipedia
a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Underdetermination of Scientific Theory
This is the basics of the scientific method.
"One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts."I.e. proofs refers to propositions within the formal systems!
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Dorogi Vasiliy Fedorovich,
you are to some extent right and to a higher extent wrong:
- it is so with experimental truth as you say;
- however good and very good design of experiments can largely expand the
application of quantification, from a single to a large amount- quantity;
the crucial experimentation have a potential to blow away earlier prevailing "theories";
- there are fields where the above does not apply; e.g. every more formalized context, like
molecular biology;
- when you plunge deeper into Mathematics, we learn more: there are no provable statements -
since all fundamental axiom systems consistency is fundamentally unprovable; i.e. we remain in the
realm of relative truths;
Consequently, your suspicion on the value of scientific truth includes Mathematics as well and we know
that we can not know for sure anything; neither knowledge is certain: that derived from experimental approach
and the other derived from mathematical derivations.
Quite poor after so long historical efforts. However, we can not exclude that even the divine subjects are not subjected to the same sort of uncertainty.
When living our lives it is just practical to accept the reality as we consume it.
Thus, we can only believe in Mathematics. It is very similar to believing in god.
I do not claim the two are identical, but in some aspects there are strange coincidences.
Petr Viscor | Dear Vasiliy,
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
This is incorrectThe first half is incorrect, the second half is correct. There are some crucial experimants that either falsify or VERIFY a theory. One recent example is Higg's boson, the other That I quite like is the Maxwell theory of Classical electromagnetism. Since its birth some 150 years or so ago, it has been tested every and up to now, has not been fasified. Even today, as you, yourself put on the cattle for your cup of coffee, you test it, whenyou open your computer, you tested, any electromagnetic phenomena around you can be used to test it again...and so on and so on. Peoples do not bother any more to devise a falsifying experiment any more, but it might come one day,perhaps. What you seem to misunderstand is that every test (they better be different though!!) confirms its validity, under yet different conditions.
as far as the mathematics is concerned, it can be, in principle at least, be overthrown by a better concept. It is a theory , like any other, just that it is very precise and self-contained and very useful !!
With best regrads
Petr
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Dorogoi Vasiliy Fedorovich,
yes, you will witness some comments of experts in some fields which have no knowledge
on the higher abstraction used in their "theories".
Mathematics is not "a theory like any other".
It is not the issue here:
"replacing Mathematics with better concept" - this is a stupid statement of a non connoisseur,
believing to understand the essence of the subject he is discussing.
Fundamental concepts of Mathematics have been so well cemented within the last 100 years,
that any serious "conceptual change" would generate a major singularity in the history of culture.
There is still much more to it than: "just that it is very precise and self-contained and very useful " - again
a very stupid statement of a fake connoisseur.
O dorogoi Vassily Fedorovich,
it is better to abandon some exceedingly complex discussions here which demand the first hand
involvement, while not proportionally contributing to the turn of balance.
Greetings to you and Donetsk
Aljosha Jovanovich
Eugene F Kislyakov | Yes, Aleksandar, believing in God and believing in Math have the same origin. Thinking.
As a whole, we are nothing without beliefs. It is natural for thinking human to believe in God. This belief covers all the others.
History shows, that if the man begin to think, he inevitably comes to God. Otherwise kumirs and idols like property, income and so on...
Aleksandar Jovanovic | dorogoi Evgenij,
Intuition.
Thinking is excellent in Mathematics as it attracts the real problem solver.
Divine: no thinking at all, just direct perception - Intuition, when/if invited.
It is not for everyone.
O Evgenij,
pozdravi
Aljosha Jovanovich
Eugene F Kislyakov | Thinking includes intuition, Aleksandar.
As a whole, Descartes was right. By the way, Spinoza was in line with him.
After Descartes equated lengths and numbers we are all on this way. They may say whatever they want, but I have never heard rejection of this postulate. Nevertheless, they try to reject God. Funny...
Steven Wallis | Petr Viscor well said. And, your "drawing a line in time" to demark science vs. religious perspectives is an interesting one. Importantly, I think you are helping to clarify a key question. That is how do we more effectively differentiate between legitimate philosophical positions and positions of faith? Your timeline is one key indicator. Another might be the ability to move the conversation forward. That is to say, if the claims are moving from untestable - toward testable that would suggest some kind of progress. Another kind of progress might be the increasing "structure" of the claims. That is to say, on the low level of structure might be simplistic claims of "is so" vs. "is not." A medium level of structure might describe some basic causal relationships. A high level of structure would include multiple causally connected propositions.
Hmmm... now that I think about it... such a framework could serve as a kind of process approach to philosophical conflicts. The view with the higher score (time, testability, structure) wins the argument - at least until the other side returns with an argument for greater time/testability/structure. If both sides are following some basic rules (that we are fairly certain lead to good and useful science) that set of rules would serve as a "philosophy accelerator." Important - so we don't waste time repeating arguments over centuries.
Steven Wallis | Is it possible to have a "philosophy accelerator"? To have a set of guidelines or rules that arguments/positions are impelled to move forward, to evolve and improve our philosophical positions? The impetus for moving things forward does not preclude even the wildest, most fanciful, ideas/claims/speculations (which, I hold, are an important part of philosophy). The acceleration process would simply require those speculations to improve. Hmm... such a guide might be very useful to young philosophers who want to make their mark in the world (without repeating/rehashing arguments of ancient philosophers).
I ask - does such a set of rules exist?
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Aleksandar Jovanovic, If "is better to abandon", the question arises of the potential contribution of the discussion in general. If the balance is based on unsuitable axioms, you can not change it any more (the belief system = axiomatic system).
With mathematics everything is bit complicated, it is more rigidly topologically attached to fabrics of reality than any arbitrary belief system, this has been repeatedly discussed here in various topics. At the dawn of axiomatization, more precisely at the dawn of mathematics (it has a natural origin), it was even unconsciously subjected to falsification, but given the many ages-old ineffectual experience, man is accustomed to perceive this absoluteness for granted: 2 + 2 = 4, whether apples, people or atoms. The problem of physics now, not that it trusts mathematics, but that it does not ask the question, "why does it work?"
Bypassing this question one can only walk in circles within a fixed axiomatic system, if you like, a belief system. Then this discussion, de facto, is useless.
All questions related to self-reference uncomfortable to discuss, because, really, "some exceedingly complex discussions demand the first hand involvement." These moments create insurmountable singularities in discussions like this. If you do not try to solve them, there is no hope to get from point A to point B, only endlessly discuss the point A.
So, I can only agree that the balance is comfortable, as long as it is a balance. But even the cave of the Plato is based on reality, of which your body is a part. Even in your personal cave, the balance can be destroyed by strangers (they can elementary destroy your body, for example).
Sometimes it is necessary to do (not destroy, of course, just put out of balance). Sometimes there simply is no any other option left, since for someone the balance is no longer a balance.
NB: "2 + 2 = 4" is just an ascertaining of the topological structure of reality (more precisely of some of its invariant), which is imprinted in the relationships whithin the very structure of reality.
Greetings from Vinnytsia.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Steven Wallis,
how you define difference betwen "legitimate philosophical positions" and "positions of faith"?
Critical thinking is the most legitimate and, perhaps, the only accelerator, throughout the history of mankind.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Petr Viscor, I have nothing to object to, because I completely agree with your words. Maybe except one, in fact you paraphrased the second part of the statement, which supposedly belongs to Einstein, without changing its essence.
Dragan Pavlovic | No.
First, there is no "faith" in science. There is evidence, there are theories, there are proofs of the scientific statements, there are inductive proofs, abductions very, very often, etc. But NO faith please, no God!!! Please stop nonsense. You can be scientists, and religious, this is no problem - as long as you do not do this what you are trying to do: introduce religion in science. And science is NOT religion, Eugene, read some Fayerabend, please, just read the great man!
For Falsification /Verification problem, you MUST read "Logik der Forschung" and later discussions (Lakatosh, Fayerabend, Carnap) to learn why Logical Positivisme failed, not WIKIPEDIA.
German: Popper_Karl_Logik_der_Forschung.pdf
English: Popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
People, Mensch! Please, read not essays, the book! And would you please stop Googleing. Keep googling and your discussions will remain unfortunately TOTALY trivial. Mensch, how to simplify this enough that "Wikipedia" scientist will grasp it? May be to simply to say:
That science can produce profs of the scientific statements but not about the truths of nature, not about how the world IS (in the sense of the correspondence theory of truth applied on reality).
Anyway, you will continue in the "googwik" style, I know.
Happy Easter anyway.
Important is to be friendly and not to lose patience.
{"there is no "faith" in science", of course, there is just "faith" in hipotheses ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Тему Википедии пропускаем мимо ушей.}
Herb Spencer | Agreed, Vasiliy, but recognize that mathematics is a human invention. A set of consistent definitions created by, extended and analyzed by a small community of mental technicians. This is not a science of nature but of human abstraction.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Who has invented primes, Herb? {отличный вопрос, кстати!}
Dragan Pavlovic | Herb Spencer, Eugene F Kislyakov,
Herb, take care. The prime numbers and number Pi are sacred to mathematicians. It is enough to mention them - they will fall into a trans.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Dorogoi Vasiliy Fedorovich,
O Dorogoi Vasiliy Fedorovich!
1.The first statement you cited in your implication- you deliberately quoted the fragment "is better to abandon" and you proceeded as you did.
The whole statement is simple and belongs to economy. Like cheap and cheaper. I like “discussions in general”, but, as scientists or technical scientists we must obey Logic in a sharper way than ordinary population does. E.g. there was a news confirming in the title yesterday that NASA discovered life on Saturn, with the picture of Andromeda M31 & M32 (obviously representing Saturn), while later in the text they localized the life on Enceladus, and the indicative replaced with maybe. We should not participate in general discussions in such ways.
You proceed with next if – then statement:
If the balance is based on unsuitable axioms, you can not change it any more (the belief system = axiomatic system).
which is unclear.
The balance is only term belonging to the economy. Somehow, it is unclear what you want to state about the axiom system – that it is unsuitable!?
As I mentioned, practically we reached perfection concerning axiomatics for Mathematics. Hardly there would be any improvements.
2. Your second paragraph,..” it is more rigidly topologically attached to fabrics of reality than any arbitrary belief system, this has been repeatedly discussed here in various topics.”
I have a feeling I kind of understand what you desired to express with this one, but have to warn you to eliminate the imprecise thinking and intuition in general discussions:
What “topologically attached” means to you – something like a stronger glue-bonded together?! Not good expression at all, especially in the comparison statements to which you attach some importance. Your next statement is simply multiply terrible. Avoiding the terrible beginning, shortly only on the part “ man is accustomed to perceive this absoluteness for granted: 2 + 2 = 4, whether apples, people or atoms.”
2+2 = 4. This is quite OK. But the issue is if 1 = 2, or 0 = 1.
The last is used as “0 = 1” as the designation of (hopefully nonexisting most powerful axiom, which some of very serious people identify with the God).
However, with the middle we have in practice the theorem of Banach-Tarski (in the prevailing axiomatization of Mathematics (including AC))
A unit ball can be divided into the finite (very small number of) fragments from which we regenerate (by simple union) two balls Identical to the original one (i.e. with no point missing).
As a corollary, we make original one equal to the four identical. If you are a physicist, you might be curious if the above theorem, as well as some others infect/affect the physical world or not.
There is a very nice book of Horst Herrlich in Springer LN on this matter with a reach variety of fascinating mathematical facts.
3. In the next paragraph, after the quotation, your statement:
These moments create insurmountable singularities in discussions like this. If you do not try to solve them, there is no hope to get from point A to point B, only endlessly discuss the point A.
I just warned you on the economic aspects: before we go to the market, we put some money in the pockets accordingly. Usually we do not take 100 x more money, nor we take 100x less money we would need when buying potatoes, salad, chicken and sausages. We obviously know in advance what are the lower and upper bounds of what we would be liking.
Very similarly here, when in the general discussions, we should have some awareness on the economic aspects and some guidance what makes sense and what does not. In the glorious exposition in Shri Gitopanishad, the lord Krishna instructs his bhakti whom he serves as a charioteer, in the chapter on Karma Yoga, that it is much better to do one owns job as well as one can than to be much better or perfect in the job not related to his social position. This suggestion is more than 25 century old and it is very practical now days too.
It might seem we can discuss everything with everyone. However, our basic need before we enter such discussions is to establish some equalization level. Otherwise the discussion will go wrong with highest probability.
Your next paragraph is semantically very undecidable. But, concerning the reality of Plato, please check his Ur-elements. It is all nice, I like them, but definitely it is all such irreparable nonsense that we can just be desperate about.
Vasili! Why do you insist so much on the balance!? It is simply economic balance in my context:
Does it make sense to pull something into general discussion which demands insurmountable efforts and investments for “general audience” or it is simply cheaper to move a little left or right and aim the discussion towards similar targets, but remaining on the firm fuzzy phylozophical grounds.
This was only the trivial warning. Not demanding, not forbidding. But I personally like the contexts you would like to exercise, but you better pull some literature and check if you would really like to spend your time in, before getting entangled. Only this.
Your final sentence:
NB: "2 + 2 = 4" is just an ascertaining of the topological structure of reality (more precisely of some of its invariant), which is imprinted in the relationships whithin the very structure of reality.
This indicates some misunderstanding as well, no matter what or whom NB is. This is first of all arithmetic which is embedded in all mathematical contexts and theories in proper sense. The terms topology, reality, structure of reality, invariant, imprinted, relationship,... are too arbitrarily used and indicate some naïve intuition of the surrounding world.
O Vasiliy,
I really did not have any intention in super-arguing you. But if you insist this is a scientific forum, then accept the scientific rules you apply in your own research.
Best greetings and all supports to you, Vinnytsa, Donetsk,
Aleksandar Jovanovich
ps. be careful with whose words you agree completely. There are wrong people around.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | O Evgenij,
everything is as it is.
God is not deducible - provable.
(all proofs of God's "existence" are substantially wrong;
God is not of material substance,
hence, nonexistent in the sense of existence available to us.
The analogy with the existence of Mathematical objects and properties, which are all
(materially) nonexistent, shows there might be other existence for nonexistent entities).
God is not refutable.
For some reasons God/divine choose subjects which would experience it/them.
God-divine is completely outside the scope of science and Mathematics,
untouchable.
However, if touched some aspects of divine might be open to our cognition.
Otherwise, closed.
Obviously, all believing in the equation
God = 1$
are far away.
O Evgenij,
Salute!
Aleksandar
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Dragane,
not just those things.
All knowledge of Mathematics is sacred to Mathematicians.
But, since in plentitude, mathematicians are generally relaxed in
exploring the sacred matters, getting excited when/if facing some
discovery.
Greetings
Aleksandar
Petr Viscor | Dear Vasiliy,
I am happy that our views are not far fromeach other . This mean that we can proceed further. s in the discussion. There is one more thing i would like to add now that you mention that the phrase is originlly due to Einstein (I did not know that). It demonstrates how important is the context. If he said "..no experiment can verify me(theory)..." /proof (I hope i qoute ~correctly), then he was contradicting himself. The general relativity theory made some predictions, not tested at the time. Some 20 years later it has been confirmed by an experiment (balloon sent up to the sky, if I remember correctly). In this sense , his own theory has been verified by this experiment, not falsified.
There is a problem here (RG) that one can not go back easily and so please forgive me if I qoute unprecisely.
With best regards
Petr
— ResearchGate. Available from: Project: "Philosophy of Science" | Update: CAN SCIENCE EXPLAIN EVERYTHING? ANYTHING? [accessed Jun 6, 2020]
14 квіт. 2017 р.
10:07 | Опять наблюдаю за схоластическими беседами на ResearchGate. Вроде бы и хочется возразить, а вроде и смысла нет участвовать. Всё равно, там не слышат.
10:07 | Опять наблюдаю за схоластическими беседами на ResearchGate. Вроде бы и хочется возразить, а вроде и смысла нет участвовать. Всё равно, там не слышат.
10:18 |
Однозначно, сначала устойчивая система убеждений (аксиоматика) должна оккупировать достаточную часть общества. Тогда она будет иметь возможность противостоять архаическим и устаревшим на данный момент системам убеждений.
Пока трудно сказать, сформировалась ли такая устойчивая структура уже. Практически отсутствуют инструменты для измерения и анализа состояния системы.
А самое главное, в системе пока не произошла консолидация. Вот когда это случится, она и обретёт свою "расчётную" прочность.
И не важно, слышит ли тебя отдельно взятый оппонент. В "толпе" нужно обладать "гонгом" {отсылка к Lady Gaga}.
Пока трудно сказать, сформировалась ли такая устойчивая структура уже. Практически отсутствуют инструменты для измерения и анализа состояния системы.
А самое главное, в системе пока не произошла консолидация. Вот когда это случится, она и обретёт свою "расчётную" прочность.
И не важно, слышит ли тебя отдельно взятый оппонент. В "толпе" нужно обладать "гонгом" {отсылка к Lady Gaga}.
11:34 |
Консолидация, по сути, соответствует позитивному исходу измерения состояния системы. Интересно, чем или кем?
В связи с чем также очень интересна ситуация, когда counterfactual definiteness для системы имеет позитивный отклик - "объект" существует, но измерение ещё не произошло и динамика системы может пройти "по касательной" в отношении точки бифуркации, соответствующей потенциальному измерению.
Какие параметры рассматриваемой системы или её динамики предопределяют, произойдёт ли измерение (бифуркация)? Или, если объект существует, то измерение рано или поздно произойдёт наверняка.
Будучи частью измеряемой системы дано знать некоторые ответы, которые не известны для внешнего наблюдателя, который планирует измерение. Для него, как системы, это всего лишь "курс на столкновение", о котором он может как подозревать, так и быть полностью не осведомленным.
В связи с чем также очень интересна ситуация, когда counterfactual definiteness для системы имеет позитивный отклик - "объект" существует, но измерение ещё не произошло и динамика системы может пройти "по касательной" в отношении точки бифуркации, соответствующей потенциальному измерению.
Какие параметры рассматриваемой системы или её динамики предопределяют, произойдёт ли измерение (бифуркация)? Или, если объект существует, то измерение рано или поздно произойдёт наверняка.
Будучи частью измеряемой системы дано знать некоторые ответы, которые не известны для внешнего наблюдателя, который планирует измерение. Для него, как системы, это всего лишь "курс на столкновение", о котором он может как подозревать, так и быть полностью не осведомленным.
15 квіт. 2017 р.
00:47 | Похоже, соцсеть g+ становится совсем бесполезной, в том числе для заметок, т.к. после очередного "улучшения" отображает лишь последние 10 записей в ленте профиля. Пора подыскивать вменяемую альтернативу для публичной записной книжки.
ResearchGate в силу нестабильности интерфейса и невнимательного отношения к заметкам пользователей давно вышел из доверия и является ненадежным "другом" для любого исследователя, такой себе юный секретарь с развитой деменцией позднего возраста.
В связи с чем (и в связи с претензией на серьёзность) этой соцсети вообще не мешало бы иметь функцию резервного копирования активности пользователей, что является неоспоримым плюсом google.
Актуально доделать всё запланированное, после разгребания текущих забот.
00:53 | +Google, почему бы не пойти до конца и сделать соцсеть из одной аватарки, эмотикона, отображающего твоё сиюминутное состояние?
01:08 | В силу повальной дурости от ума, точнее искусственного интеллекта, которая постигла всех разработчиков социальных сервисов, начиная с Twitter, имеет смысл сделать напутствие будущим сервисам, которые вырастут на прахе (хочется написать здесь, мастодонтов, но из-за mastodon.social язык не поворачивается) больших синих китов:
ВСЕГДА сохраняйте для пользователя доступ к необработанному потоку данных, а не только к вашему {специфически biased третьей стороной} видению экспертной системы на его базе!
01:09 | А g+ объявляется очередная благодарность за Takeout.
Sergey Degtyarchuk | 07:34 | Что мешает создать свой сайт?
09:06 | Ничего. Как и пользоваться блогом для данных целей. Из трёх вариантов соцсеть требует минимальных усилий для сохранения заметок "на коленке" (где-нибудь в общественном транспорте, например).
Можно настроить для этого отдельный блокнот Evernote, например, что тоже удобно, и так часто туда дублирую полезные мысли из ResearchGate.
Во всяком случае у них не большая проблема с резервными копиями из-за наличия подобных сервисов (OneNote, Nimbus Note, WizNote, Simplenote, laverna, разнообразные wiki и т.д.), некоторые из которых поддерживают миграцию пользователей.
16:31 (2017-04-24) | Спасибо Google+, что вернули всю пользовательскую ленту в профиль, можно считать что это был глюк движка соцсети или моего браузера, возможно так и было.
00:47 | Похоже, соцсеть g+ становится совсем бесполезной, в том числе для заметок, т.к. после очередного "улучшения" отображает лишь последние 10 записей в ленте профиля. Пора подыскивать вменяемую альтернативу для публичной записной книжки.
ResearchGate в силу нестабильности интерфейса и невнимательного отношения к заметкам пользователей давно вышел из доверия и является ненадежным "другом" для любого исследователя, такой себе юный секретарь с развитой деменцией позднего возраста.
В связи с чем (и в связи с претензией на серьёзность) этой соцсети вообще не мешало бы иметь функцию резервного копирования активности пользователей, что является неоспоримым плюсом google.
Актуально доделать всё запланированное, после разгребания текущих забот.
00:53 | +Google, почему бы не пойти до конца и сделать соцсеть из одной аватарки, эмотикона, отображающего твоё сиюминутное состояние?
01:08 | В силу повальной дурости от ума, точнее искусственного интеллекта, которая постигла всех разработчиков социальных сервисов, начиная с Twitter, имеет смысл сделать напутствие будущим сервисам, которые вырастут на прахе (хочется написать здесь, мастодонтов, но из-за mastodon.social язык не поворачивается) больших синих китов:
ВСЕГДА сохраняйте для пользователя доступ к необработанному потоку данных, а не только к вашему {специфически biased третьей стороной} видению экспертной системы на его базе!
01:09 | А g+ объявляется очередная благодарность за Takeout.
Sergey Degtyarchuk | 07:34 | Что мешает создать свой сайт?
09:06 | Ничего. Как и пользоваться блогом для данных целей. Из трёх вариантов соцсеть требует минимальных усилий для сохранения заметок "на коленке" (где-нибудь в общественном транспорте, например).
Можно настроить для этого отдельный блокнот Evernote, например, что тоже удобно, и так часто туда дублирую полезные мысли из ResearchGate.
Во всяком случае у них не большая проблема с резервными копиями из-за наличия подобных сервисов (OneNote, Nimbus Note, WizNote, Simplenote, laverna, разнообразные wiki и т.д.), некоторые из которых поддерживают миграцию пользователей.
16:31 (2017-04-24) | Спасибо Google+, что вернули всю пользовательскую ленту в профиль, можно считать что это был глюк движка соцсети или моего браузера, возможно так и было.
01:46 |
...всего лишь хотел сделать на всякий случай пометку об аксиомах отделимости (Separation axiom) в виде комментария к сообщению, где обращал внимание на две аксиомы Козырева о причинно-следственных связях {▲}, туда же лишний раз не помешало бы добавить ссылку на...
No Fine theorem for macrorealism: Limitations of the Leggett-Garg inequality
2015 | arXiv:1509.00348 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.150401
No Fine theorem for macrorealism: Limitations of the Leggett-Garg inequality
2015 | arXiv:1509.00348 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.150401
23:02 |
Когнитивные стратегии рассуждения.
Философ Елена Драгалина-Черная о возможности мыслить нелогично, эксперименте Рут Берн и рациональности правила
Философ Елена Драгалина-Черная о возможности мыслить нелогично, эксперименте Рут Берн и рациональности правила
Apr 15, 2017
Steven Wallis | explain, prove, understand, validate, believe, faith.... so many terms... I suggest that science should adopt a new way to evaluate theories/models/beliefs. That is "usefulness" or "effectiveness to enable change." It is an interesting measure because it may be applied to religious beliefs, as well as scientific. To the social sciences as well as to physics. To ancient ideas and to modern. For an easy comparison, Ohm's law is very useful for designing cell phones - with all that follows. In contrast, belief in a deity may be very useful for personal comfort, though not so useful for curing disease. using some kind of usefulness metric means that all theories/models/beliefs have *some* level of validity. So, we avoid the "binary" mistake of arguing "is so" vs "is not" (as we have seen in this forum and as has been played out through the centuries). Such an approach changes some other "rankings" as well. For example, theories of superstrings, evolution, and dark matter, are not immediately useful or effective for enabling change. Hmmm.... perhaps that ranking might encourage their supporters to push towards greater effectiveness... thus accelerating the advance of science.
Vasyl Komarov | Steven Wallis,
Your rating works without any interference, just by "demand and supply" or, in other words, self-organized criticality. Any assessment of the significance of anything is in a functional dependence on the average outlook of society. It was always. If the world were arranged differently, then physics, most likely, would not know what the principle of least action is. For this reason, in average, financing of basic science is at a worse level than commercial research with a short response and profit.
But. As civilizational statistics show, in the course of progress, turning points sometimes happen, they are "not popular" in any conservative system, which is reflected even in the ancient Chinese parting words attributed to Confucius.
Just think about how much the contemporaries' society was ready to finance Copernicus, Darwin, Turing, etc. And think, what kind of feedback the theories, which were "not interesting" to the society at the time of becoming, did give to it. Also think, could have appeared progressive theories in the (corresponding) conservative society, if there were no corresponding prerequisites (contradictions), that the society always involuntarily finances.
No society is able to develop immunity to change, for example, by limiting finance, as natural selection will take its toll, may be by destroying that society. No society can program itself for the most effective choice of changes, especially, for certain to assess their consequences. Progress is beyond the competence of society, it is in the competence of nature, which is indifferent to the concrete society and its individuals. It is increasing over time dynamical range of the interferences, that the system encounters on the adaptive landscape, train the system and gives the desired progress, i.e. сhanges in the system.
Therefore, we, here and now, are already in the neighborhood of the optimal state. That's the way of nature. All that we have is distributed roles in the distributed system. We are the functions of circumstances. And we play in this performance.
Vasyl Komarov | Sadeem Fadhil, The difference between the religious worldview and fundamental scientific theory in the presence, in the first case, sometimes implicitly, of the prefix "orthodox." Indeed, any system within reasonable limits should be conservative. But it is not difficult to notice that the guarantor of conservativeness in the first case is the system supporting the worldview, in the second case, the verdict "in the hands" of the environment. The difference in attitude to any possible progress is obvious: It is in who dictates to whom the conditions ("reality" to the "theory" or "theory" to the "reality") - almost the same as in the case of authoritarian power and democracy.
Sadeem Fadhil | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov, Unfortunately the world wide system today is not lead by the desire (or intention) of searching for the reality as I think it was before at beginning of the previous century. Now, most of the scientific opinions are considering it something embarrassed to mention the name of God in any of their interpretation. Unlike, the scientists of the previous century like Einstein and Eddington who try to connect their scientific knowledge with their religious knowledge views. today the world is lead by scientists who have prejudged opinions which consider science always against religion and they should not ever met together. I think this extreme views in refusing anything that is related to religion, will make the science miss a very important part of it, which is the honesty in searching for reality, which is replaced by the honesty of searching for money!
Of course there are many exclusions, which I wish they can do some changes that can return back to the real science
Steven Wallis | explain, prove, understand, validate, believe, faith.... so many terms... I suggest that science should adopt a new way to evaluate theories/models/beliefs. That is "usefulness" or "effectiveness to enable change." It is an interesting measure because it may be applied to religious beliefs, as well as scientific. To the social sciences as well as to physics. To ancient ideas and to modern. For an easy comparison, Ohm's law is very useful for designing cell phones - with all that follows. In contrast, belief in a deity may be very useful for personal comfort, though not so useful for curing disease. using some kind of usefulness metric means that all theories/models/beliefs have *some* level of validity. So, we avoid the "binary" mistake of arguing "is so" vs "is not" (as we have seen in this forum and as has been played out through the centuries). Such an approach changes some other "rankings" as well. For example, theories of superstrings, evolution, and dark matter, are not immediately useful or effective for enabling change. Hmmm.... perhaps that ranking might encourage their supporters to push towards greater effectiveness... thus accelerating the advance of science.
Vasyl Komarov | Steven Wallis,
Your rating works without any interference, just by "demand and supply" or, in other words, self-organized criticality. Any assessment of the significance of anything is in a functional dependence on the average outlook of society. It was always. If the world were arranged differently, then physics, most likely, would not know what the principle of least action is. For this reason, in average, financing of basic science is at a worse level than commercial research with a short response and profit.
But. As civilizational statistics show, in the course of progress, turning points sometimes happen, they are "not popular" in any conservative system, which is reflected even in the ancient Chinese parting words attributed to Confucius.
Just think about how much the contemporaries' society was ready to finance Copernicus, Darwin, Turing, etc. And think, what kind of feedback the theories, which were "not interesting" to the society at the time of becoming, did give to it. Also think, could have appeared progressive theories in the (corresponding) conservative society, if there were no corresponding prerequisites (contradictions), that the society always involuntarily finances.
No society is able to develop immunity to change, for example, by limiting finance, as natural selection will take its toll, may be by destroying that society. No society can program itself for the most effective choice of changes, especially, for certain to assess their consequences. Progress is beyond the competence of society, it is in the competence of nature, which is indifferent to the concrete society and its individuals. It is increasing over time dynamical range of the interferences, that the system encounters on the adaptive landscape, train the system and gives the desired progress, i.e. сhanges in the system.
Therefore, we, here and now, are already in the neighborhood of the optimal state. That's the way of nature. All that we have is distributed roles in the distributed system. We are the functions of circumstances. And we play in this performance.
Vasyl Komarov | Sadeem Fadhil, The difference between the religious worldview and fundamental scientific theory in the presence, in the first case, sometimes implicitly, of the prefix "orthodox." Indeed, any system within reasonable limits should be conservative. But it is not difficult to notice that the guarantor of conservativeness in the first case is the system supporting the worldview, in the second case, the verdict "in the hands" of the environment. The difference in attitude to any possible progress is obvious: It is in who dictates to whom the conditions ("reality" to the "theory" or "theory" to the "reality") - almost the same as in the case of authoritarian power and democracy.
Sadeem Fadhil | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov, Unfortunately the world wide system today is not lead by the desire (or intention) of searching for the reality as I think it was before at beginning of the previous century. Now, most of the scientific opinions are considering it something embarrassed to mention the name of God in any of their interpretation. Unlike, the scientists of the previous century like Einstein and Eddington who try to connect their scientific knowledge with their religious knowledge views. today the world is lead by scientists who have prejudged opinions which consider science always against religion and they should not ever met together. I think this extreme views in refusing anything that is related to religion, will make the science miss a very important part of it, which is the honesty in searching for reality, which is replaced by the honesty of searching for money!
Of course there are many exclusions, which I wish they can do some changes that can return back to the real science
Apr 16, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Sadeem Fadhil, I agree with you, at least for the reason that it is impossible even to claim the possibility of constructing a theory of everything with having at least one demarcation dichotomy. One can only turn a blind eye to this obvious fact due to beliefs.
There is no semantic difference between the terms dogma and axiom. Understanding this greatly simplifies the whole cumulative structure of human knowledge. From which it is not difficult to guess that for me there is no particular attitude to religious systems of worldviews. They for me are in the same coordinate system with the rest of human knowledge. Alas, this does not give any special place for religious knowledge in my belief system, rather, on the contrary, only clear realization that my knowledge always based on a belief system (as any formal system of knowledge) that also can not claim absoluteness. Accordingly, as a total unbeliever (not atheist), I know that any axioms are easy to change, and they should sometimes be changed to ensure that some are still working, some unreliable and useless others. Arrangement of Plato's cave is a personal choice for everyone. I prefer that in my any doors and windows could open.
Vasyl Komarov | Herb Spencer, It is not difficult to see that the problem of rollback to religiosity, like other religious topics, almost always concerns the established, archaic and obsolete systems of worldviews (in comparison with position of "official science").
But there is nothing to prevent the construction of a new belief system at the root, maximally rational, maximally devoid of known shortcomings, taking into account the entire experience of cumulative knowledge of our civilization.
Changing worldviews is an ordinary phenomenon for human civilization (I have on bookshelf a thick two-volume reference book "Religions of the World", I'm not sure that one-tenth of this process has been recorded there), the scientific system of knowledge may be even not mentioned in this sense.
Petr Viscor | Dear vasiliy,
NO, there is a quite a fundamental difference between an axiom and dogma, regardless semantic " problem, you mention:
for example :
An axiom is a fundamental principle at the basis of a system of thought, often one that is accepted as a self-evident truth. A dogma is a doctrine whose truth is not necessarily self-evident, but is nonetheless asserted by an authority as being an undeniable truth.
One is dynamic, the other completly static and not opened to questioning. If the axioms will become not self-evident truth, we will throw them out , even in mathematics. But we did not so far (5000 years of history - sumerians). Why ? Because so far theyARESELF-EVIDENT TRUTH.
Petr
Dragan Pavlovic | Will you PLEASE, move the discussion about religion and the concepts of God i to some other thread.
Thank you.
Sundaresan Muthuswamy | The entire world is built on science, meaning everything follows in order truthfully and repeatedly beyond doubt and science follows the truth. People with lesser technical capabilities or state of art resort to appeal and seek the Creative aspect of the Universe and their modes are not scientific but more of intuition and is their way of expressing gratitude and deliverance as they were convinced that nothing living on this earth is ever going to explain the cause. Religions were born.
The real practical ones went on researching on the manifested reality the effects namely with suitable hypothesis , experiments and proved them in the name of science, and are called scientists. The world and creation being huge these elite wise people gathered together in various disciplines shared their knowledge and expanded their wisdom as is going on now.
Now can any individual scientist master the art and cause of creation, or can he collect a group of people to achieve this?
Everything is the state of mind in a person scientist included, who does his role to the extent his mind can bear and achieve.His limited mind is really limited indeed. When one knows the facts of a particular entity is it the end? Can a individual scientist do it all alone? Life is all about how much this beautiful mind of us visualizes and understands and shares the knowledge with his fellowmen.
Science can explain anything of course but it can be done only by a master Scientist. Is it one or a group is left to the imagination of the individuals. In this world if there are slaves who work for their masters, so let it be as there can be only one master in each activity. With a proper framework of mind the slave can of course live like a master.
Those who are vehemently criticizing the free use of the term God or Unseen power, let them explain one little cause in this world with proof, then surely I will acknowledge he is a God like and perhaps worship him and love him, Nothing wrong as we worship our parents and true teachers.
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Evolutionary biologists might claim that human brains have been selected by natural or sexual selection to favour survival or reproduction not requiring the perception of all the details in nature/universe (?)
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Dear Petr Viscor,
Both are the foundation of beliefs. Both for its carriers are self-evident. You just brought the difference available to a third person who sees the contradictions in one statement and does not see them in the other (on the basis of own belief system). Thus usually each of us evaluates historical events, where all the contradictions seem obvious to us from the point of view of accumulated knowledge.
From the first person everything more unambiguously. Its propositional logic is based on a belief system with an incorporated dogma or axiom, which we consider (both the self-evident simple statement within logic of the first person). Accordingly, the contradiction in the system is not so easy to uncover. The camps of theists and atheists are perfect demonstration of this. The history with hypergeometry is also a wonderful demonstration. The concept of flat land, the concept of Copernicus... the more information a system contains, the more likely it is to discover contradictions in information. But only information is not enough. The person knowledge system must be sufficiently connected and rigidly organized to be unstable and be able to overturn in a result of cognitive dissonance. For any stable system there will sooner or later be a sufficiently large obstacle, which can lead it out of balance. {Это суть открытой системы, на входе у неё всегда* (* с оговоркой по Копернику) белый шум.} This is the dynamics that you are talking about. It only seems very simple at first glance, because of easily traced binary oppositions on associated bifurcation points.
The strength of an individual as a system is determined by the totality of all the syntheses in his brain (body) accumulated to the moment (with society all the same). Sometimes it happens that the system is not able to rebuild in time in a rapidly changing adaptive landscape. Then not some separate internal structures of the system may be subjected to dissipation, but the whole system on a certain scale. In that question one can never consider only a single individual. Civilization is a very complex structure with a spectrum of mentality and complex dynamics, where are no separate "identical people." Complete dynamics of the structure is not described by only categories as are discussed in this thread.
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Evolutionary biologists even might claim that nature/universe have been selected by natural selection. This is called the anthropic principle.
Ioannis Samaras | Evolutionary "Philosophy-of-Science" might be a modified field for human brains to form some recent "natural" selection rules for our perceptions ?
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Ioannis, please specify, which peculiarities of perception you mean?
Petr Viscor | Dear Vasilyi,
the problem is this :
Both are the foundation of beliefs. Both for its carriers are self-evident
1. There is no place for believe in mathematical axioms. They are the starting point for mathematicL logic
2. Mathematical axioms are OBJECTIVELY self-evident, while the dogmas (religeous, ideological,..) are subjective and absolutely closed.
The rest of your communication is a bit too complex if it is to clarify our disagreement. There must a more simple way. I have also noticed that you use some physics concepts , biut these must not be misinterpreted .
With regards
Petr
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Petr Viscor, I fundamentally disagree with you in understanding the meaning of tautology and so-called definitional truism, more precisely, in assessing the degree of its presence in mathematics. With closedness of systems (not only formal ones), also everything is not so simple, otherwise Gödel's theorems would not exist.
In arguments about objectivity, one could, of course, consider another "neutral" territory - the postulates of physical theories. The objectivity of individual hypotheses preceding any dogmas / postulates / axioms, including within mathematical theories (here I agree in many respects, but with remark, that we have causes and effects in opposite places) is directly related to the theme of objectivity in physics. I do not take any objectivity for granted.
By the way, this conversation just deja vu.
Ioannis Samaras | Dear Vasiliy, all (philosophical) perceptions, constraints are useful, mainly, in technical guides and recipes for, say, "How to do ..."
Dragan Pavlovic | I must complain again.
It is hard to respond to such diversity of comments and opinions. Those are indeed very interesting comments and hypotheses. However, majority relaying on uninformed opinions and major neglect of earlier writings and disclose obvious lack of reading. The sporadic citations of either Einstein or other thinkers most frequently misinterpret their opinions. Some (number of them) comments are without context and hard to understand. Almost all recent comments above (in the last couple of days) are such. There are too many points and I cannot give examples now. Why are you doing this? Why don't you read first and comment afterwards, for example?
Petr Viscor | Dear Visiliy, you write:
I fundamentally disagree with you in understanding the meaning of tautology and so-called definitional truism, more precisely, in assessing the degree of its presence in mathematics. With closedness of systems (not only formal ones), also everything is not so simple, otherwise Gödel's theorems would not exist. In arguments about objectivity, one could, of course, consider another "neutral" territory - the postulates of physical theories. The objectivity of individual hypotheses preceding any dogmas / postulates / axioms, including within mathematical theories (here I agree in many respects, but with remark, that we have causes and effects in opposite places) is directly related to the theme of objectivity in physics. I do not take any objectivity for granted. By the way, this conversation just deja vu.
I am afraid that we talk about different things. I commented on the axioms and dogmas that you postulate are the same thing and you now talk about tautology, truism and other ,I am sure, fine terms within philosophy.
Objectivity in physics has nothing to do with objectivity of some individual hypothesis. I do not care with waht hypothesis, model and/or theory you come to me , the only thing that matters is the experimental test. If the test verifies the predictions, then even the hypothesis may be useful in further inquiries.
And I am sure that all of this has been discussed and re-discussed through ages (it is probably this that you refere to as deja vu). But the interesting thing about this forum is that we come from different walks of life and try to discuss issues/questions that are not within just o ne domain of science. Therefore it is important that we do not throw at each other technical terms just technical terms, but try to really understand each other.
With best regrads
Petr
Vasyl Komarov | Sadeem Fadhil, I agree with you, at least for the reason that it is impossible even to claim the possibility of constructing a theory of everything with having at least one demarcation dichotomy. One can only turn a blind eye to this obvious fact due to beliefs.
There is no semantic difference between the terms dogma and axiom. Understanding this greatly simplifies the whole cumulative structure of human knowledge. From which it is not difficult to guess that for me there is no particular attitude to religious systems of worldviews. They for me are in the same coordinate system with the rest of human knowledge. Alas, this does not give any special place for religious knowledge in my belief system, rather, on the contrary, only clear realization that my knowledge always based on a belief system (as any formal system of knowledge) that also can not claim absoluteness. Accordingly, as a total unbeliever (not atheist), I know that any axioms are easy to change, and they should sometimes be changed to ensure that some are still working, some unreliable and useless others. Arrangement of Plato's cave is a personal choice for everyone. I prefer that in my any doors and windows could open.
Vasyl Komarov | Herb Spencer, It is not difficult to see that the problem of rollback to religiosity, like other religious topics, almost always concerns the established, archaic and obsolete systems of worldviews (in comparison with position of "official science").
But there is nothing to prevent the construction of a new belief system at the root, maximally rational, maximally devoid of known shortcomings, taking into account the entire experience of cumulative knowledge of our civilization.
Changing worldviews is an ordinary phenomenon for human civilization (I have on bookshelf a thick two-volume reference book "Religions of the World", I'm not sure that one-tenth of this process has been recorded there), the scientific system of knowledge may be even not mentioned in this sense.
Petr Viscor | Dear vasiliy,
NO, there is a quite a fundamental difference between an axiom and dogma, regardless semantic " problem, you mention:
for example :
An axiom is a fundamental principle at the basis of a system of thought, often one that is accepted as a self-evident truth. A dogma is a doctrine whose truth is not necessarily self-evident, but is nonetheless asserted by an authority as being an undeniable truth.
One is dynamic, the other completly static and not opened to questioning. If the axioms will become not self-evident truth, we will throw them out , even in mathematics. But we did not so far (5000 years of history - sumerians). Why ? Because so far theyARESELF-EVIDENT TRUTH.
Petr
Dragan Pavlovic | Will you PLEASE, move the discussion about religion and the concepts of God i to some other thread.
Thank you.
Sundaresan Muthuswamy | The entire world is built on science, meaning everything follows in order truthfully and repeatedly beyond doubt and science follows the truth. People with lesser technical capabilities or state of art resort to appeal and seek the Creative aspect of the Universe and their modes are not scientific but more of intuition and is their way of expressing gratitude and deliverance as they were convinced that nothing living on this earth is ever going to explain the cause. Religions were born.
The real practical ones went on researching on the manifested reality the effects namely with suitable hypothesis , experiments and proved them in the name of science, and are called scientists. The world and creation being huge these elite wise people gathered together in various disciplines shared their knowledge and expanded their wisdom as is going on now.
Now can any individual scientist master the art and cause of creation, or can he collect a group of people to achieve this?
Everything is the state of mind in a person scientist included, who does his role to the extent his mind can bear and achieve.His limited mind is really limited indeed. When one knows the facts of a particular entity is it the end? Can a individual scientist do it all alone? Life is all about how much this beautiful mind of us visualizes and understands and shares the knowledge with his fellowmen.
Science can explain anything of course but it can be done only by a master Scientist. Is it one or a group is left to the imagination of the individuals. In this world if there are slaves who work for their masters, so let it be as there can be only one master in each activity. With a proper framework of mind the slave can of course live like a master.
Those who are vehemently criticizing the free use of the term God or Unseen power, let them explain one little cause in this world with proof, then surely I will acknowledge he is a God like and perhaps worship him and love him, Nothing wrong as we worship our parents and true teachers.
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Evolutionary biologists might claim that human brains have been selected by natural or sexual selection to favour survival or reproduction not requiring the perception of all the details in nature/universe (?)
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Dear Petr Viscor,
Both are the foundation of beliefs. Both for its carriers are self-evident. You just brought the difference available to a third person who sees the contradictions in one statement and does not see them in the other (on the basis of own belief system). Thus usually each of us evaluates historical events, where all the contradictions seem obvious to us from the point of view of accumulated knowledge.
From the first person everything more unambiguously. Its propositional logic is based on a belief system with an incorporated dogma or axiom, which we consider (both the self-evident simple statement within logic of the first person). Accordingly, the contradiction in the system is not so easy to uncover. The camps of theists and atheists are perfect demonstration of this. The history with hypergeometry is also a wonderful demonstration. The concept of flat land, the concept of Copernicus... the more information a system contains, the more likely it is to discover contradictions in information. But only information is not enough. The person knowledge system must be sufficiently connected and rigidly organized to be unstable and be able to overturn in a result of cognitive dissonance. For any stable system there will sooner or later be a sufficiently large obstacle, which can lead it out of balance. {Это суть открытой системы, на входе у неё всегда* (* с оговоркой по Копернику) белый шум.} This is the dynamics that you are talking about. It only seems very simple at first glance, because of easily traced binary oppositions on associated bifurcation points.
The strength of an individual as a system is determined by the totality of all the syntheses in his brain (body) accumulated to the moment (with society all the same). Sometimes it happens that the system is not able to rebuild in time in a rapidly changing adaptive landscape. Then not some separate internal structures of the system may be subjected to dissipation, but the whole system on a certain scale. In that question one can never consider only a single individual. Civilization is a very complex structure with a spectrum of mentality and complex dynamics, where are no separate "identical people." Complete dynamics of the structure is not described by only categories as are discussed in this thread.
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Evolutionary biologists even might claim that nature/universe have been selected by natural selection. This is called the anthropic principle.
Ioannis Samaras | Evolutionary "Philosophy-of-Science" might be a modified field for human brains to form some recent "natural" selection rules for our perceptions ?
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Ioannis, please specify, which peculiarities of perception you mean?
Petr Viscor | Dear Vasilyi,
the problem is this :
Both are the foundation of beliefs. Both for its carriers are self-evident
1. There is no place for believe in mathematical axioms. They are the starting point for mathematicL logic
2. Mathematical axioms are OBJECTIVELY self-evident, while the dogmas (religeous, ideological,..) are subjective and absolutely closed.
The rest of your communication is a bit too complex if it is to clarify our disagreement. There must a more simple way. I have also noticed that you use some physics concepts , biut these must not be misinterpreted .
With regards
Petr
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Petr Viscor, I fundamentally disagree with you in understanding the meaning of tautology and so-called definitional truism, more precisely, in assessing the degree of its presence in mathematics. With closedness of systems (not only formal ones), also everything is not so simple, otherwise Gödel's theorems would not exist.
In arguments about objectivity, one could, of course, consider another "neutral" territory - the postulates of physical theories. The objectivity of individual hypotheses preceding any dogmas / postulates / axioms, including within mathematical theories (here I agree in many respects, but with remark, that we have causes and effects in opposite places) is directly related to the theme of objectivity in physics. I do not take any objectivity for granted.
By the way, this conversation just deja vu.
Ioannis Samaras | Dear Vasiliy, all (philosophical) perceptions, constraints are useful, mainly, in technical guides and recipes for, say, "How to do ..."
Dragan Pavlovic | I must complain again.
It is hard to respond to such diversity of comments and opinions. Those are indeed very interesting comments and hypotheses. However, majority relaying on uninformed opinions and major neglect of earlier writings and disclose obvious lack of reading. The sporadic citations of either Einstein or other thinkers most frequently misinterpret their opinions. Some (number of them) comments are without context and hard to understand. Almost all recent comments above (in the last couple of days) are such. There are too many points and I cannot give examples now. Why are you doing this? Why don't you read first and comment afterwards, for example?
Petr Viscor | Dear Visiliy, you write:
I fundamentally disagree with you in understanding the meaning of tautology and so-called definitional truism, more precisely, in assessing the degree of its presence in mathematics. With closedness of systems (not only formal ones), also everything is not so simple, otherwise Gödel's theorems would not exist. In arguments about objectivity, one could, of course, consider another "neutral" territory - the postulates of physical theories. The objectivity of individual hypotheses preceding any dogmas / postulates / axioms, including within mathematical theories (here I agree in many respects, but with remark, that we have causes and effects in opposite places) is directly related to the theme of objectivity in physics. I do not take any objectivity for granted. By the way, this conversation just deja vu.
I am afraid that we talk about different things. I commented on the axioms and dogmas that you postulate are the same thing and you now talk about tautology, truism and other ,I am sure, fine terms within philosophy.
Objectivity in physics has nothing to do with objectivity of some individual hypothesis. I do not care with waht hypothesis, model and/or theory you come to me , the only thing that matters is the experimental test. If the test verifies the predictions, then even the hypothesis may be useful in further inquiries.
And I am sure that all of this has been discussed and re-discussed through ages (it is probably this that you refere to as deja vu). But the interesting thing about this forum is that we come from different walks of life and try to discuss issues/questions that are not within just o ne domain of science. Therefore it is important that we do not throw at each other technical terms just technical terms, but try to really understand each other.
With best regrads
Petr
Apr 17, 2017
Herb Spencer | Heisenberg got it wrong. Objectivity in science is to be contrasted with subjective experiences that cannot be examined by many other persons (like religious beliefs). Heisenberg was confusing the notion of subject and object in a grammatical sentence. Of course, everything interacts at the microscopic level; this makes it complicated but still objective.
Nicholas Simonds Thompson | All,
Like Dragan Pavlovic I am totally baffled by this conversation.
Start with Descartes "brain in a vat" thought experiment. Do you accept or reject its implications? If you consider the thought experiment itself, it implies that all information comes via our senses, that we have knowledge of our senses but we do not have any knowledge of anything outside our senses. Now, as I understand it Descartes, himself, could not accept the most radical implications of his own thought experiment. So he allowed that we could know some things directly from God. I think some of you continue to hold to Descartes position: we know some things through our experience and others that are intuitions derived directly from God. I won't argue against that position now. I have no need of that hypothesis.
It's the others of you that are driving me nuts. You reject the God-route, but then you continue to talk as as if there were a world outside experience. But absent God, there is, so far as I can see, only one source of information; experience. All we can talk about is our experience. In that incoming flood of experience are patterns. Some patterns seem to endure outside our presence in the sense that whenever we return, they are there waiting or us; other patterns seem to travel with us, in the sense that whereever we are they are still with us. That is, some patterns in experience have the character of objective experiences, while others have the character of subjective experiences. Distinguishing between them is a hard-won battle of early childhood. The child has to learn that "mother" is an experience that appears pretty much unaltered when closes his eyes and then opens them again. Mother is an object. His dreams do not have that character. Dreams are subjective. If you-folks, as philosophers, care, on the basis of these experiential facts , to use these differences as evidence for a world beyond experience, be my guest, But your experience of its objectivity will just be another experience.
I know I ought to cite chapter and verse from the Meditations but I cannot. If I am wrong about Descartes, I hope wiser folks will correct me.
Nick,
Dragan Pavlovic | Thanks Nick. I fully agree.
It may be that people are searching for "more" knowledge and understanding, and then fall into fallacy of introducing empty concepts (like God). It was on the other hand tried, with some success, to go a bit further in our understanding by various approaches, like phenomenological approach (Husser, Heidegger) or the analysis of concepts or language (logical positivists, language philosophy, analytical philosophy, development of a series of logics) and, although some failed completely (deconstruction, Derrida, psychoanalysis) it still looks like some advances are possible. But one fact is clear, and Nicholas Simonds Thompson is right: we cannot go beyond our reason and our senses and our logic, which, it may be (this is my conviction) we still do not "know" well enough. There are limiting customs or traditions or learned models of thinking. Mathematical notation for example, that was adopted in the last centuries, beguines to be limiting factor with often too long proofs or too many special rules and exceptions.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Infinity is not empty concept, Dragan.
Dragan Pavlovic | Eugene F Kislyakov,
A concept is empty if - it is empty or if it is "not defined". The concept of God is not defined, or it includes everything and anything, non - existence too (one that I like the most). It is cognitively and intellectually a joke. If God existed, I would think, it would be something beyond this primitive human concept.
As I said if you want to challenge what I wrote here, please offer me an other specific thread and we can continue discussing.
Petr Viscor | Dear Herb,
you just said it for me 8again). Thank you
Petr
Eugene F Kislyakov | Dear Petr Viscor!
Please, think. How do You decide, that wood has 1kg mass?
I mean, that F=ma is the definition of F and inert mass. Do You know other definitions?
How can You disprove (falsify) definition?
Eugene F Kislyakov | What do You have against Plato, Herb?
Eugene F Kislyakov | Alexandar,
actually, we have a plenty existences in something and only one absolute existence in God.
P.S. It is according to mathematical notion of existence.
{Независимо от интерпретаций, это вопрос понимания холизма.}
Eugene F Kislyakov | Yes, Dragan, it is something beyond primitive human concepts.
Matts Roos | I don't think the philosophers can explain what they mean by explain. At least not what concerns physics. Anyway no two philosophers agree with each other.
{Да, любое ограниченное (local) "existance" instance is subjective. В отличии от холизма. Это, наверное, не плохо. В противном случае не существовало бы диалектики, да и вопрос самого existance был бы не актуален.}
Herb Spencer | Heisenberg got it wrong. Objectivity in science is to be contrasted with subjective experiences that cannot be examined by many other persons (like religious beliefs). Heisenberg was confusing the notion of subject and object in a grammatical sentence. Of course, everything interacts at the microscopic level; this makes it complicated but still objective.
Nicholas Simonds Thompson | All,
Like Dragan Pavlovic I am totally baffled by this conversation.
Start with Descartes "brain in a vat" thought experiment. Do you accept or reject its implications? If you consider the thought experiment itself, it implies that all information comes via our senses, that we have knowledge of our senses but we do not have any knowledge of anything outside our senses. Now, as I understand it Descartes, himself, could not accept the most radical implications of his own thought experiment. So he allowed that we could know some things directly from God. I think some of you continue to hold to Descartes position: we know some things through our experience and others that are intuitions derived directly from God. I won't argue against that position now. I have no need of that hypothesis.
It's the others of you that are driving me nuts. You reject the God-route, but then you continue to talk as as if there were a world outside experience. But absent God, there is, so far as I can see, only one source of information; experience. All we can talk about is our experience. In that incoming flood of experience are patterns. Some patterns seem to endure outside our presence in the sense that whenever we return, they are there waiting or us; other patterns seem to travel with us, in the sense that whereever we are they are still with us. That is, some patterns in experience have the character of objective experiences, while others have the character of subjective experiences. Distinguishing between them is a hard-won battle of early childhood. The child has to learn that "mother" is an experience that appears pretty much unaltered when closes his eyes and then opens them again. Mother is an object. His dreams do not have that character. Dreams are subjective. If you-folks, as philosophers, care, on the basis of these experiential facts , to use these differences as evidence for a world beyond experience, be my guest, But your experience of its objectivity will just be another experience.
I know I ought to cite chapter and verse from the Meditations but I cannot. If I am wrong about Descartes, I hope wiser folks will correct me.
Nick,
Dragan Pavlovic | Thanks Nick. I fully agree.
It may be that people are searching for "more" knowledge and understanding, and then fall into fallacy of introducing empty concepts (like God). It was on the other hand tried, with some success, to go a bit further in our understanding by various approaches, like phenomenological approach (Husser, Heidegger) or the analysis of concepts or language (logical positivists, language philosophy, analytical philosophy, development of a series of logics) and, although some failed completely (deconstruction, Derrida, psychoanalysis) it still looks like some advances are possible. But one fact is clear, and Nicholas Simonds Thompson is right: we cannot go beyond our reason and our senses and our logic, which, it may be (this is my conviction) we still do not "know" well enough. There are limiting customs or traditions or learned models of thinking. Mathematical notation for example, that was adopted in the last centuries, beguines to be limiting factor with often too long proofs or too many special rules and exceptions.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Infinity is not empty concept, Dragan.
Dragan Pavlovic | Eugene F Kislyakov,
A concept is empty if - it is empty or if it is "not defined". The concept of God is not defined, or it includes everything and anything, non - existence too (one that I like the most). It is cognitively and intellectually a joke. If God existed, I would think, it would be something beyond this primitive human concept.
As I said if you want to challenge what I wrote here, please offer me an other specific thread and we can continue discussing.
Petr Viscor | Dear Herb,
you just said it for me 8again). Thank you
Petr
Eugene F Kislyakov | Dear Petr Viscor!
Please, think. How do You decide, that wood has 1kg mass?
I mean, that F=ma is the definition of F and inert mass. Do You know other definitions?
How can You disprove (falsify) definition?
Eugene F Kislyakov | What do You have against Plato, Herb?
Eugene F Kislyakov | Alexandar,
actually, we have a plenty existences in something and only one absolute existence in God.
P.S. It is according to mathematical notion of existence.
{Независимо от интерпретаций, это вопрос понимания холизма.}
Eugene F Kislyakov | Yes, Dragan, it is something beyond primitive human concepts.
Matts Roos | I don't think the philosophers can explain what they mean by explain. At least not what concerns physics. Anyway no two philosophers agree with each other.
{Да, любое ограниченное (local) "existance" instance is subjective. В отличии от холизма. Это, наверное, не плохо. В противном случае не существовало бы диалектики, да и вопрос самого existance был бы не актуален.}
— ResearchGate. Available from: Project: "Philosophy of Science" | Update: CAN SCIENCE EXPLAIN EVERYTHING? ANYTHING? [accessed Jun 6, 2020]
17 квіт. 2017 р.
14:50 | Дети опередили взрослых в решении ненужных задач
...экспериментально выявили, что дети по сравнению со взрослыми в среднем запоминают больше визуальной информации за пределами объекта на котором сосредотачиваются.
Costs of Selective Attention: When Children Notice What Adults Miss
2017 | DOI: 10.1177/0956797617693005 | pdf
Whereas the adults outperformed the children on the cued shapes, the children outperformed the adults on the uncued shapes.
The young children outperformed the adults with respect to search-irrelevant features.
14:50 | Дети опередили взрослых в решении ненужных задач
...экспериментально выявили, что дети по сравнению со взрослыми в среднем запоминают больше визуальной информации за пределами объекта на котором сосредотачиваются.
Costs of Selective Attention: When Children Notice What Adults Miss
2017 | DOI: 10.1177/0956797617693005 | pdf
Whereas the adults outperformed the children on the cued shapes, the children outperformed the adults on the uncued shapes.
The young children outperformed the adults with respect to search-irrelevant features.
18 квіт. 2017 р.
00:44 | 25 лет назвали пиком непредсказуемости человека
Human behavioral complexity peaks at age 25
2017 | DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005408
00:44 | 25 лет назвали пиком непредсказуемости человека
Human behavioral complexity peaks at age 25
2017 | DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005408
Apr 18, 2017
Q: What about the contrast between scientific and religious truth?
Sergey Shevchenko | Dear Hossein Najafizadeh,
The phrase “…What about the contrast between scientific and religious truth?…”
indeed has seems no relation to the rest in this Heisenberg’s quoted text. Are there in the book below/further some other reference/mentioning on/of “religious truth”?
If such reference/mentioning exists – that would make corresponding discussion more certain and concrete; if not, then that allows members to invent own suggestions “what did Heisenberg think when wrote this question?”
Cheers
And – seems a next project, here given one, doesn’t work correctly, at least I cannot read any comment in this version.
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Medhat Elsahookie,
as long as one understands the difference between believing and knowing, there is no conflict between science and religion. In other words, let's not mix the two.
Sergey Shevchenko | “…Heisenberg got it wrong….”
That isn’t evident. Indeed, again, “…What about the contrast between scientific and religious truth?…” has seems no relation to the rest in quoted text;
but possibly quoted Heisenberg’s words are some Zen kōan?.
Cheers
Steven Wallis | Let me phrase it a bit differently... in terms of "data" (detectable/observable 'stuff' including dreams, electrons, and bears) and "knowledge" (theories/models). Each may be used to inform the other. We use data to build theories and we use theories to decide what data is valid (for example, if your theory says that all scientists are wrong, you will ignore their data and theories about global warming).
Typically, we have divided our disciplines/sciences by topics. For example, religion is different from sociology, which is different from physics, which is different from biology... and so on. Data and theories from any topic are typically ignored or even considered invalid by others (there are exceptions, of course - scholars in interdisciplinary studies and systems thinking enjoy mashing various fields together. Metaphors also work across disciplinary lines). But generally, each discipline has its own language and there is little communication and much conflict between them. Part of that is the contentious conversations we've seen in this forum between religion and science.
We've been using IPA to study the structure of theories/models. IPA gives us metric (between zero and one) that reflects the structure of the theory/model - and provides a prediction of how well that theory/model may be used in practical application. For example, Ohm's law has a structure of 1.0 because all its variables are causally interconnected (it is also amenable to algebraic manipulation - a good clue). And, of course, it works every time. In contrast, a theory that says (for example) "the earth is at the center of the universe" is not very useful for anything - not because it is true/false but because there are no causal connections between anything in the theory.
Of course, there is an overlap between truth and knowledge.
While my research is focused on structure, the structure is supported by the data. It is possible to create a theory that has wonderful structure, but is entirely fictitious. Naturally, such a theory will not be useful in practical application.
All of this is important because it provides a "shared language" between the disciplines - even between religion and science. Some of the most important concepts in that rather small vocabulary are "causality" (which we use to determine structure) and the measurability of variables.
We can analyze theories/models of religion, physics, biology, geology, sociology, psychology... etc...with some level of objectivity and rate each theory/model according to its structure (on one dimension) and the measurability of its variables (on another dimension).
Thus, we can contrast physics and religion in a way that is reasonably objective - without resorting to arguments and attacks. And, who knows, someday we might find causal links between measurable variables on both sides to combine the two.
Q: What about the contrast between scientific and religious truth?
Modern science has produced very extensive laws, much more comprehensive than those with which Galileo and Kepler were concerned. But it has been shown that the degree of abstractness increases with the extent of the relations, and thus also the difficulty of understanding. Even the demand of objectivity, which for a long time was the presupposition of all science, has been restricted in atomic physics by the fact that a complete separation of the observed phenomena of the observer is no longer possible. What about the contrast between scientific and religious truth?Medhat Elsahookie | Dear. Colleagues: Our today's science counts on experimentation, measurement,explanation,.....conclusion..etc. Religion counts on conclusion of reasoning , and the philosophy of them. However, in my understanding to both science and religion, ,I couldn't find any conflict between Them! But, I have seen some people of misunderstanding, or poor understanding for both, believe that they are in Conflict! To my understanding, I didn't find any conflict between Them! I know some people believe that theological philosophy is no a science at All! To my understanding, it is very deep Philosophy!
— Werner Heisenberg | Schritte über Grenzen
Sergey Shevchenko | Dear Hossein Najafizadeh,
The phrase “…What about the contrast between scientific and religious truth?…”
indeed has seems no relation to the rest in this Heisenberg’s quoted text. Are there in the book below/further some other reference/mentioning on/of “religious truth”?
If such reference/mentioning exists – that would make corresponding discussion more certain and concrete; if not, then that allows members to invent own suggestions “what did Heisenberg think when wrote this question?”
Cheers
And – seems a next project, here given one, doesn’t work correctly, at least I cannot read any comment in this version.
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Medhat Elsahookie,
as long as one understands the difference between believing and knowing, there is no conflict between science and religion. In other words, let's not mix the two.
Sergey Shevchenko | “…Heisenberg got it wrong….”
That isn’t evident. Indeed, again, “…What about the contrast between scientific and religious truth?…” has seems no relation to the rest in quoted text;
but possibly quoted Heisenberg’s words are some Zen kōan?.
Cheers
Steven Wallis | Let me phrase it a bit differently... in terms of "data" (detectable/observable 'stuff' including dreams, electrons, and bears) and "knowledge" (theories/models). Each may be used to inform the other. We use data to build theories and we use theories to decide what data is valid (for example, if your theory says that all scientists are wrong, you will ignore their data and theories about global warming).
Typically, we have divided our disciplines/sciences by topics. For example, religion is different from sociology, which is different from physics, which is different from biology... and so on. Data and theories from any topic are typically ignored or even considered invalid by others (there are exceptions, of course - scholars in interdisciplinary studies and systems thinking enjoy mashing various fields together. Metaphors also work across disciplinary lines). But generally, each discipline has its own language and there is little communication and much conflict between them. Part of that is the contentious conversations we've seen in this forum between religion and science.
We've been using IPA to study the structure of theories/models. IPA gives us metric (between zero and one) that reflects the structure of the theory/model - and provides a prediction of how well that theory/model may be used in practical application. For example, Ohm's law has a structure of 1.0 because all its variables are causally interconnected (it is also amenable to algebraic manipulation - a good clue). And, of course, it works every time. In contrast, a theory that says (for example) "the earth is at the center of the universe" is not very useful for anything - not because it is true/false but because there are no causal connections between anything in the theory.
Of course, there is an overlap between truth and knowledge.
While my research is focused on structure, the structure is supported by the data. It is possible to create a theory that has wonderful structure, but is entirely fictitious. Naturally, such a theory will not be useful in practical application.
All of this is important because it provides a "shared language" between the disciplines - even between religion and science. Some of the most important concepts in that rather small vocabulary are "causality" (which we use to determine structure) and the measurability of variables.
We can analyze theories/models of religion, physics, biology, geology, sociology, psychology... etc...with some level of objectivity and rate each theory/model according to its structure (on one dimension) and the measurability of its variables (on another dimension).
Thus, we can contrast physics and religion in a way that is reasonably objective - without resorting to arguments and attacks. And, who knows, someday we might find causal links between measurable variables on both sides to combine the two.
Apr 19, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Laszlo G Meszaros, please explain "the difference between believing and knowing". What gives you a sense of confidence in this world?
I, for example, can not afford to be so self-confident and I hold the same opinion as the author of this essay: I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts. The benefits of a post-truth society.
You can believe in so-called facts, you can call it knowledge, of course, but it does not mean that your personal "Plato's cave" does not distort reality. And there is no way to prove your knowledge. In science there are no facts at all, only relative sense of confidence in the system of your beliefs. IMHO
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Steven Wallis, I join your opinion. To your words one must also add the moment that we can compare only formalized knowledge, but we get knowledge (with the exception of those that were previously "flashed" in DNA) through Qualia. Theories are formalized knowledge. We can compare theories. This is the part of knowledge that actively participates in the exchange of information and, accordingly, a more global structure than a personal unit. This is what you said about. However, the exchange of qualia's experience begins with a much lower, weakly and even not formalized level. Therefore, there is art, literature, etc. (Tacit knowledge)
Everything is interconnected, demarcation provides a coordinate system (language) for building a theory, and at the same time limits the scope of applicability. It is a way of taking out a limited subject of research from the unlimited holistic structure of reality. As soon as the only dichotomy operation is performed, the door to the "theory of everything" is closed. There is a huge contradiction. It is impossible not to make a dichotomy. Any theory is a system, so it already has some isolation from the rest of the information (reality). The Final Theory is an unattainable "unicorn", to which we will asymptotically strive while we exist. And we have no choice. The problem of demarcation will have to be rethought sooner or later.
Nicholas Simonds Thompson | Har Prashad said:
Please everybody, if you are dedicated to metaphors like "inner" and "outer", be ready to follow their clear implications. He who lives by a metaphor should be prepared to die for it. I see here a division of space into an inner space and an outer space. A box, perhaps? Something like that. A cell of some sort, with a boundary that separates it, from a surround. Where do "we" stand with respect to this box. Do I stand inside the box? Do we stand at it's boundary? Do we look at the outside world through the walls of the box. Or do we stand outside the box and look into it through its walls? How do we gain knowledge of the inside of the box? In a manner similar to the manner in which we gain information of ongoings outside the box. Does each of us have his own box? This is the kind of madness that dualist metaphors demand of their adherents, once Cartesian dualism is set aside.
If there are any sincere Cartesian dualists in the "room" then put up your hands and I will spare you my fire. But if you think you have cast off dualism and yet want to speak of the inner and the outer or the subjective and the objective or the mental and the material, etc., then you have allowed the conventions of ordinary language to run off with your senses.
So I ask you once again: Do you all subscribe to Cartesian Dualism? Do you believe that there more than once kind of STUFF in the world?
Sorry to be so "shirty", but I keep asking this question in various forms and nobody seems to want to answer it.
Nick
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
it is quite unfortunate that this discussion is organized as is; I mean that I have already answered your question (somewhere above). Briefly, the difference between belief and knowledge is - as I see it - probably nothing else but the ATTITUDE towards the world around us. The believer takes things granted, the "knower" want to understand, explain, etc... (That is a different story if the "knower" does it successfully or not.)
(The Scientific American article you are citing is quite insignificant; I never understood why Schrodinger's cat is a puzzle. This cat stuff we did everyday in my child years when flipping a coin to decide which team gets the ball to start the game, and none of the kids were puzzled over it.)
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Laszlo G Meszaros, thank you for clarifying your vision. Although I did not understand what connection with the key idea of the article has thought experiment with the Schrödinger's cat. I'm not interested in the significance of the resource where the note is stored, the meaning of the content is important. I should only add that it is a continuous process, so that with respect to the knowledge at any given time you have a set of axioms. However, I also repeatedly emphasized the features of deductive reasoning. Obviously, our positions differ in principle, except the wishes of the un"knower" and attitude to the ATTITUDE.
Nicholas Simonds Thompson | All--
I won't cite the name because many of you have written similar assertions, but one of you wrote:
For instance, as a Pragmati[ci]st, I might write, "Some of what believers believe may be knowledge." I might go on to say that this assertion follows from the following understandings.
Now, you may very well think what I say above is nuts! But at least you know where I stand. If you disagree, you can explore whether I start with the wrong premises, or perhaps my logic is not sound, etc. You can argue back. I can learn from you. I might (mirabile dictu) actually change my [so-called] mind.
Now if your contexts have been clear from earlier messages, then please forgive me. I have spoken out of turn and apologize in advance for bad behavior.
Nick
Nicholas Simonds Thompson | All --
While I am writing grumpy messages, please let me get one more off my chest. Only two people have ever expressed an interest in the archive files I have provided. There could be many good reasons for this. You might not care to have the archives; or, you might have an easier way to archive them. Etc.
So, would you please let me know if you want more archives by "recommending" this post.
Thank you. I promise that this is the last grumpy message I will send until May Day.
Nick
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Nicholas Simonds Thompson,
Fine, except for a small flaw - absence of the definition of truth. Definitions are not present since it can not be, this definition implies proof... and here should be a cognitive dissonance. At least, the scientific method provokes it unequivocally. Truth can be defined within a specific (formal) system ONLY. This is truth in a specific sense; a specific truth. The proof procedure in such systems is possible.
However, already the following combination should cause dissonance:
Ioannis Samaras | I think that it is a good point to make a potentially useful link to maths (and statistics). A weak link of science to a measure and their statistics[1] and a stronger link of philosophy to (observational studies) statistics[2]. If so, then:
a belief is proposed as a mean (a basic statistical index) and
a knowledge is proposed as a low value index of its (belief) variability or standard deviation.
1. Measure (mathematics) ; Statistics
2. Observational study
Medhat Elsahookie | Dear Gentlemen : Please let me say something about : know and: believe, I don't have a copy of the Bible in English, but I do have Quran, in Quran, after telling people about the creation of Heavens, earth, human...it says: The life of this world is but plays and amusement, and if ye believe and guard against evil, He will grant you your recompense, and will not ask you your Possessions!
Das diesseitige Leben ist nur Spiel und zerstreuung . Wenn ihr glaubt und gottesfurchtig seidy wird Er euch euren Lohn geben und von euch nicht euren gesamten Besitz Verlangen ! / So, we do understand that believe is to be used for the unseen World! while know is to be used for our seen world, this really has a meaning ! Please forgive me for the spelling, because I was fighting with the RG editor, and many times it changes the spelling at time of Adding! Thanks
Steven Wallis | Vasyl Komarov I appreciate your kind words - and your excellent insights. Yes - I would say that theories (made of interconnected concepts/variables) are a separate world from physical objects and forces (also interconnected). Also, that those worlds are interconnected on a different level. Some of my underlying thinking here - a slightly different view of Popper's three worlds.
…
Wallis quasi popperian theory validation.pdf
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Laszlo G Meszaros, please explain "the difference between believing and knowing". What gives you a sense of confidence in this world?
I, for example, can not afford to be so self-confident and I hold the same opinion as the author of this essay: I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts. The benefits of a post-truth society.
You can believe in so-called facts, you can call it knowledge, of course, but it does not mean that your personal "Plato's cave" does not distort reality. And there is no way to prove your knowledge. In science there are no facts at all, only relative sense of confidence in the system of your beliefs. IMHO
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Steven Wallis, I join your opinion. To your words one must also add the moment that we can compare only formalized knowledge, but we get knowledge (with the exception of those that were previously "flashed" in DNA) through Qualia. Theories are formalized knowledge. We can compare theories. This is the part of knowledge that actively participates in the exchange of information and, accordingly, a more global structure than a personal unit. This is what you said about. However, the exchange of qualia's experience begins with a much lower, weakly and even not formalized level. Therefore, there is art, literature, etc. (Tacit knowledge)
Everything is interconnected, demarcation provides a coordinate system (language) for building a theory, and at the same time limits the scope of applicability. It is a way of taking out a limited subject of research from the unlimited holistic structure of reality. As soon as the only dichotomy operation is performed, the door to the "theory of everything" is closed. There is a huge contradiction. It is impossible not to make a dichotomy. Any theory is a system, so it already has some isolation from the rest of the information (reality). The Final Theory is an unattainable "unicorn", to which we will asymptotically strive while we exist. And we have no choice. The problem of demarcation will have to be rethought sooner or later.
Nicholas Simonds Thompson | Har Prashad said:
- I agree with you. Science gives us understanding of outer world, material world based on experimentation and analysis. Religion gives us understanding of inner world.
Please everybody, if you are dedicated to metaphors like "inner" and "outer", be ready to follow their clear implications. He who lives by a metaphor should be prepared to die for it. I see here a division of space into an inner space and an outer space. A box, perhaps? Something like that. A cell of some sort, with a boundary that separates it, from a surround. Where do "we" stand with respect to this box. Do I stand inside the box? Do we stand at it's boundary? Do we look at the outside world through the walls of the box. Or do we stand outside the box and look into it through its walls? How do we gain knowledge of the inside of the box? In a manner similar to the manner in which we gain information of ongoings outside the box. Does each of us have his own box? This is the kind of madness that dualist metaphors demand of their adherents, once Cartesian dualism is set aside.
If there are any sincere Cartesian dualists in the "room" then put up your hands and I will spare you my fire. But if you think you have cast off dualism and yet want to speak of the inner and the outer or the subjective and the objective or the mental and the material, etc., then you have allowed the conventions of ordinary language to run off with your senses.
So I ask you once again: Do you all subscribe to Cartesian Dualism? Do you believe that there more than once kind of STUFF in the world?
Sorry to be so "shirty", but I keep asking this question in various forms and nobody seems to want to answer it.
Nick
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
it is quite unfortunate that this discussion is organized as is; I mean that I have already answered your question (somewhere above). Briefly, the difference between belief and knowledge is - as I see it - probably nothing else but the ATTITUDE towards the world around us. The believer takes things granted, the "knower" want to understand, explain, etc... (That is a different story if the "knower" does it successfully or not.)
(The Scientific American article you are citing is quite insignificant; I never understood why Schrodinger's cat is a puzzle. This cat stuff we did everyday in my child years when flipping a coin to decide which team gets the ball to start the game, and none of the kids were puzzled over it.)
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Laszlo G Meszaros, thank you for clarifying your vision. Although I did not understand what connection with the key idea of the article has thought experiment with the Schrödinger's cat. I'm not interested in the significance of the resource where the note is stored, the meaning of the content is important. I should only add that it is a continuous process, so that with respect to the knowledge at any given time you have a set of axioms. However, I also repeatedly emphasized the features of deductive reasoning. Obviously, our positions differ in principle, except the wishes of the un"knower" and attitude to the ATTITUDE.
Nicholas Simonds Thompson | All--
I won't cite the name because many of you have written similar assertions, but one of you wrote:
- 1. By definition believers have no knowledge, they have beliefs.
For instance, as a Pragmati[ci]st, I might write, "Some of what believers believe may be knowledge." I might go on to say that this assertion follows from the following understandings.
- DEFINITION: A belief is that upon which a person is prepared to act. For instance, a person who believes anthropomorphic God, might pray to that God for some relief and be surprised if he does not get it. More prosaically, when you put your foot out of bed this morning without looking, you demonstrate your belief that your slippers are under your bed and there are no scorpions in them.
- DEFINITION. Knowledge is true belief. I won't say more, here, because I think this definition is widespread and standard. Wiser heads may correct me.
- DEFINITION: A proposition is true if it corresponds to the opinion that will be held by the community of inquiry in the very long run. This is the standard Pragmati[ci]st definition of truth. Only one person, here, has EVER argued against it. [Hell hath no fury .... scorned, etc.]
- IMPLICATION: if a belief [as defined] corresponds to a truth [as defined], then it is a true belief [as defined]
- ASSUMPTION: At least one proposition is true [as defined]
- Q.E.D., some beliefs may be true beliefs.
Now, you may very well think what I say above is nuts! But at least you know where I stand. If you disagree, you can explore whether I start with the wrong premises, or perhaps my logic is not sound, etc. You can argue back. I can learn from you. I might (mirabile dictu) actually change my [so-called] mind.
Now if your contexts have been clear from earlier messages, then please forgive me. I have spoken out of turn and apologize in advance for bad behavior.
Nick
Nicholas Simonds Thompson | All --
While I am writing grumpy messages, please let me get one more off my chest. Only two people have ever expressed an interest in the archive files I have provided. There could be many good reasons for this. You might not care to have the archives; or, you might have an easier way to archive them. Etc.
So, would you please let me know if you want more archives by "recommending" this post.
Thank you. I promise that this is the last grumpy message I will send until May Day.
Nick
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Nicholas Simonds Thompson,
Fine, except for a small flaw - absence of the definition of truth. Definitions are not present since it can not be, this definition implies proof... and here should be a cognitive dissonance. At least, the scientific method provokes it unequivocally. Truth can be defined within a specific (formal) system ONLY. This is truth in a specific sense; a specific truth. The proof procedure in such systems is possible.
However, already the following combination should cause dissonance:
- "By definition believers have no knowledge..."
- "Knowledge is true belief."
Ioannis Samaras | I think that it is a good point to make a potentially useful link to maths (and statistics). A weak link of science to a measure and their statistics[1] and a stronger link of philosophy to (observational studies) statistics[2]. If so, then:
a belief is proposed as a mean (a basic statistical index) and
a knowledge is proposed as a low value index of its (belief) variability or standard deviation.
1. Measure (mathematics) ; Statistics
2. Observational study
Medhat Elsahookie | Dear Gentlemen : Please let me say something about : know and: believe, I don't have a copy of the Bible in English, but I do have Quran, in Quran, after telling people about the creation of Heavens, earth, human...it says: The life of this world is but plays and amusement, and if ye believe and guard against evil, He will grant you your recompense, and will not ask you your Possessions!
Das diesseitige Leben ist nur Spiel und zerstreuung . Wenn ihr glaubt und gottesfurchtig seidy wird Er euch euren Lohn geben und von euch nicht euren gesamten Besitz Verlangen ! / So, we do understand that believe is to be used for the unseen World! while know is to be used for our seen world, this really has a meaning ! Please forgive me for the spelling, because I was fighting with the RG editor, and many times it changes the spelling at time of Adding! Thanks
Steven Wallis | Vasyl Komarov I appreciate your kind words - and your excellent insights. Yes - I would say that theories (made of interconnected concepts/variables) are a separate world from physical objects and forces (also interconnected). Also, that those worlds are interconnected on a different level. Some of my underlying thinking here - a slightly different view of Popper's three worlds.
…
Wallis quasi popperian theory validation.pdf
— ResearchGate. Available from: Project: "Philosophy of Science" | Update: Between scientific and religious truth? (part 1) [accessed Jun 6, 2020]
21 квіт. 2017 р.
10:47 | По поводу proofs & truth, кстати, к дискусии RG Project "Philosophy of Science", где явно присутствует непонимание того, какая противоречивая штука truth...
Formal logic
10:47 | По поводу proofs & truth, кстати, к дискусии RG Project "Philosophy of Science", где явно присутствует непонимание того, какая противоречивая штука truth...
Formal logic
Apr 21, 2017
Q: What about the contrast between scientific and religious truth?
Q: What about the contrast between scientific and religious truth?
Modern science has produced very extensive laws, much more comprehensive than those with which Galileo and Kepler were concerned. But it has been shown that the degree of abstractness increases with the extent of the relations, and thus also the difficulty of understanding. Even the demand of objectivity, which for a long time was the presupposition of all science, has been restricted in atomic physics by the fact that a complete separation of the observed phenomena of the observer is no longer possible. What about the contrast between scientific and religious truth?Matts Roos | I'm a physicist and an artist by profession. I have written one book on statistics and several on physics. Dorina, there is no art in statistics.
— Werner Heisenberg | Schritte über Grenzen
Apr 22, 2017
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Sundaresan Muthuswamy,
in a previous comment of yours, you expressed a view, according to which there is not much difference between science and religion. Well, this is an opinion, which I oppose. I would go even further saying that such view is very harmful to any scientific endeavor (and even humanity). If I misunderstood your previous comment, then I apologize.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Yes, Laszlo, science is not religion, but we can make it religion. I, personally, know very many persons who are doing this. Their name is "mainstream".
Mirjana Vukovic | Sundaresan Muthuswamy
I oppose that it is not much difference between science and religion. Mr Sundaresan Muthuswamy, please, specify the similarities between science and religion. What do you think that they have in common ?
Dorina Grossu | Mirjana Vukovic
Just as a curiosity, is your university teaching arts? Thank you for your feedback in which you shared your belief:-)
Eugene F Kislyakov | Common is belief, Mirjana. Thank You Dorina.
P.S. Do You think that belief in matter is better than belief in God?
Matts Roos | There have been attempts by physicists to define a Theory of Everything. I suppose that term is even better than a definition of Creation which begs for a definition of the verb create.
To employ the definition all that exists within our human range of vision is bad, because the human vision is limited to the visible part of the spectrum of light. No infrared, ultraviolet, Röntgen, gamma rays and so on.
Dragan Pavlovic | Sergey Shevchenko, Dorina Grossu, Sundaresan Muthuswamy, Barbara L. Mccombs, Hans van Leunen and others.
What about facts?
I have been following this discussion for some time. It is clear that we have 99% of the discussion that concerns interpretation of assumed and most often not pronounced facts or even not based on some facts. As if the facts did not matter. Yet often the disagreements are based on the facts.
The legitimate question is then: on which facts, on what knowledge of the facts, the knowledge of the accepted facts, is this what you want to interpret, founded? You even, or majority of people, but not all of course, claim openly that the facts are not so important or when some contrary facts are mentioned, people say "o.k-, but look this..., what about that..." and completely avoid disclosing the facts or proving that some facts are the case.
The problem is that those are people who most often show little evidence that they in reality know those facts and, in addition, they have meager profile on RG, do not disclose their interests or experience, show almost no publications and, well, they insist in their comments on strong interpretations which is not supported by the facts. In short: they do not permit us to learn on which facts they base their comments and the "interpretations". I do not want to mention who are those people but I am certain that you would recognize them on the account of their comments. This particularly concerns the latest comments and the discussion about art, logic, information and related subjects.
So please, I urge that the discussion be founded on facts: primarily let us see the facts and then the free interpretation would be easier to follow.
Please, show us your science, your facts.
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Sundaresan Muthuswamy,
in a previous comment of yours, you expressed a view, according to which there is not much difference between science and religion. Well, this is an opinion, which I oppose. I would go even further saying that such view is very harmful to any scientific endeavor (and even humanity). If I misunderstood your previous comment, then I apologize.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Yes, Laszlo, science is not religion, but we can make it religion. I, personally, know very many persons who are doing this. Their name is "mainstream".
Mirjana Vukovic | Sundaresan Muthuswamy
I oppose that it is not much difference between science and religion. Mr Sundaresan Muthuswamy, please, specify the similarities between science and religion. What do you think that they have in common ?
Dorina Grossu | Mirjana Vukovic
Just as a curiosity, is your university teaching arts? Thank you for your feedback in which you shared your belief:-)
Eugene F Kislyakov | Common is belief, Mirjana. Thank You Dorina.
P.S. Do You think that belief in matter is better than belief in God?
Matts Roos | There have been attempts by physicists to define a Theory of Everything. I suppose that term is even better than a definition of Creation which begs for a definition of the verb create.
To employ the definition all that exists within our human range of vision is bad, because the human vision is limited to the visible part of the spectrum of light. No infrared, ultraviolet, Röntgen, gamma rays and so on.
Dragan Pavlovic | Sergey Shevchenko, Dorina Grossu, Sundaresan Muthuswamy, Barbara L. Mccombs, Hans van Leunen and others.
What about facts?
I have been following this discussion for some time. It is clear that we have 99% of the discussion that concerns interpretation of assumed and most often not pronounced facts or even not based on some facts. As if the facts did not matter. Yet often the disagreements are based on the facts.
The legitimate question is then: on which facts, on what knowledge of the facts, the knowledge of the accepted facts, is this what you want to interpret, founded? You even, or majority of people, but not all of course, claim openly that the facts are not so important or when some contrary facts are mentioned, people say "o.k-, but look this..., what about that..." and completely avoid disclosing the facts or proving that some facts are the case.
The problem is that those are people who most often show little evidence that they in reality know those facts and, in addition, they have meager profile on RG, do not disclose their interests or experience, show almost no publications and, well, they insist in their comments on strong interpretations which is not supported by the facts. In short: they do not permit us to learn on which facts they base their comments and the "interpretations". I do not want to mention who are those people but I am certain that you would recognize them on the account of their comments. This particularly concerns the latest comments and the discussion about art, logic, information and related subjects.
So please, I urge that the discussion be founded on facts: primarily let us see the facts and then the free interpretation would be easier to follow.
Please, show us your science, your facts.
Apr 23, 2017
Mirjana Vukovic | Eugene Kislyakov,
"Do You think that belief in matter is better than belief in God?" They are your words. In the discussion about God and Sciences, I don't wish to indulge, especially with engineer like you. Everyone has the right to have their own opinion, but intellectual should know thought ! It's all of me for you.
Mirjana
Eugene F Kislyakov | It is evident, Mirjana, that You have nothing to say.
Dragan Pavlovic | Michael Lersow, Mirjana Vukovic, Dorina Grossu, Nicholas Simonds Thompson,
The basic studies at the university and postgraduate studies make up important parts of the intellectual and professional development of a scientist. The postgraduate level make up sometimes about 10 times longer period of study and deeper study and people may fundamentally change their scientific orientation. Therefore people who remained limited by their basic studies should probably not disturb too much the discussions on RG and should not introduce the limits that they did not overcome. But should try, it is never too late, to advance beyond those limits.
But more importantly, here on RG this is, I am certain and I hope you will adhere to this, 'an argument' that counts. If you have a sound argument in biochemistry in spite that you are basically (by your basic study) an engineer or physicist (look Herb Spencer!), or have a sound argument in mathematics, although you are basically a social scientist, this will be all fine. The problem is - what I permanently insist on - if somebody advances "interpretations and conclusive arguments without references", without giving the informed framework, without "showing her/is science", like Dorine does so often, like many of my friends do sometimes, like probably it happens to me sometimes - if I write something in hurry - then we have a problem.
Eugene F Kislyakov, Ioannis Samaras, your support of the attack of Dorina is not justified. In the end this is only "valid and sound" argument that count in science and in a dispute of the ideas. And this is ABOUT the arguments that we are discussing and NEVER about people, who are all our friends. So, Eugene, it is not about what people "have or are capable intellectually to say, but about what they explicitly said". Do not go ad hominem and apply the "Principle of charity" (if it is a strange word to you, please see on loved Wikipedia what this is). Please.
So, I warmly suggest that you build you argument correctly, as you do in "your science" at the university where you are paid to do your job correctly, and everything will be fine. Then a philosopher can talk about theory of sets, a logician about cancer research, or mathematician about Marxism or whatever. A good argument is the only measure. And do not stick to much to Wikipedia, since I strongly believe that "googwik science" may be destructive.
{-1 Тему Википедии пропускаем мимо ушей, как обычно.}
Eugene F Kislyakov | Nicholas, Dragan and other interested!
What is observation? What is fact? These questions (threads) exist now in RG.
Let us hear Einstein (originally to Heisnberg, who had Nicholas' point of view at that times):
Do You know, Dragan, how many histories (totally different) of Russia we have now? And all of them are based on facts.
I don't touch here "alternative facts" of Trump. Smile.
Michael Lersow | Hi Dragan Pavlovic,
You have the basic study? All right! Would like to believe you!
Anesthesiologist is a philosopher? Wow master! You should stop play the schoolmaster here. You have not the right and also not the competence for that.
M. Lersow
Eugene F Kislyakov | Dragan is thinking person, Michael.
Michael Lersow | Dear Eugene,
thank you, but this says nothing in this case. For it is necessary to be clarified here from my point of view the difference between mathematics and (natural) science. Also of point philosophical view. If he knows a better definition, please gladly. But so? No thank you!
Regards
Michael
Dragan Pavlovic | Eugene F Kislyakov,
You did not understand me. Total relativism obstructs the discussion. I said that that the observational and theoretical statements are not clear cut (as LP maintained too).
Michael Lersow,
You lack culture, unfortunately (and publications). I have nothing to tell you before you would present your excuses.
Eugene F Kislyakov | We are all dilettantes in discussed here questions, Michael. It is the sense of RG.
{Маленькая ремарка. Не дилетанты, а любители - тему профессионализма, и как с ним соотносится философия, затронем немного позже в 2018 (▼).}
(***)
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Dragane,
I repeat, no general statement:
my comment was only on your claim that philosophers can do the Set Theory,
which is quite impossible (since Plato's PARMENIDES - which is very nice and all wrong).
They can not understand it - that demands some serious efforts.
Nothing else.
greetings from home
Aleksandar
{Где-то подобное я уже слышал, в общем-то. Это был Хокинг с аналогичными спекуляциями о философах и математике.}
(***)
Mirjana Vukovic | Eugene Kislyakov,
"Do You think that belief in matter is better than belief in God?" They are your words. In the discussion about God and Sciences, I don't wish to indulge, especially with engineer like you. Everyone has the right to have their own opinion, but intellectual should know thought ! It's all of me for you.
Mirjana
Eugene F Kislyakov | It is evident, Mirjana, that You have nothing to say.
Dragan Pavlovic | Michael Lersow, Mirjana Vukovic, Dorina Grossu, Nicholas Simonds Thompson,
The basic studies at the university and postgraduate studies make up important parts of the intellectual and professional development of a scientist. The postgraduate level make up sometimes about 10 times longer period of study and deeper study and people may fundamentally change their scientific orientation. Therefore people who remained limited by their basic studies should probably not disturb too much the discussions on RG and should not introduce the limits that they did not overcome. But should try, it is never too late, to advance beyond those limits.
But more importantly, here on RG this is, I am certain and I hope you will adhere to this, 'an argument' that counts. If you have a sound argument in biochemistry in spite that you are basically (by your basic study) an engineer or physicist (look Herb Spencer!), or have a sound argument in mathematics, although you are basically a social scientist, this will be all fine. The problem is - what I permanently insist on - if somebody advances "interpretations and conclusive arguments without references", without giving the informed framework, without "showing her/is science", like Dorine does so often, like many of my friends do sometimes, like probably it happens to me sometimes - if I write something in hurry - then we have a problem.
Eugene F Kislyakov, Ioannis Samaras, your support of the attack of Dorina is not justified. In the end this is only "valid and sound" argument that count in science and in a dispute of the ideas. And this is ABOUT the arguments that we are discussing and NEVER about people, who are all our friends. So, Eugene, it is not about what people "have or are capable intellectually to say, but about what they explicitly said". Do not go ad hominem and apply the "Principle of charity" (if it is a strange word to you, please see on loved Wikipedia what this is). Please.
So, I warmly suggest that you build you argument correctly, as you do in "your science" at the university where you are paid to do your job correctly, and everything will be fine. Then a philosopher can talk about theory of sets, a logician about cancer research, or mathematician about Marxism or whatever. A good argument is the only measure. And do not stick to much to Wikipedia, since I strongly believe that "googwik science" may be destructive.
{-1 Тему Википедии пропускаем мимо ушей, как обычно.}
Eugene F Kislyakov | Nicholas, Dragan and other interested!
What is observation? What is fact? These questions (threads) exist now in RG.
Let us hear Einstein (originally to Heisnberg, who had Nicholas' point of view at that times):
"Theory determines, what is observable".From me to You, Dragan. The fact becomes fact, after you define it. You separate part of the reality and name it fact.
Do You know, Dragan, how many histories (totally different) of Russia we have now? And all of them are based on facts.
I don't touch here "alternative facts" of Trump. Smile.
Michael Lersow | Hi Dragan Pavlovic,
You have the basic study? All right! Would like to believe you!
Anesthesiologist is a philosopher? Wow master! You should stop play the schoolmaster here. You have not the right and also not the competence for that.
M. Lersow
Eugene F Kislyakov | Dragan is thinking person, Michael.
Michael Lersow | Dear Eugene,
thank you, but this says nothing in this case. For it is necessary to be clarified here from my point of view the difference between mathematics and (natural) science. Also of point philosophical view. If he knows a better definition, please gladly. But so? No thank you!
Regards
Michael
Dragan Pavlovic | Eugene F Kislyakov,
You did not understand me. Total relativism obstructs the discussion. I said that that the observational and theoretical statements are not clear cut (as LP maintained too).
Michael Lersow,
You lack culture, unfortunately (and publications). I have nothing to tell you before you would present your excuses.
Eugene F Kislyakov | We are all dilettantes in discussed here questions, Michael. It is the sense of RG.
{Маленькая ремарка. Не дилетанты, а любители - тему профессионализма, и как с ним соотносится философия, затронем немного позже в 2018 (▼).}
(***)
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Dragane,
I repeat, no general statement:
my comment was only on your claim that philosophers can do the Set Theory,
which is quite impossible (since Plato's PARMENIDES - which is very nice and all wrong).
They can not understand it - that demands some serious efforts.
Nothing else.
greetings from home
Aleksandar
{Где-то подобное я уже слышал, в общем-то. Это был Хокинг с аналогичными спекуляциями о философах и математике.}
(***)
— ResearchGate. Available from: Project: "Philosophy of Science" | Update: Between scientific and religious truth? (part 2) [accessed Jun 6, 2020]
24 квіт. 2017 р.
07:39 | [ru] В гравитационных волнах заметили нарушение общей теории относительности
LIGO black hole echoes hint at general-relativity breakdown
Echoes from the Abyss: Tentative evidence for Planck-scale structure at black hole horizons
2016 | arXiv:1612.00266 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.082004
Колебания - обычное явление для любых переходных процессов {transient response} в динамических системах. Интересно будет подождать статистику наблюдений.
Интересно, почему так называемую "потерю" информации не ассоциируют с необратимостью? То, что находится за "гребнем волны" непрерывной катастрофы, отделено от предкатастрофического состояния связью "причина-следствие" навсегда.
07:39 | [ru] В гравитационных волнах заметили нарушение общей теории относительности
LIGO black hole echoes hint at general-relativity breakdown
Echoes from the Abyss: Tentative evidence for Planck-scale structure at black hole horizons
2016 | arXiv:1612.00266 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.082004
Колебания - обычное явление для любых переходных процессов {transient response} в динамических системах. Интересно будет подождать статистику наблюдений.
Интересно, почему так называемую "потерю" информации не ассоциируют с необратимостью? То, что находится за "гребнем волны" непрерывной катастрофы, отделено от предкатастрофического состояния связью "причина-следствие" навсегда.
Apr 27, 2017
Sundaresan Muthuswamy | There is no mathematics in philosophy, nor can it be quantified. It is only a way of thinking leading to constructive or useful work.While science the output is focused, philosophy is general and may have lead to new pathways in science. I am writing this because the topic under discussion does involve non scientific expressions, even like cats and dogs and someone stretched it to religion and Gods.
If anyone as a scientist who had made an important discovery, invention or contribution breathing creativity can share their experience as to how such an event was possible. If he feels there was some or no philosophical content prior to starting and during the course of work, then we will have a down to earth fact mentioned. Of course then we will have to believe the speaker.
The building of the Egyptian pyramids had an underlying philosophy strongly in the minds of the pharaoh who built it. There was a lot of engineering sciences and the very hard labor behind it. Without the thought the driving force no pyramids would have been there.The philosophy of one person can be easily criticized, but the outcome does matter for some who value it and that is how everything is built around the world.
Matts Roos | Replying to the appeal of Sundaresan: I have been a life-long scientist who can claim an important contribution breathing creativity for which there was no philosophical content prior to starting and during the course of work. I agree that there is no mathematics in philosophy, nor can it be quantified.
Barbara L. Mccombs |
Matts Roos Now I wonder why so many insist that philosophy is fundamentally based on mathematical principles? In my view, mathematics may be a way to describe reality but is not always part of what it means to be a philosopher.
Dorina Grossu | Sundaresan Muthuswamy and Matts Roos,
Is it then safe to say that philosophers who also developed some of the mathematical theories were trying to introduce mathematics into philosophy by quantifying and qualifying the concepts?
There is literature about brain computation therefore it would be interesting to know whether computation can reproduce some of the brain thinking and then correlate those findings to human past history..
As an example, in genetic there proteins that act as switches " Thinking about this odd situation taught scientists an important lesson—that the proteins made by some genes can act as switches. Switch genes are master controllers that provide each body part with a kind of identification card. If a protein that normally instructs cells to become an antenna is disrupted, cells can receive new instructions to become a leg instead. "...what can we figure out about disruptions? Are the same disruptions that you referred before as "discriminative power"? But that gets us back to the matter etc...so, what is out there that can make decisions whether a change shall occur or not?
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Matts Roos,
No math in philosophy? Well, I would argue such statement. Instead, I would say that there is no (or maybe not yet) explicit math in philosophy. Once you seek for and recognize "interrelationships", which should be the goal of philosophy as well, you do some kind of math, even if you do not use math formulas, but - instead - the "everyday" language is used. And, of course, you definitely use logic, which is again math.
Matts Roos | Dear Laszlo,
Of course logic is an inseparable element in math. But I don't know whether logic is an inseparable element in philosophy - give me an eaxample!
Dorina Grossu | Wouldn't be fair to say that in philosophy we have both logic and non-logic i.e. matter, existence etc...what logic is in existence as an example?
Steven Wallis | Matts Roos One note to start - there are different forms of logic. In math, we might say that each sign (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) represents a different kind of logic. In philosophy (and building theores) I strongly advocate for the use of "causal logics." That is, statements which indicate causal relationships between things. For example, "More rain causes more plant growth." I presume that all good theories of physics are based on causal logics (as well as math). For example, to balance the theory of F=ma, one can say that (if the force remains constant) increasing the mass will cause a decrease in the acceleration.
There are many other logics which i do not like - that are often used in philosophy. We could say that there is a 'logic' of claiming that something "is" or that something "is important." There are also logics which identify a relationship without identifying what that relationship is. For example, "apples are related to rain." Another, more reasonable, logic is categorical. For example, a statement claiming that "apples exist in a category called fruit."
For the role of these logics, I suggest that there should be some kind of progression. From identifying/claiming that something exists, to claiming a relationship between that thing and other things, to claiming casual relationships... about here we would switch from philosophy to scientific investigation... studying those apparent causal relationships, and eventually quantifying it all into a neat mathematical formula.
Hmm... I'm not sure what that implies for claims that there is a "reality" as reality doesn't seem to be part of another category or have a causal relationship with anything (as even fiction is part of reality).
Sundaresan Muthuswamy | There is no mathematics in philosophy, nor can it be quantified. It is only a way of thinking leading to constructive or useful work.While science the output is focused, philosophy is general and may have lead to new pathways in science. I am writing this because the topic under discussion does involve non scientific expressions, even like cats and dogs and someone stretched it to religion and Gods.
If anyone as a scientist who had made an important discovery, invention or contribution breathing creativity can share their experience as to how such an event was possible. If he feels there was some or no philosophical content prior to starting and during the course of work, then we will have a down to earth fact mentioned. Of course then we will have to believe the speaker.
The building of the Egyptian pyramids had an underlying philosophy strongly in the minds of the pharaoh who built it. There was a lot of engineering sciences and the very hard labor behind it. Without the thought the driving force no pyramids would have been there.The philosophy of one person can be easily criticized, but the outcome does matter for some who value it and that is how everything is built around the world.
Matts Roos | Replying to the appeal of Sundaresan: I have been a life-long scientist who can claim an important contribution breathing creativity for which there was no philosophical content prior to starting and during the course of work. I agree that there is no mathematics in philosophy, nor can it be quantified.
Barbara L. Mccombs |
Matts Roos Now I wonder why so many insist that philosophy is fundamentally based on mathematical principles? In my view, mathematics may be a way to describe reality but is not always part of what it means to be a philosopher.
Dorina Grossu | Sundaresan Muthuswamy and Matts Roos,
Is it then safe to say that philosophers who also developed some of the mathematical theories were trying to introduce mathematics into philosophy by quantifying and qualifying the concepts?
There is literature about brain computation therefore it would be interesting to know whether computation can reproduce some of the brain thinking and then correlate those findings to human past history..
As an example, in genetic there proteins that act as switches " Thinking about this odd situation taught scientists an important lesson—that the proteins made by some genes can act as switches. Switch genes are master controllers that provide each body part with a kind of identification card. If a protein that normally instructs cells to become an antenna is disrupted, cells can receive new instructions to become a leg instead. "...what can we figure out about disruptions? Are the same disruptions that you referred before as "discriminative power"? But that gets us back to the matter etc...so, what is out there that can make decisions whether a change shall occur or not?
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Matts Roos,
No math in philosophy? Well, I would argue such statement. Instead, I would say that there is no (or maybe not yet) explicit math in philosophy. Once you seek for and recognize "interrelationships", which should be the goal of philosophy as well, you do some kind of math, even if you do not use math formulas, but - instead - the "everyday" language is used. And, of course, you definitely use logic, which is again math.
Matts Roos | Dear Laszlo,
Of course logic is an inseparable element in math. But I don't know whether logic is an inseparable element in philosophy - give me an eaxample!
Dorina Grossu | Wouldn't be fair to say that in philosophy we have both logic and non-logic i.e. matter, existence etc...what logic is in existence as an example?
Steven Wallis | Matts Roos One note to start - there are different forms of logic. In math, we might say that each sign (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) represents a different kind of logic. In philosophy (and building theores) I strongly advocate for the use of "causal logics." That is, statements which indicate causal relationships between things. For example, "More rain causes more plant growth." I presume that all good theories of physics are based on causal logics (as well as math). For example, to balance the theory of F=ma, one can say that (if the force remains constant) increasing the mass will cause a decrease in the acceleration.
There are many other logics which i do not like - that are often used in philosophy. We could say that there is a 'logic' of claiming that something "is" or that something "is important." There are also logics which identify a relationship without identifying what that relationship is. For example, "apples are related to rain." Another, more reasonable, logic is categorical. For example, a statement claiming that "apples exist in a category called fruit."
For the role of these logics, I suggest that there should be some kind of progression. From identifying/claiming that something exists, to claiming a relationship between that thing and other things, to claiming casual relationships... about here we would switch from philosophy to scientific investigation... studying those apparent causal relationships, and eventually quantifying it all into a neat mathematical formula.
Hmm... I'm not sure what that implies for claims that there is a "reality" as reality doesn't seem to be part of another category or have a causal relationship with anything (as even fiction is part of reality).
Apr 28, 2017
Frank Wimberly | Matts,
You asked for an example of the use of logic in philosophy: Anselm's proof of the existence of God.
God is that entity greater than which no other entity can be conceived. If God doesn't exist then there is an entity greater than God. But God is the greatest conceivable entity. Contradiction! Therefore God exists.
Purportedly, Bertrand Russell fell off his bike when he realized the validity of this proof. I believe books have been written about Anselm's proof but I suspect you need to understand formal logic to read them. The soundness of the proof is another question.
Frank
G = A s.t. for all B (A > B). not Exists G -> exists C s.t. C > G. Therefore not Exists G -> G > C and C > G. Therefore G exists.
Ioannis Samaras | In the language of maths (algebra), "1+2=Z3". So, for a common (Z-integer's addition) : Z3=3 , where integers Z, under addition is an abelian group. In the language of philosophy, we have to solve some sophisticated (or even paradoxical) problems, say an example:
"1 ACTION 2 = 13". So, we search WHAT ACTION could solve this (example) problem, in philosophy.
Galileo Galilei happened to start his scientific life in philosophy and he had to solve (philosophical) problems, as the latter one. He considered maths in order to find an ACTION (or ready math processes) for his (philosophical) problems.
Galileo Galilei is well known, today, for his "Pendulum", among other. Actually, his life includes some (Pendulum) periods between science and philosophy, e.g. from the pure logic of science to the philosophy and the reverse. A pendulum of logic(s). Our mind is a pendulum of logic(s), also.
{Отлично раскрыт универсальный смысл языка и коммуникации вообще. Поскольку, это всегда (на универсальном уровне) обмен энергетическими пакетами между системами, приводящий к изменениям в их состоянии (causality of [inter]actions). Продолжение ниже.}
Eugene F Kislyakov | Spinoza's proof is analogous to Anselm's, Frank. When did Anselm live?
Eugene F Kislyakov | Think about non-existence (read Parmenides), Dorina, and You'll see the logic of existence.
Ioannis Samaras | A link for Plato (and Parmenides) :
Plato, The Dialogues of Plato, vol. 4 (Parmenides, Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman, Philebus) [1892]
1892
Sergey Shevchenko | Any/every rational consideration of any problem is built in accordance with the logics, as a chain of statements “if…, then…”, “since…, so….”, etc., including practically every mainstream philosophical doctrine. That is another thing, that logic – and mathematics as a whole- is nothing more then some instrument, which only guarantees that if there is/are some initial conditions and corresponding initial propositions, then the result of logics/math applications will be in accordance with these initial conditions/propositions. {+1}
However, the choice of the initial conditions/propositions can be irrational and so the corresponding logical consideration’s result will be for sure equally irrational {+1}; the classical example – the existence of extremely widely considered more then a couple thousands years two main mainstream-philosophical doctrines, which give two quite different answers on the question “what is our Universe and what is the Being of the Universe?” – when seems evident that there exist only one Universe and only one Being of the Universe.
And such situation is quite illogical…
Cheers
{С этим, что выделил здесь жирным, я согласен, конечно, иначе не написал бы один из самых просматриваемых у меня комментариев на RG в теме "If we are using an inductive approach in research, do we necessarily need to formulate hypothesis?" - часть которого включена здесь (▲)}
Frank Wimberly | Matts,
You asked for an example of the use of logic in philosophy: Anselm's proof of the existence of God.
God is that entity greater than which no other entity can be conceived. If God doesn't exist then there is an entity greater than God. But God is the greatest conceivable entity. Contradiction! Therefore God exists.
Purportedly, Bertrand Russell fell off his bike when he realized the validity of this proof. I believe books have been written about Anselm's proof but I suspect you need to understand formal logic to read them. The soundness of the proof is another question.
Frank
G = A s.t. for all B (A > B). not Exists G -> exists C s.t. C > G. Therefore not Exists G -> G > C and C > G. Therefore G exists.
Ioannis Samaras | In the language of maths (algebra), "1+2=Z3". So, for a common (Z-integer's addition) : Z3=3 , where integers Z, under addition is an abelian group. In the language of philosophy, we have to solve some sophisticated (or even paradoxical) problems, say an example:
"1 ACTION 2 = 13". So, we search WHAT ACTION could solve this (example) problem, in philosophy.
Galileo Galilei happened to start his scientific life in philosophy and he had to solve (philosophical) problems, as the latter one. He considered maths in order to find an ACTION (or ready math processes) for his (philosophical) problems.
Galileo Galilei is well known, today, for his "Pendulum", among other. Actually, his life includes some (Pendulum) periods between science and philosophy, e.g. from the pure logic of science to the philosophy and the reverse. A pendulum of logic(s). Our mind is a pendulum of logic(s), also.
{Отлично раскрыт универсальный смысл языка и коммуникации вообще. Поскольку, это всегда (на универсальном уровне) обмен энергетическими пакетами между системами, приводящий к изменениям в их состоянии (causality of [inter]actions). Продолжение ниже.}
Eugene F Kislyakov | Spinoza's proof is analogous to Anselm's, Frank. When did Anselm live?
Eugene F Kislyakov | Think about non-existence (read Parmenides), Dorina, and You'll see the logic of existence.
Ioannis Samaras | A link for Plato (and Parmenides) :
Plato, The Dialogues of Plato, vol. 4 (Parmenides, Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman, Philebus) [1892]
1892
Sergey Shevchenko | Any/every rational consideration of any problem is built in accordance with the logics, as a chain of statements “if…, then…”, “since…, so….”, etc., including practically every mainstream philosophical doctrine. That is another thing, that logic – and mathematics as a whole- is nothing more then some instrument, which only guarantees that if there is/are some initial conditions and corresponding initial propositions, then the result of logics/math applications will be in accordance with these initial conditions/propositions. {+1}
However, the choice of the initial conditions/propositions can be irrational and so the corresponding logical consideration’s result will be for sure equally irrational {+1}; the classical example – the existence of extremely widely considered more then a couple thousands years two main mainstream-philosophical doctrines, which give two quite different answers on the question “what is our Universe and what is the Being of the Universe?” – when seems evident that there exist only one Universe and only one Being of the Universe.
And such situation is quite illogical…
Cheers
{С этим, что выделил здесь жирным, я согласен, конечно, иначе не написал бы один из самых просматриваемых у меня комментариев на RG в теме "If we are using an inductive approach in research, do we necessarily need to formulate hypothesis?" - часть которого включена здесь (▲)}
Apr 29, 2017
Dragan Pavlovic | Frank Wimberly,
Logic is about the form and not about the content {+1} and may just help about how the world is but does not provide proofs about it and can say nothing about the existence of God.
{Логика - это о взаимосвязях, и, однозначно, не о simple statements, т.е. не об аксиомах.}
Eugene F Kislyakov | About language, Dragan. We did not produce, we found it. {+1}
Regards,
Eugene.
Vasyl Komarov | Sergei, why do you think "logic and mathematics" are the guarantor of something for you? Why do you trust them? This is a belief, in fact. The same controversial belief, as well as the statement of the truth of something.
You, like most people in this context, discard even the idea of having to think about the reasons for trust in mathematics and logic. Although, it is with this attitude to the formal structures involved in the exchange of information, the situation of "two universes" takes place.
Vasyl Komarov | Math and logic are not some kind of abstraction, far from reality. It is just a relationship in the structure of the matter of your brain, the structure of the matter of your personal computer, etc... just the physical order of alternation and interaction of information (i.e. physical structures), the same as order that we describe with help of mathematics. It definitely requires an understanding of the physics of similarity of processes in nature, in order to trust mathematics not at the level of belief. However, such understanding inevitably changes perception of the universe.
Sergey Shevchenko | Dragan Pavlovic
“…Logic is about the form and not about the content…”
that seems would be more correct if is “…Logic is about the form and relates to the content practically only in that it forms the content rational and substantive…”
Cheers
Vasyl Komarov | Logic is not about content, not about form (in spite that it has a formalism), logic is about relations.
Dorina Grossu | Vasyl Komarov,
I've just tried to answer and then realized that my content was poor therefore deleted my message, but I agree that we are at this time more into relations rather than content and form(s) vs. matter.
The only way Laszlo G Meszaros we could build something is when we have all the tools built, relationships and forms, matter etc..No system then becomes superior or inferior from that perspective, but rather is nothing else than a state and that gets us back to Nicholas Simonds Thompson who mentioned about past, present and future as they all co-exist.
It can become the next approach when wars will disappear such that peace will prevail. Would that be ever possible?
Sergey Shevchenko | Vasilli,
“…Sergei, why do you think "logic and mathematics" are the guarantor of something for you? Why do you trust them? This is a belief, in fact. …”
It seems you read corresponding SS comment here too non-attentively. In the comment seems quite correctly written - what are logics and mathematics when are used by humans at elaborating/creating some information:
“…logic – and mathematics as a whole- is nothing more then some instrument, which only guarantees that if there is/are some initial conditions and corresponding initial propositions, then the result of logics/math applications will be in accordance with these initial conditions/propositions.
However, the choice of the initial conditions/propositions can be irrational and so the corresponding logical consideration’s result will be for sure equally irrational…”
So “to trust something” is possible only if this something is outside logics and mathematics, if they are applied correctly, of course.
And
“Logic is not about content, not about form (in spite that it has a formalism), logic is about relations”
logics isn’t “about relations”, it is a set of rules, which, if applied, make some relations logical.
Cheers
Herb Spencer | How disappointing to see so many educated people (R/G members) falling back into the obscurantist chasm of religion.
Please folk, study history more than your 'science' projects. The Reformation allowed Europe to break the monopolistic grip of fanatical intellectuals (aka priests). Really, do you want to be burning the challengers of orthodoxy at the stake?
{Это, вообще, очень больная тема для общества, на любом его срезе. Постоянно встречаются люди, которые умудряются очень селективно сочетать фрагменты систем убуждений, находящихся в неразрешимом противоречии из самых базовых предпосылкок. Самое страшное, данный подход является "мейнстримом" в общем зачёте. Их полно не только на RG.
Присутствие хотя-бы одного табуированного элемента в системе убеждений индивидуума всегда ведёт к единственному результату - фундаментальной неспособности преодолеть соответствующее когнитивное искажение. С учетом сказанного выше про белый шум на входе системы, очевидно, к какому именно результату.}
Dragan Pavlovic | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
I have an impression that you tend to obscure logic. It is ridiculous to develop such ideas and attributes to logic like you are doing. Please do some logic and you will realize its simplicity that is contained in its symbols, arguments and rules. Logic or logics do not go beyond OUR power of reasoning and long elaborations are simple use and repetitions of accepted rules and routines. We cannot think more then our reason permits us. Intuition defined as "direct reasoning and understanding" is chimera. We have what we have and not more.
It is the same with mathematics. Our mathematical capacity is trivial; this is the mathematical apparatus that is complex and makes us think this is we who are capable of "doing things" with mathematics. We alone, without that apparatus, cannot manipulate with numbers greater then 3 and already use "models" to calculate even up to 7 or 9!
What is the matter with you people?
Dragan Pavlovic | TO ALL
Please, I think I was clear. Please do the same. Pleas try to write "in English". I hold for nonsense a lot of what you wrote in the recent days. NONSENSE. What is the matter with you? Is this how you do in your life? If you claim this, this is a lye. Please be sincere with yourself and do not pretend clavernes since what is clear to people who read this - is just nonsense.
Herb Spencer | Geometry has a lot to answer for. Its axioms appealed to human intuitions and built its logic on definition and properties of idealized objects. Unfortunately, its proof-style has become accepted as the ideal model for human proof and logical thinking - neither of which are found in man or nature.
Ioannis Samaras | Maths is a language. Then, sometimes philosophy ask maths if some (paradoxical) philosophical problems like
"1 ACTION 2 = 13" could be solved, in math language, e.g. do the job for philosophy. So, we search WHAT ACTION could solve it in this language, e.g. find a set for the ACTION.
Mirjana Vukovic | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov
I am agree with you. You are a physicist and a scientist who not only knows and understands, but also feels the mathematics. A good physicist must not only know a lot of mathematics, but he needs to know to use it and applies, too.
"Philosophy of Science" is a project for philosophers and mathematicians, as well as for those scientists who know and understand both mathematics and philosophy and have a broad general education.
Logic is a common discipline for philosophers and mathematicians.
Why, in the school, with the mother tongue is mathematics the most important? Because the mathematics learns the child to think and logically connects the concepts and facts as well as perform conclusions.
Dragan Pavlovic | Frank Wimberly,
Logic is about the form and not about the content {+1} and may just help about how the world is but does not provide proofs about it and can say nothing about the existence of God.
{Логика - это о взаимосвязях, и, однозначно, не о simple statements, т.е. не об аксиомах.}
Eugene F Kislyakov | About language, Dragan. We did not produce, we found it. {+1}
Regards,
Eugene.
Vasyl Komarov | Sergei, why do you think "logic and mathematics" are the guarantor of something for you? Why do you trust them? This is a belief, in fact. The same controversial belief, as well as the statement of the truth of something.
You, like most people in this context, discard even the idea of having to think about the reasons for trust in mathematics and logic. Although, it is with this attitude to the formal structures involved in the exchange of information, the situation of "two universes" takes place.
Vasyl Komarov | Math and logic are not some kind of abstraction, far from reality. It is just a relationship in the structure of the matter of your brain, the structure of the matter of your personal computer, etc... just the physical order of alternation and interaction of information (i.e. physical structures), the same as order that we describe with help of mathematics. It definitely requires an understanding of the physics of similarity of processes in nature, in order to trust mathematics not at the level of belief. However, such understanding inevitably changes perception of the universe.
Sergey Shevchenko | Dragan Pavlovic
“…Logic is about the form and not about the content…”
that seems would be more correct if is “…Logic is about the form and relates to the content practically only in that it forms the content rational and substantive…”
Cheers
Vasyl Komarov | Logic is not about content, not about form (in spite that it has a formalism), logic is about relations.
Dorina Grossu | Vasyl Komarov,
I've just tried to answer and then realized that my content was poor therefore deleted my message, but I agree that we are at this time more into relations rather than content and form(s) vs. matter.
The only way Laszlo G Meszaros we could build something is when we have all the tools built, relationships and forms, matter etc..No system then becomes superior or inferior from that perspective, but rather is nothing else than a state and that gets us back to Nicholas Simonds Thompson who mentioned about past, present and future as they all co-exist.
It can become the next approach when wars will disappear such that peace will prevail. Would that be ever possible?
Sergey Shevchenko | Vasilli,
“…Sergei, why do you think "logic and mathematics" are the guarantor of something for you? Why do you trust them? This is a belief, in fact. …”
It seems you read corresponding SS comment here too non-attentively. In the comment seems quite correctly written - what are logics and mathematics when are used by humans at elaborating/creating some information:
“…logic – and mathematics as a whole- is nothing more then some instrument, which only guarantees that if there is/are some initial conditions and corresponding initial propositions, then the result of logics/math applications will be in accordance with these initial conditions/propositions.
However, the choice of the initial conditions/propositions can be irrational and so the corresponding logical consideration’s result will be for sure equally irrational…”
So “to trust something” is possible only if this something is outside logics and mathematics, if they are applied correctly, of course.
And
“Logic is not about content, not about form (in spite that it has a formalism), logic is about relations”
logics isn’t “about relations”, it is a set of rules, which, if applied, make some relations logical.
Cheers
Herb Spencer | How disappointing to see so many educated people (R/G members) falling back into the obscurantist chasm of religion.
Please folk, study history more than your 'science' projects. The Reformation allowed Europe to break the monopolistic grip of fanatical intellectuals (aka priests). Really, do you want to be burning the challengers of orthodoxy at the stake?
{Это, вообще, очень больная тема для общества, на любом его срезе. Постоянно встречаются люди, которые умудряются очень селективно сочетать фрагменты систем убуждений, находящихся в неразрешимом противоречии из самых базовых предпосылкок. Самое страшное, данный подход является "мейнстримом" в общем зачёте. Их полно не только на RG.
Присутствие хотя-бы одного табуированного элемента в системе убеждений индивидуума всегда ведёт к единственному результату - фундаментальной неспособности преодолеть соответствующее когнитивное искажение. С учетом сказанного выше про белый шум на входе системы, очевидно, к какому именно результату.}
Dragan Pavlovic | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
I have an impression that you tend to obscure logic. It is ridiculous to develop such ideas and attributes to logic like you are doing. Please do some logic and you will realize its simplicity that is contained in its symbols, arguments and rules. Logic or logics do not go beyond OUR power of reasoning and long elaborations are simple use and repetitions of accepted rules and routines. We cannot think more then our reason permits us. Intuition defined as "direct reasoning and understanding" is chimera. We have what we have and not more.
It is the same with mathematics. Our mathematical capacity is trivial; this is the mathematical apparatus that is complex and makes us think this is we who are capable of "doing things" with mathematics. We alone, without that apparatus, cannot manipulate with numbers greater then 3 and already use "models" to calculate even up to 7 or 9!
What is the matter with you people?
Dragan Pavlovic | TO ALL
Please, I think I was clear. Please do the same. Pleas try to write "in English". I hold for nonsense a lot of what you wrote in the recent days. NONSENSE. What is the matter with you? Is this how you do in your life? If you claim this, this is a lye. Please be sincere with yourself and do not pretend clavernes since what is clear to people who read this - is just nonsense.
Herb Spencer | Geometry has a lot to answer for. Its axioms appealed to human intuitions and built its logic on definition and properties of idealized objects. Unfortunately, its proof-style has become accepted as the ideal model for human proof and logical thinking - neither of which are found in man or nature.
Ioannis Samaras | Maths is a language. Then, sometimes philosophy ask maths if some (paradoxical) philosophical problems like
"1 ACTION 2 = 13" could be solved, in math language, e.g. do the job for philosophy. So, we search WHAT ACTION could solve it in this language, e.g. find a set for the ACTION.
Mirjana Vukovic | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov
I am agree with you. You are a physicist and a scientist who not only knows and understands, but also feels the mathematics. A good physicist must not only know a lot of mathematics, but he needs to know to use it and applies, too.
"Philosophy of Science" is a project for philosophers and mathematicians, as well as for those scientists who know and understand both mathematics and philosophy and have a broad general education.
Logic is a common discipline for philosophers and mathematicians.
Why, in the school, with the mother tongue is mathematics the most important? Because the mathematics learns the child to think and logically connects the concepts and facts as well as perform conclusions.
Apr 30, 2017
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Dorina Grossu, yes, this is apparently impossible. Anyway, from my point of view.
The world is a balance. The utopia that you are talking about is also a balance. But this is a static balance. Too many factors testify not in his favor.
If I were not familiar with the hypothesis of the Red (Black) Queen or in a more general form, with self-organized criticality, I could (naively) believe that this form of balance takes place in nature. Alas, in an open system any balance, apparently, is limited in time. It can be better or worse at a certain stage, be closer to utopia, strive for utopia. But, as I never tire of repeating, stability is the most ridiculous word for eternity.
{Вообще, забавно осознавать всю глубину дуализма данного явления, как говорил Евгений: a plenty existences in something vs only one holistic existence.
Это моя самая долгая дорога осознания разницы: self vs consciousness.}
Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place [Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass]. Adaptive landscape will change significantly and inevitably, sooner or later.
However, I suppose with a high probability such a "utopian" union of people within the planet, if our civilization rises to the next level of evolution, by expanding to at least one more planet or on our adaptive landscape a comparable figure of another alien civilization will rise. Then, very likely, we will play in a different competition, on a large scale.
There are more several possible ways to avoid "internecine warfare." For example, people due to development of personal intelligence, respectively, introversion, will move away from each other, if possible avoiding unnecessary contacts. This, too, can save us from wars... If were not the train of evolutionary prehistory, which will always exist together with the current "king of the mountain" (in the sense, the "crown of evolution") as a single system (thereby ensuring its existence).
Stability of the system in the redundancy of information. This is a universal principle, it works not only when burning CDs. But! The system does not care what part of it is lost in the process of ensuring stability due to damage in contact with the changing adaptive landscape. I should note here, this is a good reason why Universality is not about the maximum density of information (those, not about maximum chaoticity).
By the way, do you know this good utopia of Jacque Fresco? www.thevenusproject.com
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Ioannis Samaras, if we take into account that the set of actions is a process, it follows a completely logical conclusion that the language of math predicts the development of events. This is so, in fact.
This, incidentally, applies to any language (the predictive power of the appearance of a next symbol/sentence/rooted semantics i.e. action is related to the entropy in information theory). Although, here something humanity (because of its youth at the moment) still poorly understands, the mathematical formalism is still well compressible (despite the greatest predictive power). Again, the matter concerns Universality and the so-called "golden sections", or we are still very far from perfection and simplicity.
Mankind is only now ripening in order to recognize and realize determinism on which Einstein insisted.
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Dear Dragan Pavlovic, I will allow myself to disperse in opinion with you, I just do not see the point of abandoning the information available to intelligence.
NB: Under intelligence I understand not a man or mankind, and not any single person, of course.
{Вообще, здесь следует поставить знак равенства:
Дещо дійсно від нас не залежить, "маємо те, що маємо" :)
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Dorina Grossu, yes, this is apparently impossible. Anyway, from my point of view.
The world is a balance. The utopia that you are talking about is also a balance. But this is a static balance. Too many factors testify not in his favor.
If I were not familiar with the hypothesis of the Red (Black) Queen or in a more general form, with self-organized criticality, I could (naively) believe that this form of balance takes place in nature. Alas, in an open system any balance, apparently, is limited in time. It can be better or worse at a certain stage, be closer to utopia, strive for utopia. But, as I never tire of repeating, stability is the most ridiculous word for eternity.
{Вообще, забавно осознавать всю глубину дуализма данного явления, как говорил Евгений: a plenty existences in something vs only one holistic existence.
An interesting nuance, BTW. Consciousness is principally (asymptotically) unitary in nature (cos of holism of self-organisation laws invariant), in contrast to self-awareness, which implies a plural form. It is also such a simple reason of the superego vs ego relationships. #H_1 https://t.co/YHxsOe6pwK
— Vasyl Komarov (@vfkomarov) May 23, 2020
Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place [Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass]. Adaptive landscape will change significantly and inevitably, sooner or later.
However, I suppose with a high probability such a "utopian" union of people within the planet, if our civilization rises to the next level of evolution, by expanding to at least one more planet or on our adaptive landscape a comparable figure of another alien civilization will rise. Then, very likely, we will play in a different competition, on a large scale.
There are more several possible ways to avoid "internecine warfare." For example, people due to development of personal intelligence, respectively, introversion, will move away from each other, if possible avoiding unnecessary contacts. This, too, can save us from wars... If were not the train of evolutionary prehistory, which will always exist together with the current "king of the mountain" (in the sense, the "crown of evolution") as a single system (thereby ensuring its existence).
Stability of the system in the redundancy of information. This is a universal principle, it works not only when burning CDs. But! The system does not care what part of it is lost in the process of ensuring stability due to damage in contact with the changing adaptive landscape. I should note here, this is a good reason why Universality is not about the maximum density of information (those, not about maximum chaoticity).
By the way, do you know this good utopia of Jacque Fresco? www.thevenusproject.com
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Ioannis Samaras, if we take into account that the set of actions is a process, it follows a completely logical conclusion that the language of math predicts the development of events. This is so, in fact.
This, incidentally, applies to any language (the predictive power of the appearance of a next symbol/sentence/rooted semantics i.e. action is related to the entropy in information theory). Although, here something humanity (because of its youth at the moment) still poorly understands, the mathematical formalism is still well compressible (despite the greatest predictive power). Again, the matter concerns Universality and the so-called "golden sections", or we are still very far from perfection and simplicity.
Mankind is only now ripening in order to recognize and realize determinism on which Einstein insisted.
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Dear Dragan Pavlovic, I will allow myself to disperse in opinion with you, I just do not see the point of abandoning the information available to intelligence.
NB: Under intelligence I understand not a man or mankind, and not any single person, of course.
{Вообще, здесь следует поставить знак равенства:
intelligence = consciousness = holism (= fine tuning)Иначе - вечное барахтание в нулевой гипотезе, т.е. тупик!}
Дещо дійсно від нас не залежить, "маємо те, що маємо" :)
Vasyl Komarov |
До речі, прохання писати "in English" провокує бажання покинути цю дискусію, а іноді навіть RG. Англійська мова має деякі (невеликі) переваги в ентропії перед іншими, втім, це, можливо, також ії недолік. Світ не був би таким, як би він не був таким різноманітним.
Ciao
{Дорогой Драган, конечно, ещё тот grammar nazi - здесь пропущена куча "наездов" на участников дискуссии, а правильный английский в его понимании для всех остальных всё равно останется загадкой :-)}
Dragan Pavlovic | Vasyl Komarov, Vladimir A. Kulchitsky, It is possible that we have a serious language problem and not the problem of the understanding of the concepts. What you wrote in the majority of your comments, does not make much sense in English. It is therefore not possible to recognize the concepts or the propositions.
You write:
"I will allow myself to disperse in opinion with you, I just do not see the point of abandoning the information available to intelligence.
NB: Under intelligence I understand not a man or mankind, and not any single person, of course."
You probably mean in the first part that you "disagree".
The second part is nonsense for me: "abandoning the information available to intelligence"???
Your earlier comments are also without any clear meaning. It is the same with what Dorina Grossu writes almost all the time.
There is either a serious language problem, or there are people who think that just mentioning some concepts like "intelligence", "logic", "philosophy" or mentioning some expressions that are used in the genre that is frequent in communication science, or philosophy, is enough to assume some philosophical or scientific proposition. If there is no explanation and a full argument, this remains to be nonsense. Sorry, I do not see other explanations.
Apparently some people recognize some propositions - Mirjana Vukovic, Eugene F Kislyakov or some other who make also comments on mentioned interventions. Would people who can follow these comments explain what is this what Vasyl Komarov or Dorina Grossu are saying, please.
Matts Roos | Dragan Pavlovic, Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
I agree with Dragan's criticism. Philosophers often disagree with each other because they mean different things with the same words. The discussion becomes even more meaningless when they don't master the language they use.
Ioannis Samaras | The discussion becomes even more meaningless when the masters of the language discuss with criticism, only {+100500}. What are their proposals ?
Dragan Pavlovic | Ioannis Samaras, Others,
Please donot write one word or an wxpression, write full argument.
(***)
Steven Wallis | Vasyl Komarov very good points made. Particularly with utopian societies. I have also suggested that utopian communities fail because the participants push themselves into a static state. In the real world, in contrast, a society should be evolving and changing if it is to survive. To have a society with an unchanging set of rules would require that the outside world not change and that the people within the community remain unchanged. Not the sort of place I would want to live!
Steven Wallis | Dragan Pavlovic you write, "Please donot write one word or an wxpression, write full argument." I share your frustration - and also recognize that what is happening is part of the process of philosophy and science. Part of philosophy is to create new ideas. And, those may be expressed as "simple" or "atomistic" notions. As with your example, "Modern christianity is totally rationalized concept since Hegel's times." Those are not useful statements. Yes - very frustrating. The next step would be to ask questions relating to measurability and causality such as "how do you measure those terms (moderness, rationalization). And to ask questions of causality (what causes more modernization? what causes more rationalization? - also - as modernization and rationalization increase, what changes in other things result).
Instead of complaining about how stupid we are (and yes, indeed, we are) your brilliance might be better applied by asking those guiding questions. And, with hope, we can all learn to express our ideas in more complex and causally interconnected ways that make sense.
Nicholas Simonds Thompson | All,
For those poor sods amongst us who read only English, here, courtesy of Google Translate, are the words written above in Ukranian, I think.
I will confess that much of what I read here makes no sense to me. But I think the reverse is also true: that much of what I have written here concerning the scientific philosophy of Pragmaticism makes no sense to most of you either, despite my earnest attempts to stay within a frame and develop a context. I can tell because few people have responded, or when you have responded, often the responses don't fit with what I think I have said. I would guess, for instance, Athat I have failed to communicate to most of you what it means for Pragmaticism to be a MONISM. Further, I would guess I have been unable to communicate to you the two basic assertions of Pragmaticism:
So, the question for each of us is, whether it makes sense for us to engage in such inefficient communication. That is a decision that each of us has to make in the daily context of our otherwise busy lives. But only if we treat it as the extraordinarily difficult endeavor that it is. I think it works better when we are talking about something quite specific; even better when we have a specific text in front of us. Then, the text provides a "frame" which holds us all in place. Perhaps our leader will provide us with such a text to work with, in the near future. And perhaps, for a time, we could stick closely to the text in our discussion so we may better understand one another.
All the best.
Nick
Dragan Pavlovic | Nicholas Simonds Thompson,
Thanks a lot. You hope that people would now understand what is this that I kindly asked? I do not think so. Nobody was ready to explain a sentence example that I gave. I could give some more sentences that some of our friends on this thread wrote. They wouldn´t have been able to explain them either. Because those sentences do not have sense, no meaning. People write things that do not have meaning - on purpose. Because they just do not want to say anything at all. Even my friend Eugene F Kislyakov writes this (and this is not one of worst examples, I will give this one because Eugene knows that my comment is not hostile; if I gave her text as an example, Dorina Grossu would be offended):
"Hegel's philosophy is the direct consequence of European rationalism, Dragan. Concerning religion, he has carefully analized it's history (all known religions) and made conclusions.
The problem is only in low level of modern education."
What is the meaning of this? Hegel studied history of religions and made some conclusions (Fine, so what? Which conclusions?), And then comes "the low level of modern education". What is then the meaning of this, "low level", so what?
Dear Eugene, please do not encourage this style of empty comments.
Dorina Grossu | Nicholas Simonds Thompson,
Sorry, but who is "our" leader? All topics were started by Hossein Najafizadeh because otherwise many would not have been here on this topic. Some left this topic because they were almost chased away. The question is if the behavior among some "professors" is not inclusive, what type of education is provided through the schooling system in Canada, USA?
It is just fair to assume that some understand more while others understand less since we all have different "languages" when it comes to knowledge, patterns of thinking etc.We touched some points before regarding the language but more details are on pages -155-160...I will take a break for a while:-)
Ciao
{Дорогой Драган, конечно, ещё тот grammar nazi - здесь пропущена куча "наездов" на участников дискуссии, а правильный английский в его понимании для всех остальных всё равно останется загадкой :-)}
Dragan Pavlovic | Vasyl Komarov, Vladimir A. Kulchitsky, It is possible that we have a serious language problem and not the problem of the understanding of the concepts. What you wrote in the majority of your comments, does not make much sense in English. It is therefore not possible to recognize the concepts or the propositions.
You write:
"I will allow myself to disperse in opinion with you, I just do not see the point of abandoning the information available to intelligence.
NB: Under intelligence I understand not a man or mankind, and not any single person, of course."
You probably mean in the first part that you "disagree".
The second part is nonsense for me: "abandoning the information available to intelligence"???
Your earlier comments are also without any clear meaning. It is the same with what Dorina Grossu writes almost all the time.
There is either a serious language problem, or there are people who think that just mentioning some concepts like "intelligence", "logic", "philosophy" or mentioning some expressions that are used in the genre that is frequent in communication science, or philosophy, is enough to assume some philosophical or scientific proposition. If there is no explanation and a full argument, this remains to be nonsense. Sorry, I do not see other explanations.
Apparently some people recognize some propositions - Mirjana Vukovic, Eugene F Kislyakov or some other who make also comments on mentioned interventions. Would people who can follow these comments explain what is this what Vasyl Komarov or Dorina Grossu are saying, please.
Matts Roos | Dragan Pavlovic, Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
I agree with Dragan's criticism. Philosophers often disagree with each other because they mean different things with the same words. The discussion becomes even more meaningless when they don't master the language they use.
Ioannis Samaras | The discussion becomes even more meaningless when the masters of the language discuss with criticism, only {+100500}. What are their proposals ?
Dragan Pavlovic | Ioannis Samaras, Others,
Please donot write one word or an wxpression, write full argument.
(***)
Steven Wallis | Vasyl Komarov very good points made. Particularly with utopian societies. I have also suggested that utopian communities fail because the participants push themselves into a static state. In the real world, in contrast, a society should be evolving and changing if it is to survive. To have a society with an unchanging set of rules would require that the outside world not change and that the people within the community remain unchanged. Not the sort of place I would want to live!
Steven Wallis | Dragan Pavlovic you write, "Please donot write one word or an wxpression, write full argument." I share your frustration - and also recognize that what is happening is part of the process of philosophy and science. Part of philosophy is to create new ideas. And, those may be expressed as "simple" or "atomistic" notions. As with your example, "Modern christianity is totally rationalized concept since Hegel's times." Those are not useful statements. Yes - very frustrating. The next step would be to ask questions relating to measurability and causality such as "how do you measure those terms (moderness, rationalization). And to ask questions of causality (what causes more modernization? what causes more rationalization? - also - as modernization and rationalization increase, what changes in other things result).
Instead of complaining about how stupid we are (and yes, indeed, we are) your brilliance might be better applied by asking those guiding questions. And, with hope, we can all learn to express our ideas in more complex and causally interconnected ways that make sense.
Nicholas Simonds Thompson | All,
For those poor sods amongst us who read only English, here, courtesy of Google Translate, are the words written above in Ukranian, I think.
- Something really does not depend on us, "we have what we have" :) By the way, "please write 'in English'" provokes the desire to leave this debate, and sometimes even RG. English has some (small) advantage over other entropy, however, it may also uu disadvantage. The world would not be the same as if he was not so varied.
I will confess that much of what I read here makes no sense to me. But I think the reverse is also true: that much of what I have written here concerning the scientific philosophy of Pragmaticism makes no sense to most of you either, despite my earnest attempts to stay within a frame and develop a context. I can tell because few people have responded, or when you have responded, often the responses don't fit with what I think I have said. I would guess, for instance, Athat I have failed to communicate to most of you what it means for Pragmaticism to be a MONISM. Further, I would guess I have been unable to communicate to you the two basic assertions of Pragmaticism:
- The scientific meaning of a term is the consequences it would have for our practices as scientists.
- [And therefore], The true opinion is that upon which the well-functioning scientific community will ultimately converge.
So, the question for each of us is, whether it makes sense for us to engage in such inefficient communication. That is a decision that each of us has to make in the daily context of our otherwise busy lives. But only if we treat it as the extraordinarily difficult endeavor that it is. I think it works better when we are talking about something quite specific; even better when we have a specific text in front of us. Then, the text provides a "frame" which holds us all in place. Perhaps our leader will provide us with such a text to work with, in the near future. And perhaps, for a time, we could stick closely to the text in our discussion so we may better understand one another.
All the best.
Nick
Dragan Pavlovic | Nicholas Simonds Thompson,
Thanks a lot. You hope that people would now understand what is this that I kindly asked? I do not think so. Nobody was ready to explain a sentence example that I gave. I could give some more sentences that some of our friends on this thread wrote. They wouldn´t have been able to explain them either. Because those sentences do not have sense, no meaning. People write things that do not have meaning - on purpose. Because they just do not want to say anything at all. Even my friend Eugene F Kislyakov writes this (and this is not one of worst examples, I will give this one because Eugene knows that my comment is not hostile; if I gave her text as an example, Dorina Grossu would be offended):
"Hegel's philosophy is the direct consequence of European rationalism, Dragan. Concerning religion, he has carefully analized it's history (all known religions) and made conclusions.
The problem is only in low level of modern education."
What is the meaning of this? Hegel studied history of religions and made some conclusions (Fine, so what? Which conclusions?), And then comes "the low level of modern education". What is then the meaning of this, "low level", so what?
Dear Eugene, please do not encourage this style of empty comments.
Dorina Grossu | Nicholas Simonds Thompson,
Sorry, but who is "our" leader? All topics were started by Hossein Najafizadeh because otherwise many would not have been here on this topic. Some left this topic because they were almost chased away. The question is if the behavior among some "professors" is not inclusive, what type of education is provided through the schooling system in Canada, USA?
It is just fair to assume that some understand more while others understand less since we all have different "languages" when it comes to knowledge, patterns of thinking etc.We touched some points before regarding the language but more details are on pages -155-160...I will take a break for a while:-)
May 1, 2017
Medhat Elsahookie | Gentlemen !We been talking for a very long time on math and physics ! only ! Others would like to share their ideas in : philosophy of Science! Would please try to transfer the discussion to a wider Topic? Thanks.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Dragan Pavlovic (dear all),
As you have noticed, some people understand each other despite the fact that they use same terms as you. The situation is even more interesting, because these people understand not only each other (as you have already carefully noticed) but also perfectly understand you. I well understand why this happens. If you want clarification, it's very simple - for these people such a concepts (terms) have a different semantics (but they are sufficiently aware of your semantics).
Semantics exists for any word, even if it is a term for which you can find a lot of (sometimes completely different) definitions. The definitions does not cancel it. Unambiguously, semantics in the hands of each interpreter [Emilio Betti], it has individualism [tacit knowledge, Michael Polanyi]. Otherwise, we all might be always easy agree with each other.
For example, I can not afford to fix state of the definition of intelligence, because phenomenon is not yet sufficiently formalized. Sorry. I can only say with confidence that it is more complicated than single human person.
About communication...
Since we are talking about information exchange and languages, here are my few frank thoughts on the meaning of any dialogue, as is.
All people are very different, regardless of whether they are (by some criterion) philosophers or are unified by another criterion of classification. Even more important difference between people in the degree of ability to critical thinking. This may be the main indicator of a single person intelligence. It allows us to rationally commit reckless acts, although this sounds paradoxical, it is necessary for a more complex systems with us. This is a separate story
People mostly think in their native or most active for very long time language, although it is a little more complicated. Someone's thinking is more concretized (closer to tacit knowledge), someone thinking is more formalized (farther from tacit knowledge).
The exchange of information, which involves translation of a message between several individuals, always implies a partial loss (dissipation) of information with a bias towards formalization [Emilio Betti, Michael Polanyi].
Translation of the "internal concrete semantics" of message requires efforts. It's good, by the way, that, for example, books are translated into different languages. Any individual translation and interpretation (including such) can provoke various reactions, which author can not think about.
By the way, Dorina Grossu, for this reason it is useful to formulate messages, even if they do not sound good. Dialogue is useful on both sides. Each message causes a certain dissonance for each participant. This leads to changes in the perception of messages in each participant [just dialectics].
A more complex system uses less energy in messaging to make more significant changes in it. Simply, think from this point of view about the so-called "force carriers", with which communicates the simplest physical structures. Apparently, our entire system of communication is just a layering on this communication since gluons (here I recommend the ZEUS project of dearly respected Erkki Brandas, I think our views on the importance of communication in nature largely converge).
About grammar...
With regard to the language of communication, the world scientific community can communicate only on the global "surzhyk", because of idioms, exceptions in the structure of each language, etc. Not everyone has the opportunity to live for a while in the environment of native speakers of a particular language. Even prolonged contact does not guarantee that you will be thinking in one or another language. I take this for granted to any interlocutor, also I take into account that ability for languages is individual. Only in very neglected cases, only with respect to native speakers, I stand on the position of Grammar Nazi. All that you can appreciate with respect to the rest is the quality of machine translation, the inertia of thinking, inattention, hastiness, time pressure and the time spent on formulating an information message. Add here the efforts to formalize the concretized semantics, what not all people do as mechanical robots.
By the way, Esperanto was built on slavic phonemes, perhaps this is one of the reasons that it did not take root global. The main reason, of course, is that this was artificial design, the language must evolve natural.
About the topic...
I do not see the point of limiting the discussion to anything, if the header so boldly states so global topic. Otherwise, I should note, this discussion does not correspond to the title.
If you are only interested in Heisenberg, then it is history of science, but not the philosophy of science, if you are interested only in your opinion, it is belief and prejudice, sorry.
By the way, I stated my position with regard to Heisenberg's statement almost at the very beginning of my participation in the discussion and should note that I do not expect a consensus on this issue for anyone. It is quite enough that there is a group of people with similar thinking.
Once again, this is my opinion, if you have something that causes dissonance, you can ignore it, of course, but it is more interesting to provoke such a situation.
Thanks to deviation in thinking there are many contradictory ideas that now do not have a direct universally accepted application, but (in my humble opinion) will be in some kind of demand as the associated subjects of research will be more clearly marked and formalized (for example, system-vector psychology, theory of causality, etc.) Global resonance in the system begins with ventures, along the accumulation of contradictions to critical level. Paraphrasing sentence of Linus Pauling: "The best way to have a good hipothesis is to have a lot of hypotheses."
On mutual understanding...
As I have the insolence to say that I understand quite well what Heisenberg was talking about, I have little interest in the issues of individual religions, the biblical theme, etc. Most likely this moment is not clear to you. The problem of our mutual understanding is largely hidden in the fact that "modern science has produced very extensive laws." We both have clearly different semantics of the term "evolution". This leads to fatal consequences in mutual understanding on many other issues and sections of science from physics to philosophy.
The requirement for each participant of the conversation to expand the answer to the full meaning of the terminology goes beyond all reasonable limits for the same reason ("modern science has produced very extensive laws"). Yes, I do not like demarcation, it has an important function, but we have problems of misunderstanding each other in conditions where one section of science is not a science in the language of another section. This will be solved in the foreseeable future, science has already squeezed almost all possibilities out of the existing demarcation structure. I already talked about this earlier. Now it remains only to be satisfied that there are certain groups of people who understand each other.
About self-esteem and personal benefits of dialogue...
I know that I'm a rather bad speaker, especially when it comes to oral speaking. I even in general know why. I take it for granted, as you said, not everything depends on us, although something can sometimes be fixed. Also I long ago stopped to apologize for the poor knowledge of some languages. I'm just one person.
Perhaps, for you the discussion with me is not interesting or understandable. Yes, I also find many thoughts here archaic, but nevertheless I rarely attack opponents, only occasionally asked provocative questions.
I find conversation quite useful, for example, talk about mathematics here {about ACTION}. Such a discussions are just needed to formalize the not yet formalized.
Just think you are at the smörgåsbord, choose what you are interested in.
Laszlo G Meszaros | Do we still know what we are discussing here? (I do not mind at all to be side-tracked, but it is getting more and more difficult to follow this conversation. The RG programmers could help a little...)
Eugene F Kislyakov | Be true, Dragan, You had not answer no one Dorina's question till now, but there were many of them. Don't forget, that there are no stupid questions, there are stupid answers.
The topic of this project is "Philosophy of science". Please, realize, dear colleagues, that philosophy of anything (also science) without Hegel is a joke.
Regards,
Eugene.
Dorina Grossu | Nicholas Simonds Thompson,
As Vasyl Komarov mentioned " only that we thoroughly understand one another " appears to become the main challenge on this threat although it becomes a challenge when a certain attitude is instilled.
The pattern recognition is something that I have been trying to understand for a very long time yet I am still working on it; it is difficult because sometimes it takes time until I can gather all the data and proofs of what I see and be then able to interpret; this can be another topic
(***)
Dragan Pavlovic | Eugene F Kislyakov,
Please do not play Moses, formulate the argument.
Look what you wrote:
"Don't forget, that there are no stupid questions, there are stupid answers."
or:
"Please, realize, dear colleagues, that philosophy of anything (also science) without Hegel is a joke."
Those "proverbs" are EMPTY! Dorina Grossu does similar, and number of others: you are often just playing prophets. Why do you do this???
Could you reformulate and produce A CLEAR ARGUMENT out of just ONE of the questions of Dorine, please. Just ONE! Dorine made some allusions on mathematics and art but we never learned what she wanted. I send her a full essay on art - she almost ignored it. At one moment teh "art" was something else!!? I never learned what. She did not cite Aristotle and his concept of art as hand-craft. No, seh just goes on with no reference to anything!
You offer us all the time some proverbs. Dear friend, let us go INTO HEGEL's work and see what is this what you want to say, what he thought (please not philosophy of religion, I did not read this one, but the rest is fine with me).
Dragan Pavlovic | Dorina Grossu,
Wow! Dorine produced above nice collection of my interventions on the thread on Mathematics!!! Fantastic. Thanks very much indeed!
Eugene F Kislyakov | I want people to think, Dragan. Who does prevent You to go to Hegel or where You want?
Dragan Pavlovic | Eugene F Kislyakov,
Thanks for helping me think.
So help me out with this please, since you claim that I never answered to Dorine's questions: Could you reformulate and produce A CLEAR ARGUMENT out of just ONE of the questions of Dorine, please.
I maintain that Dorine NEVER really asked a question. Sometimes you do not ask the question or do not give an answer, like when you are "helping me to think". Jesus gave some answers sometimes; Krisnamurty I heard also never gave answers. This is a clever way to talk nonsense and get on with this. When Jesus gave some answers, apparently the Romans did not like the answers, and we know what happened...
Petr Viscor | Dear Vasiliy, you wrote :
Sergei, why do you think "logic and mathematics" are the guarantor of something for you? Why do you trust them? This is a belief, in fact. The same controversial belief, as well as the statement of the truth of something. You, like most people in this context, discard even the idea of having to think about the reasons for trust in mathematics and logic. Although, it is with this attitude to the formal structures involved in the exchange of information, the situation of "two universes" takes place.
1. Logic and mathematics ARE guarantor of something, namely of a very reasonable way to describe/analyse part of reality around us. And YES I trust them ,because they are part of scientific methods to analyse the reality around us and MOST DEFINETLY they have nothing to do with BELIEF. As soon as you will falsify them (let us say mathematics) form me, I will leave them out as not usefull, even obsolete if your proof/falsification will be strong enough. You will though, have a problem and that is some 5000 years of testing that have shown otherwise.
2. I certainly DO NOT disregard the idea of having to think about these matters, but, at least for the time being, I see no reason whatsoever to to change my attitude.
3. I do not understand your last sentence ?! What are the two universes oyu mention ?
With best regards
Petr
Petr Viscor | Vasyl Komarov, you then continued :
Math and logic are not some kind of abstraction, far from reality. It is just a relationship in the structure of the matter of your brain, the structure of the matter of your personal computer, etc... just the physical order of alternation and interaction of information (i.e. physical structures), the same as order that we describe with help of mathematics. It definitely requires an understanding of the physics of similarity of processes in nature, in order to trust mathematics not at the level of belief. However, such understanding inevitably changes perception of the universe
this is somewhat cryptic and I do not really know if I understand it. I do agree with the first sentence, but I would put it even more strongly, logic and mathematics have emerged out of reality.
The second sentence is in fact kind of tautological statement (not bringing anything new, if we agree that a human is made out of atoms with chemical bonds. Then math and logic, being the mental concepts of a human, are of course ancored in various structures (and interactions !) of this complicated bag of sea water and some other material stuff.
Understanding of the formation of thoughts, ideas, concepts definetly requires a knowledge, NOT ONLY of pohysics, but quantum chemistry and molecular biology and probably other parts of sciences and ALL OF THESE TOGETHER. The rest of the statement is somewhat too ambitous, with too little of evidence. Today, we are nowhere near to understanding of these matters and besides, that is not what we discuss here, the question of "trust" inmathematics has not really anything to do with how these concepts appear. What we discuss is what we think of them when they already happened, the causality here is important not to mix things up.
I agree that our EVER IMPROVING UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY changes/IMPROVES our perception of the universe.
With best regards
Petr
Petr Viscor | Dear Ioannis,
how well written !!
Thank you
Petr
P.S.: Ioannis wrote :
Maths is a language. Then, sometimes philosophy ask maths if some (paradoxical) philosophical problems like "1 ACTION 2 = 13" could be solved, in math language, e.g. do the job for philosophy. So, we search WHAT ACTION could solve it in this language, e.g. find a set for the ACTION.
Petr Viscor | Dear Vasiliy,
I can see that the discussion has not ended yet. You wrote :
if we take into account that the set of actions is a process, it follows a completely logical conclusion that the language of math predicts the development of events. This is so, in fact.
The language of Mathematics predicts absolutely nothing in the example by Ionnasis. It just states that the "philosophical question" , equation 2=13 is not consistent with mathematical "logic".
Petr
Dragan Pavlovic | Petr Viscor,
Well responded, really!
Vasyl Komarov,
Thank you for your quite long comment.
This is probably more relevant to literature then to science or philosophy. I call this "relativism". It is possible that other people call it differently. This is something that, from obvious reasons, just is not and cannot be accepted in the natural sciences. In social sciences and philosophy, such approach was possible, particularly in continental philosophy . I am certain that you know the most important names of the proponents of those ideas and I will not repeat them, I cited them earlier.
Here we do not have such people. Yet we have people who even do not know that history and arrive from the other side in fact: from the stock of the scientists who want to take part in THIS VERY discussion and want to jump over knowledge that they may need to take part in the discussion. The most commode way is to say: we do not know what the meaning of the word "intelligence "really is, or we do not agree about the meaning of "meaning", or what "reality" or "art" stands for. So everything is then possible. And they go into discussion - while the rest of the people just waist their time. Absolutely the same would happen if some highly capable social scientist would jump into QM or particle physics or molecular biology and start redefining ADN, MLCK, gluons, or similar - and asked you, a quantum physicist, to have understanding for their approach.
Well, I think you can imagine what would be my answer....
Medhat Elsahookie | Gentlemen !We been talking for a very long time on math and physics ! only ! Others would like to share their ideas in : philosophy of Science! Would please try to transfer the discussion to a wider Topic? Thanks.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Dragan Pavlovic (dear all),
As you have noticed, some people understand each other despite the fact that they use same terms as you. The situation is even more interesting, because these people understand not only each other (as you have already carefully noticed) but also perfectly understand you. I well understand why this happens. If you want clarification, it's very simple - for these people such a concepts (terms) have a different semantics (but they are sufficiently aware of your semantics).
Semantics exists for any word, even if it is a term for which you can find a lot of (sometimes completely different) definitions. The definitions does not cancel it. Unambiguously, semantics in the hands of each interpreter [Emilio Betti], it has individualism [tacit knowledge, Michael Polanyi]. Otherwise, we all might be always easy agree with each other.
For example, I can not afford to fix state of the definition of intelligence, because phenomenon is not yet sufficiently formalized. Sorry. I can only say with confidence that it is more complicated than single human person.
About communication...
Since we are talking about information exchange and languages, here are my few frank thoughts on the meaning of any dialogue, as is.
All people are very different, regardless of whether they are (by some criterion) philosophers or are unified by another criterion of classification. Even more important difference between people in the degree of ability to critical thinking. This may be the main indicator of a single person intelligence. It allows us to rationally commit reckless acts, although this sounds paradoxical, it is necessary for a more complex systems with us. This is a separate story
People mostly think in their native or most active for very long time language, although it is a little more complicated. Someone's thinking is more concretized (closer to tacit knowledge), someone thinking is more formalized (farther from tacit knowledge).
The exchange of information, which involves translation of a message between several individuals, always implies a partial loss (dissipation) of information with a bias towards formalization [Emilio Betti, Michael Polanyi].
Translation of the "internal concrete semantics" of message requires efforts. It's good, by the way, that, for example, books are translated into different languages. Any individual translation and interpretation (including such) can provoke various reactions, which author can not think about.
By the way, Dorina Grossu, for this reason it is useful to formulate messages, even if they do not sound good. Dialogue is useful on both sides. Each message causes a certain dissonance for each participant. This leads to changes in the perception of messages in each participant [just dialectics].
A more complex system uses less energy in messaging to make more significant changes in it. Simply, think from this point of view about the so-called "force carriers", with which communicates the simplest physical structures. Apparently, our entire system of communication is just a layering on this communication since gluons (here I recommend the ZEUS project of dearly respected Erkki Brandas, I think our views on the importance of communication in nature largely converge).
About grammar...
With regard to the language of communication, the world scientific community can communicate only on the global "surzhyk", because of idioms, exceptions in the structure of each language, etc. Not everyone has the opportunity to live for a while in the environment of native speakers of a particular language. Even prolonged contact does not guarantee that you will be thinking in one or another language. I take this for granted to any interlocutor, also I take into account that ability for languages is individual. Only in very neglected cases, only with respect to native speakers, I stand on the position of Grammar Nazi. All that you can appreciate with respect to the rest is the quality of machine translation, the inertia of thinking, inattention, hastiness, time pressure and the time spent on formulating an information message. Add here the efforts to formalize the concretized semantics, what not all people do as mechanical robots.
By the way, Esperanto was built on slavic phonemes, perhaps this is one of the reasons that it did not take root global. The main reason, of course, is that this was artificial design, the language must evolve natural.
About the topic...
I do not see the point of limiting the discussion to anything, if the header so boldly states so global topic. Otherwise, I should note, this discussion does not correspond to the title.
If you are only interested in Heisenberg, then it is history of science, but not the philosophy of science, if you are interested only in your opinion, it is belief and prejudice, sorry.
By the way, I stated my position with regard to Heisenberg's statement almost at the very beginning of my participation in the discussion and should note that I do not expect a consensus on this issue for anyone. It is quite enough that there is a group of people with similar thinking.
Once again, this is my opinion, if you have something that causes dissonance, you can ignore it, of course, but it is more interesting to provoke such a situation.
Thanks to deviation in thinking there are many contradictory ideas that now do not have a direct universally accepted application, but (in my humble opinion) will be in some kind of demand as the associated subjects of research will be more clearly marked and formalized (for example, system-vector psychology, theory of causality, etc.) Global resonance in the system begins with ventures, along the accumulation of contradictions to critical level. Paraphrasing sentence of Linus Pauling: "The best way to have a good hipothesis is to have a lot of hypotheses."
On mutual understanding...
As I have the insolence to say that I understand quite well what Heisenberg was talking about, I have little interest in the issues of individual religions, the biblical theme, etc. Most likely this moment is not clear to you. The problem of our mutual understanding is largely hidden in the fact that "modern science has produced very extensive laws." We both have clearly different semantics of the term "evolution". This leads to fatal consequences in mutual understanding on many other issues and sections of science from physics to philosophy.
The requirement for each participant of the conversation to expand the answer to the full meaning of the terminology goes beyond all reasonable limits for the same reason ("modern science has produced very extensive laws"). Yes, I do not like demarcation, it has an important function, but we have problems of misunderstanding each other in conditions where one section of science is not a science in the language of another section. This will be solved in the foreseeable future, science has already squeezed almost all possibilities out of the existing demarcation structure. I already talked about this earlier. Now it remains only to be satisfied that there are certain groups of people who understand each other.
About self-esteem and personal benefits of dialogue...
I know that I'm a rather bad speaker, especially when it comes to oral speaking. I even in general know why. I take it for granted, as you said, not everything depends on us, although something can sometimes be fixed. Also I long ago stopped to apologize for the poor knowledge of some languages. I'm just one person.
Perhaps, for you the discussion with me is not interesting or understandable. Yes, I also find many thoughts here archaic, but nevertheless I rarely attack opponents, only occasionally asked provocative questions.
I find conversation quite useful, for example, talk about mathematics here {about ACTION}. Such a discussions are just needed to formalize the not yet formalized.
Just think you are at the smörgåsbord, choose what you are interested in.
Laszlo G Meszaros | Do we still know what we are discussing here? (I do not mind at all to be side-tracked, but it is getting more and more difficult to follow this conversation. The RG programmers could help a little...)
Eugene F Kislyakov | Be true, Dragan, You had not answer no one Dorina's question till now, but there were many of them. Don't forget, that there are no stupid questions, there are stupid answers.
The topic of this project is "Philosophy of science". Please, realize, dear colleagues, that philosophy of anything (also science) without Hegel is a joke.
Regards,
Eugene.
Dorina Grossu | Nicholas Simonds Thompson,
As Vasyl Komarov mentioned " only that we thoroughly understand one another " appears to become the main challenge on this threat although it becomes a challenge when a certain attitude is instilled.
The pattern recognition is something that I have been trying to understand for a very long time yet I am still working on it; it is difficult because sometimes it takes time until I can gather all the data and proofs of what I see and be then able to interpret; this can be another topic
(***)
Dragan Pavlovic | Eugene F Kislyakov,
Please do not play Moses, formulate the argument.
Look what you wrote:
"Don't forget, that there are no stupid questions, there are stupid answers."
or:
"Please, realize, dear colleagues, that philosophy of anything (also science) without Hegel is a joke."
Those "proverbs" are EMPTY! Dorina Grossu does similar, and number of others: you are often just playing prophets. Why do you do this???
Could you reformulate and produce A CLEAR ARGUMENT out of just ONE of the questions of Dorine, please. Just ONE! Dorine made some allusions on mathematics and art but we never learned what she wanted. I send her a full essay on art - she almost ignored it. At one moment teh "art" was something else!!? I never learned what. She did not cite Aristotle and his concept of art as hand-craft. No, seh just goes on with no reference to anything!
You offer us all the time some proverbs. Dear friend, let us go INTO HEGEL's work and see what is this what you want to say, what he thought (please not philosophy of religion, I did not read this one, but the rest is fine with me).
Dragan Pavlovic | Dorina Grossu,
Wow! Dorine produced above nice collection of my interventions on the thread on Mathematics!!! Fantastic. Thanks very much indeed!
Eugene F Kislyakov | I want people to think, Dragan. Who does prevent You to go to Hegel or where You want?
Dragan Pavlovic | Eugene F Kislyakov,
Thanks for helping me think.
So help me out with this please, since you claim that I never answered to Dorine's questions: Could you reformulate and produce A CLEAR ARGUMENT out of just ONE of the questions of Dorine, please.
I maintain that Dorine NEVER really asked a question. Sometimes you do not ask the question or do not give an answer, like when you are "helping me to think". Jesus gave some answers sometimes; Krisnamurty I heard also never gave answers. This is a clever way to talk nonsense and get on with this. When Jesus gave some answers, apparently the Romans did not like the answers, and we know what happened...
Petr Viscor | Dear Vasiliy, you wrote :
Sergei, why do you think "logic and mathematics" are the guarantor of something for you? Why do you trust them? This is a belief, in fact. The same controversial belief, as well as the statement of the truth of something. You, like most people in this context, discard even the idea of having to think about the reasons for trust in mathematics and logic. Although, it is with this attitude to the formal structures involved in the exchange of information, the situation of "two universes" takes place.
1. Logic and mathematics ARE guarantor of something, namely of a very reasonable way to describe/analyse part of reality around us. And YES I trust them ,because they are part of scientific methods to analyse the reality around us and MOST DEFINETLY they have nothing to do with BELIEF. As soon as you will falsify them (let us say mathematics) form me, I will leave them out as not usefull, even obsolete if your proof/falsification will be strong enough. You will though, have a problem and that is some 5000 years of testing that have shown otherwise.
2. I certainly DO NOT disregard the idea of having to think about these matters, but, at least for the time being, I see no reason whatsoever to to change my attitude.
3. I do not understand your last sentence ?! What are the two universes oyu mention ?
With best regards
Petr
Petr Viscor | Vasyl Komarov, you then continued :
Math and logic are not some kind of abstraction, far from reality. It is just a relationship in the structure of the matter of your brain, the structure of the matter of your personal computer, etc... just the physical order of alternation and interaction of information (i.e. physical structures), the same as order that we describe with help of mathematics. It definitely requires an understanding of the physics of similarity of processes in nature, in order to trust mathematics not at the level of belief. However, such understanding inevitably changes perception of the universe
this is somewhat cryptic and I do not really know if I understand it. I do agree with the first sentence, but I would put it even more strongly, logic and mathematics have emerged out of reality.
The second sentence is in fact kind of tautological statement (not bringing anything new, if we agree that a human is made out of atoms with chemical bonds. Then math and logic, being the mental concepts of a human, are of course ancored in various structures (and interactions !) of this complicated bag of sea water and some other material stuff.
Understanding of the formation of thoughts, ideas, concepts definetly requires a knowledge, NOT ONLY of pohysics, but quantum chemistry and molecular biology and probably other parts of sciences and ALL OF THESE TOGETHER. The rest of the statement is somewhat too ambitous, with too little of evidence. Today, we are nowhere near to understanding of these matters and besides, that is not what we discuss here, the question of "trust" inmathematics has not really anything to do with how these concepts appear. What we discuss is what we think of them when they already happened, the causality here is important not to mix things up.
I agree that our EVER IMPROVING UNDERSTANDING OF REALITY changes/IMPROVES our perception of the universe.
With best regards
Petr
Petr Viscor | Dear Ioannis,
how well written !!
Thank you
Petr
P.S.: Ioannis wrote :
Maths is a language. Then, sometimes philosophy ask maths if some (paradoxical) philosophical problems like "1 ACTION 2 = 13" could be solved, in math language, e.g. do the job for philosophy. So, we search WHAT ACTION could solve it in this language, e.g. find a set for the ACTION.
Petr Viscor | Dear Vasiliy,
I can see that the discussion has not ended yet. You wrote :
if we take into account that the set of actions is a process, it follows a completely logical conclusion that the language of math predicts the development of events. This is so, in fact.
The language of Mathematics predicts absolutely nothing in the example by Ionnasis. It just states that the "philosophical question" , equation 2=13 is not consistent with mathematical "logic".
Petr
Dragan Pavlovic | Petr Viscor,
Well responded, really!
Vasyl Komarov,
Thank you for your quite long comment.
This is probably more relevant to literature then to science or philosophy. I call this "relativism". It is possible that other people call it differently. This is something that, from obvious reasons, just is not and cannot be accepted in the natural sciences. In social sciences and philosophy, such approach was possible, particularly in continental philosophy . I am certain that you know the most important names of the proponents of those ideas and I will not repeat them, I cited them earlier.
Here we do not have such people. Yet we have people who even do not know that history and arrive from the other side in fact: from the stock of the scientists who want to take part in THIS VERY discussion and want to jump over knowledge that they may need to take part in the discussion. The most commode way is to say: we do not know what the meaning of the word "intelligence "really is, or we do not agree about the meaning of "meaning", or what "reality" or "art" stands for. So everything is then possible. And they go into discussion - while the rest of the people just waist their time. Absolutely the same would happen if some highly capable social scientist would jump into QM or particle physics or molecular biology and start redefining ADN, MLCK, gluons, or similar - and asked you, a quantum physicist, to have understanding for their approach.
Well, I think you can imagine what would be my answer....
May 2, 2017
Dragan Pavlovic | TO ALL other diligent commentators,
Since I tried without success to persuade you to adopt the scientific and rational methods on this thread and since majority of commentators prefer intellectual freedom to be able to introduce any free defined concepts as they wish, I will avoid to make further general methodological comments. If I would comment in the future on some specific points, only then I will make such objections, but very short.
I will finish in your preferred style:
Science is like flower in my garden that needs enough sun and just a drop of water from time to time. My intuition tells me that its exactness is buried in its vagueness and that the intelligence is the result of Darwinian evolution combined with quantum effects largely dependent on its entropy and its structural organogenesis. (You have here plenty of material for your fruitful discussion in your ingenious style.)
All the best.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Yes, Dragan, thinking is dangerous, but without thinking You are absent (don't exist).
Dragan Pavlovic | TO ALL other diligent commentators,
Since I tried without success to persuade you to adopt the scientific and rational methods on this thread and since majority of commentators prefer intellectual freedom to be able to introduce any free defined concepts as they wish, I will avoid to make further general methodological comments. If I would comment in the future on some specific points, only then I will make such objections, but very short.
I will finish in your preferred style:
Science is like flower in my garden that needs enough sun and just a drop of water from time to time. My intuition tells me that its exactness is buried in its vagueness and that the intelligence is the result of Darwinian evolution combined with quantum effects largely dependent on its entropy and its structural organogenesis. (You have here plenty of material for your fruitful discussion in your ingenious style.)
All the best.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Yes, Dragan, thinking is dangerous, but without thinking You are absent (don't exist).
May 3, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Dragan Pavlovic, you have understood me well. It's not just about relativism. The matter is more in agnosticism, its relation to such concepts as "reality", "god", etc. Is important precisely for a scientific point of view. This is a clear realization that any definition of such a category is nothing more than a hypothesis. Accordingly, this concerns first of all the evidence and the doctrine of falsificationism. Then, not "everything is possible". More or less rational hypotheses are possible (based on previous experience), de facto, they already exist and will be for any such term as "reality."
You have the right, of course, to say that everything is possible. Then I will add that everything requires falsification and I consider such definition as a hypothesis. The fact that we will translate such a definition into the category of a postulate of some theory or into axiom under the axiomatization does not change anything: someone can believe the cathegory as is or theory, someone just trust it before first failure. The result is same but attitude is different.
On the contrary, I pursue the elimination of possible loopholes for ambiguities and a clear awareness of the boundaries on which only hypothetical definitions are possible (what you meant by mentioning relativism and I - by agnosticism), also I try to reduce these boundaries.
I deliberately focused on semantics. The point is that any definition in its essence is a set of connections between the semantics of other definitions and words (ultimately, words). What in the language of a formal system is a tautology. Not long ago here on RG I already had a discussion about definitional truism (in relation to mathematics). For this reason I'm not interested in answering Petr Viscor's replica. Unfortunately, one of the participants in the previous conversation deleted his account on RG, although I respect his opinion on many issues and always with interest read his comments. These themes in many respects echo. So logic is about relationships, not about form and content. If there were no dialogues about mathematics, I would also be inclined to refer this to literature. But one entails another.
As for "jump over knowledge," there are a lot of such examples in the history of science when this should have been done, it is enough to give an example of Copernicus. Some parts of "knowledge" may simply not be interesting for discussion, so let skip the past, the part that does not "make the weather." Once again, I remind you that this is a personal position (!), it is not coherent to yours, that's why I do not participate in the discussion of that "knowledge."
The "Tower of Babel" problem is relevant not only for the science sections, after all, the position of the philosopher throws out it of these sections automatically. It's really not good. As a result, philosophers are forced to imitate scientists and vice versa (like in a fairy tale, all the kings are naked, but no one "sees" it).
NB: I did not say that I do not have a definition for "intelligence". I just accentuated the fact that I probably know about the gaps in the well-known definitions and any that I can offer myself. In addition, I understand these gaps quite accurately.
Dragan Pavlovic | Vasyl Komarov,
Well ,I do not agree at some points and do not understand you at other points. But, no problem, you have Eugene F Kislyakov !
It is almost impossible to answer when your position is not sufficiently clear. I cannot answer to all your points. You mentioned falsification and I have feeling that you do not know what this is. I think that you support the position of "relativism" and support that "everything is possible" meaning that for example some people may say that mathematics is art, or science is art, or anything just could be said and maintained and that the meaning of the word are multiple and that any discussion that we have here makes sense. I say NO.
I cannot accept, for example, that you mention the word "falsification" and do not mention Popper!!! Do you understand? I think that you are using the word for other purposes and I think this is WRONG!
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Dragan Pavlovic, to mention Popper: it's so obvious that I do not even have a thought that someone does not associate it with him. Sometimes I mention him, here are some of my quotes from RG:
"Usually at the beginning of his course of lectures on the philosophy of science Popper asked students to just "watch". Then he became silent and waited for someone to ask, for what actually to watch? Thus he demonstrated one of the many shortcomings of empiricism, which today is still present in the common sense. He told the students that scientific observation is impossible without prior knowledge of what to look for, how and what to look for and how to interpret what you see. Thus, he said, the theory must first appear. It needs to be put forward as a hypothesis, not the conclusion..."
"According to Popper, the dialectics is bad friends with logic (brackets of Turing machine at least)..."
"Quote (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."
"Yes, I know that Popper criticized the formal science (and math, respectively)..."
Although I would prefer here to mention Richard Feynman. I have a similar attitude to surnames, abbreviations and other labels. After all, do you think that if I pronounce his name, do I exactly mean the same as he? In any case, it's mutual! For me Popper's name mentioned by you is just as empty, well, almost (-;
Finally for complete mutual understanding, a small addition...
(no one can forbid me to do this)
Firstly, I'm not a philosopher, in the sense that I do not professionally form a worldviews. I am definitely an amateur! Everyone can safely assert this. Moreover, "Houston, we've had a problem here": where did the professional philosophers come from?
Consequently, as a physicist or representative of any other direction of science (by the way, we've the same problem with professionalism here) I can state that Qualia preceded any thought *. This is more easy to do by ranking yourself in a group of adherents of the theory of evolution. This, of course, is a belief (a hypothesis, if accurate), it goes against some religions, but for me as a physicist and naturalist it has a solid foundation, I can for certain only say that people are born first.
* [As you can see, now I contradict Popper, who criticized empiricism. In fact, this moment is so complex and at the same time simple, which is difficult to describe in a nutshell. I can not describe it by avoiding self-organization. Therefore, I will complete here rest of my own quotation, where I mentioned Popper and empiricism: "Many people do not realize the importance of cause and effect, respectively, do not realize what is a deduction, what is primary and what is the result, what is hypotheses (axioms) and what is the theorems following of them. To hear something, you need to grow the ears, in order to see something, you need to grow the eyes, in order to have something to "measure", you first need to "build" the detector. Even at the level of quantum mechanics it is impossible to do without a counterfactual definiteness. All this is the recognizable eternal question of the primacy of eggs and chicken in a self-similar process of evolution. Reality is a continuous self-reference. It is "Ouroboros".
The whole process of cognition (not only in the scientific sense) consists of the creation of hypotheses and testing them with probable refutation. Concepts of time and space, atoms also had once been put forward as a hypotheses which is developed successfully. Even the child receives first hematoma by testing own hypotheses which are even subconscious impulses. Your brain is a physical structure. Mathematics is a product of it physical activity."]
So, I can afford (in the limit) to forget all the available knowledge, at least those of them with that I had time to get acquainted along perishable life, and begin to form own worldview only with own qualia. It should be noted, "Houston, we've had a problem here" again, because, in fact, even Mowgli could not afford it?
What kind of freedom does this give me? I can discard those elements of the world's picture (which imposed by society), which are in great contradiction with personal data of qualia (respectively, with empirical data of the natural sciences, to which I have access). Others elements I can change. Some elements even better to not know in advance, in order not to get "in a rut."
In other words, I postulate (not originally) the absence of Authority and postulate (also not originally) the right to "reinvent the wheel". The later, in fact, can not be forbidden.
Perhaps it seems to you nihilism or naivety, it is only at first glance. I did not promise not to plagiarise. If something attracts me in the "giants", I'll borrow it without a twinge of conscience, and I'll stand on their shoulders.
I am a man of "Dunno (Ignoramus)", or as I have here corrected Laszlo G Meszaros (if I'm not mistaken) in the one of replicas previously, not a "knower" (which for me is almost equivalent to the believer) but unknower (agnosticism plays an important role here).
Does it make sense to impose one's position on each person in a conversation?
Is it real, that everyone agrees with you?
Do it need in the end?
The answer is very simple if you imagine that this question is given by Copernicus, or, for example, Galileo.
NB: All that you and me are talking about has already been indicated in a few of my short remarks here in the topic earlier, relativism and so on. As I mentioned in one of replicas earlier to other person, this conversation is just deja vu (sometimes usefull deja vu).
Dragan Pavlovic | Vasyl Komarov,
Thanks very much indeed for your long answer.
I simply do not understand why you had to write all of this? My position has been that if we want to say something that we are obliged by courtesy and for the sake of clarity and simplification of the discussion:
1-To formulate the problem
2-To point out where the problem fits in the history of ideas, give relevant references - Popper if you wish and similar; to cite relevant previous works
3-And may be then give our point of view.
To do exactly as we do when WE DO OUR SCIENCE!
If we do not do this - we produce enormous confusion, one that YOU are producing all the time, that Dorine is producing, may be Barbara and number of people on this thread are permanently producing. And then, they and you, use the words loosely. In philosophy there are concepts as in physics that have been discussed for centuries and have specific denotation and connotations and CANNOT be use LOOSELY! Often those are quite simple words like reality, existence, intuition, reference, even language, difference and diferance, intension, intention, symbol signe, sign etc.
This what people are doing shows not only lack of respect for the people on whose "shoulders we are standing", but explains also why EXACTLY these same people have miserable output as scientists: they do not know how to present their own work.
So please: be kind with the people on RG who sometimes belong to other branch of science: EXPLAIN!
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
you said that you have corrected me somewhere. Please, don't. When I talk about the "knower" or sometimes about the "want-to-know-er", I do it with a purpose: to distinguish it from the believer. In other words, I would like to make a clear distinction between knowledge and belief.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Dragan Pavlovic, you have understood me well. It's not just about relativism. The matter is more in agnosticism, its relation to such concepts as "reality", "god", etc. Is important precisely for a scientific point of view. This is a clear realization that any definition of such a category is nothing more than a hypothesis. Accordingly, this concerns first of all the evidence and the doctrine of falsificationism. Then, not "everything is possible". More or less rational hypotheses are possible (based on previous experience), de facto, they already exist and will be for any such term as "reality."
You have the right, of course, to say that everything is possible. Then I will add that everything requires falsification and I consider such definition as a hypothesis. The fact that we will translate such a definition into the category of a postulate of some theory or into axiom under the axiomatization does not change anything: someone can believe the cathegory as is or theory, someone just trust it before first failure. The result is same but attitude is different.
On the contrary, I pursue the elimination of possible loopholes for ambiguities and a clear awareness of the boundaries on which only hypothetical definitions are possible (what you meant by mentioning relativism and I - by agnosticism), also I try to reduce these boundaries.
I deliberately focused on semantics. The point is that any definition in its essence is a set of connections between the semantics of other definitions and words (ultimately, words). What in the language of a formal system is a tautology. Not long ago here on RG I already had a discussion about definitional truism (in relation to mathematics). For this reason I'm not interested in answering Petr Viscor's replica. Unfortunately, one of the participants in the previous conversation deleted his account on RG, although I respect his opinion on many issues and always with interest read his comments. These themes in many respects echo. So logic is about relationships, not about form and content. If there were no dialogues about mathematics, I would also be inclined to refer this to literature. But one entails another.
As for "jump over knowledge," there are a lot of such examples in the history of science when this should have been done, it is enough to give an example of Copernicus. Some parts of "knowledge" may simply not be interesting for discussion, so let skip the past, the part that does not "make the weather." Once again, I remind you that this is a personal position (!), it is not coherent to yours, that's why I do not participate in the discussion of that "knowledge."
The "Tower of Babel" problem is relevant not only for the science sections, after all, the position of the philosopher throws out it of these sections automatically. It's really not good. As a result, philosophers are forced to imitate scientists and vice versa (like in a fairy tale, all the kings are naked, but no one "sees" it).
NB: I did not say that I do not have a definition for "intelligence". I just accentuated the fact that I probably know about the gaps in the well-known definitions and any that I can offer myself. In addition, I understand these gaps quite accurately.
Dragan Pavlovic | Vasyl Komarov,
Well ,I do not agree at some points and do not understand you at other points. But, no problem, you have Eugene F Kislyakov !
It is almost impossible to answer when your position is not sufficiently clear. I cannot answer to all your points. You mentioned falsification and I have feeling that you do not know what this is. I think that you support the position of "relativism" and support that "everything is possible" meaning that for example some people may say that mathematics is art, or science is art, or anything just could be said and maintained and that the meaning of the word are multiple and that any discussion that we have here makes sense. I say NO.
I cannot accept, for example, that you mention the word "falsification" and do not mention Popper!!! Do you understand? I think that you are using the word for other purposes and I think this is WRONG!
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Dragan Pavlovic, to mention Popper: it's so obvious that I do not even have a thought that someone does not associate it with him. Sometimes I mention him, here are some of my quotes from RG:
"Usually at the beginning of his course of lectures on the philosophy of science Popper asked students to just "watch". Then he became silent and waited for someone to ask, for what actually to watch? Thus he demonstrated one of the many shortcomings of empiricism, which today is still present in the common sense. He told the students that scientific observation is impossible without prior knowledge of what to look for, how and what to look for and how to interpret what you see. Thus, he said, the theory must first appear. It needs to be put forward as a hypothesis, not the conclusion..."
"According to Popper, the dialectics is bad friends with logic (brackets of Turing machine at least)..."
"Quote (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."
"Yes, I know that Popper criticized the formal science (and math, respectively)..."
Although I would prefer here to mention Richard Feynman. I have a similar attitude to surnames, abbreviations and other labels. After all, do you think that if I pronounce his name, do I exactly mean the same as he? In any case, it's mutual! For me Popper's name mentioned by you is just as empty, well, almost (-;
Finally for complete mutual understanding, a small addition...
(no one can forbid me to do this)
Firstly, I'm not a philosopher, in the sense that I do not professionally form a worldviews. I am definitely an amateur! Everyone can safely assert this. Moreover, "Houston, we've had a problem here": where did the professional philosophers come from?
Consequently, as a physicist or representative of any other direction of science (by the way, we've the same problem with professionalism here) I can state that Qualia preceded any thought *. This is more easy to do by ranking yourself in a group of adherents of the theory of evolution. This, of course, is a belief (a hypothesis, if accurate), it goes against some religions, but for me as a physicist and naturalist it has a solid foundation, I can for certain only say that people are born first.
* [As you can see, now I contradict Popper, who criticized empiricism. In fact, this moment is so complex and at the same time simple, which is difficult to describe in a nutshell. I can not describe it by avoiding self-organization. Therefore, I will complete here rest of my own quotation, where I mentioned Popper and empiricism: "Many people do not realize the importance of cause and effect, respectively, do not realize what is a deduction, what is primary and what is the result, what is hypotheses (axioms) and what is the theorems following of them. To hear something, you need to grow the ears, in order to see something, you need to grow the eyes, in order to have something to "measure", you first need to "build" the detector. Even at the level of quantum mechanics it is impossible to do without a counterfactual definiteness. All this is the recognizable eternal question of the primacy of eggs and chicken in a self-similar process of evolution. Reality is a continuous self-reference. It is "Ouroboros".
The whole process of cognition (not only in the scientific sense) consists of the creation of hypotheses and testing them with probable refutation. Concepts of time and space, atoms also had once been put forward as a hypotheses which is developed successfully. Even the child receives first hematoma by testing own hypotheses which are even subconscious impulses. Your brain is a physical structure. Mathematics is a product of it physical activity."]
So, I can afford (in the limit) to forget all the available knowledge, at least those of them with that I had time to get acquainted along perishable life, and begin to form own worldview only with own qualia. It should be noted, "Houston, we've had a problem here" again, because, in fact, even Mowgli could not afford it?
What kind of freedom does this give me? I can discard those elements of the world's picture (which imposed by society), which are in great contradiction with personal data of qualia (respectively, with empirical data of the natural sciences, to which I have access). Others elements I can change. Some elements even better to not know in advance, in order not to get "in a rut."
In other words, I postulate (not originally) the absence of Authority and postulate (also not originally) the right to "reinvent the wheel". The later, in fact, can not be forbidden.
Perhaps it seems to you nihilism or naivety, it is only at first glance. I did not promise not to plagiarise. If something attracts me in the "giants", I'll borrow it without a twinge of conscience, and I'll stand on their shoulders.
I am a man of "Dunno (Ignoramus)", or as I have here corrected Laszlo G Meszaros (if I'm not mistaken) in the one of replicas previously, not a "knower" (which for me is almost equivalent to the believer) but unknower (agnosticism plays an important role here).
"This is a child, but not one that can be named by name and surname, but a child in general, with an inherent thirst for activity, an ineradicable thirst for knowledge and at the same time with restlessness, an inability to keep his attention on one subject for a long time time, - in general, with all the good things that the child will have to strengthen and develop in himself, and the shortcomings that need to be got rid of."Here one last point...
— Nikolai Nosov
Does it make sense to impose one's position on each person in a conversation?
Is it real, that everyone agrees with you?
Do it need in the end?
The answer is very simple if you imagine that this question is given by Copernicus, or, for example, Galileo.
NB: All that you and me are talking about has already been indicated in a few of my short remarks here in the topic earlier, relativism and so on. As I mentioned in one of replicas earlier to other person, this conversation is just deja vu (sometimes usefull deja vu).
Dragan Pavlovic | Vasyl Komarov,
Thanks very much indeed for your long answer.
I simply do not understand why you had to write all of this? My position has been that if we want to say something that we are obliged by courtesy and for the sake of clarity and simplification of the discussion:
1-To formulate the problem
2-To point out where the problem fits in the history of ideas, give relevant references - Popper if you wish and similar; to cite relevant previous works
3-And may be then give our point of view.
To do exactly as we do when WE DO OUR SCIENCE!
If we do not do this - we produce enormous confusion, one that YOU are producing all the time, that Dorine is producing, may be Barbara and number of people on this thread are permanently producing. And then, they and you, use the words loosely. In philosophy there are concepts as in physics that have been discussed for centuries and have specific denotation and connotations and CANNOT be use LOOSELY! Often those are quite simple words like reality, existence, intuition, reference, even language, difference and diferance, intension, intention, symbol signe, sign etc.
This what people are doing shows not only lack of respect for the people on whose "shoulders we are standing", but explains also why EXACTLY these same people have miserable output as scientists: they do not know how to present their own work.
So please: be kind with the people on RG who sometimes belong to other branch of science: EXPLAIN!
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
you said that you have corrected me somewhere. Please, don't. When I talk about the "knower" or sometimes about the "want-to-know-er", I do it with a purpose: to distinguish it from the believer. In other words, I would like to make a clear distinction between knowledge and belief.
May 4, 2017
Eugene F Kislyakov | Anselm's formula is "Believe to understand". It is against agnostics, Dragan.
By the way, Vasili Fedorovich Komarov explains very well.
Regards,
Eugene.
Ioannis Samaras | Eugene F Kislyakov : You said (1h ago) : "Your proposal to Dragan is a good joke and he has valued it."
So, what is your proposal ?
Eugene F Kislyakov | My proposal is to think, Ioannis, as I have said earlier. Thinking gives freedom.
Ioannis Samaras | Eugene F Kislyakov : we are here, for thinking, all are agreed; save the balance, also; in other words, keep (Dragan inside) the boat on the surface of the river.
Eugene F Kislyakov | I try.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Anselm's formula is "Believe to understand". It is against agnostics, Dragan.
By the way, Vasili Fedorovich Komarov explains very well.
Regards,
Eugene.
Ioannis Samaras | Eugene F Kislyakov : You said (1h ago) : "Your proposal to Dragan is a good joke and he has valued it."
So, what is your proposal ?
Eugene F Kislyakov | My proposal is to think, Ioannis, as I have said earlier. Thinking gives freedom.
Ioannis Samaras | Eugene F Kislyakov : we are here, for thinking, all are agreed; save the balance, also; in other words, keep (Dragan inside) the boat on the surface of the river.
Eugene F Kislyakov | I try.
May 5, 2017
Vladimir A. Kulchitsky | Project: "Philosophy of Science".
Please pay attention to the name of awarding the scientific degree in different specialties. This is PhD.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Dragan Pavlovic, since here everything is still about philosophy, accordingly, the subject of research is a holistic structure, which we (or I) are accustomed to call "reality" (in my case, I'm not inclined to separate any products of human activity from its physical components). It is difficult to say where to begin the explanation, when we are engaged in philosophy, being a part of the holistic structure together with all the cognition that is available to us, this implies self-reference.
This is an asymptotic subject of research, which classical philosophy, as you can see, immediately splits at least into two parts, producing the dichotomy.
In fact, problems with self-referencing begin already at the stage when you are trying to isolate from the holistic structure the subject of research (which represents the structure itself, which philosophy carelessly puts on the shelf of ontology). Moreover, in fact, problems with self-referencing begin when a man has acquired self-consciousness separating his perception of himself from the external, long before he called himself a philosopher.
Holism includes the subject of research, the researcher, knowledge about the subject and all the relationships between the listed (and the subject of research includes everything, along with holism). The great question is how to solve the unsolvable problem of self-reference. I will try to expand the answer, pointing out the problem from the perspective of a pragmatic representative of the natural sciences. Give me time.
Dear Laszlo G Meszaros, I just emphasized that the words "I know" should be used carefully. In many cases it is better not to say it "aloud" or replace it with the words "I guess". For example, Niels Bohr had the right to say "I know how the atom works", but from the point of view of the history of physics, it was only a brief moment of "knowledge", while the whole world turned upside down. The whole history of science consists of such "knowledge". Even if it seems to you that humanity knows something very well, it only seems, you just have to wait a little while to make sure of it. The word "information" in this key favorably differs from "knowledge", the component of "truth" is eliminated from it.
By the way, sometimes people participate in the discussion to draw some conclusions for themselves and not prove something to another. Simply, dialogue sometimes helps or assists to think (sometimes on the contrary, prevents to think).
Vasyl Komarov | Sometimes discussion can have readers you do not suspect. Sometimes these readers know more than we. Sometimes the goal of production is to destroy consequences of products of "respected people". Sometimes, evaluating the situation and own forces, it is better to go beyond the competition, leaving "to break the spears" to others. One can enjoy any process, the main thing is to choose the right music.
Since I have already such a bad name, I leave here this incomprehensible comment, one incomprehensible comment more. It does not make sense to react if one do not understand what I'm talking about. The world is full of obscure people.
Dragan Pavlovic | "Vasyl Komarov (and Dorina Grossu),
Dorine probably makes a similar fallacy, and probably what she writes is almost always basically false, so I will respond to you both.
I will respond, although you do not 'deserve' (in a positive friendly sense) the response since you refuse to take seriously my objections. Hence I still hold a belief that your illusion of being able to understand the totality and that what some philosophers claim, is local delusion - that THIS your illusion may be genuine and is due to your naive ignorance. Dear friend, Plato and Aristotle knew this, and it was explicit in Kant and even more in Kurt Gödel: All what we will be able to think about will be just "our World," will be self referenced, will be determined with how our brain can "see" the World. This has been and will always be. Only relevant worldview will ALWAYS be as it is determined within these conditions. It is coherent, only relevant and correct, objective, useful, practical and theoretically justified and only possible - forever.
We will certainly be able to simulate other "possible worlds", may be to "see" indirectly those worlds as they are possibly seen by other beings different from us, but will be able to see them only indirectly (as we can see magnetism, various electromagnetic waves and similar) using the only limited number of our senses and "our" brain.
Therefore your critique of subjectivism, all scepticism that reaches beyond this World or your "holism" or whatever you call it - is empty. Sorry. Please, I will not respond any more publicly on this particular subject. You can write to me privately over RG and I will most likely respond.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Now we returned to the begining of our discussion of mathematics three or four years ago, Dragan.
Why don't You want to discuss Hegel?
Dragan Pavlovic | Eugene F Kislyakov,
If you would (for onse!) specify the specific idea, the work, page, line and what Hegel wrote, I will be happy to exchange our opinions. Of course except his " Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion" which I do not have and never read. And as you know, I do not relay on the review texts (Wikipedia and even Stanford Enc.) and I do not discuss works which I never read.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Specific idea is existence, Dragan. It is not only Hegel, but all previous philosophy, begining with indians and Parmenides.
I'll never agree with You, that mathematics is human invention. If so, then You are also human invention.
P.S. Most clearly this idea is analized in your "except", Dragan.
Steven Wallis | Vasyl Komarov bad name? Not sure why. Looking at your work, it seems that you are attempting to cause big trouble by investigating big ideas. That is the best! I might be able to help you solve the unsolvable problem of self reference. The IPA method is designed for rigorously integrating multiple theoretical perspectives to objectively improve theory (and show where additional improvements are needed). One result is a knowledge map. On the surface, that map may seem similar to the "mind maps" that you have developed. However, there are important differences.
I would be happy to work with you on a project like this. You could supply the theories and I would work on the analysis. The result would be a published paper in a short amount of time. If you are interested, please contact me by email.
Thanks,
Steve
(***)
Vladimir A. Kulchitsky | Project: "Philosophy of Science".
Please pay attention to the name of awarding the scientific degree in different specialties. This is PhD.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Dragan Pavlovic, since here everything is still about philosophy, accordingly, the subject of research is a holistic structure, which we (or I) are accustomed to call "reality" (in my case, I'm not inclined to separate any products of human activity from its physical components). It is difficult to say where to begin the explanation, when we are engaged in philosophy, being a part of the holistic structure together with all the cognition that is available to us, this implies self-reference.
This is an asymptotic subject of research, which classical philosophy, as you can see, immediately splits at least into two parts, producing the dichotomy.
In fact, problems with self-referencing begin already at the stage when you are trying to isolate from the holistic structure the subject of research (which represents the structure itself, which philosophy carelessly puts on the shelf of ontology). Moreover, in fact, problems with self-referencing begin when a man has acquired self-consciousness separating his perception of himself from the external, long before he called himself a philosopher.
Holism includes the subject of research, the researcher, knowledge about the subject and all the relationships between the listed (and the subject of research includes everything, along with holism). The great question is how to solve the unsolvable problem of self-reference. I will try to expand the answer, pointing out the problem from the perspective of a pragmatic representative of the natural sciences. Give me time.
Dear Laszlo G Meszaros, I just emphasized that the words "I know" should be used carefully. In many cases it is better not to say it "aloud" or replace it with the words "I guess". For example, Niels Bohr had the right to say "I know how the atom works", but from the point of view of the history of physics, it was only a brief moment of "knowledge", while the whole world turned upside down. The whole history of science consists of such "knowledge". Even if it seems to you that humanity knows something very well, it only seems, you just have to wait a little while to make sure of it. The word "information" in this key favorably differs from "knowledge", the component of "truth" is eliminated from it.
By the way, sometimes people participate in the discussion to draw some conclusions for themselves and not prove something to another. Simply, dialogue sometimes helps or assists to think (sometimes on the contrary, prevents to think).
Vasyl Komarov | Sometimes discussion can have readers you do not suspect. Sometimes these readers know more than we. Sometimes the goal of production is to destroy consequences of products of "respected people". Sometimes, evaluating the situation and own forces, it is better to go beyond the competition, leaving "to break the spears" to others. One can enjoy any process, the main thing is to choose the right music.
Since I have already such a bad name, I leave here this incomprehensible comment, one incomprehensible comment more. It does not make sense to react if one do not understand what I'm talking about. The world is full of obscure people.
Dragan Pavlovic | "Vasyl Komarov (and Dorina Grossu),
Dorine probably makes a similar fallacy, and probably what she writes is almost always basically false, so I will respond to you both.
I will respond, although you do not 'deserve' (in a positive friendly sense) the response since you refuse to take seriously my objections. Hence I still hold a belief that your illusion of being able to understand the totality and that what some philosophers claim, is local delusion - that THIS your illusion may be genuine and is due to your naive ignorance. Dear friend, Plato and Aristotle knew this, and it was explicit in Kant and even more in Kurt Gödel: All what we will be able to think about will be just "our World," will be self referenced, will be determined with how our brain can "see" the World. This has been and will always be. Only relevant worldview will ALWAYS be as it is determined within these conditions. It is coherent, only relevant and correct, objective, useful, practical and theoretically justified and only possible - forever.
We will certainly be able to simulate other "possible worlds", may be to "see" indirectly those worlds as they are possibly seen by other beings different from us, but will be able to see them only indirectly (as we can see magnetism, various electromagnetic waves and similar) using the only limited number of our senses and "our" brain.
Therefore your critique of subjectivism, all scepticism that reaches beyond this World or your "holism" or whatever you call it - is empty. Sorry. Please, I will not respond any more publicly on this particular subject. You can write to me privately over RG and I will most likely respond.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Now we returned to the begining of our discussion of mathematics three or four years ago, Dragan.
Why don't You want to discuss Hegel?
Dragan Pavlovic | Eugene F Kislyakov,
If you would (for onse!) specify the specific idea, the work, page, line and what Hegel wrote, I will be happy to exchange our opinions. Of course except his " Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion" which I do not have and never read. And as you know, I do not relay on the review texts (Wikipedia and even Stanford Enc.) and I do not discuss works which I never read.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Specific idea is existence, Dragan. It is not only Hegel, but all previous philosophy, begining with indians and Parmenides.
I'll never agree with You, that mathematics is human invention. If so, then You are also human invention.
P.S. Most clearly this idea is analized in your "except", Dragan.
Steven Wallis | Vasyl Komarov bad name? Not sure why. Looking at your work, it seems that you are attempting to cause big trouble by investigating big ideas. That is the best! I might be able to help you solve the unsolvable problem of self reference. The IPA method is designed for rigorously integrating multiple theoretical perspectives to objectively improve theory (and show where additional improvements are needed). One result is a knowledge map. On the surface, that map may seem similar to the "mind maps" that you have developed. However, there are important differences.
I would be happy to work with you on a project like this. You could supply the theories and I would work on the analysis. The result would be a published paper in a short amount of time. If you are interested, please contact me by email.
Thanks,
Steve
(***)
May 6, 2017
Eugene F Kislyakov | Mirjana, Dragan,
first of all authorities are not arguments. Their thoughts may and must be studied, but you have your own. Yes or no?
Then, every mathematician knows perfectly well that logic is algebra (part of Math). If you don't want to study Math and don't believe me you may ask, for example, Aleksandar Jovanovic, professional mathematician. Bertrand Russell did not know about Lukasievich, Geodel and so on. Hilbert went further and failed with proofs and formalization. Everybody knows this.
The essence of the world is not the matter of provements, Dragan. It has it's name - God.
About existence. Rational thinking leads to the conclusion, that God is not only exists, but it is the only, what exists. We are parts of him.
Regards,
Eugene.
(***)
Barbara L. Mccombs | This discussion has become quite chaotic and undisciplined it seems. We are not robots and those who keep insisting that we are based on computer models an their own thinking must need help. Sorry, but reading through this long set of posts is like swimming through spaghetti... Why does not the moderator get us back on topic as Herb keeps trying to do?
Laszlo G Meszaros | I thought that this project idea on RG was a good one. I'm not so sure about it anymore. Do we still remember what this whole project was all about?
Eugene F Kislyakov | Mirjana, Dragan,
first of all authorities are not arguments. Their thoughts may and must be studied, but you have your own. Yes or no?
Then, every mathematician knows perfectly well that logic is algebra (part of Math). If you don't want to study Math and don't believe me you may ask, for example, Aleksandar Jovanovic, professional mathematician. Bertrand Russell did not know about Lukasievich, Geodel and so on. Hilbert went further and failed with proofs and formalization. Everybody knows this.
The essence of the world is not the matter of provements, Dragan. It has it's name - God.
About existence. Rational thinking leads to the conclusion, that God is not only exists, but it is the only, what exists. We are parts of him.
Regards,
Eugene.
(***)
Barbara L. Mccombs | This discussion has become quite chaotic and undisciplined it seems. We are not robots and those who keep insisting that we are based on computer models an their own thinking must need help. Sorry, but reading through this long set of posts is like swimming through spaghetti... Why does not the moderator get us back on topic as Herb keeps trying to do?
Laszlo G Meszaros | I thought that this project idea on RG was a good one. I'm not so sure about it anymore. Do we still remember what this whole project was all about?
May 7, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Dragan Pavlovic, thanks for the friendly opinion. There are a lot of moments, where our positions radically differ. I can also respond in a friendly way that I do not have any illusions that you can easily become in position that is very different from your current beliefs for the same reason of "Plato's cave" (in general, significant change of the belief system is a very painful long process). I do not worry about it. Simply, you vigorously reacted to my cues in the topic, the dialogue forces to respond.
My problems begin with the need to eliminate cognitive dissonance with accessible information. I can refuse information, of course, but I cannot be avoided to see it, it is public. All I have to do is eliminate dissonance. The "modeling of other worlds" is the least interesting.
There are a few new people who deserve better understanding of my motivation and why both philosophy and physics in the current state can be easily destroyed by banal things that many know about and why mathematics cause this. I did not count Eugene Kislyakov because I have minimal language problems with him, besides he is also a participant of many discussions related to this issue, he as a physicist is also more motivated in similar way.
For these people I leave a detailed comment as soon as I finish it or leave a link here, so as not to overwork you with unauthoritative information. I am also grateful to them for the interesting thoughts that voiced in the topic.
I already long ago see no point in non-public (private) talks, unless, when they pursue the goal of benefiting from some joint venture. I'm not afraid to make mistakes and look stupid, any moralizing can be addressed to me publicly.
And I owe you nothing, including to compose a certain number of articles per year (this is a debt to the Ministry of Education and ratings). All I have to do is to eliminate the cognitive dissonance mentioned, unlike the ratings it creates real discomfort inside and not outside. It is a category of important (for me) issues that deserve attention of more people, because the more people involved, the faster response will be received, it more important than ego, I do not want to prove anything to anyone, I only collect the "souls" of those who understand the essence of the problem.
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | By the way, since you are discussing the position of logic with respect to math, it is worth to complicate the problem by adding the theory of computations to the discussion. This will be fair.
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Dear Barbara L. Mccombs, dear Laszlo G Meszaros, we perfectly understand what this project is about. This is what is being discussed, in fact. Even if it seems that some questions are not relevant to the topic. Any moderation will drive the discussion to a standstill. After all, everyone has already said a personal opinion.
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Dear Steven Wallis,
As you can guess, there are things that begin involuntarily and not on a commercial basis - something that can not be planned, either personally or by any organization; on which one can only stumble in a place that no one would even have thought of.
No one can forbid you to join what is free and open in all senses, moreover, what has already lost control. I'm glad to everyone, because this only increases the strength of the intellect. I only apologize in advance, I'm VERY slow introvert. This makes communication difficult (in addition to other concerns that are distracting: children, war, life, work... :-)
I think you also guess from our stormy conversation with reputable Dragan that the subject of research in such a project can only be one (although he does not agree with me), respectively, and the project is only one. This is dictated not by Dragan, but by connectivity as a condition of universality in a dynamic system, and indeed, as a necessary condition to be a system in general.
As I said above, I will prepare a commentary so that it is easy and compact to see the cause-effect relationships and the existing contradictions, where it came from. I think we will postpone the discussion to another quieter place. But, I must warn you, there is a problem with which everyone of us has to fight one on one (beliefs on the shadows in "Plato's cave" that Dragan justly reminds me of).
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
A project is a project, meaning that - although it usually starts with a discussion - it should have a goal. I do not see any goal. (Of course, sometimes this discussion is quite enjoyable.) Another point, this might not be the place to express "personal opinion". Of course, it is welcome, but might not be useful as far as the "project concept" is considered.
Dragan Pavlovic | Vasyl Komarov,
I am desperate. I do not know what you want to say, this is always a complete confusion and no facts. Let me try to explain where our problem is. You write:
"...you can easily become in position that is very different from your current beliefs for the same reason of "Plato's cave"... - Why do you think that I should understand what you want to say? Can you realize that your comment is just standing alone without possible meaning?
Then you write:
"eliminate cognitive dissonance with accessible information" - What should this mean?
"both philosophy and physics in the current state can be easily destroyed" - Destroyed? How? What is your point there?
Then you say that we can complicate the discussion... "by adding the theory of computations to the discussion". - This has almost no meaning to me. What concretely should be added and how? To add the entire theory of computation??? What is this?
And all the rest is incomprehensible to me. Sorry. I simply never know what is this you want to say, there are no facts! This is certainly and partially a language problem. Therefore I mainly do not know what you want to say and it looks to me to be without content.
Can somebody on the thread help, please?
Sergey Shevchenko | It seems, as a next time it is necessary to remind here some points.
Barbara L. Mccombs:
“…This discussion has become quite chaotic and undisciplined it seems…”
- that is indeed so. But that isn’t a bad thing, such situation is inevitable in every philosophical discussion if it proceeds (i) - in framework of the mainstream philosophy; and (2) – if the discussion’s members doesn’t belong to the disciplined mainstream corporation and attempt to elaborate existent philosophical problems indeed basing on some objective and rational [that is another thing – are the criteria and arguments indeed objective/rational or not] criteria and arguments.
To explain/to ground the passage above let me to quote a seems corresponding comment to some debates outside the RG:
_________
“….We think we know what is real and what is not….”
- that is rather strange claim. It is well known that already at least few thousands years there exists two main mainstream-philosophical doctrines, “Materialism” and “Idealism” [and huge number of mainstream sub-doctrines], which fundamentally oppositely answer on the question “What is the Being?”, answering “There is nothing besides Matter and the Being is being of Matter ” – Materialism; and “There is nothing besides Consciousness/Spirit/Idea… and the Being is being of Consciousness/Spirit/Idea…” – Idealism
Thus to claim “we know what is real” keeping in mind two opposite simultaneous “knowing” – that seems as something like schizophrenia…”
_________
Mainstream professional philosophical discussions indeed usually aren’t chaotic and undisciplined – the disciplined mainstream members simply claim, inventing, often, some “new fundamental” postulates defining next “philosophical doctrines” – when belong to a set of “brilliant minds”; or using some doctrines when talking about some of a huge number of the existent doctrines; and, similarly, as that Dragan Pavlovic writes:
“…I would recommend to many people on this thread to publish something in their corresponding science in a quality peer reviewed journal…”
publish in a numerous journals above numerous “peer reviewed philosophical” papers.
When all that is, again, seems as like schizophrenia. The unique difference from the claim in [other] debates above – these papers usually don’t pretend on the Materialism/Idealism dichotomy problem solution, and remain inside some one doctrine, but this point seems as is non-essential in this case – attempts to prove/at least to ground rationally something that fundamentally cannot be proved or at least grounded rationally in the mainstream, seems as aren’t far away from the evident schizophrenia.
That is evident – but the discipline mainstream philosophers never mention this point – seems as “in the house of somebody be hanged they don’t talk about rope”.
A next time:
- since every indeed philosophical discussion always turns out to be related to Meta-mainstream notions/phenomena “Matter” and “Consciousness” [and not only, though], which are fundamentally transcendent in the mainstream, any rational discussing including, for example, what is mathematics and how it relates to the external for an individual human’s consciousness World, can be rational only in framework of the “The Information as Absolute” conception.
Which was rejected by at lest a ten “quality peer reviewed journals”, when, again, in these journals there is no – and cannot be principally - any indeed answer on any indeed fundamental question about the external World and in these journals one can meet with any [objectively] trash.
[And the editors in the journals well understood that the submitted papers were evidently publishable - the rejections above were made since authors of the conception don’t belong to the discipline community; and so understood also that it is necessary by any/every means to block the information about the conception – till the authors are alive. And after the problem of the alive authors will be solved, the conception will be published, of course, in some “quality peer reviewed journals”, having “correct” authors, but till now the problem remains unsolved; and some other people continue to solve it applying another science – the chemistry.
However, since, if a not too blunt human knows about the attempts to kill him, and if about this problem a lot of people on Earth know, this problem becomes be not too simple and I’m alive till now; including because of time to time write in the Net about the situation; and very seems it is necessary to write that again – the “some people” activity now increases.]
Thus, again, the discussion’s variant in this project seems as just a good variant. But that all this project members, even understanding that the discussion’s is “chaotic and undisciplined” and that in the mainstream that is inevitable, stubbornly continue to escape even to mention of the conception; instead of to study the conception and to apply it – that seems non-understandable already.
How they disciplined are? Or what else? …
Cheers
Dorina Grossu | Sergey Shevchenko,
:-), valid observation " again, seems as like schizophrenia ". I can not speak about other research institutes yet at UHN (University Health Network) there is an entire unit that verifies researchers' work and have a scoring system that measures something like "how many times they were cited through articles", "how many articles were published" and "how many new research projects they have" by "how much money they can bring in through new projects".
Then if we look at Mark Zuckerberg, he never published research papers, but instead he purchased a search engine for research papers or rather to monitor those who have a registered identification. " The Toronto-based startup's co-founders have said their goal is to make the service the “plumbing” of medical and academic research access. They claim the company's algorithms can parse study authors and subject matter to prioritize more important papers, as well as build information feeds that adapt to an individual's searching habits. "Mark Zuckerberg's charity is buying a search engine for research papers scientific research losing the human approach of helping those in need and moving towards those who are looking to make profits? Is this one of the main divergence between science and religion or are they both "oriented" towards accumulating power over those who can not protect themselves?
Derek Pigrum | Just to throw the cat among the scientific pigeons I quote Nietzsche as follows:
Steven Wallis | Shadows. Fighting shadows. Down in the depths of Plato's cave.
Who and why? Are you there, am I? What is the victory, what do they crave?
Steven Wallis | Vasyl Komarov please feel free to contact me by email
Steven Wallis | perhaps it is time for a new topic of conversation?
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Dragan Pavlovic, thanks for the friendly opinion. There are a lot of moments, where our positions radically differ. I can also respond in a friendly way that I do not have any illusions that you can easily become in position that is very different from your current beliefs for the same reason of "Plato's cave" (in general, significant change of the belief system is a very painful long process). I do not worry about it. Simply, you vigorously reacted to my cues in the topic, the dialogue forces to respond.
My problems begin with the need to eliminate cognitive dissonance with accessible information. I can refuse information, of course, but I cannot be avoided to see it, it is public. All I have to do is eliminate dissonance. The "modeling of other worlds" is the least interesting.
There are a few new people who deserve better understanding of my motivation and why both philosophy and physics in the current state can be easily destroyed by banal things that many know about and why mathematics cause this. I did not count Eugene Kislyakov because I have minimal language problems with him, besides he is also a participant of many discussions related to this issue, he as a physicist is also more motivated in similar way.
For these people I leave a detailed comment as soon as I finish it or leave a link here, so as not to overwork you with unauthoritative information. I am also grateful to them for the interesting thoughts that voiced in the topic.
I already long ago see no point in non-public (private) talks, unless, when they pursue the goal of benefiting from some joint venture. I'm not afraid to make mistakes and look stupid, any moralizing can be addressed to me publicly.
And I owe you nothing, including to compose a certain number of articles per year (this is a debt to the Ministry of Education and ratings). All I have to do is to eliminate the cognitive dissonance mentioned, unlike the ratings it creates real discomfort inside and not outside. It is a category of important (for me) issues that deserve attention of more people, because the more people involved, the faster response will be received, it more important than ego, I do not want to prove anything to anyone, I only collect the "souls" of those who understand the essence of the problem.
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | By the way, since you are discussing the position of logic with respect to math, it is worth to complicate the problem by adding the theory of computations to the discussion. This will be fair.
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Dear Barbara L. Mccombs, dear Laszlo G Meszaros, we perfectly understand what this project is about. This is what is being discussed, in fact. Even if it seems that some questions are not relevant to the topic. Any moderation will drive the discussion to a standstill. After all, everyone has already said a personal opinion.
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Dear Steven Wallis,
As you can guess, there are things that begin involuntarily and not on a commercial basis - something that can not be planned, either personally or by any organization; on which one can only stumble in a place that no one would even have thought of.
No one can forbid you to join what is free and open in all senses, moreover, what has already lost control. I'm glad to everyone, because this only increases the strength of the intellect. I only apologize in advance, I'm VERY slow introvert. This makes communication difficult (in addition to other concerns that are distracting: children, war, life, work... :-)
I think you also guess from our stormy conversation with reputable Dragan that the subject of research in such a project can only be one (although he does not agree with me), respectively, and the project is only one. This is dictated not by Dragan, but by connectivity as a condition of universality in a dynamic system, and indeed, as a necessary condition to be a system in general.
As I said above, I will prepare a commentary so that it is easy and compact to see the cause-effect relationships and the existing contradictions, where it came from. I think we will postpone the discussion to another quieter place. But, I must warn you, there is a problem with which everyone of us has to fight one on one (beliefs on the shadows in "Plato's cave" that Dragan justly reminds me of).
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
A project is a project, meaning that - although it usually starts with a discussion - it should have a goal. I do not see any goal. (Of course, sometimes this discussion is quite enjoyable.) Another point, this might not be the place to express "personal opinion". Of course, it is welcome, but might not be useful as far as the "project concept" is considered.
Dragan Pavlovic | Vasyl Komarov,
I am desperate. I do not know what you want to say, this is always a complete confusion and no facts. Let me try to explain where our problem is. You write:
"...you can easily become in position that is very different from your current beliefs for the same reason of "Plato's cave"... - Why do you think that I should understand what you want to say? Can you realize that your comment is just standing alone without possible meaning?
Then you write:
"eliminate cognitive dissonance with accessible information" - What should this mean?
"both philosophy and physics in the current state can be easily destroyed" - Destroyed? How? What is your point there?
Then you say that we can complicate the discussion... "by adding the theory of computations to the discussion". - This has almost no meaning to me. What concretely should be added and how? To add the entire theory of computation??? What is this?
And all the rest is incomprehensible to me. Sorry. I simply never know what is this you want to say, there are no facts! This is certainly and partially a language problem. Therefore I mainly do not know what you want to say and it looks to me to be without content.
Can somebody on the thread help, please?
Sergey Shevchenko | It seems, as a next time it is necessary to remind here some points.
Barbara L. Mccombs:
“…This discussion has become quite chaotic and undisciplined it seems…”
- that is indeed so. But that isn’t a bad thing, such situation is inevitable in every philosophical discussion if it proceeds (i) - in framework of the mainstream philosophy; and (2) – if the discussion’s members doesn’t belong to the disciplined mainstream corporation and attempt to elaborate existent philosophical problems indeed basing on some objective and rational [that is another thing – are the criteria and arguments indeed objective/rational or not] criteria and arguments.
To explain/to ground the passage above let me to quote a seems corresponding comment to some debates outside the RG:
_________
“….We think we know what is real and what is not….”
- that is rather strange claim. It is well known that already at least few thousands years there exists two main mainstream-philosophical doctrines, “Materialism” and “Idealism” [and huge number of mainstream sub-doctrines], which fundamentally oppositely answer on the question “What is the Being?”, answering “There is nothing besides Matter and the Being is being of Matter ” – Materialism; and “There is nothing besides Consciousness/Spirit/Idea… and the Being is being of Consciousness/Spirit/Idea…” – Idealism
Thus to claim “we know what is real” keeping in mind two opposite simultaneous “knowing” – that seems as something like schizophrenia…”
_________
Mainstream professional philosophical discussions indeed usually aren’t chaotic and undisciplined – the disciplined mainstream members simply claim, inventing, often, some “new fundamental” postulates defining next “philosophical doctrines” – when belong to a set of “brilliant minds”; or using some doctrines when talking about some of a huge number of the existent doctrines; and, similarly, as that Dragan Pavlovic writes:
“…I would recommend to many people on this thread to publish something in their corresponding science in a quality peer reviewed journal…”
publish in a numerous journals above numerous “peer reviewed philosophical” papers.
When all that is, again, seems as like schizophrenia. The unique difference from the claim in [other] debates above – these papers usually don’t pretend on the Materialism/Idealism dichotomy problem solution, and remain inside some one doctrine, but this point seems as is non-essential in this case – attempts to prove/at least to ground rationally something that fundamentally cannot be proved or at least grounded rationally in the mainstream, seems as aren’t far away from the evident schizophrenia.
That is evident – but the discipline mainstream philosophers never mention this point – seems as “in the house of somebody be hanged they don’t talk about rope”.
A next time:
- since every indeed philosophical discussion always turns out to be related to Meta-mainstream notions/phenomena “Matter” and “Consciousness” [and not only, though], which are fundamentally transcendent in the mainstream, any rational discussing including, for example, what is mathematics and how it relates to the external for an individual human’s consciousness World, can be rational only in framework of the “The Information as Absolute” conception.
Which was rejected by at lest a ten “quality peer reviewed journals”, when, again, in these journals there is no – and cannot be principally - any indeed answer on any indeed fundamental question about the external World and in these journals one can meet with any [objectively] trash.
[And the editors in the journals well understood that the submitted papers were evidently publishable - the rejections above were made since authors of the conception don’t belong to the discipline community; and so understood also that it is necessary by any/every means to block the information about the conception – till the authors are alive. And after the problem of the alive authors will be solved, the conception will be published, of course, in some “quality peer reviewed journals”, having “correct” authors, but till now the problem remains unsolved; and some other people continue to solve it applying another science – the chemistry.
However, since, if a not too blunt human knows about the attempts to kill him, and if about this problem a lot of people on Earth know, this problem becomes be not too simple and I’m alive till now; including because of time to time write in the Net about the situation; and very seems it is necessary to write that again – the “some people” activity now increases.]
Thus, again, the discussion’s variant in this project seems as just a good variant. But that all this project members, even understanding that the discussion’s is “chaotic and undisciplined” and that in the mainstream that is inevitable, stubbornly continue to escape even to mention of the conception; instead of to study the conception and to apply it – that seems non-understandable already.
How they disciplined are? Or what else? …
Cheers
Dorina Grossu | Sergey Shevchenko,
:-), valid observation " again, seems as like schizophrenia ". I can not speak about other research institutes yet at UHN (University Health Network) there is an entire unit that verifies researchers' work and have a scoring system that measures something like "how many times they were cited through articles", "how many articles were published" and "how many new research projects they have" by "how much money they can bring in through new projects".
Then if we look at Mark Zuckerberg, he never published research papers, but instead he purchased a search engine for research papers or rather to monitor those who have a registered identification. " The Toronto-based startup's co-founders have said their goal is to make the service the “plumbing” of medical and academic research access. They claim the company's algorithms can parse study authors and subject matter to prioritize more important papers, as well as build information feeds that adapt to an individual's searching habits. "Mark Zuckerberg's charity is buying a search engine for research papers scientific research losing the human approach of helping those in need and moving towards those who are looking to make profits? Is this one of the main divergence between science and religion or are they both "oriented" towards accumulating power over those who can not protect themselves?
Derek Pigrum | Just to throw the cat among the scientific pigeons I quote Nietzsche as follows:
"Physiologically ...science rests on the same foundation as the ascetic ideal: 'a certain impoverishment of life is a presupposition of both of them — the affects grown cool, the tempo of life slowed down, dialectics in place of instinct, seriousness imprinted on faces and gestures' (seriousness, the most unmistakeable sign of a laboured metabolism, of a struggling, laborious life)"You will not hear from me again and I do not read the comments on this question but on this occasion thought that Nietzsche hit the nail on the head.
— Nietzsche | On the Genealogy of Morals, Third Essay, Sec.25
Steven Wallis | Shadows. Fighting shadows. Down in the depths of Plato's cave.
Who and why? Are you there, am I? What is the victory, what do they crave?
Steven Wallis | Vasyl Komarov please feel free to contact me by email
Steven Wallis | perhaps it is time for a new topic of conversation?
May 8, 2017
Wolfgang F. Schwarz | Steven Wallis
Great, Steven, really sounds like great poetry, I agree:
"Shadows. Fighting shadows. Down in the depths of Plato's cave. […]"
Might be also dAwn in the depths of Plato's den? (Would sound like a verse from Richard Wagner).
Vasyl Komarov | To minimize the functional all means are good, if you really want to find the best minimum and not the one that is beneficial in your current position...
Nietzsche spoke about the true professionalism of a researcher, which (may be) can be worked out (if you are lucky) only by the time when it's time to die.
It is not difficult to see, this is something other than domestic wisdom. After all, he talks about abandoning the instinct of self-preservation in favor of seeking the truth. In general, the loss of the instinct of self-preservation speeds up the risk of death. Giordano Bruno and Archimedes will not let me lie (:
By the way, schizophrenia for a creative tribe (Thinking too much: self-generated thought as the engine of neuroticism, Neuroticism as a Risk Factor for Schizophrenia, Why Creative Geniuses Are Often Neurotic) is quite a decent diagnosis, one can even say, a compliment.
So, do not be discouraged if you are accused of this.
Dragan Pavlovic | Petr Viscor,
Ah, you see, dear Petr, when you will learn things like what is "Wittgenstein" and what the abbreviation "Tract 7" stands for - you will be ready for a discussion on the Philosophy of Science on RG.
You appear not even to be a decent "googwik scientist" since if you entered "Wittgenstein Tract 7" in Google, you would be offered the answer immediately in the first 3 results!
(For "googwik science" see: Do free access to knowledge and/or pseudo knowledge ("googwik science") have damaging effects on society and science?)
Eugene F Kislyakov | Do You think, Dragan, that Stanford is better than Google? Excuse, Dragan, but it is again authorities and complexes...
Dragan Pavlovic | Eugene F Kislyakov.
As I explained in the discussion on "googwik scientists" it is not about just "Google" or "Stanford". Stanford is on Google, by the way! It is about the method. If you did not already understand where the problem is, it will be useless to explain it again.
Marcel M. Lambrechts,
It is always the meaning that is important. To denigrate the complete concept of scientific activity that includes education, research, communication (what Petr Viscor and Medhat Elsahookie are doing) and to push forward religious figures, like Medhat (who are not only religious but carry criminal connotations - religious wars and doctrines, ignorance and scientific blindness) is irresponsible and should NOT be "recommended".
Other commentators.
Please, avoid CLAIMS use only the ARGUMENTS. I know mathematicians who do not know even mathematics, logicians that do not know logic, biologists that do not know biology and this may be also normal, those sciences are enormous. Yet to claim "knowledge" of the special subject on the account of 5 years university courses, or inverse, to deny knowledge if such curriculum is not present - is RIDICULOUS! In addition: PhD is also NOT enough to claim KNOWLEDGE.
Therefore, my and NOT ONLY my criterion! is clear: Please show your arguments and your post-doctoral output. Fill stop.
So please, people who cannot show anything at all of their science, remain here but: be fair, reasonable, well balanced, friendly, have understanding for others, respect each other, as the experienced scientists are doing with you, use arguments, use justified methods, be consequent, show evidence, do not grasp for religion when you do not have an argument, cite your literature, cite people who consecrated their lives to learning, whose arguments you use, OR IF you do not want to be like this - please JUST GO AWAY FROM HERE.
Please.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Go away is not argument, Dragan. Also by your own criteria.
(***)
Wolfgang F. Schwarz | Steven Wallis
Great, Steven, really sounds like great poetry, I agree:
"Shadows. Fighting shadows. Down in the depths of Plato's cave. […]"
Might be also dAwn in the depths of Plato's den? (Would sound like a verse from Richard Wagner).
Vasyl Komarov | To minimize the functional all means are good, if you really want to find the best minimum and not the one that is beneficial in your current position...
Nietzsche spoke about the true professionalism of a researcher, which (may be) can be worked out (if you are lucky) only by the time when it's time to die.
It is not difficult to see, this is something other than domestic wisdom. After all, he talks about abandoning the instinct of self-preservation in favor of seeking the truth. In general, the loss of the instinct of self-preservation speeds up the risk of death. Giordano Bruno and Archimedes will not let me lie (:
By the way, schizophrenia for a creative tribe (Thinking too much: self-generated thought as the engine of neuroticism, Neuroticism as a Risk Factor for Schizophrenia, Why Creative Geniuses Are Often Neurotic) is quite a decent diagnosis, one can even say, a compliment.
So, do not be discouraged if you are accused of this.
Dragan Pavlovic | Petr Viscor,
Ah, you see, dear Petr, when you will learn things like what is "Wittgenstein" and what the abbreviation "Tract 7" stands for - you will be ready for a discussion on the Philosophy of Science on RG.
You appear not even to be a decent "googwik scientist" since if you entered "Wittgenstein Tract 7" in Google, you would be offered the answer immediately in the first 3 results!
(For "googwik science" see: Do free access to knowledge and/or pseudo knowledge ("googwik science") have damaging effects on society and science?)
Eugene F Kislyakov | Do You think, Dragan, that Stanford is better than Google? Excuse, Dragan, but it is again authorities and complexes...
Dragan Pavlovic | Eugene F Kislyakov.
As I explained in the discussion on "googwik scientists" it is not about just "Google" or "Stanford". Stanford is on Google, by the way! It is about the method. If you did not already understand where the problem is, it will be useless to explain it again.
Marcel M. Lambrechts,
It is always the meaning that is important. To denigrate the complete concept of scientific activity that includes education, research, communication (what Petr Viscor and Medhat Elsahookie are doing) and to push forward religious figures, like Medhat (who are not only religious but carry criminal connotations - religious wars and doctrines, ignorance and scientific blindness) is irresponsible and should NOT be "recommended".
Other commentators.
Please, avoid CLAIMS use only the ARGUMENTS. I know mathematicians who do not know even mathematics, logicians that do not know logic, biologists that do not know biology and this may be also normal, those sciences are enormous. Yet to claim "knowledge" of the special subject on the account of 5 years university courses, or inverse, to deny knowledge if such curriculum is not present - is RIDICULOUS! In addition: PhD is also NOT enough to claim KNOWLEDGE.
Therefore, my and NOT ONLY my criterion! is clear: Please show your arguments and your post-doctoral output. Fill stop.
So please, people who cannot show anything at all of their science, remain here but: be fair, reasonable, well balanced, friendly, have understanding for others, respect each other, as the experienced scientists are doing with you, use arguments, use justified methods, be consequent, show evidence, do not grasp for religion when you do not have an argument, cite your literature, cite people who consecrated their lives to learning, whose arguments you use, OR IF you do not want to be like this - please JUST GO AWAY FROM HERE.
Please.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Go away is not argument, Dragan. Also by your own criteria.
(***)
May 11, 2017
Matts Roos | I think this thread Philosophy of Science has lost all contact with science (all the scientists quoted are from 1940 and earlier). The philosophers probably too.
Science today is trying, for instance, to find mathematics to combine gravitation with quantum mechanics. The active scientists are not spending their time studying obsolete philosophy or religion without impact on science, but rather on questions such as whether the Higgs boson is a candidate for the inflaton. Science today has demonstrated by precise measurements that the matter filling the Universe is not composed of protons, neutrons and electrons to more than a few percent. The only link to philosophy or religion is to recognize that we and our visible world is made of some minority type of matter, the majority being all dark and unknown. In this situation I wonder why anybody should be the least interested in discussing a "Philosophy of Science".
Jean Claude Dutailly | To Matts Roots,
"I wonder why anybody should be the least interested in discussing a "Philosophy of Science"."
Simply because they are scientists, and they wonder how "scientists" ask for so much money to "discover" the boson (12.5 b$) which purpose is unknown (beside granting a Nobel Prize), or to work on "cosmology", or to invent "dark matter" or "inflaton", or combine "QM and gravity". What is quite surprising is that people dedicate so much work on subjects that "cannot be understood", or to invent new mysteries. Actually they could write Scifi novels, at least they are less expensive for the tax payer.
Philosophy is the architecture of Thought, it provides a frame work in which to explore knowledge, our relation with nature, or even what structure our mind. Many great people over millenia have dedicated their life to this quest. They are still vividly remembered centuries after their death, for some reason. History is the only judge for true fame. I doubt that the inventors of inflaton or dark matter would ever be remembered in 10 years. Remember the "string theory" ? It was the most fashionable 10 years ago. Sometimes it is better to think before computing.
Matts Roos | I think this thread Philosophy of Science has lost all contact with science (all the scientists quoted are from 1940 and earlier). The philosophers probably too.
Science today is trying, for instance, to find mathematics to combine gravitation with quantum mechanics. The active scientists are not spending their time studying obsolete philosophy or religion without impact on science, but rather on questions such as whether the Higgs boson is a candidate for the inflaton. Science today has demonstrated by precise measurements that the matter filling the Universe is not composed of protons, neutrons and electrons to more than a few percent. The only link to philosophy or religion is to recognize that we and our visible world is made of some minority type of matter, the majority being all dark and unknown. In this situation I wonder why anybody should be the least interested in discussing a "Philosophy of Science".
Jean Claude Dutailly | To Matts Roots,
"I wonder why anybody should be the least interested in discussing a "Philosophy of Science"."
Simply because they are scientists, and they wonder how "scientists" ask for so much money to "discover" the boson (12.5 b$) which purpose is unknown (beside granting a Nobel Prize), or to work on "cosmology", or to invent "dark matter" or "inflaton", or combine "QM and gravity". What is quite surprising is that people dedicate so much work on subjects that "cannot be understood", or to invent new mysteries. Actually they could write Scifi novels, at least they are less expensive for the tax payer.
Philosophy is the architecture of Thought, it provides a frame work in which to explore knowledge, our relation with nature, or even what structure our mind. Many great people over millenia have dedicated their life to this quest. They are still vividly remembered centuries after their death, for some reason. History is the only judge for true fame. I doubt that the inventors of inflaton or dark matter would ever be remembered in 10 years. Remember the "string theory" ? It was the most fashionable 10 years ago. Sometimes it is better to think before computing.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Project: "Philosophy of Science" | Update: Between scientific and religious truth? (part 2) [accessed Jun 06, 2020]
13 трав. 2017 р.
17:04 | Написать действительно развернутый ответ для дискуссии по философии науки не так просто. Трудно остановиться так, чтобы текст имел разумные пределы и в то же время удовлетворял предъявленным претензиям на информативность и доходчивость. Необходима ещё серия итераций.
PS: Всё надо использовать с пользой для Agenda II и de philosophia ab initio.
17:04 | Написать действительно развернутый ответ для дискуссии по философии науки не так просто. Трудно остановиться так, чтобы текст имел разумные пределы и в то же время удовлетворял предъявленным претензиям на информативность и доходчивость. Необходима ещё серия итераций.
PS: Всё надо использовать с пользой для Agenda II и de philosophia ab initio.
15 трав. 2017 р.
19:04 | [перевод] Александрийская библиотека 2.0: Как копирайт похоронил крупнейший архив оцифрованных книг Google Books
Torching the Modern-Day Library of Alexandria
“Somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them.”
19:04 | [перевод] Александрийская библиотека 2.0: Как копирайт похоронил крупнейший архив оцифрованных книг Google Books
Torching the Modern-Day Library of Alexandria
“Somewhere at Google there is a database containing 25 million books and nobody is allowed to read them.”
17 трав. 2017 р.
17:58 | How self-organized criticality works: A unified mean-field picture
1997 | arXiv:cond-mat/9709192 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.57.6345
17:58 | How self-organized criticality works: A unified mean-field picture
1997 | arXiv:cond-mat/9709192 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.57.6345
May 18, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Jean Claude Dutailly, you said very well about the architecture of thinking, but with string theory is not so bad. It will leave a big mark in the history of physics and already had a huge impact on the future (arXiv.org:abs/1512.02477). When the "quantum foam" comes off (figuratively speaking), the first principles underlying the string theory (universality of dynamics, nature from geometry) will remain, imho. This concerns precisely the architecture of thinking, which in many respects echoes the theory of relativity (nature from geometry), concerns thinking in general, not only in physics. On the contrary, thinking grafted by QM provides a more fertile ground for "spontaneous" "mysteries" (hostage to which is, in particular, modern string theory). In addition, some physical (astronomical) observations are also unlikely to change again, however, interpretation of the data may change, (slightly).
NB: Dear Hossein Najafizadeh, I apologize for this unauthorized comment below the "red line" and just one more comment later, which I will have to make, which was reserved in earlier discussion.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Jean Claude Dutailly, you said very well about the architecture of thinking, but with string theory is not so bad. It will leave a big mark in the history of physics and already had a huge impact on the future (arXiv.org:abs/1512.02477). When the "quantum foam" comes off (figuratively speaking), the first principles underlying the string theory (universality of dynamics, nature from geometry) will remain, imho. This concerns precisely the architecture of thinking, which in many respects echoes the theory of relativity (nature from geometry), concerns thinking in general, not only in physics. On the contrary, thinking grafted by QM provides a more fertile ground for "spontaneous" "mysteries" (hostage to which is, in particular, modern string theory). In addition, some physical (astronomical) observations are also unlikely to change again, however, interpretation of the data may change, (slightly).
NB: Dear Hossein Najafizadeh, I apologize for this unauthorized comment below the "red line" and just one more comment later, which I will have to make, which was reserved in earlier discussion.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Project: "Philosophy of Science" | Update: Between scientific and religious truth? (part 2) [accessed Jun 06, 2020]
18 трав. 2017 р.
06:10 | ResearchGate опасен своей непредсказуемостью.
Вот зачем они теперь убрали вкладку "timeline"?!!
О таких грандиозных катаклизмах у нормальных соцсетей принято предупреждать пользователей заранее. Остается лишь констатировать уже полную утрату быстрого доступа к некоторым видам активности пользователей, которые давно не отображаются на вкладке "contribution".
06:10 | ResearchGate опасен своей непредсказуемостью.
Вот зачем они теперь убрали вкладку "timeline"?!!
О таких грандиозных катаклизмах у нормальных соцсетей принято предупреждать пользователей заранее. Остается лишь констатировать уже полную утрату быстрого доступа к некоторым видам активности пользователей, которые давно не отображаются на вкладке "contribution".
May 20, 2017
Theophanes E. Raptis | Notably, the concept of continuity comes from a metaphysical premise - and there are a lot of such involved in any empirical science. Goedel strived for a decade to prove Cantor's Hypothesis and it was only at 1962 that Cohen informed him of his own findings that disproved it via the lesser known "forcing" algorithm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cohen#On_the_continuum_hypothesis
This was as revolutionary as the removal of the parallel postulate from the axiomatization of Euclidean geometry that revealed a myriad of new worlds. It's repercussions do not seem to have propagated enough among the physics community that is always dazzed by the supposed -and overestimated-"effectiveness of (some!-but which?) mathematics in physical sciences", forgetting that maths form an "Art" not necessarily rooted to any reality. Fortunately, there is still a minority trying to escape this "mortal coil"
Article Quantum Mechanics and the Principle of Least Radix Economy
Vasyl Komarov | Theophanes E. Raptis, the meaning of continuum-hypothesis is the affirmation of the equivalence of all infinities, the very ones that "incredibly rich set C given to us by one bold new axiom" in your link to Cohen. The fact is that it is impossible to translate potential infinity into the actual by adding only a single element to the set (I, same as Cohen, can not imagine it, for me it is a scale-invariant process from Zeno's aporia). Potential infinities are weaker than the Continuum, and at the same time, a bijective correspondence can be built between all of them, and there are no intermediate options. All continua are equivalent to an infinite process and are equivalent to each other.
By the way, from the physical point of view his {Cohen's} "forcing" has big problems. In fact, all the sets that you can assume to be physically in a given universe (V) must be just subsets of V. That is, they do not violate the continuum hypothesis. In fact, it is impossible to talk about any regularities between sets that are completely unconnected, and if they are connected through you (including), they are within the framework of continuum-hypothesis.
However, the multiple expanding of the phase space for physics is a very powerful tool, it really opens the way to the infinite multiverse, while being within the continuum-hypothesis! The hypothesis perfectly harmonizes with holism (when a category such as eternity is permissible). In addition, this allows us to formulate regularities, since the continuum hypothesis is the guarantor of the connectedness of sets - with multiverse we can work on general grounds, as with a dynamic system, there is no such corner in it where there would be another mathematics, it is invariant with respect to the multiverse. Invariance means predictable laws for physics, not spontaneous at all.
Vasyl Komarov | If there was no continuum-hypothesis, such a trick as renormalization would (most likely) not be possible at all. The hypothesis postulates equivalence, and our task remains only to reveal the relationships, that is, the logic of structure.
It's frightening to even think about how the world would look if there was no continuum-hypothesis, then in it one might find around the corner of the neighboring house even something that did not come to the minds of the fans of quantum physics in the wildest fantasies.
NB: The structure just represents our position (state) in an endless process in relation to the present continuum (holistic eternity, designated as C in Cohen's reflections).
Azzam K Almosallami | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
In physics according to SRT, there is no continuum in reality. The two postulates of Einstein in SRT illustrate and directly lead to quantum Mechanics. The reality is observer independent according to Minkowski space-time continuum is only game to let physicists to accept SRT at that time, and after that SRT must be changed. Look! the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames of reference that means the reality is observer dependent, not observer independent, and the constancy of the speed of light in this case must lead to the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle by the vacuum fluctuations according to retardation and the entanglement by the invariance not time dilation according to Minkowski space-time continuum which is only game. Now according to the reality is observer dependent and the retardation, that will lead to field theory, not classical continuous field but quantum field, and this is in reality QFT. According to that SRT is working with QFT and is leading to QFT which means the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle by the vacuum fluctuations, and thus according to the retardation and the field there is no empty space, and experiments prove there is no empty in reality which is resulted from the game of Minkowski according to his space-time continuum which is only game. In reality there are no particles, they are only fields.... QFT. And all observations in COSMOS and in Micro world agree with that!!!! And all observations in COSMOS and micro world disagree with Minkowski space-time continuum which is only fake.
Any one who told you that in the reality SRT is observer independent, then he is lier and that is only game from Minkowski in order to SRT to be accepted at that time!!! Look how when physicists understood how the reality in SRT must be observer dependent, all now want to give up SRT. What do you think if Einstein made his relativity observer dependent at that time without the help of Minkowski to be observer independent. None will accept that at that time.
Now by the reality is observer dependent in SRT and the retardation, that will lead to QFT. As you know In classical mechanics, a special status is assigned to time in the sense that it is treated as a classical background parameter, external to the system itself. This special role is seen in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. It is regarded as part of an a priori given classical background with a well defined value. In fact, the classical treatment of time is deeply intertwined with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and, thus, with the conceptual foundations of quantum theory: all measurements of observables are made at certain instants of time and probabilities are only assigned to such measurements.
Now all physics is explained, and all experiments are explained and all observations agree with that from micro to macro, and you can't say no according to observations and experiments. This is physics and this experiment. Otherwise keep cheating your self by the reality is observer independent and Minkowski space-time continuum, which is only game.
Good luck!!!
Theophanes E. Raptis | Notably, the concept of continuity comes from a metaphysical premise - and there are a lot of such involved in any empirical science. Goedel strived for a decade to prove Cantor's Hypothesis and it was only at 1962 that Cohen informed him of his own findings that disproved it via the lesser known "forcing" algorithm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Cohen#On_the_continuum_hypothesis
This was as revolutionary as the removal of the parallel postulate from the axiomatization of Euclidean geometry that revealed a myriad of new worlds. It's repercussions do not seem to have propagated enough among the physics community that is always dazzed by the supposed -and overestimated-"effectiveness of (some!-but which?) mathematics in physical sciences", forgetting that maths form an "Art" not necessarily rooted to any reality. Fortunately, there is still a minority trying to escape this "mortal coil"
Article Quantum Mechanics and the Principle of Least Radix Economy
Vasyl Komarov | Theophanes E. Raptis, the meaning of continuum-hypothesis is the affirmation of the equivalence of all infinities, the very ones that "incredibly rich set C given to us by one bold new axiom" in your link to Cohen. The fact is that it is impossible to translate potential infinity into the actual by adding only a single element to the set (I, same as Cohen, can not imagine it, for me it is a scale-invariant process from Zeno's aporia). Potential infinities are weaker than the Continuum, and at the same time, a bijective correspondence can be built between all of them, and there are no intermediate options. All continua are equivalent to an infinite process and are equivalent to each other.
By the way, from the physical point of view his {Cohen's} "forcing" has big problems. In fact, all the sets that you can assume to be physically in a given universe (V) must be just subsets of V. That is, they do not violate the continuum hypothesis. In fact, it is impossible to talk about any regularities between sets that are completely unconnected, and if they are connected through you (including), they are within the framework of continuum-hypothesis.
However, the multiple expanding of the phase space for physics is a very powerful tool, it really opens the way to the infinite multiverse, while being within the continuum-hypothesis! The hypothesis perfectly harmonizes with holism (when a category such as eternity is permissible). In addition, this allows us to formulate regularities, since the continuum hypothesis is the guarantor of the connectedness of sets - with multiverse we can work on general grounds, as with a dynamic system, there is no such corner in it where there would be another mathematics, it is invariant with respect to the multiverse. Invariance means predictable laws for physics, not spontaneous at all.
Vasyl Komarov | If there was no continuum-hypothesis, such a trick as renormalization would (most likely) not be possible at all. The hypothesis postulates equivalence, and our task remains only to reveal the relationships, that is, the logic of structure.
It's frightening to even think about how the world would look if there was no continuum-hypothesis, then in it one might find around the corner of the neighboring house even something that did not come to the minds of the fans of quantum physics in the wildest fantasies.
NB: The structure just represents our position (state) in an endless process in relation to the present continuum (holistic eternity, designated as C in Cohen's reflections).
Azzam K Almosallami | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
In physics according to SRT, there is no continuum in reality. The two postulates of Einstein in SRT illustrate and directly lead to quantum Mechanics. The reality is observer independent according to Minkowski space-time continuum is only game to let physicists to accept SRT at that time, and after that SRT must be changed. Look! the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames of reference that means the reality is observer dependent, not observer independent, and the constancy of the speed of light in this case must lead to the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle by the vacuum fluctuations according to retardation and the entanglement by the invariance not time dilation according to Minkowski space-time continuum which is only game. Now according to the reality is observer dependent and the retardation, that will lead to field theory, not classical continuous field but quantum field, and this is in reality QFT. According to that SRT is working with QFT and is leading to QFT which means the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle by the vacuum fluctuations, and thus according to the retardation and the field there is no empty space, and experiments prove there is no empty in reality which is resulted from the game of Minkowski according to his space-time continuum which is only game. In reality there are no particles, they are only fields.... QFT. And all observations in COSMOS and in Micro world agree with that!!!! And all observations in COSMOS and micro world disagree with Minkowski space-time continuum which is only fake.
Any one who told you that in the reality SRT is observer independent, then he is lier and that is only game from Minkowski in order to SRT to be accepted at that time!!! Look how when physicists understood how the reality in SRT must be observer dependent, all now want to give up SRT. What do you think if Einstein made his relativity observer dependent at that time without the help of Minkowski to be observer independent. None will accept that at that time.
Now by the reality is observer dependent in SRT and the retardation, that will lead to QFT. As you know In classical mechanics, a special status is assigned to time in the sense that it is treated as a classical background parameter, external to the system itself. This special role is seen in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. It is regarded as part of an a priori given classical background with a well defined value. In fact, the classical treatment of time is deeply intertwined with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and, thus, with the conceptual foundations of quantum theory: all measurements of observables are made at certain instants of time and probabilities are only assigned to such measurements.
Now all physics is explained, and all experiments are explained and all observations agree with that from micro to macro, and you can't say no according to observations and experiments. This is physics and this experiment. Otherwise keep cheating your self by the reality is observer independent and Minkowski space-time continuum, which is only game.
Good luck!!!
May 22, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Azzam, the statement that reality does not depend on the observer is a thing that you can not heard from me. I do not have much interest in a dispute with you, this has long been obsessed and tedious. I'm not trying to prove something to you. I just replaced the observer with the more general word "system".
There are invariant (objective, as I also said before) things, really, not depending on the particular observer. The same laws mean predictability of physics and the connectivity of reality (everything, as Copernicus bequeathed in his hypothesis of mediocrity).
The reasoning about the continuum is beyond the scope of this topic, it is more relevant to the problem of time, you just do not see other discussions on RG, as I said earlier, you are too focused on what you think is the most important. I already expressed opinion about the narrow focus of your interests in this topic: What is reason at the base of the time dilation (clock retardation) of atomic clocks?
Sorry, but you can not judge an observer ignoring such sections of science as mathematics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, psychology, the philosophy of science, the history of science... As I already said before, you and I operate completely different sets of data.
PS: My actual words from another discussion, in agreement to your claims to the observer (that is, to all of us): 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.
This is instead of "Good luck!"
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, on one of Space X landing droneships might well be the inscription "Our experience hitherto justifies us". At least because neither Einstein nor Cohen thought about they thought within reality.
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
You are only telling words no physics and math. All I want from you to respect the thinking of physicists since more than 100 years that thinking to solve the paradoxes of SRT, and there are no solutions for the paradoxes in SRT.
You cheat yourself and you cheat all physicists when you say there is time dilation in SRT instead of clock retardation. There is a difference between clock retardation and time dilation in physics, and do not forget that. Please do not mix between both and use the Straw man in order to confuse all here.
Now according to your time dilation in SRT show us at least how to solve the twin paradox in SRT. In order to solve the twin paradox in SRT for example you need to propose the classical acceleration. This is really game...Why? Because in order to use the classical acceleration in solving the Twin paradox you need to keep on the continuity in classical physics, and that required to the keep on the reality is observer independent same as in Galilean transformation when t'=t. In SRT you say t'not=t as a result of time dilation. So show us here how the reality is observer independent in SRT same as in Galilean transformation when t=t' according to your time dilation and length contraction, and how that is keeping on continuity same as in classical physics before you use the classical acceleration in SRT in order to solve the twin paradox.
Using the classical acceleration required the continuity in classical physics and the continuity in classical physics required the reality is observer independent according to GT when t'=t, and you say in SRT there is time dilation and t' not=t.
Try at least to understand how the reality is observer independent in Galilean transformation when t'=t and try to understand how GT is keeping on the continuity in classical physics. It is very simple now to understand how is that.
Now if you say what is in SRT is clock retardation not time dilation, then I agree with you completely. According to that it is "field", and according to "field", the reality is observer dependent, and that well known in physics. In this case the relativistic effect is QFT and gauge according to the retardation. According to field, all the paradoxes are disappeared and no need to solve the twin paradox because there is no twin paradox as a result of the retardation, and as you know in Feynman theory time is moving forward not backward. Since the reality is observer dependent in field which is leading QFT as the relativistic effect, in this case it is Copenhagen school school. Now we solved the problem of time in physics...how?
In classical mechanics, a special status is assigned to time in the sense that it is treated as a classical background parameter, external to the system itself. This special role is seen in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. It is regarded as part of an a priori given classical background with a well defined value. In fact, the classical treatment of time is deeply intertwined with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and, thus, with the conceptual foundations of quantum theory: all measurements of observables are made at certain instants of time and probabilities are only assigned to such measurements.
Good Luck
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
Please do not hate me or my theory. I'm not challenging you or any one here!!! I'm only need to know the truth no more, and it is my right.
Do you know why I'm angry from relativists!!!??? I did my theory since I was in my second year of my study BA. before 24 years from now. The first one who reviewed my theory was the father of relativity in the country I study. He was known the Boss of relativity in the country. My university sent my theory to him. This man was Marxist and atheist. When he read my theory and he understood it. He told me that I'm doing sorcery!!! He told me I must keep on materialism in physics and physics is built on materialism. All what I did in my theory is nonsense relative to him. He told me at that time bad words and I do not know why!!! At that time I do not know what is exactly materialism and idealism. All I know a little bit of quantum theory and how energy is quantized and how to understand length contraction and time in SRT in a simple way without paradoxes. And how the Lorentz factor must work same as the refractive index in optics.
After that my professor sent my theory to his Supervisor at the university of St Andrews. At that time the reply was positive that my theory is agreed completely with the Copenhagen school and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. At that time I haven't heard about the the Copenhagen school and my professor gave me books about the philosophy of the Copenhagen school. I found really all the philosophy of the Copenhagen is in my theory, and that at time I understood why the Boss of relativity told me that I'm doing sorcery and he told me that bad words. I found him at that time very angry and I did not know why!!! I only introduced an idea in physics how to understand relativity in simple way no more and it agrees with the Copenhagen school. I discussed with many relativists worldwide, some of them they told me you are right but we can't help you. Some of them were telling me bad words. That was hurting me too much, but I was keep silent. What can I do!!?? Even When I went to study my master, the first condition in order to my supervisor accept me is to forget my theory and I do not work in my theory!!! My supervisor told me I know you are right, but your theory is forbidden in physics.
At that time in order to prove my theory I need first to understand the decreasing of the velocity of the massive object under the gravitational field, and second the possibility of measuring faster than light globally in order to prove my theory.
The first one who helped me Prof Gunter Nimtz and I really thank him too much, because he was the first hope for me. He sent me his papers by email, and I could understand at that time how my theory can explain quantum tunneling and after that entanglement. After that It came to me the problem of Pioneer anomaly which is leading to decreasing of the velocity of massive objects under the gravitational field. When I solved the Pioneer anomaly according to my theory. It came to me bad emails in order to not try to publish my paper in arxiv. If you read what they were saying to me by emails in order to disappoint me, you will not believe. In fact these emails changed my view point toward relativists. They were very bad!!! I do not know why they did like that. We only exchange our ideas, and each one must respect the ideas of the others. But from the beginning relativists did not respect my ideas!!!
Now the most who helped to understand how relativity is wrong are the papers of prof. W. Engelhardt. He is really for me my inspiration.
I'm just introducing new ideas in physics, they are maybe right or wrong. It is my right to introduce my ideas. During the past 24 years I suffered too much from relativists. I traveled too much from west to east from North to south for the truth only!!!
Before 24 years I heard this word "sorcery" from one of the relativists, and he was Marxist. Now it is my time to repeat this word to relativists and I say "relativists are doing sorcery not me!! It is my right, and this is reality. I'm not cheating any one. I'm only telling the truth. So if you are Marxist, then go to who cheated you and told you that SRT keeps on materialism. SRT is impossible to keep on materialism. SRT is supporting idealism. Your problem is not with me. Your problem is with relativists not with me. Relativists are really unjust.
Yin Zhu | Dear Dr. Azzam K Almosallami,
A very interesting story.
Please see:
Data Anti-ethics and pseudoscience: On Albert Einstein's theory o...
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Yin Zhu,
Thank you very much for you comment. The link you sent is not appeared. can you send me it again.
Thanks
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Yin Zhu, I recommend that you carefully use term "ethics" in relation to science. It is applicable to people (who, for example, developed and manufactured atomic weapons) but not to knowledge.
From ethics, as you interpret it, you can trace a straight path to accusations of insulting the feelings of believers, and from there it is no longer difficult to reach the Inquisition.
Sorry for being rude and straightforward. But this is actually the case.
Dear Azzam, link here
Data Anti-ethics and pseudoscience: On Albert Einstein's theory o...
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Azzam, the statement that reality does not depend on the observer is a thing that you can not heard from me. I do not have much interest in a dispute with you, this has long been obsessed and tedious. I'm not trying to prove something to you. I just replaced the observer with the more general word "system".
There are invariant (objective, as I also said before) things, really, not depending on the particular observer. The same laws mean predictability of physics and the connectivity of reality (everything, as Copernicus bequeathed in his hypothesis of mediocrity).
The reasoning about the continuum is beyond the scope of this topic, it is more relevant to the problem of time, you just do not see other discussions on RG, as I said earlier, you are too focused on what you think is the most important. I already expressed opinion about the narrow focus of your interests in this topic: What is reason at the base of the time dilation (clock retardation) of atomic clocks?
Sorry, but you can not judge an observer ignoring such sections of science as mathematics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, psychology, the philosophy of science, the history of science... As I already said before, you and I operate completely different sets of data.
PS: My actual words from another discussion, in agreement to your claims to the observer (that is, to all of us): 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.
This is instead of "Good luck!"
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, on one of Space X landing droneships might well be the inscription "Our experience hitherto justifies us". At least because neither Einstein nor Cohen thought about they thought within reality.
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
You are only telling words no physics and math. All I want from you to respect the thinking of physicists since more than 100 years that thinking to solve the paradoxes of SRT, and there are no solutions for the paradoxes in SRT.
You cheat yourself and you cheat all physicists when you say there is time dilation in SRT instead of clock retardation. There is a difference between clock retardation and time dilation in physics, and do not forget that. Please do not mix between both and use the Straw man in order to confuse all here.
Now according to your time dilation in SRT show us at least how to solve the twin paradox in SRT. In order to solve the twin paradox in SRT for example you need to propose the classical acceleration. This is really game...Why? Because in order to use the classical acceleration in solving the Twin paradox you need to keep on the continuity in classical physics, and that required to the keep on the reality is observer independent same as in Galilean transformation when t'=t. In SRT you say t'not=t as a result of time dilation. So show us here how the reality is observer independent in SRT same as in Galilean transformation when t=t' according to your time dilation and length contraction, and how that is keeping on continuity same as in classical physics before you use the classical acceleration in SRT in order to solve the twin paradox.
Using the classical acceleration required the continuity in classical physics and the continuity in classical physics required the reality is observer independent according to GT when t'=t, and you say in SRT there is time dilation and t' not=t.
Try at least to understand how the reality is observer independent in Galilean transformation when t'=t and try to understand how GT is keeping on the continuity in classical physics. It is very simple now to understand how is that.
Now if you say what is in SRT is clock retardation not time dilation, then I agree with you completely. According to that it is "field", and according to "field", the reality is observer dependent, and that well known in physics. In this case the relativistic effect is QFT and gauge according to the retardation. According to field, all the paradoxes are disappeared and no need to solve the twin paradox because there is no twin paradox as a result of the retardation, and as you know in Feynman theory time is moving forward not backward. Since the reality is observer dependent in field which is leading QFT as the relativistic effect, in this case it is Copenhagen school school. Now we solved the problem of time in physics...how?
In classical mechanics, a special status is assigned to time in the sense that it is treated as a classical background parameter, external to the system itself. This special role is seen in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics. It is regarded as part of an a priori given classical background with a well defined value. In fact, the classical treatment of time is deeply intertwined with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and, thus, with the conceptual foundations of quantum theory: all measurements of observables are made at certain instants of time and probabilities are only assigned to such measurements.
Good Luck
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
Please do not hate me or my theory. I'm not challenging you or any one here!!! I'm only need to know the truth no more, and it is my right.
Do you know why I'm angry from relativists!!!??? I did my theory since I was in my second year of my study BA. before 24 years from now. The first one who reviewed my theory was the father of relativity in the country I study. He was known the Boss of relativity in the country. My university sent my theory to him. This man was Marxist and atheist. When he read my theory and he understood it. He told me that I'm doing sorcery!!! He told me I must keep on materialism in physics and physics is built on materialism. All what I did in my theory is nonsense relative to him. He told me at that time bad words and I do not know why!!! At that time I do not know what is exactly materialism and idealism. All I know a little bit of quantum theory and how energy is quantized and how to understand length contraction and time in SRT in a simple way without paradoxes. And how the Lorentz factor must work same as the refractive index in optics.
After that my professor sent my theory to his Supervisor at the university of St Andrews. At that time the reply was positive that my theory is agreed completely with the Copenhagen school and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. At that time I haven't heard about the the Copenhagen school and my professor gave me books about the philosophy of the Copenhagen school. I found really all the philosophy of the Copenhagen is in my theory, and that at time I understood why the Boss of relativity told me that I'm doing sorcery and he told me that bad words. I found him at that time very angry and I did not know why!!! I only introduced an idea in physics how to understand relativity in simple way no more and it agrees with the Copenhagen school. I discussed with many relativists worldwide, some of them they told me you are right but we can't help you. Some of them were telling me bad words. That was hurting me too much, but I was keep silent. What can I do!!?? Even When I went to study my master, the first condition in order to my supervisor accept me is to forget my theory and I do not work in my theory!!! My supervisor told me I know you are right, but your theory is forbidden in physics.
At that time in order to prove my theory I need first to understand the decreasing of the velocity of the massive object under the gravitational field, and second the possibility of measuring faster than light globally in order to prove my theory.
The first one who helped me Prof Gunter Nimtz and I really thank him too much, because he was the first hope for me. He sent me his papers by email, and I could understand at that time how my theory can explain quantum tunneling and after that entanglement. After that It came to me the problem of Pioneer anomaly which is leading to decreasing of the velocity of massive objects under the gravitational field. When I solved the Pioneer anomaly according to my theory. It came to me bad emails in order to not try to publish my paper in arxiv. If you read what they were saying to me by emails in order to disappoint me, you will not believe. In fact these emails changed my view point toward relativists. They were very bad!!! I do not know why they did like that. We only exchange our ideas, and each one must respect the ideas of the others. But from the beginning relativists did not respect my ideas!!!
Now the most who helped to understand how relativity is wrong are the papers of prof. W. Engelhardt. He is really for me my inspiration.
I'm just introducing new ideas in physics, they are maybe right or wrong. It is my right to introduce my ideas. During the past 24 years I suffered too much from relativists. I traveled too much from west to east from North to south for the truth only!!!
Before 24 years I heard this word "sorcery" from one of the relativists, and he was Marxist. Now it is my time to repeat this word to relativists and I say "relativists are doing sorcery not me!! It is my right, and this is reality. I'm not cheating any one. I'm only telling the truth. So if you are Marxist, then go to who cheated you and told you that SRT keeps on materialism. SRT is impossible to keep on materialism. SRT is supporting idealism. Your problem is not with me. Your problem is with relativists not with me. Relativists are really unjust.
Yin Zhu | Dear Dr. Azzam K Almosallami,
A very interesting story.
Please see:
Data Anti-ethics and pseudoscience: On Albert Einstein's theory o...
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Yin Zhu,
Thank you very much for you comment. The link you sent is not appeared. can you send me it again.
Thanks
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Yin Zhu, I recommend that you carefully use term "ethics" in relation to science. It is applicable to people (who, for example, developed and manufactured atomic weapons) but not to knowledge.
From ethics, as you interpret it, you can trace a straight path to accusations of insulting the feelings of believers, and from there it is no longer difficult to reach the Inquisition.
Sorry for being rude and straightforward. But this is actually the case.
Dear Azzam, link here
Data Anti-ethics and pseudoscience: On Albert Einstein's theory o...
(May 23, 2017)
Yin Zhu | Dear Dr. Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
Thank you very much for your recommendation.
Here, the anti-ethics only means that Einstein faked his conclusions in the theory of relativity and the original workers' works are ascribed to Einstein by relativists. I need a clear explanation for it.
Best wishes.
{Господин Yin Zhu из города Wuhan, кстати. В связи с пандемией COVID-19 хотелось бы пожелать крепкого здоровья!}
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Yin Zhu, what someone ascribes to Einstein is their problem (the best thing is to ask Einstein's opinion). He was not a man in emptiness. All ideas (contradictions) are already ripe by that time. However, details of the whole could not keep together, if there was no glue (a little noticeable component, without which it is difficult to see the whole picture). About time of Darwin, for example, one can say exactly the same.
You attack Einstein as a symbol of the whole picture. His credit is that he was one of the first who overcame the prevailing belief system personally, and he successfully managed to help others, thereby prolonging the life of new center of attraction that arose in the knowledge system. The system was so stable that it was not dissipated along with the death of those in the heads of whom it originated. It was not a simple and instantaneous process without errors. It's only from a distance of a hundred years the wave crisis in the system provoked by cognitive dissonance looks like a quantum jump from one state to another.
Not Einstein but you are forgetting other people involved in the collapse of the prevailing belief system. It's funny. Because structure of your claims to him for me seems absurd. You accuse one person of stealing ideas, which in your opinion are unscientific and do not represent value. So why are you defending the rights of other culprits?!!
By the way, the very fact that not single person is the culprit of situation indicates that the process was inevitable. Even if there was no trace of a man named Einstein, something like what is called "relativity theory" would sooner or later invaded your life. Most likely, it would differ little in its essence.
Yin Zhu | Dear Dr. Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
Thank you very much for your recommendation.
Here, the anti-ethics only means that Einstein faked his conclusions in the theory of relativity and the original workers' works are ascribed to Einstein by relativists. I need a clear explanation for it.
Best wishes.
{Господин Yin Zhu из города Wuhan, кстати. В связи с пандемией COVID-19 хотелось бы пожелать крепкого здоровья!}
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Yin Zhu, what someone ascribes to Einstein is their problem (the best thing is to ask Einstein's opinion). He was not a man in emptiness. All ideas (contradictions) are already ripe by that time. However, details of the whole could not keep together, if there was no glue (a little noticeable component, without which it is difficult to see the whole picture). About time of Darwin, for example, one can say exactly the same.
You attack Einstein as a symbol of the whole picture. His credit is that he was one of the first who overcame the prevailing belief system personally, and he successfully managed to help others, thereby prolonging the life of new center of attraction that arose in the knowledge system. The system was so stable that it was not dissipated along with the death of those in the heads of whom it originated. It was not a simple and instantaneous process without errors. It's only from a distance of a hundred years the wave crisis in the system provoked by cognitive dissonance looks like a quantum jump from one state to another.
Not Einstein but you are forgetting other people involved in the collapse of the prevailing belief system. It's funny. Because structure of your claims to him for me seems absurd. You accuse one person of stealing ideas, which in your opinion are unscientific and do not represent value. So why are you defending the rights of other culprits?!!
By the way, the very fact that not single person is the culprit of situation indicates that the process was inevitable. Even if there was no trace of a man named Einstein, something like what is called "relativity theory" would sooner or later invaded your life. Most likely, it would differ little in its essence.
May 22, 2017
Eric Lord | Hello Azzam ~
You say: “When I was young I wanted to be Poet, musician, writer or filmmaker”.
A human being can have many facets, many passions. We are not one-dimensional. When I was very young I wanted to be an animator for Disney, later: a car designer, a painter (I create art of a ‘fantasy’ kind but only for my own pleasure, not professionally), an architect… (I spent three years studying to become an architect before switching to mathematics). I, like you, am passionate about movies.
The sciences and the arts are not so different as you are making them out to be. It is not true that doing maths or physics is a matter of pure logic and that activity in the arts is pure imagination. All creative activities have a distinctive aesthetic component.
“A theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one that fits some experimental data.” - Paul Dirac
"What makes the theory of relativity so acceptable to physicists in spite of its going against the principle of simplicity is its great mathematical beauty. This is a quality which cannot be defined, any more than beauty in art can be defined, but which people who study mathematics usually have no difficulty in appreciating." - Paul Dirac
Significant advances in Physics have their roots in imagination. Without imagination Einstein would not have able to arrive at his theories. Nor could you have arrived at yours.
The validity of an artistic work rests on the feelings and thoughts it arouses in the observer. The validity of a scientific theory rests on whether it corresponds to some aspects of Nature (My knowledge of experimental work leads me to the conviction that Einstein’s theories are indeed valid in that sense. Others in these discussions disagree, but they put forward no convincing support for that disagreement; their errors are transparently obvious to anyone who has studied the subject in depth.)
Best Wishes
~ Eric
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Eric,
At first if you are really honest in what you say then answer one question of my questions at least.
You said "“A theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one that fits some experimental data.”
Now according to the what you say this is not physics, this only Sorcery. According to that I must learn physics from the books of magicians and sorcerers. I told you before that physics with your relativity is not physics, it is only alchemy!!! Now you proved I'm saying the truth!!!!
I understand well how the work of an artist or Poet is affected by the feeling of an artist or poet. The artist or poet can pick up the reality what he wants from nature, but this reality is always is related to the feeling to this artist or poet. And he can draw the world he want by his feeling and imagination. This world is only imaginative not real, even if it was beautiful when it is seen by others.
But nature and physics are impossible to move according to the feeling of an artist or poet. Our world is real. We move, we set, We build buildings, The planes are flying, and cars are moving on streets, we sleep, we eat, we love, we cry, we laugh, we feel happy and sad. We see the sky, Stars, Sun, moon and Galaxies. All of that are impossible to move like this according to the feeling, and willing an artist or poet. There must be an absolute truth for all of that, far a way from the feeling and willing of any person in this world. Bring to me any person can do all of that according to his feeling and Willing!!!! Physics and experiment can only answer that!!!
I don't believe in physics that done according to magicians and sorcerers. When you tell me all of that is moving according to your approximations in SRT or GR, and you understand well how your approximation is only sorcery, and not related to physics and math. How all of that is moving accurately and regularly according to your approximation which is depending on sorcery!!!??? That is impossible.
Yin Zhu | Dear Prof. Lord,
In a widespread book “Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius”, it was shown that, Einstein made 23 mistakes in mathematics, almost including all of the main conclusions in his theory of relativity.
Why Einstein can obtain "right" conclusions from wrong derivations?
How can you feel beauty from the wrong derivations?
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Azzam, I'm not hating you. Anyway, no more than you me :) "I'm not challenging you or any one here!!! I'm only need to know the truth no more, and it is my right."
Of course, I can be blamed for the fact that I am attentive to our dialogue, since I remember what we have already discussed. If this irritates you, it is surprising, because it contradicts the generally accepted framework of decency. You can completely ignore all the interlocutors that annoy you.
As this happens (you not ignore me), it means that my words for some reason offend your belief system. In that case I can only give (but do not want to) friendly advice to review it.
As an attentive interlocutor, you should have realized long time ago that I agree with opinion that SRT does not have any serious mathematical and logical contradictions. However, this is not directly related to what we were just talking about. The key word in our last debate is the observer!
Speaking of that thread [What is reason at the base of the time dilation (clock retardation) of atomic clocks?] I meant only our mutual messages, not its title. Throw out of your head (for a while) all these "dilations", "retardations", all the playgame that was practiced for a hundred years.
I understand enough all that you want to tell me. Our discussion, by the way, is a wonderful demonstration of how singularity hinders transfer of information. In my opinion problem can be unraveled only from entirely different attraction center, which is beyond the scope of listed (in my previous replica) sections of knowledge, including physics.
All you can say about the time within Copenhagen interpretation is that any two measurement are separable (i.e. distinguishable) from each other. But how this happens quantum mechanics can not judge thanks to the principle of uncertainty and the fact that everything you are dealing with has a spatial extent. The Copenhagen's physical world is made up of small objects and classical size instrumentation.
Try to build a distributed telescope from a group of satellites, and you will see that bare quantum mechanics is powerless to solve problem. It only suitable to count events on the ready-adjusted device.
The "time" of quantum mechanics is historically stepwise (unitary evolution according to the Schrödinger equation), because QM has a limited outlook (as a prehistoric man, for whom in the radius of vision all events occur simultaneously - statistical observations of actually "stationary" reduced states played an important role in forming of this understanding of time.) Reduced states are unitary with respect to time in spite of spatial structure as any static frames of movie from measurement (event) to measurement (event) (after measurement you can look at the picture as long as you like, even if you are not able to move from one corner to the other in an instant).
As I said a few days ago in other thread: "Quantum physics can not claim knowledge of determinism, since it deprives itself of this possibility from the beginning postulating a statistical approach to events. In quantum mechanics there is no at all question: Why?" (Unlike, for example, mechanics of Newton with forces, where the cause and effect are at the forefront.)
This is just my personal opinion, you can disagree with me as much as you like.
With best wishes, Vasily.
Eric Lord | Hello Azzam ~
You say: “When I was young I wanted to be Poet, musician, writer or filmmaker”.
A human being can have many facets, many passions. We are not one-dimensional. When I was very young I wanted to be an animator for Disney, later: a car designer, a painter (I create art of a ‘fantasy’ kind but only for my own pleasure, not professionally), an architect… (I spent three years studying to become an architect before switching to mathematics). I, like you, am passionate about movies.
The sciences and the arts are not so different as you are making them out to be. It is not true that doing maths or physics is a matter of pure logic and that activity in the arts is pure imagination. All creative activities have a distinctive aesthetic component.
“A theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one that fits some experimental data.” - Paul Dirac
"What makes the theory of relativity so acceptable to physicists in spite of its going against the principle of simplicity is its great mathematical beauty. This is a quality which cannot be defined, any more than beauty in art can be defined, but which people who study mathematics usually have no difficulty in appreciating." - Paul Dirac
Significant advances in Physics have their roots in imagination. Without imagination Einstein would not have able to arrive at his theories. Nor could you have arrived at yours.
The validity of an artistic work rests on the feelings and thoughts it arouses in the observer. The validity of a scientific theory rests on whether it corresponds to some aspects of Nature (My knowledge of experimental work leads me to the conviction that Einstein’s theories are indeed valid in that sense. Others in these discussions disagree, but they put forward no convincing support for that disagreement; their errors are transparently obvious to anyone who has studied the subject in depth.)
Best Wishes
~ Eric
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Eric,
At first if you are really honest in what you say then answer one question of my questions at least.
You said "“A theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one that fits some experimental data.”
Now according to the what you say this is not physics, this only Sorcery. According to that I must learn physics from the books of magicians and sorcerers. I told you before that physics with your relativity is not physics, it is only alchemy!!! Now you proved I'm saying the truth!!!!
I understand well how the work of an artist or Poet is affected by the feeling of an artist or poet. The artist or poet can pick up the reality what he wants from nature, but this reality is always is related to the feeling to this artist or poet. And he can draw the world he want by his feeling and imagination. This world is only imaginative not real, even if it was beautiful when it is seen by others.
But nature and physics are impossible to move according to the feeling of an artist or poet. Our world is real. We move, we set, We build buildings, The planes are flying, and cars are moving on streets, we sleep, we eat, we love, we cry, we laugh, we feel happy and sad. We see the sky, Stars, Sun, moon and Galaxies. All of that are impossible to move like this according to the feeling, and willing an artist or poet. There must be an absolute truth for all of that, far a way from the feeling and willing of any person in this world. Bring to me any person can do all of that according to his feeling and Willing!!!! Physics and experiment can only answer that!!!
I don't believe in physics that done according to magicians and sorcerers. When you tell me all of that is moving according to your approximations in SRT or GR, and you understand well how your approximation is only sorcery, and not related to physics and math. How all of that is moving accurately and regularly according to your approximation which is depending on sorcery!!!??? That is impossible.
Yin Zhu | Dear Prof. Lord,
In a widespread book “Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius”, it was shown that, Einstein made 23 mistakes in mathematics, almost including all of the main conclusions in his theory of relativity.
Why Einstein can obtain "right" conclusions from wrong derivations?
How can you feel beauty from the wrong derivations?
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Azzam, I'm not hating you. Anyway, no more than you me :) "I'm not challenging you or any one here!!! I'm only need to know the truth no more, and it is my right."
Of course, I can be blamed for the fact that I am attentive to our dialogue, since I remember what we have already discussed. If this irritates you, it is surprising, because it contradicts the generally accepted framework of decency. You can completely ignore all the interlocutors that annoy you.
As this happens (you not ignore me), it means that my words for some reason offend your belief system. In that case I can only give (but do not want to) friendly advice to review it.
As an attentive interlocutor, you should have realized long time ago that I agree with opinion that SRT does not have any serious mathematical and logical contradictions. However, this is not directly related to what we were just talking about. The key word in our last debate is the observer!
Speaking of that thread [What is reason at the base of the time dilation (clock retardation) of atomic clocks?] I meant only our mutual messages, not its title. Throw out of your head (for a while) all these "dilations", "retardations", all the playgame that was practiced for a hundred years.
I understand enough all that you want to tell me. Our discussion, by the way, is a wonderful demonstration of how singularity hinders transfer of information. In my opinion problem can be unraveled only from entirely different attraction center, which is beyond the scope of listed (in my previous replica) sections of knowledge, including physics.
All you can say about the time within Copenhagen interpretation is that any two measurement are separable (i.e. distinguishable) from each other. But how this happens quantum mechanics can not judge thanks to the principle of uncertainty and the fact that everything you are dealing with has a spatial extent. The Copenhagen's physical world is made up of small objects and classical size instrumentation.
Try to build a distributed telescope from a group of satellites, and you will see that bare quantum mechanics is powerless to solve problem. It only suitable to count events on the ready-adjusted device.
The "time" of quantum mechanics is historically stepwise (unitary evolution according to the Schrödinger equation), because QM has a limited outlook (as a prehistoric man, for whom in the radius of vision all events occur simultaneously - statistical observations of actually "stationary" reduced states played an important role in forming of this understanding of time.) Reduced states are unitary with respect to time in spite of spatial structure as any static frames of movie from measurement (event) to measurement (event) (after measurement you can look at the picture as long as you like, even if you are not able to move from one corner to the other in an instant).
As I said a few days ago in other thread: "Quantum physics can not claim knowledge of determinism, since it deprives itself of this possibility from the beginning postulating a statistical approach to events. In quantum mechanics there is no at all question: Why?" (Unlike, for example, mechanics of Newton with forces, where the cause and effect are at the forefront.)
This is just my personal opinion, you can disagree with me as much as you like.
With best wishes, Vasily.
May 23, 2017
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy,
I'm discussing with you physically, and you must reply to me physically! Like this we shall not agree!
Accordng to your understanding to relativity, what is exist in SRT time dilation or cllock retardation!!?? Do not mix between both!!! If you want to mix between both then you use Straw man!!
Second if the reality is observer independent in SRT same as in Galilean transformation when t'=t to keep on continuity same as in classical physics, then according to physics and experiment we must not register time dilation according to the experiment. But as relativists say they measured time dilation in the experiment. In this case they are lairs. What they measured is not time dilation, what they measured is clock retardation, and since it is clock retardation, in this case the reality must be observer dependent not observer independent. Now it is field theory, QFT and gauge. And I explained how is that in my paper.
Now I'm really busy and I write by my mobile.
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
Relative to your point of view relative to quantum mechanics is not true!! All what you say is only Straw man. I can reply to you according to physics and experiment. But I know you will not answer any question of my questions. You will escape as all relativists from real discussion. Look how many questions I asked Eric Lord. I answered all of these questions from micro to macro, while Eric Lord refused to answer or explain any of these question because he knows he can't. He understand well how his theory can't help him basis on the wrong math and physics. Now all understand how SRT is wrong mathematically and physically according to the reality is observer independent and it does not support materialism. SRT is working only according to the reality is observer dependent and thus it supports idealism
All my discussions are related to physics and experiments, while your discussions now are related to philosophy, idealism and materialism. In reality you must let physics and experiment to talk instead of explaining physics according to what you believe!!! I'm not explaining physics according to what I believe. I let physics and experiment to talk. What if my theory is wrong!!?? Then according to that what I believe is wrong!!! My theory is not related to what I believe. My theory is only related to physics and experiment. So do not mix philosophy and believing with physics and experiment. Since you are Marxist, you want now to explain physics according to materialism. If I'm believer, I can't explain physics according to what I believe, because in this case if my theory is wrong, then what I believe is wrong. So if really physics is moving according to materialism, then that will not change my believing, and you must understand that.
The accusation that I am trying to explain physics according to what I believe, this is a false accusation used against me by relativists since long time. I do not care about these accusations because I know I am innocent and I do not make wrong, and you understand that well, and always the oppressor is the loser at the end.
If you need the reality is observer independent, then I simplified to you the problem, you must back to Galilean transformation and t'=t. Because according to SRT if the reality is observer independent same as in Galilean transformation when t'=t to keep on continuity same as in classical physics, then according to physics and experiment we must not register time dilation. That means t'=t when the two observers are meet at any point in space. In this case no need to LT and paradoxes in SRT. No solution for the paradoxes of SRT. Go directly to Galilean transformation and t'=t and no paradoxes.
Prof. W. Engelhardt gave you all the proofs for that. All of his papers are right relative to SRT. So take the papers of prof. W. Engelhardt and try to explain physics according to the reality is observer independent, and then keep on materialism. SRT can't keep on materialism. This is reality. SRT keeps on materialism by sorcery, not math or physics. Anyone can understand that now simply.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Azzam, I have to answer on philosophical questions for myself, because for me philosophy has problems that can not be avoided. There is a certain system of priorities in resolving issues that significantly affects the end result. This is my position, I perfectly understand it. Problems inside philosophy are not an empty sound for me, because they have huge consequences.
Everything that most of all bothers me now, is absolutely outside the scope of your interests. I already spoke about this directly. I think about questions of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics as necessary, but I think that without solving a more significant problem attemps to solve these details is ineffective.
You touched me after my comment on the continuum. Consider that these were thoughts aloud that you accidentally heard. They relate to a completely different basis in the belief system, especially since it concerns math, not physics in the first place.
Yes, you ask me to talk about physics, this is exactly what you hear from me, passing my words through the filters of your thinking. You, in fact, do not hear me. You can consider me an eccentric, a straw man, even a Cheshire cat, or just think that you are communicating with a biologist, a psychologist, a philosopher or, in general, by anyone, but not a physicist. I will not be offended.
Of course, I could once again get involved in another dispute about why the clock lag, and how your lagging clock differ, for example, from these ( http://www.pnas.org/content/113/16/4512.full ).
You have enough advanced people with whom you can discuss questions that concern you, including dear Eric Lord. I am impressed by the crystal clarity with which he formulates his messages. I mostly re-read your debate with other people, but not always.
PS: To understand how the belief system affects perception of reality, it is enough to ride a time machine in the pre-quantum period or at a time when the Earth was considered flat and to argue with people there. Mentioned Galileo was an expert in such disputes. The belief system is the axiomatic basis of your personal knowledge. Everyone has it.
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy,
I'm discussing with you physically, and you must reply to me physically! Like this we shall not agree!
Accordng to your understanding to relativity, what is exist in SRT time dilation or cllock retardation!!?? Do not mix between both!!! If you want to mix between both then you use Straw man!!
Second if the reality is observer independent in SRT same as in Galilean transformation when t'=t to keep on continuity same as in classical physics, then according to physics and experiment we must not register time dilation according to the experiment. But as relativists say they measured time dilation in the experiment. In this case they are lairs. What they measured is not time dilation, what they measured is clock retardation, and since it is clock retardation, in this case the reality must be observer dependent not observer independent. Now it is field theory, QFT and gauge. And I explained how is that in my paper.
Now I'm really busy and I write by my mobile.
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
Relative to your point of view relative to quantum mechanics is not true!! All what you say is only Straw man. I can reply to you according to physics and experiment. But I know you will not answer any question of my questions. You will escape as all relativists from real discussion. Look how many questions I asked Eric Lord. I answered all of these questions from micro to macro, while Eric Lord refused to answer or explain any of these question because he knows he can't. He understand well how his theory can't help him basis on the wrong math and physics. Now all understand how SRT is wrong mathematically and physically according to the reality is observer independent and it does not support materialism. SRT is working only according to the reality is observer dependent and thus it supports idealism
All my discussions are related to physics and experiments, while your discussions now are related to philosophy, idealism and materialism. In reality you must let physics and experiment to talk instead of explaining physics according to what you believe!!! I'm not explaining physics according to what I believe. I let physics and experiment to talk. What if my theory is wrong!!?? Then according to that what I believe is wrong!!! My theory is not related to what I believe. My theory is only related to physics and experiment. So do not mix philosophy and believing with physics and experiment. Since you are Marxist, you want now to explain physics according to materialism. If I'm believer, I can't explain physics according to what I believe, because in this case if my theory is wrong, then what I believe is wrong. So if really physics is moving according to materialism, then that will not change my believing, and you must understand that.
The accusation that I am trying to explain physics according to what I believe, this is a false accusation used against me by relativists since long time. I do not care about these accusations because I know I am innocent and I do not make wrong, and you understand that well, and always the oppressor is the loser at the end.
If you need the reality is observer independent, then I simplified to you the problem, you must back to Galilean transformation and t'=t. Because according to SRT if the reality is observer independent same as in Galilean transformation when t'=t to keep on continuity same as in classical physics, then according to physics and experiment we must not register time dilation. That means t'=t when the two observers are meet at any point in space. In this case no need to LT and paradoxes in SRT. No solution for the paradoxes of SRT. Go directly to Galilean transformation and t'=t and no paradoxes.
Prof. W. Engelhardt gave you all the proofs for that. All of his papers are right relative to SRT. So take the papers of prof. W. Engelhardt and try to explain physics according to the reality is observer independent, and then keep on materialism. SRT can't keep on materialism. This is reality. SRT keeps on materialism by sorcery, not math or physics. Anyone can understand that now simply.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Azzam, I have to answer on philosophical questions for myself, because for me philosophy has problems that can not be avoided. There is a certain system of priorities in resolving issues that significantly affects the end result. This is my position, I perfectly understand it. Problems inside philosophy are not an empty sound for me, because they have huge consequences.
Everything that most of all bothers me now, is absolutely outside the scope of your interests. I already spoke about this directly. I think about questions of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics as necessary, but I think that without solving a more significant problem attemps to solve these details is ineffective.
You touched me after my comment on the continuum. Consider that these were thoughts aloud that you accidentally heard. They relate to a completely different basis in the belief system, especially since it concerns math, not physics in the first place.
Yes, you ask me to talk about physics, this is exactly what you hear from me, passing my words through the filters of your thinking. You, in fact, do not hear me. You can consider me an eccentric, a straw man, even a Cheshire cat, or just think that you are communicating with a biologist, a psychologist, a philosopher or, in general, by anyone, but not a physicist. I will not be offended.
Of course, I could once again get involved in another dispute about why the clock lag, and how your lagging clock differ, for example, from these ( http://www.pnas.org/content/113/16/4512.full ).
You have enough advanced people with whom you can discuss questions that concern you, including dear Eric Lord. I am impressed by the crystal clarity with which he formulates his messages. I mostly re-read your debate with other people, but not always.
PS: To understand how the belief system affects perception of reality, it is enough to ride a time machine in the pre-quantum period or at a time when the Earth was considered flat and to argue with people there. Mentioned Galileo was an expert in such disputes. The belief system is the axiomatic basis of your personal knowledge. Everyone has it.
May 24, 2017
Abdul Malek | To all, my article on "Universal Gravitation or Free Fall" that I mentioned about earlier is now posted in RG at the following link. Any comment will be appreciated:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317040165_THE_CONCEPTUAL_DEFECT_OF_THE_LAW_OF_UNIVERSAL_GRAVITATION_OR_%27FREE_FALL%27_A_DIALECTICAL_REASSESSMENT_OF_KEPLER%27S_LAWS
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy,
You said "You touched me after my comment on the continuum. Consider that these were thoughts aloud that you accidentally heard. They relate to a completely different basis in the belief system, especially since it concerns math, not physics in the first place."
There is no problem between physics and math. Math let us to understand physics well in micro world. Math helped us also to understand classical physics and Newton well. The problem in physics was before SRT and GR; how to explain the result of the experiment only. The problem was not at that time in math and physics. Math works very good with Quantum theory and in micro. But since relativists used wrong math to explain materialism in macro world in SRT and GR, in this case normally wrong math will lead to wrong theory in physics and wrong theory in physics is impossible to explain the experimental results. Because of that relativists now can't explain the experimental results, and they escape always from a serious discussion.
Each one tells you that the problem is in math in physics, then that is not true. He told you that to hide the failure of his theory in reality. Tomorrow this man will tell you that the problem in the universe not in his theory. He will tell you that the universe is not moving according to my theory in SRT and GR, because the universe is wrong. Why those people always telling the people they can't understand the universe well. Because they understand well their wrong theories can't explain the universe in reality, and if they keep on their wrong theories in the future, they will not introduce anything new in physics according to their wrong theories.
Review at least this video
Mathematical nonsense as used by Einstein’s relativity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrun8KUyYm4
Abdul Malek | To all, my article on "Universal Gravitation or Free Fall" that I mentioned about earlier is now posted in RG at the following link. Any comment will be appreciated:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317040165_THE_CONCEPTUAL_DEFECT_OF_THE_LAW_OF_UNIVERSAL_GRAVITATION_OR_%27FREE_FALL%27_A_DIALECTICAL_REASSESSMENT_OF_KEPLER%27S_LAWS
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy,
You said "You touched me after my comment on the continuum. Consider that these were thoughts aloud that you accidentally heard. They relate to a completely different basis in the belief system, especially since it concerns math, not physics in the first place."
There is no problem between physics and math. Math let us to understand physics well in micro world. Math helped us also to understand classical physics and Newton well. The problem in physics was before SRT and GR; how to explain the result of the experiment only. The problem was not at that time in math and physics. Math works very good with Quantum theory and in micro. But since relativists used wrong math to explain materialism in macro world in SRT and GR, in this case normally wrong math will lead to wrong theory in physics and wrong theory in physics is impossible to explain the experimental results. Because of that relativists now can't explain the experimental results, and they escape always from a serious discussion.
Each one tells you that the problem is in math in physics, then that is not true. He told you that to hide the failure of his theory in reality. Tomorrow this man will tell you that the problem in the universe not in his theory. He will tell you that the universe is not moving according to my theory in SRT and GR, because the universe is wrong. Why those people always telling the people they can't understand the universe well. Because they understand well their wrong theories can't explain the universe in reality, and if they keep on their wrong theories in the future, they will not introduce anything new in physics according to their wrong theories.
Review at least this video
Mathematical nonsense as used by Einstein’s relativity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrun8KUyYm4
May 25, 2017
Yin Zhu | Dear Prof. Eric Lord,
The scientific standard is omitting or regardless of in the theory of relativity. A apparent sign is the book “The Bible According to Einstein: A Scientific Complement to the Holy Bible for the Third Millennium”.[31]
"However, The Bible only need be believed while the science need be doubted and questioned. Without doubt and question, science shall be dying. So, the book “The Bible According to Einstein” is making physics far from science if it is not making pseudoscience."
Unfortunately, this book was reviewed by many very famous physicists. It shows the reason why the known mistakes in the theory of relativity cannot be revealed. This reason resulted in such a status that the mistakes in the theory of relativity cannot be made public for more than 100 years.
If you should have a comment on this book, I should thank you very much.
And, please see:
Data Anti-ethics and pseudoscience: On Albert Einstein's theory o...
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Azzam. Please note that you are again trying to tell me about the theory of relativity and absolutely do not pay attention to my words.
Until 2012, it is likely, I would have found your theory more reasonable. At that time I was within the framework of a rather popular conventional view of things (which was formed due to quantum theory) and allowed spontaneity as the reason that Universe as is with its constants.
Now an invisible barrier called "anthropic principle" between me and you is. This is a literal singularity in the exchange of information between you and me, and it seems that it works unilaterally. Unfortunately, I already know too much about organic matter (and not only) in order to be satisfied with your concept.
Our dialogue, if it can be called that, is an echo of this ( https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin_susskind04/smolin_susskind.html ) dispute with the only difference that for me path to my current position did begin even not from biology, but from psychology, and you wandered farther into the depths of spontaneity hypothesis.
It is the analogy between the stochastic Monte Carlo method and the natural selection mechanism led me to cognitive dissonance and refusal to take seriously spontaneity as the reason for existence of physical laws that we have (the essence of the method is that it uses the spontaneous process to reveal regular information). It was the second serious blow to my belief system, formed by generally accepted educational courses. Although, this is just one of many patterns.
I have already promised to expound my motivation in a sufficiently developed form in english for another dispute on RG. Unfortunately, this can not be done quickly and at the same time qualitatively (I have to be distracted by pressing problems and concerns of people around me). As soon as I do it (maybe a few more weeks), I also promise to provide a link to the file to you. Perhaps you will have a desire to get acquainted, and, accordingly, there will be an opportunity to understand why my opinion does not coincide with yours.
You need (at least for the general development) show interest in the theory of dynamic systems and related fields of knowledge, such as evolutionary biology etc.
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy,
You said "Dear Azzam. Please note that you are again trying to tell me about the theory of relativity and absolutely do not pay attention to my words."
Without understanding physics well and the laws of physics, we can't understand anything in science.
My theory was built according to quantization of energy, and it considers energy is the first and matter is the second and matter comes from energy, and as you know energy is quantized. So our world must be understood from the point of view of quantization of energy. According to that we must understand my theory well from the point of view of Copenhagen school, and in this case we understand how my theory is related to biology also. That required a serious research. For example, my explanation to quantum tunneling and entanglement and the possibility of faster than light globally without violation of the energy momentum invariance is proved experimentally. My interpretation is leading to the reality is observer dependent instead of observer independent. It is quantum field theory. That's clear how the laws of physics are the same for all observers and how constants remains constants in my theory. My theory studies the relationship between consciousness and matter as a result of the unified theory. It gives the consciousness is the first and matter is second.
The concept of time contraction in my theory is proven by many experiments where some enzymes operate kinetically, much faster than predicted by the classical delta (G ‡) . In "through the barrier" models, a proton or an electron can tunnel through activation barriers. Quantum tunneling for protons has been observed in tryptamine oxidation by aromatic amine dehydrogenase. Also British scientists have found that enzymes cheat time and space by quantum tunneling - a much faster way of traveling than the classical way - but whether or not perplexing quantum theories can be applied to the biological world is still hotly debated. But according to my theory it says it is applied on the biological world also as a result of the retardation. Furthermore, if you review the Hawking theory of the black hole and the information paradox in his model, you will understand how by disappearing infinities in my theory according to QFT in my theory, that will lead to energy is conserved and information is conserved also in my theory as a result of the the entanglement according to the invariance by the retardation which is leading to the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle.
In Gunter Nimtz's experiments, he concluded that; quantum tunneling experiments have shown that 1) the tunneling process is non-local, 2) the signal velocity is faster than light, i.e. superluminal, 3) the tunneling signal is not observable, since photonic tunneling is described by virtual photons, and 4) according to the experimental results, the signal velocity is infinite inside the barriers, implying that tunneling instantaneously acts at a distance. We think these properties are not compatible with the claims of many textbooks on Special Relativity. According to my theory there are no virtual particles or photons, they are real. Also dark matter and dark energy explained.
So SRT of Einstein is confused all how to understand science in reality.
Article The Precession of Mercury’s Perihelion and the Free Fall
Vasyl Komarov | Azzam, in your opinion, Why is the energy quantized? Why does matter everywhere in the Universe have a complex identical structure that is compatible with each other? What is this substance "consciousness", which you separate from matter? Does your theory describe it? If not, then https://www.newscientist.com/article/2131874-a-classic-quantum-test-could-reveal-the-limits-of-the-human-mind should be of interest to you.
Tunneling is a microscopic effect, what I was saying about Copenhagen interpretation concerns it too. It can not be a serious argument against SRT, since it does not work for macrostructures (all movements within so-called uncertainty framework). Even if you look at the process from the macrolevel, you are still powerless to say anything definite about the "flow of time" when particle passes through a barrier and in general, in what form it exists on the length of the barrier ("virtual" is just a word).
Please give a link to the processes in enzymes that you are talking about. I need it in the collection.
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy,
You said "Why is the energy quantized? "
Because of the retardation and according to the relativistic effect it is leading to QFT. Quantization of energy is proved experimentally. And that explains the double slit experiment. Any motion and changing in motion is related to quantization of energy. Energy is not continuous and thus physics in macro and micro must be understood according to the quantization of energy. And that is explained in my transformation and my equivalence principle. I also tell you what is and why the uncertainty principle, and why the wave-particle duality and why we use Schreodinger equation instead of Newton's law. Why the entanglement and why the tunneling. I explained everything in physics in my theory.
Relative to the references
[1 ] Arcia-Viloca M, Gao J, Karplus M, Truhlar DG. How enzymes work: analysis by modern rate theory and computer simulations. Science. 2004 Jan 9;303(5655):186- 95. PMID 14716003.
[2] lsson MH, Siegbahn PE, Warshel A. Simulations of the large kinetic isotope effect and the temperature dependence of the hydrogen atom transfer in lipoxygenase. J Am Chem Soc. 2004 Mar 10;126(9):2820-8. PMID 14995199.
[3] Masgrau L, Roujeinikova A, Johannissen LO, Hothi P, Basran J, Ranaghan KE, Mulholland AJ, Sutcliffe MJ, Scrutton NS, Leys D. Atomic Description of an Enzyme Reaction Dominated by Proton Tunneling. Science. 2006 April 14;312(5771):237-41. PMID 16614214.
[4] Researchers explain how enzymes use quantum tunneling to speed up reactions, Maggie Wittlin, Seed, April 18, 2006.
Eric Lord | Dear Stephen ~
“Einstein’s false theory, ipso facto, was never a replacement for any other theory in the first place.”
Einstein’s theory was a replacement for Newtonian theory.
Einstein’s theory is not “false”. Its validity, within the limits of its applicability, has been amply demonstrated by a wealth of experimental results:
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=experimentsl+verification+relativity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=ZUUmWc6lH7DT8geW1JCABw
My Researchgate remarks concern only my understanding of the essence of the Theory of Relativity itself, which is based on a very simple and soundly logical set of propositions:
Article Notes on the Meaning of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity
I do not concern myself with the totality of Einstein’s many pronouncements made throughout his lifetime. He was sometimes simply mistaken. He was in error when in 1920 he likened “spacetime” to “the ether”; he was mistaken when he introduced “pseudotensors”, thereby violating his own incontrovertible Principle of General Covariance. Et cetera.
https://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mistakes-Human-Failings-Genius-ebook/dp/B002SAUCG2/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1495682538&sr=1-1&keywords=einstein%27s+mistakes
I repeat to you what I recently said to Azzam:
“The validity of a scientific theory rests on whether it corresponds to some aspects of Nature. My knowledge of experimental work leads me to the conviction that Einstein’s theories are indeed valid in that sense. Others in these discussions disagree, but they put forward no convincing support for that disagreement; their errors are transparently obvious to anyone who has studied the subject in depth.”
Eric Lord | Dear Azzam ~
Please don’t twist my words to attribute to me opinions that I do not hold. That is what is called arguing with a “straw man”.
“You said "A theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one that fits some experimental data.” ”
I did not say that. It is a quote from one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.
I happen to agree with it.
Formulating scentific theories is an activity of the human mind. It is an exploration, that calls into play imagination and creativity. It calls into play the aesthetic sensibility of the scientist. All these are attributes of the human mind that are as relevant to the sciences as they are to the arts.
The validity of a proposed scientific theory rests on whether or not it complies with observational evidence. Some theories do not; they do indeed turn out to be “fantasies” after all (eg, the hypothesis of “crystal spheres” as an explanation of planetary motion, Kepler's relating planetary orbits to the platonic solids, Alchemy, the phlogiston theory, et cetera). Einstein’s theories do not belong in that category.
Yin Zhu | Dear Prof. Eric Lord,
In a widespread book “Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius”, it was shown that, Einstein made 23 mistakes in mathematics, almost including all of the main conclusions in his theory of relativity. But, from the wrong derivations, he just obtained the current (in that time) conclusions. Logically, no one can always obtain right conclusions from wrong derivations.
So, I can only conculde that Einstein faked his results.
The author of that book thinks this is "Human Failings of Genius”.
If you should tell the readers your conclusion, I should thank your very much. For the convenience, please only discuss E=mc^2. Einstein obtained E=mc^2 several times. But, all of his derivations are wrong. Did he fake his result about E=mc^2?
Please see:
Data Anti-ethics and pseudoscience: On Albert Einstein's theory o...
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Yin Zhu,
Ancient as the world formula E = mc² in classical mechanics is a direct consequence of the Meshchersky equation for a body emitting particles at the speed of light. There is someone who has discovered it, like any bicycle: Oliver Heaviside (1889, he received a great formula as a by-product of reducing the system of Maxwell's equations to a vector form that every student is studying, but again, he considered it a defect in mathematics, not in the world around him), Tolver Preston (1895), Kelvin (1903), Olinto de Pretto (1903), Henri Poincare (1904), Fritz Hasenor (1904, mistaken for the coefficient), Max Planck (1907). But we are not looking for easy ways... (from one resource of black humor known in certain circles :)
The whole issue is only after that we realized that mass can be converted into energy. Strangely enough, SRT contributed to this understanding because of special position of the speed of light (in my opinion).
Yin Zhu | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
Maybe, this is the story:
E=mc^2 is a great equation.
It was discovered before 1900.
After 1905, Einstein derived this equation but not introduced that this equation was presented by others.
More serious, Einstein’s derivations for this equation are wrong.
Therefore, I can only conclude that Einstein faked his result.
Unfortunately, now relativists declared that it is Einstein who first present this equation.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Yin Zhu, I have the impression that you live in the 21st century, and not at the junction of 19th and 20th centuries. I also, for some reason, suspect that you have instant access via Internet not only to the works of various people, but also to the centenary data of a critical analysis of their activities from the future, including those results that were discarded for some reason by some authors.
You are now analyzing the light of stars, emitted about a hundred years ago, the "light cones" of which have already reached each position on Earth. Obviously, during this time, unpretentious five symbols have acquired some significance, but this does not mean that one hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago it was clearly visible in every position. It's hard for me to comment on your words. Now you are putting meaning into these five symbols, which are primarily due to the theory of relativity (more precisely, the revolution in thinking of people committed at that time).
Yin Zhu | Dear Prof. Eric Lord,
The scientific standard is omitting or regardless of in the theory of relativity. A apparent sign is the book “The Bible According to Einstein: A Scientific Complement to the Holy Bible for the Third Millennium”.[31]
"However, The Bible only need be believed while the science need be doubted and questioned. Without doubt and question, science shall be dying. So, the book “The Bible According to Einstein” is making physics far from science if it is not making pseudoscience."
Unfortunately, this book was reviewed by many very famous physicists. It shows the reason why the known mistakes in the theory of relativity cannot be revealed. This reason resulted in such a status that the mistakes in the theory of relativity cannot be made public for more than 100 years.
If you should have a comment on this book, I should thank you very much.
And, please see:
Data Anti-ethics and pseudoscience: On Albert Einstein's theory o...
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Azzam. Please note that you are again trying to tell me about the theory of relativity and absolutely do not pay attention to my words.
Until 2012, it is likely, I would have found your theory more reasonable. At that time I was within the framework of a rather popular conventional view of things (which was formed due to quantum theory) and allowed spontaneity as the reason that Universe as is with its constants.
Now an invisible barrier called "anthropic principle" between me and you is. This is a literal singularity in the exchange of information between you and me, and it seems that it works unilaterally. Unfortunately, I already know too much about organic matter (and not only) in order to be satisfied with your concept.
Our dialogue, if it can be called that, is an echo of this ( https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin_susskind04/smolin_susskind.html ) dispute with the only difference that for me path to my current position did begin even not from biology, but from psychology, and you wandered farther into the depths of spontaneity hypothesis.
It is the analogy between the stochastic Monte Carlo method and the natural selection mechanism led me to cognitive dissonance and refusal to take seriously spontaneity as the reason for existence of physical laws that we have (the essence of the method is that it uses the spontaneous process to reveal regular information). It was the second serious blow to my belief system, formed by generally accepted educational courses. Although, this is just one of many patterns.
I have already promised to expound my motivation in a sufficiently developed form in english for another dispute on RG. Unfortunately, this can not be done quickly and at the same time qualitatively (I have to be distracted by pressing problems and concerns of people around me). As soon as I do it (maybe a few more weeks), I also promise to provide a link to the file to you. Perhaps you will have a desire to get acquainted, and, accordingly, there will be an opportunity to understand why my opinion does not coincide with yours.
You need (at least for the general development) show interest in the theory of dynamic systems and related fields of knowledge, such as evolutionary biology etc.
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy,
You said "Dear Azzam. Please note that you are again trying to tell me about the theory of relativity and absolutely do not pay attention to my words."
Without understanding physics well and the laws of physics, we can't understand anything in science.
My theory was built according to quantization of energy, and it considers energy is the first and matter is the second and matter comes from energy, and as you know energy is quantized. So our world must be understood from the point of view of quantization of energy. According to that we must understand my theory well from the point of view of Copenhagen school, and in this case we understand how my theory is related to biology also. That required a serious research. For example, my explanation to quantum tunneling and entanglement and the possibility of faster than light globally without violation of the energy momentum invariance is proved experimentally. My interpretation is leading to the reality is observer dependent instead of observer independent. It is quantum field theory. That's clear how the laws of physics are the same for all observers and how constants remains constants in my theory. My theory studies the relationship between consciousness and matter as a result of the unified theory. It gives the consciousness is the first and matter is second.
The concept of time contraction in my theory is proven by many experiments where some enzymes operate kinetically, much faster than predicted by the classical delta (G ‡) . In "through the barrier" models, a proton or an electron can tunnel through activation barriers. Quantum tunneling for protons has been observed in tryptamine oxidation by aromatic amine dehydrogenase. Also British scientists have found that enzymes cheat time and space by quantum tunneling - a much faster way of traveling than the classical way - but whether or not perplexing quantum theories can be applied to the biological world is still hotly debated. But according to my theory it says it is applied on the biological world also as a result of the retardation. Furthermore, if you review the Hawking theory of the black hole and the information paradox in his model, you will understand how by disappearing infinities in my theory according to QFT in my theory, that will lead to energy is conserved and information is conserved also in my theory as a result of the the entanglement according to the invariance by the retardation which is leading to the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle.
In Gunter Nimtz's experiments, he concluded that; quantum tunneling experiments have shown that 1) the tunneling process is non-local, 2) the signal velocity is faster than light, i.e. superluminal, 3) the tunneling signal is not observable, since photonic tunneling is described by virtual photons, and 4) according to the experimental results, the signal velocity is infinite inside the barriers, implying that tunneling instantaneously acts at a distance. We think these properties are not compatible with the claims of many textbooks on Special Relativity. According to my theory there are no virtual particles or photons, they are real. Also dark matter and dark energy explained.
So SRT of Einstein is confused all how to understand science in reality.
Article The Precession of Mercury’s Perihelion and the Free Fall
Vasyl Komarov | Azzam, in your opinion, Why is the energy quantized? Why does matter everywhere in the Universe have a complex identical structure that is compatible with each other? What is this substance "consciousness", which you separate from matter? Does your theory describe it? If not, then https://www.newscientist.com/article/2131874-a-classic-quantum-test-could-reveal-the-limits-of-the-human-mind should be of interest to you.
Tunneling is a microscopic effect, what I was saying about Copenhagen interpretation concerns it too. It can not be a serious argument against SRT, since it does not work for macrostructures (all movements within so-called uncertainty framework). Even if you look at the process from the macrolevel, you are still powerless to say anything definite about the "flow of time" when particle passes through a barrier and in general, in what form it exists on the length of the barrier ("virtual" is just a word).
Please give a link to the processes in enzymes that you are talking about. I need it in the collection.
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy,
You said "Why is the energy quantized? "
Because of the retardation and according to the relativistic effect it is leading to QFT. Quantization of energy is proved experimentally. And that explains the double slit experiment. Any motion and changing in motion is related to quantization of energy. Energy is not continuous and thus physics in macro and micro must be understood according to the quantization of energy. And that is explained in my transformation and my equivalence principle. I also tell you what is and why the uncertainty principle, and why the wave-particle duality and why we use Schreodinger equation instead of Newton's law. Why the entanglement and why the tunneling. I explained everything in physics in my theory.
Relative to the references
[1 ] Arcia-Viloca M, Gao J, Karplus M, Truhlar DG. How enzymes work: analysis by modern rate theory and computer simulations. Science. 2004 Jan 9;303(5655):186- 95. PMID 14716003.
[2] lsson MH, Siegbahn PE, Warshel A. Simulations of the large kinetic isotope effect and the temperature dependence of the hydrogen atom transfer in lipoxygenase. J Am Chem Soc. 2004 Mar 10;126(9):2820-8. PMID 14995199.
[3] Masgrau L, Roujeinikova A, Johannissen LO, Hothi P, Basran J, Ranaghan KE, Mulholland AJ, Sutcliffe MJ, Scrutton NS, Leys D. Atomic Description of an Enzyme Reaction Dominated by Proton Tunneling. Science. 2006 April 14;312(5771):237-41. PMID 16614214.
[4] Researchers explain how enzymes use quantum tunneling to speed up reactions, Maggie Wittlin, Seed, April 18, 2006.
Eric Lord | Dear Stephen ~
“Einstein’s false theory, ipso facto, was never a replacement for any other theory in the first place.”
Einstein’s theory was a replacement for Newtonian theory.
Einstein’s theory is not “false”. Its validity, within the limits of its applicability, has been amply demonstrated by a wealth of experimental results:
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=experimentsl+verification+relativity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=ZUUmWc6lH7DT8geW1JCABw
My Researchgate remarks concern only my understanding of the essence of the Theory of Relativity itself, which is based on a very simple and soundly logical set of propositions:
Article Notes on the Meaning of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity
I do not concern myself with the totality of Einstein’s many pronouncements made throughout his lifetime. He was sometimes simply mistaken. He was in error when in 1920 he likened “spacetime” to “the ether”; he was mistaken when he introduced “pseudotensors”, thereby violating his own incontrovertible Principle of General Covariance. Et cetera.
https://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Mistakes-Human-Failings-Genius-ebook/dp/B002SAUCG2/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1495682538&sr=1-1&keywords=einstein%27s+mistakes
I repeat to you what I recently said to Azzam:
“The validity of a scientific theory rests on whether it corresponds to some aspects of Nature. My knowledge of experimental work leads me to the conviction that Einstein’s theories are indeed valid in that sense. Others in these discussions disagree, but they put forward no convincing support for that disagreement; their errors are transparently obvious to anyone who has studied the subject in depth.”
Eric Lord | Dear Azzam ~
Please don’t twist my words to attribute to me opinions that I do not hold. That is what is called arguing with a “straw man”.
“You said "A theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct than an ugly one that fits some experimental data.” ”
I did not say that. It is a quote from one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century.
I happen to agree with it.
Formulating scentific theories is an activity of the human mind. It is an exploration, that calls into play imagination and creativity. It calls into play the aesthetic sensibility of the scientist. All these are attributes of the human mind that are as relevant to the sciences as they are to the arts.
The validity of a proposed scientific theory rests on whether or not it complies with observational evidence. Some theories do not; they do indeed turn out to be “fantasies” after all (eg, the hypothesis of “crystal spheres” as an explanation of planetary motion, Kepler's relating planetary orbits to the platonic solids, Alchemy, the phlogiston theory, et cetera). Einstein’s theories do not belong in that category.
Yin Zhu | Dear Prof. Eric Lord,
In a widespread book “Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius”, it was shown that, Einstein made 23 mistakes in mathematics, almost including all of the main conclusions in his theory of relativity. But, from the wrong derivations, he just obtained the current (in that time) conclusions. Logically, no one can always obtain right conclusions from wrong derivations.
So, I can only conculde that Einstein faked his results.
The author of that book thinks this is "Human Failings of Genius”.
If you should tell the readers your conclusion, I should thank your very much. For the convenience, please only discuss E=mc^2. Einstein obtained E=mc^2 several times. But, all of his derivations are wrong. Did he fake his result about E=mc^2?
Please see:
Data Anti-ethics and pseudoscience: On Albert Einstein's theory o...
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Yin Zhu,
Ancient as the world formula E = mc² in classical mechanics is a direct consequence of the Meshchersky equation for a body emitting particles at the speed of light. There is someone who has discovered it, like any bicycle: Oliver Heaviside (1889, he received a great formula as a by-product of reducing the system of Maxwell's equations to a vector form that every student is studying, but again, he considered it a defect in mathematics, not in the world around him), Tolver Preston (1895), Kelvin (1903), Olinto de Pretto (1903), Henri Poincare (1904), Fritz Hasenor (1904, mistaken for the coefficient), Max Planck (1907). But we are not looking for easy ways... (from one resource of black humor known in certain circles :)
The whole issue is only after that we realized that mass can be converted into energy. Strangely enough, SRT contributed to this understanding because of special position of the speed of light (in my opinion).
Yin Zhu | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
Maybe, this is the story:
E=mc^2 is a great equation.
It was discovered before 1900.
After 1905, Einstein derived this equation but not introduced that this equation was presented by others.
More serious, Einstein’s derivations for this equation are wrong.
Therefore, I can only conclude that Einstein faked his result.
Unfortunately, now relativists declared that it is Einstein who first present this equation.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Yin Zhu, I have the impression that you live in the 21st century, and not at the junction of 19th and 20th centuries. I also, for some reason, suspect that you have instant access via Internet not only to the works of various people, but also to the centenary data of a critical analysis of their activities from the future, including those results that were discarded for some reason by some authors.
You are now analyzing the light of stars, emitted about a hundred years ago, the "light cones" of which have already reached each position on Earth. Obviously, during this time, unpretentious five symbols have acquired some significance, but this does not mean that one hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago it was clearly visible in every position. It's hard for me to comment on your words. Now you are putting meaning into these five symbols, which are primarily due to the theory of relativity (more precisely, the revolution in thinking of people committed at that time).
May 25, 2017 ( accessed 30.05)
Eric Lord | Dear Ramesh ~
1. “Einstein’s theories of relativity have no scientific validity on many counts: these are abstract and esoteric theories based on idealized mathematics, which has little correspondence with the real and material world.”
Why pick on Einstein’s theories? All theoretical physics is based on “idealized mathematics”! Physical theories are regarded as valid so long as the results that follow from the mathematics correspond to experimental observations - ie, to actual measurements. Einstein’s theories satisfy that criterion. Physics is the science of measurement. It is not, and cannot be, directly about “objective reality”, it can only give us some intuitive insight into the nature of objective reality.
“…That is the very reason these theories lead to paradoxes, fantastic objects and phenomena and singularities – in one word no positive knowledge.”
Einstein’s theories, properly understood, do not lead to “paradoxes, fantastic objects and phenomena”. Claims that they do (which are abundant in these RG discussions!) arise from logical errors of interpetation. As for mathematical “singularities” that arise in the mathematics of General Relativity: they demonstate the truth that any theory in physics is valid only within the limits of its applicability.
2. I agree with the quotation from Karl Marx. A physical theory is valuable if it addresses practical questions. Einstein’s theories do that. Incidentally: what is “objective truth”?...
3. Physics is the science of measurement. Measurements (eg, of distances and times) are relations between material objects. Obviously, “empty space” is not a “material object” and cannot be measured. When Newtonian or Einsteinian physics postulates that three-dimensional space is Euclidean, this means only that distance relationships satisfied by material objects are consistent with the mathematical laws of Euclidean geometry. Similarly, according to special relativity, measurements of distances and times relating to material “events” are consistent with the mathematical laws of Minkowskian geometry; according to General Relativity they are consistent with the mathematical laws of Riemannian geometry. None of this implies that space and time, or spacetime, are “objectively real”.
4. “GR unlike a “pure” geometrical theory (it claims to be) is not deduced from “first principle” of an axiom alone, but is “contaminated” with empirical contents and constants like G, c etc.”
I was not aware tht GR “claims” to be a pure geometrical theory. Please enighten me. Can you think of any physical theory that doesn’t involve empirical constants? I can’t!
“Dr. Engelhardt in this article (in defiance of the authority of his institution) and many other people even in this forum have pointed out the mathematical inconsistency, arbitrariness, error, fallacy and even fudging by Einstein in these theories.”
My response to this was already given: “…logical errors of interpretation…”.
5. “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structure. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, (and of) the rest of modern physics” - Einstein
Yes, differential equations are ubiquitous in modern physics. They presuppose the purely mathematical concept of “continuity”. It is quite possible that “continuity” has no place in the real physical world at its most fundamental level. QED dispenses with it and deals with discrete events. Nevertheless, “classical” theories formulated in terms of “fields” satifying differential equations work well as approximations to an underlying discrete reality (think for example of fluid dynamics, which doesn't consider the discrete particles that constitute the fluid). It’s a matter of the scale of the phenomenon under consideration. Any theory in physics is valid only within the limits of its applicability.
Eric Lord | Dear Ramesh ~
1. “Einstein’s theories of relativity have no scientific validity on many counts: these are abstract and esoteric theories based on idealized mathematics, which has little correspondence with the real and material world.”
Why pick on Einstein’s theories? All theoretical physics is based on “idealized mathematics”! Physical theories are regarded as valid so long as the results that follow from the mathematics correspond to experimental observations - ie, to actual measurements. Einstein’s theories satisfy that criterion. Physics is the science of measurement. It is not, and cannot be, directly about “objective reality”, it can only give us some intuitive insight into the nature of objective reality.
“…That is the very reason these theories lead to paradoxes, fantastic objects and phenomena and singularities – in one word no positive knowledge.”
Einstein’s theories, properly understood, do not lead to “paradoxes, fantastic objects and phenomena”. Claims that they do (which are abundant in these RG discussions!) arise from logical errors of interpetation. As for mathematical “singularities” that arise in the mathematics of General Relativity: they demonstate the truth that any theory in physics is valid only within the limits of its applicability.
2. I agree with the quotation from Karl Marx. A physical theory is valuable if it addresses practical questions. Einstein’s theories do that. Incidentally: what is “objective truth”?...
3. Physics is the science of measurement. Measurements (eg, of distances and times) are relations between material objects. Obviously, “empty space” is not a “material object” and cannot be measured. When Newtonian or Einsteinian physics postulates that three-dimensional space is Euclidean, this means only that distance relationships satisfied by material objects are consistent with the mathematical laws of Euclidean geometry. Similarly, according to special relativity, measurements of distances and times relating to material “events” are consistent with the mathematical laws of Minkowskian geometry; according to General Relativity they are consistent with the mathematical laws of Riemannian geometry. None of this implies that space and time, or spacetime, are “objectively real”.
4. “GR unlike a “pure” geometrical theory (it claims to be) is not deduced from “first principle” of an axiom alone, but is “contaminated” with empirical contents and constants like G, c etc.”
I was not aware tht GR “claims” to be a pure geometrical theory. Please enighten me. Can you think of any physical theory that doesn’t involve empirical constants? I can’t!
“Dr. Engelhardt in this article (in defiance of the authority of his institution) and many other people even in this forum have pointed out the mathematical inconsistency, arbitrariness, error, fallacy and even fudging by Einstein in these theories.”
My response to this was already given: “…logical errors of interpretation…”.
5. “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structure. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, (and of) the rest of modern physics” - Einstein
Yes, differential equations are ubiquitous in modern physics. They presuppose the purely mathematical concept of “continuity”. It is quite possible that “continuity” has no place in the real physical world at its most fundamental level. QED dispenses with it and deals with discrete events. Nevertheless, “classical” theories formulated in terms of “fields” satifying differential equations work well as approximations to an underlying discrete reality (think for example of fluid dynamics, which doesn't consider the discrete particles that constitute the fluid). It’s a matter of the scale of the phenomenon under consideration. Any theory in physics is valid only within the limits of its applicability.
May 28, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Azzam, the way you are trying to impose your ideas is not effective. Your excessive activity only tires the other members of the thread.
In spite of the fact that it is necessary to find an individual key for each person's thinking, your actions predominantly lead to the interaction of people, which are united only by antagonism to some generally accepted positions, but not a general new idea. This is normal in a crisis. But, in the end, everything is decided by statistics.
The ideas, in which there is no inner harmony that provides a self-sufficient life of structure, are doomed.
Vasyl Komarov | Azzam, the way you are trying to impose your ideas is not effective. Your excessive activity only tires the other members of the thread.
In spite of the fact that it is necessary to find an individual key for each person's thinking, your actions predominantly lead to the interaction of people, which are united only by antagonism to some generally accepted positions, but not a general new idea. This is normal in a crisis. But, in the end, everything is decided by statistics.
The ideas, in which there is no inner harmony that provides a self-sufficient life of structure, are doomed.
May 29, 2017
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
You always reply to me by words only...no physics, no math, no experimental results. That is not working in science, physics, math and experiment.
I have not talked wrong physically or mathematically or experimentally. I reviewed all physics with you from micro to macro!!! Give one thing wrong from what I said!!! Discuss with me!!! What can I do more!!!!??? Reply to me physically, mathematically and experimentally in order to understand how to reply to you physically!!! Words only can't change the physical reality, Vasiliy!!!
W.W. Engelhardt | Dear Eric,
is this:
http://skullsinthestars.scientopia.org/2010/08/09/right-wing-refutations-of-relativity-really-really-wrong/
your answer to my comment and questions?
Are you on the same level as "Dr. SkySkull" who writes such nonsense as:
The first success of Einstein's general relativity was providing an explanation for a previously-unexplained slow evolution in the motion of planet Mercury.
Who believes that Planck's velocity-dependent mass formula (eq. 10) follows from SRT?
Who vaguely tries to solve the twin paradox by invoking accelerations that do not enter the formula for time dilation?
Who cannot see the aporia arising between §1 and §3 in Einstein's paper of 1905?
Who does not recognize that SRT was refuted by Einstein himself in 1938?
His qualitative statements are void of any formulae. Are you not a mathematician? At least your name is known, but this individual must hide behind a pseudonym for good reasons.
Vladimir A. Kulchitsky | Instructive reasoning about the eternal problem. What is the significance of this problem in the path of the transformation of the Sun into a Red Giant?
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear All,
Who is causing time dilation in SRT acceleration of velocity!!!????
I'm sorry!!! But I can't keep silent when I see nonsense like solving the twin paradox by invoking accelerations.
Now I want to accept the twin paradox as physics. It is right according to the twin paradox it is keeping on the reality is observer independent and thus keeping on continuity same as in Galilean transformation when t'=t. According to that the velocity is impossible to cause time dilation, and thus during the motion in constant velocity by the reciprocity there is no time dilation because in this case we keep on the reality is observer independent and thus continuity same as in classical physics and Galilean transformation when t'=t, and according to that there is no solution for the twin paradox in SRT, and thus according to the experiment there is no time dilation according to the velocity by the reciprocity.
Now I need time dilation, how can I get it!!???
Now I have one choice. Acceleration may cause time dilation, and that is not true physically and mathematically..why? Because since according to the velocity in the Twin paradox by the reciprocity I keep on the the reality is observer independent and thus continuity same as in classical physics. In this case acceleration also must not cause time dilation according to the continuity. This is math and this is physics in reality, and since in this case there is no time dilation according to the reality is observer independent and continuity in SRT same as in classical physics. In this case I do not need to twin paradox and I must go back to Galilean transformation and thus t'=t.
Now how can I solve the problem specially if the experiment gives me time dilation as relativists say!!!??? Now time dilation in this case makes a problem. In reality according to the experiment, physics and math, it must be clock retardation not time dilation. But in this case clock retardation in SRT violates the continuity in classical physics and the reality is observer independent. Or in this case I must consider the ether theory, and Lorentz ether theory.
Now Minkowski solved the problem in this case in SRT by the Geometry. By the Minkowski Geometry, the world appeared to move according to the reality is observer independent and continuity same as in classical, but in reality, physically and mathematically it is not!!! Now Minkowski connected what is discontinuous by Geometry only, and in this case it is appeared what is discontinuous as continuous by Geometry only. This is now neither physics nor math in reality. Now Minkowski disappeared the retardation in physics in reality. In this case retardation means physically ether theory or QFT and QED.
Now according to Minkowski Geometry if I asked who causing time dilation in SRT, the acceleration or the velocity, there is no answer. But I must believe in the Minkowski Geometry without understanding who is causing time dilation in SRT, the velocity or acceleration. It is only Geometry!!!
Now in this case if SRT itself is really QFT and QED by the reality is observer dependent by the retardation, in this case Minkowski hided the wave-particle duality, the entanglement and the uncertainty principle by his Geometry
From that Minkowski said
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."
Now when Einstein believed in Minkowski Geometry in SRT and he tried to apply it in GR, the experiment in reality gave against the Minkowski geometry in his equivalence principle by considering the classical acceleration in his equivalence principle. According to this paper J D Franson 2014 New J. Phys. 16 065008 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008
It is calculated that, treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. However, this leads to a violation of Einstein's equivalence principle – that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable – because, in a gravitational field, the gravitational potential is created along with mass, whereas in a frame of reference accelerating in free fall, it is not. Therefore, one could distinguish gravity from acceleration by whether a photon slows down or not when it undergoes particle–antiparticle creation.
And according to that GR is impossible to solve Mercury precession or Light bending by gravity.
Now according to that, Gerber solution to the Mercury is physically right because it expresses about the retardation in physics, while Einstein's solution in GR is not right because in SRT and GR there is no retardation!!! And because of that Einstein could not reach to Gerber's formula according to Minkowski Geometry, because Minkowski in general hided to the retardation in SRT and GR by his Geometry.
For honesty I want to say, I feel that Einstein is oppressed. All of these mistakes are pasted to his name!!! He tried to refute his theory, but he could not change!!! He does not deserve all of these accusations!!! He said his SRT must be explained according to the Copenhagen, no one heard him!! He said too much about his relativity, and none heard him!!!! He was honest, and I really respect him and his work!!!!!
Vasyl Komarov | Azzam, not all sections of science are sufficiently formalized. Some sections at the moment are completely non-formalized phenomenological information. In spite of the fact that it is often based on statistical data of observations, qualitative conclusions is in such sections primarily. There are also special cognitive processes (directly related with the research process), in which there is very little data due to extremely rare significant characteristic events and the lack of detailed observational data for the reason that these events can not be predicted, despite the evolutionary periodicity.
From all our previous dialogues I have to state that you are also not able to assimilate text information, accordingly, you are not able to work with such sections of knowledge. You confirm this by yourself. This means that you are not able to assimilate the theory of evolution, including, which still is an unformalized theory because of incredible complexity of the process.
When zero approximation of the formal model of what interests me will be clearly indicated, these disputes will simply not be of interest to me at least.
If you think that physics can do without the rest of science, then you are very naive.
This is my humble opinion.
NB: If you are able to describe the problem in words, it already has a formal presentation.
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
You always reply to me by words only...no physics, no math, no experimental results. That is not working in science, physics, math and experiment.
I have not talked wrong physically or mathematically or experimentally. I reviewed all physics with you from micro to macro!!! Give one thing wrong from what I said!!! Discuss with me!!! What can I do more!!!!??? Reply to me physically, mathematically and experimentally in order to understand how to reply to you physically!!! Words only can't change the physical reality, Vasiliy!!!
W.W. Engelhardt | Dear Eric,
is this:
http://skullsinthestars.scientopia.org/2010/08/09/right-wing-refutations-of-relativity-really-really-wrong/
your answer to my comment and questions?
Are you on the same level as "Dr. SkySkull" who writes such nonsense as:
The first success of Einstein's general relativity was providing an explanation for a previously-unexplained slow evolution in the motion of planet Mercury.
Who believes that Planck's velocity-dependent mass formula (eq. 10) follows from SRT?
Who vaguely tries to solve the twin paradox by invoking accelerations that do not enter the formula for time dilation?
Who cannot see the aporia arising between §1 and §3 in Einstein's paper of 1905?
Who does not recognize that SRT was refuted by Einstein himself in 1938?
His qualitative statements are void of any formulae. Are you not a mathematician? At least your name is known, but this individual must hide behind a pseudonym for good reasons.
Vladimir A. Kulchitsky | Instructive reasoning about the eternal problem. What is the significance of this problem in the path of the transformation of the Sun into a Red Giant?
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear All,
Who is causing time dilation in SRT acceleration of velocity!!!????
I'm sorry!!! But I can't keep silent when I see nonsense like solving the twin paradox by invoking accelerations.
Now I want to accept the twin paradox as physics. It is right according to the twin paradox it is keeping on the reality is observer independent and thus keeping on continuity same as in Galilean transformation when t'=t. According to that the velocity is impossible to cause time dilation, and thus during the motion in constant velocity by the reciprocity there is no time dilation because in this case we keep on the reality is observer independent and thus continuity same as in classical physics and Galilean transformation when t'=t, and according to that there is no solution for the twin paradox in SRT, and thus according to the experiment there is no time dilation according to the velocity by the reciprocity.
Now I need time dilation, how can I get it!!???
Now I have one choice. Acceleration may cause time dilation, and that is not true physically and mathematically..why? Because since according to the velocity in the Twin paradox by the reciprocity I keep on the the reality is observer independent and thus continuity same as in classical physics. In this case acceleration also must not cause time dilation according to the continuity. This is math and this is physics in reality, and since in this case there is no time dilation according to the reality is observer independent and continuity in SRT same as in classical physics. In this case I do not need to twin paradox and I must go back to Galilean transformation and thus t'=t.
Now how can I solve the problem specially if the experiment gives me time dilation as relativists say!!!??? Now time dilation in this case makes a problem. In reality according to the experiment, physics and math, it must be clock retardation not time dilation. But in this case clock retardation in SRT violates the continuity in classical physics and the reality is observer independent. Or in this case I must consider the ether theory, and Lorentz ether theory.
Now Minkowski solved the problem in this case in SRT by the Geometry. By the Minkowski Geometry, the world appeared to move according to the reality is observer independent and continuity same as in classical, but in reality, physically and mathematically it is not!!! Now Minkowski connected what is discontinuous by Geometry only, and in this case it is appeared what is discontinuous as continuous by Geometry only. This is now neither physics nor math in reality. Now Minkowski disappeared the retardation in physics in reality. In this case retardation means physically ether theory or QFT and QED.
Now according to Minkowski Geometry if I asked who causing time dilation in SRT, the acceleration or the velocity, there is no answer. But I must believe in the Minkowski Geometry without understanding who is causing time dilation in SRT, the velocity or acceleration. It is only Geometry!!!
Now in this case if SRT itself is really QFT and QED by the reality is observer dependent by the retardation, in this case Minkowski hided the wave-particle duality, the entanglement and the uncertainty principle by his Geometry
From that Minkowski said
"The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."
Now when Einstein believed in Minkowski Geometry in SRT and he tried to apply it in GR, the experiment in reality gave against the Minkowski geometry in his equivalence principle by considering the classical acceleration in his equivalence principle. According to this paper J D Franson 2014 New J. Phys. 16 065008 doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008
It is calculated that, treating light as a quantum object, the change in a photon's velocity depends not on the strength of the gravitational field, but on the gravitational potential itself. However, this leads to a violation of Einstein's equivalence principle – that gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable – because, in a gravitational field, the gravitational potential is created along with mass, whereas in a frame of reference accelerating in free fall, it is not. Therefore, one could distinguish gravity from acceleration by whether a photon slows down or not when it undergoes particle–antiparticle creation.
And according to that GR is impossible to solve Mercury precession or Light bending by gravity.
Now according to that, Gerber solution to the Mercury is physically right because it expresses about the retardation in physics, while Einstein's solution in GR is not right because in SRT and GR there is no retardation!!! And because of that Einstein could not reach to Gerber's formula according to Minkowski Geometry, because Minkowski in general hided to the retardation in SRT and GR by his Geometry.
For honesty I want to say, I feel that Einstein is oppressed. All of these mistakes are pasted to his name!!! He tried to refute his theory, but he could not change!!! He does not deserve all of these accusations!!! He said his SRT must be explained according to the Copenhagen, no one heard him!! He said too much about his relativity, and none heard him!!!! He was honest, and I really respect him and his work!!!!!
Vasyl Komarov | Azzam, not all sections of science are sufficiently formalized. Some sections at the moment are completely non-formalized phenomenological information. In spite of the fact that it is often based on statistical data of observations, qualitative conclusions is in such sections primarily. There are also special cognitive processes (directly related with the research process), in which there is very little data due to extremely rare significant characteristic events and the lack of detailed observational data for the reason that these events can not be predicted, despite the evolutionary periodicity.
From all our previous dialogues I have to state that you are also not able to assimilate text information, accordingly, you are not able to work with such sections of knowledge. You confirm this by yourself. This means that you are not able to assimilate the theory of evolution, including, which still is an unformalized theory because of incredible complexity of the process.
When zero approximation of the formal model of what interests me will be clearly indicated, these disputes will simply not be of interest to me at least.
If you think that physics can do without the rest of science, then you are very naive.
This is my humble opinion.
NB: If you are able to describe the problem in words, it already has a formal presentation.
May 30, 2017
Yin Zhu | Dear Vasiliy,
I think, if a person has known that "not all sections of science are sufficiently formalized", this person can have a well understand about the frontier of modern physics. But, the theory of relativity is not the section that has not been sufficiently formalized. It is only a faked story. Please see:
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Yin Zhu, you once again posted a link to the text in which you collected all the problematic discussions of relativity theory on the RG? Thank you. But I must disappoint, RG again can not properly display it. In addition, I should note, a little higher dear Eric Lord gave a link that completely echoes with your collection.
What is the point in pure nihilism? Take the example of dear Azzam, he constructively tries to impose something new one in return.
Azzam K Almosallami | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
As I'm a physicist, I do not care to all of your words. As a physicist I care only to theory, mathematics and experimental results. That's all what I understand. I have experimental results and as I'm a physicist, all what I can do, I try to explain these experimental results theoretically according to the right math and thus right physics!!! As a physicist I do not care what convince you or what does not convince you. All I can do for you that I respect your ideas and I appreciate your ideas, but do not mix that with physics. I care about physics, theory and experiment only.
Welcome to you if you like to discuss with me according to physics and experiment. Otherwise I can't help you!!! Believe me I can't help you!!!! Till now you have not replied to me by physics in order to to understand how to reply to you by physics.
As you know physics proved there is no empty space as predicted by relativity theory of Einstein by wrong math. It is normal wrong math will lead to wrong theory in physics and it is always experimental results are against to wrong theory in physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
Now you can understand how is that from my previous post!!!
Now you can reply to me by physics!!!! What can I do for you more!!!??? I can't help you!!!
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Azzam,
You are right, we pursue different goals. You are also right that at the moment you can not help me. I have already state this.
I also have no desire to explain once again that a third view of space and matter can be, that does not separate one from the other, when everything is a unitary topological structure, without any materialized "ether," I have already mentioned this earlier in the thread (I also said how the formation of relativity theory contributed to transition from "classical" understanding of emptiness and matter placed in it to this understanding).
Yes, I often say not only about physics. However, if you do not found physics in my words, no one forbids you to state that I'm talking about another physics. And yes, I have no additional interest in discussing your physics.
You do not want to understand why we differ. It is senseless to oppose anything to reluctance. I'm also quite stubborn man. Let it be.
Yet another PS: You can derive an exact formula that predicts the motion of a planet around a star that exceeds the accuracy of general relativity, but this does not mean that you will approach the understanding of reality on the basis of just such a formula. You can also well describe even a few other aspects of reality that you are paying attention too. 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 | Azzam, not all sections of science are sufficiently formalized. Some sections at the moment are completely non-formalized phenomenological information. In spite of the fact that it is often based on statistical data of observations, qualitative conclusions is in such sections primarily. There are also special cognitive processes (directly related with the research process), in which there is very little data due to extremely rare significant characteristic events and the lack of detailed observational data for the reason that these events can not be predicted, despite the evolutionary periodicity.
From all our previous dialogues I have to state that you are also not able to assimilate text information, accordingly, you are not able to work with such sections of knowledge. You confirm this by yourself. This means that you are not able to assimilate the theory of evolution, including, which still is an unformalized theory because of incredible complexity of the process.
When zero approximation of the formal model of what interests me will be clearly indicated, these disputes will simply not be of interest to me at least.
If you think that physics can do without the rest of science, then you are very naive.
This is my humble opinion.
NB: If you are able to describe the problem in words, it already has a formal presentation.
Yin Zhu | Dear Vasiliy,
I think, if a person has known that "not all sections of science are sufficiently formalized", this person can have a well understand about the frontier of modern physics. But, the theory of relativity is not the section that has not been sufficiently formalized. It is only a faked story. Please see:
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Yin Zhu, you once again posted a link to the text in which you collected all the problematic discussions of relativity theory on the RG? Thank you. But I must disappoint, RG again can not properly display it. In addition, I should note, a little higher dear Eric Lord gave a link that completely echoes with your collection.
What is the point in pure nihilism? Take the example of dear Azzam, he constructively tries to impose something new one in return.
Azzam K Almosallami | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
As I'm a physicist, I do not care to all of your words. As a physicist I care only to theory, mathematics and experimental results. That's all what I understand. I have experimental results and as I'm a physicist, all what I can do, I try to explain these experimental results theoretically according to the right math and thus right physics!!! As a physicist I do not care what convince you or what does not convince you. All I can do for you that I respect your ideas and I appreciate your ideas, but do not mix that with physics. I care about physics, theory and experiment only.
Welcome to you if you like to discuss with me according to physics and experiment. Otherwise I can't help you!!! Believe me I can't help you!!!! Till now you have not replied to me by physics in order to to understand how to reply to you by physics.
As you know physics proved there is no empty space as predicted by relativity theory of Einstein by wrong math. It is normal wrong math will lead to wrong theory in physics and it is always experimental results are against to wrong theory in physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
Now you can understand how is that from my previous post!!!
Now you can reply to me by physics!!!! What can I do for you more!!!??? I can't help you!!!
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Azzam,
You are right, we pursue different goals. You are also right that at the moment you can not help me. I have already state this.
I also have no desire to explain once again that a third view of space and matter can be, that does not separate one from the other, when everything is a unitary topological structure, without any materialized "ether," I have already mentioned this earlier in the thread (I also said how the formation of relativity theory contributed to transition from "classical" understanding of emptiness and matter placed in it to this understanding).
Yes, I often say not only about physics. However, if you do not found physics in my words, no one forbids you to state that I'm talking about another physics. And yes, I have no additional interest in discussing your physics.
You do not want to understand why we differ. It is senseless to oppose anything to reluctance. I'm also quite stubborn man. Let it be.
Yet another PS: You can derive an exact formula that predicts the motion of a planet around a star that exceeds the accuracy of general relativity, but this does not mean that you will approach the understanding of reality on the basis of just such a formula. You can also well describe even a few other aspects of reality that you are paying attention too. 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 | Azzam, not all sections of science are sufficiently formalized. Some sections at the moment are completely non-formalized phenomenological information. In spite of the fact that it is often based on statistical data of observations, qualitative conclusions is in such sections primarily. There are also special cognitive processes (directly related with the research process), in which there is very little data due to extremely rare significant characteristic events and the lack of detailed observational data for the reason that these events can not be predicted, despite the evolutionary periodicity.
From all our previous dialogues I have to state that you are also not able to assimilate text information, accordingly, you are not able to work with such sections of knowledge. You confirm this by yourself. This means that you are not able to assimilate the theory of evolution, including, which still is an unformalized theory because of incredible complexity of the process.
When zero approximation of the formal model of what interests me will be clearly indicated, these disputes will simply not be of interest to me at least.
If you think that physics can do without the rest of science, then you are very naive.
This is my humble opinion.
NB: If you are able to describe the problem in words, it already has a formal presentation.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Jun 2, 2017]
2 черв. 2017 р.
10:05 | LIGO’s Latest Black-Hole Merger Confirms Einstein, Challenges Astrophysics
"The deepest mystery of GW170104, LIGO’s latest discovery, is that the merger happened too quickly for both of its progenitor black holes to be so aligned; in terms of Cadonati’s analogy, at least one of the orbiting “tornadoes” must have been paradoxically tilted near or on its side."
Анизотропия ориентации спинов является открытым вопросом практически с самого начала размышлений.
Интересно ещё другое, возможна ли в принципе такая конфигурация, которая может привести к уравновешиванию систем с диссипацией энергии до докритического уровня?
С точки зрения законов сохранения это не может быть "исчезновение", результатом процесса должно быть сильнейшее "возмущение" с возвращением энергии системы в каком-либо виде нашему пространству-времени?
И в таком случае, не противоречит ли это необратимости, точнее, невозможности стационарного равновесного состояния (с точки зрения вечности)?
10:05 | LIGO’s Latest Black-Hole Merger Confirms Einstein, Challenges Astrophysics
"The deepest mystery of GW170104, LIGO’s latest discovery, is that the merger happened too quickly for both of its progenitor black holes to be so aligned; in terms of Cadonati’s analogy, at least one of the orbiting “tornadoes” must have been paradoxically tilted near or on its side."
Анизотропия ориентации спинов является открытым вопросом практически с самого начала размышлений.
Интересно ещё другое, возможна ли в принципе такая конфигурация, которая может привести к уравновешиванию систем с диссипацией энергии до докритического уровня?
С точки зрения законов сохранения это не может быть "исчезновение", результатом процесса должно быть сильнейшее "возмущение" с возвращением энергии системы в каком-либо виде нашему пространству-времени?
И в таком случае, не противоречит ли это необратимости, точнее, невозможности стационарного равновесного состояния (с точки зрения вечности)?
Jun 2, 2017
Abdul Malek | Since the forum is still continuing; I collected enough courage to say a few more things (in addition to what I said before) to the learned physicists in this forum arguing both in favour and against GR. I assume that all of you in this forum are pursuing physics in all seriousness, honesty, passion etc. (even though with minor uneven efficiency or consistency) using idealized mathematics as the language (as Dr. Engelhardt asserted) both as a tool for gaining knowledge and for discourse with others. But ladies and gentlemen, if we go by the experience so far in this forum alone; I must point out that this is not the type of discourse through which you can settle the issue of GR either one way or the other; even if you keep on arguing for hundreds of years! Immanuel Kant found this problem in a hard way and called this “antimony” arising from causality. Because one can equally prove and disprove, any one of the two sides of an antimony following formal logic!
And to those arguing against GR, I would like to draw your attention to the latest “proof” of GR – the 3rd gravitational wave detection. This means that no matter how much you “demolish” GR with your mathematical prowess; it will mean nothing in impractical terms; as the power that be, can always fund and find people to establish their favoured notions of truth in physics! In your causality based mathematical method, you are playing a loosing game, because this way you become part of the establishment and play by the rules set by your opponent, who like gambling set the rules in a way that they will always win! You cannot keep sawing at the base of the branch of a tree you are sitting on! Moreover, your opponents have at their disposal the means to "prove" thair theories and you have none! This path is futile; there must be other ways to pursue positive knowledge!
The problem with this mode of thought and Kantian antimonies, as pointed out later by Hegel, lies not on the state of knowledge of Kant’s time or the lack of his intellectual abilities, but with the mode of thought (that includes idealized mathematics) that Kant and the rationalists were following. Hegel called this mode of thought (used in philosophy, theology and sciences since the early Greeks), “the view of understanding” or crudely speaking causality and “good old commonsense” belonging to formal (Aristotelian) logic based on the principle, “Unity, Opposition and the excluded Middle”. In this view there can be no contradiction (because opposites are exclusively separated), no uncertainty, discontinuity etc., or any evolution in God’s perfect world – “everything is created perfect in itself". Things can be either be one or the other (but not both) of the mutually exclusive categories of cause or effect, true or false etc. polar opposites.
Historically, causality conformed to classical mechanics and everyday life experience. Newtonian physics was the pinnacle of this mode of thought. The ruling classes of all epochs (including the present epoch) favoured and imposed this mode of thought for obvious reason; even though David Hume and Immanuel Kant found problem with this mode of thought to the extent that Kant rejected reality as unknowable thing-in-itself; to save the revered notions of this mode of thought. Since the early Greeks through medieval scholasticism, idealized mathematics and geometry was thought to be the most perfect representation of this mode of thought and the only way to reach truth about the world. Rationalists like Descartes and Spinoza practiced and advocated mathematics as the only proper tool for philosophical enquiry and to know objective reality.
After the quantum phenomena was recognized, Albert Einstein faced an even greater challenge than Kant to save the notions of causality, rationalism etc. at the behest monopoly capitalism and theology. Einstein did not reject reality as unknowable like Kant, he did something more clever! Einstein remoulded objective reality itself to suit his purpose, by imposing idealized mathematics and geometry on it. It means, reality must conform to the mathematical rules and laws. It is because the world created by God must be rational and logical and nothing other than mathematics be the perfect tool to know the world!
The major problem with this kind of thought (including mathematics) and causality is that it not only leads to antimonies when extended beyond everyday life experience as Kant found out; but it also leads to mysteries and no positive knowledge at all! Because causality in an iterative way always leads to a “first cause”- i.e., the “effect” of a “cause” that is unknown and hence a mystery. So, no matter where in the chain of causality you are, you are pursuing a mystery, because your knowledge is never secure until you know the “first cause”. Dialectics will tell you that the “first cause” will always be unknown, unless you assume one, like the God of theology!
Modern physics following causality and Einsteinian mathematical idealism of “continuous fields” is only harvesting increasingly more and more mysteries as it goes along the realm of the macrocosm and microcosm. But these mysteries are virtual knowledge, since these cannot be related to human practice or experience - the only way to differentiate between positive knowledge and fantasy. Modern physics can only find “proofs” of the fruits of its hard labour through subjective and contrived experiments to satisfy its proud ego. And monopoly capitalism is only too happy to provide all the requirements of the physicists. Meanwhile theology reaches the same results (that the physicists get with their hard labour) without any efforts at all! Theology already found or decided on a “first cause” to start with (i.e., God) and very easily uses this cause to explain any effect or anything at all in the world! When physics with all its efforts reaches the mystery of “Big Bang” creation as the cause of all things in the world; theology confidently tells physics, “told you so, before; it’s the work of God!”
Abdul Malek | Since the forum is still continuing; I collected enough courage to say a few more things (in addition to what I said before) to the learned physicists in this forum arguing both in favour and against GR. I assume that all of you in this forum are pursuing physics in all seriousness, honesty, passion etc. (even though with minor uneven efficiency or consistency) using idealized mathematics as the language (as Dr. Engelhardt asserted) both as a tool for gaining knowledge and for discourse with others. But ladies and gentlemen, if we go by the experience so far in this forum alone; I must point out that this is not the type of discourse through which you can settle the issue of GR either one way or the other; even if you keep on arguing for hundreds of years! Immanuel Kant found this problem in a hard way and called this “antimony” arising from causality. Because one can equally prove and disprove, any one of the two sides of an antimony following formal logic!
And to those arguing against GR, I would like to draw your attention to the latest “proof” of GR – the 3rd gravitational wave detection. This means that no matter how much you “demolish” GR with your mathematical prowess; it will mean nothing in impractical terms; as the power that be, can always fund and find people to establish their favoured notions of truth in physics! In your causality based mathematical method, you are playing a loosing game, because this way you become part of the establishment and play by the rules set by your opponent, who like gambling set the rules in a way that they will always win! You cannot keep sawing at the base of the branch of a tree you are sitting on! Moreover, your opponents have at their disposal the means to "prove" thair theories and you have none! This path is futile; there must be other ways to pursue positive knowledge!
The problem with this mode of thought and Kantian antimonies, as pointed out later by Hegel, lies not on the state of knowledge of Kant’s time or the lack of his intellectual abilities, but with the mode of thought (that includes idealized mathematics) that Kant and the rationalists were following. Hegel called this mode of thought (used in philosophy, theology and sciences since the early Greeks), “the view of understanding” or crudely speaking causality and “good old commonsense” belonging to formal (Aristotelian) logic based on the principle, “Unity, Opposition and the excluded Middle”. In this view there can be no contradiction (because opposites are exclusively separated), no uncertainty, discontinuity etc., or any evolution in God’s perfect world – “everything is created perfect in itself". Things can be either be one or the other (but not both) of the mutually exclusive categories of cause or effect, true or false etc. polar opposites.
Historically, causality conformed to classical mechanics and everyday life experience. Newtonian physics was the pinnacle of this mode of thought. The ruling classes of all epochs (including the present epoch) favoured and imposed this mode of thought for obvious reason; even though David Hume and Immanuel Kant found problem with this mode of thought to the extent that Kant rejected reality as unknowable thing-in-itself; to save the revered notions of this mode of thought. Since the early Greeks through medieval scholasticism, idealized mathematics and geometry was thought to be the most perfect representation of this mode of thought and the only way to reach truth about the world. Rationalists like Descartes and Spinoza practiced and advocated mathematics as the only proper tool for philosophical enquiry and to know objective reality.
After the quantum phenomena was recognized, Albert Einstein faced an even greater challenge than Kant to save the notions of causality, rationalism etc. at the behest monopoly capitalism and theology. Einstein did not reject reality as unknowable like Kant, he did something more clever! Einstein remoulded objective reality itself to suit his purpose, by imposing idealized mathematics and geometry on it. It means, reality must conform to the mathematical rules and laws. It is because the world created by God must be rational and logical and nothing other than mathematics be the perfect tool to know the world!
The major problem with this kind of thought (including mathematics) and causality is that it not only leads to antimonies when extended beyond everyday life experience as Kant found out; but it also leads to mysteries and no positive knowledge at all! Because causality in an iterative way always leads to a “first cause”- i.e., the “effect” of a “cause” that is unknown and hence a mystery. So, no matter where in the chain of causality you are, you are pursuing a mystery, because your knowledge is never secure until you know the “first cause”. Dialectics will tell you that the “first cause” will always be unknown, unless you assume one, like the God of theology!
Modern physics following causality and Einsteinian mathematical idealism of “continuous fields” is only harvesting increasingly more and more mysteries as it goes along the realm of the macrocosm and microcosm. But these mysteries are virtual knowledge, since these cannot be related to human practice or experience - the only way to differentiate between positive knowledge and fantasy. Modern physics can only find “proofs” of the fruits of its hard labour through subjective and contrived experiments to satisfy its proud ego. And monopoly capitalism is only too happy to provide all the requirements of the physicists. Meanwhile theology reaches the same results (that the physicists get with their hard labour) without any efforts at all! Theology already found or decided on a “first cause” to start with (i.e., God) and very easily uses this cause to explain any effect or anything at all in the world! When physics with all its efforts reaches the mystery of “Big Bang” creation as the cause of all things in the world; theology confidently tells physics, “told you so, before; it’s the work of God!”
Jun 3, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul Malek, you definitely make a positive diversity in this looped discussion. I like that your thoughts now are a little more impartial. This means that you are starting to feel more indifferent about this or that information. You have the opportunity to assess the pros and cons of situations with a slightly less bias, generated by personal belief system.
All the crisis situations in the science are associated with so-called paradigm shift. Any change of paradigm begins as an antinomy.
Generally speaking, antinomies do not arise from a subjective errors, but are associated with dialectic process of cognition.
With accumulation of contradictions (in fact, new data; contradictions increases with outlook expansion) the turning (bifurcation) point comes. Then both configurations (constructed on different axioms) look equivalent in terms of data.
New data (as a rule) dumps system into a new, more stable state with an extended data set. In other words, what is very obvious to you now was far from obvious to the contemporaries of Copernicus, Galileo, etc.
Such a situations, apparently, always reveal some invariants. Thus, benefits of the very process of paradigm shift are derived. In physics there are many good illustrative examples, because, it operates with a fairly primitive data and transformations in its clear sense:
The transition from flat concept of Earth to spherical is without doubt the greatest milestone in history. One of the main points of this transition is that we realized the invariance of bijection of topological structures. People use homeomorphism ever since they use maps.
The transition from geocentric to heliocentric system is next good example. Copernicus and followers went from one idea to another, thus making it possible to realize the invariance of movement. Thanks to this paradigm shift we have Galileo transformations and Newton's laws.
A very consistent dialectical process is: mechanics -> electrodynamics -> mechanics + electrodynamics = invariance of the maximum velocity of propagation and the Lorentz transformation (special theory of relativity).
The principle of equivalence is further and, consequently, the general theory of relativity was quite a logical step.
Let us consider Azzam, he is a fan of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. By the way, quantum mechanics owes its existence to the constancy of spectral width by pulse duration product, i.e. the invariance of uncertainty under Fourier transformations.
But he is not very interested in evolutionary biology. It is in vain. To hear something, you need to grow the ears, in order to see something, you need to grow the eyes, in order to have something be "measured", you first need to "build" a detector. At the level of quantum mechanics it is called counterfactual definiteness. At the level of philosophy this means that interacting systems must exist, i.e. being. All this is recognizable eternal question of the primacy within "eggs vs chicken" binary opposition in a self-similar process of evolution.
The whole process of cognition (not only in the scientific sense) consists of hypotheses creation and testing them with probable refutation. Concepts of time and space, atoms also had once been put forward (you, as a person who knows history of philosophy for sure, know this very well) as a hypotheses on qualia, which is developed successfully. Even the child receives first hematoma by testing own hypotheses which are even subconscious impulses.
Your brain is a physical structure. Mathematics as formal language with results of any calculations are product of it's physical activity. Any formalism is just an alternation of physical structures, which is some information, like any alternation of physical structures in nature. As a philosopher, you are used to set apart math from reality, it is historically natural. Your thinking about mathematics is strongly influenced by the platonic idea of pure forms.
The "secret" of mathematics, in fact, is discouragingly simple. Its archetypes are the consequence of invariance the processes of physical reality (structures, which is strongly resistant to dissipation when passing through interferences). Only because of this structures of your brain, computer, or any other dynamic system are able to behave like another dynamic system.
Therefore topologically two apples are like two fingers or two atoms or any other two systems (non-formal or formal, which is just a layer on some physical carrier/media); and 2+2=4 not only in your head, but everywhere.
Therefore watching the Moon and thinking about "apple" we can put forward as a hypothesis some universal law.
Therefore Copernician mediocrity principle has not yet been refuted, despite multiple overturning of the Universe understanding through the prefix "multi".
We combine elements and comprehend new synthetic connected entity, combine/unify the Earth and planets to synthesize new bigger universe, combine/unify the Sun and the stars to synthesize new bigger universe, combine/unify the Milky Way and the nebulae to synthesize new bigger universe...
We continue to build topological atlases. We are constantly engaged in the renormalization of infinity, which you and I discussed in the past dialogue in this thread. We owe the opportunity to do this by equivalence of infinities (i.e. invariance), which is voiced in the form of continuum hypothesis (this was the beginning of my last long "squabble" with Azzam).
The "secret" of paradigm-shift antinomy lies in the natural self-organization, to which nature obeys. In self-organization process roles of cause and effect are uncertainty. Science develops uniting fenomena, revealing similarities in them, synthesizing new bigger complex coherent system on knowledge. Changing paradigms allows us to feel the uncertainty of bifurcation point in dinamical system on a large scale and own experience.
The next paradigm shift will almost destroy the ideal world of philosophy, returning thought processes to physical reality. imho
There are many things to think about. For example, why the Lyapunov exponents, when chaotic electromagnetic signal propagates, are preserved invariantly with respect the topological structure of medium (perhaps, this and tunneling effect would may give some stimulus to Azzam for studying the theory of dynamical systems)? Why the "cause vs effect" binary opposition bundle is invariant and distinguishable, apparently, with respect to any transformations in all cases, except the mentioned above asymptotic process of self-organization? There are also other already mentioned interesting questions, connected with the continuum hypothesis and infinity.
At this rate you and I may be can get to the point of discussing why dialectics is bad friend for logic (according to Popper) and how dialectics, through Gödel's incompleteness theorem, hacks like a can opener the strict logic of formal systems (as I have already told you before, everything has semantics, including even such a strongly formalized language as mathematics and such abstract thing as philosophy). Pure physical connection of any representative form with physical reality, in which you and I are engaged in the interpretation of something, through our physical brains is there.
Materialism covers more than you are used to thinking from the standpoint of classical philosophy. All that is necessary is to eliminate the wedge, hammered between by mutual efforts of "idealists" and "materialists".
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul Malek, you definitely make a positive diversity in this looped discussion. I like that your thoughts now are a little more impartial. This means that you are starting to feel more indifferent about this or that information. You have the opportunity to assess the pros and cons of situations with a slightly less bias, generated by personal belief system.
All the crisis situations in the science are associated with so-called paradigm shift. Any change of paradigm begins as an antinomy.
Generally speaking, antinomies do not arise from a subjective errors, but are associated with dialectic process of cognition.
With accumulation of contradictions (in fact, new data; contradictions increases with outlook expansion) the turning (bifurcation) point comes. Then both configurations (constructed on different axioms) look equivalent in terms of data.
New data (as a rule) dumps system into a new, more stable state with an extended data set. In other words, what is very obvious to you now was far from obvious to the contemporaries of Copernicus, Galileo, etc.
Such a situations, apparently, always reveal some invariants. Thus, benefits of the very process of paradigm shift are derived. In physics there are many good illustrative examples, because, it operates with a fairly primitive data and transformations in its clear sense:
The transition from flat concept of Earth to spherical is without doubt the greatest milestone in history. One of the main points of this transition is that we realized the invariance of bijection of topological structures. People use homeomorphism ever since they use maps.
The transition from geocentric to heliocentric system is next good example. Copernicus and followers went from one idea to another, thus making it possible to realize the invariance of movement. Thanks to this paradigm shift we have Galileo transformations and Newton's laws.
A very consistent dialectical process is: mechanics -> electrodynamics -> mechanics + electrodynamics = invariance of the maximum velocity of propagation and the Lorentz transformation (special theory of relativity).
The principle of equivalence is further and, consequently, the general theory of relativity was quite a logical step.
Let us consider Azzam, he is a fan of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. By the way, quantum mechanics owes its existence to the constancy of spectral width by pulse duration product, i.e. the invariance of uncertainty under Fourier transformations.
But he is not very interested in evolutionary biology. It is in vain. To hear something, you need to grow the ears, in order to see something, you need to grow the eyes, in order to have something be "measured", you first need to "build" a detector. At the level of quantum mechanics it is called counterfactual definiteness. At the level of philosophy this means that interacting systems must exist, i.e. being. All this is recognizable eternal question of the primacy within "eggs vs chicken" binary opposition in a self-similar process of evolution.
The whole process of cognition (not only in the scientific sense) consists of hypotheses creation and testing them with probable refutation. Concepts of time and space, atoms also had once been put forward (you, as a person who knows history of philosophy for sure, know this very well) as a hypotheses on qualia, which is developed successfully. Even the child receives first hematoma by testing own hypotheses which are even subconscious impulses.
Your brain is a physical structure. Mathematics as formal language with results of any calculations are product of it's physical activity. Any formalism is just an alternation of physical structures, which is some information, like any alternation of physical structures in nature. As a philosopher, you are used to set apart math from reality, it is historically natural. Your thinking about mathematics is strongly influenced by the platonic idea of pure forms.
The "secret" of mathematics, in fact, is discouragingly simple. Its archetypes are the consequence of invariance the processes of physical reality (structures, which is strongly resistant to dissipation when passing through interferences). Only because of this structures of your brain, computer, or any other dynamic system are able to behave like another dynamic system.
Therefore topologically two apples are like two fingers or two atoms or any other two systems (non-formal or formal, which is just a layer on some physical carrier/media); and 2+2=4 not only in your head, but everywhere.
Therefore watching the Moon and thinking about "apple" we can put forward as a hypothesis some universal law.
Therefore Copernician mediocrity principle has not yet been refuted, despite multiple overturning of the Universe understanding through the prefix "multi".
We combine elements and comprehend new synthetic connected entity, combine/unify the Earth and planets to synthesize new bigger universe, combine/unify the Sun and the stars to synthesize new bigger universe, combine/unify the Milky Way and the nebulae to synthesize new bigger universe...
We continue to build topological atlases. We are constantly engaged in the renormalization of infinity, which you and I discussed in the past dialogue in this thread. We owe the opportunity to do this by equivalence of infinities (i.e. invariance), which is voiced in the form of continuum hypothesis (this was the beginning of my last long "squabble" with Azzam).
The "secret" of paradigm-shift antinomy lies in the natural self-organization, to which nature obeys. In self-organization process roles of cause and effect are uncertainty. Science develops uniting fenomena, revealing similarities in them, synthesizing new bigger complex coherent system on knowledge. Changing paradigms allows us to feel the uncertainty of bifurcation point in dinamical system on a large scale and own experience.
The next paradigm shift will almost destroy the ideal world of philosophy, returning thought processes to physical reality. imho
There are many things to think about. For example, why the Lyapunov exponents, when chaotic electromagnetic signal propagates, are preserved invariantly with respect the topological structure of medium (perhaps, this and tunneling effect would may give some stimulus to Azzam for studying the theory of dynamical systems)? Why the "cause vs effect" binary opposition bundle is invariant and distinguishable, apparently, with respect to any transformations in all cases, except the mentioned above asymptotic process of self-organization? There are also other already mentioned interesting questions, connected with the continuum hypothesis and infinity.
At this rate you and I may be can get to the point of discussing why dialectics is bad friend for logic (according to Popper) and how dialectics, through Gödel's incompleteness theorem, hacks like a can opener the strict logic of formal systems (as I have already told you before, everything has semantics, including even such a strongly formalized language as mathematics and such abstract thing as philosophy). Pure physical connection of any representative form with physical reality, in which you and I are engaged in the interpretation of something, through our physical brains is there.
Materialism covers more than you are used to thinking from the standpoint of classical philosophy. All that is necessary is to eliminate the wedge, hammered between by mutual efforts of "idealists" and "materialists".
Jun 4, 2017
Yin Zhu | Dear Wolfgang,
I also think "the 3rd gravitational wave detection.” is just a blunder."
As my knowledge, now, the black hole has not been directly detected. So, it is impossible to detect the gravitational waves produced by the black hole. I have a question:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_detection_of_gravitational_wave_by_LIGO_true_An_open_question_to_LIGO?_tpcectx=profile_highlights
Who have a certain information that the black hole has been directly detected?
Kåre Olaussen | Yin> Who have a certain information that the black hole has been directly detected?
There is considerable evidence that "the black hole" has passed through your brain at least once, eating something. You cannot expect more direct detection than that.
Yin Zhu | Kare,
Now, I have not known the observation that the black hole is certainly detected. Maybe, my knoweldge is poor. And you knew such an observation. If you should tell me such an observation, I should thank you very much.
Others' information is also welcomed.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Yin Zhu, it should be recalled that humanity thought about the so-called "black holes" long before the theory of relativity.
The banal Newtonian mechanics, escape velocity and the results of Ole Romer's research (1676) provoked (1783/1796) these reflections ( https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200911/physicshistory.cfm ).
I suggest to think about the fact that there are direct and indirect measurements in metrology. What is the temperature that you can really feel as qualia directly through skin?
Why do you believe that not only the Sun but this or that star have a certain temperature? Maybe it's just a holes in the celestial sphere?
As colleague in another thread said "Look at the middle of our Galaxy. You will see stars, rotating around empty space, as if there are 3 millions Sun's masses there." ( http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC , https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0210426 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_gggKHvfGw )
Why in addition do not you think about faith in quantum observables? You do not perceive them directly as qualia also.
NB: Communication with some RG users gives qualia, as if I am somewhere in the Middle Ages now. But I do not believe in it. As one can easy see, even qualia does not always give reliable sensations.
Yin Zhu | Dear Wolfgang,
I also think "the 3rd gravitational wave detection.” is just a blunder."
As my knowledge, now, the black hole has not been directly detected. So, it is impossible to detect the gravitational waves produced by the black hole. I have a question:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_detection_of_gravitational_wave_by_LIGO_true_An_open_question_to_LIGO?_tpcectx=profile_highlights
Who have a certain information that the black hole has been directly detected?
Kåre Olaussen | Yin> Who have a certain information that the black hole has been directly detected?
There is considerable evidence that "the black hole" has passed through your brain at least once, eating something. You cannot expect more direct detection than that.
Yin Zhu | Kare,
Now, I have not known the observation that the black hole is certainly detected. Maybe, my knoweldge is poor. And you knew such an observation. If you should tell me such an observation, I should thank you very much.
Others' information is also welcomed.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Yin Zhu, it should be recalled that humanity thought about the so-called "black holes" long before the theory of relativity.
The banal Newtonian mechanics, escape velocity and the results of Ole Romer's research (1676) provoked (1783/1796) these reflections ( https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200911/physicshistory.cfm ).
I suggest to think about the fact that there are direct and indirect measurements in metrology. What is the temperature that you can really feel as qualia directly through skin?
Why do you believe that not only the Sun but this or that star have a certain temperature? Maybe it's just a holes in the celestial sphere?
As colleague in another thread said "Look at the middle of our Galaxy. You will see stars, rotating around empty space, as if there are 3 millions Sun's masses there." ( http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC , https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0210426 , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_gggKHvfGw )
Why in addition do not you think about faith in quantum observables? You do not perceive them directly as qualia also.
NB: Communication with some RG users gives qualia, as if I am somewhere in the Middle Ages now. But I do not believe in it. As one can easy see, even qualia does not always give reliable sensations.
Jun 5, 2017
Abdul Malek | I would also like to reproduce a comment here that I posted in a “Philosophy of Science” forum since it is relevant here too and adds to the comments I made above:
"Aristotle did indeed overthrow Platonic and the Eleatic idealism but not in a consummate way. Because of the overwhelming constrain from Platonic influence Aristotle could not sow in his revolution the brilliant germ of the “philosophy of all philosophies” , namely the dialectics of his predecessor Heraclitus, even though he made remarkable efforts. This task fell on Epicurus (the immediate successor of Aristotle) to give materialist dialectics essentially in its complete form; but the damage was already done.
Materialist dialectics was all but forgotten and remained in dim forms successively in Spinoza, Leibniz and Kant et al. Idealist Hegel re-discovered dialectics, brought it out of the closet and gave its modern form, but making it “stand on its head”; Karl Marx finally put materialist dialectics on its feet again and in the original form that Epicurus fashioned with his skilful mind.
Meanwhile after the Copernican revolution, natural science (initiated by the materialism of Aristotle) flourished in Europe; more or less banishing Plato based idealism and theology from the realm of terrestrial Nature. But Isaac Newton, whose mechanics helped expel idealism from terrestrial Nature, at the same time, brought Platonic idealism and God back in his cosmology (and in his theory of universal gravitation); to give the “first impulse” in the heavenly bodies. Albert Einstein completed Newton’s task of re-establishing Plato and God in modern cosmology through his theories of relativity." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317040165_THE_CONCEPTUAL_DEFECT_OF_THE_LAW_OF_UNIVERSAL_GRAVITATION_OR_%27FREE_FALL%27_A_DIALECTICAL_REASSESSMENT_OF_KEPLER%27S_LAWS
Vasyl Komarov | You always talk about K. Marx as if after him dialectic was canceled and evolution can be stopped.
Definitely NO.
I should note that even later analytical philosophy in relation to itself is in meta-position. No matter how ardent materialist you are, it is impossible to avoid self-reference.
Abdul Malek | I would also like to reproduce a comment here that I posted in a “Philosophy of Science” forum since it is relevant here too and adds to the comments I made above:
"Aristotle did indeed overthrow Platonic and the Eleatic idealism but not in a consummate way. Because of the overwhelming constrain from Platonic influence Aristotle could not sow in his revolution the brilliant germ of the “philosophy of all philosophies” , namely the dialectics of his predecessor Heraclitus, even though he made remarkable efforts. This task fell on Epicurus (the immediate successor of Aristotle) to give materialist dialectics essentially in its complete form; but the damage was already done.
Materialist dialectics was all but forgotten and remained in dim forms successively in Spinoza, Leibniz and Kant et al. Idealist Hegel re-discovered dialectics, brought it out of the closet and gave its modern form, but making it “stand on its head”; Karl Marx finally put materialist dialectics on its feet again and in the original form that Epicurus fashioned with his skilful mind.
Meanwhile after the Copernican revolution, natural science (initiated by the materialism of Aristotle) flourished in Europe; more or less banishing Plato based idealism and theology from the realm of terrestrial Nature. But Isaac Newton, whose mechanics helped expel idealism from terrestrial Nature, at the same time, brought Platonic idealism and God back in his cosmology (and in his theory of universal gravitation); to give the “first impulse” in the heavenly bodies. Albert Einstein completed Newton’s task of re-establishing Plato and God in modern cosmology through his theories of relativity." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317040165_THE_CONCEPTUAL_DEFECT_OF_THE_LAW_OF_UNIVERSAL_GRAVITATION_OR_%27FREE_FALL%27_A_DIALECTICAL_REASSESSMENT_OF_KEPLER%27S_LAWS
Vasyl Komarov | You always talk about K. Marx as if after him dialectic was canceled and evolution can be stopped.
Definitely NO.
I should note that even later analytical philosophy in relation to itself is in meta-position. No matter how ardent materialist you are, it is impossible to avoid self-reference.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Jun 3, 2017]
Jun 7, 2017
Eugene F Kislyakov | Any thinking begins with zero hypothesis, dear colleagues.
Paul Pistea | dear Eugene, <Any thinking begins with zero hypothesis, dear colleagues.> wrong. very wrong! any thinking begins with the hypothesis: that one has senses, and has a brain to synthesize and store and memorize... and- that`s important- have capacity to compare... and and and
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Paul, can you identify the point of bifuration on the phylogenetic chain, before which the system on the way of becoming a man does not have the qualities to think and after uniquely has? This process is a continuum with uncertainty on the way from one stable configuration of the system to another.
Even single cell can memorize and compare, in other words, maintain a balance between systems. Otherwise, it would not be able to work out either a genetic algorithm or search for a food via chemotaxis. Even a cell has its own hypotheses.
Intellect is more than human, Paul. Impersonal evolution is the coolest experimenter I know, with uncountable number of ideas.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Any thinking begins with zero hypothesis, dear colleagues.
Paul Pistea | dear Eugene, <Any thinking begins with zero hypothesis, dear colleagues.> wrong. very wrong! any thinking begins with the hypothesis: that one has senses, and has a brain to synthesize and store and memorize... and- that`s important- have capacity to compare... and and and
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Paul, can you identify the point of bifuration on the phylogenetic chain, before which the system on the way of becoming a man does not have the qualities to think and after uniquely has? This process is a continuum with uncertainty on the way from one stable configuration of the system to another.
Even single cell can memorize and compare, in other words, maintain a balance between systems. Otherwise, it would not be able to work out either a genetic algorithm or search for a food via chemotaxis. Even a cell has its own hypotheses.
Intellect is more than human, Paul. Impersonal evolution is the coolest experimenter I know, with uncountable number of ideas.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? Update: Observation [accessed Jul 9, 2017]
Jun 8, 2017
Paul Pistea | Eugene, maths ok, but what about physics- are those spaces countinuous?
Paul Pistea | It is about bringing physics and maths together, Eugene
Eugene F Kislyakov | They are already together since Descartes, Paul. What can be the questions after you equate lengths (observable, physics) and numbers (mind, math)? In nineteenth century there were even attempts experimentally prove or disprove fifth Euclides postulate.
Vasyl Komarov | As it is impossible to translate an enumerable set into a continuum by adding one element, it is also impossible to distinguish one element from another one in relation to the continuum by the same reason.
Continuum implies an infinite calculation. All the calculations that we operate have only an abstract relation to the continuum. We always operate on limited elements or continuum at once (as a single element).
Only thanks to a bijective correspondence (continuum hypothesis) we can position (with a finite time) any elements of the set with respect to the continuum. Those. We know in advance where in an endless process there must be one or another element.
Therefore, it is almost impossible to distinguish between two generations of a biological species, but it is very easy to detect biodiversity by studying fossils. We, in fact, are dealing with positioned elements in relation to the continuum (the process of life on Earth from inception to us)... just the same fractions.
NB: The last paragraph is a replica to another topic, for mutual participants.
Paul Pistea | Eugene, maths ok, but what about physics- are those spaces countinuous?
Paul Pistea | It is about bringing physics and maths together, Eugene
Eugene F Kislyakov | They are already together since Descartes, Paul. What can be the questions after you equate lengths (observable, physics) and numbers (mind, math)? In nineteenth century there were even attempts experimentally prove or disprove fifth Euclides postulate.
Vasyl Komarov | As it is impossible to translate an enumerable set into a continuum by adding one element, it is also impossible to distinguish one element from another one in relation to the continuum by the same reason.
Continuum implies an infinite calculation. All the calculations that we operate have only an abstract relation to the continuum. We always operate on limited elements or continuum at once (as a single element).
Only thanks to a bijective correspondence (continuum hypothesis) we can position (with a finite time) any elements of the set with respect to the continuum. Those. We know in advance where in an endless process there must be one or another element.
Therefore, it is almost impossible to distinguish between two generations of a biological species, but it is very easy to detect biodiversity by studying fossils. We, in fact, are dealing with positioned elements in relation to the continuum (the process of life on Earth from inception to us)... just the same fractions.
NB: The last paragraph is a replica to another topic, for mutual participants.
Jun 9, 2017
Eugene F Kislyakov | Paul,
what does it mean continuum? It is topological property, which depends on metric (distance) in the case of metric spaces. But distances (metric) can be differently defined. There are Arhimedian and non-Arhimedian geometries. However, Ostrowsky proved in 20-th that there are only two possibilities to define metric. Euclid's metric of real numbers and p-adic metric. Here p is prime. P-adic numbers were introduced into Math by Henzel in the begining of 20-th century and were studied with their applications by many people. The last example is initiated by V.S. Vladimirov russian school in Moscow. They published in 90-th the book with applications of p-adic numbers in physics. For example, p-adic quantum mechanics and many other interesting applications exist. It is the expanding field of modern science. P-adic metric is neither discrete nor continuous. It has properties of both.
Regards,
Eugene.
Vasyl Komarov | Paul,
In fact, in the existing state it is impossible to assert that reality is discrete. Quantum theory is not self-sufficient, since it does not allow to get rid of the rest of physics. If you add to this the principle of uncertainty, you have no arguments left for this statement.
Discreteness exists due to cycles and events in the physical process. This is the same as trying to answer, looking at the globe, to the question, "where does the day start?" You can not get rid of dualism, which depends on your position in relation to the process.
Paul Pistea | okay, Eugene, thank you: I will take a look at.
Vasiliy You are right, but like I said: by using Distribution theory I have shown how a unification of RT with QT Looks like. As long as one uses the theory on set functions, the space structure becomes irrelevant.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Paul,
RT has time, but QT has no time as observable physical quantity. How about this problem?
Eugene F Kislyakov | Paul,
what does it mean continuum? It is topological property, which depends on metric (distance) in the case of metric spaces. But distances (metric) can be differently defined. There are Arhimedian and non-Arhimedian geometries. However, Ostrowsky proved in 20-th that there are only two possibilities to define metric. Euclid's metric of real numbers and p-adic metric. Here p is prime. P-adic numbers were introduced into Math by Henzel in the begining of 20-th century and were studied with their applications by many people. The last example is initiated by V.S. Vladimirov russian school in Moscow. They published in 90-th the book with applications of p-adic numbers in physics. For example, p-adic quantum mechanics and many other interesting applications exist. It is the expanding field of modern science. P-adic metric is neither discrete nor continuous. It has properties of both.
Regards,
Eugene.
Vasyl Komarov | Paul,
In fact, in the existing state it is impossible to assert that reality is discrete. Quantum theory is not self-sufficient, since it does not allow to get rid of the rest of physics. If you add to this the principle of uncertainty, you have no arguments left for this statement.
Discreteness exists due to cycles and events in the physical process. This is the same as trying to answer, looking at the globe, to the question, "where does the day start?" You can not get rid of dualism, which depends on your position in relation to the process.
Paul Pistea | okay, Eugene, thank you: I will take a look at.
Vasiliy You are right, but like I said: by using Distribution theory I have shown how a unification of RT with QT Looks like. As long as one uses the theory on set functions, the space structure becomes irrelevant.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Paul,
RT has time, but QT has no time as observable physical quantity. How about this problem?
— ResearchGate. Available from: Do you think we are now in an active birth of science? [accessed Jul 9, 2017]
Jun 9, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Butthurt should be continued, just some oil to the fire...
"Relativistic deflection of background starlight measures the mass of a nearby white dwarf star" http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/356/6342/1046.full.pdf
---
"Testing the gravitational theory with short-period stars around our Galactic Center" https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.10792 ("the first fully self-consistent test of the gravitational theory using orbital dynamic in a strong gravitational regime, that of a supermassive black hole", https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.211101 )
Vasyl Komarov | Butthurt should be continued, just some oil to the fire...
"Relativistic deflection of background starlight measures the mass of a nearby white dwarf star" http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/356/6342/1046.full.pdf
---
"Testing the gravitational theory with short-period stars around our Galactic Center" https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.10792 ("the first fully self-consistent test of the gravitational theory using orbital dynamic in a strong gravitational regime, that of a supermassive black hole", https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.211101 )
Jun 10, 2017
Abdul Malek | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
Dear Vasily, I had abandoned the meaningless discussion this thread has turned into. Your post about the "new proofs" of GR brings me back for once only.
As I said before, these continuing new “proofs” (including the gravitational wave etc. ad nauseum) and their flippant and noisy defence are the result of the “butthurt” and desperation that the representatives of official astrophysics and cosmology feel; as the fire of public distrust in their fairy tales are becoming more and more widespread.
They are “proving” GR for the nth times with “flying colours” for over a century and still counting! How many times you had to “prove” the theories of classical physics or even the theories of evolution and QED? The very fact they have to keep on proving their new theology (GR and other "field" based theories) in the details of the cosmos shows that like old theology, they only want to create wonder, awe and mystery about the creator’s “handiwork” to hoodwink the public; but no positive knowledge that could be useful for humanity.
The new priestly scribe of official physicists depends on monopoly capitalism for their livelihood, career and crafts and is motivated only by fame, fortune and funds. (To borrow an expression from Frederick Engels); they are nothing but “position-hunting, cobweb-spinning, eclectic flea crackers.”
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, I am not interested in the "proofs" of the theory of relativity (I'm a falsificationist, however, I'm sure that those who are discussing this topic should know about really interesting cases, therefore, I brought links).
As you can see, the authors of the second work, too, on the contrary, were looking for a deviation from GRT. Constructively were looking for.
I'm interested (first of all) in the physical object around which our galaxy revolves, I am also interested in statistical data on similar objects and all sorts of attempts to analyze them. May be (most of all) I am interested in the "visible" lag of angular momentum from corresponding to the light speed.
We pursue different goals. For me according to quite simple information is obvious that near Sgr A* is some object providing a strong gravitational effect. On the basis of modern observations of S2 star to deny it is tantamount to insist that Earth is flat. This is a completely different story, different from the time of fortune telling on the Cyg X-1.
Abdul Malek | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
Dear Vasily, I had abandoned the meaningless discussion this thread has turned into. Your post about the "new proofs" of GR brings me back for once only.
As I said before, these continuing new “proofs” (including the gravitational wave etc. ad nauseum) and their flippant and noisy defence are the result of the “butthurt” and desperation that the representatives of official astrophysics and cosmology feel; as the fire of public distrust in their fairy tales are becoming more and more widespread.
They are “proving” GR for the nth times with “flying colours” for over a century and still counting! How many times you had to “prove” the theories of classical physics or even the theories of evolution and QED? The very fact they have to keep on proving their new theology (GR and other "field" based theories) in the details of the cosmos shows that like old theology, they only want to create wonder, awe and mystery about the creator’s “handiwork” to hoodwink the public; but no positive knowledge that could be useful for humanity.
The new priestly scribe of official physicists depends on monopoly capitalism for their livelihood, career and crafts and is motivated only by fame, fortune and funds. (To borrow an expression from Frederick Engels); they are nothing but “position-hunting, cobweb-spinning, eclectic flea crackers.”
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, I am not interested in the "proofs" of the theory of relativity (I'm a falsificationist, however, I'm sure that those who are discussing this topic should know about really interesting cases, therefore, I brought links).
As you can see, the authors of the second work, too, on the contrary, were looking for a deviation from GRT. Constructively were looking for.
I'm interested (first of all) in the physical object around which our galaxy revolves, I am also interested in statistical data on similar objects and all sorts of attempts to analyze them. May be (most of all) I am interested in the "visible" lag of angular momentum from corresponding to the light speed.
We pursue different goals. For me according to quite simple information is obvious that near Sgr A* is some object providing a strong gravitational effect. On the basis of modern observations of S2 star to deny it is tantamount to insist that Earth is flat. This is a completely different story, different from the time of fortune telling on the Cyg X-1.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Jun 10, 2017]
10 черв. 2017 р.
15:51 | ...почти 20 страниц текста, мало что нового, немного систематизации и исторической справки, и ещё не очень готово {совсем не готово}.
15:51 | ...почти 20 страниц текста, мало что нового, немного систематизации и исторической справки, и ещё не очень готово {совсем не готово}.
11 черв. 2017 р.
05:02 | "totally new theories of gravitation and more, solving all problems at once"
А никто не обещал, что будет легко. Этот момент истины, осознание "problems at once" {проблеск осознания actual holism} - суть уловлена, но пока ещё не проняло. Шок, и тишина от "бесконечного" падения в разверзшиеся "хляби"...
05:02 | "totally new theories of gravitation and more, solving all problems at once"
А никто не обещал, что будет легко. Этот момент истины, осознание "problems at once" {проблеск осознания actual holism} - суть уловлена, но пока ещё не проняло. Шок, и тишина от "бесконечного" падения в разверзшиеся "хляби"...
Jun 11, 2017
Louis Brassard | Graham,
'' I think there is sufficient evidence that our universe is very refined. It is very conceivable that such refining is by nature, ''
I agree but you should have ended the sentence right there. By adding:
''but something much like God, or other intelligent beings may have some part to play. ''
you do not conciliate science and religion in a smoothly fashion and create an uncessarily opposition. To many scientist reduces the word ''Nature'' to what the knowledge about Nature they have. If the word ''Nature'' is not constraint this way than there is no need to add God or the Creating to it since it is immanently into Nature. If Nature is the Universe, i.e. ''All that Exist'' then whatever exists is in Nature and not only the bit and pieces that science understood. If we do not eject the creating or God dogmatically then we do not need to dogmatically creates it. Lets not forget that we are creatures created by Nature.
Smolin theory of black hole natural selection is an interesting piece of speculation but totally unecessary. All the multiverse scenario are also on the false track of trying to replace creation by try and error scenarios. Beauty is certainly guiding our own creative process.
Aaron Peled | Louis
I understand your epistemological reasoning: Since our constants are fit into the mathematical equations of the models to recreate the measurable physical effects ( mass, charge, photons velocity in vacuum etc.), the fine tuning is just a logical tautology. But think for example about Pi. It is not derived from any measurable physical constants at all and this 'fine tuned' number (just as an example) allows us to predict the measurable circle circumference of the celestial planets and stars and calculate accurately even probabilities of intersecting a 2D lattice by throwing a stick onto it for example and diffusion profile of particles in a 3D lattice. The same we can say about exp~2.71.. constant which allows us to calculate the rate of expansion of living cells. Our weak point is that we didn't yet find a theory to develop the physical constants from basic concepts , but be patient, we will do it in 1000 years.:)
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Aaron Peled,
I'm not sure if we couldn't find number systems, in which these constant become very "natural". So, I wouldn't make a big fuss about these constants...
Andrew Worsley | Actually the constants of Nature are interlinked (see references). In fact all the constants can be derived from c and h, and it is even possible that c can be derived from h.
But I would really appreciate some mathematical expertise on Jacobi elliptical functions to prove the latter.
Article Harmonic quintessence and the derivation of the charge and mass of the electron and the proton and quark masses
Article Harmonic quintessence and the derivation of the fundamental constants of thermodynamics
Vasyl Komarov | Relations are invariant with respect to number systems. They do not depend even on it.
Any system of physical quantities is a tautology. We just do not think about it. First, we introduced as tautology the ell, foot, inch, meter; then - day, hour, minute, second; then we measured the speed of something; redefined the second one more time as new self-tautology (measuring the number of other samples per second ("parrots", for those who know a certain cartoon)) and redefined (the tautology again) of length through the result of measurements based on previous tautology. The relationships in tautology are only thing that we have really independent (invariant) of the ells, foots and number systems.
All mathematics in about the same way was taken to the invariant "world" from reality, which allows us to count the number of any items in any warehouse or mart.
A thousand years, this is perhaps a very pessimistic assessment.
"AI will be able to beat us at everything by 2060, say experts"
"Probably closer to 2030 to 2040 imo. 2060 would be a linear extrapolation, but progress is exponential" say Elon Musk
Just a so-called technological singularity (:
The only question is how long our civilization will survive. People are still so selfish that sometimes I'm not sure even about the decade.
NB: Exponential growth, exponential decay... all is vanity and vexation of the spirit (Ecclesiastes 2:11)
Aaron Peled | Vasily,
I am not so sure that even relations are invariant with respect to number systems if you include the transcendentals and all mathematical possible operators. Look into Cantors number theory.
Any system of physical quantities is a tautology - yes - but not the physical concept which can be dimensionless like in the branes theory or others. Infinity concept for instance is not a number and 0 unnatural.
A thousand years, this is perhaps a very pessimistic assessment- you probably mean : optimistic ??
I bet you also that your assumption :"AI will be able to beat us at everything by 2060, say experts" is not true. Not even close marginally to our intelligence.
Louis Brassard | Graham,
'' I think there is sufficient evidence that our universe is very refined. It is very conceivable that such refining is by nature, ''
I agree but you should have ended the sentence right there. By adding:
''but something much like God, or other intelligent beings may have some part to play. ''
you do not conciliate science and religion in a smoothly fashion and create an uncessarily opposition. To many scientist reduces the word ''Nature'' to what the knowledge about Nature they have. If the word ''Nature'' is not constraint this way than there is no need to add God or the Creating to it since it is immanently into Nature. If Nature is the Universe, i.e. ''All that Exist'' then whatever exists is in Nature and not only the bit and pieces that science understood. If we do not eject the creating or God dogmatically then we do not need to dogmatically creates it. Lets not forget that we are creatures created by Nature.
Smolin theory of black hole natural selection is an interesting piece of speculation but totally unecessary. All the multiverse scenario are also on the false track of trying to replace creation by try and error scenarios. Beauty is certainly guiding our own creative process.
Aaron Peled | Louis
I understand your epistemological reasoning: Since our constants are fit into the mathematical equations of the models to recreate the measurable physical effects ( mass, charge, photons velocity in vacuum etc.), the fine tuning is just a logical tautology. But think for example about Pi. It is not derived from any measurable physical constants at all and this 'fine tuned' number (just as an example) allows us to predict the measurable circle circumference of the celestial planets and stars and calculate accurately even probabilities of intersecting a 2D lattice by throwing a stick onto it for example and diffusion profile of particles in a 3D lattice. The same we can say about exp~2.71.. constant which allows us to calculate the rate of expansion of living cells. Our weak point is that we didn't yet find a theory to develop the physical constants from basic concepts , but be patient, we will do it in 1000 years.:)
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Aaron Peled,
I'm not sure if we couldn't find number systems, in which these constant become very "natural". So, I wouldn't make a big fuss about these constants...
Andrew Worsley | Actually the constants of Nature are interlinked (see references). In fact all the constants can be derived from c and h, and it is even possible that c can be derived from h.
But I would really appreciate some mathematical expertise on Jacobi elliptical functions to prove the latter.
Article Harmonic quintessence and the derivation of the charge and mass of the electron and the proton and quark masses
Article Harmonic quintessence and the derivation of the fundamental constants of thermodynamics
Vasyl Komarov | Relations are invariant with respect to number systems. They do not depend even on it.
Any system of physical quantities is a tautology. We just do not think about it. First, we introduced as tautology the ell, foot, inch, meter; then - day, hour, minute, second; then we measured the speed of something; redefined the second one more time as new self-tautology (measuring the number of other samples per second ("parrots", for those who know a certain cartoon)) and redefined (the tautology again) of length through the result of measurements based on previous tautology. The relationships in tautology are only thing that we have really independent (invariant) of the ells, foots and number systems.
All mathematics in about the same way was taken to the invariant "world" from reality, which allows us to count the number of any items in any warehouse or mart.
A thousand years, this is perhaps a very pessimistic assessment.
"AI will be able to beat us at everything by 2060, say experts"
"Probably closer to 2030 to 2040 imo. 2060 would be a linear extrapolation, but progress is exponential" say Elon Musk
Just a so-called technological singularity (:
The only question is how long our civilization will survive. People are still so selfish that sometimes I'm not sure even about the decade.
NB: Exponential growth, exponential decay... all is vanity and vexation of the spirit (Ecclesiastes 2:11)
Aaron Peled | Vasily,
I am not so sure that even relations are invariant with respect to number systems if you include the transcendentals and all mathematical possible operators. Look into Cantors number theory.
Any system of physical quantities is a tautology - yes - but not the physical concept which can be dimensionless like in the branes theory or others. Infinity concept for instance is not a number and 0 unnatural.
A thousand years, this is perhaps a very pessimistic assessment- you probably mean : optimistic ??
I bet you also that your assumption :"AI will be able to beat us at everything by 2060, say experts" is not true. Not even close marginally to our intelligence.
Jun 12, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Aaron,
Continuum hypothesis asserts the equivalence of infinities, that is, invariance, all infinities is independent of the number systems (by which we enumerate sets), depend no more than a variety of "golden" sections. So, all the endless (enumeration) processes are equivalent, bijective correspondence between all of them is there.
With an empty (nothing) set, of course, "problem" is, as well as with the concept of a point in reality. Both concepts are fictitious. But their semantics are well understood.
The concept of emptiness can exist only in opposition. Unlike non-empty, it is not self-sufficient, because implies information, that is, not emptiness. In other words, if there was no something non-empty (for example, us), there would be no information of emptiness (actually, Parmenides was thinking about it).
This fictitious concept implies symmetry, which is really badly friends with infinity. We can not make a symmetrical dichotomy of infinity. Any arbitrary division act as invariant partition on equvivalent infinities. This is uncertainty. And no matter how much we start the process, we will never be able to complete it.
We live on the other side of infinity in terms of continuum hypothesis. De facto, we live in a limited centeric world, based on finite sets (dynamic systems). As any limited entity (a person or observable Universe or other object in it) we have bifurcation points of the birth with uncertainity to the whole (infinity).
The abstract concept of a point is about the existence of cyclic orbits in dynamic systems (any cyclic orbit corresponds to some center of attraction regardless of the orbit dynamic range, i.e. limits of system). From there the notion of metric is reachable, regardless of the specific structure of the cyclic orbits. The abstract concept of the metric exists because cyclic orbit of a dynamical system is not reducible to a point.
We can develop symmetries only by specifying such an origin point (cyclic orbit). We select standards and begin an endless process, again and again; every cell, every individual, every civilization... widen horizons on each level of system from the personal center of each prehistoric man and deeper. The center moves away from the bifurcation point of the birth of each, while spreading throughout the systems. We never be able to determine coordinates relative to continuum.
Dear Graham,
I agree, but in communication with clever "Google" mutual understanding is a potential problem. Аt some point we will stay beyond the limit, which we can individually perceive and understand, even if we become part of a superstructure (scenario, wich is likely to be an element of overall diversity in the further evolution of systems around us).
"Forty-two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm. ...
"Forty-two!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"
"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer.
In fact, this has been happening already for a long time. We already have long reaped the fruits of existence in the complex "humanity" system - a baker, for example, may not understand the electrical circuits designed by the engineer but use the phone on the basis of these circuits, both of them can travel railways, in functioning of which other people are involved, etc. Each of us personally already knows not so much, as accumulated in cultural extrasomatic information... We have long used the results of modeling on other systems. We have long been used supercomputers. We have long used the so-called big data. We have long been using the results of neural networks, understanding only the general principle without a specific knowledge of what they are learning. We have been writing Wikipedia long enough... Cognitive process is always a partial understanding, regardless of the intelligent instance, be it a person or AI, or another limited(!) system - placeholder of the unknown will always remain for all of us on any scale.
Technological singularity is a positive phenomenon in most. Although it has a sad side of the coin.
Positiveness of situation consist of ultimate invariant principle of self-organization in nature. If technological singularity is achievable, we all will achieve it near invariant level of understanding the nature of reality, regardless of the origin and implementation of individual intelligence. That is, any intelligence approaching close enough in order to technological singularity can communicate practically on equal regardless of the amount of data being operated by each. We will be able to understand each other "in general terms", since we understand the ultimate principle, which sinchronize semantics.
The sad side is that technological singularity can be an inachievable limit. In other words, even the most supergene hypothetical intellect can not oppose anything more brilliant than the structure of the Universe under ultimate principle. I'm not at all sure that the frontier orbit range of our Universe is surmountable for physical reasons, I tend to be pessimistic because this is most likely an easily repeatable orbit but extreme (covering, not cyclic for the subsystems).
To go little further we need to be able to make a system that can overcome orbit range that limits our current order. For this, obviously, "divine" corrections are needed from the external side, i.e. adaptive landscape as the cover system (because the process of self-organization is bidirectional) on the scale unreached before.
It is difficult to say how close to the optimal process is the area of reality that includes us. Here I hope optimistically that we are ordinary lucky ones. Overcoming this orbit range in importance and literally can be compared with the overcoming of near-Earth orbit. It is very likely that process is associated with the need for interstellar communication in any form, because this is the only way to create a larger absolutely new, more robust superstructure (of civilizations).
With regard to arbitrary intelligence, we will first have to overcome the bad habit of judging others by ourselves, and often, treat arrogantly.
'Er said Ponder. 'It sort of just happened 'Amazin',' said Ridcully. He knocked the ashes out of his pipe on Hex's 'Anthill Inside' sticker, causing Ponder to wince. 'This thing's a kind of big artificial brain, then?'
'You could think of it like that,' said Ponder, carefully. 'Of course, Hex doesn't actually think. Not as such. It just appears to be thinking.'
'Ah. Like the Dean,' said Ridcully. 'Any chance of fitting a brain like this into the Dean's head?'
'It does weigh ten tons, Archchancellor.'
After all, our brain to old age (let more older people forgive me, any younger generation will also get there, alas, the exponential decay is a payment for evolutionary exponential growth) is often rolled down to a very limited autonomous finite state machine with a rather modest maximum cyclic orbit range. This is most clearly seen in alcoholics, whose degradation is accelerated.
In addition, there are many representatives of our species with a very limited range of orbits that "have aged" early, losing curiosity to something beyond the scope of beliefs gained in adolescence and the sphere of personal interests.
'We'll see what we can find out, Archchancellor,' said Ponder diplomatically. 'Good man.' Ridcully put the gnome back in his pocket and looked up at Hex. 'Amazin',' he said again. 'He just looks as though he's thinking, right?'
'Er ... yes.'
'But he's not actually thinking?'
'Er ... no.'
'So ... he just gives the impression of thinking but really it's just a show?'
'Er ... yes.'
'Just like everyone else, then, really,' said Ridcully.
Aaron Peled | Michael Lersow asked rhetorically :"knowledge is the basis for evolution ? " in response to Vyacheslav Somsikov claim :"Knowledge is the goal". I support the second idea .
So mu view in a nutshell is :
Considering Bogdan Naive Question : "Does human evolution have a purpose?"
There are only 2 possibilities :
1. No 2.Yes
If No, then a random process is at play ( no God - no Fine tuning factor) as for any other species of DNA based life. Consequently - without any purpose this process evolution will produce either a more advanced creature or decay and disappear like all other extinguished species before. According to biologist scientists, less than 1% of the species appearing on earth until our time have survived.
If YES, what is this purpose? The purpose of the human evolution in this case is a predestined increase of knowledge acquiring (with God providence or other Fine tuning factor) for understanding the universe at the highest level possible. It has been proposed also that the "Universe" initial conditions created intelligence to understand it's origin before it's own coming into being thus becoming finally a conscientious universe. Assuming humans will advance to the 5th level of civilization concept promoted recently by the Physicist Michio Kaku, ( The scale was originally designed in 1964 by the Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev ) they may be able to take full control of their existence in the universe and avoid its disastrous end in dispersive cold death or hot big crunch into oblivion.
PS: Regarding the so called humane values ( contrasted with cruel, so called 'animalic' simpler values) like: compassion, charity, morality , ( see also Theory of Basic Human values ) they were also adopted by scientists, not only religions 'shamans'.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Aaron,
Continuum hypothesis asserts the equivalence of infinities, that is, invariance, all infinities is independent of the number systems (by which we enumerate sets), depend no more than a variety of "golden" sections. So, all the endless (enumeration) processes are equivalent, bijective correspondence between all of them is there.
With an empty (nothing) set, of course, "problem" is, as well as with the concept of a point in reality. Both concepts are fictitious. But their semantics are well understood.
The concept of emptiness can exist only in opposition. Unlike non-empty, it is not self-sufficient, because implies information, that is, not emptiness. In other words, if there was no something non-empty (for example, us), there would be no information of emptiness (actually, Parmenides was thinking about it).
This fictitious concept implies symmetry, which is really badly friends with infinity. We can not make a symmetrical dichotomy of infinity. Any arbitrary division act as invariant partition on equvivalent infinities. This is uncertainty. And no matter how much we start the process, we will never be able to complete it.
We live on the other side of infinity in terms of continuum hypothesis. De facto, we live in a limited centeric world, based on finite sets (dynamic systems). As any limited entity (a person or observable Universe or other object in it) we have bifurcation points of the birth with uncertainity to the whole (infinity).
The abstract concept of a point is about the existence of cyclic orbits in dynamic systems (any cyclic orbit corresponds to some center of attraction regardless of the orbit dynamic range, i.e. limits of system). From there the notion of metric is reachable, regardless of the specific structure of the cyclic orbits. The abstract concept of the metric exists because cyclic orbit of a dynamical system is not reducible to a point.
We can develop symmetries only by specifying such an origin point (cyclic orbit). We select standards and begin an endless process, again and again; every cell, every individual, every civilization... widen horizons on each level of system from the personal center of each prehistoric man and deeper. The center moves away from the bifurcation point of the birth of each, while spreading throughout the systems. We never be able to determine coordinates relative to continuum.
Dear Graham,
I agree, but in communication with clever "Google" mutual understanding is a potential problem. Аt some point we will stay beyond the limit, which we can individually perceive and understand, even if we become part of a superstructure (scenario, wich is likely to be an element of overall diversity in the further evolution of systems around us).
"Forty-two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm. ...
"Forty-two!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"
"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer.
In fact, this has been happening already for a long time. We already have long reaped the fruits of existence in the complex "humanity" system - a baker, for example, may not understand the electrical circuits designed by the engineer but use the phone on the basis of these circuits, both of them can travel railways, in functioning of which other people are involved, etc. Each of us personally already knows not so much, as accumulated in cultural extrasomatic information... We have long used the results of modeling on other systems. We have long been used supercomputers. We have long used the so-called big data. We have long been using the results of neural networks, understanding only the general principle without a specific knowledge of what they are learning. We have been writing Wikipedia long enough... Cognitive process is always a partial understanding, regardless of the intelligent instance, be it a person or AI, or another limited(!) system - placeholder of the unknown will always remain for all of us on any scale.
Technological singularity is a positive phenomenon in most. Although it has a sad side of the coin.
Positiveness of situation consist of ultimate invariant principle of self-organization in nature. If technological singularity is achievable, we all will achieve it near invariant level of understanding the nature of reality, regardless of the origin and implementation of individual intelligence. That is, any intelligence approaching close enough in order to technological singularity can communicate practically on equal regardless of the amount of data being operated by each. We will be able to understand each other "in general terms", since we understand the ultimate principle, which sinchronize semantics.
The sad side is that technological singularity can be an inachievable limit. In other words, even the most supergene hypothetical intellect can not oppose anything more brilliant than the structure of the Universe under ultimate principle. I'm not at all sure that the frontier orbit range of our Universe is surmountable for physical reasons, I tend to be pessimistic because this is most likely an easily repeatable orbit but extreme (covering, not cyclic for the subsystems).
To go little further we need to be able to make a system that can overcome orbit range that limits our current order. For this, obviously, "divine" corrections are needed from the external side, i.e. adaptive landscape as the cover system (because the process of self-organization is bidirectional) on the scale unreached before.
It is difficult to say how close to the optimal process is the area of reality that includes us. Here I hope optimistically that we are ordinary lucky ones. Overcoming this orbit range in importance and literally can be compared with the overcoming of near-Earth orbit. It is very likely that process is associated with the need for interstellar communication in any form, because this is the only way to create a larger absolutely new, more robust superstructure (of civilizations).
With regard to arbitrary intelligence, we will first have to overcome the bad habit of judging others by ourselves, and often, treat arrogantly.
'Er said Ponder. 'It sort of just happened 'Amazin',' said Ridcully. He knocked the ashes out of his pipe on Hex's 'Anthill Inside' sticker, causing Ponder to wince. 'This thing's a kind of big artificial brain, then?'
'You could think of it like that,' said Ponder, carefully. 'Of course, Hex doesn't actually think. Not as such. It just appears to be thinking.'
'Ah. Like the Dean,' said Ridcully. 'Any chance of fitting a brain like this into the Dean's head?'
'It does weigh ten tons, Archchancellor.'
After all, our brain to old age (let more older people forgive me, any younger generation will also get there, alas, the exponential decay is a payment for evolutionary exponential growth) is often rolled down to a very limited autonomous finite state machine with a rather modest maximum cyclic orbit range. This is most clearly seen in alcoholics, whose degradation is accelerated.
In addition, there are many representatives of our species with a very limited range of orbits that "have aged" early, losing curiosity to something beyond the scope of beliefs gained in adolescence and the sphere of personal interests.
'We'll see what we can find out, Archchancellor,' said Ponder diplomatically. 'Good man.' Ridcully put the gnome back in his pocket and looked up at Hex. 'Amazin',' he said again. 'He just looks as though he's thinking, right?'
'Er ... yes.'
'But he's not actually thinking?'
'Er ... no.'
'So ... he just gives the impression of thinking but really it's just a show?'
'Er ... yes.'
'Just like everyone else, then, really,' said Ridcully.
Aaron Peled | Michael Lersow asked rhetorically :"knowledge is the basis for evolution ? " in response to Vyacheslav Somsikov claim :"Knowledge is the goal". I support the second idea .
So mu view in a nutshell is :
Considering Bogdan Naive Question : "Does human evolution have a purpose?"
There are only 2 possibilities :
1. No 2.Yes
If No, then a random process is at play ( no God - no Fine tuning factor) as for any other species of DNA based life. Consequently - without any purpose this process evolution will produce either a more advanced creature or decay and disappear like all other extinguished species before. According to biologist scientists, less than 1% of the species appearing on earth until our time have survived.
If YES, what is this purpose? The purpose of the human evolution in this case is a predestined increase of knowledge acquiring (with God providence or other Fine tuning factor) for understanding the universe at the highest level possible. It has been proposed also that the "Universe" initial conditions created intelligence to understand it's origin before it's own coming into being thus becoming finally a conscientious universe. Assuming humans will advance to the 5th level of civilization concept promoted recently by the Physicist Michio Kaku, ( The scale was originally designed in 1964 by the Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev ) they may be able to take full control of their existence in the universe and avoid its disastrous end in dispersive cold death or hot big crunch into oblivion.
PS: Regarding the so called humane values ( contrasted with cruel, so called 'animalic' simpler values) like: compassion, charity, morality , ( see also Theory of Basic Human values ) they were also adopted by scientists, not only religions 'shamans'.
— ResearchGate. Available from {disclaimer}: Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: Observation ... in the human population. [accessed Jun 12, 2017]
Jun 13, 2017
Paul Pistea | Eugene, relativity shows in a lesser degree that quantum is wrong than quantum proves that relativity is false!
Paul Pistea | Eugene, relativity shows in a lesser degree that quantum is wrong than quantum proves that relativity is false!
(Mar 11, 2018)
Paul Pistea | Eugene, what about Panck-Time?
Eugene F Kislyakov | There are only three really fundamental constants: c - velocity of light; h - Planck constant and G - gravitational constant. They define the scale of our Universe and natural system of units. If we put them to be 1, then all physical quantities become dimensionless and , as observables, discrete, i.e. natural numbers. For example, volume of Universe contains 10^63 units.
But discrete are only observables. There are no justifications to equate reality with observables as is attempted in quantum mechanics. Obviously, continues functions is more general notion.
Paul Pistea | Eugene, what about Panck-Time?
Eugene F Kislyakov | There are only three really fundamental constants: c - velocity of light; h - Planck constant and G - gravitational constant. They define the scale of our Universe and natural system of units. If we put them to be 1, then all physical quantities become dimensionless and , as observables, discrete, i.e. natural numbers. For example, volume of Universe contains 10^63 units.
But discrete are only observables. There are no justifications to equate reality with observables as is attempted in quantum mechanics. Obviously, continues functions is more general notion.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Do you think we are now in an active birth of science? [accessed Mar 11, 2018]
Jun 15, 2017
Michael Lersow | Sorry, Vasily Fedorovich Komarov,
The man holistic and the universe holistically behaves not deterministically. Of course, we can describe subprocesses with deterministic models, but this does not change from the fact that there is no deterministic behavior related to the whole.
With models man tries processes, phenomena etc. to map. We know that a model can come close to the original but it is just a model.
I am sorry
Michael L.
Aaron Peled | Dear Michael Lersow,
Please follow this internet staging of 2 characters:
MS: You have already noticed that I would like rather talk about what we do not agree on.
AP: I like you in spite of our contradictions . It's much more interesting and rejuvenating to debate things with someone like you in a civilized manner rather than agree by head nodding, since you give me reasons to think beyond my limited conscientious sphere horizon .
MS: It would, however, help a great deal if we were to use the knowledge to solve the burning problems of mankind.
AP: The scientists 'clan' contributes still more to acquiring knowledge than others, assisting also others in solving the above purpose.
MS; At least the thesis that with increasing education the birth rate falls is refuted worldwide.
AP: Not so in my (admittedly) shallow search :In Canada ,a mathematical model was applied to analyze field data on the relationship between schooling level and lifetime fertility. "Results indicate that…
Constantine Jeannacopoulos | An open system such as "humanity" cannot be tackled with reduction but through holism.
Waldemar Koczkodaj | Judging by my neighbors, I would risk saying "no" :)
The increased devastation of our planet makes me wonder how smartly we have evolved if we put making money before the survival. However, having said so, we are discovering a rather important phenomena which might have even surprised Darwin: unevenness of evolution. There are many smart humans who see what is coming but there are probably many more blockheads who "cut a branch while sitting on it". I wonder if there is any research related to it or it has become another taboo topic since blockheads make more money that researchers hence win.
Aaron Peled | Vasily,
Knowledge discussed by me is not a process but a bank of data like Entropy. Hence it cannot be zero.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Aaron, you are so arguing about the knowledge that it is not just information, but something absolute. Alas, any information in the universe is in dynamically-regenerated state, it's just an relatively static alternation of media structures (invariant via some entanglement with other invariants like life, for example).
Our knowledge exists in the form of a stable structure only through continuous regeneration, constantly overcoming mentioned exponential decay returning to the pre-catastrophic state. It does not represent anything sensible without a semantic component in the form of a brain structure over DNA transmitted by humanity from generation to generation. Extrasomatic information is no more than dissipating "electromagnetic field" around the "conductor" as long as the life flows in it.
Practically the same can be said about all the information in the Universe with the only difference that the "drama" unfolds on scales of other orders. imo
Vasyl Komarov | By the way, the dynamic state is already a process in fact. Although you raised this point, and of course, I agree with this, but did not mention it directly.
Vasyl Komarov | Waldemar, they do not win, they cut off unnecessary branches on the phylogenetic tree (on which they sit :)
Herb Spencer | Eugene F Kislyakov,
Language and math are human INVENTIONS. They did not exist before humans and will disappear with us. Just because humans do something does not establish their INDEPENDENT existence, unlike most natural objects (e.g. stars).
As such, they can include our own implicit assumptions, which are rarely challenged; e.g. the nature of the human act of COUNTING that results in number. We are such primitive creatures, overblown by arrogance and egos.
Hopefully, Earth (GAIA) will survive our short infestation.
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.
Michael Lersow | Louis,
First, my statements refer to the development of the world's population: 1950: 2.525 billion; 1980: 4.439 billion; 2000: 6.126 billion; 2020: 7.748 billion; 2040: 9.157 billion; 2060: 10,018 billion people on the earth.
Two positive factors:
1. People are getting older
Thanks to medical progress and better living conditions, we live longer than ever before. This applies to both industrialized and developing countries. While the average number of children per woman is decreasing almost anywhere in the world, people in many parts of the world reach a world-wide unrivaled age.
2. More children survive
Thanks to the industrial revolution and worldwide progress in the health sector and the food situation, child mortality first fell in the industrialized countries and later also in the developing countries.
But: That more children survive is also a reason for many parents to get fewer children. High survival chances of children lead to a decline in the birth rate, because parents have to…
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 | 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.
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, 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.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Michael, holism implies connectedness. I can hardly imagine determinism for disjointed entities. This is precisely characteristic of the concept of spontaneity: where there are no connections, there are no laws of nature.
It looks like you missed my recent dispute over holism with respected Dragan Pavlovic (there I still have a debt in the form of detailed comment, exactly about holism). I am very consistent supporter of holism. So, mutual sorry.
As for the models, I completely agree with you, but I will remind you that you are engaged in modeling in the same reality of which the simulated objects are part.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Paul,
number of dimensions strongly determines topology and other properties of spaces. For example, complex numbers (commutative multiplication of vectors) are possible only in two dimensions. But determenistic chaos is impossible in two dimensions. Possible in three and more dimensions. Propogation of information is impossible in even-dimensional spaces. Small dimensions (till four) are degenerate. They have their own numbers of regular polyhedra. 5 in three dimensions and 6 in four. But in all other dimensions (5 and greater) the number of regular polyhedra is the same --- 3. It is pure mathematics (mind), but, surprisingly, we see this in nature!
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Herb, Mario and Louis,
As I have said somewhere above, in order to say something novel about time, we need to understand its origin. I cannot agree with Mario, since - in my opinion - time is not an "abstract entity", but a real physical one. At this point, we need to agree with Hawking: we cannot say what time is. But let me have a suggestion: I think we can understand time, if we can explain why change is never instantaneous. In other words, why the speed of change is finite.
Michael Lersow | Sorry, Vasily Fedorovich Komarov,
The man holistic and the universe holistically behaves not deterministically. Of course, we can describe subprocesses with deterministic models, but this does not change from the fact that there is no deterministic behavior related to the whole.
With models man tries processes, phenomena etc. to map. We know that a model can come close to the original but it is just a model.
I am sorry
Michael L.
Aaron Peled | Dear Michael Lersow,
Please follow this internet staging of 2 characters:
MS: You have already noticed that I would like rather talk about what we do not agree on.
AP: I like you in spite of our contradictions . It's much more interesting and rejuvenating to debate things with someone like you in a civilized manner rather than agree by head nodding, since you give me reasons to think beyond my limited conscientious sphere horizon .
MS: It would, however, help a great deal if we were to use the knowledge to solve the burning problems of mankind.
AP: The scientists 'clan' contributes still more to acquiring knowledge than others, assisting also others in solving the above purpose.
MS; At least the thesis that with increasing education the birth rate falls is refuted worldwide.
AP: Not so in my (admittedly) shallow search :In Canada ,a mathematical model was applied to analyze field data on the relationship between schooling level and lifetime fertility. "Results indicate that…
Constantine Jeannacopoulos | An open system such as "humanity" cannot be tackled with reduction but through holism.
Waldemar Koczkodaj | Judging by my neighbors, I would risk saying "no" :)
The increased devastation of our planet makes me wonder how smartly we have evolved if we put making money before the survival. However, having said so, we are discovering a rather important phenomena which might have even surprised Darwin: unevenness of evolution. There are many smart humans who see what is coming but there are probably many more blockheads who "cut a branch while sitting on it". I wonder if there is any research related to it or it has become another taboo topic since blockheads make more money that researchers hence win.
Aaron Peled | Vasily,
Knowledge discussed by me is not a process but a bank of data like Entropy. Hence it cannot be zero.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Aaron, you are so arguing about the knowledge that it is not just information, but something absolute. Alas, any information in the universe is in dynamically-regenerated state, it's just an relatively static alternation of media structures (invariant via some entanglement with other invariants like life, for example).
Our knowledge exists in the form of a stable structure only through continuous regeneration, constantly overcoming mentioned exponential decay returning to the pre-catastrophic state. It does not represent anything sensible without a semantic component in the form of a brain structure over DNA transmitted by humanity from generation to generation. Extrasomatic information is no more than dissipating "electromagnetic field" around the "conductor" as long as the life flows in it.
Practically the same can be said about all the information in the Universe with the only difference that the "drama" unfolds on scales of other orders. imo
Vasyl Komarov | By the way, the dynamic state is already a process in fact. Although you raised this point, and of course, I agree with this, but did not mention it directly.
Vasyl Komarov | Waldemar, they do not win, they cut off unnecessary branches on the phylogenetic tree (on which they sit :)
Herb Spencer | Eugene F Kislyakov,
Language and math are human INVENTIONS. They did not exist before humans and will disappear with us. Just because humans do something does not establish their INDEPENDENT existence, unlike most natural objects (e.g. stars).
As such, they can include our own implicit assumptions, which are rarely challenged; e.g. the nature of the human act of COUNTING that results in number. We are such primitive creatures, overblown by arrogance and egos.
Hopefully, Earth (GAIA) will survive our short infestation.
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.
Michael Lersow | Louis,
First, my statements refer to the development of the world's population: 1950: 2.525 billion; 1980: 4.439 billion; 2000: 6.126 billion; 2020: 7.748 billion; 2040: 9.157 billion; 2060: 10,018 billion people on the earth.
Two positive factors:
1. People are getting older
Thanks to medical progress and better living conditions, we live longer than ever before. This applies to both industrialized and developing countries. While the average number of children per woman is decreasing almost anywhere in the world, people in many parts of the world reach a world-wide unrivaled age.
2. More children survive
Thanks to the industrial revolution and worldwide progress in the health sector and the food situation, child mortality first fell in the industrialized countries and later also in the developing countries.
But: That more children survive is also a reason for many parents to get fewer children. High survival chances of children lead to a decline in the birth rate, because parents have to…
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 | 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.
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, 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.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Michael, holism implies connectedness. I can hardly imagine determinism for disjointed entities. This is precisely characteristic of the concept of spontaneity: where there are no connections, there are no laws of nature.
It looks like you missed my recent dispute over holism with respected Dragan Pavlovic (there I still have a debt in the form of detailed comment, exactly about holism). I am very consistent supporter of holism. So, mutual sorry.
As for the models, I completely agree with you, but I will remind you that you are engaged in modeling in the same reality of which the simulated objects are part.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Paul,
number of dimensions strongly determines topology and other properties of spaces. For example, complex numbers (commutative multiplication of vectors) are possible only in two dimensions. But determenistic chaos is impossible in two dimensions. Possible in three and more dimensions. Propogation of information is impossible in even-dimensional spaces. Small dimensions (till four) are degenerate. They have their own numbers of regular polyhedra. 5 in three dimensions and 6 in four. But in all other dimensions (5 and greater) the number of regular polyhedra is the same --- 3. It is pure mathematics (mind), but, surprisingly, we see this in nature!
Laszlo G Meszaros | Dear Herb, Mario and Louis,
As I have said somewhere above, in order to say something novel about time, we need to understand its origin. I cannot agree with Mario, since - in my opinion - time is not an "abstract entity", but a real physical one. At this point, we need to agree with Hawking: we cannot say what time is. But let me have a suggestion: I think we can understand time, if we can explain why change is never instantaneous. In other words, why the speed of change is finite.
Jun 16, 2017 |
эволюция
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
●
○
Erkki J. Brändas | Michael,
In our cells we have the genes and the genetic code!
Michael Lersow | Dear Erkki J. Brändas,
Thank you for your clarification. I would like prepend your two comments:
@ Erkki J. Brändas: Note that the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr said that evolution is a teleonomic process, i.e. its behaviour owes its goal-directedness to the influence of an evolved program.
@ Erkki J. Brändas: In our cells we have the genes and the genetic code!
It is true, every human being has about 20,000 to 23,000 genes in the human genome. Even today, our human genetic structure is identical to that of the chimpanzee, 98.4%. But the 1.6% of the genes are our humanity. The gene structure of the individual is inherited. There is thus a line of lineage.
There is at first no room for evolution! In the course of evolution, genes must obviously be transferred from the outside to the gene structure. If not, we would still be chimpanzees today. This is called horizontal gene transfer.
The gene structure can not be altered by formation.
I do not doubt that through education we can…
Waldemar Koczkodaj | I am not saying that Michael is wrong. He is simply not right :)
To ignore that we evolve in a physical sense is wrong. A few centuries ago, the average human height was substantially lower that today. Weight? Look at average Canadian and run for your life :)
In fact, you do not need to run, he will never catch you :)
The posted question is great but as many others, it has no answer. There is nothing wrong with it.
"Why pigs can't fly?" is a good question but it has no answer (they could have evolved wings).
I know something about it since I can see many pigs around me and dream that they evolve wings and fly away but it is only a dream :)
Waldemar Koczkodaj | Human evolution could me measured by the development of mathematics but the problem with 'math' is Gödel's incompleteness theorems. They state that in a complicated theory, there are theorems which the theory cannot prove or disprove. The theory does not be really complicated but just "above natural numbers' (which can be used to count flying pigs :)
I am not a space scientist but I think that it means that math may be worse than my pigs who cannot fly away :)
Michael Lersow | Hi Waldemar,
But I can give you an answer to your funny comment.
(A) Pigs can not fly because they have no wings. And why they have no wings because they are not present by their gene structure!
Who would have thought pigs have a different gene structure than pigeons!
B) It is already good, dear Waldemar, that you did not claim, the size of the human depends on its education. This is already a performance, bravo!
Here something about size: 80% of the body size is determined by the genetic material, but not by a single gene, but a complex interplay of different genetic information is responsible for it. However, 20 percent of human growth is determined by nutrition and other environmental factors.
Who would have thought this? It is nutrition and a complex interplay of different hereditary information determined the size of a human.
Dear Waldemar, even large people belong to the species homo sapiens.
Good night
Michael
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Michael. The rate of DNA change and overal volume of information has a limit. Man was arise because evolution has bypassed this limit.
In fact, we are evolving at a fantastic tremendous rate, as a result of which most of the information is accumulated in the brain (which learned to rewrite epigenetic information on the fly: "Tet3 regulates synaptic transmission and homeostatic plasticity via DNA oxidation and repair", and therefore has great plasticity {подробно см. (▲), а также об эволюционном преимуществе человеческого мозга ниже (▼)}) and even more will be in the form of extrasomatic information.
We can afford to slowly as the rest species optimize the DNA code, after learning how to quickly rewrite the structure of the brain. Although the latter often requires a reboot in the form of a generation change, because most of the connections in the brain structure of most people are established at an early age.
Chimpanzees (~10^10 by DNA + ~10^11 by brain) are very far behind humans (~10^10 by DNA + ~10^13 by brain + >10^12 extrasomatic).
Vasyl Komarov | A small correction: "Our accumulated digital universe of data... 4.4 zettabytes today"
i.e. 4.4*10^21
{Последнее значение взято из отчетов...
Digital data created in 2020 forecasted at 35 zettabytes; cloud computing will manage data growth
2010
Data to grow more quickly says IDC’s Digital Universe study
2012
The Digital Universe of Opportunities: Rich Data and the Increasing Value of the Internet of Things
2014
IDC: Expect 175 zettabytes of data worldwide by 2025
2018}
Ralph Samwell | Pigs could fly, just as fish could fly, it’s called convergent evolution, with enough environmental encouragement, although at some point as it develops “wings” it would probably be a different species, with enough time and a favourable mutated DNA spelling mistake. any denial all species are a product of mutation means you believe the earth is 10,000 years old.
Michael Lersow | Vasiliy sorry,
Your data set has only a little bit up to nothing to do with the evolution. It merely shows that the brain of man is very trainable and that the gen variations within the species human is very different.
Previous findings say that human gene structure has 20,000 to 23,000 genes. Genetic research indicates that only a small amount of the gene structure was transferred by horizontal transformation. In humans, they found up to 145 such transferred genes. Many of them have important functions: some are involved in fat metabolism, others are involved in immune responses. Apparently, these facilities offered advantages to the recipients. Most of the genes are derived from bacteria and other micro-organisms, so-called protists, some also from fungi and have contributed to the evolution of homo sapiens.
Thus, however, it was discovered that a much greater variation in the regulatory regions than in the genes itself occurred during the evolution to homo sapiens. Obviously, the control elements of the genes in evolution have changed much faster than the genes themselves Thus probably much more strongly than altered protein structures contributed to marked developments in the evolution. The so-called transposons.
Transposons contribute to variation in particular by rearranging parts of chromosomes and "modeling" the genome by placing around genes and thus altering their frequency of readings or by integrating into coding regions of genes and In this way change the gene function. (Mutation).
Thus by synthetic GeneDrive manipulated genes confer a kind of inheritance turbo. The pursuit of this path leads quickly to the cloning and the breeding of humans. This is not just forbidden but perverse. This perverts the topic of discussion.
It is not just about human performance, but also about emotions, social behavior, communication and the acceptance of diversity. We should simply accept our imperfection and not try to manipulate it
All the best
Michael L.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Michael, you do not need to apologize for your opinion. This is your choice.
I am forced to continue the line started by Karl Sagan (and even by Darwin) for myself, the observations make me eliminate the dissonance.
The user request via web search engines, the request of a primitive agronomist to the own experience or later to the drawn calendar or the request of the cell to the DNA have the same prosaic meaning of the request for information, leading to subsequent processes.
"By 2020, at least a third of all data will pass through the cloud... Google uses it every day to involve about 1,000 computers in answering a single search query, which takes no more than 0.2 seconds to complete... At the moment less than 0.5% of all data is ever analysed and used"
By the way, Life also has a lot of poorly processed fresh information in the form of current species diversity, various habitats and other distributed information.
And by the way, who forbids cloning? Is the man learned to do this being the product of evolution? Who has the right to indicate the evolution, what should it do, and what should not? If evolution begins to do something with the hands of it's offspring, evolution has a right. Maybe it just wants to increase the speed of mutations at the expense of more chaotic interference in the genome. Again, this is it's right.
Erkki J. Brändas | Michael,
Evolution is a law of Nature and concerns everything from the molecular, cellular and organising levels, to the social, ecological and the cosmological rank, including your and mine thoughts and ideas. Evolution is not probabilistic nor deterministic – it is a teleonomic selfreferential process.
Vasyl Komarov | As an illustrative example of what Ralph said: "The evolutionary convergence of mid-Mesozoic lacewings and Cenozoic butterflies" {▲}, in similar situations, evolution is repeated. In fact, it is not necessary to go far for an example, everyone who lives in the illuminated place has eyes. Having eyes to not notice it is impossible.
Trivial, but the laws of nature are repeated in similar situations. It's all determinism. You can certainly resist this, developing various ideas of spontaneity. It's funny, but the fact of existence of the phenomenon of mathematics puts on all this a fat point, you just do not yet realize the problem. imo
Waldemar Koczkodaj | An interesting discussion...
Darwin discovered evolution but Spencer first used the phrase "survival of the fittest". So, the answer to this question (if any) is "the survival". The problem is that some of our "inventions" are beyond the survival. For example, a car was supposed to bring us faster "to places" but in the process of it, it has polluted this planet. Airplanes can easily spread dangerous viruses,...
I do not suggest that we should use horses and train my pig to fly :) but use them wisely. Although my pigs cannot (thanks Lord) fly, they motivated me to work harder. If they flown away, my purpose might have changed...
Vasyl Komarov | In general, evolution can be viewed from two sides. If you look from the inside, then an illusion is created that nature is inventing something new in a random way. And one can look from the side and see an automodel process, a deterministic static picture, which is constantly repeated and constantly corrected by external interference, whether it be an individual, life on planet or evolution of the whole universe.
What is really not good to do, is to study every system in isolation from the environment. This leads to cognitive distortions {cognitive bias}. I declare this with full seriousness.
Michael Lersow | Erkki, I agree in parts with you. But this is not so bad.
The term "teleonomy" comes from Colin Pittendrigh (in: Behavior and Evolution, 1958) of biophilosophy and describes a causal-analytical method of explanation (purpose, goal, end, aiming at a goal).
And The self-referential process a.o. Charis Katakis is described: the Self-Referential Conceptual System (SRCS) aims at contributing to the search for unifying key concepts on the basis of which the functioning and malfunctioning of purposeful, self-regulated biopsychosocial living systems can be described.
This I see completely different.
Evolutionary changes may be found only in a very narrow area within which evolution can be take place. Or minor changes can lead to completely different solutions. Single components (education) of this process with highest complexity can not lead to change of this complexly system. Only in interaction with single inter-actors and under necessary for this purpose start- and boundary conditions can it comes to evolutionary changes. There is a very narrow area within which evolution can take place. Or minor changes can lead to completely different solutions.
But the human tries to intruduce in the own evolution. With incalculable risks. Doubtful success and disaster are twins in this "venture".
If I were to make an attempt to describe the evolutionary process, I would describe it as follows: probabilistic, not deterministic, transcendent-open, self-controlled with incalculable results.
Respect
Michael
Vasyl Komarov | Waldemar,
Everything has positive and negative sides. Like airplanes, viruses provide a horizontal transfer of genetic information. By the way, when we invent an airplane, we even help them with this.
The perception of something only in the form of opposition "good vs bad" - this is what a person goes from, accumulating mnestic syntheses since infancy period, but sometimes (as a result of disorder or propaganda) a person (ego splitting), and sometimes the whole society (fascism, "This is RTLM, Hutu Power Radio", various Kiselyov and Solovyov on state TV of the Russian Federation nowaday, etc.) falls into this infantile state back.
The world is a very complex interconnected structure. Despite the fact that it is full of binary oppositions, nature as a whole is indifferent to the archetypal opposition "good vs bad", which acquires a concrete (moral or egoistic) meaning only in application to the relation of concrete system under consideration with rest of the world. For a pig (cow, sheep... everyone can substitute on the basis of cultural and religious traditions) that we kill him and eat meat is immorally.
Erkki J. Brändas | Micheal,
To me the important ingredient of evolution is 'communication' – and it starts already on the microscopic level from atomic- and molecular interactions extending over supramolecular chemistry and complex enough systems in biology, going from teleomatic processes to teleonomic ones.
The terminology (Mayr) is an extension of Pittendrigh's views, i.e. defining teleomatic processes as regulated by physical laws and teleonomic processes as being influenced by an evolved program. The self-referential nature of evolution combines the two providing protocols for a simple communication hypothesis, that should be commensurate which Charis Kataris' research, but further rooted in the theorems of Gödel.
(...)
Erkki J. Brändas | Michael,
In our cells we have the genes and the genetic code!
Michael Lersow | Dear Erkki J. Brändas,
Thank you for your clarification. I would like prepend your two comments:
@ Erkki J. Brändas: Note that the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr said that evolution is a teleonomic process, i.e. its behaviour owes its goal-directedness to the influence of an evolved program.
@ Erkki J. Brändas: In our cells we have the genes and the genetic code!
It is true, every human being has about 20,000 to 23,000 genes in the human genome. Even today, our human genetic structure is identical to that of the chimpanzee, 98.4%. But the 1.6% of the genes are our humanity. The gene structure of the individual is inherited. There is thus a line of lineage.
There is at first no room for evolution! In the course of evolution, genes must obviously be transferred from the outside to the gene structure. If not, we would still be chimpanzees today. This is called horizontal gene transfer.
The gene structure can not be altered by formation.
I do not doubt that through education we can…
Waldemar Koczkodaj | I am not saying that Michael is wrong. He is simply not right :)
To ignore that we evolve in a physical sense is wrong. A few centuries ago, the average human height was substantially lower that today. Weight? Look at average Canadian and run for your life :)
In fact, you do not need to run, he will never catch you :)
The posted question is great but as many others, it has no answer. There is nothing wrong with it.
"Why pigs can't fly?" is a good question but it has no answer (they could have evolved wings).
I know something about it since I can see many pigs around me and dream that they evolve wings and fly away but it is only a dream :)
Waldemar Koczkodaj | Human evolution could me measured by the development of mathematics but the problem with 'math' is Gödel's incompleteness theorems. They state that in a complicated theory, there are theorems which the theory cannot prove or disprove. The theory does not be really complicated but just "above natural numbers' (which can be used to count flying pigs :)
I am not a space scientist but I think that it means that math may be worse than my pigs who cannot fly away :)
Michael Lersow | Hi Waldemar,
But I can give you an answer to your funny comment.
(A) Pigs can not fly because they have no wings. And why they have no wings because they are not present by their gene structure!
Who would have thought pigs have a different gene structure than pigeons!
B) It is already good, dear Waldemar, that you did not claim, the size of the human depends on its education. This is already a performance, bravo!
Here something about size: 80% of the body size is determined by the genetic material, but not by a single gene, but a complex interplay of different genetic information is responsible for it. However, 20 percent of human growth is determined by nutrition and other environmental factors.
Who would have thought this? It is nutrition and a complex interplay of different hereditary information determined the size of a human.
Dear Waldemar, even large people belong to the species homo sapiens.
Good night
Michael
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Michael. The rate of DNA change and overal volume of information has a limit. Man was arise because evolution has bypassed this limit.
In fact, we are evolving at a fantastic tremendous rate, as a result of which most of the information is accumulated in the brain (which learned to rewrite epigenetic information on the fly: "Tet3 regulates synaptic transmission and homeostatic plasticity via DNA oxidation and repair", and therefore has great plasticity {подробно см. (▲), а также об эволюционном преимуществе человеческого мозга ниже (▼)}) and even more will be in the form of extrasomatic information.
We can afford to slowly as the rest species optimize the DNA code, after learning how to quickly rewrite the structure of the brain. Although the latter often requires a reboot in the form of a generation change, because most of the connections in the brain structure of most people are established at an early age.
Chimpanzees (~10^10 by DNA + ~10^11 by brain) are very far behind humans (~10^10 by DNA + ~10^13 by brain + >10^12 extrasomatic).
Vasyl Komarov | A small correction: "Our accumulated digital universe of data... 4.4 zettabytes today"
i.e. 4.4*10^21
{Последнее значение взято из отчетов...
Digital data created in 2020 forecasted at 35 zettabytes; cloud computing will manage data growth
2010
Data to grow more quickly says IDC’s Digital Universe study
2012
The Digital Universe of Opportunities: Rich Data and the Increasing Value of the Internet of Things
2014
IDC: Expect 175 zettabytes of data worldwide by 2025
2018}
Ralph Samwell | Pigs could fly, just as fish could fly, it’s called convergent evolution, with enough environmental encouragement, although at some point as it develops “wings” it would probably be a different species, with enough time and a favourable mutated DNA spelling mistake. any denial all species are a product of mutation means you believe the earth is 10,000 years old.
Michael Lersow | Vasiliy sorry,
Your data set has only a little bit up to nothing to do with the evolution. It merely shows that the brain of man is very trainable and that the gen variations within the species human is very different.
Previous findings say that human gene structure has 20,000 to 23,000 genes. Genetic research indicates that only a small amount of the gene structure was transferred by horizontal transformation. In humans, they found up to 145 such transferred genes. Many of them have important functions: some are involved in fat metabolism, others are involved in immune responses. Apparently, these facilities offered advantages to the recipients. Most of the genes are derived from bacteria and other micro-organisms, so-called protists, some also from fungi and have contributed to the evolution of homo sapiens.
Thus, however, it was discovered that a much greater variation in the regulatory regions than in the genes itself occurred during the evolution to homo sapiens. Obviously, the control elements of the genes in evolution have changed much faster than the genes themselves Thus probably much more strongly than altered protein structures contributed to marked developments in the evolution. The so-called transposons.
Transposons contribute to variation in particular by rearranging parts of chromosomes and "modeling" the genome by placing around genes and thus altering their frequency of readings or by integrating into coding regions of genes and In this way change the gene function. (Mutation).
Thus by synthetic GeneDrive manipulated genes confer a kind of inheritance turbo. The pursuit of this path leads quickly to the cloning and the breeding of humans. This is not just forbidden but perverse. This perverts the topic of discussion.
It is not just about human performance, but also about emotions, social behavior, communication and the acceptance of diversity. We should simply accept our imperfection and not try to manipulate it
All the best
Michael L.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Michael, you do not need to apologize for your opinion. This is your choice.
I am forced to continue the line started by Karl Sagan (and even by Darwin) for myself, the observations make me eliminate the dissonance.
The user request via web search engines, the request of a primitive agronomist to the own experience or later to the drawn calendar or the request of the cell to the DNA have the same prosaic meaning of the request for information, leading to subsequent processes.
"By 2020, at least a third of all data will pass through the cloud... Google uses it every day to involve about 1,000 computers in answering a single search query, which takes no more than 0.2 seconds to complete... At the moment less than 0.5% of all data is ever analysed and used"
By the way, Life also has a lot of poorly processed fresh information in the form of current species diversity, various habitats and other distributed information.
And by the way, who forbids cloning? Is the man learned to do this being the product of evolution? Who has the right to indicate the evolution, what should it do, and what should not? If evolution begins to do something with the hands of it's offspring, evolution has a right. Maybe it just wants to increase the speed of mutations at the expense of more chaotic interference in the genome. Again, this is it's right.
Erkki J. Brändas | Michael,
Evolution is a law of Nature and concerns everything from the molecular, cellular and organising levels, to the social, ecological and the cosmological rank, including your and mine thoughts and ideas. Evolution is not probabilistic nor deterministic – it is a teleonomic selfreferential process.
Vasyl Komarov | As an illustrative example of what Ralph said: "The evolutionary convergence of mid-Mesozoic lacewings and Cenozoic butterflies" {▲}, in similar situations, evolution is repeated. In fact, it is not necessary to go far for an example, everyone who lives in the illuminated place has eyes. Having eyes to not notice it is impossible.
Trivial, but the laws of nature are repeated in similar situations. It's all determinism. You can certainly resist this, developing various ideas of spontaneity. It's funny, but the fact of existence of the phenomenon of mathematics puts on all this a fat point, you just do not yet realize the problem. imo
Waldemar Koczkodaj | An interesting discussion...
Darwin discovered evolution but Spencer first used the phrase "survival of the fittest". So, the answer to this question (if any) is "the survival". The problem is that some of our "inventions" are beyond the survival. For example, a car was supposed to bring us faster "to places" but in the process of it, it has polluted this planet. Airplanes can easily spread dangerous viruses,...
I do not suggest that we should use horses and train my pig to fly :) but use them wisely. Although my pigs cannot (thanks Lord) fly, they motivated me to work harder. If they flown away, my purpose might have changed...
Vasyl Komarov | In general, evolution can be viewed from two sides. If you look from the inside, then an illusion is created that nature is inventing something new in a random way. And one can look from the side and see an automodel process, a deterministic static picture, which is constantly repeated and constantly corrected by external interference, whether it be an individual, life on planet or evolution of the whole universe.
What is really not good to do, is to study every system in isolation from the environment. This leads to cognitive distortions {cognitive bias}. I declare this with full seriousness.
Michael Lersow | Erkki, I agree in parts with you. But this is not so bad.
The term "teleonomy" comes from Colin Pittendrigh (in: Behavior and Evolution, 1958) of biophilosophy and describes a causal-analytical method of explanation (purpose, goal, end, aiming at a goal).
And The self-referential process a.o. Charis Katakis is described: the Self-Referential Conceptual System (SRCS) aims at contributing to the search for unifying key concepts on the basis of which the functioning and malfunctioning of purposeful, self-regulated biopsychosocial living systems can be described.
This I see completely different.
Evolutionary changes may be found only in a very narrow area within which evolution can be take place. Or minor changes can lead to completely different solutions. Single components (education) of this process with highest complexity can not lead to change of this complexly system. Only in interaction with single inter-actors and under necessary for this purpose start- and boundary conditions can it comes to evolutionary changes. There is a very narrow area within which evolution can take place. Or minor changes can lead to completely different solutions.
But the human tries to intruduce in the own evolution. With incalculable risks. Doubtful success and disaster are twins in this "venture".
If I were to make an attempt to describe the evolutionary process, I would describe it as follows: probabilistic, not deterministic, transcendent-open, self-controlled with incalculable results.
Respect
Michael
Vasyl Komarov | Waldemar,
Everything has positive and negative sides. Like airplanes, viruses provide a horizontal transfer of genetic information. By the way, when we invent an airplane, we even help them with this.
The perception of something only in the form of opposition "good vs bad" - this is what a person goes from, accumulating mnestic syntheses since infancy period, but sometimes (as a result of disorder or propaganda) a person (ego splitting), and sometimes the whole society (fascism, "This is RTLM, Hutu Power Radio", various Kiselyov and Solovyov on state TV of the Russian Federation nowaday, etc.) falls into this infantile state back.
The world is a very complex interconnected structure. Despite the fact that it is full of binary oppositions, nature as a whole is indifferent to the archetypal opposition "good vs bad", which acquires a concrete (moral or egoistic) meaning only in application to the relation of concrete system under consideration with rest of the world. For a pig (cow, sheep... everyone can substitute on the basis of cultural and religious traditions) that we kill him and eat meat is immorally.
Erkki J. Brändas | Micheal,
To me the important ingredient of evolution is 'communication' – and it starts already on the microscopic level from atomic- and molecular interactions extending over supramolecular chemistry and complex enough systems in biology, going from teleomatic processes to teleonomic ones.
The terminology (Mayr) is an extension of Pittendrigh's views, i.e. defining teleomatic processes as regulated by physical laws and teleonomic processes as being influenced by an evolved program. The self-referential nature of evolution combines the two providing protocols for a simple communication hypothesis, that should be commensurate which Charis Kataris' research, but further rooted in the theorems of Gödel.
(...)
Jun 17, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | With regard to the dichotomy of the ego to the mortal body and "eternal" soul that Michael and Louis are impressed with, if we drop everything and focus on theology, I hardly understand how such a solid and independent entity gets along with the logic of christian divine holism.
In general, in most religious movements the soul has a birth (with or without the help of the god) and most often an immortal posthumous fate, which even the creator does not control, in the sense that he can at maximum do that to reward or train by punishment, like Pavlov's dog.
This would cause a terrible dissonance in the followers of creationism, if it was not be a sublimation of existential anguish.
Ralph, absolutely all the people have a belief system. The first problem - to identify it. Forewarned is forearmed. The second problem is to learn how to overcome it. After these two stages, as seems it to me, people often become agnostics, or simply uses the scientific method in all spheres of life. Curiosity is a good sign.
Ralph Samwell | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
would you say, this is the basis of suicide or megalomania? lost all hope and meaning; we need a belief system, within the human condition, without it life becomes meaningless, so humans construct meaning, purpose as the opposite is too much to bear or it gives free-will to be ruthless?
Vasyl Komarov | Daniel Alecu, more bold than you mean.
I can not agree that consciousness is a by-product, otherwise I have not mentioned introversion earlier. For the same reason, I can not agree that eukaryotic cell has a nucleus as a result of randomness (and not as a result of inversion).
I agree with Michael that evolution is a smooth process, but sometimes changes involve in the process a large part of the system or almost the whole system. "Revolutions" occur not only in human's belief systems. Sometimes it is necessary to perform "unexpected" things (as with the tongue of a woodpecker, for example), when small linear changes do not pass through singularity. In such situations the system capsize to another configuration (in nonlinear process small changes can lead to cascade of enormous consequences).
I agree that one generation change rarely reboot the brain seriously. In the case of the transition from Ptolemy's astronomical synthesis of anthropocentrism and teleology to the Copernicus system even a dozen generations was not enough (I did not mean all the information, in the continuous process starting from the womb, only a certain limited systemic part of human knowledge that is united by some criterions).
Louis Brassard | Dear Michael,
Thanks for your response on the question of ‘’spirit’’. I think it is a fact more today than fifty years ago or 100 years ago that most scientists do not think that the notion of ‘’spirit’’ correspond to any reality. I also believe that we have a spirit and I am also Christian in my own way probably not according to many Christians. But I was not asking you wether or not you believe in the reality of ‘’spirit’’ , I knew you did since you used that word, but I was asking how you philosophically and scientifically articulate the idea. From your response, I take it that you simply take it in the traditional Christian way and you do not really care to try to harmonize this Christian notion with the scientific vision of the world. It is fine. I personally do not believe into Big Bang Cosmology because of the reason I explained in a previous post that the ‘’Universe’’, i.e. ‘’All the Exit’’ cannot begin out of Nothing and so it had to always existed. Any other possibility create a Out of Nothing creation or a Out of God creation. But since ‘’All that Exist’’ necessary include God (unless someone say it does not exist and in that case we fall back on the other paradox: Out of Nothing Creation) then we cannot logically say God creates ''All that exist'' and so in all case, believe in God or Not, ''All that Exist'' could not have begin or being created.
Vasyl Komarov | Ralph Samwell, suicide for this reason for some of the people may take place, perhaps, although I see no logic. Moral settings of religions with posthumous remuneration, as a rule, provide protection from an uncontrolled process provoked by positive feedback, or require for this a special payment to death. In a natural state, a man usually does not think about death. This is normal otherwise the state of the prisoner sentenced to execution would be continuous.
The megalomania is an overall problem even for humanism in any form. It imposes giperbolised significance on everything that concerns a man, segregating it from other objects of reality, distorting indifferent information. On the nature of this (morality, that is, selfishness) I told Woldemar a little higher. Anthropocentrism is a more accurate word for fenomenon. This can not be avoided, since the total rejection of selfishness on any scale is devastating for the system, be it a person, a society, etc. Although sometimes development requires to eliminate segregation for the further consolidation of systems. We slowly, with difficulty, but remove the segregation of slavery, the segregation of feudalism, the segregation of racism, chauvinism, the male patriarchy ... The same will happen with segregation of a man and an intellect of another origin. Selfishness in this case does not disappear, only redistributed, acquiring a new meaning for the new unified system.
Maybe I did not understand your question correctly.
Speaking about the belief system, I do not mean only religious beliefs. I mean the whole axiomatic basis of the individual knowledge of a particular person, with the axioms of geometry, the knowledge that the atom is arranged, as Bohr suggested or as the standard model suggests, the logic of understanding provability and falsificationism (as for agnostics), and so on.
Michael Lersow | Dear James Lloyd,
From my position you can gladly delete Einstein from the list of the mentioned persons, this does not change my statement at all.
It would be nice if you could tell me a source for the quote, That`s why I can find it. Meanwhile please take a notice this compilation of citations from Einstein about the faith. There are about 100. https://www.evangeliums.net/zitate/albert_einstein.htm
Even this number of citations from only one person does not change my statements above. A small compilation nevertheless:
Albert Einstein (1879-1955), German physicist, founder of relativity theory, Nobel Prize laureate 1921:
"The common idea that I am an atheist is based on a great mistake. It is hard to comprehend, who can extract this from my scientific theories, has hardly understood ..."
"Every deep natural scientist must be suggest itself a kind of religious feeling, because he can not imagine that the very fine connections he sees, thought are first of him. In the incomprehensible universe a boundless superior reason reveals itself."
"Not God is relative, and not the existence, but our thinking."
"I want to know as He (the Lord God) did thought the world them self."
This is about Einstein's credo. He talks about Him in a liquid and awe-free way, and also takes him as a witness to the hated quantum physics:
"The Lord is refined, but not evil."
"God does not roll the dice, but He has created the world according to a proper plan, it is the task of the scientists to be found it."
Einstein did not see a contrast between religion and science; on the contrary, The two belong together. "There can be no legitimate conflict between religion and science," he said in an article in the New York Times in 1930. Because "science without religion is lame, religion without natural science is blind." For him, a "cosmic religious feeling" was the strongest and noblest motive of scientific research. "In this materialistic age the serious scientists are the only deeply religious humans."
Good night
Michael L.
Constantine Jeannacopoulos | On Holism.
Vasyl Komarov | The goal for a person (as well as for any other living being) is one, elimination of displeasure, which Freud spoke about. Everything we interact with as a complex functional, which we have to continuously minimize. Simple, universal, effective and inevitable thing as entropy, with ony one direction. Depending on the circumstances and the moment, everyone can specify it locally, distracting from small displeasure such as hunger, etc. This does not change the simple and universal essence of the overall process.
Vasyl Komarov | For information. Einstein considered himself an agnostic, which is quite logical.
Transcript:
And more
(...)
Vasyl Komarov | With regard to the dichotomy of the ego to the mortal body and "eternal" soul that Michael and Louis are impressed with, if we drop everything and focus on theology, I hardly understand how such a solid and independent entity gets along with the logic of christian divine holism.
In general, in most religious movements the soul has a birth (with or without the help of the god) and most often an immortal posthumous fate, which even the creator does not control, in the sense that he can at maximum do that to reward or train by punishment, like Pavlov's dog.
This would cause a terrible dissonance in the followers of creationism, if it was not be a sublimation of existential anguish.
Ralph, absolutely all the people have a belief system. The first problem - to identify it. Forewarned is forearmed. The second problem is to learn how to overcome it. After these two stages, as seems it to me, people often become agnostics, or simply uses the scientific method in all spheres of life. Curiosity is a good sign.
Ralph Samwell | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
would you say, this is the basis of suicide or megalomania? lost all hope and meaning; we need a belief system, within the human condition, without it life becomes meaningless, so humans construct meaning, purpose as the opposite is too much to bear or it gives free-will to be ruthless?
Vasyl Komarov | Daniel Alecu, more bold than you mean.
I can not agree that consciousness is a by-product, otherwise I have not mentioned introversion earlier. For the same reason, I can not agree that eukaryotic cell has a nucleus as a result of randomness (and not as a result of inversion).
I agree with Michael that evolution is a smooth process, but sometimes changes involve in the process a large part of the system or almost the whole system. "Revolutions" occur not only in human's belief systems. Sometimes it is necessary to perform "unexpected" things (as with the tongue of a woodpecker, for example), when small linear changes do not pass through singularity. In such situations the system capsize to another configuration (in nonlinear process small changes can lead to cascade of enormous consequences).
I agree that one generation change rarely reboot the brain seriously. In the case of the transition from Ptolemy's astronomical synthesis of anthropocentrism and teleology to the Copernicus system even a dozen generations was not enough (I did not mean all the information, in the continuous process starting from the womb, only a certain limited systemic part of human knowledge that is united by some criterions).
Louis Brassard | Dear Michael,
Thanks for your response on the question of ‘’spirit’’. I think it is a fact more today than fifty years ago or 100 years ago that most scientists do not think that the notion of ‘’spirit’’ correspond to any reality. I also believe that we have a spirit and I am also Christian in my own way probably not according to many Christians. But I was not asking you wether or not you believe in the reality of ‘’spirit’’ , I knew you did since you used that word, but I was asking how you philosophically and scientifically articulate the idea. From your response, I take it that you simply take it in the traditional Christian way and you do not really care to try to harmonize this Christian notion with the scientific vision of the world. It is fine. I personally do not believe into Big Bang Cosmology because of the reason I explained in a previous post that the ‘’Universe’’, i.e. ‘’All the Exit’’ cannot begin out of Nothing and so it had to always existed. Any other possibility create a Out of Nothing creation or a Out of God creation. But since ‘’All that Exist’’ necessary include God (unless someone say it does not exist and in that case we fall back on the other paradox: Out of Nothing Creation) then we cannot logically say God creates ''All that exist'' and so in all case, believe in God or Not, ''All that Exist'' could not have begin or being created.
Vasyl Komarov | Ralph Samwell, suicide for this reason for some of the people may take place, perhaps, although I see no logic. Moral settings of religions with posthumous remuneration, as a rule, provide protection from an uncontrolled process provoked by positive feedback, or require for this a special payment to death. In a natural state, a man usually does not think about death. This is normal otherwise the state of the prisoner sentenced to execution would be continuous.
The megalomania is an overall problem even for humanism in any form. It imposes giperbolised significance on everything that concerns a man, segregating it from other objects of reality, distorting indifferent information. On the nature of this (morality, that is, selfishness) I told Woldemar a little higher. Anthropocentrism is a more accurate word for fenomenon. This can not be avoided, since the total rejection of selfishness on any scale is devastating for the system, be it a person, a society, etc. Although sometimes development requires to eliminate segregation for the further consolidation of systems. We slowly, with difficulty, but remove the segregation of slavery, the segregation of feudalism, the segregation of racism, chauvinism, the male patriarchy ... The same will happen with segregation of a man and an intellect of another origin. Selfishness in this case does not disappear, only redistributed, acquiring a new meaning for the new unified system.
Maybe I did not understand your question correctly.
Speaking about the belief system, I do not mean only religious beliefs. I mean the whole axiomatic basis of the individual knowledge of a particular person, with the axioms of geometry, the knowledge that the atom is arranged, as Bohr suggested or as the standard model suggests, the logic of understanding provability and falsificationism (as for agnostics), and so on.
Michael Lersow | Dear James Lloyd,
From my position you can gladly delete Einstein from the list of the mentioned persons, this does not change my statement at all.
It would be nice if you could tell me a source for the quote, That`s why I can find it. Meanwhile please take a notice this compilation of citations from Einstein about the faith. There are about 100. https://www.evangeliums.net/zitate/albert_einstein.htm
Even this number of citations from only one person does not change my statements above. A small compilation nevertheless:
Albert Einstein (1879-1955), German physicist, founder of relativity theory, Nobel Prize laureate 1921:
"The common idea that I am an atheist is based on a great mistake. It is hard to comprehend, who can extract this from my scientific theories, has hardly understood ..."
"Every deep natural scientist must be suggest itself a kind of religious feeling, because he can not imagine that the very fine connections he sees, thought are first of him. In the incomprehensible universe a boundless superior reason reveals itself."
"Not God is relative, and not the existence, but our thinking."
"I want to know as He (the Lord God) did thought the world them self."
This is about Einstein's credo. He talks about Him in a liquid and awe-free way, and also takes him as a witness to the hated quantum physics:
"The Lord is refined, but not evil."
"God does not roll the dice, but He has created the world according to a proper plan, it is the task of the scientists to be found it."
Einstein did not see a contrast between religion and science; on the contrary, The two belong together. "There can be no legitimate conflict between religion and science," he said in an article in the New York Times in 1930. Because "science without religion is lame, religion without natural science is blind." For him, a "cosmic religious feeling" was the strongest and noblest motive of scientific research. "In this materialistic age the serious scientists are the only deeply religious humans."
Good night
Michael L.
Constantine Jeannacopoulos | On Holism.
"...God is not to be likened, let us say, to a potter who makes a pot from the clay which is to hand; he is, rather, like one who makes both the clay and the pot. This teaching, which baffles understanding and is often rejected because there is no analogy to it in human experience, must be understood as an interpretation and summary of scripture’s witness to God as a whole,"
— Colin E. Gunton
Vasyl Komarov | The goal for a person (as well as for any other living being) is one, elimination of displeasure, which Freud spoke about. Everything we interact with as a complex functional, which we have to continuously minimize. Simple, universal, effective and inevitable thing as entropy, with ony one direction. Depending on the circumstances and the moment, everyone can specify it locally, distracting from small displeasure such as hunger, etc. This does not change the simple and universal essence of the overall process.
Vasyl Komarov | For information. Einstein considered himself an agnostic, which is quite logical.
Transcript:
October 25, 1950Screenshot here: www.lettersofnote.com/2010/04
Mr. Morton Berkowitz
365 New York Ave.
Brooklyn N.Y.
Dear Mr. Berkowitz:
I felt very grateful receiving your kind letter of October 24th. Such utterances are the finest reward for an author.
My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and enoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment
I am sending you under separate cover two books of mine containing occasional writings where you will find more about this subject.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed, 'A. Einstein.')
Albert Einstein.
And more
'The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish'Screenshot here: www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10
(...)
— ResearchGate. Available from {disclaimer}: Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: Observation ... in the human population. [accessed Jun 15, 2017]
17 черв. 2017 р.
18:18 | Удвоение ДНК оказалось основано на случайных процессах
Забавно, никогда не думал что две хим. реакции, разнесеные в пространстве, лимитированы серьёзно чем либо ещё кроме процесса деления и практически идентичных условий.
Для этого молекулы должны маршировать стройными рядами: "для прохождения химической реакции стройся!"
Органика должна увеличивать симметрию (то есть, порядок), что наблюдается, в том числе, в данном процессе. Это именно то, чем ДНК непосредственно и занимается в данном случае.
Independent and Stochastic Action of DNA Polymerases in the Replisome
2017 | DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.05.041
18:18 | Удвоение ДНК оказалось основано на случайных процессах
Забавно, никогда не думал что две хим. реакции, разнесеные в пространстве, лимитированы серьёзно чем либо ещё кроме процесса деления и практически идентичных условий.
Для этого молекулы должны маршировать стройными рядами: "для прохождения химической реакции стройся!"
Органика должна увеличивать симметрию (то есть, порядок), что наблюдается, в том числе, в данном процессе. Это именно то, чем ДНК непосредственно и занимается в данном случае.
Independent and Stochastic Action of DNA Polymerases in the Replisome
2017 | DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.05.041
Jun 19, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Eugene,
I completely agree that it is pointless to challenge the primacy of beliefs or material traces of human (as a thinking beings) activity. Process of self-organization is an interpenetration, both inside and outside, process is indivisible.
The problem of God is not in personification, but in the possession of consciousness. Self-referencing implies an infinite plurality of consciousness, i.e. more than complete depersonification in holism. Spinoza's "God" is also no longer a god in the sense of archetypal meme (as it was formed in many cultures). You rightly noted the equivalence to plural mind in Buddhism, where is no God. So, Spinoza's "God" is equivalent to "reality", thus nothing restricts the choice of any other label further. This is a purely european withdrawal from the personified european God to the most abstract and lifeless unconscious concept.
Buddhism is good because unlike all theisms and the same Spinoza it instantly rejects the question of the root cause. There is no creation act for eternity. It is already everywhere.
Yes, agnosticism does not lead anywhere. We, on the contrary, came to it, in the 18th century, when a full bouquet of theism and atheism directions already was there. It is invariant with respect to opposition of the cognized and the unknown (for agnosticism the unknown is always ahead only).
But, does God, or his negation, lead somewhere? As I have repeatedly mentioned, нравственность (sittlichkeit) is a natural product of self-organization in the interdependent structure of self-similar ones (it does not need a God). I.e. self-organization automatically implies that "Ten Commandments" will always be written only because each of us are not in the void, and, as Erkki rightly insists, we are in communication with similar and the rest of reality.
God has always been the explanation of what could not be explained within available knowledge. That is, God can manifest himself only in the failure of the behavior of something from what is predicted by knowledge. In all teisms apart from agnosticism, God is cognized, despite various claims to the contrary. God is limited and continuosly obsolescent in cognitive process because of orthodoxy of any fixed worldview and it's meta-position with respect to God (we somehow know about God and know God's plan, which is absurd). Not so much space for him remains with knowledge growth.
Ralph,
I certainly can not deny the phenomenon of the God's meme, as unit of cultural information and an archetype of certain qualities of reality. It has objective existence in relation to me. But I have other semantics, in which, as Ralph said, people create memes, i.e. information or knowledge. The religious component of knowledge has long been tiring.
I'm limited, including in knowledge. Cognition is not limited. So, curiosity is a self-sufficient sense of conscious existence (for me), an unconscious existence does not have this issue on the agenda at all. So agnosticism leads after curiosity, not interfering with communication.
Ralph Samwell | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
No, you answered my question brilliantly, as you do with all your other contributions, welcome to RG and this debate, it was in need of a bit more rationality and deep thought, and fresh eyes, I am very pleased you are here.
There are two things going on, those that put God at the beginning and those at the end (and a few that don’t do either). To me at the beginning is purely a matter for faith and belief, is not provable. God created humans.
Those at the end generally see it as a by-product of evolution, Humans created God.
Certainly purpose is integral to both thoughts.
Most but not all religions see things like those that commit suicide must be damned to Hell, rather than a desperate person that needs help. Certainly evolution does not favour suicide but it is a part of it. Questionable logic, once a human believes their stark reality, that everything is meaningless other than what we make it, leaves a door open to the human mind to do dreadful things such as, suicide, megalomania or mixing the two and creating suicide bombers?
Paradox: As you rightly say, without religious “remuneration” one may look to create our own: through science, spirit and creativity or through power and selfishness. And with religious remunerations, this earthly life is relatively meaningless, as you will have greater meaning and reward afterwards (why anyone in their right mind would want 7 virgins is beyond me). I hear there are some religious group that actively wish to see the Earths end of days because they believe in The Rapture.
It must mean something that forgiveness, remembrance and meaning are the three things people ask for at end of life. Fire fighters I see all have the same psychology, guilt for not being able to do more to save life and all life has meaning. There’s some evidence that things like menopause developed in order for elders to look after the young, while the middle go hunting (killer wales). New evidence human and dog evolution is symbiotic.
Consider the adaptable Frog, that jumps into a slowly boiling pot, adapts so well to the heat, he ends up cooked. In reductionist terms, it’s just a chemical reaction, both frog and hot water. Sometimes the “purpose” to which it is intended becomes the problem without sufficient knowledge.
Why the phenomena of biology? Put simply, complexity variation, the whole thing not only works on bio-diversity, it can’t function without it. Wolves were reintroduced back to Dakota because they killed off Dear, without Dear being killed off, they stripped all the trees, which killed off Beavers who had no trees to form Dams, and so flooding in Dakota increased, causing massive damage. Humans are the incredible boiling frog and try to control the phenomena of biology.
Maybe God, consciousness, and spirit are the same thing, emergence, and almost impossible to define? One can’t put a finger on God.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Vasiliy,
God makes (give possibility for) thinking be logically correct. It is like infinity (actual!) in Math. Can You imagine Math without it?
To act succesfully we have to believe. There is no other way.
About purpose. Only God has no purpose. He needs no it. All the other have purpose which may have sense only for us.
Vasyl Komarov | Eugene,
I completely agree that it is pointless to challenge the primacy of beliefs or material traces of human (as a thinking beings) activity. Process of self-organization is an interpenetration, both inside and outside, process is indivisible.
The problem of God is not in personification, but in the possession of consciousness. Self-referencing implies an infinite plurality of consciousness, i.e. more than complete depersonification in holism. Spinoza's "God" is also no longer a god in the sense of archetypal meme (as it was formed in many cultures). You rightly noted the equivalence to plural mind in Buddhism, where is no God. So, Spinoza's "God" is equivalent to "reality", thus nothing restricts the choice of any other label further. This is a purely european withdrawal from the personified european God to the most abstract and lifeless unconscious concept.
Buddhism is good because unlike all theisms and the same Spinoza it instantly rejects the question of the root cause. There is no creation act for eternity. It is already everywhere.
Yes, agnosticism does not lead anywhere. We, on the contrary, came to it, in the 18th century, when a full bouquet of theism and atheism directions already was there. It is invariant with respect to opposition of the cognized and the unknown (for agnosticism the unknown is always ahead only).
But, does God, or his negation, lead somewhere? As I have repeatedly mentioned, нравственность (sittlichkeit) is a natural product of self-organization in the interdependent structure of self-similar ones (it does not need a God). I.e. self-organization automatically implies that "Ten Commandments" will always be written only because each of us are not in the void, and, as Erkki rightly insists, we are in communication with similar and the rest of reality.
God has always been the explanation of what could not be explained within available knowledge. That is, God can manifest himself only in the failure of the behavior of something from what is predicted by knowledge. In all teisms apart from agnosticism, God is cognized, despite various claims to the contrary. God is limited and continuosly obsolescent in cognitive process because of orthodoxy of any fixed worldview and it's meta-position with respect to God (we somehow know about God and know God's plan, which is absurd). Not so much space for him remains with knowledge growth.
Ralph,
I certainly can not deny the phenomenon of the God's meme, as unit of cultural information and an archetype of certain qualities of reality. It has objective existence in relation to me. But I have other semantics, in which, as Ralph said, people create memes, i.e. information or knowledge. The religious component of knowledge has long been tiring.
I'm limited, including in knowledge. Cognition is not limited. So, curiosity is a self-sufficient sense of conscious existence (for me), an unconscious existence does not have this issue on the agenda at all. So agnosticism leads after curiosity, not interfering with communication.
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,
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.
Ralph Samwell | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
No, you answered my question brilliantly, as you do with all your other contributions, welcome to RG and this debate, it was in need of a bit more rationality and deep thought, and fresh eyes, I am very pleased you are here.
There are two things going on, those that put God at the beginning and those at the end (and a few that don’t do either). To me at the beginning is purely a matter for faith and belief, is not provable. God created humans.
Those at the end generally see it as a by-product of evolution, Humans created God.
Certainly purpose is integral to both thoughts.
Most but not all religions see things like those that commit suicide must be damned to Hell, rather than a desperate person that needs help. Certainly evolution does not favour suicide but it is a part of it. Questionable logic, once a human believes their stark reality, that everything is meaningless other than what we make it, leaves a door open to the human mind to do dreadful things such as, suicide, megalomania or mixing the two and creating suicide bombers?
Paradox: As you rightly say, without religious “remuneration” one may look to create our own: through science, spirit and creativity or through power and selfishness. And with religious remunerations, this earthly life is relatively meaningless, as you will have greater meaning and reward afterwards (why anyone in their right mind would want 7 virgins is beyond me). I hear there are some religious group that actively wish to see the Earths end of days because they believe in The Rapture.
It must mean something that forgiveness, remembrance and meaning are the three things people ask for at end of life. Fire fighters I see all have the same psychology, guilt for not being able to do more to save life and all life has meaning. There’s some evidence that things like menopause developed in order for elders to look after the young, while the middle go hunting (killer wales). New evidence human and dog evolution is symbiotic.
Consider the adaptable Frog, that jumps into a slowly boiling pot, adapts so well to the heat, he ends up cooked. In reductionist terms, it’s just a chemical reaction, both frog and hot water. Sometimes the “purpose” to which it is intended becomes the problem without sufficient knowledge.
Why the phenomena of biology? Put simply, complexity variation, the whole thing not only works on bio-diversity, it can’t function without it. Wolves were reintroduced back to Dakota because they killed off Dear, without Dear being killed off, they stripped all the trees, which killed off Beavers who had no trees to form Dams, and so flooding in Dakota increased, causing massive damage. Humans are the incredible boiling frog and try to control the phenomena of biology.
Maybe God, consciousness, and spirit are the same thing, emergence, and almost impossible to define? One can’t put a finger on God.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Vasiliy,
God makes (give possibility for) thinking be logically correct. It is like infinity (actual!) in Math. Can You imagine Math without it?
To act succesfully we have to believe. There is no other way.
About purpose. Only God has no purpose. He needs no it. All the other have purpose which may have sense only for us.
Jun 20, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Eugene, when I wrote last post, finally I deleted a few paragraphs to avoid excessive confusion of key message. I return here one of them with some remarks in addition to your words:
The limited individual existence has no choice, but has a reason (birth is a product of communication), accordingly, "awareness" of self leaves no choice other than the need to reconcile with the fact of existence on the scales available to the instance ("awareness" in quotes because I mean not only the man, but any conditional "amoeba" - any physical system, communications inside which have some advantage over the near [within umwelt] communications with the environment), accordingly, goal of it (consisting in "complete deliverance from the suffering of samsara") inevitable arise, completely coinciding with the minimization of Freud's displeasure. Again we have returned to the continuum problem discussing limited vs unlimited.
Obviously, with respect to the God our positions differ. I have enough mechanistic position for depersonalized unconscious patterns of relationships which "has no purpose". I can admit such a label (god) for the above-mentioned regularities in conjunction with the part of reality that is outside the umwelt (because of the semantic content). Thus, external part of the system can even be personified, like any other localized system. Despite its openness, it can be viewed on equal footing with dedicated system, moreover, it is necessary to analyze for the symmetry with internal model.
Although, I do not like the historically formed connotation of the term/meme and just do not understand why this is needed, if everything functions and is described mechanically.
As we approach the essentially tautological (formal) description of the "final theory", the question of the nature of carrier of regularities (be it the old kind ether, strings, etc.) becomes ever more and more meaningless. This is a pure question from the category of such, the answer to which will not be possible from the position of agnosticism (same question of being). Only formal tautologies as definitions and interrelations will be available to us +Goedel... this should be one of the main questions of the next generation of philosophy+physics anyway, imo.
There is no technically need in God, when we consider holistic structure that is invariant with respect to any integral transformations, to which the eternity category is applicable. The creator can not be there, because the creator function is missing, the creator can not influence the process. Topologically, no place for God is in such a structure. The substitution of the structure label distorts the meaning of the God meme, and in the end, the perception of the structure itself.
The historical position of God as the center of attraction, which consolidated humanity to several large groups (helping to overcome the Dunbar number, giving an internal advantage to the groups, etc.) along the extinction of individual religious movements and gods in the process of evolution is quite obvious. In the end, we must move on, towards formalization and unity further.
The exaggeration of the "divine" theme nowadays distracts from the solution of the important problem of elimination of demarcation among systematized knowledge, constantly throwing back into the past.
I understand that it will always be possible to meet the "Old Believers", but humanity needs a mainstream, as a logical dialectical descendant of fossil religions. God is destined to the empty set, remember the conversation with Aaron, as atheists quite reasonable say "Go One God Further". Towards unity. Physics is waiting.
NB: I do not argue about the inevitability of beliefs, I'm not sure that the axiomatic-free theory of natural derivation is achievable.
Vasyl Komarov | (on Louis "rise of a machine world" 1d ago)
Man is born with irrepressible curiosity and thirst for a new, while man dies as a neophobe.
To be afraid of change is natural, but the worst thing is to stay within the current set of states of the dynamic system at a time when the rest of the world will change irreversibly. It means - to stay the machine itself, having lost what distinguishes the live intelligence. It means end of cognitive process and death (being still alive), which in the evolving Universe can be postponed only by evolving itself.
"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."
Of course, this is beyond the category and goals of one generation or a single individual. When we think about our grandsons, or at least about children, this should not leave us indifferent.
Vasyl Komarov | Eugene, when I wrote last post, finally I deleted a few paragraphs to avoid excessive confusion of key message. I return here one of them with some remarks in addition to your words:
The limited individual existence has no choice, but has a reason (birth is a product of communication), accordingly, "awareness" of self leaves no choice other than the need to reconcile with the fact of existence on the scales available to the instance ("awareness" in quotes because I mean not only the man, but any conditional "amoeba" - any physical system, communications inside which have some advantage over the near [within umwelt] communications with the environment), accordingly, goal of it (consisting in "complete deliverance from the suffering of samsara") inevitable arise, completely coinciding with the minimization of Freud's displeasure. Again we have returned to the continuum problem discussing limited vs unlimited.
Obviously, with respect to the God our positions differ. I have enough mechanistic position for depersonalized unconscious patterns of relationships which "has no purpose". I can admit such a label (god) for the above-mentioned regularities in conjunction with the part of reality that is outside the umwelt (because of the semantic content). Thus, external part of the system can even be personified, like any other localized system. Despite its openness, it can be viewed on equal footing with dedicated system, moreover, it is necessary to analyze for the symmetry with internal model.
Although, I do not like the historically formed connotation of the term/meme and just do not understand why this is needed, if everything functions and is described mechanically.
As we approach the essentially tautological (formal) description of the "final theory", the question of the nature of carrier of regularities (be it the old kind ether, strings, etc.) becomes ever more and more meaningless. This is a pure question from the category of such, the answer to which will not be possible from the position of agnosticism (same question of being). Only formal tautologies as definitions and interrelations will be available to us +Goedel... this should be one of the main questions of the next generation of philosophy+physics anyway, imo.
There is no technically need in God, when we consider holistic structure that is invariant with respect to any integral transformations, to which the eternity category is applicable. The creator can not be there, because the creator function is missing, the creator can not influence the process. Topologically, no place for God is in such a structure. The substitution of the structure label distorts the meaning of the God meme, and in the end, the perception of the structure itself.
The historical position of God as the center of attraction, which consolidated humanity to several large groups (helping to overcome the Dunbar number, giving an internal advantage to the groups, etc.) along the extinction of individual religious movements and gods in the process of evolution is quite obvious. In the end, we must move on, towards formalization and unity further.
The exaggeration of the "divine" theme nowadays distracts from the solution of the important problem of elimination of demarcation among systematized knowledge, constantly throwing back into the past.
I understand that it will always be possible to meet the "Old Believers", but humanity needs a mainstream, as a logical dialectical descendant of fossil religions. God is destined to the empty set, remember the conversation with Aaron, as atheists quite reasonable say "Go One God Further". Towards unity. Physics is waiting.
NB: I do not argue about the inevitability of beliefs, I'm not sure that the axiomatic-free theory of natural derivation is achievable.
Vasyl Komarov | (on Louis "rise of a machine world" 1d ago)
Man is born with irrepressible curiosity and thirst for a new, while man dies as a neophobe.
To be afraid of change is natural, but the worst thing is to stay within the current set of states of the dynamic system at a time when the rest of the world will change irreversibly. It means - to stay the machine itself, having lost what distinguishes the live intelligence. It means end of cognitive process and death (being still alive), which in the evolving Universe can be postponed only by evolving itself.
"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."
Of course, this is beyond the category and goals of one generation or a single individual. When we think about our grandsons, or at least about children, this should not leave us indifferent.
Jun 21, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Arbitrariness of the worlds lies in ignorance of the boundary conditions (constraints). The theory of dynamical systems gives unambiguous clues on the structure of dimensions, that is why evolutionary biology works with only available adaptive landscape, which is formed in a natural way, and string theory is engaged in fortune-telling on the coffee grounds. Take a little attention to Alexander-Orbach ansatz.
However, this topic is very closely connected with fresh turn of the dispute between "materialists" and "idealists" here. The dimensionality of spacetime is not something given (as Sergey insists), despite the fact that there is really no choice.
The problem of demarcation is waiting.
Vasyl Komarov | Arbitrariness of the worlds lies in ignorance of the boundary conditions (constraints). The theory of dynamical systems gives unambiguous clues on the structure of dimensions, that is why evolutionary biology works with only available adaptive landscape, which is formed in a natural way, and string theory is engaged in fortune-telling on the coffee grounds. Take a little attention to Alexander-Orbach ansatz.
However, this topic is very closely connected with fresh turn of the dispute between "materialists" and "idealists" here. The dimensionality of spacetime is not something given (as Sergey insists), despite the fact that there is really no choice.
The problem of demarcation is waiting.
Jun 22, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | No, morality (нравственность -> мораль) is a rational consequence of mutual co-existance, I have repeatedly said this, including at least 2 times mentioned here.
IMHO, of course. Understanding this mechanism is one of the key root causes of the existence of the "Hypothesis", mirror law of "make love not war" - a natural consequence of the symmetry. Just another consequence of natural selection.
NB: Hegel, by the way, considered the process one-sided, he did not consider self-organization in the complex, it was necessary to start with animals, and Freud with the concept of superego lived much later.
Vasyl Komarov | Sittlichkeit, morality, ethics - all this makes sense only for a group of similar beings (structures). Strictly speaking, this is alien to God as unity, holism can only be indifferent. I told Woldemar a little earlier about how indifferent information acquires a specific selfish connotation in opposition to rest reality.
Vasyl Komarov | The protocol of communication, born in communication (as Erkki rightly says) as a result of natural selection (natural result of resistance to dissipation).
By the way, rules of the road did not come up with God too. If he were alone with the car, he would not have need in it either.
Vasyl Komarov | Laszlo,
"materialism" deals with the so-called objective reality, that is, has to do with what existed and happened independently of the researcher. This is a phenomenological approach to information, a contemplative look into the past "with measuring tape and pencil". Deductive reasoning with construction of hypotheses (prognosises) is a look into the future. In general, both processes can not exist independently of each other, therefore Newton, indeed, is not an "inductive donkey," as claimed by one well known materialist. In general, it was a strange accusation from the point of view of a materialist.
Vasyl Komarov | ...of course, if we give the "God" label to unconscious invariant patterns of self-organization, then we can say that morality is omnipotent consequence (not only morality, in general everything, Eugene, sorry, I must say why I do not special care for the "God" label, and why in my opinion it is better to preserve for him the personified empty throne of an unattainable ideal).
The researcher should be indifferent to any subject of study (with respect to holism too), as soon as he singles out a part of the phenomenon into an untouchable domain, whether it be a soul, god or something else, he puts another barrier before knowledge. Further conclusions about any object related to what is tabooed will contain cognitive distortions {bias} (the funny moment is in the Terry Pratchett's novels about Diskworld, as the average inhabitants did not see Death, if he was even in front of them, their brains simply refused to believe what they saw and threw out of sensations everything that concerned him).
And the greatest danger lies in the fact that such a person in accordance with any already archaic instruction (an "ancient scripture"), whose meaning in the changed circumstances is absolutely inadequate, can imagine that it is God himself or the divine hand (this is about the question of suicides that we discussed with Ralph). There are many examples in history. Particularly grotesquely the theme is revealed in the sci-fi movie "Sunshine" (Sunshine (2007), (Extended) Movie Trailer). Not all the divine is necessarily moral, as well as vice versa, it depends on our specific position in relation to similar and environment.
This is manifested, among other things, at the domestic level in the fact that religious organizations thoughtlessly resist all progress without realizing that they themselves are conservative components of the system, i.e. interferences that contributes to the natural process. The whole history of mankind is permeated with this, like the history of the Inquisition ... the eternal opposition of the system and heretics.
Let Louis and others excuse me (or not excuse :), but this information should be realised on a par with the fears of progress.
Conservatism bears no less responsibility for the future because of its inability to leave the road in time. Again, as I already told to Woldemar, the world is not bipolar, something is exceptionally bad or good only at level of the knowledge of infants.
Vasyl Komarov | No, morality (нравственность -> мораль) is a rational consequence of mutual co-existance, I have repeatedly said this, including at least 2 times mentioned here.
IMHO, of course. Understanding this mechanism is one of the key root causes of the existence of the "Hypothesis", mirror law of "make love not war" - a natural consequence of the symmetry. Just another consequence of natural selection.
NB: Hegel, by the way, considered the process one-sided, he did not consider self-organization in the complex, it was necessary to start with animals, and Freud with the concept of superego lived much later.
Vasyl Komarov | Sittlichkeit, morality, ethics - all this makes sense only for a group of similar beings (structures). Strictly speaking, this is alien to God as unity, holism can only be indifferent. I told Woldemar a little earlier about how indifferent information acquires a specific selfish connotation in opposition to rest reality.
Vasyl Komarov | The protocol of communication, born in communication (as Erkki rightly says) as a result of natural selection (natural result of resistance to dissipation).
By the way, rules of the road did not come up with God too. If he were alone with the car, he would not have need in it either.
Vasyl Komarov | Laszlo,
"materialism" deals with the so-called objective reality, that is, has to do with what existed and happened independently of the researcher. This is a phenomenological approach to information, a contemplative look into the past "with measuring tape and pencil". Deductive reasoning with construction of hypotheses (prognosises) is a look into the future. In general, both processes can not exist independently of each other, therefore Newton, indeed, is not an "inductive donkey," as claimed by one well known materialist. In general, it was a strange accusation from the point of view of a materialist.
Vasyl Komarov | ...of course, if we give the "God" label to unconscious invariant patterns of self-organization, then we can say that morality is omnipotent consequence (not only morality, in general everything, Eugene, sorry, I must say why I do not special care for the "God" label, and why in my opinion it is better to preserve for him the personified empty throne of an unattainable ideal).
The researcher should be indifferent to any subject of study (with respect to holism too), as soon as he singles out a part of the phenomenon into an untouchable domain, whether it be a soul, god or something else, he puts another barrier before knowledge. Further conclusions about any object related to what is tabooed will contain cognitive distortions {bias} (the funny moment is in the Terry Pratchett's novels about Diskworld, as the average inhabitants did not see Death, if he was even in front of them, their brains simply refused to believe what they saw and threw out of sensations everything that concerned him).
And the greatest danger lies in the fact that such a person in accordance with any already archaic instruction (an "ancient scripture"), whose meaning in the changed circumstances is absolutely inadequate, can imagine that it is God himself or the divine hand (this is about the question of suicides that we discussed with Ralph). There are many examples in history. Particularly grotesquely the theme is revealed in the sci-fi movie "Sunshine" (Sunshine (2007), (Extended) Movie Trailer). Not all the divine is necessarily moral, as well as vice versa, it depends on our specific position in relation to similar and environment.
This is manifested, among other things, at the domestic level in the fact that religious organizations thoughtlessly resist all progress without realizing that they themselves are conservative components of the system, i.e. interferences that contributes to the natural process. The whole history of mankind is permeated with this, like the history of the Inquisition ... the eternal opposition of the system and heretics.
Let Louis and others excuse me (or not excuse :), but this information should be realised on a par with the fears of progress.
Conservatism bears no less responsibility for the future because of its inability to leave the road in time. Again, as I already told to Woldemar, the world is not bipolar, something is exceptionally bad or good only at level of the knowledge of infants.
Jun 23, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Да, Евгений, эта лента, как и многие другие на RG является неплохой демонстрацией того, как автономный конечный автомат выходит на циклическую последовательность. Я тоже знаю про тысячу. Это не имеет значения, как уже замечал в длинной дискуссии на тему "простого определения времени", непрерывный поток помогает думать таким же образом, как и шум в стохастическом резонансе, позволяя сваливаться в то или иное состояние в этих самых бинарных оппозициях, прорабатывать связи в информации. Кроме того, есть отдельные действительно интересные диалоги, как этот. Диалоги - это уже диалектика, они интересны обоюдно. Всё, что хочется сказать, говорится само собой, если не здесь, то в другой теме.
Когда есть неизвестность, всегда найдётся место для бога, чем бы он ни был. Дело ведь не в этом. Разным людям необходимы разные боги. Кому-то идеал, а кому-то карающий механизм. Кроме того, как и с дорожными правилами, для кого-то необходима полиция, потому как, оказывается, сами по себе "божественные" правила не работают. И более того, как оказывается, криминал и бандитизм часто набожен, достаточно взглянуть на политических "лидеров", у которых часто вдруг может оказаться даже персональная церквушка дома. Механизм прощения и персональной помощи оказывается на первом месте. Как заметил один блогер, что есть два типа людей, люди первого типа считают, что для достижения цели хороши все средства. Даже если цель, вроде как, благородная, а средства — мерзопакостные. Второй тип людей считает, что средства и цель взаимосвязаны. И когда мерзавцы для достижения своих мерзопакостных целей используют мерзопакостные средства — это объяснимо, что с мерзавцев взять, но честные и благородные люди должны пользоваться исключительно честными и благородными целями, даже если «никто не узнает». Отсюда, кстати, следствие, что люди второго типа оценивают других по используемым средствам, а не по целям. (это как значение функции и производная, во втором случае сразу становится ясно, куда кто катится).
Если интеллект и не коррелирует с нравственностью, то эгоизм коррелирует однозначно. Кроме того что интеллект коррелирует с набожностью (Article The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations). Вот что важно, разобраться, какая комбинация качеств личности приводит к тому, что человек оказывается с той или иной стороны баррикад. Общество неделимо, но моральные установки "придумывают" более нравственные люди, а воплощаются в жизнь они колеблющимися между полюсами, которые вынуждены сосуществовать, которые вынуждены, в том числе из-за эгоистических опасений за свою жизнь, создавать полицию и прочие физические механизмы реализации правил, порождённых здравым смыслом. Даже если кажется, что между полюсами оппозиции континуум, там наверняка есть место для сингулярности (оппозиции по иному не рождаются).
Vasyl Komarov | Here's a funny fact about geologists {реверанс для A. V. Guglielmi, которому мы немного испортили этот непринужденный тред}. The "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" was published anonymously, the work was given the finally name due to the phrase "no vestige of the beginning, no prospect of an end" of the famous geologist James Hutton.
And another interesting fact, Darwin initially avoided talking directly about the biological connection of man with animals. However, this was not necessary, the flywheel of knowledge has already been launched on a new scale.
Eugene, this is old interesting story, but now we are breaking spears about the continuous link between animate and inanimate nature. You should be aware of this better than most here. Welcome to the next stage.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Во первых, у реальности нет кусков, Василий. Ни душу, ни мысль ты не можешь разделить на части. Что такое сфера эгоизма, я вообще не понимаю. Если ты личность, то за свои поступки ты отвечаешь только перед Богом. Почему русские говорят "Я раб божий"? Это значит, что больше ничей. Это и есть настоящая свобода. О каких барьерах ты говоришь?
Barbara L. Mccombs | Those choosing to discuss issues relevant to this conversation in Russian and not share with those who do not speak Russian is not cool. I am leaving to join the new discussion which hopefully will prevent such rudeness.
Aaron Peled | Eugene,
I learned Russian in depth a long time ago and think that when used properly (by Pushkin for example) it is one of the most beautiful languages in the world if not the most majestuous one. But when used and spoken by mujiks( мужи́к ) it sounds very bad.
Cordially
Aaron
Eugene F Kislyakov | Aaron Peled,
Кто жил и мыслил, тот не может
В душе не презирать людей...
Do You recognize your famous poet, Aaron?
And also:
Веленью Божию, о Муза, будь послушна...
Can You continue?
Vasyl Komarov | Eugene, I'm talking about the continuum, here, discussing the problem of time, discussing how the renormalization of infinity works, etc. Yes, we can not divide holism, but we often allocate separate systems and we can give bijective correspondence (thanks to Cantor). It is so ingrained in thought with atomism and quantization that we have long ceased to perceive holism as it should be. Under the piece ("кусок"), I understand the system of course - a structure that has integrity, internal connections that have an advantage over the neighborhood.
From the anthropic principle there are two consequences: either we are not alive, or the reality is reasonable. The correct answer is obvious, because, (1) we are asking this question (cogito ergo sum), (2) the already identified structure of the dynamic system with us inclusive completely goes away from the concept of spontaneity. The statement "the mind is a fractal structure" was initially not accidental, for such a conclusion, even at the very beginning there were specific solid reasons, which with analysis only increase. The road is irreversible.
Vasyl Komarov | By the way, 1008th comment, something has changed.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Василий,
также как и Джеймс, ты придаешь слишком большое значение математике, забывая о том, что это всего лишь (насколько "всего лишь" - это вопрос к Платону) язык. У Джеймса это вообще доходит чуть ли ни до обожествления. Рассуждать в этих терминах о Боге бессмысленно. Разве что можно сравнить с бесконечностью, что я слышал от некоторых индусов. В любом случае, пытаться как-то оценивать Бога (что делает Ральф, не будем судить его строго, видимо не молодой человек, хотя неплохо сохранился в смысле интеллекта) - это значит ставить себя выше Его, что не лезет ни в какие ворота ни в каких смыслах. Вот почему мне не нравится этот разговор и я просил тебя его не начинать и сейчас предлагаю как можно быстрее закончить. К нашему несчастью наши "друзья" постоянно провоцируют.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Им понравилось, Василий.
Constantine Jeannacopoulos | Gentlemen and distinguished academics.
Is this Babel's tower site ? We could (non Russian speakers) tolerate an expression or two written in each one's native language, personally I have used French and Greek a few times, but never to the extent of a whole comment. I am sure you could share your ideas in English so we can enjoy them.
Louis Brassard | Dear Constantine,
I think that it is important that from time to time we use our own language here on RG. I understand you point but our own language sometime is more appropriate and it make us all remember that English is not the only language. And we can use google translate.
Réagan Lorraine Lavorata.PhD | The basic conceptual translation of the Russian text basically discusses oveemphasis on math and then he mentions that the talk of God didnt make sense to him and he was critical about the conversation and he wanted to terminate it. I hope this helps to some degree he also said that is it possible to compare God with infinnity and that he learned the talk of certain indians who evaluate
A. V. Guglielmi | Constantine Jeannacopoulos,
I totally agree. This is Pandemonium.
And pay attention. The difference between English and Russian languages is immeasurably less than between the goal
Barbara L. Mccombs | Thanks all, for your excellent responses and points abut the learning that can occur IF we can read comments in another language to our own. I agree, however, that an English translation is helpful as we learn new languages like Russian. I have always wanted to learn it so I am happy!
A. V. Guglielmi | Dear Barbara L. Mccombs,
My opinion: The project should continue even only to make you happy.
Anatol
Dina Grutzendler | Réagan Lorraine Lavorata.PhD,
Dear Doctor, it is OK to take Vitamin D and K2 for a better health and lengthen telomeres, but if you make them too long, you get cancer. This is why it is not always such a good idea to lengthen telomeres.
Constantine Jeannacopoulos | Dear Louis.
Google translate is horribly good for "hello world" translations. You are lucky if it comes with a good word to word translation when things get rough. Anyway you are right about small native language expressions [it gives emphasis] but as i said not for the whole text of the comment.
Aaron Peled | Eugene,
only for you ::)
Веленью божию, о муза, будь послушна, Обиды не страшась, не требуя венца, Хвалу и клевету приемли равной
Vasyl Komarov | Да, Евгений, эта лента, как и многие другие на RG является неплохой демонстрацией того, как автономный конечный автомат выходит на циклическую последовательность. Я тоже знаю про тысячу. Это не имеет значения, как уже замечал в длинной дискуссии на тему "простого определения времени", непрерывный поток помогает думать таким же образом, как и шум в стохастическом резонансе, позволяя сваливаться в то или иное состояние в этих самых бинарных оппозициях, прорабатывать связи в информации. Кроме того, есть отдельные действительно интересные диалоги, как этот. Диалоги - это уже диалектика, они интересны обоюдно. Всё, что хочется сказать, говорится само собой, если не здесь, то в другой теме.
Когда есть неизвестность, всегда найдётся место для бога, чем бы он ни был. Дело ведь не в этом. Разным людям необходимы разные боги. Кому-то идеал, а кому-то карающий механизм. Кроме того, как и с дорожными правилами, для кого-то необходима полиция, потому как, оказывается, сами по себе "божественные" правила не работают. И более того, как оказывается, криминал и бандитизм часто набожен, достаточно взглянуть на политических "лидеров", у которых часто вдруг может оказаться даже персональная церквушка дома. Механизм прощения и персональной помощи оказывается на первом месте. Как заметил один блогер, что есть два типа людей, люди первого типа считают, что для достижения цели хороши все средства. Даже если цель, вроде как, благородная, а средства — мерзопакостные. Второй тип людей считает, что средства и цель взаимосвязаны. И когда мерзавцы для достижения своих мерзопакостных целей используют мерзопакостные средства — это объяснимо, что с мерзавцев взять, но честные и благородные люди должны пользоваться исключительно честными и благородными целями, даже если «никто не узнает». Отсюда, кстати, следствие, что люди второго типа оценивают других по используемым средствам, а не по целям. (это как значение функции и производная, во втором случае сразу становится ясно, куда кто катится).
Если интеллект и не коррелирует с нравственностью, то эгоизм коррелирует однозначно. Кроме того что интеллект коррелирует с набожностью (Article The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations). Вот что важно, разобраться, какая комбинация качеств личности приводит к тому, что человек оказывается с той или иной стороны баррикад. Общество неделимо, но моральные установки "придумывают" более нравственные люди, а воплощаются в жизнь они колеблющимися между полюсами, которые вынуждены сосуществовать, которые вынуждены, в том числе из-за эгоистических опасений за свою жизнь, создавать полицию и прочие физические механизмы реализации правил, порождённых здравым смыслом. Даже если кажется, что между полюсами оппозиции континуум, там наверняка есть место для сингулярности (оппозиции по иному не рождаются).
Vasyl Komarov | Here's a funny fact about geologists {реверанс для A. V. Guglielmi, которому мы немного испортили этот непринужденный тред}. The "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" was published anonymously, the work was given the finally name due to the phrase "no vestige of the beginning, no prospect of an end" of the famous geologist James Hutton.
And another interesting fact, Darwin initially avoided talking directly about the biological connection of man with animals. However, this was not necessary, the flywheel of knowledge has already been launched on a new scale.
Eugene, this is old interesting story, but now we are breaking spears about the continuous link between animate and inanimate nature. You should be aware of this better than most here. Welcome to the next stage.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Во первых, у реальности нет кусков, Василий. Ни душу, ни мысль ты не можешь разделить на части. Что такое сфера эгоизма, я вообще не понимаю. Если ты личность, то за свои поступки ты отвечаешь только перед Богом. Почему русские говорят "Я раб божий"? Это значит, что больше ничей. Это и есть настоящая свобода. О каких барьерах ты говоришь?
Barbara L. Mccombs | Those choosing to discuss issues relevant to this conversation in Russian and not share with those who do not speak Russian is not cool. I am leaving to join the new discussion which hopefully will prevent such rudeness.
Aaron Peled | Eugene,
I learned Russian in depth a long time ago and think that when used properly (by Pushkin for example) it is one of the most beautiful languages in the world if not the most majestuous one. But when used and spoken by mujiks( мужи́к ) it sounds very bad.
Cordially
Aaron
Eugene F Kislyakov | Aaron Peled,
Кто жил и мыслил, тот не может
В душе не презирать людей...
Do You recognize your famous poet, Aaron?
And also:
Веленью Божию, о Муза, будь послушна...
Can You continue?
Vasyl Komarov | Eugene, I'm talking about the continuum, here, discussing the problem of time, discussing how the renormalization of infinity works, etc. Yes, we can not divide holism, but we often allocate separate systems and we can give bijective correspondence (thanks to Cantor). It is so ingrained in thought with atomism and quantization that we have long ceased to perceive holism as it should be. Under the piece ("кусок"), I understand the system of course - a structure that has integrity, internal connections that have an advantage over the neighborhood.
From the anthropic principle there are two consequences: either we are not alive, or the reality is reasonable. The correct answer is obvious, because, (1) we are asking this question (cogito ergo sum), (2) the already identified structure of the dynamic system with us inclusive completely goes away from the concept of spontaneity. The statement "the mind is a fractal structure" was initially not accidental, for such a conclusion, even at the very beginning there were specific solid reasons, which with analysis only increase. The road is irreversible.
Vasyl Komarov | By the way, 1008th comment, something has changed.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Василий,
также как и Джеймс, ты придаешь слишком большое значение математике, забывая о том, что это всего лишь (насколько "всего лишь" - это вопрос к Платону) язык. У Джеймса это вообще доходит чуть ли ни до обожествления. Рассуждать в этих терминах о Боге бессмысленно. Разве что можно сравнить с бесконечностью, что я слышал от некоторых индусов. В любом случае, пытаться как-то оценивать Бога (что делает Ральф, не будем судить его строго, видимо не молодой человек, хотя неплохо сохранился в смысле интеллекта) - это значит ставить себя выше Его, что не лезет ни в какие ворота ни в каких смыслах. Вот почему мне не нравится этот разговор и я просил тебя его не начинать и сейчас предлагаю как можно быстрее закончить. К нашему несчастью наши "друзья" постоянно провоцируют.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Им понравилось, Василий.
Constantine Jeannacopoulos | Gentlemen and distinguished academics.
Is this Babel's tower site ? We could (non Russian speakers) tolerate an expression or two written in each one's native language, personally I have used French and Greek a few times, but never to the extent of a whole comment. I am sure you could share your ideas in English so we can enjoy them.
Louis Brassard | Dear Constantine,
I think that it is important that from time to time we use our own language here on RG. I understand you point but our own language sometime is more appropriate and it make us all remember that English is not the only language. And we can use google translate.
Réagan Lorraine Lavorata.PhD | The basic conceptual translation of the Russian text basically discusses oveemphasis on math and then he mentions that the talk of God didnt make sense to him and he was critical about the conversation and he wanted to terminate it. I hope this helps to some degree he also said that is it possible to compare God with infinnity and that he learned the talk of certain indians who evaluate
A. V. Guglielmi | Constantine Jeannacopoulos,
I totally agree. This is Pandemonium.
And pay attention. The difference between English and Russian languages is immeasurably less than between the goal
Barbara L. Mccombs | Thanks all, for your excellent responses and points abut the learning that can occur IF we can read comments in another language to our own. I agree, however, that an English translation is helpful as we learn new languages like Russian. I have always wanted to learn it so I am happy!
A. V. Guglielmi | Dear Barbara L. Mccombs,
My opinion: The project should continue even only to make you happy.
Anatol
Dina Grutzendler | Réagan Lorraine Lavorata.PhD,
Dear Doctor, it is OK to take Vitamin D and K2 for a better health and lengthen telomeres, but if you make them too long, you get cancer. This is why it is not always such a good idea to lengthen telomeres.
Constantine Jeannacopoulos | Dear Louis.
Google translate is horribly good for "hello world" translations. You are lucky if it comes with a good word to word translation when things get rough. Anyway you are right about small native language expressions [it gives emphasis] but as i said not for the whole text of the comment.
Aaron Peled | Eugene,
only for you ::)
Веленью божию, о муза, будь послушна, Обиды не страшась, не требуя венца, Хвалу и клевету приемли равной
Jun 24, 2017
A. V. Guglielmi | Aaron Peled, magnificently!
And did you know that
1. A.S. Pushkin knew and loved the common language.
Deleted Profile | I can follow the main idea in Russian discussion without translator. I didn't try in this discussion, because it is only main idea (but tried to understand poetry). We have some words in common (послушна, душе...) and I know Serbian alphabet.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Excuse, dear colleagues,
I thought, that it was the end of the discussion and was excited more, than necessary.
Eugene F Kislyakov | How little needs human to be happy, Barbara! It is real life.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Only one little mistake, Aaron. Right transcription is оспаривай, not оспоривай, as You wrote. Also, true lovers of pure art sometimes change letter е to и in the word венца. Yes, Anatol?
A. V. Guglielmi | Женя ( Yes, Anatol? ): No, it is not!
Aaron is right.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Толя,
меня в основном интересовало винцо. Все остальное для глупца.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Yes, Anatol and Aaron,
usually they write оспоривай, but it is for глупец. It is too prosaic and for courts. Poetry and music need a.
Eugene F Kislyakov | And two great mistakes, Aaron. Божию and Муза must be from capital letters. {(;}
A. V. Guglielmi | Aaron Peled, magnificently!
And did you know that
1. A.S. Pushkin knew and loved the common language.
Deleted Profile | I can follow the main idea in Russian discussion without translator. I didn't try in this discussion, because it is only main idea (but tried to understand poetry). We have some words in common (послушна, душе...) and I know Serbian alphabet.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Excuse, dear colleagues,
I thought, that it was the end of the discussion and was excited more, than necessary.
Eugene F Kislyakov | How little needs human to be happy, Barbara! It is real life.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Only one little mistake, Aaron. Right transcription is оспаривай, not оспоривай, as You wrote. Also, true lovers of pure art sometimes change letter е to и in the word венца. Yes, Anatol?
A. V. Guglielmi | Женя ( Yes, Anatol? ): No, it is not!
Aaron is right.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Толя,
меня в основном интересовало винцо. Все остальное для глупца.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Yes, Anatol and Aaron,
usually they write оспоривай, but it is for глупец. It is too prosaic and for courts. Poetry and music need a.
Eugene F Kislyakov | And two great mistakes, Aaron. Божию and Муза must be from capital letters. {(;}
— ResearchGate. Available from {disclaimer}: Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: Observation ... in the human population. [accessed Oct 29, 2018]
19 черв. 2017 р.
15:03 |
15:03 |
no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end
— James Hutton | "THEORY of the EARTH"
26 черв. 2017 р.
13:10 | I can not say that religious theme on RG seriously brought down my faith in mankind. In fact, nothing has changed. Problems of religion and their discussion are one of the central line through everything else. It had enough attention in the focus and considered from the point of view of cosmogony, history, psychology, etc. But, it turns out, something more can slightly surprise in this matter. The amputation of the crown of creation will be just as painful as the loss of the One Ring by the hobbits.
I wonder how many people understand position of mathematics in relation to reality in the same vein as I do now?
13:10 | I can not say that religious theme on RG seriously brought down my faith in mankind. In fact, nothing has changed. Problems of religion and their discussion are one of the central line through everything else. It had enough attention in the focus and considered from the point of view of cosmogony, history, psychology, etc. But, it turns out, something more can slightly surprise in this matter. The amputation of the crown of creation will be just as painful as the loss of the One Ring by the hobbits.
I wonder how many people understand position of mathematics in relation to reality in the same vein as I do now?
Jun 26, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | By the way, evolutionary theory experienced a much stronger and more prolonged resistance of society, in order to subsequently say
Vasyl Komarov | By the way, evolutionary theory experienced a much stronger and more prolonged resistance of society, in order to subsequently say
"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"
“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.”
— THEODOSIUS DOBZHANSKY | Nothing in biology makes sense
except in the light of evolution
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Jun 26, 2017]
Jun 26, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Theory of evolution was excluded from the school curriculum in Turkey recently (2nd country on the planet). What can be said about this?
Firstly, I never had great illusions about whole humanity, I believe only in children.
Secondly, Elon, let's make a rocket faster! Part of us must fly away before the earthlings kill each other. They, indeed, will forget how to build spacecraft, but they will never forget how to make nuclear bomb.
I usually cited theory of relativity as the best example of misunderstanding, but for this thread I copy my words from another pointless dispute dedicated to gravity as epilogue:
Evolutionary theory experienced a much stronger and more prolonged resistance of society, in order to subsequently say "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" ( https://img.signaly.cz/upload/1/0/9a462eb6be1ed7828f57a184cde3c0/Dobzhansky.pdf ) “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.”
Daniel Alecu | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov Depresion forbiden for you ! What ? Just enjoy RG. I do like your comments ! Evolution as a concept hides also a hope: if the nature succeeded so well, maybe won't be that bad. We, humans, are too biased in considering our reason as "superior" to instincts. It's not. In the evolutionary process, reason it's just a quick singular integrable spike, the instincts a re part of the large picture. The purpose of the quick kind of intelligence we, human, posses is to overcome short term turbulence, it has no leverage in long term averaging speaces integrating estimator.
Vasyl Komarov | Daniel Alecu, this can not be asserted (about "quick kind of intelligence"), this is tantamount to the assertion that the weather and the climate have nothing in common. There is a direct connection between them, as well as between the magnitude of turbulent pulsations and averaged values of the quantities ("short term turbulence" shapes dynamics on large scales, it is mutual). By the way, the same thing can be said of fluid and crystallized intelligence of each individual, not only about instincts. Instincts even the deepest are not something absolute, they are the same product of evolution as the younger advanced abilities. Of course, their influence is a longer-term contribution to the "climate", even if the man has outgrown them.
The same can be found in the evolution, for example, of physics. Not everything that once dominated plays a great role, but some things are still preserved in a pratically primordial form. At the same time, one can not say for sure what exactly will be invariable even longer. So, some very deep instincts also can be lost if the system will be restructured in a more fundamental way.
Evolution does not hide hope, I absolutely do not doubt in it. This is a process that can not be stopped, it's pointless to worry about. I just expressed opinion on some tendencies associated with current society, not about evolution in general. Stratification in the society will grow as the dynamic range of processes increases. It's always been, it's natural.
I enjoy the RG completely, I observe different people and their behavior. However it should be noted, recently structure of active users of the network is less representative than several years ago. I wonder if the developers have data about activity of users for the entire existence of the network? It would be interesting to compare with arXiv:1302.6109v1.pdf for example, any process can be extended only evolving correctly in circumstances.
Social Resilience in Online Communities: The Autopsy of Friendster
2013 | arXiv:1302.6109 | DOI: 10.1145/2512938.2512946
Daniel Alecu | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov The short term turbulence effect on large scale dynamics could be described by a Navier-Stokes type of equation. The short term turbulence can be simplified as a diffusion term, turbulent viscosity for large scale dynamics. So, since "quick intelligence" tends to amplify local turbulence, at large scales must act as a drag, a disipative factor. So, it may slow down evolution, if anything. Nevertheless, local acoustic instabilities may generate far reaching noise, most likely of little effect, unless there are resonant cavities present. Yes, instinct changes too but for our blink-of-eye life span they can be considered as equation parameters and excluded from the list of state variables.
Vasyl Komarov | Theory of evolution was excluded from the school curriculum in Turkey recently (2nd country on the planet). What can be said about this?
Firstly, I never had great illusions about whole humanity, I believe only in children.
Secondly, Elon, let's make a rocket faster! Part of us must fly away before the earthlings kill each other. They, indeed, will forget how to build spacecraft, but they will never forget how to make nuclear bomb.
I usually cited theory of relativity as the best example of misunderstanding, but for this thread I copy my words from another pointless dispute dedicated to gravity as epilogue:
Evolutionary theory experienced a much stronger and more prolonged resistance of society, in order to subsequently say "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" ( https://img.signaly.cz/upload/1/0/9a462eb6be1ed7828f57a184cde3c0/Dobzhansky.pdf ) “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.”
Daniel Alecu | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov Depresion forbiden for you ! What ? Just enjoy RG. I do like your comments ! Evolution as a concept hides also a hope: if the nature succeeded so well, maybe won't be that bad. We, humans, are too biased in considering our reason as "superior" to instincts. It's not. In the evolutionary process, reason it's just a quick singular integrable spike, the instincts a re part of the large picture. The purpose of the quick kind of intelligence we, human, posses is to overcome short term turbulence, it has no leverage in long term averaging speaces integrating estimator.
Vasyl Komarov | Daniel Alecu, this can not be asserted (about "quick kind of intelligence"), this is tantamount to the assertion that the weather and the climate have nothing in common. There is a direct connection between them, as well as between the magnitude of turbulent pulsations and averaged values of the quantities ("short term turbulence" shapes dynamics on large scales, it is mutual). By the way, the same thing can be said of fluid and crystallized intelligence of each individual, not only about instincts. Instincts even the deepest are not something absolute, they are the same product of evolution as the younger advanced abilities. Of course, their influence is a longer-term contribution to the "climate", even if the man has outgrown them.
The same can be found in the evolution, for example, of physics. Not everything that once dominated plays a great role, but some things are still preserved in a pratically primordial form. At the same time, one can not say for sure what exactly will be invariable even longer. So, some very deep instincts also can be lost if the system will be restructured in a more fundamental way.
Evolution does not hide hope, I absolutely do not doubt in it. This is a process that can not be stopped, it's pointless to worry about. I just expressed opinion on some tendencies associated with current society, not about evolution in general. Stratification in the society will grow as the dynamic range of processes increases. It's always been, it's natural.
I enjoy the RG completely, I observe different people and their behavior. However it should be noted, recently structure of active users of the network is less representative than several years ago. I wonder if the developers have data about activity of users for the entire existence of the network? It would be interesting to compare with arXiv:1302.6109v1.pdf for example, any process can be extended only evolving correctly in circumstances.
Social Resilience in Online Communities: The Autopsy of Friendster
2013 | arXiv:1302.6109 | DOI: 10.1145/2512938.2512946
Daniel Alecu | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov The short term turbulence effect on large scale dynamics could be described by a Navier-Stokes type of equation. The short term turbulence can be simplified as a diffusion term, turbulent viscosity for large scale dynamics. So, since "quick intelligence" tends to amplify local turbulence, at large scales must act as a drag, a disipative factor. So, it may slow down evolution, if anything. Nevertheless, local acoustic instabilities may generate far reaching noise, most likely of little effect, unless there are resonant cavities present. Yes, instinct changes too but for our blink-of-eye life span they can be considered as equation parameters and excluded from the list of state variables.
Jun 27, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Daniel Alecu, the reality is more complicated than model of a hyperbolic equation for a continuous medium in Euclidean geometry. The latter, at least, weakly takes into account self-organization without loopback to domain & BC structure (although its individual manifestations in the form of Lagrangian structures allow to obtain). But the idea of a "drag" effect makes sense.
Self-organization is the complication of the structure as the process proceeds. Complication occurs with the interaction of a stable structure with the landscape. In this case, on the landscape as an interference (the medium in the Navier-Stokes case) structure, being a part of this landscape, has a "drag" effect.
The sense of complication is to "stay in place" as long as possible, exposing the surrounding adaptive landscape to dissipation. How can this be done? Apparently, being a product of dissipation, only accumulating a coherent dissipative structure invariant to dissipation (invariant to integral transformations), for example, the structure of relationships with nonzero Lyapunov exponentials. This is evolution (its side, associated with complication), what allows to exist in the form of some coarse coherent structure, weakly dependent on the internal dynamic structure, which participates in the active transformation of the landscape and as a result of itself (making a contribution to a coarse robust structure).
Paradoxically, the "drag" effect in this sense leads to the maximum speed of the process. It leads to a specific "stagnant" structure of the "Goldilocks zones" on all scales. The more the system goes out of balance with the environment, the slower the process on the related coherent scales becomes (the nature of the slowing down of time in the theory of relativity is most likely caused also by this).
I'm talking about evolution in general, not only about the level of complexity of organic structures. We, as organics, just obey the general laws of self-organization.
Our life cycle is within the dynamic details in relation to, for example, the structure of DNA or even extrasomatic data accumulated by mankind. All this is the components of a coarse structure for us. The only question is, what interval and scale of processes you want to cover. A list of what can be considered a constant depends on this. In the philistine sense the list is huge, of course, while the changes still annoy - displeasure expressed in the discussion repeatedly.
Evolution is a VERY complex process, imo
Vasyl Komarov | Daniel Alecu, the reality is more complicated than model of a hyperbolic equation for a continuous medium in Euclidean geometry. The latter, at least, weakly takes into account self-organization without loopback to domain & BC structure (although its individual manifestations in the form of Lagrangian structures allow to obtain). But the idea of a "drag" effect makes sense.
Self-organization is the complication of the structure as the process proceeds. Complication occurs with the interaction of a stable structure with the landscape. In this case, on the landscape as an interference (the medium in the Navier-Stokes case) structure, being a part of this landscape, has a "drag" effect.
The sense of complication is to "stay in place" as long as possible, exposing the surrounding adaptive landscape to dissipation. How can this be done? Apparently, being a product of dissipation, only accumulating a coherent dissipative structure invariant to dissipation (invariant to integral transformations), for example, the structure of relationships with nonzero Lyapunov exponentials. This is evolution (its side, associated with complication), what allows to exist in the form of some coarse coherent structure, weakly dependent on the internal dynamic structure, which participates in the active transformation of the landscape and as a result of itself (making a contribution to a coarse robust structure).
Paradoxically, the "drag" effect in this sense leads to the maximum speed of the process. It leads to a specific "stagnant" structure of the "Goldilocks zones" on all scales. The more the system goes out of balance with the environment, the slower the process on the related coherent scales becomes (the nature of the slowing down of time in the theory of relativity is most likely caused also by this).
I'm talking about evolution in general, not only about the level of complexity of organic structures. We, as organics, just obey the general laws of self-organization.
Our life cycle is within the dynamic details in relation to, for example, the structure of DNA or even extrasomatic data accumulated by mankind. All this is the components of a coarse structure for us. The only question is, what interval and scale of processes you want to cover. A list of what can be considered a constant depends on this. In the philistine sense the list is huge, of course, while the changes still annoy - displeasure expressed in the discussion repeatedly.
Evolution is a VERY complex process, imo
Jun 30, 2017
Aaron Peled | Dear Colleagues,
Instead of voting for an shallow, unimaginative set of questions I prefer to point out which of you indeed added something new to my understanding of the Human problems and its expected evolution in the future, either if I am in agreement with their views or not. ( The list order N=1,2,....and who is right: Yes/No ,are not of importance and do not need voting )
PS: On the other hand I was disappointed from only 2 overbearing people in our discussions, dancing obsessively in front of the parade ( you may guess who) due to their vulgar, anarchistic language and moreover denigrating remarks in such a solid medium as RG which reflects only upon on their own abilities, as tavern dwellers at most. I wonder about the RG clean language supervisors.
Vasyl Komarov | Oh, here was another call to the Grammar Nazi. RG community can not exist without an external environment, do not create illusions about ivory tower.
Dear Aaron, once in the summer of 1684 in one of the coffe house of London three people sat (Halley, Wren and Hooke)... so bars, pubs, coffee houses are no less significant than ResearchGate, and there also one can smash the face of the opponent for disagreement with the statement that being not always determines consciousness (in this example I mean astrophysicist Nikolai Alexandrovich Kozyrev). Therefore, most importantly to have a sense of humor, despite being and ResearchGate. As a witness of disputes about the theory of relativity I can assure you, Aaron, here you have very diplomatic interlocutors :)
If you are interested in my opinion on the parade: you put on the list people who did not answer questions, and maybe not even want to respond. It's right that I'm not there. It's easy to guess about the second person who is not on the list (despite the answer). Except for the two of us there are still people who silently look at what is happening from the side - not all people are interested in the parade.
You just did not think that against the backdrop of your discussion here, there a parallel discussion could be, which is out of you interest at the moment. You have witnessed such a dispute. What you are offended was a statement of the fact that it is pointless to involve in another dispute those who do not take into consideration the factors involved in the dispute and rather mutual surprise, do not take to heart. I see no reason to apologize for the fact that you are not interested in some of the problems.
So, dear Anatol, I already answered your question earlier. I see no point in answering three questions. It refers to the meaning of evolution i.e. existence i.e. being, that globally does not depend on free will. imo
Vasyl Komarov | Existence and communication unites everybody and everything, not goals.
We choose goals (at least we can afford to think that we choose), and statistics show later how much and to whom or what they were useful. The situation is approximately like this.
So, Aaron, you noticed exactly, we'll necessarily fall in someone else's statistics beyond own desire :)
Vasyl Komarov | Giordano believed rather in strange and contradictory things. It was faith sent him to the fire, unlike Galileo, which was more rational and closer to modern scientific principles. Much later symbol was made from Bruno, discarding a significant mystical occult components of his teachings. Newton's alchemy was hidden in the chest for hundreds of years by the cult of rationalism too. But, if the accent on rationalism is natural for the Newton, for Bruno the faith was in the first place and science was a convenient companion in separate issues.
This is Tycho Brahe, who tried hopelessly detect the parallax of the stars, mistakenly estimating angular diameters with distance to them. Galileo did not believe even the conclusion about ellipticity of the Mars orbit, which Kepler did, having the Brahe's observations legacy.
The merit of Galileo is in the rational advancement of the idea of inertial motion. This is even more important than the formal proof of heliocentricity, since it lifted the veil over a new level of understanding "why", bringing physics to a new step.
Vasyl Komarov | Ralph Samwell, the idea of Stephen Jay Gould certainly contradicts to my plans for the demarcation.
Mirjana Vukovic | Vassiliy, I 'am agree with you.
There are many things contradict.
All best, Mirjana
Aaron Peled | Dear Colleagues,
Instead of voting for an shallow, unimaginative set of questions I prefer to point out which of you indeed added something new to my understanding of the Human problems and its expected evolution in the future, either if I am in agreement with their views or not. ( The list order N=1,2,....and who is right: Yes/No ,are not of importance and do not need voting )
- Herb Spencer
- James Lloyd
- Ralph Samwell
- Louis Brassard
- Medhat Elsahookie
- Leonid V Vladimirov
- Michael Lersow
- Emina M Karisik
- Paul Pistea
- Cardei Petru
- Barbara L. Mccombs
- Constantine Jeannacopoulos
- Daniel Alecu
- Sergey Shevchenko
- Andreas May
- Erkki J. Brändas
- M. Furic
- Jerzy Zbigniew Achimowicz
PS: On the other hand I was disappointed from only 2 overbearing people in our discussions, dancing obsessively in front of the parade ( you may guess who) due to their vulgar, anarchistic language and moreover denigrating remarks in such a solid medium as RG which reflects only upon on their own abilities, as tavern dwellers at most. I wonder about the RG clean language supervisors.
Vasyl Komarov | Oh, here was another call to the Grammar Nazi. RG community can not exist without an external environment, do not create illusions about ivory tower.
Dear Aaron, once in the summer of 1684 in one of the coffe house of London three people sat (Halley, Wren and Hooke)... so bars, pubs, coffee houses are no less significant than ResearchGate, and there also one can smash the face of the opponent for disagreement with the statement that being not always determines consciousness (in this example I mean astrophysicist Nikolai Alexandrovich Kozyrev). Therefore, most importantly to have a sense of humor, despite being and ResearchGate. As a witness of disputes about the theory of relativity I can assure you, Aaron, here you have very diplomatic interlocutors :)
If you are interested in my opinion on the parade: you put on the list people who did not answer questions, and maybe not even want to respond. It's right that I'm not there. It's easy to guess about the second person who is not on the list (despite the answer). Except for the two of us there are still people who silently look at what is happening from the side - not all people are interested in the parade.
You just did not think that against the backdrop of your discussion here, there a parallel discussion could be, which is out of you interest at the moment. You have witnessed such a dispute. What you are offended was a statement of the fact that it is pointless to involve in another dispute those who do not take into consideration the factors involved in the dispute and rather mutual surprise, do not take to heart. I see no reason to apologize for the fact that you are not interested in some of the problems.
"There was always a great number of people around me who very much wanted to defeat me in one way or another. The victory over me seemed to them a great achievement and pleasure. I'm talk this to the fact that since some time it's became impossible to defeat me. And not because I'm such a powerful creature (rather, I'm a creature like soft-boiled egg). I just live outside the concept of competition."There is no point in arguing with the caravan (or parade) if you are going the other way, it is also irrational to fight with windmills. Just, pick up fellow travelers en route, together will be more fun on the road.
— Max Frei
So, dear Anatol, I already answered your question earlier. I see no point in answering three questions. It refers to the meaning of evolution i.e. existence i.e. being, that globally does not depend on free will. imo
"Very timely epilogue: the way should be loved, and not the coming end point, whatever it was."Dear Wolfgang, Karel Capek spoke well of the Tower of Babel. Understanding greater when the walls are destroyed.
— Max Frei
Vasyl Komarov | Existence and communication unites everybody and everything, not goals.
We choose goals (at least we can afford to think that we choose), and statistics show later how much and to whom or what they were useful. The situation is approximately like this.
So, Aaron, you noticed exactly, we'll necessarily fall in someone else's statistics beyond own desire :)
Vasyl Komarov | Giordano believed rather in strange and contradictory things. It was faith sent him to the fire, unlike Galileo, which was more rational and closer to modern scientific principles. Much later symbol was made from Bruno, discarding a significant mystical occult components of his teachings. Newton's alchemy was hidden in the chest for hundreds of years by the cult of rationalism too. But, if the accent on rationalism is natural for the Newton, for Bruno the faith was in the first place and science was a convenient companion in separate issues.
This is Tycho Brahe, who tried hopelessly detect the parallax of the stars, mistakenly estimating angular diameters with distance to them. Galileo did not believe even the conclusion about ellipticity of the Mars orbit, which Kepler did, having the Brahe's observations legacy.
The merit of Galileo is in the rational advancement of the idea of inertial motion. This is even more important than the formal proof of heliocentricity, since it lifted the veil over a new level of understanding "why", bringing physics to a new step.
Vasyl Komarov | Ralph Samwell, the idea of Stephen Jay Gould certainly contradicts to my plans for the demarcation.
Mirjana Vukovic | Vassiliy, I 'am agree with you.
There are many things contradict.
All best, Mirjana
— ResearchGate. Available from {disclaimer}: Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: Do we need ... a break for vacation? [accessed Jul 2, 2017]
30 черв. 2017 р.
09:27 | A fine-tuned universe may be controversial but can’t be ignored
Контроверсии? У них не будет шансов {в долгосрочной перспективе}.
09:27 | A fine-tuned universe may be controversial but can’t be ignored
Контроверсии? У них не будет шансов {в долгосрочной перспективе}.
Jul 2, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Евгений, цели объединяют в группу, но цели не объединяют всё. Можно было там сразу дописать, но показалось что можно ограничиться лишь глобальной частью утверждения. Я хотел поставить акцент именно на этом, ведь любая группа есть система, со всеми проявлениями, так что её можно рассматривать как единицу, уже на другом масштабе. То есть, за пределами этого масштаба цели вовсе не обязательно объединяют (всегда найдётся другая система).
The goals unites into groups, but the goals do not unite everything. Any group is a system, with all manifestations, so it can be considered as a unit on a different scale. That is, beyond this scale, goals do not necessarily unite (there will always be found another system with other goals).
Только у эволюции единый (объединяющий) смысл - эволюционировать, это значит естественный отбор, конкуренция между системами (коммуникация), множество целей. Казалось бы - суммарно цель одна, но она зависит локально от "здесь и сейчас" - единство и борьба "в одном флаконе".
О вечности можно размышлять только подразумевая неизменность внутреннего "конфликта интересов", только в таком случае можно объяснить, почему мы существуем (Парменид), ведь, все точки вечности должны быть равнозначны по отношению к бесконечности (континууму). Наше "здесь и сейчас" ни чем не должно отличаться от любого другого.
Отсутствие целей/достижение целей означает конец эволюции, конец любого процесса. На выходе должна быть статическая "картинка", полное отсутствие "градиентов" между системами, по отношению к вечности это должно быть недостижимое состояние, иначе у нас проблемы с Парменидом и неудобный вопрос - почему располагая половиной вечности это равновесное состояние не смогло "воцариться" (конечно, всегда имеется удобная гипотеза спонтанности, мне она давно не нравится, поскольку должна вести к непредсказуемой физике; если же на спонтанность наложены определенные ограничения - необходимо сразу же сделать вывод, что она является проявлением закономерностей другого масштаба, т.е. в таком случае спонтанность является иллюзией из-за лимитов доступной на данный момент информации, всякие ограничения являются несовместимыми с концепцией спонтанности).
В отношении человека процесс целеустремленности хорошо унифицировал Фрейд, предложив концепцию "неудовольствия" (я неоднократно об этом упоминал), "цели" приводят в действие всякую систему, в буквальном смысле, на общих основаниях, это центры аттракции динамической системы.
Недавно словил себя на мысли, что вообще следует размышлять об универсальных процессах лишь в одном направлении (как в отношении энтропии), понимая негативные значения параметров лишь как симметричные в общей структуре. Холизм и необратимость, для которых не может быть по определению симметрии, того требуют. Минус одна система, минус один человек - абсурдные категории, не могут быть частью реальности, как и фиктивное пустое множество. Они могут быть лишь информацией/состоянием связей в другой системе.
Vasyl Komarov | Relations are invariant with respect to number systems. They do not depend even on it.
Any system of physical quantities is a tautology. We just do not think about it. First, we introduced as tautology the ell, foot, inch, meter; then - day, hour, minute, second; then we measured the speed of something; redefined the second one more time as new self-tautology (measuring the number of other samples per second ("parrots", for those who know a certain cartoon)) and redefined (the tautology again) of length through the result of measurements based on previous tautology. The relationships in tautology are only thing that we have really independent (invariant) of the ells, foots and number systems.
All mathematics in about the same way was taken to the invariant "world" from reality, which allows us to count the number of any items in any warehouse or mart.
A thousand years, this is perhaps a very pessimistic assessment.
"AI will be able to beat us at everything by 2060, say experts"
"Probably closer to 2030 to 2040 imo. 2060 would be a linear extrapolation, but progress is exponential" say Elon Musk
Just a so-called technological singularity (:
The only question is how long our civilization will survive. People are still so selfish that sometimes I'm not sure even about the decade.
NB: Exponential growth, exponential decay... all is vanity and vexation of the spirit (Ecclesiastes 2:11)
A. V. Guglielmi | Regarding the reasoning of Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov:
1. To appreciate the beauty of physics you need a more imaginative imagination.
2. Exponential instability is not the most unpleasant thing that awaits us. Apparently we are facing explosive instability (eg number of population). I explain to the humanities: In the second case the singularity (infinity) comes in the foreseeable future,while in the former case, infinity is pushed to the infinitely distant future.
PS. The physics is a kind of window through the horison of events (events of trivial). Oh, I could tell much you, who are looking for "the goals of humans", however, blin, the English Language is too difficult for me. It would be easier me to use vers libre. But I'm afraid to be of being misunderstood. On other hand, why not? Yes. After all, we have been swimming for a long time in a cocktail from rhe Penrose's and Ecclesiastical quotes. Сocktail is magnificent! But only when it's composed in reasonable proportions. And nicely mixed.
Anatol Guglielmi
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Aaron,
Continuum hypothesis asserts the equivalence of infinities, that is, invariance, all infinities is independent of the number systems (by which we enumerate sets), depend no more than a variety of "golden" sections. So, all the endless (enumeration) processes are equivalent, bijective correspondence between all of them is there.
With an empty (nothing) set, of course, "problem" is, as well as with the concept of a point in reality. Both concepts are fictitious. But their semantics are well understood.
The concept of emptiness can exist only in opposition. Unlike non-empty, it is not self-sufficient, because implies information, that is, not emptiness. In other words, if there was no something non-empty (for example, us), there would be no information of emptiness (actually, Parmenides was thinking about it).
This fictitious concept implies symmetry, which is really badly friends with infinity. We can not make a symmetrical dichotomy of infinity. Any arbitrary division act as invariant partition on equvivalent infinities. This is uncertainty. And no matter how much we start the process, we will never be able to complete it.
We live on the other side of infinity in terms of continuum hypothesis. De facto, we live in a limited centeric world, based on finite sets (dynamic systems). As any limited entity (a person or observable Universe or other object in it) we have bifurcation points of the birth with uncertainity to the whole (infinity).
The abstract concept of a point is about the existence of cyclic orbits in dynamic systems (any cyclic orbit corresponds to some center of attraction regardless of the orbit dynamic range, i.e. limits of system). From there the notion of metric is reachable, regardless of the specific structure of the cyclic orbits. The abstract concept of the metric exists because cyclic orbit of a dynamical system is not reducible to a point.
We can develop symmetries only by specifying such a origin point (cyclic orbit). We select standards and begin an endless process, again and again; every cell, every individual, every civilization... widen horizons on each level of system from the personal center of each prehistoric man and deeper. The center moves away from the bifurcation point of the birth of each, while spreading throughout the systems. We never be able to determine coordinates relative to continuum.
Dear Graham,
I agree, but in communication with clever "Google" mutual understanding is a potential problem. Аt some point we will stay beyond the limit, which we can individually perceive and understand, even if we become part of a superstructure (scenario, wich is likely to be an element of overall diversity in the further evolution of systems around us).
Technological singularity is a positive phenomenon in most. Although it has a sad side of the coin.
Positiveness of situation consist of ultimate invariant principle of self-organization in nature. If technological singularity is achievable, we all will achieve it near invariant level of understanding the nature of reality, regardless of the origin and implementation of individual intelligence. That is, any intelligence approaching close enough in order to technological singularity can communicate practically on equal regardless of the amount of data being operated by each. We will be able to understand each other "in general terms", since we understand the ultimate principle, which sinchronize semantics.
The sad side is that technological singularity can be an inachievable limit. In other words, even the most supergene hypothetical intellect can not oppose anything more brilliant than the structure of the Universe under ultimate principle. I'm not at all sure that the frontier orbit range of our Universe is surmountable for physical reasons, I tend to be pessimistic because this is most likely an easily repeatable orbit but extreme (covering, not cyclic for the subsystems).
To go little further we need to be able to make a system that can overcome orbit range that limits our current order. For this, obviously, "divine" corrections are needed from the external side, i.e. adaptive landscape as the cover system (because the process of self-organization is bidirectional) on the scale unreached before.
It is difficult to say how close to the optimal process is the area of reality that includes us. Here I hope optimistically that we are ordinary lucky ones. Overcoming this orbit range in importance and literally can be compared with the overcoming of near-Earth orbit. It is very likely that process is associated with the need for interstellar communication in any form, because this is the only way to create a larger absolutely new, more robust superstructure (of civilizations).
With regard to arbitrary intelligence, we will first have to overcome the bad habit of judging others by ourselves, and often, treat arrogantly.
In addition, there are many representatives of our species with a very limited range of orbits that "have aged" early, losing curiosity to something beyond the scope of beliefs gained in adolescence and the sphere of personal interests.
For this reason, I have absolutely no problems with the meme "god", but there will never be an understanding with any thinking impostor, pretending to be his place.
Vasyl Komarov | Евгений, цели объединяют в группу, но цели не объединяют всё. Можно было там сразу дописать, но показалось что можно ограничиться лишь глобальной частью утверждения. Я хотел поставить акцент именно на этом, ведь любая группа есть система, со всеми проявлениями, так что её можно рассматривать как единицу, уже на другом масштабе. То есть, за пределами этого масштаба цели вовсе не обязательно объединяют (всегда найдётся другая система).
The goals unites into groups, but the goals do not unite everything. Any group is a system, with all manifestations, so it can be considered as a unit on a different scale. That is, beyond this scale, goals do not necessarily unite (there will always be found another system with other goals).
Только у эволюции единый (объединяющий) смысл - эволюционировать, это значит естественный отбор, конкуренция между системами (коммуникация), множество целей. Казалось бы - суммарно цель одна, но она зависит локально от "здесь и сейчас" - единство и борьба "в одном флаконе".
О вечности можно размышлять только подразумевая неизменность внутреннего "конфликта интересов", только в таком случае можно объяснить, почему мы существуем (Парменид), ведь, все точки вечности должны быть равнозначны по отношению к бесконечности (континууму). Наше "здесь и сейчас" ни чем не должно отличаться от любого другого.
Отсутствие целей/достижение целей означает конец эволюции, конец любого процесса. На выходе должна быть статическая "картинка", полное отсутствие "градиентов" между системами, по отношению к вечности это должно быть недостижимое состояние, иначе у нас проблемы с Парменидом и неудобный вопрос - почему располагая половиной вечности это равновесное состояние не смогло "воцариться" (конечно, всегда имеется удобная гипотеза спонтанности, мне она давно не нравится, поскольку должна вести к непредсказуемой физике; если же на спонтанность наложены определенные ограничения - необходимо сразу же сделать вывод, что она является проявлением закономерностей другого масштаба, т.е. в таком случае спонтанность является иллюзией из-за лимитов доступной на данный момент информации, всякие ограничения являются несовместимыми с концепцией спонтанности).
В отношении человека процесс целеустремленности хорошо унифицировал Фрейд, предложив концепцию "неудовольствия" (я неоднократно об этом упоминал), "цели" приводят в действие всякую систему, в буквальном смысле, на общих основаниях, это центры аттракции динамической системы.
Недавно словил себя на мысли, что вообще следует размышлять об универсальных процессах лишь в одном направлении (как в отношении энтропии), понимая негативные значения параметров лишь как симметричные в общей структуре. Холизм и необратимость, для которых не может быть по определению симметрии, того требуют. Минус одна система, минус один человек - абсурдные категории, не могут быть частью реальности, как и фиктивное пустое множество. Они могут быть лишь информацией/состоянием связей в другой системе.
Vasyl Komarov | Relations are invariant with respect to number systems. They do not depend even on it.
Any system of physical quantities is a tautology. We just do not think about it. First, we introduced as tautology the ell, foot, inch, meter; then - day, hour, minute, second; then we measured the speed of something; redefined the second one more time as new self-tautology (measuring the number of other samples per second ("parrots", for those who know a certain cartoon)) and redefined (the tautology again) of length through the result of measurements based on previous tautology. The relationships in tautology are only thing that we have really independent (invariant) of the ells, foots and number systems.
All mathematics in about the same way was taken to the invariant "world" from reality, which allows us to count the number of any items in any warehouse or mart.
A thousand years, this is perhaps a very pessimistic assessment.
"AI will be able to beat us at everything by 2060, say experts"
"Probably closer to 2030 to 2040 imo. 2060 would be a linear extrapolation, but progress is exponential" say Elon Musk
Just a so-called technological singularity (:
The only question is how long our civilization will survive. People are still so selfish that sometimes I'm not sure even about the decade.
NB: Exponential growth, exponential decay... all is vanity and vexation of the spirit (Ecclesiastes 2:11)
A. V. Guglielmi | Regarding the reasoning of Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov:
1. To appreciate the beauty of physics you need a more imaginative imagination.
2. Exponential instability is not the most unpleasant thing that awaits us. Apparently we are facing explosive instability (eg number of population). I explain to the humanities: In the second case the singularity (infinity) comes in the foreseeable future,while in the former case, infinity is pushed to the infinitely distant future.
PS. The physics is a kind of window through the horison of events (events of trivial). Oh, I could tell much you, who are looking for "the goals of humans", however, blin, the English Language is too difficult for me. It would be easier me to use vers libre. But I'm afraid to be of being misunderstood. On other hand, why not? Yes. After all, we have been swimming for a long time in a cocktail from rhe Penrose's and Ecclesiastical quotes. Сocktail is magnificent! But only when it's composed in reasonable proportions. And nicely mixed.
Anatol Guglielmi
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Aaron,
Continuum hypothesis asserts the equivalence of infinities, that is, invariance, all infinities is independent of the number systems (by which we enumerate sets), depend no more than a variety of "golden" sections. So, all the endless (enumeration) processes are equivalent, bijective correspondence between all of them is there.
With an empty (nothing) set, of course, "problem" is, as well as with the concept of a point in reality. Both concepts are fictitious. But their semantics are well understood.
The concept of emptiness can exist only in opposition. Unlike non-empty, it is not self-sufficient, because implies information, that is, not emptiness. In other words, if there was no something non-empty (for example, us), there would be no information of emptiness (actually, Parmenides was thinking about it).
This fictitious concept implies symmetry, which is really badly friends with infinity. We can not make a symmetrical dichotomy of infinity. Any arbitrary division act as invariant partition on equvivalent infinities. This is uncertainty. And no matter how much we start the process, we will never be able to complete it.
We live on the other side of infinity in terms of continuum hypothesis. De facto, we live in a limited centeric world, based on finite sets (dynamic systems). As any limited entity (a person or observable Universe or other object in it) we have bifurcation points of the birth with uncertainity to the whole (infinity).
The abstract concept of a point is about the existence of cyclic orbits in dynamic systems (any cyclic orbit corresponds to some center of attraction regardless of the orbit dynamic range, i.e. limits of system). From there the notion of metric is reachable, regardless of the specific structure of the cyclic orbits. The abstract concept of the metric exists because cyclic orbit of a dynamical system is not reducible to a point.
We can develop symmetries only by specifying such a origin point (cyclic orbit). We select standards and begin an endless process, again and again; every cell, every individual, every civilization... widen horizons on each level of system from the personal center of each prehistoric man and deeper. The center moves away from the bifurcation point of the birth of each, while spreading throughout the systems. We never be able to determine coordinates relative to continuum.
Dear Graham,
I agree, but in communication with clever "Google" mutual understanding is a potential problem. Аt some point we will stay beyond the limit, which we can individually perceive and understand, even if we become part of a superstructure (scenario, wich is likely to be an element of overall diversity in the further evolution of systems around us).
"Forty-two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm. ...In fact, this has been happening already for a long time. We already have long reaped the fruits of existence in the complex "humanity" system - a baker, for example, may not understand the electrical circuits designed by the engineer but use the phone on the basis of these circuits, both of them can travel railways, in functioning of which other people are involved, etc. Each of us personally already knows not so much, as accumulated in cultural extrasomatic information... We have long used the results of modeling on other systems. We have long been used supercomputers. We have long used the so-called big data. We have long been using the results of neural networks, understanding only the general principle without a specific knowledge of what they are learning. We have been writing Wikipedia long enough... Cognitive process is always a partial understanding, regardless of the intelligent instance, be it a person or AI, or another limited(!) system - placeholder of the unknown will always remain for all of us on any scale.
"Forty-two!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"
"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer.
Technological singularity is a positive phenomenon in most. Although it has a sad side of the coin.
Positiveness of situation consist of ultimate invariant principle of self-organization in nature. If technological singularity is achievable, we all will achieve it near invariant level of understanding the nature of reality, regardless of the origin and implementation of individual intelligence. That is, any intelligence approaching close enough in order to technological singularity can communicate practically on equal regardless of the amount of data being operated by each. We will be able to understand each other "in general terms", since we understand the ultimate principle, which sinchronize semantics.
The sad side is that technological singularity can be an inachievable limit. In other words, even the most supergene hypothetical intellect can not oppose anything more brilliant than the structure of the Universe under ultimate principle. I'm not at all sure that the frontier orbit range of our Universe is surmountable for physical reasons, I tend to be pessimistic because this is most likely an easily repeatable orbit but extreme (covering, not cyclic for the subsystems).
To go little further we need to be able to make a system that can overcome orbit range that limits our current order. For this, obviously, "divine" corrections are needed from the external side, i.e. adaptive landscape as the cover system (because the process of self-organization is bidirectional) on the scale unreached before.
It is difficult to say how close to the optimal process is the area of reality that includes us. Here I hope optimistically that we are ordinary lucky ones. Overcoming this orbit range in importance and literally can be compared with the overcoming of near-Earth orbit. It is very likely that process is associated with the need for interstellar communication in any form, because this is the only way to create a larger absolutely new, more robust superstructure (of civilizations).
With regard to arbitrary intelligence, we will first have to overcome the bad habit of judging others by ourselves, and often, treat arrogantly.
'Er said Ponder. 'It sort of just happened 'Amazin',' said Ridcully. He knocked the ashes out of his pipe on Hex's 'Anthill Inside' sticker, causing Ponder to wince. 'This thing's a kind of big artificial brain, then?'After all, our brain to old age (let more older people forgive me, any younger generation will also get there, alas, the exponential decay is a payment for evolutionary exponential growth) is often rolled down to a very limited autonomous finite state machine with a rather modest maximum cyclic orbit range. This is most clearly seen in alcoholics, whose degradation is accelerated.
'You could think of it like that,' said Ponder, carefully. 'Of course, Hex doesn't actually think. Not as such. It just appears to be thinking.'
'Ah. Like the Dean,' said Ridcully. 'Any chance of fitting a brain like this into the Dean's head?'
'It does weigh ten tons, Archchancellor.'
In addition, there are many representatives of our species with a very limited range of orbits that "have aged" early, losing curiosity to something beyond the scope of beliefs gained in adolescence and the sphere of personal interests.
'We'll see what we can find out, Archchancellor,' said Ponder diplomatically. 'Good man.' Ridcully put the gnome back in his pocket and looked up at Hex. 'Amazin',' he said again. 'He just looks as though he's thinking, right?'Vasyl Komarov | Eugene, thinking about evolution in relation to God you need to take into account the dialectics and thoughts sounded in previous message about what is existence. Existence is a synonym for evolution. Of course, the structure of prime numbers also exists, but it is static (not a process), i.e. literally not alive! God really has an unenviable position, he needs to be not alive (without thinking) or "descended down" into the world of the living, parting with the crown of the Creator. It is the objectively existing static relationships literally create the structure of reality, as I said before, "Truly invariant things do not undergo changes and therefore do not live at all. Existence in this form is static and, simply, not interesting, because nothing can surprise. Their destiny is to flash only in the form of archetypes as a phoenix, constantly disappearing and reviving in an unchanging form, not giving rest to the reality boiling with life. The paradox of life is that it strives for what has no life."
'Er ... yes.'
'But he's not actually thinking?'
'Er ... no.'
'So ... he just gives the impression of thinking but really it's just a show?'
'Er ... yes.'
'Just like everyone else, then, really,' said Ridcully.
For this reason, I have absolutely no problems with the meme "god", but there will never be an understanding with any thinking impostor, pretending to be his place.
Jul 4, 2017
Sergey Shevchenko | Laszlo G Meszaros,
“…since (in this "science" forum) a kind of GOD-TALK seems to emerge…”
that is a next implicit claim that in this “"science" forum” a “GOD-TALK” is something “unscientific” - besides the quote above, in this project [and in a number of other philosophical RG discussions] there are a number of comments, where the claims about this “unscientficiness” of the TALK above are direct and unambiguous.
But claiming so seems is necessary to take into account [at least] a couple of points.
First of all – this discussion proceeds mainly in framework of the mainstream philosophy, which simply isn’t a science, that is a set of a huge number of fundamentally mutually inconsistent or even opposite “philosophical doctrines”, which exist in framework of two main [opposite] doctrines “Materialism” and “Idealism” [i.e. are sub-doctrines];
when all/every of the doctrines, the both main ones and all sub-doctrines, are based on some non-provable, non-disprovable, and, since they relate to fundamental problems of the Being, practically non-experimentally testable abstract constructions of humans’ consciousnesses. I.e. any/every of the philosophical doctrine is based on a bare belief that just its postulates is true, when other are false; and this belief by no means differ from any belief in any God.
Thus the mainstream philosophy by no means differs principally from any religion on Earth; and the number of “scientific” philosophical doctrines isn’t lesser then the number of religious sects on Earth.
The second point is, in the reality, also essential here. The process of transitions of earlier “philosophical” problems to the “simply scientific” problems started in first decades of 1800-th, when “usual sciences” gone out from the philosophy, however as the philosophical subjects of study remained some utmost fundamental problems, first of all – ontology of the Meta-notions/phenomena “Matter”, “Consciousness/Spirit…”, “Life”, “Space”, “Time”, etc.
Now, after principal problems at definition/understanding what these Meta-notions are in the “The Information as Absolute” conception, the process above made a next step and these notions/phenomena can be studied by usual sciences; metaphysics and ontology go out the indeed philosophy as, say, physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, etc. in the 1800-th.
Thus the indeed philosophical problems remain practically only ethical problems, which seems in a long time will not be formalized enough to be rationally studied by “usual” sciences. And that isn’t too evident that at considering/solving ethical problems the religious versions of the solutions aren’t adequate to the reality, i.e. “are unscientific”. A lot of “solutions”, which happened in history being outside religious ethics [if we don’t mix “religion” and “church”] and which turned out to be adequate to the reality, of course, since they itself were the reality; but seems it could be much better if they didn’t happen, or, at least never happen in future.
Cheers
Brenda Jacono | With all this argument about God, I return to an earlier thought I had. And here I thought I was one of the few (terrible vanity I suppose) who considered the possibility that science was just another form of religion. And, then I found articles like those (horrors of horrors) in the popular media. For instance, this article on this topic titled: "Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion," CORTICAL RIDER, DECEMBER 15, 2012. And, here is another: "Science: the religion that must not be questioned," by Henry Gee, The Guardian.
Now I will probably be roundly castigated or totally ignored as punishment for such thoughts but there you have it. We take ourselves far too seriously and never stop to consider our own warts in my view. Here are some uplifting quotes on the matter:
The aggregate (cumulative) personal knowledge of the individual forms a belief system. It (always) contain more or less contradictions. The main difference between "science" and "religion" is not contained in the information itself, but in a personal attitude to information.
If you have subcritical thinking, it means that part of the beliefs is beyond the information that can be questioned - you are not aware of yourself as a believer, although you are actually believer.
If you have a critical attitude to the entire personal(!) system of knowledge (critical or supercritical thinking), you realize yourself to be a believer, and therefore, in fact, are free. You can eliminate any contradictions in the system of personal knowledge without having insurmountable taboos.
It depends, inter alia, on how many connections in the knowledge system the brain can reach. Therefore, among people with higher education, where a large percentage of those who hold critical thinking, the negative correlation with religiosity is.
The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations
2013 | DOI: 10.1177/1088868313497266 | pdf
A good scientist is precisely the person who realizes that science is also beliefs. There are many people who really believe in science knowledge. The diference is not in knowledge, which is indifferent. Diference is in people. {All is the same, as with ethics vs science.}
I again repeat the reference to the remarkable esse (I bring it as an example probably for the third or fourth time): I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts (The benefits of a post-truth society)
With the second group and with newborn children of all groups one can work.
Vasyl Komarov | ... Therefore, unlike Sergey, I seriously take philosophy, despite the fact that I agree with some of his statements above. Therefore, I have previously argued with Laszlo about the position he takes.
It may seem that I am defending religion, but in fact I am defending scientific principles.
Vasyl Komarov | Aaron, you and I have different semantics of those objects that you call black holes. By the way, a gift from the creator does not mean a gift from God.
Vasyl Komarov | The most refined trolling and demonstration of the difference between the gift of the creator and the "divine" gift belongs, no doubt, to Leonardo da Vinci. It is a pity that Darwin can not appreciate all the irony. Just type in Google "angelo incarnato da vinci"...
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Herb, on the contrary, the numerous conversations ("God-Talk" and not only) within RG community only confirm importance of understanding that one can not underestimate the influence of the history of accumulation of knowledge (and delusions) of mankind on the process of thinking and all aspects of life (what has already long been evident from everyday communication).
Scientists are the same people as everyone else. This could be shocking a little in the first years after creation of this social network. But fortunately, at that time I (for example) already has contacts with a physicist who accepted Islam (and even managed to commit Hajj), with representatives of jw.org among scientists, with a revered rector who at the academic council (in old age) told about the dangerous Dulles' plan, and with many other different people...
All this is important to understand, we need to reckon with life in given society... hardly anything can surprise, as a maximum - can tire.
Aaron Peled | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
Some thoughts about your 'educational' discourse on axiomatics of systems:
Re: ".."
1. "Religion and science as information systems are in one coordinate space. Any knowledge systems are based on axiomatics, replacing the word "axiom" with the word "dogma" does not change the essence. Knowledge is only a certain system of information, any religious doctrine can be regarded as a theory or formal system on general grounds".
Your very simplistic mathematical model of knowledge systems is not realistic since it invokes Classical Binary Boolean as you present it ( if you followed all discussions you could observe it does not fit the participants views from all the spectrum).
The two axiomatic systems are not entirely excluding each other. A scientist can decide to accept axioms from both sets. Similarly the religious person. You may add the agnostics set if you wish to complicate matters.
You may invoke then in your crude model a better fuzzy Logic, not like Spinoza set for example.
2. "A good scientist is precisely the person who realizes that science is also beliefs. There are many people who really believe in science knowledge."
The parable of the Good Samaritan story told by Jesus (in Luke 10:25–37) teaches us also that a Cohen(Priest) and Levite cannot be good either. What is then a bad scientist in your parable Vasiliy ?
3. Quite generally, reading your long and sometimes tiring credo's with your stuck-up philosophical concepts although still quite young, I hope that you do not sustain also the view of Graham Allan Partis that - like athletes, academics often do their best work when young, (unless they are close to be certified as demented).
Regards
Aaron
Ralph Samwell | Eugene F Kislyakov, we are all believers Eugene
Vasyl Komarov | Aaron,
1. I did not say that axiomatic systems should be mutually exclusive, I only talked about various systems with a different set of axioms.
People in heads usually have a lot of such systems. The problems that you are talking about begin at the level of the cosmogonic/cosmological system, when you try to link your knowledge into a single picture of the world, while comparing it with the observational data/qualia. Only then you can find the contradictions between individual systems and axioms (in relations).
2. A "bad scientist" is the one who considers the scientific theory to be true, that is, refuses the further desire to falsify it.
3. Yes, regardless of the type of activity, a person has the peak of effective age (~35 years for brain, for athletes/body even smaller, of course). Perhaps my views are naive, I spent too much time to throw out the garbage from them, and unfortunately is not as young as I would have liked, you are not the first to talk about naivety (-;
I apologize for boring you, but I cannot guarantee that this will not happen again.
Regards, Vasiliy.
Sergey Shevchenko | Laszlo G Meszaros,
“…since (in this "science" forum) a kind of GOD-TALK seems to emerge…”
that is a next implicit claim that in this “"science" forum” a “GOD-TALK” is something “unscientific” - besides the quote above, in this project [and in a number of other philosophical RG discussions] there are a number of comments, where the claims about this “unscientficiness” of the TALK above are direct and unambiguous.
But claiming so seems is necessary to take into account [at least] a couple of points.
First of all – this discussion proceeds mainly in framework of the mainstream philosophy, which simply isn’t a science, that is a set of a huge number of fundamentally mutually inconsistent or even opposite “philosophical doctrines”, which exist in framework of two main [opposite] doctrines “Materialism” and “Idealism” [i.e. are sub-doctrines];
when all/every of the doctrines, the both main ones and all sub-doctrines, are based on some non-provable, non-disprovable, and, since they relate to fundamental problems of the Being, practically non-experimentally testable abstract constructions of humans’ consciousnesses. I.e. any/every of the philosophical doctrine is based on a bare belief that just its postulates is true, when other are false; and this belief by no means differ from any belief in any God.
Thus the mainstream philosophy by no means differs principally from any religion on Earth; and the number of “scientific” philosophical doctrines isn’t lesser then the number of religious sects on Earth.
The second point is, in the reality, also essential here. The process of transitions of earlier “philosophical” problems to the “simply scientific” problems started in first decades of 1800-th, when “usual sciences” gone out from the philosophy, however as the philosophical subjects of study remained some utmost fundamental problems, first of all – ontology of the Meta-notions/phenomena “Matter”, “Consciousness/Spirit…”, “Life”, “Space”, “Time”, etc.
Now, after principal problems at definition/understanding what these Meta-notions are in the “The Information as Absolute” conception, the process above made a next step and these notions/phenomena can be studied by usual sciences; metaphysics and ontology go out the indeed philosophy as, say, physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, etc. in the 1800-th.
Thus the indeed philosophical problems remain practically only ethical problems, which seems in a long time will not be formalized enough to be rationally studied by “usual” sciences. And that isn’t too evident that at considering/solving ethical problems the religious versions of the solutions aren’t adequate to the reality, i.e. “are unscientific”. A lot of “solutions”, which happened in history being outside religious ethics [if we don’t mix “religion” and “church”] and which turned out to be adequate to the reality, of course, since they itself were the reality; but seems it could be much better if they didn’t happen, or, at least never happen in future.
Cheers
Brenda Jacono | With all this argument about God, I return to an earlier thought I had. And here I thought I was one of the few (terrible vanity I suppose) who considered the possibility that science was just another form of religion. And, then I found articles like those (horrors of horrors) in the popular media. For instance, this article on this topic titled: "Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion," CORTICAL RIDER, DECEMBER 15, 2012. And, here is another: "Science: the religion that must not be questioned," by Henry Gee, The Guardian.
Now I will probably be roundly castigated or totally ignored as punishment for such thoughts but there you have it. We take ourselves far too seriously and never stop to consider our own warts in my view. Here are some uplifting quotes on the matter:
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."Or,
"To make mistakes is human; to stumble is commonplace; to be able to laugh at yourself is maturity."Vasyl Komarov | Not at all, dear Brenda, you're right (imo). Religion and science as information systems are in one coordinate space. Any knowledge systems are based on axiomatics, replacing the word "axiom" with the word "dogma" does not change the essence. Knowledge is only a certain system of information, any religious doctrine can be regarded as a theory or formal system on general grounds.
The aggregate (cumulative) personal knowledge of the individual forms a belief system. It (always) contain more or less contradictions. The main difference between "science" and "religion" is not contained in the information itself, but in a personal attitude to information.
If you have subcritical thinking, it means that part of the beliefs is beyond the information that can be questioned - you are not aware of yourself as a believer, although you are actually believer.
If you have a critical attitude to the entire personal(!) system of knowledge (critical or supercritical thinking), you realize yourself to be a believer, and therefore, in fact, are free. You can eliminate any contradictions in the system of personal knowledge without having insurmountable taboos.
It depends, inter alia, on how many connections in the knowledge system the brain can reach. Therefore, among people with higher education, where a large percentage of those who hold critical thinking, the negative correlation with religiosity is.
The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations
2013 | DOI: 10.1177/1088868313497266 | pdf
A good scientist is precisely the person who realizes that science is also beliefs. There are many people who really believe in science knowledge. The diference is not in knowledge, which is indifferent. Diference is in people. {All is the same, as with ethics vs science.}
I again repeat the reference to the remarkable esse (I bring it as an example probably for the third or fourth time): I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts (The benefits of a post-truth society)
"I'm a factual relativist... It’s inherently self-critical and self-correcting. The status quo is never good enough."The reality is that one will never convince a representative of the subcritical group (the dispute for them is almost useless regardless of the structure of the information tabooed for them). Alas (although I do not at all claim that such a dispute is useless for you).
— Julia Shaw on December 16, 2016
With the second group and with newborn children of all groups one can work.
Vasyl Komarov | ... Therefore, unlike Sergey, I seriously take philosophy, despite the fact that I agree with some of his statements above. Therefore, I have previously argued with Laszlo about the position he takes.
It may seem that I am defending religion, but in fact I am defending scientific principles.
Vasyl Komarov | Aaron, you and I have different semantics of those objects that you call black holes. By the way, a gift from the creator does not mean a gift from God.
Vasyl Komarov | The most refined trolling and demonstration of the difference between the gift of the creator and the "divine" gift belongs, no doubt, to Leonardo da Vinci. It is a pity that Darwin can not appreciate all the irony. Just type in Google "angelo incarnato da vinci"...
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Herb, on the contrary, the numerous conversations ("God-Talk" and not only) within RG community only confirm importance of understanding that one can not underestimate the influence of the history of accumulation of knowledge (and delusions) of mankind on the process of thinking and all aspects of life (what has already long been evident from everyday communication).
Scientists are the same people as everyone else. This could be shocking a little in the first years after creation of this social network. But fortunately, at that time I (for example) already has contacts with a physicist who accepted Islam (and even managed to commit Hajj), with representatives of jw.org among scientists, with a revered rector who at the academic council (in old age) told about the dangerous Dulles' plan, and with many other different people...
All this is important to understand, we need to reckon with life in given society... hardly anything can surprise, as a maximum - can tire.
Aaron Peled | Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
Some thoughts about your 'educational' discourse on axiomatics of systems:
Re: ".."
1. "Religion and science as information systems are in one coordinate space. Any knowledge systems are based on axiomatics, replacing the word "axiom" with the word "dogma" does not change the essence. Knowledge is only a certain system of information, any religious doctrine can be regarded as a theory or formal system on general grounds".
Your very simplistic mathematical model of knowledge systems is not realistic since it invokes Classical Binary Boolean as you present it ( if you followed all discussions you could observe it does not fit the participants views from all the spectrum).
The two axiomatic systems are not entirely excluding each other. A scientist can decide to accept axioms from both sets. Similarly the religious person. You may add the agnostics set if you wish to complicate matters.
You may invoke then in your crude model a better fuzzy Logic, not like Spinoza set for example.
2. "A good scientist is precisely the person who realizes that science is also beliefs. There are many people who really believe in science knowledge."
The parable of the Good Samaritan story told by Jesus (in Luke 10:25–37) teaches us also that a Cohen(Priest) and Levite cannot be good either. What is then a bad scientist in your parable Vasiliy ?
3. Quite generally, reading your long and sometimes tiring credo's with your stuck-up philosophical concepts although still quite young, I hope that you do not sustain also the view of Graham Allan Partis that - like athletes, academics often do their best work when young, (unless they are close to be certified as demented).
Regards
Aaron
Ralph Samwell | Eugene F Kislyakov, we are all believers Eugene
Vasyl Komarov | Aaron,
1. I did not say that axiomatic systems should be mutually exclusive, I only talked about various systems with a different set of axioms.
People in heads usually have a lot of such systems. The problems that you are talking about begin at the level of the cosmogonic/cosmological system, when you try to link your knowledge into a single picture of the world, while comparing it with the observational data/qualia. Only then you can find the contradictions between individual systems and axioms (in relations).
2. A "bad scientist" is the one who considers the scientific theory to be true, that is, refuses the further desire to falsify it.
3. Yes, regardless of the type of activity, a person has the peak of effective age (~35 years for brain, for athletes/body even smaller, of course). Perhaps my views are naive, I spent too much time to throw out the garbage from them, and unfortunately is not as young as I would have liked, you are not the first to talk about naivety (-;
I apologize for boring you, but I cannot guarantee that this will not happen again.
Regards, Vasiliy.
— ResearchGate. Available from {disclaimer}: Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: Do we need ... a break for vacation? [accessed Jul 4, 2017]
4 лип. 2017 р.
18:52 | «Еще не все потеряно»: научное сообщество намерено вернуть доверие широких масс
19:02 | Больше всего следует уделять внимания детям. В эпоху постправды те, кто способен думать, очень быстро в интернет учатся не доверять информации на уровне рефлекса, применяя разнообразные способы её валидации. Остальных необходимо обучать этому "с рождения", пока ещё мозг податлив.
18:52 | «Еще не все потеряно»: научное сообщество намерено вернуть доверие широких масс
19:02 | Больше всего следует уделять внимания детям. В эпоху постправды те, кто способен думать, очень быстро в интернет учатся не доверять информации на уровне рефлекса, применяя разнообразные способы её валидации. Остальных необходимо обучать этому "с рождения", пока ещё мозг податлив.
5 лип. 2017 р.
17:22 | The time illusion: How your brain creates now
Восприятие "now" определяется совокупной оконной функцией мозга. Но это не только сенсорное прошлое, но и чувство прогноза, формируемое откликом модели реальности.
17:22 | The time illusion: How your brain creates now
Восприятие "now" определяется совокупной оконной функцией мозга. Но это не только сенсорное прошлое, но и чувство прогноза, формируемое откликом модели реальности.
6 лип. 2017 р.
10:06 | Нейросеть научили создавать оригинальные произведения искусства
"Порождающие состязательные сети (generative adversarial networks, или коротко GAN) — это разновидность нейросетей, которая состоит из двух соревнующихся систем: генератора (generator) и дискриминатора (discriminator). Задача генератора — создавать новые объекты, похожие на объекты из обучающей выборки, доступа к которой у него нет (например, это могут быть реально существующие живописные полотна). Дискриминатор отвечает за то, чтобы решить, принадлежит ли сгенерированный объект к классу объектов из доступной ему обучающей выборки, и дать соответствующий сигнал генератору."
Что можно сказать? Они опять добрались до принципа самоорганизованной критичности.
"Анализ многочисленных самоорганизованно критических моделей показывает, что все они построены по одной и той же схеме, основанной на динамическом равновесии двух противонаправленных процессов. Первый – это некий естественный путь развития элементов системы, в то время как второй направлен на отбраковку – с возвращением к началу пути – тех из них, кто продвинулся по нему слишком далеко (осыпание неустойчивых ячеек). Существенно, что отбраковка излишне успешных элементов способствует развитию их соседей благодаря наличию взаимодействия между элементами. Чтобы это взаимодействие могло охватить всю систему, скорость отбраковки должна быть много больше скорости развития (разделение временных масштабов релаксации и возмущения). Тогда равновесие процессов развития и отбраковки достигается в критической точке, где события едва происходят и система приобретает целостные свойства."
{Когда речь идёт об оригинальности продукта деятельности какого-либо алгоритма на основе концепции нейросетей, всегда необходимо останавливаться и делать ремарку, чтобы не забывали о факте наличия обучающей выборки, которая в любом случае предопределяет "оригинальность" данного конечного автомата. Иными словами, данное слово следует брать в кавычки.
Ну, или совсем просто говоря: если вы "натаскали" нейросеть на орнаментах персидских ковров - на выходе вы будете получать орнаменты персидских ковров.
Даже данная CAN (похожая на осыпающиеся песчинки модели BTW) ограничена циклическими орбитами алгоритма, размещенного на фиксированной (не эволюционирующей) аппаратной струкуре.}
CAN: Creative Adversarial Networks, Generating "Art" by Learning About Styles and Deviating from Style Norms
2017 | arXiv:1706.07068
10:06 | Нейросеть научили создавать оригинальные произведения искусства
"Порождающие состязательные сети (generative adversarial networks, или коротко GAN) — это разновидность нейросетей, которая состоит из двух соревнующихся систем: генератора (generator) и дискриминатора (discriminator). Задача генератора — создавать новые объекты, похожие на объекты из обучающей выборки, доступа к которой у него нет (например, это могут быть реально существующие живописные полотна). Дискриминатор отвечает за то, чтобы решить, принадлежит ли сгенерированный объект к классу объектов из доступной ему обучающей выборки, и дать соответствующий сигнал генератору."
Что можно сказать? Они опять добрались до принципа самоорганизованной критичности.
"Анализ многочисленных самоорганизованно критических моделей показывает, что все они построены по одной и той же схеме, основанной на динамическом равновесии двух противонаправленных процессов. Первый – это некий естественный путь развития элементов системы, в то время как второй направлен на отбраковку – с возвращением к началу пути – тех из них, кто продвинулся по нему слишком далеко (осыпание неустойчивых ячеек). Существенно, что отбраковка излишне успешных элементов способствует развитию их соседей благодаря наличию взаимодействия между элементами. Чтобы это взаимодействие могло охватить всю систему, скорость отбраковки должна быть много больше скорости развития (разделение временных масштабов релаксации и возмущения). Тогда равновесие процессов развития и отбраковки достигается в критической точке, где события едва происходят и система приобретает целостные свойства."
{Когда речь идёт об оригинальности продукта деятельности какого-либо алгоритма на основе концепции нейросетей, всегда необходимо останавливаться и делать ремарку, чтобы не забывали о факте наличия обучающей выборки, которая в любом случае предопределяет "оригинальность" данного конечного автомата. Иными словами, данное слово следует брать в кавычки.
Ну, или совсем просто говоря: если вы "натаскали" нейросеть на орнаментах персидских ковров - на выходе вы будете получать орнаменты персидских ковров.
Даже данная CAN (похожая на осыпающиеся песчинки модели BTW) ограничена циклическими орбитами алгоритма, размещенного на фиксированной (не эволюционирующей) аппаратной струкуре.}
CAN: Creative Adversarial Networks, Generating "Art" by Learning About Styles and Deviating from Style Norms
2017 | arXiv:1706.07068
Jul 8, 2017
Q: Given that we now view spacetime with the metric structure of GR, does it make sense to keep using the reference frames of special relativity?
Eric Lord | One of the postulates of Special Relativity is "the three-dimensional space of physics is Euclidean". We can, then, introduce Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z). We don't have to! Introductory courses then usually immediately start discussing everything in tems of three orthogonal axes (and a fourth axis to represent time t). My feeling is that a lot of the confusion in the minds of students comes from the mistaken idea that an “inertal frame” is this set of axes; whereas the (x, y, z, t) reference system is nothing more than a matter of computational convenience. Reference systems (eg, coordinate systems) are conventional choices employed to describe physical phenomnena, that have no effect on the physical phenomena themselves (the “Principle of General Covariance”...). If that principle were clearly understood and emphasised ab initio, the transition from SR to GR would be far less confusing, and some of the blatant misundertandings of SR would not arise.
Q: Given that we now view spacetime with the metric structure of GR, does it make sense to keep using the reference frames of special relativity?
Eric Lord | One of the postulates of Special Relativity is "the three-dimensional space of physics is Euclidean". We can, then, introduce Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z). We don't have to! Introductory courses then usually immediately start discussing everything in tems of three orthogonal axes (and a fourth axis to represent time t). My feeling is that a lot of the confusion in the minds of students comes from the mistaken idea that an “inertal frame” is this set of axes; whereas the (x, y, z, t) reference system is nothing more than a matter of computational convenience. Reference systems (eg, coordinate systems) are conventional choices employed to describe physical phenomnena, that have no effect on the physical phenomena themselves (the “Principle of General Covariance”...). If that principle were clearly understood and emphasised ab initio, the transition from SR to GR would be far less confusing, and some of the blatant misundertandings of SR would not arise.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Given that we now view spacetime with the metric structure of GR, does it make sense to keep using the reference frames of special relativity? [accessed Jul 8, 2017]
8 лип. 2017 р.
05:50 | Всякая деятельность имеет свой эффективный возраст. Просто не нужно забывать, человек обязан существованием сложной ментальной структуре в обществе. В этом нет ничего плохого. Более развитая структура = больший динамический диапазон системы. Возрастные различия вносят свой вклад, не говоря об индивидуальных особенностях каждого человека. И любая статистика по какому-либо параметру (в том числе, по возрасту) обычно съедает понимание именно различий и взаимодействия структурных элементов, создавая проекцию разнообразия на тот или иной базис.
Не комфортно быть "подопытным кроликом", это всегда ущемляет самолюбие. Гораздо комфортнее обсуждать то, что не касается лично тебя, взывая к этике собеседников.
Если бы не было "Законов Паркинсона", если бы я длительное время не наблюдал за тем, как и на каких принципах строится система авторитетов во всяких структурах и сообществах, в том числе в университетской среде...
Давно очевидно, что в силу психологических параметров я не отношусь к группе людей, стремящихся к вертикальной иерархии. Всякие проявления этого стремления, точнее попытки ввести меня в координаты своей иерархии (пожалуй, это более точная формулировка) уже давно вызывают лишь раздражение и желание отстраниться от общения.
Это не значит, что я не уважаю возраст или заслуги определённых людей, или не позволяю собой командовать.
Просто, есть необходимость принятия решений, которая не совместима с естественной системой субординации в обществе. Собственно, принятие решений - это всегда так, для любого человека.
05:50 | Всякая деятельность имеет свой эффективный возраст. Просто не нужно забывать, человек обязан существованием сложной ментальной структуре в обществе. В этом нет ничего плохого. Более развитая структура = больший динамический диапазон системы. Возрастные различия вносят свой вклад, не говоря об индивидуальных особенностях каждого человека. И любая статистика по какому-либо параметру (в том числе, по возрасту) обычно съедает понимание именно различий и взаимодействия структурных элементов, создавая проекцию разнообразия на тот или иной базис.
Не комфортно быть "подопытным кроликом", это всегда ущемляет самолюбие. Гораздо комфортнее обсуждать то, что не касается лично тебя, взывая к этике собеседников.
Если бы не было "Законов Паркинсона", если бы я длительное время не наблюдал за тем, как и на каких принципах строится система авторитетов во всяких структурах и сообществах, в том числе в университетской среде...
Давно очевидно, что в силу психологических параметров я не отношусь к группе людей, стремящихся к вертикальной иерархии. Всякие проявления этого стремления, точнее попытки ввести меня в координаты своей иерархии (пожалуй, это более точная формулировка) уже давно вызывают лишь раздражение и желание отстраниться от общения.
Это не значит, что я не уважаю возраст или заслуги определённых людей, или не позволяю собой командовать.
Просто, есть необходимость принятия решений, которая не совместима с естественной системой субординации в обществе. Собственно, принятие решений - это всегда так, для любого человека.
Jul 8, 2017
Ralph Samwell | I think it was Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov who said; ‘he only believes in children!’?
“The human race evolved to be fair for selfish reasons.
The theory of evolution by natural selection predicts that individuals should behave in ways to maximise their inclusive fitness. So behaviours are only selected, and hence evolve, if they ensure the survival and reproduction of kin whom contain copies of the genes. However, the behaviour displayed by children seems to be at a detriment to themselves, especially when those who benefit from their selfless behaviour are not the children’s kin.
A child’s sense of fairness, egalitarianism, or aversion to inequality can actually be hampered by instruction to “be fair” and rewarding of this behaviour. That is because what is the child’s intrinsic motivation, becomes a need to follow externally imposed rules. And, as we all know, following rules we believe in is far easier than following rules that are imposed upon us, despite attendant punishments for not doing so.
As cultural practices are not responsible for children developing their initial pro-social tendencies, it is thought that a sense of fairness must have been under strong positive selection during human evolution.
Brosnan and de Waal propose that the motivation to seek equal rewards, despite disadvantaging oneself, is to prevent dissatisfaction of the co-operative partner and avoid any negative outcomes that may follow. The main negative outcomes are the likelihood of conflict and loss of future advantageous co-operation with the partner.
Also, one’s reputation is tainted, reducing the chances of forming future beneficial partnerships. When we humans “play fair” we are doing so, according to Brosnan and de Waal, not due to a motivation for “equality for its own sake but for the sake of continued cooperation”.
Because responsiveness to advantageous inequity is only seen in highly social animals, Brosnan and de Waal hypothesise that its evolution, since the split from other primates, was the starting point for the eventual development of the advanced sense of fairness displayed by humans.
The many heroic and selfless actions of individual humans, for example rescuing strangers in mortal danger and money or blood donation, are inspiring and admirable. Yet, however distasteful to contemplate, it is likely that these individuals gain in terms of their reputation and future cooperation from others, known as indirect reciprocity. If extreme prosociality is a “costly signal” indicating ones worth to future mates.
Rachel L Kendal Senior Lecturer, Durham University
Ralph Samwell |
Here is something new for you to consider :
Erkki wrote quite recently : " While debating the possibility of any ‘purpose’ behind human evolution or rather the ‘purpose’ of any evolution of the universe, whatever this means, we seem to agree that any development has to be commensurate with the laws of Nature".
I rather do not see awhile that we all agree until now in any sense at all. In fact, the first offhand poling came out with a nil significant result after spending too much energy and time on unfocused personal confrontation heated debates in plain English and sometime more sophisticated Russian camaraderie style, in this let's still call it 'project'.
The original question of Bogdan was: Does human evolution have a purpose? which was rephrased by Sir Anatol Guglielmi into : "Is there an evolutionary goal of humanity? - YES/NO". Only this question out (...)
Ralph Samwell | I think it was Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov who said; ‘he only believes in children!’?
“The human race evolved to be fair for selfish reasons.
The theory of evolution by natural selection predicts that individuals should behave in ways to maximise their inclusive fitness. So behaviours are only selected, and hence evolve, if they ensure the survival and reproduction of kin whom contain copies of the genes. However, the behaviour displayed by children seems to be at a detriment to themselves, especially when those who benefit from their selfless behaviour are not the children’s kin.
A child’s sense of fairness, egalitarianism, or aversion to inequality can actually be hampered by instruction to “be fair” and rewarding of this behaviour. That is because what is the child’s intrinsic motivation, becomes a need to follow externally imposed rules. And, as we all know, following rules we believe in is far easier than following rules that are imposed upon us, despite attendant punishments for not doing so.
As cultural practices are not responsible for children developing their initial pro-social tendencies, it is thought that a sense of fairness must have been under strong positive selection during human evolution.
Brosnan and de Waal propose that the motivation to seek equal rewards, despite disadvantaging oneself, is to prevent dissatisfaction of the co-operative partner and avoid any negative outcomes that may follow. The main negative outcomes are the likelihood of conflict and loss of future advantageous co-operation with the partner.
Also, one’s reputation is tainted, reducing the chances of forming future beneficial partnerships. When we humans “play fair” we are doing so, according to Brosnan and de Waal, not due to a motivation for “equality for its own sake but for the sake of continued cooperation”.
Because responsiveness to advantageous inequity is only seen in highly social animals, Brosnan and de Waal hypothesise that its evolution, since the split from other primates, was the starting point for the eventual development of the advanced sense of fairness displayed by humans.
The many heroic and selfless actions of individual humans, for example rescuing strangers in mortal danger and money or blood donation, are inspiring and admirable. Yet, however distasteful to contemplate, it is likely that these individuals gain in terms of their reputation and future cooperation from others, known as indirect reciprocity. If extreme prosociality is a “costly signal” indicating ones worth to future mates.
Rachel L Kendal Senior Lecturer, Durham University
Ralph Samwell |
"There is strong evidence that people exploit their bargaining power in competitive markets but not in bilateral bargaining situations. There is also strong evidence that people exploit free-riding opportunities in voluntary cooperation games. Yet, when they are given the opportunity to punish free riders, stable cooperation is maintained, although punishment is costly for those who punish. We ask whether there is a simple common principle that can explain this puzzling evidence? We show that if some people care about equity the puzzles can be resolved. It turns out that the economic environment determines whether the fair types or the selfish types dominate equilibrium behavior."Aaron Peled | Dear Andrew,
— Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt
Here is something new for you to consider :
Erkki wrote quite recently : " While debating the possibility of any ‘purpose’ behind human evolution or rather the ‘purpose’ of any evolution of the universe, whatever this means, we seem to agree that any development has to be commensurate with the laws of Nature".
I rather do not see awhile that we all agree until now in any sense at all. In fact, the first offhand poling came out with a nil significant result after spending too much energy and time on unfocused personal confrontation heated debates in plain English and sometime more sophisticated Russian camaraderie style, in this let's still call it 'project'.
The original question of Bogdan was: Does human evolution have a purpose? which was rephrased by Sir Anatol Guglielmi into : "Is there an evolutionary goal of humanity? - YES/NO". Only this question out (...)
Jul 9, 2017
Erkki J. Brändas | Since there does not seem to be any disagreements regarding evolution in general (including its evolutionary sub-theories like the genetic code) as commensurate with our present physical laws, one might nevertheless, as a background for the present question, inquire whether or not there is a 'gap' in our scientific understanding, when considering the notion of physicalism and its subsequent attempts to understand genotopic developments.
Obviously there is a long way to go from here to human evolution and any possible associated purposes, programmed or not. However, somewhere along the line of analysis there must be a fundamental 'gap' in the natural laws as they should fully cover the 'road from physics to biology'. One way to pinpoint this incongruence might be to understand the microscopic origin of the functionality of the genes.
Dina Grutzendler | Aaron Peled,
This comment of yours is EXCELLENT!!!
"Dear Andrew,
Here is something new for you to consider :
Erkki wrote quite recently : " While debating the possibility of any ‘purpose’ behind human evolution or rather the ‘purpose’ of any evolution of the universe,whateverthis means, we seem to agree that any development has to be commensurate with the laws of Nature".
I rather do not see awhile that we all agree until now in any sense at all. In fact, the first offhand poling came out with a nil significant result after spending too much energy and time on unfocused personal confrontation heated debates in plain English and sometime more sophisticated Russian camaraderie style, in this let's still call it 'project'.
The original question of Bogdan was: Does human evolution have a purpose? which was rephrased by Sir Anatol Guglielmi into : "Is there an evolutionary goal of humanity? - YES/NO" . Only this question out of 3 gave a seemingly though trivial and insignificant result since only a few scholars of the NO school of thought response cared to be included in the statistics and could have been just poled at this level of cognition depth by Bogdan himself originally. Concretely this scientifically unfocused poling did not reveal statistically any specific purpose for evolution and the 2 other also fuzzy generalized questions were indeed answered as one could have expected essentially chaotically and contradictory.
Now here is something entirely new in this forum for you or others to consider regarding the human 'inhumanity' to other living creatures. Your little bird occurrence pales in comparison to the terrific misery and carnage humans inflict upon our mammalian co-habituating creatures. Billions of animals, inclusive our kin mammals are captured in seas or raised in terrible conditions by the 'in-human' industries each year, using their milk, eggs and sacrificing them shortly after brutally to provide 'humanity' with food, rich in organic protein. Some suggest from experiments that even the plants, crops, trees and flowers do 'cry' (sending signals of distress) when eaten and or destroyed to provide us with energy rich carbohydrates, wood and paper. Thus if humanity needs to be savedmorally it should devise also currently unavailable methods of producing food by artificial photosynthesis directly from non - biological carbon and water sources.
Then we may also come to answer scientifically as this forum claims to be , Medhat's desperate call for providing food for the 3rd world in a more 'humane' way."
Herb Spencer | Hi Folks: Just finished reading Antonio Damasio's "Looking for Spinoza".
WOW !! What a book. So many 'wisdom nuggets' (especially for those with a philosophical bent).
I will be writing a review/essay on this book that is now in my Top-5 Favourites,
for those few books (out of the 5,000+ total I have read) that have changed my life.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Originals are better than commentators, Herb.
Ljerka Duic | Yes! We need a break!
Ljerka Duic | Signing out of the discussion!
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Anatol, I just brought the average physiological indicators ("температуру по палате"). Accordingly, I wish you (and everyone) good health, many years, and to enjoy what you are doing. 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.
There are many conditions that the final model must satisfy, nature gives many hints. But for starters, the most consistent general scheme of the process must be worked out. I do not have the opportunity to cover a lot, so I am interested in the single working hypothesis (that I adhere to). Accordingly, the first question arises, is everything actual with modern philosophy of science? It needs to restart ab initio. Dear Anatol, I am afraid that after this words I will be again attacked with statements like "ahead of the locomotive", on this occasion there is only desire to wish to move their own way.
NB: In particular, mathematics and any fantasies in our minds for this reason have for me more "mundane" meaning of the physical processes taking place in reality. We must realize that we and any of our models will always be as maximum on the verge of unattainable limit (inside reality). It removes pink glasses, at least for me, we can not claim greater opportunities than the whole has, I'm just trying to do something with this.
Vasyl Komarov | Ralph Samwell, I agree that "The human race evolved to be fair for selfish reasons." For these reasons everything happens, I was discussing the realms of selfishness (attraction centers) with Eugene, mentioning Musk and Hawking as an examples.
You can begin to analyze the process from a complex (social) side. This is what you are quoting.
I spoke about it earlier from the trivial (reverse) side: the symmetry of the coexistence of repeating physical structures in a competitive physical process. On this side, the condition for preservation of the entire structure has no alternatives. The process of self-organization is deterministic. Society did not evolve "in order to" but "because of". This is important for understanding the auto-model self-similarity of self-organization!
Obviously, robust system, which includes genetic information, the brain and extrasomatic cultural information, is an integral system that possesses all the qualities of the system in its entirety, including the integrity property. It is not a structure consisting of a set of identical individuals. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized, distributed over all components of the system.
The behavior of each individual in such a system must obey the general processes as well as the behavior of any structural element of a complex system. Such a superstructure is not the subject of a psychology studies yet.
Obviously, sociology, which operates with systems of identical individuals, is also not suitable for these purposes, when understanding of the individual at a new level, as an integral unique part of the whole system, is necessary.
In this direction Leopold Szondi had some advance in his "Fate-Analysis".
NB: Children copy behavior, this is called empathy, the physical learning process, a nonverbal low-level component of it. Children are curious. They are all innate "professional" researchers. It is important to satisfy their curiosity to the maximum, at the same time with information that develops the right attitude to the information itself. Children need the "right" fairy tales to change the whole of society.
Erkki J. Brändas | Since there does not seem to be any disagreements regarding evolution in general (including its evolutionary sub-theories like the genetic code) as commensurate with our present physical laws, one might nevertheless, as a background for the present question, inquire whether or not there is a 'gap' in our scientific understanding, when considering the notion of physicalism and its subsequent attempts to understand genotopic developments.
Obviously there is a long way to go from here to human evolution and any possible associated purposes, programmed or not. However, somewhere along the line of analysis there must be a fundamental 'gap' in the natural laws as they should fully cover the 'road from physics to biology'. One way to pinpoint this incongruence might be to understand the microscopic origin of the functionality of the genes.
Dina Grutzendler | Aaron Peled,
This comment of yours is EXCELLENT!!!
"Dear Andrew,
Here is something new for you to consider :
Erkki wrote quite recently : " While debating the possibility of any ‘purpose’ behind human evolution or rather the ‘purpose’ of any evolution of the universe,whateverthis means, we seem to agree that any development has to be commensurate with the laws of Nature".
I rather do not see awhile that we all agree until now in any sense at all. In fact, the first offhand poling came out with a nil significant result after spending too much energy and time on unfocused personal confrontation heated debates in plain English and sometime more sophisticated Russian camaraderie style, in this let's still call it 'project'.
The original question of Bogdan was: Does human evolution have a purpose? which was rephrased by Sir Anatol Guglielmi into : "Is there an evolutionary goal of humanity? - YES/NO" . Only this question out of 3 gave a seemingly though trivial and insignificant result since only a few scholars of the NO school of thought response cared to be included in the statistics and could have been just poled at this level of cognition depth by Bogdan himself originally. Concretely this scientifically unfocused poling did not reveal statistically any specific purpose for evolution and the 2 other also fuzzy generalized questions were indeed answered as one could have expected essentially chaotically and contradictory.
Now here is something entirely new in this forum for you or others to consider regarding the human 'inhumanity' to other living creatures. Your little bird occurrence pales in comparison to the terrific misery and carnage humans inflict upon our mammalian co-habituating creatures. Billions of animals, inclusive our kin mammals are captured in seas or raised in terrible conditions by the 'in-human' industries each year, using their milk, eggs and sacrificing them shortly after brutally to provide 'humanity' with food, rich in organic protein. Some suggest from experiments that even the plants, crops, trees and flowers do 'cry' (sending signals of distress) when eaten and or destroyed to provide us with energy rich carbohydrates, wood and paper. Thus if humanity needs to be savedmorally it should devise also currently unavailable methods of producing food by artificial photosynthesis directly from non - biological carbon and water sources.
Then we may also come to answer scientifically as this forum claims to be , Medhat's desperate call for providing food for the 3rd world in a more 'humane' way."
Herb Spencer | Hi Folks: Just finished reading Antonio Damasio's "Looking for Spinoza".
WOW !! What a book. So many 'wisdom nuggets' (especially for those with a philosophical bent).
I will be writing a review/essay on this book that is now in my Top-5 Favourites,
for those few books (out of the 5,000+ total I have read) that have changed my life.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Originals are better than commentators, Herb.
Ljerka Duic | Yes! We need a break!
Ljerka Duic | Signing out of the discussion!
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Anatol, I just brought the average physiological indicators ("температуру по палате"). Accordingly, I wish you (and everyone) good health, many years, and to enjoy what you are doing. 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.
There are many conditions that the final model must satisfy, nature gives many hints. But for starters, the most consistent general scheme of the process must be worked out. I do not have the opportunity to cover a lot, so I am interested in the single working hypothesis (that I adhere to). Accordingly, the first question arises, is everything actual with modern philosophy of science? It needs to restart ab initio. Dear Anatol, I am afraid that after this words I will be again attacked with statements like "ahead of the locomotive", on this occasion there is only desire to wish to move their own way.
NB: In particular, mathematics and any fantasies in our minds for this reason have for me more "mundane" meaning of the physical processes taking place in reality. We must realize that we and any of our models will always be as maximum on the verge of unattainable limit (inside reality). It removes pink glasses, at least for me, we can not claim greater opportunities than the whole has, I'm just trying to do something with this.
Vasyl Komarov | Ralph Samwell, I agree that "The human race evolved to be fair for selfish reasons." For these reasons everything happens, I was discussing the realms of selfishness (attraction centers) with Eugene, mentioning Musk and Hawking as an examples.
You can begin to analyze the process from a complex (social) side. This is what you are quoting.
I spoke about it earlier from the trivial (reverse) side: the symmetry of the coexistence of repeating physical structures in a competitive physical process. On this side, the condition for preservation of the entire structure has no alternatives. The process of self-organization is deterministic. Society did not evolve "in order to" but "because of". This is important for understanding the auto-model self-similarity of self-organization!
Obviously, robust system, which includes genetic information, the brain and extrasomatic cultural information, is an integral system that possesses all the qualities of the system in its entirety, including the integrity property. It is not a structure consisting of a set of identical individuals. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized, distributed over all components of the system.
The behavior of each individual in such a system must obey the general processes as well as the behavior of any structural element of a complex system. Such a superstructure is not the subject of a psychology studies yet.
Obviously, sociology, which operates with systems of identical individuals, is also not suitable for these purposes, when understanding of the individual at a new level, as an integral unique part of the whole system, is necessary.
In this direction Leopold Szondi had some advance in his "Fate-Analysis".
NB: Children copy behavior, this is called empathy, the physical learning process, a nonverbal low-level component of it. Children are curious. They are all innate "professional" researchers. It is important to satisfy their curiosity to the maximum, at the same time with information that develops the right attitude to the information itself. Children need the "right" fairy tales to change the whole of society.
Jul 11, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Fate and free will are coherent themes and are directly related to determinism in the system. Ironically, knowledge of fate sometimes soothes.
For example, let's assume (hypotetically) that our universe is the content of a black hole that over time can interact with similar objects with possible destruction of internal structure. This sequence of events, perhaps, is absolutely not computable in an open system, representing the really nondeterministic sequence for each instance (somewhat resembling the Chaitin's constant).
[A cell of a multicellular organism must "feel" approximately like this, "realizing" that host can be eaten by a predator, fall into a ravine or simply collide with a lamp post at high speed while driving a car...]
But what if their structures interact via fusion in a deterministic way? The preservation of external manifestation of a result more likely speak in favor of this.
Nothing will destroy the curiosity for knowing fate. Nothing will destroy curiosity at all. Satisfaction of curiosity in all ways leads to same thing - the elimination of gaps in the knowledge of fate.
Dear colleagues, we, as representatives of a profession dealing directly with this process (satisfaction of curiosity), should realize this better than anyone else. As it has been said previously, each person is born without knowing (the fate), but at the time of death everyone knows it in details (by the way, this is good occasion to reflect on what remains of entropy, which is a measure of ignorance of information about the system for each observer as part of the system).
Your thoughts on destiny reminded me of the problem of "impossible choice" [when both variants of the future after bifurcation are worse than current ignorance (in superposition) with the hope of an impossible (after the event) third outcome (without event)] and funny feature film about (Mr. Nobody, 2009). It's pointless to be afraid of the future in inaction, "burying head" like ostrich in well known myth.
_____________
Vasyl Komarov | Fate and free will are coherent themes and are directly related to determinism in the system. Ironically, knowledge of fate sometimes soothes.
For example, let's assume (hypotetically) that our universe is the content of a black hole that over time can interact with similar objects with possible destruction of internal structure. This sequence of events, perhaps, is absolutely not computable in an open system, representing the really nondeterministic sequence for each instance (somewhat resembling the Chaitin's constant).
[A cell of a multicellular organism must "feel" approximately like this, "realizing" that host can be eaten by a predator, fall into a ravine or simply collide with a lamp post at high speed while driving a car...]
But what if their structures interact via fusion in a deterministic way? The preservation of external manifestation of a result more likely speak in favor of this.
Nothing will destroy the curiosity for knowing fate. Nothing will destroy curiosity at all. Satisfaction of curiosity in all ways leads to same thing - the elimination of gaps in the knowledge of fate.
Dear colleagues, we, as representatives of a profession dealing directly with this process (satisfaction of curiosity), should realize this better than anyone else. As it has been said previously, each person is born without knowing (the fate), but at the time of death everyone knows it in details (by the way, this is good occasion to reflect on what remains of entropy, which is a measure of ignorance of information about the system for each observer as part of the system).
Your thoughts on destiny reminded me of the problem of "impossible choice" [when both variants of the future after bifurcation are worse than current ignorance (in superposition) with the hope of an impossible (after the event) third outcome (without event)] and funny feature film about (Mr. Nobody, 2009). It's pointless to be afraid of the future in inaction, "burying head" like ostrich in well known myth.
_____________
"В этот день Маленький Динозавр должен был узнать Смысл Жизни. А когда кто-то маленький узнает Смысл Жизни, он становится взрослым – так, между прочим, до сих пор считается. Другое дело, что и тогда, в незапамятные времена, и теперь, в очень даже «запамятные», все то и дело узнают чужой Смысл Жизни. А свой собственный почти никто не узнает – так уж все смешно, по-дурацки устроено.
...
Оно и хорошо: у того, кто недавно стал облаком, много других забот. Нужно научиться парить в небе, кататься на ветре, окрашиваться солнечным светом, и еще многим важным вещам, о которых те, кто ходит по земле, даже не догадываются. Зато облакам не нужно размышлять о Смысле Жизни. Им это даже противопоказано. Какой уж тут смысл."
— Max Frei (favorite unreal writer of my youth,
a pen name of which translates from german unequivocally)
— ResearchGate. Available from {disclaimer}: Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: Do we need ... a break for vacation? [accessed Jul 11, 2017]
11 лип. 2017 р.
22:43 | {По поводу какой-то из artworks by Vladimir Kush (знание, о какой именно, унесла с собой g+)...}
23:02 | Так или иначе, разворачивать модель можно только лишь относительно набора взаимосвязанных гипотез по этому вопросу. Последствия от неверно выбранного исходного положения имеют фатальные последствия для понимания реальности.
22:43 | {По поводу какой-то из artworks by Vladimir Kush (знание, о какой именно, унесла с собой g+)...}
Looking for consciousness in a physical brain is like looking for the economy in a thriving city. They are emergent properties of physical systems, both with observable effects, but neither found by probing only the parts.22:57 | Характерный "срач" в комментариях под картинкой по поводу того, возникает ли сознание.
— Originally shared by Todd William on g+
23:02 | Так или иначе, разворачивать модель можно только лишь относительно набора взаимосвязанных гипотез по этому вопросу. Последствия от неверно выбранного исходного положения имеют фатальные последствия для понимания реальности.
Jul 16, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | One can talk about love in terms of science because: there are categories of attraction and memory for this. The theory of dynamical systems for this is necessary (The equations of love). In general, in terms of attractions and dissipative structures one can talk of all interactions from the very depths of physics, imo
Vasyl Komarov | One can talk about love in terms of science because: there are categories of attraction and memory for this. The theory of dynamical systems for this is necessary (The equations of love). In general, in terms of attractions and dissipative structures one can talk of all interactions from the very depths of physics, imo
— ResearchGate. Available from {disclaimer}: Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: We are not that perfect as we seem? We feel love... [accessed Jul 16, 2017]
22 лип. 2017 р.
17:01 | All shook up over topology
2017 | DOI: 10.1038/547257b
The topology of Möbius strips helps to explain the puzzling behaviour of electrons and other particles.
17:01 | All shook up over topology
2017 | DOI: 10.1038/547257b
The topology of Möbius strips helps to explain the puzzling behaviour of electrons and other particles.
27 лип. 2017 р.
09:51 | Рибосомы оказались заточены под самовоспроизводство
Состав рибосом отражает их способность к самовоспроизводству. Бактериальная и эукариотическая рибосомы менее чем наполовину состоят из белков (синий цвет), а митохондриальная состоит из белка на 80 процентов.
"если бактериальная клетка будет наращивать размеры, сохраняя тот же самый темп деления, довольно скоро она просто не сможет вместить все необходимые ей рибосомы... увеличение размеров и усложнение организации клеток привело к эволюции рибосом, которые также стали крупнее и более сложно устроены, однако при этом потеряли в скорости."
Также виден признак достижения предела, после которого перераспределились функции на более сложную глобальную структуру, как носитель информации, для которой локально уже не хватало места.
09:51 | Рибосомы оказались заточены под самовоспроизводство
Состав рибосом отражает их способность к самовоспроизводству. Бактериальная и эукариотическая рибосомы менее чем наполовину состоят из белков (синий цвет), а митохондриальная состоит из белка на 80 процентов.
"если бактериальная клетка будет наращивать размеры, сохраняя тот же самый темп деления, довольно скоро она просто не сможет вместить все необходимые ей рибосомы... увеличение размеров и усложнение организации клеток привело к эволюции рибосом, которые также стали крупнее и более сложно устроены, однако при этом потеряли в скорости."
Также виден признак достижения предела, после которого перераспределились функции на более сложную глобальную структуру, как носитель информации, для которой локально уже не хватало места.
17 серп. 2017 р.
00:57 | Довожу до сведения неравнодушных и соучастников, что, несмотря на относительное молчание, планы неизменны, начиная с обещанного комментария к дискуссии о философии науки на ResearchGate...
00:57 | Довожу до сведения неравнодушных и соучастников, что, несмотря на относительное молчание, планы неизменны, начиная с обещанного комментария к дискуссии о философии науки на ResearchGate...
01:06 |
...просто, на всё необходимо выкраивать свободное время, а систематизация на каждой итерации доходит до предела, когда мозг уже отказывается держать общую структуру изложения, особенно на фоне прочих, более насущных забот.
Aug 19, 2017
Q: Why are scientist so fixated with the general theory of relativity?
Eric Lord | Physical theories are products of human minds and exist in human minds. The success of a physical theory (ie, its validation by experiment and observation) assures us that there is some kind of correspondence between the theory and “objective physical reality”. But the theory and the objective physical reality are not the same thing.
The concept of a continuum on which one can impose “coordinate systems” satisfying the mathematical principles of continuity, whereby every point of “space” or “spacetime” can be labelled with a set of numbers, is firmly entrenched in the mathematical methods of “classical” physics (Newtonian dynamics including Newtonian gravitation, Special Relativity and General Relativity). The justification of this approach is pragmatic: it works. It has led to our present understanding of the nature of the physical world. But it is disturbing for several reasons:
(1) Coordinate systems are human inventions. A coordinate system is a mathematical abstraction. There are no coordinate systems in Nature! It follows that any conclusions about a physical phenomenon can have physical significance only if they are expressed in terms of invariants; that is, quantities that are independent of the chosen coordinate system. This is the meaning of Einstein’s “Principle of General Covariance”.
(2) Experimental physics is concerned with measurements, based on observations. They are expressed as data: finite discrete sets of numbers. There is no continuity in experimental data.
(3) Measurements are performed on physical objects. “Empty space” is not amenable to observation. Its properties are inferred: a process of extrapolation based on the notion of continuity.
Recall that Euclid and many geometers who came after him made no use of coordinates (the idea of coordinates was not thought of till ~1900 years after Euclid). Euclid developed Euclidean geometry axiomatically. The question that then arises is whether basic physical concepts can be developed from a more primitive approach that does not introduce ab initio continuous coordinate systems and all that they entail, but that justifies those notions as useful artifacts.
Q: Why are scientist so fixated with the general theory of relativity?
Eric Lord | Physical theories are products of human minds and exist in human minds. The success of a physical theory (ie, its validation by experiment and observation) assures us that there is some kind of correspondence between the theory and “objective physical reality”. But the theory and the objective physical reality are not the same thing.
The concept of a continuum on which one can impose “coordinate systems” satisfying the mathematical principles of continuity, whereby every point of “space” or “spacetime” can be labelled with a set of numbers, is firmly entrenched in the mathematical methods of “classical” physics (Newtonian dynamics including Newtonian gravitation, Special Relativity and General Relativity). The justification of this approach is pragmatic: it works. It has led to our present understanding of the nature of the physical world. But it is disturbing for several reasons:
(1) Coordinate systems are human inventions. A coordinate system is a mathematical abstraction. There are no coordinate systems in Nature! It follows that any conclusions about a physical phenomenon can have physical significance only if they are expressed in terms of invariants; that is, quantities that are independent of the chosen coordinate system. This is the meaning of Einstein’s “Principle of General Covariance”.
(2) Experimental physics is concerned with measurements, based on observations. They are expressed as data: finite discrete sets of numbers. There is no continuity in experimental data.
(3) Measurements are performed on physical objects. “Empty space” is not amenable to observation. Its properties are inferred: a process of extrapolation based on the notion of continuity.
Recall that Euclid and many geometers who came after him made no use of coordinates (the idea of coordinates was not thought of till ~1900 years after Euclid). Euclid developed Euclidean geometry axiomatically. The question that then arises is whether basic physical concepts can be developed from a more primitive approach that does not introduce ab initio continuous coordinate systems and all that they entail, but that justifies those notions as useful artifacts.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Why are scientist so fixated with the general theory of relativity? [accessed Aug 19, 2017]
3 вер. 2017 р.
18:47 | Физик Макс Тегмарк: «Искусственный интеллект - это жизнь 3.0»
A physicist on why AI safety is ‘the most important conversation of our time’
Фраза "искусственный интеллект не зависит от эволюционных ограничений" провоцирует лишь улыбку, поскольку, интеллектом в том смысле, который принято вкладывать в AI, это будет называться тогда и только тогда, и только в такой конфигурации, когда она (система) сможет эволюционировать, обретя шансы в адаптивном ландшафте, которыми не обладает ни одна система с фиксированным диапазоном циклических орбит.
У "3.0" шансы оторваться от "2.0" такие же, как у "2.0" от "1.0". Такие же, как и шансы оторваться от реальности.
18:47 | Физик Макс Тегмарк: «Искусственный интеллект - это жизнь 3.0»
A physicist on why AI safety is ‘the most important conversation of our time’
Фраза "искусственный интеллект не зависит от эволюционных ограничений" провоцирует лишь улыбку, поскольку, интеллектом в том смысле, который принято вкладывать в AI, это будет называться тогда и только тогда, и только в такой конфигурации, когда она (система) сможет эволюционировать, обретя шансы в адаптивном ландшафте, которыми не обладает ни одна система с фиксированным диапазоном циклических орбит.
У "3.0" шансы оторваться от "2.0" такие же, как у "2.0" от "1.0". Такие же, как и шансы оторваться от реальности.
Sep 11, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, your accusations are contrary to the scientific approach to which Galileo inspires us all. In addition, in your words one can hear notes of old kind appeals to burn everyone who does not share your beliefs at the stake. 21st century obliges to be at least a step ahead. I share your views on imperfection of the existing system of science fundings (perhaps, even have a few modest considerations, what changes in this and the education system are necessary).
Once Jerry Decker well noticed in the commentary to the note of Matts Roos (wich is titled "Do Physicists Search for Truth?"): "Scientists do search for truth if they have adequate funding, which seldom happens. Usually scientists search for funding. Then they search for truth that can coexist with the funding. Other truth lays waiting for some researcher to take up the cause. Time passes and full potential is not achieved." (here I changed few words in order to generalize the statement.)
But #1, it is the confrontation of the two opposing processes that is the engine of any evolutionary changes (in fact, this is the same dialectic). For this reason, for example, I can not disapprove beginnings like sci-hub, although mainstream "trends" with solid commertial base somewhere will be (science and education, in fact, are arranged trite like the entire market). One can not get a (r)evolution without a fight.
But #2, hardly anything can seriously shake core ideas of the theory of relativity in the foreseeable future, the reverse is rather. It is very likely that the right path to understanding biological systems and evolution as a whole is impossible without concepts underlying the relativity. In my opinion, of course.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, your accusations are contrary to the scientific approach to which Galileo inspires us all. In addition, in your words one can hear notes of old kind appeals to burn everyone who does not share your beliefs at the stake. 21st century obliges to be at least a step ahead. I share your views on imperfection of the existing system of science fundings (perhaps, even have a few modest considerations, what changes in this and the education system are necessary).
Once Jerry Decker well noticed in the commentary to the note of Matts Roos (wich is titled "Do Physicists Search for Truth?"): "Scientists do search for truth if they have adequate funding, which seldom happens. Usually scientists search for funding. Then they search for truth that can coexist with the funding. Other truth lays waiting for some researcher to take up the cause. Time passes and full potential is not achieved." (here I changed few words in order to generalize the statement.)
But #1, it is the confrontation of the two opposing processes that is the engine of any evolutionary changes (in fact, this is the same dialectic). For this reason, for example, I can not disapprove beginnings like sci-hub, although mainstream "trends" with solid commertial base somewhere will be (science and education, in fact, are arranged trite like the entire market). One can not get a (r)evolution without a fight.
But #2, hardly anything can seriously shake core ideas of the theory of relativity in the foreseeable future, the reverse is rather. It is very likely that the right path to understanding biological systems and evolution as a whole is impossible without concepts underlying the relativity. In my opinion, of course.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Sep 11, 2017]
Sep 18, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Amrit, In general, the "truth" (even TRUTH) is the same conventional value as the "fact" (both of these terms are meaningful only within the framework of some system, which is especially obvious in the world of "post-truth").
At least Cantor's hypothesis, Gödel's incompleteness theorem, semantics and realization of the fundamental necessity of the invariance of the reality structure (in order to be comfortable for Parmenides, Euler and Cantor did not live at the same time, and in general, "everything does not happen at once") are necessary for the knowledge of being.
By the way, "god" has big problems, because it/he/she should be forbidden to evolve. Therefore, it cannot even create us "in the image and likeness" well.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Amrit, In general, the "truth" (even TRUTH) is the same conventional value as the "fact" (both of these terms are meaningful only within the framework of some system, which is especially obvious in the world of "post-truth").
At least Cantor's hypothesis, Gödel's incompleteness theorem, semantics and realization of the fundamental necessity of the invariance of the reality structure (in order to be comfortable for Parmenides, Euler and Cantor did not live at the same time, and in general, "everything does not happen at once") are necessary for the knowledge of being.
By the way, "god" has big problems, because it/he/she should be forbidden to evolve. Therefore, it cannot even create us "in the image and likeness" well.
Sep 24, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Arturo, it should be noted that Amrit is partly right. From a formal point of view any process of getting information (knowledge) by the system about itself is recurrent. This can not be avoided and should be considered from the point of view of self-reference.
Personal experience of the individual affects individual understanding of any formal system, as it involves personal perception and interpretation (incorporation of information by system, which present the individual). Formal system under consideration requires individual understanding. Understanding is based on the individual perception of each particular entity of the formal theory down to the low-level beyond semantics (it is overall physical process for the physical system, which is individual).
In relation to biology and (especially) consciousness a very important point associated with qualia is. Comprehension of hypothetically right formal model of consciousness is a personal act of the individual (however, as comprehension of any formal system or theory). What does this mean in simple words? Understanding of consciousness is the individual act of self-knowledge regardless of study of consciousness on own kind. {Здесь повторяю "прописную истину" банальную, уже который раз.}
It should provoke a much stronger feedback than the typical "eureka" effect, what should be studied by scientific methods, at least that component of such (biological) processes in the body (the "eureka" or "afflatus" or "enlightenment" effect - insight has many historical names), which I spokes about (I do not mean various states of trans etc. ...just recursive process of "understanding" dynamical system by itself). So, this has a completely rational and rather primitive explanation.
This process has nothing to do with the concept of "vacuum", of course. I does not like the latter term for the same "mystical" reasons as the "god", for example. Because under it one can as well bring everything that has no rational explanation, but the formal theory, striving for the ToE or FT, should not coexist well with concepts like "vaccum", "dark matter", "god", etc. Perhaps, it is necessary to avoid terms of this type, they easily can be replaced by universal "placeholder" for information (or a source of entropy in the system).
And I definitely do not like how Amrit uses the terms: "truth" and "experience". With qualia one must be more careful. Through the process of qualia everything goes with what we are dealing with.
Just my opinion, of course.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Arturo, it should be noted that Amrit is partly right. From a formal point of view any process of getting information (knowledge) by the system about itself is recurrent. This can not be avoided and should be considered from the point of view of self-reference.
Personal experience of the individual affects individual understanding of any formal system, as it involves personal perception and interpretation (incorporation of information by system, which present the individual). Formal system under consideration requires individual understanding. Understanding is based on the individual perception of each particular entity of the formal theory down to the low-level beyond semantics (it is overall physical process for the physical system, which is individual).
In relation to biology and (especially) consciousness a very important point associated with qualia is. Comprehension of hypothetically right formal model of consciousness is a personal act of the individual (however, as comprehension of any formal system or theory). What does this mean in simple words? Understanding of consciousness is the individual act of self-knowledge regardless of study of consciousness on own kind. {Здесь повторяю "прописную истину" банальную, уже который раз.}
It should provoke a much stronger feedback than the typical "eureka" effect, what should be studied by scientific methods, at least that component of such (biological) processes in the body (the "eureka" or "afflatus" or "enlightenment" effect - insight has many historical names), which I spokes about (I do not mean various states of trans etc. ...just recursive process of "understanding" dynamical system by itself). So, this has a completely rational and rather primitive explanation.
This process has nothing to do with the concept of "vacuum", of course. I does not like the latter term for the same "mystical" reasons as the "god", for example. Because under it one can as well bring everything that has no rational explanation, but the formal theory, striving for the ToE or FT, should not coexist well with concepts like "vaccum", "dark matter", "god", etc. Perhaps, it is necessary to avoid terms of this type, they easily can be replaced by universal "placeholder" for information (or a source of entropy in the system).
And I definitely do not like how Amrit uses the terms: "truth" and "experience". With qualia one must be more careful. Through the process of qualia everything goes with what we are dealing with.
Just my opinion, of course.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Heidegger's being and quantum vacuum [accessed Jul 22, 2020]
24 вер. 2017 р.
19:26 | Физики связали время вылета электрона при фотоэффекте с угловым моментом
Время вылета электронов при фотоэлектронной эмиссии оказалось связанным с их изначальным угловым моментом.
Angular momentum–induced delays in solid-state photoemission enhanced by intra-atomic interactions
2017 | DOI: 10.1126/science.aam9598
19:26 | Физики связали время вылета электрона при фотоэффекте с угловым моментом
Время вылета электронов при фотоэлектронной эмиссии оказалось связанным с их изначальным угловым моментом.
Angular momentum–induced delays in solid-state photoemission enhanced by intra-atomic interactions
2017 | DOI: 10.1126/science.aam9598
Sep 25, 2017
Q: Challenge: Can any algebra specify handedness of 3-space?
Vasyl Komarov | Steve, the directions of space (x, y, z) and other abstract attributes (such as frames of reference etc) are only formal fictitious representation of some qualities inherent in what we call space and our relationship with it.
The sequence of entities does not matter until we are dealing with cyclic orbits (orbit ranges) in the dynamic system (existence is, first of all, a process). I leave here replies from the discussions of other (time and relativity) problems, perhaps it will be usefull for reasoning:
"The question of the complete symmetry of the universe, apparently, depends on what the space really is. If space is an integral part of the structure of matter, then with CPT situation is slightly more complicated than it looks. In this case, the matter may be not completely symmetric with antimatter, even if in both cases they are identical with roles.
Then such universes can exist only in different "spaces", since different spaces are an integral part of the corresponding universes. The question of their interaction raises the question of the connection between them, since it is meaningless to talk about mutual symmetry for disconnected objects. And despite the symmetry, such connected universes can have the same direction of "time arrow". Since in this case, apparently, there must be a general irreversibility.
In general, directions (arrows) make sense when it comes to symmetries. Irreversibility, this is something else. It has no symmetry. It is not a symmetrical opposition to reversibility.
Here is actual my conversation about the symmetry of dichotomies (relative to infinity) with Abdul Malek.
The dichotomy of infinity into two symmetrical parts is an absurd thing, until we set a central reference point. How can we choose a central reference point for an infinite object? Apparently, only by selecting a finite part of the infinite set as a measure. Those, on this position axioms are necessary. Next, we can talk about symmetries, both inside the selected area, and outward constructions, having a measure. But this is another story based on finite entities.
De facto, we live in a centric world. But reason requires that the final laws of physics must be centric-invariant. Then something is not easy with symmetries, because there must be an uncertainty of a specific type (uncertainty relative to simmetries)."
-----
"The idea behind Eulerian and Lagrangian Observers is good to demonstrate the difference between understanding of space in the classical and relativistic sense.
Eulerian observer (#1) implies 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 different descriptions of motion is painless and does not change anything.
In GR this is no longer the case. Although, the problems already start in SRT: Whatever the specific Lagrangian system (consisting of an arbitrary set of entities) you are considering, you should take into account all the entities. Otherwise, lack of knowledge (information) does not exempt from limitations on the information communication. Within framework of SRT observer always has a lack of information about the state of system (like a constant of indefinite integral). In GR it is maintained on a slightly different level.
Here the meaninglessness of consideration of isolated unitary entity is worth noting! Connectedness is a fundamental quality of reality, manifestations of which can be found everywhere over nature and formal systems (from holistic ideas behind GR, self-organisation and condition of universality of dynamical systems to inescapable semantics and Goedel's theorem). It is for this reason understanding the nature by classical mechanics (where we can put an unitary entity as a thing in itself in abstract space and study it) is far from reality. Lagrangian approach to description of motion starts from this point of view (as already mentioned above).
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.
In reality we do not know the exact coordinates, but a limited portion of inalienable space occupied by the system of entities there is always (on any scope of system under consideration). It works like a turned on the wrong side uncertainty principle: in order to know exactly own state (in my opinion here should be added ...within a cyclical orbit of a dynamical system or orbit range), we need to know the state of the entire system (a state over all degrees of freedom of the dynamical system up to this cyclical orbit (range), inclusively). This functional relationship between the observer and rest of the system is manifested in the form of entropy.
So, both ideas (#1 and #2) in the basis of various descriptions of motion are misguided since time of the theories of relativity (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)."
-----
In order to properly reflect on this, it is necessary, first of all, to have a correct attitude to mathematics, as a phenomenon inherent in reality (which contradicts the popular philosophical concept of the opposition of idealism and materialism). The existing approach to demarcation so far closes the way to any adequate theory, which strives to a theory of everything, and understanding holism in general. As a consequence, the regularities of dynamic systems, such as connectedness and universality, are perceived by modern science in a very fragmented way.
This can only be resolved in a complex, and it is necessary to begin with a reboot of the philosophy ab initio...It is pointless to talk about chirality in the absence of symmetry.
It is pointless to talk about symmetry in an infinite (unlimited, non-centric) system, since the symmetry implies equilibrium in principle.
So, exact equilibrium could exist only in a truly closed system, which in turn contradicts Gödel's theorem and semantics (formal theorem and its obvious physical "proof").
But on the idea of equilibrium reaching (or the analysis of it around) pile of cosmological models is based, what should have sad consequences for them.
Q: Challenge: Can any algebra specify handedness of 3-space?
Vasyl Komarov | Steve, the directions of space (x, y, z) and other abstract attributes (such as frames of reference etc) are only formal fictitious representation of some qualities inherent in what we call space and our relationship with it.
The sequence of entities does not matter until we are dealing with cyclic orbits (orbit ranges) in the dynamic system (existence is, first of all, a process). I leave here replies from the discussions of other (time and relativity) problems, perhaps it will be usefull for reasoning:
"The question of the complete symmetry of the universe, apparently, depends on what the space really is. If space is an integral part of the structure of matter, then with CPT situation is slightly more complicated than it looks. In this case, the matter may be not completely symmetric with antimatter, even if in both cases they are identical with roles.
Then such universes can exist only in different "spaces", since different spaces are an integral part of the corresponding universes. The question of their interaction raises the question of the connection between them, since it is meaningless to talk about mutual symmetry for disconnected objects. And despite the symmetry, such connected universes can have the same direction of "time arrow". Since in this case, apparently, there must be a general irreversibility.
In general, directions (arrows) make sense when it comes to symmetries. Irreversibility, this is something else. It has no symmetry. It is not a symmetrical opposition to reversibility.
Here is actual my conversation about the symmetry of dichotomies (relative to infinity) with Abdul Malek.
The dichotomy of infinity into two symmetrical parts is an absurd thing, until we set a central reference point. How can we choose a central reference point for an infinite object? Apparently, only by selecting a finite part of the infinite set as a measure. Those, on this position axioms are necessary. Next, we can talk about symmetries, both inside the selected area, and outward constructions, having a measure. But this is another story based on finite entities.
De facto, we live in a centric world. But reason requires that the final laws of physics must be centric-invariant. Then something is not easy with symmetries, because there must be an uncertainty of a specific type (uncertainty relative to simmetries)."
-----
"The idea behind Eulerian and Lagrangian Observers is good to demonstrate the difference between understanding of space in the classical and relativistic sense.
Eulerian observer (#1) implies 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 different descriptions of motion is painless and does not change anything.
In GR this is no longer the case. Although, the problems already start in SRT: Whatever the specific Lagrangian system (consisting of an arbitrary set of entities) you are considering, you should take into account all the entities. Otherwise, lack of knowledge (information) does not exempt from limitations on the information communication. Within framework of SRT observer always has a lack of information about the state of system (like a constant of indefinite integral). In GR it is maintained on a slightly different level.
Here the meaninglessness of consideration of isolated unitary entity is worth noting! Connectedness is a fundamental quality of reality, manifestations of which can be found everywhere over nature and formal systems (from holistic ideas behind GR, self-organisation and condition of universality of dynamical systems to inescapable semantics and Goedel's theorem). It is for this reason understanding the nature by classical mechanics (where we can put an unitary entity as a thing in itself in abstract space and study it) is far from reality. Lagrangian approach to description of motion starts from this point of view (as already mentioned above).
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.
In reality we do not know the exact coordinates, but a limited portion of inalienable space occupied by the system of entities there is always (on any scope of system under consideration). It works like a turned on the wrong side uncertainty principle: in order to know exactly own state (in my opinion here should be added ...within a cyclical orbit of a dynamical system or orbit range), we need to know the state of the entire system (a state over all degrees of freedom of the dynamical system up to this cyclical orbit (range), inclusively). This functional relationship between the observer and rest of the system is manifested in the form of entropy.
So, both ideas (#1 and #2) in the basis of various descriptions of motion are misguided since time of the theories of relativity (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)."
-----
In order to properly reflect on this, it is necessary, first of all, to have a correct attitude to mathematics, as a phenomenon inherent in reality (which contradicts the popular philosophical concept of the opposition of idealism and materialism). The existing approach to demarcation so far closes the way to any adequate theory, which strives to a theory of everything, and understanding holism in general. As a consequence, the regularities of dynamic systems, such as connectedness and universality, are perceived by modern science in a very fragmented way.
This can only be resolved in a complex, and it is necessary to begin with a reboot of the philosophy ab initio...It is pointless to talk about chirality in the absence of symmetry.
It is pointless to talk about symmetry in an infinite (unlimited, non-centric) system, since the symmetry implies equilibrium in principle.
So, exact equilibrium could exist only in a truly closed system, which in turn contradicts Gödel's theorem and semantics (formal theorem and its obvious physical "proof").
But on the idea of equilibrium reaching (or the analysis of it around) pile of cosmological models is based, what should have sad consequences for them.
— ResearchGate. Available from: Challenge: Can any algebra specify handedness of 3-space? [accessed Sep 25, 2017]
26 вер. 2017 р.
08:45 | The Multiverse Can Only Kill Physics by Becoming Physics
Можно до бесконечности рассуждать о мирах с различной физикой, пока вы не задумываетесь о том, что для вас математика. Возможно всё, пока физика использует инструмент и не задаётся вопросом, почему он работает в существующей физике - всюду узнаваемые последствия доминирования логики идеализма в философии.
Имеет ли смысл что-то новое, пока доминирует такое положение дел?
08:51 | Впрочем, тем кто это сейчас прочитал, бессмысленно повторять эту уже "избитую истину", возможно, для неё ещё не наступило время :)
"В ходе ночных метаний Дима обычно общался с космосом посредством громкого говорения выстраданных слов. Чаще всего он кричал в пространство лирическую фразу: «А бабы-то и нет!» — а потом на какое-то время умолкал, прислушивался. Вдруг, дескать, небесам есть что ответить на его вопль?" (c) Макс Фрай
12:37 | Каждая очередная регистрация гравитационной волны наносит удар по доминирующему корпускулярному мировоззрению (а вместе с ним и по стандартной модели), добавляя +1 к холизму.
08:45 | The Multiverse Can Only Kill Physics by Becoming Physics
Можно до бесконечности рассуждать о мирах с различной физикой, пока вы не задумываетесь о том, что для вас математика. Возможно всё, пока физика использует инструмент и не задаётся вопросом, почему он работает в существующей физике - всюду узнаваемые последствия доминирования логики идеализма в философии.
Имеет ли смысл что-то новое, пока доминирует такое положение дел?
08:51 | Впрочем, тем кто это сейчас прочитал, бессмысленно повторять эту уже "избитую истину", возможно, для неё ещё не наступило время :)
"В ходе ночных метаний Дима обычно общался с космосом посредством громкого говорения выстраданных слов. Чаще всего он кричал в пространство лирическую фразу: «А бабы-то и нет!» — а потом на какое-то время умолкал, прислушивался. Вдруг, дескать, небесам есть что ответить на его вопль?" (c) Макс Фрай
12:37 | Каждая очередная регистрация гравитационной волны наносит удар по доминирующему корпускулярному мировоззрению (а вместе с ним и по стандартной модели), добавляя +1 к холизму.
Sep 26, 2017
Q: Could anyone provide comment and/or references on the measurement of "information depth" ?
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Dear Guibert, you can get to the maximum-compact representation of information (from the point of view of entropy), while you always have a system (strictly and globally speaking - the universe) "behind your shoulders", into which the semantics of what you are viewing under the information incorporated. In addition, my replics from another discussion...
"Information is an alternation of something. The information is invariant with respect to any carriers (bearers), including the information itself. In order to process the information (that is, interpret it as data, which includes structure and form, among others), a "standard" of information or measure is required; in which semantics will be included within any choice (i.e. standard is information itself)!
Semantics is an inavoidable self-reference that does not allow reach complete closing (insulation) of any system (irrespective of the formal proofs of Gödel's incompleteness theorem).
Any categories, such as space, byte, structure, form, etc... are secondary. They can exist only within SYSTEM on the basis of (objectively, i.e. given, i.e. already) existing semantics - the mentioned system with standard and interrelations, which automatically implies presence of alphabet (language) and information carrier (bearer) in the form of a covering, deeper (fundamental) system.
Any thoughts/computation/processing of something (information), can only occur within an objectively (already) existing (dynamical) system (objectively existing semantics), for example, given human (physical) body with present brain physical structure. Any expression, statement, word, symbol of language, axiom or other meme/element of (formal, strictly speaking, any) system is a semantics in the form of knowledge (i.e. information, i.e. the physical structure of the system) of the subject that is the bearer of the elements of given (formal) system.
...
It is impossible to avoid the concept of the system when considering something (including information) at any level of abstraction."
So (in my opinion) in your question, one should take into account the semantics and the entire physical system involved in its implementation as a minimum. This is information too, without which the considered part of information is meaningless. I do not think that one will manage to circumvent the self-reference and successfully answer your question, the opposite, of course, forces to peer into the abyss of Zeno's paradox. But is there really a choice? This is evident even from the connection between the structure of the alphabet and the size of messages being formed. It is impossible to consider the latter in isolation from the first, the first in isolation from the physical structure of the carrier of the semantics of the alphabet (brain, etc.), etc...
Q: Could anyone provide comment and/or references on the measurement of "information depth" ?
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov | Dear Guibert, you can get to the maximum-compact representation of information (from the point of view of entropy), while you always have a system (strictly and globally speaking - the universe) "behind your shoulders", into which the semantics of what you are viewing under the information incorporated. In addition, my replics from another discussion...
"Information is an alternation of something. The information is invariant with respect to any carriers (bearers), including the information itself. In order to process the information (that is, interpret it as data, which includes structure and form, among others), a "standard" of information or measure is required; in which semantics will be included within any choice (i.e. standard is information itself)!
Semantics is an inavoidable self-reference that does not allow reach complete closing (insulation) of any system (irrespective of the formal proofs of Gödel's incompleteness theorem).
Any categories, such as space, byte, structure, form, etc... are secondary. They can exist only within SYSTEM on the basis of (objectively, i.e. given, i.e. already) existing semantics - the mentioned system with standard and interrelations, which automatically implies presence of alphabet (language) and information carrier (bearer) in the form of a covering, deeper (fundamental) system.
Any thoughts/computation/processing of something (information), can only occur within an objectively (already) existing (dynamical) system (objectively existing semantics), for example, given human (physical) body with present brain physical structure. Any expression, statement, word, symbol of language, axiom or other meme/element of (formal, strictly speaking, any) system is a semantics in the form of knowledge (i.e. information, i.e. the physical structure of the system) of the subject that is the bearer of the elements of given (formal) system.
...
It is impossible to avoid the concept of the system when considering something (including information) at any level of abstraction."
So (in my opinion) in your question, one should take into account the semantics and the entire physical system involved in its implementation as a minimum. This is information too, without which the considered part of information is meaningless. I do not think that one will manage to circumvent the self-reference and successfully answer your question, the opposite, of course, forces to peer into the abyss of Zeno's paradox. But is there really a choice? This is evident even from the connection between the structure of the alphabet and the size of messages being formed. It is impossible to consider the latter in isolation from the first, the first in isolation from the physical structure of the carrier of the semantics of the alphabet (brain, etc.), etc...
— ResearchGate. Available from: Could anyone provide comment and/or references on the measurement of "information depth" ? [accessed Sep 26, 2017]
Sep 30, 2017
Eugene F Kislyakov | The law of Nature, Bogdan: Expand or die.
Vasyl Komarov | ...integrate or die ...stay invariant (being pink noise) ...as far as u can
Eugene F Kislyakov | The law of Nature, Bogdan: Expand or die.
Vasyl Komarov | ...integrate or die ...stay invariant (being pink noise) ...as far as u can
— ResearchGate. Available from {disclaimer}: Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: ...human rights? ...during life? [accessed Sep 30, 2017]
Sep 30, 2017
Abdul Malek | To the fellow participants (active or passive) in this forum, who have taken (or have come to have taken) a principled stand against GR – the principal topic of this discussion:
It is my opinion that we have achieved a minor but significant moral victory through this forum. But we should not delude ourselves too much, even if no Nobel is awarded (yet, this time around) for the latest claims of the “proof” of GR and as long as the previous claims of such “proofs” stand as they are. I understand that Dr. Engelhardt has pointed out many faults with the technical aspects of LIGO experiments on several occasions and (also believe) have written to the Nobel Committee about it; which may or may not have any impact at all.
The sad reality is that we are but a tiny fraction of scientists at the periphery of the science establishment; who are mainly isolated and independent researchers or doing so after retirement and hence are no match for a powerful and organized science establishment. To rephrase Karl Marx, “The ruling ideas of an epoch are the ideas of its ruling class” – GR is such a ruling idea and it would not be an easy task to undo it. But at the same time; a sour complacency that we fully understand the hollowness of GR, but have to live with it, is also not an option.
Abdul Malek | To the fellow participants (active or passive) in this forum, who have taken (or have come to have taken) a principled stand against GR – the principal topic of this discussion:
It is my opinion that we have achieved a minor but significant moral victory through this forum. But we should not delude ourselves too much, even if no Nobel is awarded (yet, this time around) for the latest claims of the “proof” of GR and as long as the previous claims of such “proofs” stand as they are. I understand that Dr. Engelhardt has pointed out many faults with the technical aspects of LIGO experiments on several occasions and (also believe) have written to the Nobel Committee about it; which may or may not have any impact at all.
The sad reality is that we are but a tiny fraction of scientists at the periphery of the science establishment; who are mainly isolated and independent researchers or doing so after retirement and hence are no match for a powerful and organized science establishment. To rephrase Karl Marx, “The ruling ideas of an epoch are the ideas of its ruling class” – GR is such a ruling idea and it would not be an easy task to undo it. But at the same time; a sour complacency that we fully understand the hollowness of GR, but have to live with it, is also not an option.
Oct 3, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | The victory of the classics (i.е. dynamics (i.е. gravitational waves)) over century of quantum beliefs domination - this is a real moral satisfaction (-;
Vasyl Komarov | The victory of the classics (i.е. dynamics (i.е. gravitational waves)) over century of quantum beliefs domination - this is a real moral satisfaction (-;
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Oct 5, 2017]
3 жовт. 2017 р.
11:30 | We cite "On Beyond Zebra!" by Dr. Seuss... But editor asked to remove this "superficial citation"
Наше бытие не ограничено фиксированным диапазоном циклических орбит формальной системы. Я благодарен и преклоняюсь, в том числе перед Dr. Seuss, за то, что с помощью его творчества эти орбиты превозмогаются - именно это позволяет чувствовать себя не машиной. Не знаю, где черпала бы "точная" наука идеи, если бы не эта сторона нашей жизни.
Цитировать однозначно, невзирая на вердикт редактора, поскольку это элементарное проявление неуважения к прочим видам деятельности, без которых невозможно было бы даже то формальное, что не "censored".
Будьте настоящей динамической системой во всех аспектах!
11:30 | We cite "On Beyond Zebra!" by Dr. Seuss... But editor asked to remove this "superficial citation"
We cite "On Beyond Zebra!" by Dr. Seuss inhttps://t.co/YKAoumd9xO
— Māris Ozols (@enclanglement) September 29, 2017
But editor asked to remove this "superficial citation" unfortunately.
Цитировать однозначно, невзирая на вердикт редактора, поскольку это элементарное проявление неуважения к прочим видам деятельности, без которых невозможно было бы даже то формальное, что не "censored".
Будьте настоящей динамической системой во всех аспектах!
Oct 4, 2017
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy,
You said "The victory of the classics (i.е. dynamics (i.е. gravitational waves)) over century of quantum beliefs domination - this is a real moral satisfaction (-;"
In fact you need to have the wisdom!! Why it is called "Relativity Gospel"!?? Everything happened as it was planned since long time. Classically as relativity predicted, graviton mediates gravitation, and according to quantum field theory photon must mediate gravitation. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether (Robert B. Laughlin), and Einstein understood and supported that in his relativity, and according to that try to understand what is the meaning of that from the point of view quantum field theory and how photon mediates gravitation in this case.
Do not be happy or optimistic by this fake victory you have seen today! In fact they closed all the doors in front of the classics now, and they opened a big door for QFT. Your problem you do not know what is the meaning of that, and that is really very dangerous because it came from relativists and all of us must be careful.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Azzam, it is possible to give rational explanation to virtual particles, that QFT does not have at all. So, I can not afford to blindly believe in vaccum (and gravitons as particles, by the way, too). And you can not offer me anything from the position of quantum theory, except the axiomatic postulation of the listed objects. And I must note that such a set of axioms, in addition to the obvious for me shortcomings, does not have undeniable advantages over the other ones. Also, I must note that my words do not at all mean that I deny QFT in the field of its application.
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy,
You said "The victory of the classics (i.е. dynamics (i.е. gravitational waves)) over century of quantum beliefs domination - this is a real moral satisfaction (-;"
In fact you need to have the wisdom!! Why it is called "Relativity Gospel"!?? Everything happened as it was planned since long time. Classically as relativity predicted, graviton mediates gravitation, and according to quantum field theory photon must mediate gravitation. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether (Robert B. Laughlin), and Einstein understood and supported that in his relativity, and according to that try to understand what is the meaning of that from the point of view quantum field theory and how photon mediates gravitation in this case.
Do not be happy or optimistic by this fake victory you have seen today! In fact they closed all the doors in front of the classics now, and they opened a big door for QFT. Your problem you do not know what is the meaning of that, and that is really very dangerous because it came from relativists and all of us must be careful.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Azzam, it is possible to give rational explanation to virtual particles, that QFT does not have at all. So, I can not afford to blindly believe in vaccum (and gravitons as particles, by the way, too). And you can not offer me anything from the position of quantum theory, except the axiomatic postulation of the listed objects. And I must note that such a set of axioms, in addition to the obvious for me shortcomings, does not have undeniable advantages over the other ones. Also, I must note that my words do not at all mean that I deny QFT in the field of its application.
Oct 5, 2017
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
In QFT, vacuum is not empty space as proposed in relativity of Einstein according to wrong math and physics, and we forced also to understand quantum according the theory of Einstein. What is clear you believe in nothing and nothing comes from nothing according to the wrong math proposed in Einstein's relativity 0=0. This equation is nonsense in physics and in math also. If relativists really discovered GW (remember always the certainty is in the uncertainty), then that means, physically and mathematically, in contradiction with what proposed in GR. And in reality they proved QFT, the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle according to the invariance of the energy momentum and the localisation of energy. Where is the conservation of the energy momentum in GR, and where is the localisation of energy in GR!? Review the energy momentum problem in GR and how energy is not localised in GR.
I'm not against classical physics to describe the universe (the certainty is in the uncertainty), but in fact relativists closed all the doors in front of classical physics now, and GR is much weaker to explain GW or the universe classically , and now a student in high can understand that. GR in reality is not a real physical or even mathematical theory.
To be honest with you, physically speaking and mathematically speaking, in reality GR and SRT are not classical theories!
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Azzam, I am enough informed about what vacuum is in QFT. De facto, it performs the function of a random number generator for the theory model. In addition to my previous comment, as I recently explained my position to dear Arturo Tozzi, I does not like that term for the same "mystical" reasons as the "god", for example. Because under it one can as well bring everything that has no rational explanation, but the formal theory, striving for the ToE or FT, should not coexist well with concepts like "vaccum", "dark matter", "god", etc. Perhaps, it is necessary to avoid terms of this type, they easily can be replaced by universal "placeholder" for information (sources of entropy within scope of the system).
Also above in this discussion (in one of the replics to dear Stefano Quattrini) I set out the reasons, why (in my opinion) the theories of relativity changes classical ideas and thinking about space (GR especially). I agree that in this context it is no longer a classical theories. However, again, I must pay attention to the fact that the entire quantum theory and corpuscular (quantized) representations in general, de facto, exploit the classical space views.
Azzam K Almosallami | Dear Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov,
In QFT, vacuum is not empty space as proposed in relativity of Einstein according to wrong math and physics, and we forced also to understand quantum according the theory of Einstein. What is clear you believe in nothing and nothing comes from nothing according to the wrong math proposed in Einstein's relativity 0=0. This equation is nonsense in physics and in math also. If relativists really discovered GW (remember always the certainty is in the uncertainty), then that means, physically and mathematically, in contradiction with what proposed in GR. And in reality they proved QFT, the wave-particle duality and the uncertainty principle according to the invariance of the energy momentum and the localisation of energy. Where is the conservation of the energy momentum in GR, and where is the localisation of energy in GR!? Review the energy momentum problem in GR and how energy is not localised in GR.
I'm not against classical physics to describe the universe (the certainty is in the uncertainty), but in fact relativists closed all the doors in front of classical physics now, and GR is much weaker to explain GW or the universe classically , and now a student in high can understand that. GR in reality is not a real physical or even mathematical theory.
To be honest with you, physically speaking and mathematically speaking, in reality GR and SRT are not classical theories!
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Azzam, I am enough informed about what vacuum is in QFT. De facto, it performs the function of a random number generator for the theory model. In addition to my previous comment, as I recently explained my position to dear Arturo Tozzi, I does not like that term for the same "mystical" reasons as the "god", for example. Because under it one can as well bring everything that has no rational explanation, but the formal theory, striving for the ToE or FT, should not coexist well with concepts like "vaccum", "dark matter", "god", etc. Perhaps, it is necessary to avoid terms of this type, they easily can be replaced by universal "placeholder" for information (sources of entropy within scope of the system).
Also above in this discussion (in one of the replics to dear Stefano Quattrini) I set out the reasons, why (in my opinion) the theories of relativity changes classical ideas and thinking about space (GR especially). I agree that in this context it is no longer a classical theories. However, again, I must pay attention to the fact that the entire quantum theory and corpuscular (quantized) representations in general, de facto, exploit the classical space views.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Oct 5, 2017]
6 жовт. 2017 р.
16:40 | Meanwhile, the blog, which began with a casual "Walk", quietly stepped over modest milestone (10k views almost without willful promotion). On the occasion it was interesting to look at the statistics again.
16:41 | Perhaps for new casual visitors it makes sense to do a maintenance of links to lost and moved resources and remove some non-essential details again (in addition to hastily completed 2015 entry).
16:40 | Meanwhile, the blog, which began with a casual "Walk", quietly stepped over modest milestone (10k views almost without willful promotion). On the occasion it was interesting to look at the statistics again.
16:41 | Perhaps for new casual visitors it makes sense to do a maintenance of links to lost and moved resources and remove some non-essential details again (in addition to hastily completed 2015 entry).
Oct 8, 2017
Q: What theory can supersede general relativity?
Since 1998 general relativity has failed to account for dark energy. Perhaps instead a theory of dark energy is needed to account for gravity. John James Waterston in 1845 in the early days of thermodynamics suspected that motion, via a 4/3 vis viva, might account for gravity. The 4/3 law appears to account for dark energy. The 4/3 law arises in connection with thermodynamics, as in Clausius’s mean path lengths, the 4/3 scaling of wind eddies of Lewis Fry Richardson, 3/4 metabolic scaling due to the 4/3 power scaling of the circulatory system, and the 4/3 fractal dimension of Brownian motion. Perhaps the 4/3 law might help account for gravity.
{Любопытная коллекция 4/3 в шапке темы.}
Q: What theory can supersede general relativity?
Since 1998 general relativity has failed to account for dark energy. Perhaps instead a theory of dark energy is needed to account for gravity. John James Waterston in 1845 in the early days of thermodynamics suspected that motion, via a 4/3 vis viva, might account for gravity. The 4/3 law appears to account for dark energy. The 4/3 law arises in connection with thermodynamics, as in Clausius’s mean path lengths, the 4/3 scaling of wind eddies of Lewis Fry Richardson, 3/4 metabolic scaling due to the 4/3 power scaling of the circulatory system, and the 4/3 fractal dimension of Brownian motion. Perhaps the 4/3 law might help account for gravity.
{Любопытная коллекция 4/3 в шапке темы.}
Oct 10, 2017
Abdul Malek | Christian Baumgarten, An interesting analysis!
Any theory based on monism, axioms, premise or pre-suppositions etc., and the principle: “Identity of Identity” is bound to be a Tautology. Because any further deduction or derivation has to be consistent with the truth already contained in the premise etc. This mode of thought prevails in all philosophy (idealist, materialist, theistic, spiritualistic etc.), natural science and physics (except QED); that are generally based on Causality or what Hegel called by the general term, “The View of Understanding".
The opposite notion – dialectics; is based on the contradiction of “Unity of the Opposites” or the principle “Identity of identity and non-identity”; which Hegel characterized as "The View of Reason”.
As to the question of this article whether “A Final Theory of Physics” necessarily would be a Tautology (and hence meaningless); (non-Hegelian) materialist dialectics would answer with a firm affirmative! Even the anti-dialectical interpretation of Darwin’s theory of evolution as “Natural Selection” from a dialectical point of view is a “Tautology”. Because anything that really evolves can arbitrarily and retroacvtively (and without any further consideration) be attributed to the premise, i.e., “Natural Selection”!
The following quote from Frederick Engels might help: “The perception that all the phenomena of Nature are systematically interconnected drives science to prove this interconnection throughout, both in general and in detail. But an adequate, exhaustive scientific statement of this interconnection, the formulation in thought of an exact picture of the world system in which we live, is impossible for us, and will always remain impossible. If at any time in the evolution of mankind such a final, conclusive system of the interconnections within the world - physical as well as mental and historical – were brought to completion, this would mean that human knowledge had reached its limit, and, from the moment when society had been brought into accord with that system, further historical evolution would be cut short – which would be an absurd idea, pure nonsense.
Mankind therefore finds itself faced with a contradiction; on the one hand, it has to gain an exhaustive knowledge of the world system in all in its interrelations; and on the other hand, because of the nature both of man and of the world system, this task can never be completely fulfilled. But this contradiction lies not only in the nature of the two factors – the world, and man – it is also the main lever of all intellectual advance, and finds its solution continuously, day by day, in the endless progressive evolution of humanity just as for example mathematical problems find their solution in an infinite series or continued fractionations. Each mental image of the world system is and remains in actual fact limited, objectively through the historical stage and subjectively through the physical and mental constitution of its maker." ( Frederick Engels, Anti-Duhring)
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, tautology does not mean meaningless. Mathematics is a tautology despite strongest physical roots ever. It has longest road to world of invariant things.
Vasyl Komarov | This means that there can not be any another physics other than the final theory. Possibility of another physics is misconception, in which most people live at this moment, including respected physicists. This is the direct consequence of centuries of domination of the idea of idealism in philosophy.
Herb Spencer | When one of the cleverest analysts of mathemetics in the 20th century, Bertrand Russell, author of Principia Mathematica admits that mathematics (and logic) are tautologies, it is useful to pay attention.
Abdul Malek | Christian Baumgarten, An interesting analysis!
Any theory based on monism, axioms, premise or pre-suppositions etc., and the principle: “Identity of Identity” is bound to be a Tautology. Because any further deduction or derivation has to be consistent with the truth already contained in the premise etc. This mode of thought prevails in all philosophy (idealist, materialist, theistic, spiritualistic etc.), natural science and physics (except QED); that are generally based on Causality or what Hegel called by the general term, “The View of Understanding".
The opposite notion – dialectics; is based on the contradiction of “Unity of the Opposites” or the principle “Identity of identity and non-identity”; which Hegel characterized as "The View of Reason”.
As to the question of this article whether “A Final Theory of Physics” necessarily would be a Tautology (and hence meaningless); (non-Hegelian) materialist dialectics would answer with a firm affirmative! Even the anti-dialectical interpretation of Darwin’s theory of evolution as “Natural Selection” from a dialectical point of view is a “Tautology”. Because anything that really evolves can arbitrarily and retroacvtively (and without any further consideration) be attributed to the premise, i.e., “Natural Selection”!
The following quote from Frederick Engels might help: “The perception that all the phenomena of Nature are systematically interconnected drives science to prove this interconnection throughout, both in general and in detail. But an adequate, exhaustive scientific statement of this interconnection, the formulation in thought of an exact picture of the world system in which we live, is impossible for us, and will always remain impossible. If at any time in the evolution of mankind such a final, conclusive system of the interconnections within the world - physical as well as mental and historical – were brought to completion, this would mean that human knowledge had reached its limit, and, from the moment when society had been brought into accord with that system, further historical evolution would be cut short – which would be an absurd idea, pure nonsense.
Mankind therefore finds itself faced with a contradiction; on the one hand, it has to gain an exhaustive knowledge of the world system in all in its interrelations; and on the other hand, because of the nature both of man and of the world system, this task can never be completely fulfilled. But this contradiction lies not only in the nature of the two factors – the world, and man – it is also the main lever of all intellectual advance, and finds its solution continuously, day by day, in the endless progressive evolution of humanity just as for example mathematical problems find their solution in an infinite series or continued fractionations. Each mental image of the world system is and remains in actual fact limited, objectively through the historical stage and subjectively through the physical and mental constitution of its maker." ( Frederick Engels, Anti-Duhring)
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, tautology does not mean meaningless. Mathematics is a tautology despite strongest physical roots ever. It has longest road to world of invariant things.
Vasyl Komarov | This means that there can not be any another physics other than the final theory. Possibility of another physics is misconception, in which most people live at this moment, including respected physicists. This is the direct consequence of centuries of domination of the idea of idealism in philosophy.
Herb Spencer | When one of the cleverest analysts of mathemetics in the 20th century, Bertrand Russell, author of Principia Mathematica admits that mathematics (and logic) are tautologies, it is useful to pay attention.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: The Final Theory of Physics -a Tautology? [accessed Dec 8, 2017]
13 жовт. 2017 р.
23:25 | Publishers threaten to remove millions of papers from ResearchGate amid alleged copyright infringement
Надеюсь, ResearchGate сохранит открытость материалов. В этом вся его прелесть - одна большая кухня на всех. Хотя, последние действия по анонимизации активности пользователей далеко не во всём идут на пользу сети, свои мнения и правду всегда надо искренне говорить, прямо в лицо оппоненту. Как очень правильно говорил Ницше, для настоящих исследователей диалектика вытесняет инстинкты самосохранения.
23:25 | Publishers threaten to remove millions of papers from ResearchGate amid alleged copyright infringement
Надеюсь, ResearchGate сохранит открытость материалов. В этом вся его прелесть - одна большая кухня на всех. Хотя, последние действия по анонимизации активности пользователей далеко не во всём идут на пользу сети, свои мнения и правду всегда надо искренне говорить, прямо в лицо оппоненту. Как очень правильно говорил Ницше, для настоящих исследователей диалектика вытесняет инстинкты самосохранения.
21 жовт. 2017 р.
13:53 | Физики запретили гравитации разгоняться выше 1,4 скорости света
Заголовок заметки (как часто бывает) некорректный. Любая статистика по соотношениям скоростей распространения возмущений в системе - самая ожидаемая и интересная информация с момента первой регистрации события, конечно.
NB: Будет забавно, если в конечном итоге окажется что соотношение c_{gw}/c по величине будет похоже на универсальную константу перколяции.
Bounding the Speed of Gravity with Gravitational Wave Observations
2017 | arXiv:1707.06101 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161102
13:53 | Физики запретили гравитации разгоняться выше 1,4 скорости света
Заголовок заметки (как часто бывает) некорректный. Любая статистика по соотношениям скоростей распространения возмущений в системе - самая ожидаемая и интересная информация с момента первой регистрации события, конечно.
NB: Будет забавно, если в конечном итоге окажется что соотношение c_{gw}/c по величине будет похоже на универсальную константу перколяции.
Bounding the Speed of Gravity with Gravitational Wave Observations
2017 | arXiv:1707.06101 | DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161102
23 жовт. 2017 р.
13:22 | С одной стороны системе должно соответствовать некоторое гипотетическое инвариантное интегральное преобразование, а внутри (или "с изнанки")...
Theophanes E. Raptis: Check this first and especially the role of the convolution kernels (aka continuous "automata"!)
Nonlocal Gravity
2011 | arXiv:1101.3752
[ из комментариев RG Project: Kinematics and Cosmology ]
13:22 | С одной стороны системе должно соответствовать некоторое гипотетическое инвариантное интегральное преобразование, а внутри (или "с изнанки")...
Theophanes E. Raptis: Check this first and especially the role of the convolution kernels (aka continuous "automata"!)
Nonlocal Gravity
2011 | arXiv:1101.3752
[ из комментариев RG Project: Kinematics and Cosmology ]
Oct 24, 2017
Q: How RG score increases or decreases?
Andreas Mämpel | Now I wonder if the Q&A based score (which can decrease relatively quickly) is influenced by those who leave RG. For example when I answered a question and the question will be deleted, I loose all the recommendations for my answer - and if the researcher delete his profile all his questions vanish...
There are too much 'RGexits' at the moment :(
Aaron Peled | Dear colleague Leonid V Vladimirov ,
It is hard for me to believe the RG algorithms have a parameter of 'vindictiveness'. The basic flaws I see in the system is that one cannot search for specific strings in the projects like in google search. Hope they will upgrade the search option.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Aaron, in addition to full-text search, it would be good if all the user's activity (including comments to projects and publications) be displayed on the "Contribution" tab with ability of direct search on the tab and direct jump to a specific position in the threads.
There are a lot of problems with navigation and search, lossing of messages after edits etc. Sometimes I express my wishes to RG support team.
Also ResearchGate often has obvious problems with arithmetic or memory. For example, service recently congratulated me on the achievement ("Congrats... Your question reached 20 reads") of the Asked Question (Changes in the overall entropy of a single biological organism during lifetime?) with 23 followers and 70 answers. It's funny, since this metric for the thread currently has to pass at least 500-600 and, in any case, can not be less than number of answers or number of followers.
{Даже несмотря на часто меняющиеся метрики, иногда можно наблюдать забавные сообщения от RG...
...небольшая цифра, наверное, показывает реальные (не значительные) масштабы активности пользователей сети, по отношению к миллионам зарегистрированных на RG аккаунтов.}
NB: Perhaps, of course, RG have changed the counting algorithm and at the same time the concept of "Reading" (for example, only for new users, what still does not correspond to the number of followers from example above). Such change, if I'm not mistaken, was once long ago with the counting of profile views (which now are generally hidden from "extraneous" eyes).
Most service metrics is not transparent and does not have easy access to decryption or description.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Andreas, I think, the most terrible thing, that ResearchGate users are afraid of, is the ability to talk in a hurry and, in the end, look foolish or emotionally unbalanced. I think, it provoked a big wave of withdrawing from the network.
In the 21st century it is more rational to overcome this fear than to withdraw from such projects. Otherwise, there will be only madmen and those (really respected people) who already have nothing to lose.
Feel free to express your thoughts and participate in discussions. Do not be afraid to make mistakes,
Q: How RG score increases or decreases?
Andreas Mämpel | Now I wonder if the Q&A based score (which can decrease relatively quickly) is influenced by those who leave RG. For example when I answered a question and the question will be deleted, I loose all the recommendations for my answer - and if the researcher delete his profile all his questions vanish...
There are too much 'RGexits' at the moment :(
Aaron Peled | Dear colleague Leonid V Vladimirov ,
It is hard for me to believe the RG algorithms have a parameter of 'vindictiveness'. The basic flaws I see in the system is that one cannot search for specific strings in the projects like in google search. Hope they will upgrade the search option.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Aaron, in addition to full-text search, it would be good if all the user's activity (including comments to projects and publications) be displayed on the "Contribution" tab with ability of direct search on the tab and direct jump to a specific position in the threads.
There are a lot of problems with navigation and search, lossing of messages after edits etc. Sometimes I express my wishes to RG support team.
Also ResearchGate often has obvious problems with arithmetic or memory. For example, service recently congratulated me on the achievement ("Congrats... Your question reached 20 reads") of the Asked Question (Changes in the overall entropy of a single biological organism during lifetime?) with 23 followers and 70 answers. It's funny, since this metric for the thread currently has to pass at least 500-600 and, in any case, can not be less than number of answers or number of followers.
{Даже несмотря на часто меняющиеся метрики, иногда можно наблюдать забавные сообщения от RG...
...небольшая цифра, наверное, показывает реальные (не значительные) масштабы активности пользователей сети, по отношению к миллионам зарегистрированных на RG аккаунтов.}
NB: Perhaps, of course, RG have changed the counting algorithm and at the same time the concept of "Reading" (for example, only for new users, what still does not correspond to the number of followers from example above). Such change, if I'm not mistaken, was once long ago with the counting of profile views (which now are generally hidden from "extraneous" eyes).
Most service metrics is not transparent and does not have easy access to decryption or description.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Andreas, I think, the most terrible thing, that ResearchGate users are afraid of, is the ability to talk in a hurry and, in the end, look foolish or emotionally unbalanced. I think, it provoked a big wave of withdrawing from the network.
In the 21st century it is more rational to overcome this fear than to withdraw from such projects. Otherwise, there will be only madmen and those (really respected people) who already have nothing to lose.
Feel free to express your thoughts and participate in discussions. Do not be afraid to make mistakes,
“manuscripts don't burn”
— Mikhail Bulgakov | The Master and Margarita.
— ResearchGate. Available from: How RG score increases or decreases? [accessed Oct 24, 2017]
27 жовт. 2017 р.
16:30 | Universe shouldn’t exist, CERN physicists conclude
(Proton and antiproton have identical magnetic properties.)
A short reminder about existence (Being).
1) The directions of space and other abstract attributes (such as frames of reference etc.) are only formal fictitious representation of some qualities inherent in what we call space and our relationship with it.
The sequence of entities does not matter until we are dealing with cyclic orbits (orbit ranges) in the dynamic system (existence is, first of all, a process).
The question of the complete symmetry of the universe, apparently, depends on what the space really is.
If space is an integral part of the structure of matter, then with CPT situation is slightly more complicated than it looks.
In this case, the matter may be not completely symmetric with antimatter, even if in both cases they are identical with roles.
Then such universes can exist only in different "spaces", since different spaces are an integral part of the corresponding universes.
The question of their interaction raises the question of the connection between them, since it is meaningless to talk about mutual symmetry for disconnected objects.
And, despite the symmetry, such connected universes can have the same direction of "time arrow", since, in this case, apparently, must be a general irreversibility.
In general, directions ("arrows") make sense when it comes to symmetries. Irreversibility, this is something else. It has no symmetry. It is not a symmetrical opposition to reversibility.
The dichotomy of infinity into two symmetrical parts is an absurd thing, until we set a central reference point.
How can we choose a central reference point for an infinite object? Apparently, only by selecting a finite part of the infinite set as a measure.
Those, on this position axioms are necessary. Next, we can talk about symmetries, both inside the selected area, and outward constructions, having a measure. But this is another story based on finite entities.
De facto, we live in a centric world. But reason requires that the final laws of physics must be centric-invariant.
Then something is not easy with symmetries, because there must be an uncertainty of a specific type (uncertainty relative to simmetries).
2) The idea behind Eulerian and Lagrangian observers is good to demonstrate the difference between understanding of space in the classical and relativistic meanings.
Eulerian observer (#1) implies 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 different descriptions of motion is painless and does not change anything.
In GR this is no longer the case. Although, the problems already start in SRT: Whatever the specific Lagrangian system (consisting of an arbitrary set of entities) we are considering, we should take into account all the entities. Otherwise, lack of knowledge (information) does not exempt from limitations.
Within SRT framework observer always has a lack of information about the state of system (like a constant of indefinite integral). In GR it is maintained on different level.
Here the meaninglessness of consideration of isolated unitary entity is worth noting!
Connectedness is a fundamental quality of reality, manifestations of which can be found everywhere over nature and formal systems (from holistic ideas behind GR, self-organisation and condition of universality of dynamical systems to inescapable semantics and Goedel's theorem).
It is for this reason understanding the nature by classical mechanics (where we can put an unitary entity as a thing in itself in abstract space and study it) is far from reality. Lagrangian approach to description of motion starts from this point of view (as already mentioned above).
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.
In reality we do not know the exact coordinates, but a limited portion of inalienable space occupied by the system of entities there is always (on any scope of system under consideration).
It works like a turned on the wrong side uncertainty principle: in order to know exactly own state (in my opinion here should be added ...within a cyclical orbit of a dynamical system or orbit range), we need to know the state of the entire system (a state over all degrees of freedom of the dynamical system up to this cyclical orbit (range), inclusively).
This functional relationship between the observer and rest of the system is manifested in the form of entropy.
So, both ideas (#1 and #2) in the basis of various descriptions of motion are misguided since time of the theories of relativity (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).
3) In order to properly reflect on this, it is necessary, first of all, to have a correct attitude to mathematics, as a phenomenon inherent in reality (which contradicts the popular philosophical concept of the opposition of idealism and materialism).
Mathematics is the result of filtering the topological regularities of physical reality into truly invariant (archetypal or prototypical relationships) structures (systems), knowledge (memory) of which can be preserved by reality within reality due to these essential properties, representing the structure of reality itself.
This means that not only mathematics is a tautology, but final theory too (see C. Baumgarten paper and Unicorn Space Cat, left bottom corner of the Hypothesis Mindmap).
This means that any another physics other than the final theory can not be. Possibility of another physics is misconception, in which most people live at the moment, including respected physicists. This is the direct consequence of centuries of domination of the idea of idealism in philosophy.
The existing approach to demarcation so far closes the way to any adequate theory, which strives to a theory of everything (final theory), and understanding of holism in general.
As a consequence, the regularities of dynamic systems, such as connectedness and universality, are perceived by modern science in a very fragmented way.
All this can only be resolved in a complex, and it is necessary to begin with a reboot of the philosophy ab initio...
It is pointless to talk about chirality in the absence of symmetry and cycles.
It is pointless to talk about symmetry in an infinite (unlimited, non-centric) system, since the symmetry implies equilibrium in principle.
So, exact equilibrium could exist only in a truly closed system, which in turn contradicts Gödel's theorem and semantics (formal theorem and its obvious physical "proof"). But on the idea of equilibrium reaching (or the analysis of it around) pile of cosmological models is based.
16:30 | Universe shouldn’t exist, CERN physicists conclude
(Proton and antiproton have identical magnetic properties.)
A short reminder about existence (Being).
1) The directions of space and other abstract attributes (such as frames of reference etc.) are only formal fictitious representation of some qualities inherent in what we call space and our relationship with it.
The sequence of entities does not matter until we are dealing with cyclic orbits (orbit ranges) in the dynamic system (existence is, first of all, a process).
The question of the complete symmetry of the universe, apparently, depends on what the space really is.
If space is an integral part of the structure of matter, then with CPT situation is slightly more complicated than it looks.
In this case, the matter may be not completely symmetric with antimatter, even if in both cases they are identical with roles.
Then such universes can exist only in different "spaces", since different spaces are an integral part of the corresponding universes.
The question of their interaction raises the question of the connection between them, since it is meaningless to talk about mutual symmetry for disconnected objects.
And, despite the symmetry, such connected universes can have the same direction of "time arrow", since, in this case, apparently, must be a general irreversibility.
In general, directions ("arrows") make sense when it comes to symmetries. Irreversibility, this is something else. It has no symmetry. It is not a symmetrical opposition to reversibility.
The dichotomy of infinity into two symmetrical parts is an absurd thing, until we set a central reference point.
How can we choose a central reference point for an infinite object? Apparently, only by selecting a finite part of the infinite set as a measure.
Those, on this position axioms are necessary. Next, we can talk about symmetries, both inside the selected area, and outward constructions, having a measure. But this is another story based on finite entities.
De facto, we live in a centric world. But reason requires that the final laws of physics must be centric-invariant.
Then something is not easy with symmetries, because there must be an uncertainty of a specific type (uncertainty relative to simmetries).
2) The idea behind Eulerian and Lagrangian observers is good to demonstrate the difference between understanding of space in the classical and relativistic meanings.
Eulerian observer (#1) implies 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 different descriptions of motion is painless and does not change anything.
In GR this is no longer the case. Although, the problems already start in SRT: Whatever the specific Lagrangian system (consisting of an arbitrary set of entities) we are considering, we should take into account all the entities. Otherwise, lack of knowledge (information) does not exempt from limitations.
Within SRT framework observer always has a lack of information about the state of system (like a constant of indefinite integral). In GR it is maintained on different level.
Here the meaninglessness of consideration of isolated unitary entity is worth noting!
Connectedness is a fundamental quality of reality, manifestations of which can be found everywhere over nature and formal systems (from holistic ideas behind GR, self-organisation and condition of universality of dynamical systems to inescapable semantics and Goedel's theorem).
It is for this reason understanding the nature by classical mechanics (where we can put an unitary entity as a thing in itself in abstract space and study it) is far from reality. Lagrangian approach to description of motion starts from this point of view (as already mentioned above).
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.
In reality we do not know the exact coordinates, but a limited portion of inalienable space occupied by the system of entities there is always (on any scope of system under consideration).
It works like a turned on the wrong side uncertainty principle: in order to know exactly own state (in my opinion here should be added ...within a cyclical orbit of a dynamical system or orbit range), we need to know the state of the entire system (a state over all degrees of freedom of the dynamical system up to this cyclical orbit (range), inclusively).
This functional relationship between the observer and rest of the system is manifested in the form of entropy.
So, both ideas (#1 and #2) in the basis of various descriptions of motion are misguided since time of the theories of relativity (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).
3) In order to properly reflect on this, it is necessary, first of all, to have a correct attitude to mathematics, as a phenomenon inherent in reality (which contradicts the popular philosophical concept of the opposition of idealism and materialism).
Mathematics is the result of filtering the topological regularities of physical reality into truly invariant (archetypal or prototypical relationships) structures (systems), knowledge (memory) of which can be preserved by reality within reality due to these essential properties, representing the structure of reality itself.
This means that not only mathematics is a tautology, but final theory too (see C. Baumgarten paper and Unicorn Space Cat, left bottom corner of the Hypothesis Mindmap).
This means that any another physics other than the final theory can not be. Possibility of another physics is misconception, in which most people live at the moment, including respected physicists. This is the direct consequence of centuries of domination of the idea of idealism in philosophy.
The existing approach to demarcation so far closes the way to any adequate theory, which strives to a theory of everything (final theory), and understanding of holism in general.
As a consequence, the regularities of dynamic systems, such as connectedness and universality, are perceived by modern science in a very fragmented way.
All this can only be resolved in a complex, and it is necessary to begin with a reboot of the philosophy ab initio...
It is pointless to talk about chirality in the absence of symmetry and cycles.
It is pointless to talk about symmetry in an infinite (unlimited, non-centric) system, since the symmetry implies equilibrium in principle.
So, exact equilibrium could exist only in a truly closed system, which in turn contradicts Gödel's theorem and semantics (formal theorem and its obvious physical "proof"). But on the idea of equilibrium reaching (or the analysis of it around) pile of cosmological models is based.
Nov 1, 2017
Azzam Almosallami | Dear Alexander I. Korolev,
In my previous comment I'm talking about the change which is related to the vacuum fluctuation. What is the vacuum fluctuations!? a quantum fluctuation (or quantum vacuum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Also according to my theory I keep on causality. My quantization of gravity is causal. GR violated the causality.
Vasyl Komarov | Azzam, violation of causality can be, if the global irreversibility is under question only.
If what is hidden under the singularity of model is no longer available to the rest of the model, it can not be asserted that causality is violated. The relativity does not violate causality. The classics do not violate it, in principle (regardless of any restrictions on the speed of propagation).
It is the thinking by the category of spontaneity allows unlimited spontaneity. Thus much easier to imagine the violation of causality.
The principle of uncertainty here is the first guardian of causality (infinity within any circular orbit is weaker than the Continuum).
Azzam Almosallami | Dear Alexander I. Korolev,
In my previous comment I'm talking about the change which is related to the vacuum fluctuation. What is the vacuum fluctuations!? a quantum fluctuation (or quantum vacuum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
Also according to my theory I keep on causality. My quantization of gravity is causal. GR violated the causality.
Vasyl Komarov | Azzam, violation of causality can be, if the global irreversibility is under question only.
If what is hidden under the singularity of model is no longer available to the rest of the model, it can not be asserted that causality is violated. The relativity does not violate causality. The classics do not violate it, in principle (regardless of any restrictions on the speed of propagation).
It is the thinking by the category of spontaneity allows unlimited spontaneity. Thus much easier to imagine the violation of causality.
The principle of uncertainty here is the first guardian of causality (infinity within any circular orbit is weaker than the Continuum).
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Nov 1, 2017]
6 лист. 2017 р.
14:40 | Банальный и осознаваемый тривиальным постфактум следующий шаг со времён Эйнштейна: объединение материи с пространством-временем в материю-пространство-время.
Осознание Холизма - единственный путь к теории, которая действительно стремится к финальной теории.
Это необходимо и для физики, и для биологии,... и для философии, и для математики.
14:40 | Банальный и осознаваемый тривиальным постфактум следующий шаг со времён Эйнштейна: объединение материи с пространством-временем в материю-пространство-время.
Осознание Холизма - единственный путь к теории, которая действительно стремится к финальной теории.
Это необходимо и для физики, и для биологии,... и для философии, и для математики.
14:25 |
Кстати, в рамках Гипотезы, точнее, необходимого понимания материи-пространства как единой когерентной топологической структуры, конфайнмент имеет тривиальный смысл.
Пространство гипергеометрии не может существовать без своих границ (это то же самое что, например, мяч без своей оболочки), одно без другого абсурдно. Т.е. периодическая структура, связанная с конфайнментом для основной массы {не массы в буквальном физическом смысле} базовой структуры материи (базовой структуры Вселенной) должна была сформироваться исключительно вместе с пространством-временем до некоторого когерентного состояния (как единый процесс).
Это противоречит общепринятой концепции начальной стадии эволюции вселенной (до инфляции, включительно). Но, Гипотеза имеет претензии к данному периоду существования Вселенной практически от самого начала, ассоциировав её формирование с коллапсом в "черную дыру".
Процесс формирование когерентной устойчивой (стабилизированной) динамической структуры "черной дыры" (данная бифуркация), должен иметь определенную динамику, которая, скорее всего, мало похожа "изнутри" на популярную концепцию эволюции от момента Большого взрыва (данный вопрос здесь неоднократно поднимался).
В этот период нельзя воспринимать пространство-время в классическом (и классическом релятивистском) смысле, поскольку имеет место переходной процесс, оно находится в процессе формирования.
Пространство гипергеометрии не может существовать без своих границ (это то же самое что, например, мяч без своей оболочки), одно без другого абсурдно. Т.е. периодическая структура, связанная с конфайнментом для основной массы {не массы в буквальном физическом смысле} базовой структуры материи (базовой структуры Вселенной) должна была сформироваться исключительно вместе с пространством-временем до некоторого когерентного состояния (как единый процесс).
Это противоречит общепринятой концепции начальной стадии эволюции вселенной (до инфляции, включительно). Но, Гипотеза имеет претензии к данному периоду существования Вселенной практически от самого начала, ассоциировав её формирование с коллапсом в "черную дыру".
Процесс формирование когерентной устойчивой (стабилизированной) динамической структуры "черной дыры" (данная бифуркация), должен иметь определенную динамику, которая, скорее всего, мало похожа "изнутри" на популярную концепцию эволюции от момента Большого взрыва (данный вопрос здесь неоднократно поднимался).
В этот период нельзя воспринимать пространство-время в классическом (и классическом релятивистском) смысле, поскольку имеет место переходной процесс, оно находится в процессе формирования.
Nov 8, 2017
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Abdul,
thank you for your comment and interest. Like Vasyl F. Komarov I think that a tautology (like mathematics) is not meaningless. Maybe it is the max of what can be achieved.
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Abdul,
thank you for your comment and interest. Like Vasyl F. Komarov I think that a tautology (like mathematics) is not meaningless. Maybe it is the max of what can be achieved.
Nov 9, 2017
Abdul Malek | Dear Christian,
Thanks for your response to my comment. I agreed with the essence of your publication and your conclusion that, “it is logically impossible that an ideal final theory supports realism”
First of all, from a dialectical point of view “an ideal final theory” itself is impossible, whether or not it corresponds to reality is of little consideration. The quotation I made from Engels above, should clarify this view.
Secondly and historically, other than classical mechanics and Newtonian physics (where it is possible to know the cause and the corresponding effect quantitatively) the notions of Causality dependent philosophy, science and idealized mathematics were based on arbitrary axioms, premise, postulates and the fancy, etc., of individual philosophers and mathematicians. These are self-consistent as long as a conclusion is already contained in the premise, like the theorems of geometry, As Hegel put it, “first definitions and axioms are set up, to which theorems are attached, whose proof consists merely in being reduced by the understanding (causality, A.M.) to those unproven postulates”.
In the idealist realm, these theories can be self-consistent and are contradiction free, because no addition of new elements or new facts are required. These are tautologies because no new knowledge is added or even necessary. It is only useful if you want to have a gentlemen’s agreement with like minded people who accept the initial premise. But in the real world, you can either arbitrarily impose these notions and tautologies without any amendments as theology or even Kant did and could remain self-consistent by edict only; or alternatively, with some amendments (taking some elements of objective reality into consideration) as Einstein did with his theories of relativity for example, but in this case self-consistency cannot be guaranteed, because you added new elements from outside. Even the purely empiricism and causality (anti-dialectical) based theory of evolution as formulated in Darwin’s “Natural Selection” is a form of tautology. Because any new feature or evolution of species can (even without any new investigation or new knowledge) simply be attributed to the one-sided premise of selection by Nature or as in theology : "the wish and will of all powerful God"!
In its idealist form mathematics is the epitome of causality and is indeed tautology and is useless in the sense that no new knowledge of the objective reality is being gained through deductions; as was the case with the early Greek geometry, for example. This is just a scholastic exercise and an end in itself, useful only in judging the relative mental (reasoning) capacity between individuals, like a chess game between two persons, who follow the same rules. Mathematics was in this sense an important part even in (anti-science) Medieval European and Christian scholasticism!
Historically, mathematics is a creation of man for his practical needs. And only in that sense mathematics played a tremendously useful role and was decisive in systematizing and enhancing scientific and empirical knowledge. Regards
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul Malek, your arguments at the moment and the arguments in the topic "Free Fall in Gravitational Theory" under impression of Christian's publication uniquely identifies you as an idealist for me, despite your convictions.
Unlike your "idealist realm", mathematics can not get rid of Gödel's incompleteness theorem and semantics, which at the physical level sews up any formal system with your physical existence (your biological brain, literally).
Is Semantics Physical?!
The final theory is unattainable, because there must be no axioms in it. Such a theory can be endlessly striven, because only through the way of promotion of hypotheses (unproved assumptions i.e. axioms) followed by application of "modus ponens" to comparison with your qualia (do the "observed" qualia follow from the assumption or not). It's not difficult to notice that science is engaged in this throughout history. This is called "falsification", as you know.
I repeat once again that in the same way mathematics was born (man learned to count fingers and other material objects physically, extracting semantics of numbers from the topology of reality).
So, you, definitely, are more idealistic than I or Christian despite of your materialistic manifesto. Regards.
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Abdul,your wrote:
"First of all, from a dialectical point of view “an ideal final theory” itself is impossible, whether or not it corresponds to reality is of little consideration. The quotation I made from Engels above, should clarify this view."
Maybe I do not completely understand your (or Engels) point of view: You say that a final theory, even if it corresponds to reality, is impossible? How to understand this?And I have a question for you, maybe in a similar direction as the comment of Vasyl:You seem to make a decided distinction between "idealized mathematics" and real matter.
But if dialectics is the art to see the unity of opposites, then why is there no dialectic view possible of the opposites of "ideal" and "material/real"?
Abdul Malek | Dear Christian,
The idea that man can never find a final, ideal theory or absolute truth that materialist dialectics asserts, can be confusing to many, because Hegel himself talked about an “Absolute Idea”!
Now, Hegel was an idealist and hence believed in the "Unity" of Monism. For him the (rational) "Idea" is the only thing that has permanence, everything else is defactive and perishable. This "Idea" willy-nilly appears (alienates itself) in the material world in disguise of contradictions with the real world (Nature as its other!) and goes through the evolution of matter, life and thought following the dialectical twists and turns of history, which he describes in detail; but for him that Idea finally comes back to itself again through the rational mind of man – and unsurprisingly the mind of Hegel himself (!) – An illusion Hegel shares with ALL philosophers of the past.
But with an “Absolute Idea” Hegel contradicts his dialectical method, which he developed with remarkable precision. For dialectics, any existence (at all) is a contradiction of the “unity of the opposites” of “being” and “nothing” a logical oddity and at the same time an impetus for change to a new and relatively more concrete contradictions and so on for ever without coming to an end or finality! Because finality means the elimination of the contradiction; and thereby existence itself! So, an Absolute Idea or “Absolute Truth or Theory” cannot exist! I have discussed this in detail in my article, “The Infinite”: The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science
You say, “You seem to make a decided distinction between "idealized mathematics" and real matter. But if dialectics is the art to see the unity of opposites, then why is there no dialectic view possible of the opposites of "ideal" and "material/real"?
Yes, dialectics (and I) always do recognize this distinction and contradiction! It is only (may be you) or the anti-dialectical “View of understanding” (as Hegel termed it) do not see any contradiction! Because for it, the “ideal” or the “Idea” contains everything within it. Differentiation comes from that Unity alone - ALL in ONE or ONE in ALL! For idealist Permenides (like Hegel), “Only the One Is, Many Not!” For the “view of understanding, the opposites like positive/negative, true/false, cause/effect etc. as dualism are immutable for ever with an “exclusive middle” in between; such that the opposites remain static, permanently fixed and opposed to each other for ever.
For dialectics, there is no “exclusive middle” between the opposites, because they also have some unity! Because of this contradiction they have (spontaneous and self-induced, without external cause) dynamical relation, can mutually convert to each other or exchange their relative position in the course of change and development – an obligatory and revolutionary aspect and requirement of dialectics. As Heraclitus first formulated it, “Everything comes into being, changes in their various ways and passes out of existence, because of inner conflict”. Hegel’s formulation of this is as the contradiction of “Being-Nothing” and the triad: “Being-Nothing-Becoming” as the first and also the last of any series of “negation of the negation” in any change, evolution, development (both in any arbitrary positive and negative sense) etc. For dialectics the "Beginning" and the "End" lie together and in the same contradiction of "Being-Nothing"; the "End" is also the "Beginning"! There cannot be a separate (only) begining like "Big Bang" or (only) end! Please see my article cited above.
Abdul Malek | Added Note:
For dialectics, the “Real” and the “Ideal” are in a dialectical contradiction of the” unity of the opposites”. In the course of historical development and as a “necessity” of reason, the “Real” progressively approaches the “Ideal” but can never be totally identical with the “Ideal”, in that case they will mutually annihilate (like matter/antimatter in physics) each other and must go out of “existence”!
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Abdul, you wrote:
"The idea that man can never find a final, ideal theory or absolute truth that materialist dialectics asserts, can be confusing to many, because Hegel himself talked about an “Absolute Idea”! "
I argue in the above paper that a final theory may not contain "substantial" propositions; i.e. that the final theory will be tautological. What does this mean? It means that the content of a final theory (if possible) is a conditional statement of the form "if A then B", where "A" is a statement of the form "assumed there is an objective physical reality".
Thus I claim that the final theory of physics may not contain metaphysical assumptions. Mathematicians don't claim the "existence" of anything. Math is about imagined entities. A final theory of physics will have the same form: If a final theory is possible, it will likely be a long explanation of what we mean when we say "A", i.e. when we say "assumed there is an objective physical reality".
Hence I claim that the final theory will be pure logic - or it will not be "final". Which implies that it is free from substantial propositions. It is a pure clarification of what is meant by "physical world". I.e. no other type of *objective physical reality* is possible.
If I understood your description of the materialistic worldview, then this worldview is not "neutral", but contains substantial claims, which implies that it requires "believe". Like Newtonian physics requires the believe in absolute space and time.
What I claim is that a *final theory* may only exist if it requires no "believe". I define a radical concept (inspired by Weinberg) of a final theory and what it implies (imho). Thus I think I make just statements of the form "if A then B".
Abdul Malek | Dear Christian,
Thanks for your response to my comment. I agreed with the essence of your publication and your conclusion that, “it is logically impossible that an ideal final theory supports realism”
First of all, from a dialectical point of view “an ideal final theory” itself is impossible, whether or not it corresponds to reality is of little consideration. The quotation I made from Engels above, should clarify this view.
Secondly and historically, other than classical mechanics and Newtonian physics (where it is possible to know the cause and the corresponding effect quantitatively) the notions of Causality dependent philosophy, science and idealized mathematics were based on arbitrary axioms, premise, postulates and the fancy, etc., of individual philosophers and mathematicians. These are self-consistent as long as a conclusion is already contained in the premise, like the theorems of geometry, As Hegel put it, “first definitions and axioms are set up, to which theorems are attached, whose proof consists merely in being reduced by the understanding (causality, A.M.) to those unproven postulates”.
In the idealist realm, these theories can be self-consistent and are contradiction free, because no addition of new elements or new facts are required. These are tautologies because no new knowledge is added or even necessary. It is only useful if you want to have a gentlemen’s agreement with like minded people who accept the initial premise. But in the real world, you can either arbitrarily impose these notions and tautologies without any amendments as theology or even Kant did and could remain self-consistent by edict only; or alternatively, with some amendments (taking some elements of objective reality into consideration) as Einstein did with his theories of relativity for example, but in this case self-consistency cannot be guaranteed, because you added new elements from outside. Even the purely empiricism and causality (anti-dialectical) based theory of evolution as formulated in Darwin’s “Natural Selection” is a form of tautology. Because any new feature or evolution of species can (even without any new investigation or new knowledge) simply be attributed to the one-sided premise of selection by Nature or as in theology : "the wish and will of all powerful God"!
In its idealist form mathematics is the epitome of causality and is indeed tautology and is useless in the sense that no new knowledge of the objective reality is being gained through deductions; as was the case with the early Greek geometry, for example. This is just a scholastic exercise and an end in itself, useful only in judging the relative mental (reasoning) capacity between individuals, like a chess game between two persons, who follow the same rules. Mathematics was in this sense an important part even in (anti-science) Medieval European and Christian scholasticism!
Historically, mathematics is a creation of man for his practical needs. And only in that sense mathematics played a tremendously useful role and was decisive in systematizing and enhancing scientific and empirical knowledge. Regards
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul Malek, your arguments at the moment and the arguments in the topic "Free Fall in Gravitational Theory" under impression of Christian's publication uniquely identifies you as an idealist for me, despite your convictions.
Unlike your "idealist realm", mathematics can not get rid of Gödel's incompleteness theorem and semantics, which at the physical level sews up any formal system with your physical existence (your biological brain, literally).
Is Semantics Physical?!
The final theory is unattainable, because there must be no axioms in it. Such a theory can be endlessly striven, because only through the way of promotion of hypotheses (unproved assumptions i.e. axioms) followed by application of "modus ponens" to comparison with your qualia (do the "observed" qualia follow from the assumption or not). It's not difficult to notice that science is engaged in this throughout history. This is called "falsification", as you know.
I repeat once again that in the same way mathematics was born (man learned to count fingers and other material objects physically, extracting semantics of numbers from the topology of reality).
So, you, definitely, are more idealistic than I or Christian despite of your materialistic manifesto. Regards.
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Abdul,your wrote:
"First of all, from a dialectical point of view “an ideal final theory” itself is impossible, whether or not it corresponds to reality is of little consideration. The quotation I made from Engels above, should clarify this view."
Maybe I do not completely understand your (or Engels) point of view: You say that a final theory, even if it corresponds to reality, is impossible? How to understand this?And I have a question for you, maybe in a similar direction as the comment of Vasyl:You seem to make a decided distinction between "idealized mathematics" and real matter.
But if dialectics is the art to see the unity of opposites, then why is there no dialectic view possible of the opposites of "ideal" and "material/real"?
Abdul Malek | Dear Christian,
The idea that man can never find a final, ideal theory or absolute truth that materialist dialectics asserts, can be confusing to many, because Hegel himself talked about an “Absolute Idea”!
Now, Hegel was an idealist and hence believed in the "Unity" of Monism. For him the (rational) "Idea" is the only thing that has permanence, everything else is defactive and perishable. This "Idea" willy-nilly appears (alienates itself) in the material world in disguise of contradictions with the real world (Nature as its other!) and goes through the evolution of matter, life and thought following the dialectical twists and turns of history, which he describes in detail; but for him that Idea finally comes back to itself again through the rational mind of man – and unsurprisingly the mind of Hegel himself (!) – An illusion Hegel shares with ALL philosophers of the past.
But with an “Absolute Idea” Hegel contradicts his dialectical method, which he developed with remarkable precision. For dialectics, any existence (at all) is a contradiction of the “unity of the opposites” of “being” and “nothing” a logical oddity and at the same time an impetus for change to a new and relatively more concrete contradictions and so on for ever without coming to an end or finality! Because finality means the elimination of the contradiction; and thereby existence itself! So, an Absolute Idea or “Absolute Truth or Theory” cannot exist! I have discussed this in detail in my article, “The Infinite”: The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science
You say, “You seem to make a decided distinction between "idealized mathematics" and real matter. But if dialectics is the art to see the unity of opposites, then why is there no dialectic view possible of the opposites of "ideal" and "material/real"?
Yes, dialectics (and I) always do recognize this distinction and contradiction! It is only (may be you) or the anti-dialectical “View of understanding” (as Hegel termed it) do not see any contradiction! Because for it, the “ideal” or the “Idea” contains everything within it. Differentiation comes from that Unity alone - ALL in ONE or ONE in ALL! For idealist Permenides (like Hegel), “Only the One Is, Many Not!” For the “view of understanding, the opposites like positive/negative, true/false, cause/effect etc. as dualism are immutable for ever with an “exclusive middle” in between; such that the opposites remain static, permanently fixed and opposed to each other for ever.
For dialectics, there is no “exclusive middle” between the opposites, because they also have some unity! Because of this contradiction they have (spontaneous and self-induced, without external cause) dynamical relation, can mutually convert to each other or exchange their relative position in the course of change and development – an obligatory and revolutionary aspect and requirement of dialectics. As Heraclitus first formulated it, “Everything comes into being, changes in their various ways and passes out of existence, because of inner conflict”. Hegel’s formulation of this is as the contradiction of “Being-Nothing” and the triad: “Being-Nothing-Becoming” as the first and also the last of any series of “negation of the negation” in any change, evolution, development (both in any arbitrary positive and negative sense) etc. For dialectics the "Beginning" and the "End" lie together and in the same contradiction of "Being-Nothing"; the "End" is also the "Beginning"! There cannot be a separate (only) begining like "Big Bang" or (only) end! Please see my article cited above.
Abdul Malek | Added Note:
For dialectics, the “Real” and the “Ideal” are in a dialectical contradiction of the” unity of the opposites”. In the course of historical development and as a “necessity” of reason, the “Real” progressively approaches the “Ideal” but can never be totally identical with the “Ideal”, in that case they will mutually annihilate (like matter/antimatter in physics) each other and must go out of “existence”!
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Abdul, you wrote:
"The idea that man can never find a final, ideal theory or absolute truth that materialist dialectics asserts, can be confusing to many, because Hegel himself talked about an “Absolute Idea”! "
I argue in the above paper that a final theory may not contain "substantial" propositions; i.e. that the final theory will be tautological. What does this mean? It means that the content of a final theory (if possible) is a conditional statement of the form "if A then B", where "A" is a statement of the form "assumed there is an objective physical reality".
Thus I claim that the final theory of physics may not contain metaphysical assumptions. Mathematicians don't claim the "existence" of anything. Math is about imagined entities. A final theory of physics will have the same form: If a final theory is possible, it will likely be a long explanation of what we mean when we say "A", i.e. when we say "assumed there is an objective physical reality".
Hence I claim that the final theory will be pure logic - or it will not be "final". Which implies that it is free from substantial propositions. It is a pure clarification of what is meant by "physical world". I.e. no other type of *objective physical reality* is possible.
If I understood your description of the materialistic worldview, then this worldview is not "neutral", but contains substantial claims, which implies that it requires "believe". Like Newtonian physics requires the believe in absolute space and time.
What I claim is that a *final theory* may only exist if it requires no "believe". I define a radical concept (inspired by Weinberg) of a final theory and what it implies (imho). Thus I think I make just statements of the form "if A then B".
Nov 10, 2017
Abdul Malek | Dear Christian,
I am confused with your following (apparently) contradictory sentences: [“If I understood your description of the materialistic worldview, then this worldview is not "neutral", but contains substantial claims, which implies that it requires "believe". Like Newtonian physics requires the believe in absolute space and time. What I claim is that a *final theory* may only exist if it requires "believe"]. If the “materialist worldview and the view of your *final theory* both require “belief” (“faith”?); then where is the difference between the two? Please clarify.
For the idealism of Permenides, Plato et al., (from which Hegel borrowed his idealism and his “Absolute Idea”) the “real” Is the “ideal” and the “universal” and that what has a wholly independent “being”, a being dependent only on itself. But this “being” is only an objective, abstract and logical “being”and has no existence! “Existence” is only “appearance”, illusion, Maya (in Sanskrit), a veil for Kant behind which the “real” and the “universal” resides. This is also, Hegel’s “Absolute Idea”- an abstract entity that like the universal of the Greeks, resides somewhere for all eternity in a realm beyond experience and that can only be perceived by a capable mind (of a philosopher!); it has no “substance” or material existence. For Hegel’s dialectics, the “Absolute Idea”(out of boredom, perhaps) decides to appear (exist) in the material realms as an alienation and contradiction, goes through the historical and dialectical (and we might also now add, quantum dynamical) leaps and the “negation of the negation” and finally through the thought of man comes to self-realization and back to it’s "Absolute” self. But this Absolute has no determination, no character, no quality – it is also a total void and a “Nothing”. The “Absolute Idea” of Hegel is only absolute in the sense that he has absolutely nothing to say about it – like Kants’s thing-in-itself! So, dialectics only makes sense, when (as you say) it is substantial or material. Hegel defeats his dialectics when he deserts “matter” and ascend to the realm of “Idea”, Thought and idealism.
In your case if I understand it correctly, your “final theory” is at best “Hegel’s “Absolute Idea” or which in reality and indirectly the notion (the mind) of an omnipotent and omniscient God – a “belief” or faith. It is a tautology that can be used for anything, anytime or anywhere and hence it is absolutely useless for any practical purpose or attaining any specific knowledge; as I said above like “Natural Selection” of Darwin. . It is like a mind-game that can only have delusional and psychic value for some individuals, but is totally useless for gaining positive knowledge of the world.
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. Thought objects have virtual existence or secondary existence in the sense that thought is the reflection, the image of the material world in the mind of man. But both matter and thought follow the same dialectical laws of evolution. Positive knowledge for materialist dialectics is only that, which reveals itself through the collective historical/social practice, industry etc. of man. Any abstract product of mind, mathematics, thought etc.; which do not satisfy the criteria of practice, are only virtual knowledge, myths, fantasy etc. The presently used criteria of knowledge (based on idealized mathematics; especially in physics) devised by some philosophers (Popper et al.,) and physicists, in terms of subjective experimental “proof”, predictability, falsifiability etc. do not qualify as sufficient criteria of positive knowledge for materialist dialectics.
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Abdul~ "I am confused with your following (apparently) contradictory sentences..."Yes, there was a typo. I corrected it.
"It is a tautology that can be used for anything, anytime or anywhere and hence it is absolutely useless for any practical purpose or attaining any specific knowledge"
First of all, the goal of my essay was not to provide useful specific knowledge. But if some thought is useful/productive or not, is rarely immediately clear. Usually ideas take some time to develop, sometimes years or centuries.
In my daily work on accelerators the goal is to generate useful specific knowledge. This is likely closer to what a materialist considers to be science, but in fact this is mainly engineering.
In any case, thank you for your feedback.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul,
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".
As long as there is at least one simple statement (i.e. axiom) in your knowledge system (for example, "the Earth is flat" or "the vacuum consists of virtual particles", etc.) - you are believer.
If you continually displace such statements from the knowledge system by new information and theorems - in the end you should have the system of relationships only, i.e. logic of structure ("if A then B"), i.e. structure, which is relationships itself built on the semantics of system elements.
Another question, will you get rid of the axioms completely in the end? They can, as a maximum, only be terminally dislodged into the semantics of the alphabet and the language of the knowledge system.
And here the circle closes, because the semantics have physical roots through our brains and our existence (the human model of reality and any knowledge of it are part of reality and no more then reality, imho).
Perhaps to know the "answer" in advance is the only way to look at the state of things behind of any asymptotic process (be it actual infinity, or the final theory or, for example, Cantor's hypothesis). And here there is the insoluble problem of self-reference, since such knowledge is an ad hoc hypothesis, i.e. yet another axiom.
As far as your materialistic views are concerned, you probably think that material objects are composed of atoms. How do you know for sure? How do you know about atoms? What are atoms?
It is necessary to distinguish the perception forming the qualia (the measurement that forms the state of the detector) from the model with which you associate it!
The atomistic model of Leucippus-Democritus was based on qualia (their ideas were the result of a theoretical comprehension of the results of observation of phenomena such as evaporation, dissolution, etc.)
Do you see atoms in the views of Democritus when you look at your hands?Do you see the atoms in Niels Bohr's views when you look at your hands?Do you see the atoms in the views of the standard model when you look at your hands?Or maybe you do not see atoms at all?
What would you say personally about your hands, if humanity did not have a hypothetico-deductive tool of reasoning and the axiomatic part of system (collective) knowledge?
We all individually and every group that adheres to a certain system of common views are definitely believers.
I realize this (that I believe in a some set of axioms), so I can abandon this or that axiom in favor of another hypothesis. Only because, every axiom is in sight.
Unlike me, your axiomatic basis of materialistic views is taboo for your reasoning. You do not subject it to a critical analysis. And in the center of this taboo, of course, is a collectively formed understanding of matter.
Can you abandon idealism by assuming that all the mental processes in the human body are physical processes in the structure of matter that represents your body, which is part of physical reality, without taking out anything of them beyond the physical reality into the "mythical" world of idealism? That's the trouble!
If you can give up idealism, then can we talk about holism?
Abdul Malek | Dear Christian,
I am confused with your following (apparently) contradictory sentences: [“If I understood your description of the materialistic worldview, then this worldview is not "neutral", but contains substantial claims, which implies that it requires "believe". Like Newtonian physics requires the believe in absolute space and time. What I claim is that a *final theory* may only exist if it requires "believe"]. If the “materialist worldview and the view of your *final theory* both require “belief” (“faith”?); then where is the difference between the two? Please clarify.
For the idealism of Permenides, Plato et al., (from which Hegel borrowed his idealism and his “Absolute Idea”) the “real” Is the “ideal” and the “universal” and that what has a wholly independent “being”, a being dependent only on itself. But this “being” is only an objective, abstract and logical “being”and has no existence! “Existence” is only “appearance”, illusion, Maya (in Sanskrit), a veil for Kant behind which the “real” and the “universal” resides. This is also, Hegel’s “Absolute Idea”- an abstract entity that like the universal of the Greeks, resides somewhere for all eternity in a realm beyond experience and that can only be perceived by a capable mind (of a philosopher!); it has no “substance” or material existence. For Hegel’s dialectics, the “Absolute Idea”(out of boredom, perhaps) decides to appear (exist) in the material realms as an alienation and contradiction, goes through the historical and dialectical (and we might also now add, quantum dynamical) leaps and the “negation of the negation” and finally through the thought of man comes to self-realization and back to it’s "Absolute” self. But this Absolute has no determination, no character, no quality – it is also a total void and a “Nothing”. The “Absolute Idea” of Hegel is only absolute in the sense that he has absolutely nothing to say about it – like Kants’s thing-in-itself! So, dialectics only makes sense, when (as you say) it is substantial or material. Hegel defeats his dialectics when he deserts “matter” and ascend to the realm of “Idea”, Thought and idealism.
In your case if I understand it correctly, your “final theory” is at best “Hegel’s “Absolute Idea” or which in reality and indirectly the notion (the mind) of an omnipotent and omniscient God – a “belief” or faith. It is a tautology that can be used for anything, anytime or anywhere and hence it is absolutely useless for any practical purpose or attaining any specific knowledge; as I said above like “Natural Selection” of Darwin. . It is like a mind-game that can only have delusional and psychic value for some individuals, but is totally useless for gaining positive knowledge of the world.
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. Thought objects have virtual existence or secondary existence in the sense that thought is the reflection, the image of the material world in the mind of man. But both matter and thought follow the same dialectical laws of evolution. Positive knowledge for materialist dialectics is only that, which reveals itself through the collective historical/social practice, industry etc. of man. Any abstract product of mind, mathematics, thought etc.; which do not satisfy the criteria of practice, are only virtual knowledge, myths, fantasy etc. The presently used criteria of knowledge (based on idealized mathematics; especially in physics) devised by some philosophers (Popper et al.,) and physicists, in terms of subjective experimental “proof”, predictability, falsifiability etc. do not qualify as sufficient criteria of positive knowledge for materialist dialectics.
Christian Baumgarten | Dear Abdul~ "I am confused with your following (apparently) contradictory sentences..."Yes, there was a typo. I corrected it.
"It is a tautology that can be used for anything, anytime or anywhere and hence it is absolutely useless for any practical purpose or attaining any specific knowledge"
First of all, the goal of my essay was not to provide useful specific knowledge. But if some thought is useful/productive or not, is rarely immediately clear. Usually ideas take some time to develop, sometimes years or centuries.
In my daily work on accelerators the goal is to generate useful specific knowledge. This is likely closer to what a materialist considers to be science, but in fact this is mainly engineering.
In any case, thank you for your feedback.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul,
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".
As long as there is at least one simple statement (i.e. axiom) in your knowledge system (for example, "the Earth is flat" or "the vacuum consists of virtual particles", etc.) - you are believer.
If you continually displace such statements from the knowledge system by new information and theorems - in the end you should have the system of relationships only, i.e. logic of structure ("if A then B"), i.e. structure, which is relationships itself built on the semantics of system elements.
Another question, will you get rid of the axioms completely in the end? They can, as a maximum, only be terminally dislodged into the semantics of the alphabet and the language of the knowledge system.
And here the circle closes, because the semantics have physical roots through our brains and our existence (the human model of reality and any knowledge of it are part of reality and no more then reality, imho).
Perhaps to know the "answer" in advance is the only way to look at the state of things behind of any asymptotic process (be it actual infinity, or the final theory or, for example, Cantor's hypothesis). And here there is the insoluble problem of self-reference, since such knowledge is an ad hoc hypothesis, i.e. yet another axiom.
As far as your materialistic views are concerned, you probably think that material objects are composed of atoms. How do you know for sure? How do you know about atoms? What are atoms?
It is necessary to distinguish the perception forming the qualia (the measurement that forms the state of the detector) from the model with which you associate it!
The atomistic model of Leucippus-Democritus was based on qualia (their ideas were the result of a theoretical comprehension of the results of observation of phenomena such as evaporation, dissolution, etc.)
Do you see atoms in the views of Democritus when you look at your hands?Do you see the atoms in Niels Bohr's views when you look at your hands?Do you see the atoms in the views of the standard model when you look at your hands?Or maybe you do not see atoms at all?
What would you say personally about your hands, if humanity did not have a hypothetico-deductive tool of reasoning and the axiomatic part of system (collective) knowledge?
We all individually and every group that adheres to a certain system of common views are definitely believers.
I realize this (that I believe in a some set of axioms), so I can abandon this or that axiom in favor of another hypothesis. Only because, every axiom is in sight.
Unlike me, your axiomatic basis of materialistic views is taboo for your reasoning. You do not subject it to a critical analysis. And in the center of this taboo, of course, is a collectively formed understanding of matter.
Can you abandon idealism by assuming that all the mental processes in the human body are physical processes in the structure of matter that represents your body, which is part of physical reality, without taking out anything of them beyond the physical reality into the "mythical" world of idealism? That's the trouble!
If you can give up idealism, then can we talk about holism?
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: The Final Theory of Physics -a Tautology? [accessed Dec 8, 2017]
Nov 10, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | We live in a system in which a label associated with the semantics of the word "paradox" definitely is. If we eliminate all the semantic paradoxes in the system, will not it be paradoxical that this label still will exist in it? ...just yet another rhetorical question.
Vasyl Komarov | We live in a system in which a label associated with the semantics of the word "paradox" definitely is. If we eliminate all the semantic paradoxes in the system, will not it be paradoxical that this label still will exist in it? ...just yet another rhetorical question.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under:
Nov 13, 2017
Michael Lersow | Dear information community,
Information can be defined quite differently, in any case there is a transmitter (can also be an event) a receiver (can man, machine etc.) and a transmission medium. The transmitter may be able to encode the information, but does not must it (event). The receiver must be able to decode the information. He has to understand her. The sender can send out the information for special receivers. For this he uses special transmission media (radio, television etc.). The information is not necessarily bound to space and time. But this is nessecary if one want to get information about the universe from the past. Then the information to receiver is then depends on the time definition, the room definition and the transmission medium. However, if a time definition and the transmission medium light (electromagnetic wave) are present, the room definition is fixed, and can no longer be freely selected.
Information reduces uncertainty. The uncertainty of an event is measured by its probability of occurrence and is inversely proportional to that. The more uncertain an event, the more information is required to resolve uncertainty of that event. The bit is a typical unit of information, but other units such as the nat may be used.
This thread should be free from fake news .
ML
Eugene F Kislyakov | Michael,
we can define only the quantity of information, but not it's sense, and it is the weak point of Sergey's concept.
Michael Lersow | Dear information community,
Information can be defined quite differently, in any case there is a transmitter (can also be an event) a receiver (can man, machine etc.) and a transmission medium. The transmitter may be able to encode the information, but does not must it (event). The receiver must be able to decode the information. He has to understand her. The sender can send out the information for special receivers. For this he uses special transmission media (radio, television etc.). The information is not necessarily bound to space and time. But this is nessecary if one want to get information about the universe from the past. Then the information to receiver is then depends on the time definition, the room definition and the transmission medium. However, if a time definition and the transmission medium light (electromagnetic wave) are present, the room definition is fixed, and can no longer be freely selected.
Information reduces uncertainty. The uncertainty of an event is measured by its probability of occurrence and is inversely proportional to that. The more uncertain an event, the more information is required to resolve uncertainty of that event. The bit is a typical unit of information, but other units such as the nat may be used.
This thread should be free from fake news .
ML
Eugene F Kislyakov | Michael,
we can define only the quantity of information, but not it's sense, and it is the weak point of Sergey's concept.
Nov 14, 2017
Sergey Shevchenko | Dear Michael Lersow,
“…Information can be defined quite differently, in any case there is a transmitter (can also be an event) a receiver (can man, machine etc.) and a transmission medium…”
Information in every such case is equally analogously defined: information is something what is understandable by receiver and by transmitter in given system of transmitters and receivers; including the case, for example, if a transmitter is an material object that makes an event/message and the receiver is a non-material human’s consciousness. With the fundamental condition, though: since there is nothing besides informational patterns/systems and informational exchange between them, everything, if is obtained by any receiver, is nothing more then some information, and so, if is non-understandable by the receiver, is the trivial information: “that is non-understandable information”.
That is another thing that when informational patterns “material objects” speak with each other, they use rigorously defined rules and links and create [since can create only true and consistent] only true and consistent in the informational system Matter messages; and so they understand the sense of messages absolutely correctly automatically, “having no knowledge” that the messages are true, this knowledge, and some “doubts”, are simply unnecessary in this case.
Doubts and answers on the questions “is this information understood correctly or not”, “is this inference from obtained message decoded adequately to what in the reality was transmitted”, etc. appear only in non-material informational patterns/systems, which obtain, produce, and analyze any types of information, including false and uncertain; on Earth that are non-material humans’ consciousnesses [and all consciousnesses of all living beings, though]. But just the capability to operate with the uncertain and false information allows to consciousness sometimes adequately elaborate principally uncertain, i.e. unknown, information when consciousness obtains it at interactions with the External, information. Consciousness doesn’t “buss” in such cases, in contrast to purely material informational systems “computers”, which can elaborate only limitedly defined information; when consciousness operates by using “notions”, which have principally unlimited [subjectively] number of traits/senses in different concrete situations. From that follows, besides, that any “artificial intellect” never will be “simply intellect”.
“…Information reduces uncertainty…”
that is true; but
“... The uncertainty of an event is measured by its probability of occurrence and is inversely proportional to that. The more uncertain an event, the more information is required to resolve uncertainty of that event. The bit is a typical unit of information…”
that is true only in very minor and primitive case at informational exchange, when indeed “all information” is defined by probabilities of concrete possible events.
Nonetheless the formalism that is adequate to such cases, i.e. Shannon’s theory, indeed is called in the mainstream as “the theory of information”, when it is, in fact, a theory of optimizations of channels at transmission of information if probabilities of some parameters of the information are known; thus, for example, optimized in accordance with the theory channels equally can transmit anything, including senseless, erroneous and false information.
At that, since the “quantity of information” in this theory is the value of ∑ pilnpi, the “bit” is the unity of information if is applied “exponentially”, i.e. if it is the base of binary digit system; for example “4 bit” in the “4 digit” number 1xxx, where x are 0 or 1, contain information about systems with 16 events; including, again, senseless ones.
“…we can define only the quantity of information, but not it's sense…”
that is true, but
“… and it is the weak point of Sergey's concept…”
that is some rather strange claim, which shows that the author understands nothing in the “The Information as Absolute” conception. Seems everywhere, in the paper “The Information as Absolute” and practically in every SS post on the RG it is repeated that the notion/phenomenon “Information” relates first of all to some “senses” that can be, since every element in the “Information” Set interacts with the absolutely infinite number of other the Set’s elements, reduced to binary “yes/no” elaboration only in fundamentally practically non-realizable case, where, at some inference, all possible “yes/now” links and interactions, accidental and cause-effect ones, with all absolutely infinite number of elements in the “Information” Set could be taken into account.
And
“…n=p is the strong postulate, Sergey….”
That isn’t a strong postulate, that is a strange postulate, from which, for example follows that no=po, now=pow, knowledge= kpowledge, etc…
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko | And an addition to the SS post above
“…The information is not necessarily bound to space and time…”
that isn’t so fundamentally. Nothing can exist in nowhere, including every information has the possibility to be existent only if some “somewhere” exists, this “somewhere” is called “space”.
At that, again, informational exchange in concrete systems can be realized only if the informational systems “transmitter” and “receivers” are placed in this space also. That is true for any/every information, and when the informational pattern is fixed that is sufficient for its existence.
However if the pattern changes, i.e. its state is changed/changing by some reason, the next states cannot fundamentally “simply replace” the previous states, any/every information cannot be nonexistent/deleted. Thus an additional “possibility to place the next states” is fundamentally necessary, and that is “Time” as the possibility; “time is the space for changing states”. And quite analogously to motion in space, when something changes the next states become be placed in next temporal points, which are separated by non-zero temporal intervals, and so every changing object exists and changes in corresponding spacetime, where, at changes, it moves in time as the possibility, i.e., in the spacetime’s temporal dimension.
That is not complete description, though, and in concrete cases the spacetime can be more complex then obligatory “ND space+1D time” scheme above, very important practical case is the concrete Matter’s spacetime, which contains two temporal dimensions and is [5]4D Euclidian “empty container of the possibilities” in the objective reality, and [5]4D Euclidian mathematical manifold in scientific theories.
Cheers
Eugene F Kislyakov | When You write notion/phenomenon, Sergey, I understand this as You equate them. And it is the postulate.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Your space and time representation is Kantian, Sergey, and out of your "Informational set".
Vasyl Komarov | Sergey, why two temporal dimensions? We can extend the phase space again and again (if it need), without violating the logic of the dynamic system's translation into itself? This procedure can be done invariantly "long" (i.e., infinitely). Moreover, additional "spatial" degrees of freedom can be included with each extension.
Vasyl Komarov | ...and to be precise, information can be a carrier of information (space is secondary for it, that's difficult to say about topology, in general, connectedness is more important than metric properties, if you decide to call the information "absolute", imho)
Michael Lersow | Dear Sergey, Dear Eugene, Dear time community,
I am surprised what you interpret in my answer. I can not see in any place anything that contradicts my statement, including the definition of the information unit bit.
Perhaps one should agree on a general information definition: here google (English language):
"Information is that which informs. In other words, it is the answer to a question of some kind. It is thus related to data and knowledge, as data represents values attributed to parameters, and knowledge signifies understanding of real things or abstract concepts. As it regards data, the information's existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example), while in the case of knowledge, the information requires a cognitive observer."
Information is not tied to the category "true", "not true". This is determined by the cognitive receiver. However, there is no absolute truth. Two different observers can come to completely different results.
Because we are here in the thread "Does time exists" I wanted to point out that we can receive information from the universe, who can tell us something about events from the universe and we want to decrypt. Therefore, the connection between sender, receiver, transmission medium and evaluation tools should be emphasized. Therefore here again the statement:
The information is not necessarily bound to space and time. But this is nessecary if one want to get information about the universe from the past. Then the information to receiver is then depends on the time definition, the room definition and the transmission medium. However, if a time definition and the transmission medium light (electromagnetic wave) are present, the room definition is fixed, and can no longer be freely selected.
Information reduces uncertainty. The uncertainty of an event is measured by its probability of occurrence and is inversely proportional to that. The more uncertain an event, the more information is required to resolve uncertainty of that event.
From one and the same event (universe), we do not get more information than the one we received. Because the event happened in the past. So that the evaluation tool does not necessarily provide a result that maps the event.
If there are follow-up events, then the likelihood higher that we can determine the event safer.
In this context, you can also put the Big Bang. This also implies the fact that we have to resort to theories. But even if the theory about the big bang should be consistent, this does not mean that the event will be portrayed as it has taken place.
Thank you for your attention
M.L.
Vasyl Komarov | Whenever I see something "objective", I remind myself that "subjectivism" differs from "objectivism" in same way as human differs from humanity. In fact, the difference only in the scale of delusions is.
It still is necessary to introduce a formalized concept of objectivity into science. Better yet - to eliminate the arbitrariness associated with it in philosophy.
Quotation, with which I also agree:
Sergey Shevchenko | Dear Michael Lersow,
“…Information can be defined quite differently, in any case there is a transmitter (can also be an event) a receiver (can man, machine etc.) and a transmission medium…”
Information in every such case is equally analogously defined: information is something what is understandable by receiver and by transmitter in given system of transmitters and receivers; including the case, for example, if a transmitter is an material object that makes an event/message and the receiver is a non-material human’s consciousness. With the fundamental condition, though: since there is nothing besides informational patterns/systems and informational exchange between them, everything, if is obtained by any receiver, is nothing more then some information, and so, if is non-understandable by the receiver, is the trivial information: “that is non-understandable information”.
That is another thing that when informational patterns “material objects” speak with each other, they use rigorously defined rules and links and create [since can create only true and consistent] only true and consistent in the informational system Matter messages; and so they understand the sense of messages absolutely correctly automatically, “having no knowledge” that the messages are true, this knowledge, and some “doubts”, are simply unnecessary in this case.
Doubts and answers on the questions “is this information understood correctly or not”, “is this inference from obtained message decoded adequately to what in the reality was transmitted”, etc. appear only in non-material informational patterns/systems, which obtain, produce, and analyze any types of information, including false and uncertain; on Earth that are non-material humans’ consciousnesses [and all consciousnesses of all living beings, though]. But just the capability to operate with the uncertain and false information allows to consciousness sometimes adequately elaborate principally uncertain, i.e. unknown, information when consciousness obtains it at interactions with the External, information. Consciousness doesn’t “buss” in such cases, in contrast to purely material informational systems “computers”, which can elaborate only limitedly defined information; when consciousness operates by using “notions”, which have principally unlimited [subjectively] number of traits/senses in different concrete situations. From that follows, besides, that any “artificial intellect” never will be “simply intellect”.
“…Information reduces uncertainty…”
that is true; but
“... The uncertainty of an event is measured by its probability of occurrence and is inversely proportional to that. The more uncertain an event, the more information is required to resolve uncertainty of that event. The bit is a typical unit of information…”
that is true only in very minor and primitive case at informational exchange, when indeed “all information” is defined by probabilities of concrete possible events.
Nonetheless the formalism that is adequate to such cases, i.e. Shannon’s theory, indeed is called in the mainstream as “the theory of information”, when it is, in fact, a theory of optimizations of channels at transmission of information if probabilities of some parameters of the information are known; thus, for example, optimized in accordance with the theory channels equally can transmit anything, including senseless, erroneous and false information.
At that, since the “quantity of information” in this theory is the value of ∑ pilnpi, the “bit” is the unity of information if is applied “exponentially”, i.e. if it is the base of binary digit system; for example “4 bit” in the “4 digit” number 1xxx, where x are 0 or 1, contain information about systems with 16 events; including, again, senseless ones.
“…we can define only the quantity of information, but not it's sense…”
that is true, but
“… and it is the weak point of Sergey's concept…”
that is some rather strange claim, which shows that the author understands nothing in the “The Information as Absolute” conception. Seems everywhere, in the paper “The Information as Absolute” and practically in every SS post on the RG it is repeated that the notion/phenomenon “Information” relates first of all to some “senses” that can be, since every element in the “Information” Set interacts with the absolutely infinite number of other the Set’s elements, reduced to binary “yes/no” elaboration only in fundamentally practically non-realizable case, where, at some inference, all possible “yes/now” links and interactions, accidental and cause-effect ones, with all absolutely infinite number of elements in the “Information” Set could be taken into account.
And
“…n=p is the strong postulate, Sergey….”
That isn’t a strong postulate, that is a strange postulate, from which, for example follows that no=po, now=pow, knowledge= kpowledge, etc…
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko | And an addition to the SS post above
“…The information is not necessarily bound to space and time…”
that isn’t so fundamentally. Nothing can exist in nowhere, including every information has the possibility to be existent only if some “somewhere” exists, this “somewhere” is called “space”.
At that, again, informational exchange in concrete systems can be realized only if the informational systems “transmitter” and “receivers” are placed in this space also. That is true for any/every information, and when the informational pattern is fixed that is sufficient for its existence.
However if the pattern changes, i.e. its state is changed/changing by some reason, the next states cannot fundamentally “simply replace” the previous states, any/every information cannot be nonexistent/deleted. Thus an additional “possibility to place the next states” is fundamentally necessary, and that is “Time” as the possibility; “time is the space for changing states”. And quite analogously to motion in space, when something changes the next states become be placed in next temporal points, which are separated by non-zero temporal intervals, and so every changing object exists and changes in corresponding spacetime, where, at changes, it moves in time as the possibility, i.e., in the spacetime’s temporal dimension.
That is not complete description, though, and in concrete cases the spacetime can be more complex then obligatory “ND space+1D time” scheme above, very important practical case is the concrete Matter’s spacetime, which contains two temporal dimensions and is [5]4D Euclidian “empty container of the possibilities” in the objective reality, and [5]4D Euclidian mathematical manifold in scientific theories.
Cheers
Eugene F Kislyakov | When You write notion/phenomenon, Sergey, I understand this as You equate them. And it is the postulate.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Your space and time representation is Kantian, Sergey, and out of your "Informational set".
Vasyl Komarov | Sergey, why two temporal dimensions? We can extend the phase space again and again (if it need), without violating the logic of the dynamic system's translation into itself? This procedure can be done invariantly "long" (i.e., infinitely). Moreover, additional "spatial" degrees of freedom can be included with each extension.
Vasyl Komarov | ...and to be precise, information can be a carrier of information (space is secondary for it, that's difficult to say about topology, in general, connectedness is more important than metric properties, if you decide to call the information "absolute", imho)
Michael Lersow | Dear Sergey, Dear Eugene, Dear time community,
I am surprised what you interpret in my answer. I can not see in any place anything that contradicts my statement, including the definition of the information unit bit.
Perhaps one should agree on a general information definition: here google (English language):
"Information is that which informs. In other words, it is the answer to a question of some kind. It is thus related to data and knowledge, as data represents values attributed to parameters, and knowledge signifies understanding of real things or abstract concepts. As it regards data, the information's existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example), while in the case of knowledge, the information requires a cognitive observer."
Information is not tied to the category "true", "not true". This is determined by the cognitive receiver. However, there is no absolute truth. Two different observers can come to completely different results.
Because we are here in the thread "Does time exists" I wanted to point out that we can receive information from the universe, who can tell us something about events from the universe and we want to decrypt. Therefore, the connection between sender, receiver, transmission medium and evaluation tools should be emphasized. Therefore here again the statement:
The information is not necessarily bound to space and time. But this is nessecary if one want to get information about the universe from the past. Then the information to receiver is then depends on the time definition, the room definition and the transmission medium. However, if a time definition and the transmission medium light (electromagnetic wave) are present, the room definition is fixed, and can no longer be freely selected.
Information reduces uncertainty. The uncertainty of an event is measured by its probability of occurrence and is inversely proportional to that. The more uncertain an event, the more information is required to resolve uncertainty of that event.
From one and the same event (universe), we do not get more information than the one we received. Because the event happened in the past. So that the evaluation tool does not necessarily provide a result that maps the event.
If there are follow-up events, then the likelihood higher that we can determine the event safer.
In this context, you can also put the Big Bang. This also implies the fact that we have to resort to theories. But even if the theory about the big bang should be consistent, this does not mean that the event will be portrayed as it has taken place.
Thank you for your attention
M.L.
Vasyl Komarov | Whenever I see something "objective", I remind myself that "subjectivism" differs from "objectivism" in same way as human differs from humanity. In fact, the difference only in the scale of delusions is.
It still is necessary to introduce a formalized concept of objectivity into science. Better yet - to eliminate the arbitrariness associated with it in philosophy.
Quotation, with which I also agree:
<<... “space” and “time” have a different ontological status from “physically real” entities (electrons, atoms, rocks, planets, stars, light rays, et cetera) that can be observed. “Space” and “time” are not observable; when we refer to “space” in physics we are speaking of measurements of distances between “physically real” entities and when we refer to “time” we are speaking of measurements of duration between real “events” consisting of “physically real” entities.
Concepts like speeds, accelerations, masses, charges, forces, interactions etc, belong to third ontological category. They refer to relationships inferred from observations and measurements.
An observation or a measurement is an interaction.
... Physicists (myself included) understand this only in a vague intuitive way.>>
— Eric Lord
Nov 15, 2017
Michael Lersow | Hi Vasyl Fedorovych,
it is amazing and not very clear what you want to tell us. In physics, the term objectivity does not exist. Here is the definition of objectivity, google (english language):
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.
Consequently, objectivity has nothing to do with a physical time definition. Objectivity has no place in physical experiments and measurements either. Who cheats flies out, you know that?
A physical definition of time is of vital importance to daily life on earth. It has to be reproducible and independent of the place and the people involved (users, ie humans).
Although there is a subjective error in the physical measurements, but one can determine and eliminate this over sufficiently large series of measurements.
Amen
M.L.
Vasyl Komarov | Hi, Michael,
You say exactly what I wanted to say - there is no strictly formalized concept of objectivity. Nevertheless, the word and the philosophical category are often used here (including) in reasoning.
However, I must argue about another category that you mentioned (cited) with respect to objectivity - the truth. Truth can be established only within a (formal) system, if there is, in fact, formalism (rules, alphabet, axioms, etc. which are already set in advance!) I.e., the truth (in the strict sense) is certainly subjective (essentially intrasystem) category for me.
This is true not only in relation to mathematics, but even to banal judicial legislation, strictly speaking, to any judgments, no matter on which basis they are implemented. Not only single human has ("subject's individual") bias, even humanity (mankind) has own (intrasystemic) bias. We always have problems with "true even outside"... so again, subjectivism differs from objectivism in same way as human differs from humanity.
Therefore, the phrase "objective truth" is an oxymoron for me.
I have own subjective views on objectivity, of course, but I do not want to add fuel to the fire here. This problem is repeatedly touched upon in the discussion of physical problems on RG. Last time I participated in a discussion about objectivity around March 2016, from which I made some conclusions for myself. This is the subject for a separate serious discussion (NB: invariance is synonymous with "neutrality").
Reasoning about objectivity has always been, is and will be paradoxical. Amen.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasyl Fedorovych,
this is wrong; there are 2: syntactic and semantic truth.
The later lived for millennia and eons before discovery of the former.
After partial formalization (of the former) and absolutely vague treatment
of the later, we reached theorems unifying both. But - there is lot
to discuss in it.
In Physics it is not necessary to go for serious formalization. One day.
For the time being, Physics is a strange cocktail of partial truths based on approximate understanding, based on temporarily concepts.
Ii do not wish to undervalue the science. It is fascinating. But.
Be well
Aleksandar
Vasyl Komarov | In accordance with Einstein's "definition" ("Time is what clocks measure") and all our ways of specifying time standards, the time interval, in fact, is a dimensionless number of similarity for the flows of any two communicating processes, which shows how many times metric between events in one process differ from the metric in other process.
This is all that is necessary for "daily life" and this does not contradict the ontological systematization given above.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasyl Fedorovych,
Keep that Einstein's definition for yourself. Quite empty for me, with what follows after as well.
You can live your daily life well even with no Physics at all.
Keep on.
Greetings
Aleksandar
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Alexandar, but semantics speaks for itself, not for us. We insists on the same subjective truth :)
In order to truly appreciate the concept of agnosticism, one must feel the paradox of the insolubility of one's position.
Andrew Wutke | Vasyl Fedorovych Komarov,
Not sure if Einstein said that "Time is what clocks measure"
because, there are at least two reasonably concise definitions published
But they are sort of tho the same effect. I go even further, what is put by some anonymous person from NIST
" Our clocks do not measure time. ... Time is defined to be what our clocks measure."
Surely to measure time it has to exist in the first place, but there is no evidence and not even a useful definition of such.
Vasyl Komarov | Andrew Wutke,
I will not argue about whether Einstein said such a phrase (Google claims that the phrase can be found for example here Q: What is time?). It does not matter who said the statement, even an encyclopaedic article with the loud title "Time" can begin (here, for example www.iep.utm.edu/time/) with identical formulation.
A rough hint (rather, a direct reminder) of the old, but not forgotten by me, discussion in the comments to the publication on RG (A simple definition of Time) was in my replic above. You could notice this, because you actively participated in the discussion, I almost literally quoted my old cue here (-;
Michael Lersow | to Vasyl Fedorovych (9:20 AM),
You have to read my comment correctly. I have true, not true, related only to a cognitive receiver. Formalized languages are also used in physics (mathematics). Mathematics is not itself a natural science and in this case has the function of a model. In physics, it is not about true or not true at first, but about the reproduction accuracy and this can only be determined in connection with observations (measurements). However, if you do not see the event during measurements, but only the effects, and those are far in the past, the observations are always related to a probability of occurrence. Thus, the circle closes for information.
I agree with you that you can not always discover a technical (professional) background in this discussion everywhere. However, a discussion only succeeds if you accept other well-founded opinions.
Everything quiet in the east?
Regards
Michael
Vasyl Komarov | Michael, I only add to your words that since physics ultimately uses mathematics, and semantics ultimately has deeper (literally, physical) roots as dear Aleksandar remarked (and not I alone fully agree with him), Tarski's ideas relate to physics and (human) beings with all thought processes inclusive equally. This is only my opinion, I think it is very evident from the logic of my reasoning about beliefs.
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Just a neutral question: If general relativity is expressed via 'space-time', and accepting that 'time' always exists (whatever its rate and place), does this imply that 'space' can never be so-called 'empty' given that time will always have a 'value'. E.g. spaces between the nucleus and electrons within an atom or spaces between galaxies will always be filled up by Something like an energy field?
Quora: Can time ever be zero?
Eugene F Kislyakov | Marcel,
separate existence (without any other) of space and time is nonsense.
Sergey Shevchenko | In spite of that complete explanation of the problem “what is Time?” a number of times is given already in this thread, the discussion continues.
So it becomes be necessary to comment some posts, which, albeit are rather evidently senseless [that doesn’t relate to posts of Constantine Jeannacopoulos, Victor Ivanovivh Mikla, and in many aspects Aleksandar Jovanovic], nonetheless appear …
“When You write notion/phenomenon, Sergey, I understand this as You equate them. And it is the postulate”
firstly, in the SS posts there is no nonsensical claim that “notion”=”phenomenon”; and, of course, such nonsense cannot be a postulate in the “The Information as Absolute” conception.
The difference is quite clear: phenomena .exist always objectively, when “notions” are subjective products [inferences] of operations of some self-aware informational systems “human’s consciousnesses”, when they analyze obtained information about objective phenomena; which, again, exist objectively, i.e. independently…
Sergey Shevchenko | Next
“…Your space and time representation is Kantian, Sergey, and out of your "Informational set"…”
a next claim that contains only one correct information: the author didn’t understand what he writes.
The definition of the absolutely fundamental Rules/Possibilities “Space” and “Time” in the informational conception fundamentally cannot be “Kantian”, I. Kant was a mainstream philosopher the believer of the one mainstream doctrine “Idealism”.
Idealism postulates that in the reality there is nothing else then a Consciousness/Idea/Spirit/…, etc., but this absolutely fundamental in the doctrine omnipotent notion/phenomenon [“Consciousness/…/…”] is fundamentally undefined in it; and so is rationally non-understandable, transcendent in this doctrine. Any idealist, including Kant, cannot/could not answer on the quite natural questions “So what is the Consciousness/etc.?” why and how She/He appeared and why She/He has such properties?, etc.
And so when a believer of the opposite mainstream…
Eugene F Kislyakov | You can not live in definitions, Sergey. Materialism and idealism is not interesting for us.
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Useful?: Entanglement and teleportation.... Where is time?
Experimental Demonstration of Five-photon Entanglement and Open-destination Teleportation
Eugene F Kislyakov | Time is absent, Marcel.
Vasyl Komarov | Marcel, "emptiness" does not belong to the ontological category, to which matter refers.
Still again I want to draw attention to the moment (which all the time escapes from the conversation, because attention is drawn to non-essential details, like Einstein's quote etc.) that the metric (Metric, mathematics) is the meaningless concept in the absence of objects, just same as space. It is impossible to separate space (the relationships between system elements, distances, metrics) from the set of system elements.
For the same reason, it is pointless to apply the word "exists" to the >time. It also does not belong to a given ontological category of "real". Existence is a process, system change, one can say, synonymous with time.
This has nothing essential to the theory of relativity. The crisis just uncovered the problems of understanding space, making it possible to feel the integrity of the transformation of the system (holism), imho
Awareness: matter + space-time = matter-space-time should be the next step, imho
It is better to note at once, this is a subjective opinion from the point of the physical worldviews, in order to ignore reproaches that besides physics there are everyday life and many more things.
Sergey Shevchenko | Dear Vasyl Fedorovych Komarov,
“…Sergey, why two temporal dimensions? We can extend the phase space again and again (if it need), without violating the logic of the dynamic system's translation into itself? This procedure can be done invariantly "long" (i.e., infinitely). Moreover, additional "spatial" degrees of freedom can be included with each extension….”
indeed in physics at elaborating of mechanical many bodies problems it is very convenient to use configuration spaces, when for a number N of bodies the spacetime has 3N at least spatial dimensions, to introduce “phase space/volumes” for states of the system, etc., but all that evidently has no relation to the problem “what is Matter’s spacetime”. And even those people who attempted to discover something fundamental and so invented some “fundamental properties of the spacetime”, as that was in the SR/GR theories, where it is postulated that real Matter’s spacetime is imaginary 4D Minkowski/pseudo Riemannian spaces, what is, of course a fantasy, never stated at that that real Matter’s spacetime has, say 3∙1090 dimensions, or something like.
And the answer on the question what is this spacetime is given here a few times already in comments and in the main links in the comments:
the_Information_as_Absolute
The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics
The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_space_and_time
so more see the links above, when briefly that is:
since, a that von Weizsäcker showed, the informational system “Matter” rather probably is built by using simplest binary logics, when for existence and changing of such systems is necessary to have 3D space, Matter’s spacetime has 3D space;
besides any information cannot be non-existent and so cannot be deleted. Thus a next states of every changing informational pattern/system in the “Information” Set, must not be written in the same place where the previous states is, since that deletes the previous information; and so must be written somewhere else. This “somewhere else” is the absolutely fundamental and universal Possibility “true time”, which is “the 1D space for changing states”, and in which all dynamical elements/systems in the Set place the chains of their changing states, moving by this way in the true time.
Including the dynamical system Matter has the true time [“5-th”] dimension, where all/every material objects, which constantly and always change their states because of the energy conservation law, and Matter as a whole as well, constantly move; and
since to prevent, or, at least to reduce to minimum, the energy losses in the Set outside Matter at interactions of objects in Matter, the logical algorithms, that all every material objects are, are reversible. The reversible processes conflict logically with the true time, which principally is unidirectional, and so Matter’s spacetime has the second temporal, [“0-th”] “the coordinate time”, dimension, which isn’t universal in the Set, and is specific only to Matter and other possibly existent based on reversible processes systems in the Set.
Eventually Matter’s spacetime is [5]4D Euclidian empty container [in the objective reality, where Matter objectively exists and changes]/ [5]4D Euclidian manifold [in scientific theories, where Matter subjectively is described].
Note, that in the SR/GR there are two times also, “simply time” and “proper time”, when, however, the proper time isn’t a spacetime’s dimension.
And, besides, the important point: every dynamic system, including Matter “uses” only those possible dimensions that relate to independent degrees of freedom at changing of its elements, and nothing else. Thus, in certain sense, that seems as every system’s spacetime “emerges” from the system. However that happens only provided of the fundamental condition: every informational system principally cannot exist without some space and, if it is dynamical, without some spacetime. The absolutely fundamental Rules/Possibilities “Space” and “Time” always fundamentally obligatorily and objectively act
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko | Dear Eugene F Kislyakov
“You can not live in definitions, Sergey. Materialism and idealism is not interesting for us”
if Materialism and Idealism, and, moreover, the philosophical “The Information as Absolute” conception, are not interesting for somebody, then this somebody is capable to consider/discuss the problems as “what is some fundamental notion/phenomenon”, including “what is “Time”” only on a kitchen or even bazaar level. What happens in this thread regrettably often…
Cheers
Andrew Wutke | Vasyl Fedorovych Komarov I do not in principle disagree what you say but highlighted the fact that Einstein's quote appearing repeatedly in many sources could not not be found in any of his writings or credibly recorded by some other source.
The links you provide do not offer any reference to this quote either.
What I said also is that at least of two Einstein's published definitions of time have similar effect as the alleged quote (superficially). But as a matter of fact fact they are more in line to:
" Our clocks do not measure time. ... Time is defined to be what our clocks measure."
Vasyl Komarov | Andrew Wutke, I just quoted myself, in turn, quoting another person who quoted in earlier conversation the words, probably uttered by Einstein. This is only detail of the discussion background here. I was not talking about Einstein.
By the way, the clock does not measure anything, they just "exist", it's people who measure time.
Time is not "defined", I find it difficult to agree with such a phrase. I also can not live in definitions, as Eugene say above.
Vasyl Komarov | It's more interesting, did Abdul realize the logic of reasoning about the tautology of the final theory and semantics. The kitchen craves new philosophers (it's for Eugene)
Michael Lersow | Hi Vasyl Fedorovych,
it is amazing and not very clear what you want to tell us. In physics, the term objectivity does not exist. Here is the definition of objectivity, google (english language):
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.
Consequently, objectivity has nothing to do with a physical time definition. Objectivity has no place in physical experiments and measurements either. Who cheats flies out, you know that?
A physical definition of time is of vital importance to daily life on earth. It has to be reproducible and independent of the place and the people involved (users, ie humans).
Although there is a subjective error in the physical measurements, but one can determine and eliminate this over sufficiently large series of measurements.
Amen
M.L.
Vasyl Komarov | Hi, Michael,
You say exactly what I wanted to say - there is no strictly formalized concept of objectivity. Nevertheless, the word and the philosophical category are often used here (including) in reasoning.
However, I must argue about another category that you mentioned (cited) with respect to objectivity - the truth. Truth can be established only within a (formal) system, if there is, in fact, formalism (rules, alphabet, axioms, etc. which are already set in advance!) I.e., the truth (in the strict sense) is certainly subjective (essentially intrasystem) category for me.
This is true not only in relation to mathematics, but even to banal judicial legislation, strictly speaking, to any judgments, no matter on which basis they are implemented. Not only single human has ("subject's individual") bias, even humanity (mankind) has own (intrasystemic) bias. We always have problems with "true even outside"... so again, subjectivism differs from objectivism in same way as human differs from humanity.
Therefore, the phrase "objective truth" is an oxymoron for me.
I have own subjective views on objectivity, of course, but I do not want to add fuel to the fire here. This problem is repeatedly touched upon in the discussion of physical problems on RG. Last time I participated in a discussion about objectivity around March 2016, from which I made some conclusions for myself. This is the subject for a separate serious discussion (NB: invariance is synonymous with "neutrality").
Reasoning about objectivity has always been, is and will be paradoxical. Amen.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasyl Fedorovych,
this is wrong; there are 2: syntactic and semantic truth.
The later lived for millennia and eons before discovery of the former.
After partial formalization (of the former) and absolutely vague treatment
of the later, we reached theorems unifying both. But - there is lot
to discuss in it.
In Physics it is not necessary to go for serious formalization. One day.
For the time being, Physics is a strange cocktail of partial truths based on approximate understanding, based on temporarily concepts.
Ii do not wish to undervalue the science. It is fascinating. But.
Be well
Aleksandar
Vasyl Komarov | In accordance with Einstein's "definition" ("Time is what clocks measure") and all our ways of specifying time standards, the time interval, in fact, is a dimensionless number of similarity for the flows of any two communicating processes, which shows how many times metric between events in one process differ from the metric in other process.
This is all that is necessary for "daily life" and this does not contradict the ontological systematization given above.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasyl Fedorovych,
Keep that Einstein's definition for yourself. Quite empty for me, with what follows after as well.
You can live your daily life well even with no Physics at all.
Keep on.
Greetings
Aleksandar
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Alexandar, but semantics speaks for itself, not for us. We insists on the same subjective truth :)
In order to truly appreciate the concept of agnosticism, one must feel the paradox of the insolubility of one's position.
Andrew Wutke | Vasyl Fedorovych Komarov,
Not sure if Einstein said that "Time is what clocks measure"
because, there are at least two reasonably concise definitions published
But they are sort of tho the same effect. I go even further, what is put by some anonymous person from NIST
" Our clocks do not measure time. ... Time is defined to be what our clocks measure."
Surely to measure time it has to exist in the first place, but there is no evidence and not even a useful definition of such.
Vasyl Komarov | Andrew Wutke,
I will not argue about whether Einstein said such a phrase (Google claims that the phrase can be found for example here Q: What is time?). It does not matter who said the statement, even an encyclopaedic article with the loud title "Time" can begin (here, for example www.iep.utm.edu/time/) with identical formulation.
A rough hint (rather, a direct reminder) of the old, but not forgotten by me, discussion in the comments to the publication on RG (A simple definition of Time) was in my replic above. You could notice this, because you actively participated in the discussion, I almost literally quoted my old cue here (-;
Michael Lersow | to Vasyl Fedorovych (9:20 AM),
You have to read my comment correctly. I have true, not true, related only to a cognitive receiver. Formalized languages are also used in physics (mathematics). Mathematics is not itself a natural science and in this case has the function of a model. In physics, it is not about true or not true at first, but about the reproduction accuracy and this can only be determined in connection with observations (measurements). However, if you do not see the event during measurements, but only the effects, and those are far in the past, the observations are always related to a probability of occurrence. Thus, the circle closes for information.
I agree with you that you can not always discover a technical (professional) background in this discussion everywhere. However, a discussion only succeeds if you accept other well-founded opinions.
Everything quiet in the east?
Regards
Michael
Vasyl Komarov | Michael, I only add to your words that since physics ultimately uses mathematics, and semantics ultimately has deeper (literally, physical) roots as dear Aleksandar remarked (and not I alone fully agree with him), Tarski's ideas relate to physics and (human) beings with all thought processes inclusive equally. This is only my opinion, I think it is very evident from the logic of my reasoning about beliefs.
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Just a neutral question: If general relativity is expressed via 'space-time', and accepting that 'time' always exists (whatever its rate and place), does this imply that 'space' can never be so-called 'empty' given that time will always have a 'value'. E.g. spaces between the nucleus and electrons within an atom or spaces between galaxies will always be filled up by Something like an energy field?
Quora: Can time ever be zero?
Eugene F Kislyakov | Marcel,
separate existence (without any other) of space and time is nonsense.
Sergey Shevchenko | In spite of that complete explanation of the problem “what is Time?” a number of times is given already in this thread, the discussion continues.
So it becomes be necessary to comment some posts, which, albeit are rather evidently senseless [that doesn’t relate to posts of Constantine Jeannacopoulos, Victor Ivanovivh Mikla, and in many aspects Aleksandar Jovanovic], nonetheless appear …
“When You write notion/phenomenon, Sergey, I understand this as You equate them. And it is the postulate”
firstly, in the SS posts there is no nonsensical claim that “notion”=”phenomenon”; and, of course, such nonsense cannot be a postulate in the “The Information as Absolute” conception.
The difference is quite clear: phenomena .exist always objectively, when “notions” are subjective products [inferences] of operations of some self-aware informational systems “human’s consciousnesses”, when they analyze obtained information about objective phenomena; which, again, exist objectively, i.e. independently…
Sergey Shevchenko | Next
“…Your space and time representation is Kantian, Sergey, and out of your "Informational set"…”
a next claim that contains only one correct information: the author didn’t understand what he writes.
The definition of the absolutely fundamental Rules/Possibilities “Space” and “Time” in the informational conception fundamentally cannot be “Kantian”, I. Kant was a mainstream philosopher the believer of the one mainstream doctrine “Idealism”.
Idealism postulates that in the reality there is nothing else then a Consciousness/Idea/Spirit/…, etc., but this absolutely fundamental in the doctrine omnipotent notion/phenomenon [“Consciousness/…/…”] is fundamentally undefined in it; and so is rationally non-understandable, transcendent in this doctrine. Any idealist, including Kant, cannot/could not answer on the quite natural questions “So what is the Consciousness/etc.?” why and how She/He appeared and why She/He has such properties?, etc.
And so when a believer of the opposite mainstream…
Eugene F Kislyakov | You can not live in definitions, Sergey. Materialism and idealism is not interesting for us.
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Useful?: Entanglement and teleportation.... Where is time?
Experimental Demonstration of Five-photon Entanglement and Open-destination Teleportation
Eugene F Kislyakov | Time is absent, Marcel.
Vasyl Komarov | Marcel, "emptiness" does not belong to the ontological category, to which matter refers.
Still again I want to draw attention to the moment (which all the time escapes from the conversation, because attention is drawn to non-essential details, like Einstein's quote etc.) that the metric (Metric, mathematics) is the meaningless concept in the absence of objects, just same as space. It is impossible to separate space (the relationships between system elements, distances, metrics) from the set of system elements.
For the same reason, it is pointless to apply the word "exists" to the >time. It also does not belong to a given ontological category of "real". Existence is a process, system change, one can say, synonymous with time.
This has nothing essential to the theory of relativity. The crisis just uncovered the problems of understanding space, making it possible to feel the integrity of the transformation of the system (holism), imho
Awareness: matter + space-time = matter-space-time should be the next step, imho
It is better to note at once, this is a subjective opinion from the point of the physical worldviews, in order to ignore reproaches that besides physics there are everyday life and many more things.
Sergey Shevchenko | Dear Vasyl Fedorovych Komarov,
“…Sergey, why two temporal dimensions? We can extend the phase space again and again (if it need), without violating the logic of the dynamic system's translation into itself? This procedure can be done invariantly "long" (i.e., infinitely). Moreover, additional "spatial" degrees of freedom can be included with each extension….”
indeed in physics at elaborating of mechanical many bodies problems it is very convenient to use configuration spaces, when for a number N of bodies the spacetime has 3N at least spatial dimensions, to introduce “phase space/volumes” for states of the system, etc., but all that evidently has no relation to the problem “what is Matter’s spacetime”. And even those people who attempted to discover something fundamental and so invented some “fundamental properties of the spacetime”, as that was in the SR/GR theories, where it is postulated that real Matter’s spacetime is imaginary 4D Minkowski/pseudo Riemannian spaces, what is, of course a fantasy, never stated at that that real Matter’s spacetime has, say 3∙1090 dimensions, or something like.
And the answer on the question what is this spacetime is given here a few times already in comments and in the main links in the comments:
the_Information_as_Absolute
The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics
The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_space_and_time
so more see the links above, when briefly that is:
since, a that von Weizsäcker showed, the informational system “Matter” rather probably is built by using simplest binary logics, when for existence and changing of such systems is necessary to have 3D space, Matter’s spacetime has 3D space;
besides any information cannot be non-existent and so cannot be deleted. Thus a next states of every changing informational pattern/system in the “Information” Set, must not be written in the same place where the previous states is, since that deletes the previous information; and so must be written somewhere else. This “somewhere else” is the absolutely fundamental and universal Possibility “true time”, which is “the 1D space for changing states”, and in which all dynamical elements/systems in the Set place the chains of their changing states, moving by this way in the true time.
Including the dynamical system Matter has the true time [“5-th”] dimension, where all/every material objects, which constantly and always change their states because of the energy conservation law, and Matter as a whole as well, constantly move; and
since to prevent, or, at least to reduce to minimum, the energy losses in the Set outside Matter at interactions of objects in Matter, the logical algorithms, that all every material objects are, are reversible. The reversible processes conflict logically with the true time, which principally is unidirectional, and so Matter’s spacetime has the second temporal, [“0-th”] “the coordinate time”, dimension, which isn’t universal in the Set, and is specific only to Matter and other possibly existent based on reversible processes systems in the Set.
Eventually Matter’s spacetime is [5]4D Euclidian empty container [in the objective reality, where Matter objectively exists and changes]/ [5]4D Euclidian manifold [in scientific theories, where Matter subjectively is described].
Note, that in the SR/GR there are two times also, “simply time” and “proper time”, when, however, the proper time isn’t a spacetime’s dimension.
And, besides, the important point: every dynamic system, including Matter “uses” only those possible dimensions that relate to independent degrees of freedom at changing of its elements, and nothing else. Thus, in certain sense, that seems as every system’s spacetime “emerges” from the system. However that happens only provided of the fundamental condition: every informational system principally cannot exist without some space and, if it is dynamical, without some spacetime. The absolutely fundamental Rules/Possibilities “Space” and “Time” always fundamentally obligatorily and objectively act
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko | Dear Eugene F Kislyakov
“You can not live in definitions, Sergey. Materialism and idealism is not interesting for us”
if Materialism and Idealism, and, moreover, the philosophical “The Information as Absolute” conception, are not interesting for somebody, then this somebody is capable to consider/discuss the problems as “what is some fundamental notion/phenomenon”, including “what is “Time”” only on a kitchen or even bazaar level. What happens in this thread regrettably often…
Cheers
Andrew Wutke | Vasyl Fedorovych Komarov I do not in principle disagree what you say but highlighted the fact that Einstein's quote appearing repeatedly in many sources could not not be found in any of his writings or credibly recorded by some other source.
The links you provide do not offer any reference to this quote either.
What I said also is that at least of two Einstein's published definitions of time have similar effect as the alleged quote (superficially). But as a matter of fact fact they are more in line to:
" Our clocks do not measure time. ... Time is defined to be what our clocks measure."
Vasyl Komarov | Andrew Wutke, I just quoted myself, in turn, quoting another person who quoted in earlier conversation the words, probably uttered by Einstein. This is only detail of the discussion background here. I was not talking about Einstein.
By the way, the clock does not measure anything, they just "exist", it's people who measure time.
Time is not "defined", I find it difficult to agree with such a phrase. I also can not live in definitions, as Eugene say above.
Vasyl Komarov | It's more interesting, did Abdul realize the logic of reasoning about the tautology of the final theory and semantics. The kitchen craves new philosophers (it's for Eugene)
Nov 16, 2017
Louis Brassard | Money do exist. But does it exist outside of the Mind of the Humans? Yes we have some material supports, coins, paper bills but most of us use plastic cards for paying; there are institutions which keep track of my bank accounts and credit card accounts; when I use a plastic debit card, numbers are communicated all over the place into electronic forms and stored on hard drives into magnetic traces. But these electronic signals and these magnetic traces do exist as physical phenomena but we need humans to interpret these as money. Human obey money although it does not exist in the physical world but into our cultural convention world. That is where money exist. Nobody would claim that money exist in the physical world. Why is it that some physicists do claim that signals coming from artificial device they build and call clocks do exist in Nature? Yes they use variables t that they say correspond to these clock signals in equations they invent and this is very usefull but why consider all these inventions as naturally existing? Money works, is usefull but is totally invented. Time , numbers and physics are totally invented and useful in allowing to interact with Nature but none of it exist outside the Mind of humans. Money allows to interact with people and is completly in the Mind of humans. Why is there any need to reify it as existing in Nature? None of the technology we do with it depend on this belief on existing outside the Mind as no debit machine depend on a make-belief that money exist in Nature.
Louis Brassard | {Einstein and Bergson on Time} In 1922, Albert Einstein and the great French philosopher Henri Bergson publicly debated the nature of time. In The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time, historian of science Jimena Canales tells the remarkable story of how this clash impacted fields from logical positivism to quantum mechanics and drove a rift between science and the humanities that persists today. Further, she explains how then-new technologies—such as wristwatches, radio, and film—helped shape people’s conceptions of time.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Labour exists, Louis, and money count it as clocks count time. Of course, all this exists first of all in human's mind.
Louis Brassard | Money do exist. But does it exist outside of the Mind of the Humans? Yes we have some material supports, coins, paper bills but most of us use plastic cards for paying; there are institutions which keep track of my bank accounts and credit card accounts; when I use a plastic debit card, numbers are communicated all over the place into electronic forms and stored on hard drives into magnetic traces. But these electronic signals and these magnetic traces do exist as physical phenomena but we need humans to interpret these as money. Human obey money although it does not exist in the physical world but into our cultural convention world. That is where money exist. Nobody would claim that money exist in the physical world. Why is it that some physicists do claim that signals coming from artificial device they build and call clocks do exist in Nature? Yes they use variables t that they say correspond to these clock signals in equations they invent and this is very usefull but why consider all these inventions as naturally existing? Money works, is usefull but is totally invented. Time , numbers and physics are totally invented and useful in allowing to interact with Nature but none of it exist outside the Mind of humans. Money allows to interact with people and is completly in the Mind of humans. Why is there any need to reify it as existing in Nature? None of the technology we do with it depend on this belief on existing outside the Mind as no debit machine depend on a make-belief that money exist in Nature.
Louis Brassard | {Einstein and Bergson on Time} In 1922, Albert Einstein and the great French philosopher Henri Bergson publicly debated the nature of time. In The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time, historian of science Jimena Canales tells the remarkable story of how this clash impacted fields from logical positivism to quantum mechanics and drove a rift between science and the humanities that persists today. Further, she explains how then-new technologies—such as wristwatches, radio, and film—helped shape people’s conceptions of time.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Labour exists, Louis, and money count it as clocks count time. Of course, all this exists first of all in human's mind.
Nov 17, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Eugene, Louis, "exists first of all with human's mind" is more correct, imo.
All high-level attractions in the system are present only in the vicinity of the formed level of complexity of the structure of organic matter, more precisely, this all, together with physical coins, is extrasomatic information (ordered structure), which I spoke to Michael in the summer in this project, when we discussed the volume of information of chimpanzees and man:
Dear Michael. The rate of DNA change and overal volume of information has a limit. Man was arise because evolution has bypassed this limit.
{...}
Chimpanzees (~10^10 by DNA + ~10^11 by brain) are very far behind humans (~10^10 by DNA + ~10^13 by brain + >10^12 extrasomatic),
Gene Regulation for Higher Cells: A Theory
1969 | DOI: 10.1126/science.165.3891.349
Sagan Carl. The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence.
1977 | ISBN 978-5-271-28988-0 | wiki
A small correction: "Our accumulated digital universe of data... 4.4 zettabytes today"
i.e. 4.4*10^21
...and with Aaron also in the summer:
Dear Aaron, you are so arguing about the knowledge that it is not just information, but something absolute. Alas, any information in the universe is in dynamically-regenerated state, it's just an relatively static alternation of structures (invariant via some entanglement with other invariants like life, for example).
Our knowledge exists in the form of a stable structure only through continuous regeneration, constantly overcoming mentioned exponential decay returning to the pre-catastrophic state. It does not represent anything sensible without a semantic component in the form of a brain structure over DNA transmitted by humanity from generation to generation. Extrasomatic information is like "electromagnetic field" around the "conductor" as long as the life flows in it.
NB: However, the word "life" should be replaced by a more neutral "existence." It will be honest with respect to the lower-level self-organization of the structure.
Vasyl Komarov | Eugene, Louis, "exists first of all with human's mind" is more correct, imo.
All high-level attractions in the system are present only in the vicinity of the formed level of complexity of the structure of organic matter, more precisely, this all, together with physical coins, is extrasomatic information (ordered structure), which I spoke to Michael in the summer in this project, when we discussed the volume of information of chimpanzees and man:
Dear Michael. The rate of DNA change and overal volume of information has a limit. Man was arise because evolution has bypassed this limit.
{...}
Chimpanzees (~10^10 by DNA + ~10^11 by brain) are very far behind humans (~10^10 by DNA + ~10^13 by brain + >10^12 extrasomatic),
Gene Regulation for Higher Cells: A Theory
1969 | DOI: 10.1126/science.165.3891.349
Sagan Carl. The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence.
1977 | ISBN 978-5-271-28988-0 | wiki
A small correction: "Our accumulated digital universe of data... 4.4 zettabytes today"
i.e. 4.4*10^21
...and with Aaron also in the summer:
Dear Aaron, you are so arguing about the knowledge that it is not just information, but something absolute. Alas, any information in the universe is in dynamically-regenerated state, it's just an relatively static alternation of structures (invariant via some entanglement with other invariants like life, for example).
Our knowledge exists in the form of a stable structure only through continuous regeneration, constantly overcoming mentioned exponential decay returning to the pre-catastrophic state. It does not represent anything sensible without a semantic component in the form of a brain structure over DNA transmitted by humanity from generation to generation. Extrasomatic information is like "electromagnetic field" around the "conductor" as long as the life flows in it.
NB: However, the word "life" should be replaced by a more neutral "existence." It will be honest with respect to the lower-level self-organization of the structure.
— ResearchGate. Available from {disclaimer}: Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: Does time exist? [accessed Nov 17, 2017]
Nov 19, 2017
Louis Brassard | Laszlo,
Much before you learn about mathematics and the physical concept of speed, you knew the word speed which you associated with body movements which you experience in your own body and visually. No needs of the concept of time, which you did not have then for you to grasp speed. It was not a conceptual grasping but a sensory motor competence. Other animal have similar sensory motor competences. A predator need to estimate how to run and catch a prey. This demand synchronizing its movements in function of the movement of the prey.
Vasyl Komarov | ...synchronized, means coherent.
Vasyl Komarov | After all, any process, even meeting at the agreed place at the agreed hour depends on the coherent processes in the system. When we check the clock, our brain must enter into some coherent state, just as with circadian rhythms, just as with the branching condition (bifurcation in the dynamic system representing personal computer executing the program), etc.
Functional network inference of the suprachiasmatic nucleus
2016 | DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1521178113 | pdf
Achievement of the goals occurs when state of a part of parameters of the dynamic system that surrounds us with a part of the parameters of its model (the model of reality, de facto) in the form of a dynamic system that represents our brain and our body (organism) is coherent.
This is true for any interdependent systems (not only for "environment vs organism" or "body vs brain", it is a fractal structure). The system can evolve only coherently, filtering out the incoherent components of state into non-existence (this is natural selection).
Louis Brassard | Laszlo,
Much before you learn about mathematics and the physical concept of speed, you knew the word speed which you associated with body movements which you experience in your own body and visually. No needs of the concept of time, which you did not have then for you to grasp speed. It was not a conceptual grasping but a sensory motor competence. Other animal have similar sensory motor competences. A predator need to estimate how to run and catch a prey. This demand synchronizing its movements in function of the movement of the prey.
Vasyl Komarov | ...synchronized, means coherent.
Vasyl Komarov | After all, any process, even meeting at the agreed place at the agreed hour depends on the coherent processes in the system. When we check the clock, our brain must enter into some coherent state, just as with circadian rhythms, just as with the branching condition (bifurcation in the dynamic system representing personal computer executing the program), etc.
Functional network inference of the suprachiasmatic nucleus
2016 | DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1521178113 | pdf
Achievement of the goals occurs when state of a part of parameters of the dynamic system that surrounds us with a part of the parameters of its model (the model of reality, de facto) in the form of a dynamic system that represents our brain and our body (organism) is coherent.
This is true for any interdependent systems (not only for "environment vs organism" or "body vs brain", it is a fractal structure). The system can evolve only coherently, filtering out the incoherent components of state into non-existence (this is natural selection).
Nov 20, 2017
Athanassios Nassikas | Dear All,
I can notice that the level of our communication has been already chosen.
Our texts are based on some not arbitrary arguments logically stated which implies the existence of causes of the reality described; therefore we use or try to use classical logic and the sufficient reason principle (causality). Everywhere in our texts we can see that there is anterior and posterior (one letter after another). It can be shown that this kind of communication is contradictory and this leads to silence.
On this basis we have to chose:
1. to continue our communication based on a contradictory system which I don’t think that it could help us.
2. to stop this communication and continue with an other way which could be metaphysical.
3. to decide a logical breaking of silence where we insist using logic but we accept the existence of contradictions since they cannot be vanished.
I believe that nobody follows case 1.
I feel that some follow case 2; this case is not weaker than the other cases…
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 are. 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.
Michael Lersow | Dear Vasyl, dear all,
the problem with this discussion here is that we do not aim at objectivity when it comes to "Does time exist". The objectivity of this topic is the physical quantity time, how is it defined and what reproducible parameters we use to determine it. There is a desire to see the connection to space and so on and so forth.
Anyone who wants to discuss this topic seriously will recognize that this is a topic of physics. Biological processes, physiological processes, genetics, etc. are not addressed here.
This also applies to causality, namely the causality of physical events.
Physics is the science of inanimate nature.
That's the frame first. Vasyl, your post is interesting, but does not hit the topic.
Only when we have done this, we could expand the topic. I had made a suggestion. Or else, we can discuss the enlargement here and agree on a common framework. This could well connect religion, science, etc. with each other. But for this, the framework and the terms used must be agreed.
So, a static state can also be assumed as a special case of dynamic development. The dynamic special case "static" one can take in a model. A complete picture (model) of nature does not succeed anyway. There are only good or badapproximations and that for a certain period of time. so are assumption of static behavior sometimes gives a better approximation to reality than an incalculable dynamically.
If this fails, the discussion is a never ending story, or Babylonian jumble. See discussion here.
ML
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.
Athanassios Nassikas | Dear All,
I can notice that the level of our communication has been already chosen.
Our texts are based on some not arbitrary arguments logically stated which implies the existence of causes of the reality described; therefore we use or try to use classical logic and the sufficient reason principle (causality). Everywhere in our texts we can see that there is anterior and posterior (one letter after another). It can be shown that this kind of communication is contradictory and this leads to silence.
On this basis we have to chose:
1. to continue our communication based on a contradictory system which I don’t think that it could help us.
2. to stop this communication and continue with an other way which could be metaphysical.
3. to decide a logical breaking of silence where we insist using logic but we accept the existence of contradictions since they cannot be vanished.
I believe that nobody follows case 1.
I feel that some follow case 2; this case is not weaker than the other cases…
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 are. 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.
Michael Lersow | Dear Vasyl, dear all,
the problem with this discussion here is that we do not aim at objectivity when it comes to "Does time exist". The objectivity of this topic is the physical quantity time, how is it defined and what reproducible parameters we use to determine it. There is a desire to see the connection to space and so on and so forth.
Anyone who wants to discuss this topic seriously will recognize that this is a topic of physics. Biological processes, physiological processes, genetics, etc. are not addressed here.
This also applies to causality, namely the causality of physical events.
Physics is the science of inanimate nature.
That's the frame first. Vasyl, your post is interesting, but does not hit the topic.
Only when we have done this, we could expand the topic. I had made a suggestion. Or else, we can discuss the enlargement here and agree on a common framework. This could well connect religion, science, etc. with each other. But for this, the framework and the terms used must be agreed.
So, a static state can also be assumed as a special case of dynamic development. The dynamic special case "static" one can take in a model. A complete picture (model) of nature does not succeed anyway. There are only good or badapproximations and that for a certain period of time. so are assumption of static behavior sometimes gives a better approximation to reality than an incalculable dynamically.
If this fails, the discussion is a never ending story, or Babylonian jumble. See discussion here.
ML
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.
Nov 21, 2017
Erik Lindberg | Dear Michael Lersow,
We live in a universe where energy is transformed to mass.
Entropy is increasing.
We observe life in enclaves where entropy is decreasing (Schrödinger)
When all energy has become mass the next BigBang occur.
All mass becomes energy and a new time period where energy becomes mass starts.
We believe we know concepts like life, time, zero and infinite but we don't.
Natural science is a religion.
All the best to all of you
ERIK LINDBERG (Denmark)
a lonely traveler on the fractal border between religion and natural science
Michael Lersow | Vasyl Fedorovych,
Obviously we prefer two different approaches to "Does time exist". First of all, I would like to define the physical size of time and its integration into daily life and you would like to discuss a complex model of the human thinking structure and the acquisition of knowledge under this topic.
I know that only by concentrating on the task and the necessary abstraction can one arrive at the result that ultimately a contribution to the general gain of knowledge can makecome about the creation entrusted to us. You may take that as an isolated way of behaving, I disagree completely. Of course, physics is not an isolated science. What shoud that?
We are happy to discuss even larger and more complex relationships. No problem. But I stay with it, then you have to exchange about what terminology is used. See above.
But then you can also not assume that everyone is discussing from the point of view of dialectical materialism, certainly not.
Of course, the discussion on RG also…
Vasyl Komarov | Michael, you find me in the position of dialectical materialism, while with Abdul I stand in opposition to dialectical materialism.
In both cases I defend the same position. I understand perfectly the reasons for this dualism of my position. It is a good example for demonstrating the relationship of three various biases, and it's still fun.
NB: I should note, the debates of last days on RG has been as much useful and interesting for me as the summer episode (Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: Observation ... in the human population.).
Talib Abbas | If time does not exist (illusion). Is their any purpose for this illusion?
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Talib Abbas, perhaps "illusion" is not a suitable word in discussed context of non-existence.
As for me, while agreeing with the statement "time does not exist", I mean the ontological "physically real object" (in accordance with the classification that I quoted a little earlier) and say about time as metric relations in the evolving topological structure of the "physically real", i.e. metric relations between subsystems (between orbits in dynamical system) of this holistic structure.
Formal thinking is often misleading, because by assigning a label to some semantics such thinking starts a pipeline that works with labels rather monotonously, as a result, the inertia of thinking often makes a disservice (most of the labels used by formal thinking are related to entities, the manifestation of which can often be felt physically).
It makes no sense to talk about time in terms of existence, because this is only the sign of existence. We can not think of time as an entity apart from the reality.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | It is a medium in which physical entities exist, thus essential attribute of existence.
Not so for psychical entities, nor algorithms, nor music, nor mathematics.
E.g. a musical piece touches reality in time, but its essence, it's structure
is not in time. It is in the expanded reality.
Erik Lindberg | Dear Michael Lersow,
We live in a universe where energy is transformed to mass.
Entropy is increasing.
We observe life in enclaves where entropy is decreasing (Schrödinger)
When all energy has become mass the next BigBang occur.
All mass becomes energy and a new time period where energy becomes mass starts.
We believe we know concepts like life, time, zero and infinite but we don't.
Natural science is a religion.
All the best to all of you
ERIK LINDBERG (Denmark)
a lonely traveler on the fractal border between religion and natural science
Michael Lersow | Vasyl Fedorovych,
Obviously we prefer two different approaches to "Does time exist". First of all, I would like to define the physical size of time and its integration into daily life and you would like to discuss a complex model of the human thinking structure and the acquisition of knowledge under this topic.
I know that only by concentrating on the task and the necessary abstraction can one arrive at the result that ultimately a contribution to the general gain of knowledge can makecome about the creation entrusted to us. You may take that as an isolated way of behaving, I disagree completely. Of course, physics is not an isolated science. What shoud that?
We are happy to discuss even larger and more complex relationships. No problem. But I stay with it, then you have to exchange about what terminology is used. See above.
But then you can also not assume that everyone is discussing from the point of view of dialectical materialism, certainly not.
Of course, the discussion on RG also…
Vasyl Komarov | Michael, you find me in the position of dialectical materialism, while with Abdul I stand in opposition to dialectical materialism.
In both cases I defend the same position. I understand perfectly the reasons for this dualism of my position. It is a good example for demonstrating the relationship of three various biases, and it's still fun.
NB: I should note, the debates of last days on RG has been as much useful and interesting for me as the summer episode (Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: Observation ... in the human population.).
Talib Abbas | If time does not exist (illusion). Is their any purpose for this illusion?
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Talib Abbas, perhaps "illusion" is not a suitable word in discussed context of non-existence.
As for me, while agreeing with the statement "time does not exist", I mean the ontological "physically real object" (in accordance with the classification that I quoted a little earlier) and say about time as metric relations in the evolving topological structure of the "physically real", i.e. metric relations between subsystems (between orbits in dynamical system) of this holistic structure.
Formal thinking is often misleading, because by assigning a label to some semantics such thinking starts a pipeline that works with labels rather monotonously, as a result, the inertia of thinking often makes a disservice (most of the labels used by formal thinking are related to entities, the manifestation of which can often be felt physically).
It makes no sense to talk about time in terms of existence, because this is only the sign of existence. We can not think of time as an entity apart from the reality.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | It is a medium in which physical entities exist, thus essential attribute of existence.
Not so for psychical entities, nor algorithms, nor music, nor mathematics.
E.g. a musical piece touches reality in time, but its essence, it's structure
is not in time. It is in the expanded reality.
Nov 22, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Erik Lindberg, a very vivid analogy, I did not think about agnosticism in this way.
Although, I has imagined how axiomatics crushes and blurs in the details of knowledge system, being displaced into semantics as the formalization of description the surrounding world is strengthened and how does the concrete (phenomenological) component of the question "everything consist of what?" become more and more meaningless as the level of abstraction increases.
In the beginning, I perceived its scheme fragmented, simply as a dualism of the position with respect to individual statements that can not be proved or disproved within the framework of current knowledge and experience.
You described the process in one line.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Alexandar, "medium" is also not a suitable word in the context, since it already implies existence of a carrier (as container), even in the absence of the processes we are talking about (nothing or equilibrium, when no-time). This word also drives thinking along the wrong path. The medium itself implies the existence.
We are talking about the very structure of existence. At this level of abstraction the usual level of phenomenology of the carrier of processes can not be. The container is formed by the content structure, it is inalienable part of the structure and would not exist in the absence of it.
This is exactly the moment which absolutely do not appropriate for me in the postulates of the Sergey's informational concept (it contain solid axioms about the container wich is contrintuitive on the modern level of physics, same as the idea of "medium", same as Newtonian space and time, regardless of the number and configuration of dimensions, by the way, this is also the Achilles heel of string theory).
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Dear Vasili,
you imagine that I am not a phys, just a logician involved in all parts of logic
and some Mathematics. I love phys too.
If involved in discussions I am trying to use proper terminology.
I am not aware of current use of ordinary language in Phys.
As you might have witnessed the modern Phys is permanently fashioning
new (Math)suites, new (math) theories, inventing new terminology and new semantics in order to have better tailored theories of everything local and everything global. After decades, I am sick and tired of such phenomenology and will cite some great mathematicians: it's all crap! I am afraid I am starting to share the view.
About information, codes, symbols, 8, logics, a lot of app I spent a large portion of my career.
You are a nice person and please do not take this personally: I am not convinced my wording is wrong in any sense, semantics inclusive.
Concerning existence, the primeval existence is the existence of math objects and properties (which we easily equilize via property:: characteristic function bijection). After that all phys reality can exist in 1 or the other way
rather easily.
1 anecdote: after the "detection" of Higgs, it was some of those famous sc. magazines which selected 4 among the most famous phys. One of them from MIT (in 40ies) claimed: everything in Phys is mathematics. And, with no residual. It was surprising for but I liked that.
When I used the word medium it was very relaxing and non obvious in any phys semantics.
I am not sure I am ready to accept the offered innovations. That might mean
the same for a larger number of mathematicians.
Axioms? Axiomatization without complete and critical formal frame and consistency treatment? No.
Dear Vasili,
we are not confronted, probably on hyper parallels
be well
Aleksandar
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Aleksandar,
I consider myself as a physicist, so I can afford the same relaxed attitude to axioms, considering them as hypotheses, or postulates... because I can not be so relaxed about semantics and for me the difference between the axiom and the hypothesis is approximately like the time of wine aging and does not change the essence of the subject... as long as it is not vinegar.
I see some points on which we disagree, by the way, Gödel's theorems should cause inconvenience for you with such a categorical statement about complete formal frame.
It's all crap, of course, it's even Ecclesiastes said before, or Buddha (it's hard to determine now which of them said this before), but they all with "some great mathematicians" said it convincingly :)
Regards.
Michael Lersow | Dear Aleksandar, dear "Does time exist" community,
Aleksandar I agree with you, or better: Vasyl Fedorovych comment is wrong and inconsistent. Regardless of what is meant by medium (solid, gaseous liquid, carrier medium, magnetic field, gravitational field, etc.), at least in physics, this is a fundamental term.
In order to describe events, we must become at least specify the space in which the process should take place, only the universium as a whole can be called open. Thus, a flow process takes place in the atmosphere without the need to define a container, indeed, it can also be part of the model that flow lines leave the defined space. Or the osmosis etc.
The insinuated difficulties in the theory of string theory are a long time ago eliminated. Here is a quote:
"He discovered that if every particle entanglement between two separate regions of the boundary is steadily reduced to zero, so that the quantum links between the two disappear, the three-dimensional space responds by gradually dividing itself like a splitting cell, until the last, thin connection between the two halves snaps. Repeating that process will subdivide the three-dimensional space again and again, while the two-dimensional boundary stays connected. So, in effect, Van Raamsdonk concluded, the three-dimensional universe is being held together by quantum entanglement on the boundary — which means that in some sense, quantum entanglement and space-time are the same thing." See: Raamsdonk, M. V. Gen. Rel. Grav. 42, 2323–2329 (2010).
Let's see what Vasyl Fedorovych will offer us as the next philosophical reverie!?
Amen
Michael
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Michael, I can not live in terms, even if you consider them fundamental. Eugene said this above, but I fully agree with this.
I understand your phenomenological attitude to nature and the line of reasoning you follow, but in physics, in addition, models are built from the first principles. Some respected people, for example, believe that you and I are made up of strings. You can just as well argue with them about "fundamental terms".
I do not want to argue with you about this, because I'm in the framework of generally accepted concepts and do not see any point in proving anything about this when you mix everything into one pile.
Please answer only the question, why did the physicists construct the statistical theory of gases and tried to derive the value for the viscosity and other transfer coefficients from it, when they can be measured simply in an experiment, and put to the engineering handbook after, as tabular data, graphs or empirical formulas?
q.e.d.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Erik Lindberg, a very vivid analogy, I did not think about agnosticism in this way.
Although, I has imagined how axiomatics crushes and blurs in the details of knowledge system, being displaced into semantics as the formalization of description the surrounding world is strengthened and how does the concrete (phenomenological) component of the question "everything consist of what?" become more and more meaningless as the level of abstraction increases.
In the beginning, I perceived its scheme fragmented, simply as a dualism of the position with respect to individual statements that can not be proved or disproved within the framework of current knowledge and experience.
You described the process in one line.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Alexandar, "medium" is also not a suitable word in the context, since it already implies existence of a carrier (as container), even in the absence of the processes we are talking about (nothing or equilibrium, when no-time). This word also drives thinking along the wrong path. The medium itself implies the existence.
We are talking about the very structure of existence. At this level of abstraction the usual level of phenomenology of the carrier of processes can not be. The container is formed by the content structure, it is inalienable part of the structure and would not exist in the absence of it.
This is exactly the moment which absolutely do not appropriate for me in the postulates of the Sergey's informational concept (it contain solid axioms about the container wich is contrintuitive on the modern level of physics, same as the idea of "medium", same as Newtonian space and time, regardless of the number and configuration of dimensions, by the way, this is also the Achilles heel of string theory).
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Dear Vasili,
you imagine that I am not a phys, just a logician involved in all parts of logic
and some Mathematics. I love phys too.
If involved in discussions I am trying to use proper terminology.
I am not aware of current use of ordinary language in Phys.
As you might have witnessed the modern Phys is permanently fashioning
new (Math)suites, new (math) theories, inventing new terminology and new semantics in order to have better tailored theories of everything local and everything global. After decades, I am sick and tired of such phenomenology and will cite some great mathematicians: it's all crap! I am afraid I am starting to share the view.
About information, codes, symbols, 8, logics, a lot of app I spent a large portion of my career.
You are a nice person and please do not take this personally: I am not convinced my wording is wrong in any sense, semantics inclusive.
Concerning existence, the primeval existence is the existence of math objects and properties (which we easily equilize via property:: characteristic function bijection). After that all phys reality can exist in 1 or the other way
rather easily.
1 anecdote: after the "detection" of Higgs, it was some of those famous sc. magazines which selected 4 among the most famous phys. One of them from MIT (in 40ies) claimed: everything in Phys is mathematics. And, with no residual. It was surprising for but I liked that.
When I used the word medium it was very relaxing and non obvious in any phys semantics.
I am not sure I am ready to accept the offered innovations. That might mean
the same for a larger number of mathematicians.
Axioms? Axiomatization without complete and critical formal frame and consistency treatment? No.
Dear Vasili,
we are not confronted, probably on hyper parallels
be well
Aleksandar
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Aleksandar,
I consider myself as a physicist, so I can afford the same relaxed attitude to axioms, considering them as hypotheses, or postulates... because I can not be so relaxed about semantics and for me the difference between the axiom and the hypothesis is approximately like the time of wine aging and does not change the essence of the subject... as long as it is not vinegar.
I see some points on which we disagree, by the way, Gödel's theorems should cause inconvenience for you with such a categorical statement about complete formal frame.
It's all crap, of course, it's even Ecclesiastes said before, or Buddha (it's hard to determine now which of them said this before), but they all with "some great mathematicians" said it convincingly :)
Regards.
Michael Lersow | Dear Aleksandar, dear "Does time exist" community,
Aleksandar I agree with you, or better: Vasyl Fedorovych comment is wrong and inconsistent. Regardless of what is meant by medium (solid, gaseous liquid, carrier medium, magnetic field, gravitational field, etc.), at least in physics, this is a fundamental term.
In order to describe events, we must become at least specify the space in which the process should take place, only the universium as a whole can be called open. Thus, a flow process takes place in the atmosphere without the need to define a container, indeed, it can also be part of the model that flow lines leave the defined space. Or the osmosis etc.
The insinuated difficulties in the theory of string theory are a long time ago eliminated. Here is a quote:
"He discovered that if every particle entanglement between two separate regions of the boundary is steadily reduced to zero, so that the quantum links between the two disappear, the three-dimensional space responds by gradually dividing itself like a splitting cell, until the last, thin connection between the two halves snaps. Repeating that process will subdivide the three-dimensional space again and again, while the two-dimensional boundary stays connected. So, in effect, Van Raamsdonk concluded, the three-dimensional universe is being held together by quantum entanglement on the boundary — which means that in some sense, quantum entanglement and space-time are the same thing." See: Raamsdonk, M. V. Gen. Rel. Grav. 42, 2323–2329 (2010).
Let's see what Vasyl Fedorovych will offer us as the next philosophical reverie!?
Amen
Michael
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Michael, I can not live in terms, even if you consider them fundamental. Eugene said this above, but I fully agree with this.
I understand your phenomenological attitude to nature and the line of reasoning you follow, but in physics, in addition, models are built from the first principles. Some respected people, for example, believe that you and I are made up of strings. You can just as well argue with them about "fundamental terms".
I do not want to argue with you about this, because I'm in the framework of generally accepted concepts and do not see any point in proving anything about this when you mix everything into one pile.
Please answer only the question, why did the physicists construct the statistical theory of gases and tried to derive the value for the viscosity and other transfer coefficients from it, when they can be measured simply in an experiment, and put to the engineering handbook after, as tabular data, graphs or empirical formulas?
q.e.d.
Nov 23, 2017
Michael Lersow | Oh Vasyl Fedorovych, why does??? You can guess three times!!! Because there are processes where you can not measure or not more be able to measure. Imagine that you should make a prognosis about the behavior of high-level waste in a repository and whether it is possible for radioinuclides to enter the biosphere. Detection period 1 million years. Can you understand that?
The difference between us seems to be that you never had to model processes before. Then you would know that a (every) model has more or less large deviations from reality. This means that the result lies in or outside the target area. And you will be able to imagine that there are processes in which with a probability bordering on certainty have to excluded, that functionality failure occurs..
That's why we have to make an effort and improve our forecasting tools. But we will not achieve the ideal. The Newtonian axioms were a good basis for development, and sometimes the formula for free fall is enough.
Amen
Vasyl Komarov | Excuse me, Michael, but in the fundamental aspects I have to be boring. It is necessary to distinguish the perception forming the qualia (the measurement that forms the state of the detector) from the models with which we associate it. I find your statement "model has more or less large deviations from reality" very bold, models always have limited range of application for a limited number of parameters even for the limited modeled object.
Of course, applied application of models brings money, feeds and gives chances to survive, so it gives meaning to everything that we do, but "man does not live by bread alone."
I respect the engineering approach to the matter, because it teaches us to apply the worst expectations for system stability in designing, when there is not enough data, and the tested models do not fall within the scope of their applicability. But even engineers sometimes have to make a personal choice from two versions of incompatible forecasts and write on the scrap of the newspaper "Луна твёрдая. Королёв".
Vasyl Komarov | And try to find a fundamental difference in what you cited ("the three-dimensional universe is being held together by quantum entanglement on the boundary — which means that in some sense, quantum entanglement and space-time are the same thing.") and in what I said about coherent evolution of structure above.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | O Young fellow,
you proved it is really dangerous to post personal understanding even of simple issues. If we do not understand simpler how can we build more and much more complex?!
All these antiparallel stand in extenso caused with the basic question?!
OK, let Empire fights you back: O Luke, while performing actions in your whatever dimension continuum, e.g. 4, what assurance you have that the dimension of your space does exist at all (4) and if there are dimensions what assurance you have that dimension does not flip as you move around?
Your Phys formal frame as built on top of some rather complex Math. Did you ever think about the consistency of your system for which you believe is operating smoothly? I.e. that it does not generate 0 = 1? Or, e.g. everything you posses is probabilitized, everything is just a probability. Then how do you know that throwing a material point through a screen always has a probability? Or, e.g. that you have a probability of any percepted/recorded event (in time) exists or "exists"? What makes you believe all "structures" you pull from a magic bag are not fatamorgana and exit as you claim/believe?
Have a look in there, you must be using largely parts of the attached processing.
Greetings
Aleksandar
Axiom of Choice - Horst Herrlich - Spring - 3540309896.pdf
{Заметка от 04.02.2017 к "Почему 0.(9)=1?!!" (▲).
Почему числовая прямая является/считается замкнутым множеством (многообразием)?"
я: Indeed, no one can know about really isolated system. With all what we have, even in a thought experiment, we carry out the exchange of information.
wiki: Появление аксиомы выбора вызвало также дискуссию о том, что означает в математике понятие «существование» — в частности, о том, можно ли считать существующим множество, ни один элемент которого не известен.
инвариантность: Каждая сюръективная функция f : A -> B имеет правую обратную функцию f^-1 : B -> A, то есть их композиция f ○ f^-1 = id_B является идентичной функцией на B или, другими словами, f(f^-1(z))=z для всех элементов z в B.}
Erik Strub | If we discuss this, we have to discuss what "existing" means. If "existing" means "being part of space time", than it is trivial that time exists by definition of space time. How could you define "existing" without an implicit definition of space time? How to avoid self-references in such a discussion?
To recall a Karl Valentin quotation: Probably all this has been already said, but not by everyone yet.
Cardei Petru | Can we define something? Can we define the definition? Or ... are we talking in vain? Does communication state our existence? For whom ? Do we communicate ideas or simple words without correspondence in the world of ideas? Are we trying to coordinate our feelings? Scientific chaos ...?
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Erik, no good.
Orlando M Lourenço | Dear Eric, Cardei, and time community.
If we discuss this, we have to discuss what "existing" means (see Eric's comment). Can we define the definition? -- Cardei asks. I am afraid that we are falling prey to sophistry. Note that a definion is made by using words. In its turn, we can ask for what these words mean. We use other words, other words, other words in a endless chain and can always ask for what those words means. What does it mean to be alive? In end, I do not matter what to be alive means, because I know that I am alive while writing this small comment. This reminds me of Kant's a piori intuitions , such as time and space. Can we define the definition? Although I do not want to be rude, Cardei's question --- Can we define the definition? -- remimds me of, say, playing with words, sophistry, and the like. I wonder to what extent questions of this type are useful in our discussion. Paraphrasing Wittgenstein, there are things to be shown, not said. I do not need to say that I am alive, because this is shown while writing this small comment.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Orlando, Chardei and RG community, the question "can we define the definition?" in fact is rooted in the question, "can we define semantics?" Yesterday I wanted to discuss the later with dear Alexandar, but then limited myself to wine.
We can not define semantics, although sometimes it seems possible... when we designate by formal label some stable design that is the consequence of our evolution. A consequence, which from the point of view of an indifferent reality (or the Universe, if you like) is just one of potentially possible configurations of a state of dynamic system (it's not about probabilitized).
So, we can define the definition, because our communication system evolved with us from the most primitive level of so-called "force carriers", it's all about information/energy exchange (I think, dear Erkki Brandas would say a few words about this).
We exist because semantics exist, and not vice versa. Although this is a bit contrary to John 1:1. (quite a bit, actually, given the recent remarks on objectivity, what I discussed with dear Michael).
imho
Michael Lersow | Oh Vasyl Fedorovych, why does??? You can guess three times!!! Because there are processes where you can not measure or not more be able to measure. Imagine that you should make a prognosis about the behavior of high-level waste in a repository and whether it is possible for radioinuclides to enter the biosphere. Detection period 1 million years. Can you understand that?
The difference between us seems to be that you never had to model processes before. Then you would know that a (every) model has more or less large deviations from reality. This means that the result lies in or outside the target area. And you will be able to imagine that there are processes in which with a probability bordering on certainty have to excluded, that functionality failure occurs..
That's why we have to make an effort and improve our forecasting tools. But we will not achieve the ideal. The Newtonian axioms were a good basis for development, and sometimes the formula for free fall is enough.
Amen
Vasyl Komarov | Excuse me, Michael, but in the fundamental aspects I have to be boring. It is necessary to distinguish the perception forming the qualia (the measurement that forms the state of the detector) from the models with which we associate it. I find your statement "model has more or less large deviations from reality" very bold, models always have limited range of application for a limited number of parameters even for the limited modeled object.
Of course, applied application of models brings money, feeds and gives chances to survive, so it gives meaning to everything that we do, but "man does not live by bread alone."
I respect the engineering approach to the matter, because it teaches us to apply the worst expectations for system stability in designing, when there is not enough data, and the tested models do not fall within the scope of their applicability. But even engineers sometimes have to make a personal choice from two versions of incompatible forecasts and write on the scrap of the newspaper "Луна твёрдая. Королёв".
Vasyl Komarov | And try to find a fundamental difference in what you cited ("the three-dimensional universe is being held together by quantum entanglement on the boundary — which means that in some sense, quantum entanglement and space-time are the same thing.") and in what I said about coherent evolution of structure above.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | O Young fellow,
you proved it is really dangerous to post personal understanding even of simple issues. If we do not understand simpler how can we build more and much more complex?!
All these antiparallel stand in extenso caused with the basic question?!
OK, let Empire fights you back: O Luke, while performing actions in your whatever dimension continuum, e.g. 4, what assurance you have that the dimension of your space does exist at all (4) and if there are dimensions what assurance you have that dimension does not flip as you move around?
Your Phys formal frame as built on top of some rather complex Math. Did you ever think about the consistency of your system for which you believe is operating smoothly? I.e. that it does not generate 0 = 1? Or, e.g. everything you posses is probabilitized, everything is just a probability. Then how do you know that throwing a material point through a screen always has a probability? Or, e.g. that you have a probability of any percepted/recorded event (in time) exists or "exists"? What makes you believe all "structures" you pull from a magic bag are not fatamorgana and exit as you claim/believe?
Have a look in there, you must be using largely parts of the attached processing.
Greetings
Aleksandar
Axiom of Choice - Horst Herrlich - Spring - 3540309896.pdf
{Заметка от 04.02.2017 к "Почему 0.(9)=1?!!" (▲).
аксиома выбора ↔ изолированная система"Как это дружит с континуум-гипотезой?..
Почему числовая прямая является/считается замкнутым множеством (многообразием)?"
я: Indeed, no one can know about really isolated system. With all what we have, even in a thought experiment, we carry out the exchange of information.
wiki: Появление аксиомы выбора вызвало также дискуссию о том, что означает в математике понятие «существование» — в частности, о том, можно ли считать существующим множество, ни один элемент которого не известен.
инвариантность: Каждая сюръективная функция f : A -> B имеет правую обратную функцию f^-1 : B -> A, то есть их композиция f ○ f^-1 = id_B является идентичной функцией на B или, другими словами, f(f^-1(z))=z для всех элементов z в B.}
Erik Strub | If we discuss this, we have to discuss what "existing" means. If "existing" means "being part of space time", than it is trivial that time exists by definition of space time. How could you define "existing" without an implicit definition of space time? How to avoid self-references in such a discussion?
To recall a Karl Valentin quotation: Probably all this has been already said, but not by everyone yet.
Cardei Petru | Can we define something? Can we define the definition? Or ... are we talking in vain? Does communication state our existence? For whom ? Do we communicate ideas or simple words without correspondence in the world of ideas? Are we trying to coordinate our feelings? Scientific chaos ...?
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Erik, no good.
Orlando M Lourenço | Dear Eric, Cardei, and time community.
If we discuss this, we have to discuss what "existing" means (see Eric's comment). Can we define the definition? -- Cardei asks. I am afraid that we are falling prey to sophistry. Note that a definion is made by using words. In its turn, we can ask for what these words mean. We use other words, other words, other words in a endless chain and can always ask for what those words means. What does it mean to be alive? In end, I do not matter what to be alive means, because I know that I am alive while writing this small comment. This reminds me of Kant's a piori intuitions , such as time and space. Can we define the definition? Although I do not want to be rude, Cardei's question --- Can we define the definition? -- remimds me of, say, playing with words, sophistry, and the like. I wonder to what extent questions of this type are useful in our discussion. Paraphrasing Wittgenstein, there are things to be shown, not said. I do not need to say that I am alive, because this is shown while writing this small comment.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Orlando, Chardei and RG community, the question "can we define the definition?" in fact is rooted in the question, "can we define semantics?" Yesterday I wanted to discuss the later with dear Alexandar, but then limited myself to wine.
We can not define semantics, although sometimes it seems possible... when we designate by formal label some stable design that is the consequence of our evolution. A consequence, which from the point of view of an indifferent reality (or the Universe, if you like) is just one of potentially possible configurations of a state of dynamic system (it's not about probabilitized).
So, we can define the definition, because our communication system evolved with us from the most primitive level of so-called "force carriers", it's all about information/energy exchange (I think, dear Erkki Brandas would say a few words about this).
We exist because semantics exist, and not vice versa. Although this is a bit contrary to John 1:1. (quite a bit, actually, given the recent remarks on objectivity, what I discussed with dear Michael).
imho
— ResearchGate. Available from {disclaimer}: Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: Does time exist? [accessed Nov 24, 2017]
Nov 23, 2017
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Antti Rasila
If you ask me.
I Apologize if you feel offended/insulted.
It was definitely not my goal. I just followed the wish to assist an mathematically well trained young academic in his extended desire
to grasp, in a way better than available so far, the subject.
Please look at my early messages, including 2 to you, point the insulting formulations and i will immediately apologize.
Something of your motivations surfaced in the last message.
Teaching variety of Math Logic subjects from basic to higher abstract and
back to applied for decades I gained some insight into the mechanics of understanding the issue.
E.g. for decades we presented elements of Set Theory, Sentential calc, with completeness theorem and fundamental consequences, then predicate logic up to Goedel completeness with important initial mathematical equivalents, basics on Boolean algebras with fundamental theorems, in one semester course to the freshmen studs, part of which did not complete regular high school, rather secondary education with very reduced mathematics. i was mostly proud when a kid who told me that he never had theorems and proofs, just using formulas in his technical school,
when he understood and learned the completeness of Sentential logic. I was very happy when I learned that the young lady, who was among the few best in her freshmen generation, never attended high school, but a middle school for economy (where they learn 0 of Math).
Now in this hotted discussion you tell me:
Also, formal theories are, in a sense, tautologies.
I am sorry, with this absence of basic understanding you would fail on the exam for elementary freshmen logic, no matter how much time you devoted to the "hard topic", which is just elementary and there is hardly anything hard in understanding the extent of your non understanding in your statement. I am really sorry.
You did not hesitate in qualifying me and my non expertise. On the basis of what my dear fellow?
Your repeated suggestions to read the thinkers which knew much less mathematics than the young curious engineer are complete nonsense! How can anyone knowing and understanding much more Mathematics learn anything serious about Mathematics from ignorants!?
I love Wittgenstein, I liked very much reading Frege, nothing of Russel
whose public lectures I attended here -he was bright in other subjects,
but I find your repeated suggestions as misleading if not male volent. Reading now those thinkers and others of the same kind have no purpose.
In Mathematics we present to the younger generations the compressed essence, not the whole history of Mathematics. It is both impossible and meaningless.
One of the leading mathematicians with whom I spent some serious time
on these useless topics, whenever I asked him for the reference, the answer was always the same: I don't know (about the origins of the proofs), but it is trivial.
His adviser, one of the greatest thinkers in Mathematics ever, practiced young fellow (he was 21 then) to generate all of Mathematics in the focus, straight there into the blackboard.
Highly zipped teaching between the top brains.
Plato = Platonism is a very wrong equation.
Empty set. Some fifty years ago, famous Kurepa (who by the way expressed rather high opinions and recommendations concerning my Math capacity in multiple occasions) lecturing on Foundations used to begin with the equation
void = vacuum = nothingness = nothing = empty set
and proceed stating that all can be built in Mathematics using just that initial brick. Obviously, the idea was much older than me, almost older than him. Obviously, you can do Mathematics without this initial only object,
but this is the most elegant way to fill up all of Mathematics, accepted in all foundation txts.
If you have a better suggestion, please let me know.
Mockery!? (Why such hatred?) Please inform me what is a more promising way so that I can die happier.
A number of your qualifications on the role/sense/value of strong principles are treated in the recommended txt in the very inventive and complete way. Please just have a look at Contents and if you find useful, open the parts of the book.
Antti, the young able and curious fellow with the initial post should be disgusted by the interwoven ramification we exhibited here and would probably run away from the place where such tension is so easily provoked.
Be well
Aleksandar
attached HH, AC, just the Contents, maybe the dimension of the vector space for the beginning..
Axiom of Choice - Horst Herrlich - Spring - 3540309896.pdf
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Antti Rasila
If you ask me.
I Apologize if you feel offended/insulted.
It was definitely not my goal. I just followed the wish to assist an mathematically well trained young academic in his extended desire
to grasp, in a way better than available so far, the subject.
Please look at my early messages, including 2 to you, point the insulting formulations and i will immediately apologize.
Something of your motivations surfaced in the last message.
Teaching variety of Math Logic subjects from basic to higher abstract and
back to applied for decades I gained some insight into the mechanics of understanding the issue.
E.g. for decades we presented elements of Set Theory, Sentential calc, with completeness theorem and fundamental consequences, then predicate logic up to Goedel completeness with important initial mathematical equivalents, basics on Boolean algebras with fundamental theorems, in one semester course to the freshmen studs, part of which did not complete regular high school, rather secondary education with very reduced mathematics. i was mostly proud when a kid who told me that he never had theorems and proofs, just using formulas in his technical school,
when he understood and learned the completeness of Sentential logic. I was very happy when I learned that the young lady, who was among the few best in her freshmen generation, never attended high school, but a middle school for economy (where they learn 0 of Math).
Now in this hotted discussion you tell me:
Also, formal theories are, in a sense, tautologies.
I am sorry, with this absence of basic understanding you would fail on the exam for elementary freshmen logic, no matter how much time you devoted to the "hard topic", which is just elementary and there is hardly anything hard in understanding the extent of your non understanding in your statement. I am really sorry.
You did not hesitate in qualifying me and my non expertise. On the basis of what my dear fellow?
Your repeated suggestions to read the thinkers which knew much less mathematics than the young curious engineer are complete nonsense! How can anyone knowing and understanding much more Mathematics learn anything serious about Mathematics from ignorants!?
I love Wittgenstein, I liked very much reading Frege, nothing of Russel
whose public lectures I attended here -he was bright in other subjects,
but I find your repeated suggestions as misleading if not male volent. Reading now those thinkers and others of the same kind have no purpose.
In Mathematics we present to the younger generations the compressed essence, not the whole history of Mathematics. It is both impossible and meaningless.
One of the leading mathematicians with whom I spent some serious time
on these useless topics, whenever I asked him for the reference, the answer was always the same: I don't know (about the origins of the proofs), but it is trivial.
His adviser, one of the greatest thinkers in Mathematics ever, practiced young fellow (he was 21 then) to generate all of Mathematics in the focus, straight there into the blackboard.
Highly zipped teaching between the top brains.
Plato = Platonism is a very wrong equation.
Empty set. Some fifty years ago, famous Kurepa (who by the way expressed rather high opinions and recommendations concerning my Math capacity in multiple occasions) lecturing on Foundations used to begin with the equation
void = vacuum = nothingness = nothing = empty set
and proceed stating that all can be built in Mathematics using just that initial brick. Obviously, the idea was much older than me, almost older than him. Obviously, you can do Mathematics without this initial only object,
but this is the most elegant way to fill up all of Mathematics, accepted in all foundation txts.
If you have a better suggestion, please let me know.
Mockery!? (Why such hatred?) Please inform me what is a more promising way so that I can die happier.
A number of your qualifications on the role/sense/value of strong principles are treated in the recommended txt in the very inventive and complete way. Please just have a look at Contents and if you find useful, open the parts of the book.
Antti, the young able and curious fellow with the initial post should be disgusted by the interwoven ramification we exhibited here and would probably run away from the place where such tension is so easily provoked.
Be well
Aleksandar
attached HH, AC, just the Contents, maybe the dimension of the vector space for the beginning..
Axiom of Choice - Horst Herrlich - Spring - 3540309896.pdf
— ResearchGate. Available from: What is the best starting place to learn about the philosophy of Mathematics? [accessed Nov 23, 2017]
Nov 24, 2017
Cardei Petru | Dear Vasily,
I wish reality to be as you describe, but I still have a lot to get to your feelings, as Orlando confesses. More and more sophisticated terms, those words, we moving away, instead of getting closer. It is a good reason for many ordinary people to refuse to approach science. You are right when you say that ... so it was, to be our evolution ... not necessarily good.
But something else I'd like to suggest. You may know better about the thinking in images and the thinking in words. About communicating through thoughts and images and communicating them directly to dialogue partners. Maybe we have somebody to describe us what can be thought out without words and what is not, what can be transmitted without words and what no...
Thank you for every intervention!
God help us and enlighten us!
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasili,
don't do what others reached consensus about long
ago..
Aleksandar Jovanovic | A
what is happening with all of you around?
are you all out of your mind?
If not then check e.g.
how existence exists.
In order to exist something should occupy some space and time.
Then how time can exist??
Occupying some meta space-time?
This is OK, but then it generates an less desirable sequence leading to
nowhere. Not to the vacuum. Just absolute Nowhere.
There is time for everything, including stopping nonsense if we are not reaching.
Talib Abbas |
Can we define the defintion? If am not wrong, several previous comments refer to this question. To my understanding, to try to answer this question leads to an infinite regress. Actually, one might object that when we define a definition we could go on and ask if the definition being provided is not in lack of another defintion, which, in its turn, is in lack of another defintion, etc., etc., etc. I wonder whether the focal question --- can we define the defintion? -- is more a question to be, say, "dissolved" than solved. Wittgenstein once remarked that there are problems that should be dissolved, not solved, because they are no problem at all. Needless to say, this has nothing to do with Einstein's idea that "the important thing is not to stop questioning" . Note, however, that there are questioning and questioning! Paraphrasing George Orwell, we all are animals, but some animals are more animals that other ones.
Vasyl Komarov | Aleksandar, I had to object you, since you, despite the "consensus" (which was limited to the formal sciences), allowed themselves scornful attitude to semantics (i.e. to consensus). You can not forbid me to reinvent the wheel.
As I objected to Abdul earlier: "Unlike your "idealist realm", mathematics can not get rid of Gödel's incompleteness theorem and semantics, which at the physical level sews up any formal system with your physical existence (your biological brain, literally)."
Is Semantics Physical?!
Once you realize that all mental and computational processes are just a manifestation of physical dynamic systems, you will part with the ideas of idealism and materialism existing in disjoint "universes" (Plato in formulations was closer to this than his followers, even if they are dialectical materialists).
Semantics is road beyond any system (not only formal).
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Orlando and all, this is really directly related to self-reference (related problems in logic What the Tortoise Said to Achilles, Self-referenceandLogic and not only).
As Herb noted, Zeno really discovered "problems". As for the processes (in dynamic systems), the distance between Achilles and Turtle is the gap between classical algorithms and quantum computations (all related problems, halting etc.). But computers are just some examples of dynamic systems.
Note that their race is invariant, more precise scale-invariant. In fact, this is the edge of the "calculations" by which self-organization takes place in nature (pay attention to the theory of self-organized criticality).
From here it is not far to the Cantor hypothesis and renormalization in the QFT (this is a separate related story, which requires serious work):
Feynman refers to "renormalization" as a dippy process on p.128 of his book "QED - The Strange Theory of Light and Matter". His words are: "The shell game that we play to find n and j is technically called renormalization. But no matter how clever the word, it is what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. .... I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."
He did not know some about nature, so he could not assume that it is not only mathematically, but also physically legitimate.
Self-reference contributes a non-renormalizable contribution to the propagator.
(NB: The meaning of continuum-hypothesis is the affirmation of the equivalence of all infinities, the very ones that "incredibly rich set C given to us by one bold new axiom". The fact is that it is impossible to translate potential infinity into the actual by adding only a single element to the set (I, same as Cohen, can not imagine this, it is a scale-invariant process from Zeno's aporia). Potential infinities are weaker than the Continuum, and at the same time, a bijective correspondence can be built between all of them, and there are no intermediate options. All continua are equivalent to an infinite process and are equivalent to each other.
From the physical point of view Cohen's "forcing" has big problems. In fact, all the sets that we can assume to be physically in a given universe (V) must be just subsets of V. That is, they do not violate the continuum hypothesis. In fact, it is impossible to talk about any regularities between sets that are completely unconnected, and if they are connected through you (including, you live in V), they are within the framework of continuum-hypothesis.)
Therefore the multiple expanding of the phase space for physics must be a very powerful tool, it really opens the way to the infinite multiverse, while being within the continuum-hypothesis. The hypothesis perfectly harmonizes with holism (when a category such as eternity is permissible) and universality of dinamical systems. In addition, this allows us to formulate regularities, since the continuum hypothesis is the guarantor of the connectedness of sets - with multiverse we can work on general grounds, as with a dynamic system, there is no such a corner in it where there would be another mathematics, it is invariant with respect to the multiverse. Invariance means predictable laws for physics, not spontaneous at all.
For us there are no really isolated systems, in the sense that even a mental experiment with an isolated system is impossible, you can not, literally, think about an isolated system. Therefore, all that you can reason about, makes sense only relates to our contininum, of which we are a part.
But this all seems like pieces, "pulled from a magic bag", until you not think about the fractals and pay tribute to Copernician mediocrity principle, to Carl Vilhelm Ludwig Charlier and many many others.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasili,
why mixing the staff you do not understand with the contexts where you can calculate comfortably?
as you mentioned recently, for you axioms = postulates = hypotheses..
No matter that the equation is very wrong you can still see a lot through your window into the surrounding reality. Zano - Cantor - QFT! Would be impressive if it were not buggy.
"...has prevented us from proving the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. .... I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate." this sounds very smart, except that basic understanding is missing in the brain of the txt author?!
For any "theory" of reality, proving consistency is a total nonsense...
Mathematically illegitimate could mean only one thing: that the "Theory"
is inconsistent (which in Mathematics means that it proves everything, or simply: equation 0 = 1. Again useless.
Vasili,
I like your comments, behind is a curious, open minded person seeking the Knowledge.
But do not use so many words if unnecessary, it becomes like in that anecdote when Samos sent a delegation to Sparta to complain against
Athens mobbing..
Greetings
Aleksandar
Cardei Petru | Dear Vasily,
I wish reality to be as you describe, but I still have a lot to get to your feelings, as Orlando confesses. More and more sophisticated terms, those words, we moving away, instead of getting closer. It is a good reason for many ordinary people to refuse to approach science. You are right when you say that ... so it was, to be our evolution ... not necessarily good.
But something else I'd like to suggest. You may know better about the thinking in images and the thinking in words. About communicating through thoughts and images and communicating them directly to dialogue partners. Maybe we have somebody to describe us what can be thought out without words and what is not, what can be transmitted without words and what no...
Thank you for every intervention!
God help us and enlighten us!
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasili,
don't do what others reached consensus about long
ago..
Aleksandar Jovanovic | A
what is happening with all of you around?
are you all out of your mind?
If not then check e.g.
how existence exists.
In order to exist something should occupy some space and time.
Then how time can exist??
Occupying some meta space-time?
This is OK, but then it generates an less desirable sequence leading to
nowhere. Not to the vacuum. Just absolute Nowhere.
There is time for everything, including stopping nonsense if we are not reaching.
Talib Abbas |
"The important thing is not to stop questioning."Orlando M Lourenço | Dear all.
— Albert Einstein
Can we define the defintion? If am not wrong, several previous comments refer to this question. To my understanding, to try to answer this question leads to an infinite regress. Actually, one might object that when we define a definition we could go on and ask if the definition being provided is not in lack of another defintion, which, in its turn, is in lack of another defintion, etc., etc., etc. I wonder whether the focal question --- can we define the defintion? -- is more a question to be, say, "dissolved" than solved. Wittgenstein once remarked that there are problems that should be dissolved, not solved, because they are no problem at all. Needless to say, this has nothing to do with Einstein's idea that "the important thing is not to stop questioning" . Note, however, that there are questioning and questioning! Paraphrasing George Orwell, we all are animals, but some animals are more animals that other ones.
Vasyl Komarov | Aleksandar, I had to object you, since you, despite the "consensus" (which was limited to the formal sciences), allowed themselves scornful attitude to semantics (i.e. to consensus). You can not forbid me to reinvent the wheel.
As I objected to Abdul earlier: "Unlike your "idealist realm", mathematics can not get rid of Gödel's incompleteness theorem and semantics, which at the physical level sews up any formal system with your physical existence (your biological brain, literally)."
Is Semantics Physical?!
Once you realize that all mental and computational processes are just a manifestation of physical dynamic systems, you will part with the ideas of idealism and materialism existing in disjoint "universes" (Plato in formulations was closer to this than his followers, even if they are dialectical materialists).
Semantics is road beyond any system (not only formal).
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Orlando and all, this is really directly related to self-reference (related problems in logic What the Tortoise Said to Achilles, Self-referenceandLogic and not only).
As Herb noted, Zeno really discovered "problems". As for the processes (in dynamic systems), the distance between Achilles and Turtle is the gap between classical algorithms and quantum computations (all related problems, halting etc.). But computers are just some examples of dynamic systems.
Note that their race is invariant, more precise scale-invariant. In fact, this is the edge of the "calculations" by which self-organization takes place in nature (pay attention to the theory of self-organized criticality).
From here it is not far to the Cantor hypothesis and renormalization in the QFT (this is a separate related story, which requires serious work):
Feynman refers to "renormalization" as a dippy process on p.128 of his book "QED - The Strange Theory of Light and Matter". His words are: "The shell game that we play to find n and j is technically called renormalization. But no matter how clever the word, it is what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. .... I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."
He did not know some about nature, so he could not assume that it is not only mathematically, but also physically legitimate.
Self-reference contributes a non-renormalizable contribution to the propagator.
(NB: The meaning of continuum-hypothesis is the affirmation of the equivalence of all infinities, the very ones that "incredibly rich set C given to us by one bold new axiom". The fact is that it is impossible to translate potential infinity into the actual by adding only a single element to the set (I, same as Cohen, can not imagine this, it is a scale-invariant process from Zeno's aporia). Potential infinities are weaker than the Continuum, and at the same time, a bijective correspondence can be built between all of them, and there are no intermediate options. All continua are equivalent to an infinite process and are equivalent to each other.
From the physical point of view Cohen's "forcing" has big problems. In fact, all the sets that we can assume to be physically in a given universe (V) must be just subsets of V. That is, they do not violate the continuum hypothesis. In fact, it is impossible to talk about any regularities between sets that are completely unconnected, and if they are connected through you (including, you live in V), they are within the framework of continuum-hypothesis.)
Therefore the multiple expanding of the phase space for physics must be a very powerful tool, it really opens the way to the infinite multiverse, while being within the continuum-hypothesis. The hypothesis perfectly harmonizes with holism (when a category such as eternity is permissible) and universality of dinamical systems. In addition, this allows us to formulate regularities, since the continuum hypothesis is the guarantor of the connectedness of sets - with multiverse we can work on general grounds, as with a dynamic system, there is no such a corner in it where there would be another mathematics, it is invariant with respect to the multiverse. Invariance means predictable laws for physics, not spontaneous at all.
For us there are no really isolated systems, in the sense that even a mental experiment with an isolated system is impossible, you can not, literally, think about an isolated system. Therefore, all that you can reason about, makes sense only relates to our contininum, of which we are a part.
But this all seems like pieces, "pulled from a magic bag", until you not think about the fractals and pay tribute to Copernician mediocrity principle, to Carl Vilhelm Ludwig Charlier and many many others.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasili,
why mixing the staff you do not understand with the contexts where you can calculate comfortably?
as you mentioned recently, for you axioms = postulates = hypotheses..
No matter that the equation is very wrong you can still see a lot through your window into the surrounding reality. Zano - Cantor - QFT! Would be impressive if it were not buggy.
"...has prevented us from proving the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. .... I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate." this sounds very smart, except that basic understanding is missing in the brain of the txt author?!
For any "theory" of reality, proving consistency is a total nonsense...
Mathematically illegitimate could mean only one thing: that the "Theory"
is inconsistent (which in Mathematics means that it proves everything, or simply: equation 0 = 1. Again useless.
Vasili,
I like your comments, behind is a curious, open minded person seeking the Knowledge.
But do not use so many words if unnecessary, it becomes like in that anecdote when Samos sent a delegation to Sparta to complain against
Athens mobbing..
Greetings
Aleksandar
— ResearchGate. Available from {disclaimer}: Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: Does time exist? [accessed Nov 24, 2017]
26 лист. 2017 р.
18:41 | дофамин ○ ○ ○ ○ ●
РНК показала отличия мозга человека от мозга остальных приматов
Кроме того, ученые обнаружили характерную для мозга человека повышенную экспрессию генов, включающих два фермента (тирозингидроксилазу {TH} и декарбоксилазу {DCC}), участвующих в биосинтезе нейромедиатора дофамина в полосатом теле, гиппокампе и миндалевидном теле. Анализ экспрессии генов других приматов, наоборот, указал на сниженную экспрессию этих ферментов.
Разная чувствительность генов мозга человека и других приматов объясняет эволюционное преимущество человеческого мозга. В частности, дофаминергические нейроны в полосатом теле принимают участие в регуляции моторной деятельности и связывают гиппокамп с префронтальной корой. Кроме того, дофамин, например, участвует в системе вознаграждения головного мозга (в процессах получения удовольствия, выражения мотивации и обучения).
Molecular and cellular reorganization of neural circuits in the human lineage
2017 | DOI: 10.1126/science.aan3456
18:41 | дофамин ○ ○ ○ ○ ●
РНК показала отличия мозга человека от мозга остальных приматов
Кроме того, ученые обнаружили характерную для мозга человека повышенную экспрессию генов, включающих два фермента (тирозингидроксилазу {TH} и декарбоксилазу {DCC}), участвующих в биосинтезе нейромедиатора дофамина в полосатом теле, гиппокампе и миндалевидном теле. Анализ экспрессии генов других приматов, наоборот, указал на сниженную экспрессию этих ферментов.
Разная чувствительность генов мозга человека и других приматов объясняет эволюционное преимущество человеческого мозга. В частности, дофаминергические нейроны в полосатом теле принимают участие в регуляции моторной деятельности и связывают гиппокамп с префронтальной корой. Кроме того, дофамин, например, участвует в системе вознаграждения головного мозга (в процессах получения удовольствия, выражения мотивации и обучения).
Molecular and cellular reorganization of neural circuits in the human lineage
2017 | DOI: 10.1126/science.aan3456
Nov 28, 2017
Abdul Malek | As we have exhausted ourselves with long and hard debate on GR and “Free Fall”; without coming to a general consensus; this only shows that physics – the king of all sciences, has come to a dead end. “Naïve realism” and “good old commonsense” of causality-based world outlook (the “view of understanding” for Hegel) through which the edifice of physics was built; now lies in ruins after the recognition of “biological evolution” and more importantly the “quantum phenomena” in Nature. Thus physics (like everything else in the world) through its own phenomenal developments has reached the inexorable nodal point, where what was true and certain now proves to be false and uncertain and vice versa. This is palpable in the despair and outrage of physicists like Einstein and philosophers like Bridgeman:
In Einstein‘s own words: “Many physicists maintain - and there are weighty arguments in their favour – that in the face of these facts (quantum dynamical, A.M.), not merely the differential law, but the law of causation itself - hitherto the ultimate basic postulate of all natural science – has collapsed”. . A. Einstein, “Essays in Science”, p. 38-39 (1934)
The American mathematician and philosopher P.W. Bridgman laments in despair that the quantum principle means: “nothing neither more nor less than that the law of cause and effect must be given up, the world is not a world of reason, understandable by the intellect of man”. Quoted in C. Suplee Ed., “Physics in the 20th Century”, N.H. Adams Inc. N.Y., p. 88 (1999).
So, what is to be done? Should physics remain dazed and perplexed and try to rebuild the shattered edifice following the same principles of causality and the old notions of rationalism? This is an impossible task, as Immanuel Kant found out in philosophy (and long before natural science) that objective reality is a mess of unknowable things-in-themselves, full of logical contradictions, a horrible mixture of opposites – good and bad, true and false etc. that lies in the very unit of a thing or a process as the “unity of the opposites”! The only alternative to deal with reality for philosophy, Kant posited; is to take recourse to the thought world and subjective idealism of his logical categories and impose these on the messy objective reality to bring order! At the advent of these new developments in natural science, Einstein, following Kant, took recourse to the same thought world of mathematical idealism to comprehend objective reality.
The fact of the matter is that Kant was absolutely right about logical contradictions in objective reality! This IS the real characteristics of objective reality and one must accept it as such to be able to comprehend it. Contradictions are the very reason there are self-induced motion, change, evolution, developments etc. in Nature, Life, Society and Thought. Without contradictions there would be no change and developments! This also leads to the fact that things and processes in the universe are mediated not by “cause and effect” of the old world outlook that conventional physics and philosophy relied on, but through the dialectical contradiction of “chance and necessity” – a fact that the quantum phenomena so dramatically demonstrates.
The quantum phenomena show that at micro-level Nature is inherently in-deterministic and is mediated by chance, but with an iron necessity that is inherent in chance itself! Chance is blind only when it is not realized in a necessity and necessity is infertile in so far it is not chanced upon. The uncertainty principle quantitatively formulated by Heisenberg in not due to uncertainty is measurement alone or a mere statistical problem only, as is commonly assumed; but Nature at micro-level is inherently uncertain and follows the laws of dialectics. Attempts by modern official physics to subjugate the “evil quanta” within the norms of the old world outlook through the fantasy of “realism” of “multiverses” or through the illusions of idealism, positivism, solipsism etc. will lead physics nowhere.
Only a dialectical synthesis from this nodal point, can rescue physics from the lowest point that Einsteinian mathematical idealism has led it to; the same way the dialectics of Hegel rescued philosophy from its own lowest point it reached with Kantian subjective idealism. The recognition of the fact that innumerable contradictions of chance and necessity at the micro-level and also at macro-level are resolved and average-out to give the net results that is approximated by our good old commonsense and causality; is the kernel of the dialectical world view. To understand Nature and Life, science has to follow and understand the specific and deciding contradictions at each nodal point and how these contradictions are resolved through discrete qualitative leaps leading to change, evolution, development etc. Causality as it is practised in modern physics will either lead it to a Kantian unknowable mess of reality or to the mystery of a “first cause”; which in fact is our well known God of theology!
Abdul Malek | As we have exhausted ourselves with long and hard debate on GR and “Free Fall”; without coming to a general consensus; this only shows that physics – the king of all sciences, has come to a dead end. “Naïve realism” and “good old commonsense” of causality-based world outlook (the “view of understanding” for Hegel) through which the edifice of physics was built; now lies in ruins after the recognition of “biological evolution” and more importantly the “quantum phenomena” in Nature. Thus physics (like everything else in the world) through its own phenomenal developments has reached the inexorable nodal point, where what was true and certain now proves to be false and uncertain and vice versa. This is palpable in the despair and outrage of physicists like Einstein and philosophers like Bridgeman:
In Einstein‘s own words: “Many physicists maintain - and there are weighty arguments in their favour – that in the face of these facts (quantum dynamical, A.M.), not merely the differential law, but the law of causation itself - hitherto the ultimate basic postulate of all natural science – has collapsed”. . A. Einstein, “Essays in Science”, p. 38-39 (1934)
The American mathematician and philosopher P.W. Bridgman laments in despair that the quantum principle means: “nothing neither more nor less than that the law of cause and effect must be given up, the world is not a world of reason, understandable by the intellect of man”. Quoted in C. Suplee Ed., “Physics in the 20th Century”, N.H. Adams Inc. N.Y., p. 88 (1999).
So, what is to be done? Should physics remain dazed and perplexed and try to rebuild the shattered edifice following the same principles of causality and the old notions of rationalism? This is an impossible task, as Immanuel Kant found out in philosophy (and long before natural science) that objective reality is a mess of unknowable things-in-themselves, full of logical contradictions, a horrible mixture of opposites – good and bad, true and false etc. that lies in the very unit of a thing or a process as the “unity of the opposites”! The only alternative to deal with reality for philosophy, Kant posited; is to take recourse to the thought world and subjective idealism of his logical categories and impose these on the messy objective reality to bring order! At the advent of these new developments in natural science, Einstein, following Kant, took recourse to the same thought world of mathematical idealism to comprehend objective reality.
The fact of the matter is that Kant was absolutely right about logical contradictions in objective reality! This IS the real characteristics of objective reality and one must accept it as such to be able to comprehend it. Contradictions are the very reason there are self-induced motion, change, evolution, developments etc. in Nature, Life, Society and Thought. Without contradictions there would be no change and developments! This also leads to the fact that things and processes in the universe are mediated not by “cause and effect” of the old world outlook that conventional physics and philosophy relied on, but through the dialectical contradiction of “chance and necessity” – a fact that the quantum phenomena so dramatically demonstrates.
The quantum phenomena show that at micro-level Nature is inherently in-deterministic and is mediated by chance, but with an iron necessity that is inherent in chance itself! Chance is blind only when it is not realized in a necessity and necessity is infertile in so far it is not chanced upon. The uncertainty principle quantitatively formulated by Heisenberg in not due to uncertainty is measurement alone or a mere statistical problem only, as is commonly assumed; but Nature at micro-level is inherently uncertain and follows the laws of dialectics. Attempts by modern official physics to subjugate the “evil quanta” within the norms of the old world outlook through the fantasy of “realism” of “multiverses” or through the illusions of idealism, positivism, solipsism etc. will lead physics nowhere.
Only a dialectical synthesis from this nodal point, can rescue physics from the lowest point that Einsteinian mathematical idealism has led it to; the same way the dialectics of Hegel rescued philosophy from its own lowest point it reached with Kantian subjective idealism. The recognition of the fact that innumerable contradictions of chance and necessity at the micro-level and also at macro-level are resolved and average-out to give the net results that is approximated by our good old commonsense and causality; is the kernel of the dialectical world view. To understand Nature and Life, science has to follow and understand the specific and deciding contradictions at each nodal point and how these contradictions are resolved through discrete qualitative leaps leading to change, evolution, development etc. Causality as it is practised in modern physics will either lead it to a Kantian unknowable mess of reality or to the mystery of a “first cause”; which in fact is our well known God of theology!
Nov 29, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, here I support you in many respects, only note that what you are called indeterminism of the system (at the micro level) is a question of the boundary conditions of the evolving system. Do not narrow focus on quantum ideas, uncertainty relates cyclical processes (self-referencing). Evolution is always out of cycles (same as dialectics).
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasyl,
Thanks for your response. Could you please elaborate on what you mena by, "note that what you are called indeterminism of the system (at the micro level) is a question of the boundary conditions of the evolving system. Do not narrow focus on quantum ideas, uncertainty relates cyclical processes (self-referencing). "
How "uncertainty relates cyclical processes (self-referencing)."? A cyclic process is not a dialectical process; it must be open or helical for any change, evolution etc., to happen; as formulated by Heraclitus. The oriental Yin-Yang for example is a static and a cyclic concept. and hence not dialectical.
By uncertainty I mean that a thing or process is mediated not by "cause and effect"; which necessarily is deterministic; but by chance and necessity.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, I will try to show you clearly where the randomness for a limited subsystem in a deterministic process comes from.
In the meantime, I propose to think about the fact that the sequence of prime numbers as a system of mutual topological relationships is unique and therefore deterministic, does not depend on the numeral system, or anything else, even if it is checked by apples, for example (i.e. this relationships are absolutely invariant to any formal representation, strictly speaking, to any physical manifestation).
However, like any potential infinity of an open system, it can not be known until the end, despite absolute determinism and the absence of any dialectic within if we consider it as an actual infinite structure of relationships (literally a static picture, like the mentioned Yin-Yang archetype).
Whichever hypothetical civilization in the universe does begin to study this regularity, it will go through the dialectical process potentially infinitely, while every civilization has to go through the same deterministic path.
This will come in handy.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, here I support you in many respects, only note that what you are called indeterminism of the system (at the micro level) is a question of the boundary conditions of the evolving system. Do not narrow focus on quantum ideas, uncertainty relates cyclical processes (self-referencing). Evolution is always out of cycles (same as dialectics).
Abdul Malek | Dear Vasyl,
Thanks for your response. Could you please elaborate on what you mena by, "note that what you are called indeterminism of the system (at the micro level) is a question of the boundary conditions of the evolving system. Do not narrow focus on quantum ideas, uncertainty relates cyclical processes (self-referencing). "
How "uncertainty relates cyclical processes (self-referencing)."? A cyclic process is not a dialectical process; it must be open or helical for any change, evolution etc., to happen; as formulated by Heraclitus. The oriental Yin-Yang for example is a static and a cyclic concept. and hence not dialectical.
By uncertainty I mean that a thing or process is mediated not by "cause and effect"; which necessarily is deterministic; but by chance and necessity.
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Abdul, I will try to show you clearly where the randomness for a limited subsystem in a deterministic process comes from.
In the meantime, I propose to think about the fact that the sequence of prime numbers as a system of mutual topological relationships is unique and therefore deterministic, does not depend on the numeral system, or anything else, even if it is checked by apples, for example (i.e. this relationships are absolutely invariant to any formal representation, strictly speaking, to any physical manifestation).
However, like any potential infinity of an open system, it can not be known until the end, despite absolute determinism and the absence of any dialectic within if we consider it as an actual infinite structure of relationships (literally a static picture, like the mentioned Yin-Yang archetype).
Whichever hypothetical civilization in the universe does begin to study this regularity, it will go through the dialectical process potentially infinitely, while every civilization has to go through the same deterministic path.
This will come in handy.
— ResearchGate. Available from comments under: Free Fall in Gravitational Theory [accessed Nov 29, 2017]
30 лист. 2017 р.
09:27 | Просматривал заметки в ленте g+ за 2016 посредством Takeout, заодно собрал их в один файл. Надо будет найти время, причесать и добавить в блог для удобства, не публично сошло бы так, но эстетика отсутствует совсем.
09:27 | Просматривал заметки в ленте g+ за 2016 посредством Takeout, заодно собрал их в один файл. Надо будет найти время, причесать и добавить в блог для удобства, не публично сошло бы так, но эстетика отсутствует совсем.
Dec 4, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Alexandar, but this Euler has equated 0.(9) = 1 a hundred years before Cantor, i.e. equated two numbers, I do not like it as physicist since some time, although I have not forgotten what the limit means. The problem is that "everything can not happen at the same time," but by infinitely fulfilling this equation one can see that 0 = 1 and Cantor lived at the same time as Euler.
I'm not a fan of quantum theory, what should absolutely be obvious from all my comments. My motivation is not related to QFT at all, to the theory of strings too. But since these theories are theories about "reality", as you have noticed, it is impossible not to pay attention to the points of contact.
Yes, I see through "my window" (from my Plato's cave), but since some time no one can convince me that he perceives the world in a different way, through some absolute truth, and not through the prism of personal or established convictions. That's why I methodically remind everyone that it is necessary to distinguish the perception forming the qualia (the measurements that forms the state of the detectors) from the models with which we associate it.
Since some time I do not like many popular things, the abstract category of a point, for example, too.
A week without unnecessary words did not make the discussion more interesting.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasili Fedorovich,
you are rather wrong in your conclusions and comments based on empty
arguments: there are too many wrong/false statements.
Please before entering discussions, please try to be informed (maybe wiki, or talk to some neighbors). This makes no sense - telling you Cantor and Euler were not the same era. The later was active in time of Nikolaj II, while the former did his job in time of Ekaterina Velika.
0 = 1 is a short symbolism meaning that Mathematics collapsed and there is no difference between True and False, or that the Truth is lost in the False Theory.
Vasilii,
good luck
Aleksandar
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Remark from a human with perception constraints: It is claimed that 'the universe' is expanding based on spectral shifts from stars à la Hubble et al.. Then, in what kind of medium/space/.... is the edge of 'the expanding universe' entering?
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Marcel, I already "argued" with dear Alexandar about not quite appropriate use of the term medium. Your question takes place with the same thinking about space. I propose to think about a counter question. When you run the computer emulator on another computer, in what phase space (or space of states, if you like) the code executed inside the emulator is? Just remember previous conversations about self-reference.
Vasyl Komarov | Alexandar, I understand enough what you want to say, leading the dialogue towards formal systems. I definitely have nothing against symbolism, that's why I gave an example with a time interval (1707-1783) - (1845-1918). You can certainly round up to 150 years, not to 100, ok, and say about spatial interval too (Switzerland/Russian Empire - Germany). It is not about who lived in what era, it's just about the information that is being used now, and the collapse you are talking about, not only for well known formal system but physical collapse. I'm not satisfied with this as well as you. It does not matter how you count the metric: by seconds, epochs, emperors, or by times of existence of universes or... Their lives correspond to different physical events.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Aleksandar,
there is an interesting example of 0=1 in Dirac's "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics". It follows from Lagrange equations.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Evgenii,
look at it the other way around. A descending sequence of integral values..
If you integrate 1/x over [0,1], you know what you get;
if you integrate 1/x**2 in the same interval, you know what you get.
(and if you like interpolate 1/x**n, all n..)..
If you integrate Dirac'in the same interval you must get it.
Greetings
Aleksandar
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasyl Fedorovych Komarov
we can sometime generate a lot of words, pretending we are still on the
surface.
Sometimes we are drowned earlier than we realized the wording was
useless..
Good luck
Aleksandar
Vasyl Komarov | Alexandar, but this Euler has equated 0.(9) = 1 a hundred years before Cantor, i.e. equated two numbers, I do not like it as physicist since some time, although I have not forgotten what the limit means. The problem is that "everything can not happen at the same time," but by infinitely fulfilling this equation one can see that 0 = 1 and Cantor lived at the same time as Euler.
I'm not a fan of quantum theory, what should absolutely be obvious from all my comments. My motivation is not related to QFT at all, to the theory of strings too. But since these theories are theories about "reality", as you have noticed, it is impossible not to pay attention to the points of contact.
Yes, I see through "my window" (from my Plato's cave), but since some time no one can convince me that he perceives the world in a different way, through some absolute truth, and not through the prism of personal or established convictions. That's why I methodically remind everyone that it is necessary to distinguish the perception forming the qualia (the measurements that forms the state of the detectors) from the models with which we associate it.
Since some time I do not like many popular things, the abstract category of a point, for example, too.
A week without unnecessary words did not make the discussion more interesting.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasili Fedorovich,
you are rather wrong in your conclusions and comments based on empty
arguments: there are too many wrong/false statements.
Please before entering discussions, please try to be informed (maybe wiki, or talk to some neighbors). This makes no sense - telling you Cantor and Euler were not the same era. The later was active in time of Nikolaj II, while the former did his job in time of Ekaterina Velika.
0 = 1 is a short symbolism meaning that Mathematics collapsed and there is no difference between True and False, or that the Truth is lost in the False Theory.
Vasilii,
good luck
Aleksandar
Marcel M. Lambrechts | Remark from a human with perception constraints: It is claimed that 'the universe' is expanding based on spectral shifts from stars à la Hubble et al.. Then, in what kind of medium/space/.... is the edge of 'the expanding universe' entering?
Vasyl Komarov | Dear Marcel, I already "argued" with dear Alexandar about not quite appropriate use of the term medium. Your question takes place with the same thinking about space. I propose to think about a counter question. When you run the computer emulator on another computer, in what phase space (or space of states, if you like) the code executed inside the emulator is? Just remember previous conversations about self-reference.
Vasyl Komarov | Alexandar, I understand enough what you want to say, leading the dialogue towards formal systems. I definitely have nothing against symbolism, that's why I gave an example with a time interval (1707-1783) - (1845-1918). You can certainly round up to 150 years, not to 100, ok, and say about spatial interval too (Switzerland/Russian Empire - Germany). It is not about who lived in what era, it's just about the information that is being used now, and the collapse you are talking about, not only for well known formal system but physical collapse. I'm not satisfied with this as well as you. It does not matter how you count the metric: by seconds, epochs, emperors, or by times of existence of universes or... Their lives correspond to different physical events.
Eugene F Kislyakov | Aleksandar,
there is an interesting example of 0=1 in Dirac's "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics". It follows from Lagrange equations.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Evgenii,
look at it the other way around. A descending sequence of integral values..
If you integrate 1/x over [0,1], you know what you get;
if you integrate 1/x**2 in the same interval, you know what you get.
(and if you like interpolate 1/x**n, all n..)..
If you integrate Dirac'in the same interval you must get it.
Greetings
Aleksandar
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasyl Fedorovych Komarov
we can sometime generate a lot of words, pretending we are still on the
surface.
Sometimes we are drowned earlier than we realized the wording was
useless..
Good luck
Aleksandar
Dec 5, 2017
Eugene F Kislyakov | No, Aleksandar. It is not about this.
By this example Dirac shows, that not any function can be Lagrangian. But this story is not complete and it is tightly connected with time, purpose and other fundamental Bogdan's questions. Leibnitz, for example, thought, that extremal principles are working because, thanks God, we live in perfect, better than all the others world.
How is all this connected with time and purpose?
Variational principles are teleological. Motion of the particle is defined by both it's initial and final states. So, particle knows, where it moves.
Merry Christmas!
Eugene F Kislyakov | No, Aleksandar. It is not about this.
By this example Dirac shows, that not any function can be Lagrangian. But this story is not complete and it is tightly connected with time, purpose and other fundamental Bogdan's questions. Leibnitz, for example, thought, that extremal principles are working because, thanks God, we live in perfect, better than all the others world.
How is all this connected with time and purpose?
Variational principles are teleological. Motion of the particle is defined by both it's initial and final states. So, particle knows, where it moves.
Merry Christmas!
Dec 6, 2017
Vasyl Komarov | Formal mathematics is "convenient" becouse it allows to forget, for example, that integral with respect to the integrand has some integrity property. Thus again it is easy to forget about yet other dimension and jump into the continuum without thinking about the gap between process and state.
Better try to fill the area of square by Peano curve. The answer also is known in advance, but process is more fun. In the absence of this "in advance" predictable physics could not exist at all. It is determinism.
That tricky teleonomy significantly complicates the life of Achilles. Whenever it seemed, that ideal is almost reached, it makes clear that yesterday's goals are only a fata morgana on the horizon, and we have to crawl in other direction. This adds knowledge even for particles in this very cognitive process of evolution.
Society is still very orthodox, of course, but Tortoise is ruthless, also knew the answer in advance, but did not deny personal pleasure.
Gabriel will never blow a trumpet, cognition must be infinitely painful process.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasili,
mixing words/letters randomly usually does not generate useful
semantics.
Aleksandar
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Evgeni,
as he originally defined it, Dirac function can not posses
the defined properties. Maybe Dirac did not learn at the time how to integrate.
It is neither first nor last time physicists used wrongly understood Math...
But it is irrelevant anyway..
the young fellow is becoming unbearable. Not in the way the Indian diver,
but quite unbearable with all the nonsense..
Што делат?
О Евгени,
Лаку ноћ :)
Александар
Vasyl Komarov | Alexandar, Integration examples (even despite infinite process), like any functional relationships, is not exactly the same situation as the above-mentioned Euler equation. The cause and effect are present here, with relationship between them (I just emphasized that when integrating from "meters" you get "square meters" but formalism erases it). The Euler equality directly puts a correspondence between two rational numbers from one set. It is no longer the tending of the limit of the sequence to the element that is outside the sequence.
I was also talking some about autopoiesis (teleology), it was a replica for Eugene in the continuation of our old discussion about the relationships between determinism, teleonomy, teleology and the "Darwin's bulldog". If autopoiesis is easily applicable to the whole universe, this changes a lot, as one popular criterion for segregation of inanimate nature disappears. This really concerns many of the questions that Bogdan asked. Here everything is clear. Do not pay attention.
In continuation, I expressed own opinion about the excessive influence of oldscool religious biases on the rational thinking among RG community. Gabriel's horn (also called Torricelli's trumpet, Gabriel's horn) is a geometric figure which has infinite surface area but finite volume. The name refers to the tradition identifying the Archangel Gabriel as the angel who blows the horn to announce Judgment Day, associating the divine, or infinite, with the finite. This is just a joke about relationship between eternity and biblical story on the eve of the Christmas.
Vasyl Komarov | Formal mathematics is "convenient" becouse it allows to forget, for example, that integral with respect to the integrand has some integrity property. Thus again it is easy to forget about yet other dimension and jump into the continuum without thinking about the gap between process and state.
Better try to fill the area of square by Peano curve. The answer also is known in advance, but process is more fun. In the absence of this "in advance" predictable physics could not exist at all. It is determinism.
That tricky teleonomy significantly complicates the life of Achilles. Whenever it seemed, that ideal is almost reached, it makes clear that yesterday's goals are only a fata morgana on the horizon, and we have to crawl in other direction. This adds knowledge even for particles in this very cognitive process of evolution.
Society is still very orthodox, of course, but Tortoise is ruthless, also knew the answer in advance, but did not deny personal pleasure.
Gabriel will never blow a trumpet, cognition must be infinitely painful process.
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Vasili,
mixing words/letters randomly usually does not generate useful
semantics.
Aleksandar
Aleksandar Jovanovic | Evgeni,
as he originally defined it, Dirac function can not posses
the defined properties. Maybe Dirac did not learn at the time how to integrate.
It is neither first nor last time physicists used wrongly understood Math...
But it is irrelevant anyway..
the young fellow is becoming unbearable. Not in the way the Indian diver,
but quite unbearable with all the nonsense..
Што делат?
О Евгени,
Лаку ноћ :)
Александар
Vasyl Komarov | Alexandar, Integration examples (even despite infinite process), like any functional relationships, is not exactly the same situation as the above-mentioned Euler equation. The cause and effect are present here, with relationship between them (I just emphasized that when integrating from "meters" you get "square meters" but formalism erases it). The Euler equality directly puts a correspondence between two rational numbers from one set. It is no longer the tending of the limit of the sequence to the element that is outside the sequence.
I was also talking some about autopoiesis (teleology), it was a replica for Eugene in the continuation of our old discussion about the relationships between determinism, teleonomy, teleology and the "Darwin's bulldog". If autopoiesis is easily applicable to the whole universe, this changes a lot, as one popular criterion for segregation of inanimate nature disappears. This really concerns many of the questions that Bogdan asked. Here everything is clear. Do not pay attention.
In continuation, I expressed own opinion about the excessive influence of oldscool religious biases on the rational thinking among RG community. Gabriel's horn (also called Torricelli's trumpet, Gabriel's horn) is a geometric figure which has infinite surface area but finite volume. The name refers to the tradition identifying the Archangel Gabriel as the angel who blows the horn to announce Judgment Day, associating the divine, or infinite, with the finite. This is just a joke about relationship between eternity and biblical story on the eve of the Christmas.
— ResearchGate. Available from {disclaimer}: Project: Does human evolution have a purpose? | Update: Does time exist? [accessed Dec 6, 2017]
9 груд. 2017 р.
09:43 | К вопросу о "витке спирали" в процессах обработки информации мозгом и процессу расщепления на полушария.
Newborn babies know their numbers
2017 | DOI: 10.1126/science.aar6973
At Birth, Humans Associate “Few” with Left and “Many” with Right
2017 | DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.11.024
Human infants, children, adults, and nonhuman animals associate small numbers with the left side of space and large numbers with the right. We show that 0- to 3-day-old neonates associate a small quantity with the left and a large quantity with the right when the multidimensional stimulus contains discrete numerical information, providing evidence that representations of number are associated to an oriented space at the start of postnatal life, prior to experience with language, culture, or with culture-specific biases.
09:43 | К вопросу о "витке спирали" в процессах обработки информации мозгом и процессу расщепления на полушария.
Newborn babies know their numbers
2017 | DOI: 10.1126/science.aar6973
At Birth, Humans Associate “Few” with Left and “Many” with Right
2017 | DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.11.024
Human infants, children, adults, and nonhuman animals associate small numbers with the left side of space and large numbers with the right. We show that 0- to 3-day-old neonates associate a small quantity with the left and a large quantity with the right when the multidimensional stimulus contains discrete numerical information, providing evidence that representations of number are associated to an oriented space at the start of postnatal life, prior to experience with language, culture, or with culture-specific biases.
22 груд. 2017 р.
09:25 | Может до нового года всё-таки выкроится время довести до небольшого логического завершения несколько кусочков систематизации по проблемным вопросам и выложить соответственно на RG и в блоге.
Заменять интуитивную составляющую, восстанавливая хронологию событий, обосновывая мотивацию строгой рациональной системой взаимосвязей в рамках существующих взглядов не просто. В том, что касается de philosopiae ab initio уже как минимум три итерации набежало.
На старости лет имеется возможность оценить смысл "диалогов" Галилео. В отличие от вымшленных персонажей, в реальности из ResearchGate становится очевидно, что люди зачастую просто ограничиваются шаблонным мышлением и мгновенным отказом от любой дедуктивной цепочки, которая рвёт шаблоны (в точности как на картинке от lifehacker.ru {лень искать реальный первоисточник} на начальной странице "Прогулки"). Думают ли они, вращаясь в циклических орбитах?
"Общение" в таком режиме эмоционально выматывает и становится совершенно не интересным, когда шаблонный ответ не подкрепляется какой либо аргументацией, кроме "авторитетности" или когда в ход пускаются архаичные религиозные догматы, далёкие от простых архетипов.
09:25 | Может до нового года всё-таки выкроится время довести до небольшого логического завершения несколько кусочков систематизации по проблемным вопросам и выложить соответственно на RG и в блоге.
Заменять интуитивную составляющую, восстанавливая хронологию событий, обосновывая мотивацию строгой рациональной системой взаимосвязей в рамках существующих взглядов не просто. В том, что касается de philosopiae ab initio уже как минимум три итерации набежало.
На старости лет имеется возможность оценить смысл "диалогов" Галилео. В отличие от вымшленных персонажей, в реальности из ResearchGate становится очевидно, что люди зачастую просто ограничиваются шаблонным мышлением и мгновенным отказом от любой дедуктивной цепочки, которая рвёт шаблоны (в точности как на картинке от lifehacker.ru {лень искать реальный первоисточник} на начальной странице "Прогулки"). Думают ли они, вращаясь в циклических орбитах?
"Общение" в таком режиме эмоционально выматывает и становится совершенно не интересным, когда шаблонный ответ не подкрепляется какой либо аргументацией, кроме "авторитетности" или когда в ход пускаются архаичные религиозные догматы, далёкие от простых архетипов.
27 груд. 2017 р.
20:29 | Физики проследили за динамикой водородных связей в воде с помощью рентгена
Seeing real-space dynamics of liquid water through inelastic x-ray scattering
2017 | DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1603079
20:29 | Физики проследили за динамикой водородных связей в воде с помощью рентгена
Seeing real-space dynamics of liquid water through inelastic x-ray scattering
2017 | DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1603079
Dec 27, 2017
Q: Why people take hypothesis in research as facts?
Vasyl Komarov | The easiest way to demonstrate, why hypotheses must be taken as fact, is to consider most extremal cases of so-called scientific revolutions, when we forced to make ultimate choice of two mutually exclusive forecasts in conditions when the lack of data does not allow Bayes’ theorem to help make the choice of a more successful forecast (the transition from Geocenteric worldview to Heliocenteric is one of the best examples for it.)
This always corresponds to the state of antinomy with the uncertainty of choice. All that is available in such a situation is to act in accordance with all the available hypotheses in the form of one and the other forecast and see what will come of it.
Advancement in the overall cognitive process is achieved only this way, through the consistent purposeful comparison of consequences of modus ponens rule applied to all unproved assumptions (i.e. potential axioms or future experienced knowledge) with qualia. Here I mean mainly not a single person, because overcoming beliefs based on this or that axiom (old "facts") is not so easy even for one or more generations.
The priority of hypothesis testing does not matter for the overall cognitive process. They both can be worked in parallel - as the goals are achieved, natural selection will do its job, eliminating the hypothesis disproved by experience.
Both forecast, concerning the one what entering experience, usually gives a satisfactory interpretation regardless of the forecasts quality relating to what lies beyond the current limits of it, since all hypotheses as a rule has intuitive origin on the basis of existing experience. The choice of incorrect forecast with subsequent falsification, that is, via further cognition, i.e. qualia, i.e. further experience, leads to subsequent rejection of the biases/hypotheses/axioms, which did not satisfy intuitive expectations.
I.e., we always check the conclusions from this or that hypothesis, and it is necessary for this to work with it, as with one of the ready axioms of the future theory (after axiomatization).
NB: I recommend in the first place to think about what is a fact? Here lies a less obvious problem, but with much more serious consequences, when ignored. So, I again repeat the reference to the remarkable esse here: I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts (The benefits of a post-truth society).
Q: Why people take hypothesis in research as facts?
Vasyl Komarov | The easiest way to demonstrate, why hypotheses must be taken as fact, is to consider most extremal cases of so-called scientific revolutions, when we forced to make ultimate choice of two mutually exclusive forecasts in conditions when the lack of data does not allow Bayes’ theorem to help make the choice of a more successful forecast (the transition from Geocenteric worldview to Heliocenteric is one of the best examples for it.)
This always corresponds to the state of antinomy with the uncertainty of choice. All that is available in such a situation is to act in accordance with all the available hypotheses in the form of one and the other forecast and see what will come of it.
Advancement in the overall cognitive process is achieved only this way, through the consistent purposeful comparison of consequences of modus ponens rule applied to all unproved assumptions (i.e. potential axioms or future experienced knowledge) with qualia. Here I mean mainly not a single person, because overcoming beliefs based on this or that axiom (old "facts") is not so easy even for one or more generations.
The priority of hypothesis testing does not matter for the overall cognitive process. They both can be worked in parallel - as the goals are achieved, natural selection will do its job, eliminating the hypothesis disproved by experience.
Both forecast, concerning the one what entering experience, usually gives a satisfactory interpretation regardless of the forecasts quality relating to what lies beyond the current limits of it, since all hypotheses as a rule has intuitive origin on the basis of existing experience. The choice of incorrect forecast with subsequent falsification, that is, via further cognition, i.e. qualia, i.e. further experience, leads to subsequent rejection of the biases/hypotheses/axioms, which did not satisfy intuitive expectations.
I.e., we always check the conclusions from this or that hypothesis, and it is necessary for this to work with it, as with one of the ready axioms of the future theory (after axiomatization).
NB: I recommend in the first place to think about what is a fact? Here lies a less obvious problem, but with much more serious consequences, when ignored. So, I again repeat the reference to the remarkable esse here: I'm a Scientist, and I Don't Believe in Facts (The benefits of a post-truth society).
— ResearchGate. Available from: Why people take hypothesis in research as facts? [accessed Dec 27, 2017]
29 груд. 2017 р.
07:43 | Ведро Ньютона, принцип Маха и существование пространства-времени
Принцип Маха - хорошая штука, конечно. Но со вторым пунктом он явно не прав, точнее, не совсем прав {если не брать во внимание, что при учете гравитации понятие инерциальной системы вообще не применимо ни к чему}.
Удалённые структуры (масса в данном контексте неприемлемое понятие) являются причиной (взаимного) существования как такового. Однако, это не причина существования инерциальных систем отсчёта.
Инерциальная система отсчета есть не что иное как подмножество структур, находящихся в когерентном состоянии.
Уход произвольной подсистемы как элемента множества структур от когерентного состояния приводит к динамике в топологии, т.е. воспринимается как относительное движение.
Неинерциальность, в данном контексте, связана с процессом перестройки общей когерентной структуры, когда есть признаки изменения хотя бы одного из параметров подсистем относительно фазового потока (возможно, циклической орбиты, соответствующей данному когерентному состоянию системы).
07:43 | Ведро Ньютона, принцип Маха и существование пространства-времени
Принцип Маха - хорошая штука, конечно. Но со вторым пунктом он явно не прав, точнее, не совсем прав {если не брать во внимание, что при учете гравитации понятие инерциальной системы вообще не применимо ни к чему}.
Удалённые структуры (масса в данном контексте неприемлемое понятие) являются причиной (взаимного) существования как такового. Однако, это не причина существования инерциальных систем отсчёта.
Инерциальная система отсчета есть не что иное как подмножество структур, находящихся в когерентном состоянии.
Уход произвольной подсистемы как элемента множества структур от когерентного состояния приводит к динамике в топологии, т.е. воспринимается как относительное движение.
Неинерциальность, в данном контексте, связана с процессом перестройки общей когерентной структуры, когда есть признаки изменения хотя бы одного из параметров подсистем относительно фазового потока (возможно, циклической орбиты, соответствующей данному когерентному состоянию системы).
31 груд. 2017 р.
11:39 | Вот небольшие наброски, которые успел собрать для англоговорящей аудитории (как говорится, "извините за мой английский", не мешало бы его привести в порядок кому либо более вменяемому, хотя, это всего лишь черновик, к тому же скомканый и неправильно изложенный от первого лица).
2016 год в блоге будет отображен немного позже.
Поздравляю всех с Новым годом! С наилучшими пожеланиями, особенно оппонентам в спорах, без которых трудно что-либо сдвигать в этом мире, диалектика это всё (-;
On different biases and motivation
2017 | DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34115.30243
11:39 | Вот небольшие наброски, которые успел собрать для англоговорящей аудитории (как говорится, "извините за мой английский", не мешало бы его привести в порядок кому либо более вменяемому, хотя, это всего лишь черновик, к тому же скомканый и неправильно изложенный от первого лица).
2016 год в блоге будет отображен немного позже.
Поздравляю всех с Новым годом! С наилучшими пожеланиями, особенно оппонентам в спорах, без которых трудно что-либо сдвигать в этом мире, диалектика это всё (-;
On different biases and motivation
2017 | DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34115.30243
No comments:
Post a Comment