text:
Search FQXi
show search help
You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.
When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.
hide search help
If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Order posts by:
Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 7:21am UTC, wrote KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK...
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 12/12/11 at 2:42am UTC, wrote Real unification in physics begins with gravity. Gravity, invisible and...
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 12/12/11 at 2:23am UTC, wrote Gravity and electromagnetism are united given equivalent and balanced ...
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 12/12/11 at 2:03am UTC, wrote How can ultimate, fundamental, and extensive truth (in physics too) be...
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 12/12/11 at 1:26am UTC, wrote Truth is not ultimately found in the inanimate. Truth is found in/with the...
Jason Wolfe: on 1/14/11 at 18:14pm UTC, wrote I sincerely look forward to reading your essay.
James Putnam: on 1/14/11 at 17:32pm UTC, wrote Dear Jason, The evidences are the same. For example, Pound Rebka could...
Jason Wolfe: on 1/14/11 at 6:13am UTC, wrote Hi James, "This is a variable speed of light theory. The variation of the...
Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...
Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...
Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...
Steve Agnew: "It is interesting that you bring up change in the context of free..." in Cosmological Koans
Roger Granet: "By the way, this post was from Roger." in First Things First: The...
david john: "https://www.google.com google.com/ google.com/" in Black Hole Photographed...
Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today's Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...
Lorraine Ford: "Physics has failed to explain change: physics tries to claim that change is..." in Cosmological Koans
click titles to read articles
First Things First: The Physics of Causality
<!- summary --> Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.
Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
<!- summary --> Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time's flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.
Thermo-Demonics
<!- summary --> A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.
Gravity's Residue
<!- summary --> An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.
Could Mind Forge the Universe?
<!- summary --> Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.
read & discuss all articles
FQXi BLOGS
CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Philosophy vs. Physics [refresh]
Login or create account to post reply or comment.
Blogger William Orem wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 13:50 GMT
image: xJasonRogersx
It's not quite timeless, but Steven Weinberg's *Dreams of a Final Theory* is a classic of the popular science genre. In it, he notes that he was an enthusiastic student of philosophy as an undergraduate . . . that is, until "the insights of the philosophers I studied seemed murky and inconsequential compared to the dazzling successes of physics and mathematics."
At that point Weinberg turned away from the venerable path of Augustine and Aquinas, Hegel and Husserl, and began a lifetime pursuit in the physical sciences that would prove a glittering triumph. What with his Nobel-winning contribution to field theory that allowed for unification of the weak and electromagnetic forces – not to mention his winning of everything from the Oppenheimer Prize to the James Joyce Award -- it is difficult to conjure up any profound sense of disappointment at the career he chose to forego.
Actually, Weinberg did far more than leave philosophy behind; in *Dreams* he actively campaigns against it. An entire chapter is dedicated to exposing, with a wink to Wigner, the "unreasonable ineffectiveness of philosophy."
From *Against Philosophy*:
"From time to time since then I have tried to read current work on the philosophy of science. Some of it I found to be written in a jargon so impenetrable that I can only think that it aimed at impressing those who confound obscurity with profundity.
But I do not aim here to play the role of a philosopher, but rather that of a specimen, an unrenegate working scientist who finds no help in professional philosophy. I am not alone in this; I know of no one who has participated actively in the advance of physics in the postwar period whose research has been significantly helped by the work of philosophers. . . .
Physicists do of course carry around with them a working philosophy. For most of us, it is a rough-and-ready realism, a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories. But this has been learned through the experience of scientific research and rarely from the teachings of philosophers."
Strong words, and conceivably a bitter pill for those among us—at FQXi, hardly a minority—who feel physics and philosophy may share areas of significant overlap (physics and religion, I should note, is a different claim). Or, at least, those who feel that physics is now in a position to begin to answer certain deep questions long relegated to the philosopher's café table.
Yet Weinberg is hardly the only great mind to take a dim view of the toga. Here's Richard Feynman:
"Philosophers, incidentally, say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive and probably wrong. . . .
You can take every one of Spinoza's propositions and take the contrary propositions, and look at the world - and you can't tell which is right. Sure, people were awed because he had the courage to take on these great questions, but it doesn't do any good to have the courage if you can't get anywhere with the question."
image: hetemeel
Full disclosure: I am passionate about philosophy, teach courses on Existentialism and Literature, and routinely advocate to undergraduates that they be willing to take the question of the meaning of their lives seriously (against the tide of much modern philosophy, in fact, which emphasizes ironic distance; but leave that aside). Yet in the corner of the Agora where we speculate on the nature of physical reality, and how best to attain knowledge of same, dismissals such as Weinberg and Feynman's do hit a nerve. I remember in my own undergraduate days suffering mightily under the misapprehension that statements made in philosophy seminar were somehow "true" in the same way as those made in physics survey. Both referred to the world, thought I, so both must be describing aspects of the same thing. Thus I tried for a long time to understand how Kant's "insights" into space and time, laid out in all their impenetrable obliquity in *The Critique of Pure Reason*, could be put together with Einstein's.
It was only after a lot of fruitless effort that I came to recognize Transcendental Idealism and Special Relativity don't go together. (Disagreements with that statement are welcome.) That realization in itself was a frustration; but recognition of the reason behind my error was absolutely fruitful. Kant--I say this with due deliberation--didn't make any discoveries into the nature of space and time; he made assertions about them. (Hegel made quite other ones; Heidegger still others.) To be sure, the quality philosopher's positions are hardly guesswork; by rejecting Humean empiricism, Kant was building on a long line of philosophical tradition he and all his admirers regarded as credibly established beforehand, the whole train of Enlightenment epistemology. But the simple question remains: was he right?
Or, with Feynman, perhaps the more important question: Can we even tell?
I recognize that this is a bit of a straw-man argument I am building up here, but a productive one nonetheless. So far, every indication is that Einstein was absolutely right. Not "influential," not "challenging us to see things in a new way," – just right. We don't have to construct those odd sentences around him that we do around pure philosophers, such as "For Einstein, length measurements are relative to the observer's reference frame," or "In Einstein's view, gravity is the result of four-dimensional spacetime curvature." These aren't positions in Einstein's systematic philosophy of Being: they are something far more profound. They are true.
Limited in their scope, yes; still to be unified with QM, yes; all the standard caveats about scientific theory apply. But SR and GR make numerous specific predictions that have been, and are being, tested all the time. Two hundred years later, Kant remains influential, insightful, challenging—but was he right?
And if we can't answer that question—let's put the issue boldly--shall we cease burdening our thoughts with the verbal complexities of a tradition that may not actually be progressing at all, but only undergoing an outmoded, self-referential dance?
Are we really at the dawn of a new age of "Physics and Philosophy," as so many popular books and magazine articles suggest--or at the twilight of Philosophy altogether?
image: Johan J.Ingles-Le Nobel
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 15:01 GMT
Congratulations on another thought-provoking article that I predict will draw many impassioned responses.
Weinberg's _Dreams of a Final Theory_ is one of my personal favorites, and I am among those who think that it's a good thing that we are seeing the twilight of philosophy.
In this forum every day, you will find numerous respondents who _do_ believe that Einstein's results are " ... positions in Einstein's systematic philosophy of Being". It becomes tedious to correct those misconceptions and the false conclusions that arise from them. No amount of citing and reciting facts, experimental results, mathematical models and the like will dissuade the believer.
That philosophy _could_ be an objective knowledge model, I have little doubt. That it currently has not transcended what Einstein ridiculed as "mere personal belief," I also have little doubt.
Joe Fisher replied on Sep. 2, 2010 @ 13:00 GMT
The Times of London reported today that Stephen Hawking's new book due out later this year, will prove that the Universe was not created by God. Hawking insists that he can prove that the Universe was created out of nothing. Just goes to show, bad beginnings can only lead to awful consequences.
Jason Wolfe replied on Sep. 2, 2010 @ 14:28 GMT
God said:"Let there be light..." Looks an awful lot like a Big Bang to me. Is Stephen Hawking going to disprove the Big Bang?
Dear Jelle,
You and everyone else are free to believe or not believe in God, as you chose. Similarly, do you care whether or not the 100 trillion cells of your body believe in you?
It looks to me like the laws of physics are fully implemented by photons (virtual/real); I want to also include wave-functions which have similarities to photons. Wave functions make it possible to calculate eigenfunctions; eigenfunction look an awful lot like possibilities. When we make a decision, we effectively collapse the wave function, thus channeling our energy and our intent into a single course of action.
If (a) the photon implements physics + causality, and (b) the Big Bang was a HUGE flash of light, THEN the Big Bang and God said, "Let there be light..." are too similar to permit the disproving of God.
As for Big Bangs happening for NO reason, I don't see that happening in nature. In fact, it violates Conservation of Energy. Creation and destruction of energy have to fall within the capability of that which created the Universe. Something caused the Big Bang.
Matt Leifer wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 15:49 GMT
Physics has gone through a period of extreme pragmatism, as the quotes from Weinberg and Feynman attest, but it hasn't always been that way and, in my view, it won't always be that way in the future. Although empirical reality is the ultimate arbiter of truth, physicists do not theorize in a vacuum, and philosophical theories have often influenced physics, e.g. Mach's influence on Einstein's relativity.
Philosophers, by and large, are investigating questions that are not amenable to experimental test. Even though we may regard the empirical sciences as our most reliable sources of knowledge, this does not mean that philosophical considerations are unimportant. For example, the very question of why scientific knowledge is reliable is clearly a philosophical one, at least in part, and is fundamental to the whole scientific worldview. Whether or not this has any impact on physicists daily practice seems to me to be beside the point.
Of course, philosophers make mistakes aplenty and it is not unusual to find their pronouncements on topics that were mistakenly thought to be immune to scientific enquiry later refuted by scientific evidence. Your example of Kant's adherence to an apriori view of space and time that is very Newtonian in character is a prime example of this. However, it seems to me that this is not a very key part of the Kantian view, i.e. you could replace it with something more relativistic without affecting the main conclusions of his philosophy.
John replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 20:36 GMT
"philosophical theories have often influenced physics"
Never ever. Mach was a physicist and engineer, above all.
As Weinberg says, philosophy has NEVER influenced physics. Philosophers follow physicists; it has never been the other way round in any situation.
Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 10:06 GMT
Well I'm an engineer too but definitely feel that 'The Ancients', recognized by Pythagoras, Plato, Spinoza àand Einstein, have handed us a concrete bridge between Philosophy and Science and we mght as well start 'walking on it'. Soafar I have only shown you the 'sunny side' of the 'cosmic coin'. Here by contrast an example of the 'dark side' and boy does it exist:
The number '16' is described as 'The Shattered Citadel''. This number, which was also called by the ancient Chaldeans as 'A Tower struck by Lightning, from which a man is falling, with a Crown on his head'', representative of destruction and haven't we seen the Tower and its twin falling recently!!! It warns of a strange fatality, also the danger of accidents and the defeat of one's plans.
Below are a number of words and names which have this fateful vibration:
'So I am' 'Child' 'Fear' 'Angst' 'Anger' 'The Enemy' 'Hell' 'Killer' 'Rape' 'Snake' 'Lust' 'Fake' 'Hurry' 'Rush' 'Africa' 'Russia' 'Tibet' 'Japan' 'Kobe' (the Japanese city virtually destroyed by an earthquake in 1995) 'L'Aquila' 'San Andreas Fault' 'Algeria' 'Shiva' (the Indian god of destruction), 'The Camorra' 'Dark Force' 'Islamic' 'Cult' 'Media Hype' 'Blind Faith' 'Waco' 'Fire' 'Urban' 'Atom' 'A-bomb' 'The Alcohol' 'The Oil' 'Oil Men' 'Oil Weapon' 'Black Sun' 'Trade' 'Man and Nature' (how very true!!!)'CFKs' 'An Inconvenient Truth' 'Katrina' 'Mad Cow' (both by the word 'Cow' as well as 'Mad Cow') 'H5N1' (the avian flu virus) 'Cat and Mouse' 'Ratko Mladic' (the Serb general who led the destruction of Bosnia, both by his first as well as second name). Furthermore, the names 'Bill Gates', also a double '16', both by the name Gates as well as Bill Gates, 'The Capitalist' 'A lot of money' 'The Rich' and the names 'Bush' 'Dick Cheney' 'The Regime' 'Blair-Bush' 'Twin' 'Trade' 'The Pentagon' ''Osama' 'Al-Qaeda' alias 'The Base' same '16', 'The Hezbollah' 'Camp' 'David' 'Third' 'Reich' and 'War Games', a double '16', and 'Dirty Game' 'Italy-Europe' 'The Arrogance' 'Than Shwe' 'Mao Zedong' 'Kagame' 'Ego-Power' 'The Stress' 'The Paranoid' and 'Bad People' as well as 'An Inconvenient Truth'!!!
Call that coincidence Steve!!!
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 10:52 GMT
Hi Jelle,
It is sometimes important to identify the whole with wisdom and perspective.
Indeed there are truths that do not suit everyone.
The current state of our beautiful planet is a disaster, such a disgrace of responsibilities.
It is absurd and unthinkable to accept such chaotic situations.
Moreover, these parameters and factors generate chaotic effects and impacts of concern in the global perspective.
Caution seems to be an essential in words than in the systems.
I think humbly that human nature is such that it becomes clear to focus on universal scientific objectives.
The harmonic scientific solutions are much more peaceful than political struggle, political and economical war...
Politics is an arena where good and evil are in disagreement.But the well wins always fortunally, but unfortunally the short moment in localities is there
I prefer the sweet universal scientific revolution.The love of his fellowman as our torch of hopes ...
show all replies (14 not shown)
Happiness lies in understanding of 'the whole' Steve and act accordingly!!!
It exists bad and good people everywhere dear Jelle...in all systems, countries, religions,towns.....we are all linked and we are in a world created by a minority.
The system is not really the problem but the utilization of the system.
HARMONY OR CHAOS.....
The high spheres must be universals and complementary ,as a kind of universal commission for harmonization of ecosystems.
You said "It exists bad and good people everywhere". I would not agree with that as that is 'dualistic thought' whereas what I am promoting is 'dealistic thought', i.e. from blind to understanding. These words from Herman Hesse explains that rather well, without going 'into numbers'!
"The world.....is not imperfect, not slowly evolving along a long path to perfection. No, it is perfect at any moment; every sin already carries grace within it, all small children are potentially old men, all sucklings have death within them, all dying people - eternal life. It is not possible for one person to see how far another is on the way; the Buddha exists in the robber and dice player; the robber exists in the Brahmin....Therefore, it seems to me that everything is necessary, everything only needs my agreement, my assent, my loving understanding; then all is well with me and nothing can harm me. I learned through my body and soul that it was necessary for me to sin, that I needed lust, that I had to strive for property and experience nausea and the depths of despair in order to learn to love the world, and no longer compare it with some kind of desired imaginary world, some imaginary vision of perfection, but to leave it as it is, to love it and be glad to belong to to
Herman Hesse, 9/27 in
Siddhartha Gautama, 5/32
it was my favorite book at the age of 15 or 16 perhaps with the Prophet of Kalil Gibran.Short, simple, universal.Two very splendids books.
Indeed I dislike the duality also because the well is more than the bad.
It's very interesting your works about dealism.
Dear Jelle ....the water of a great river is in the same time at the top as at the beginning as at all places of the river.....
Indeed some stupidities invented by humans are purely dedicated to disappear in time space evolution.Here is their names...Borders, differences,arms and weapons, monney,chaotics moments........HARMONIZATION=SPHERIZATION.
Happy to know a real and entire universalist.Thanks for that.Do you know a friend, a super person, The Dr Naima Benali,she works about a transqure project for better synergies between universalists, conscious with a big wisdom.
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 22:50 GMT
Jelle ,
Social human beings can do harm through error, by being mislead or because of circumstances that necessitate otherwise unacceptable behavior. Antisocial human beings do not see any reason not to cause harm if there is net benefit to the self. There is now evidence from the study of the brain to show that not only is brain function different in these people but so is brain structure.Neorobiological basis of psychopathy
Since these are biological differences of brain structure and function giving a social animal or an antisocial animal it is, not technically accurate, but not unreasonable to say that there are good people and there are bad people. Though the difference is not obvious through external appearance and general observed behavior alone, especially when deliberate manipulation of perception is involved.
Their targets may eventually realize how the true antisocial animal operates and what it is capable of doing without any empathy or remorse. Mimicry allows most of these antisocial humans to act as successful parasites or intraspecies predators without detection and removal from the society. They are not mentally ill and in need of help and understanding. They are functioning well but differently from the majority of the human race, without any concern for their fellow man.
Differences of race, gender, education and religious beliefs or non belief pale into insignificance in comparison to this difference of biology within all of the human race, imo. Empathy and remorse, experienced by the majority of humans, function as brakes that inhibit gross antisocial behavior under normal circumstances. Without these feelings that give us humanity (the quality of being humane, sharing heartfelt kindness and benevolence) towards our fellow humans inhumanity exists instead. It may not be politically correct to say so but we are not all the same.
Jelle,
I meant to also say that I would consider a hyena chewing on my leg a bad thing. Though it is just a predator doing what those predators do in order to survive. Good or bad is too subjective to be fully accurate or a scientifically valid description. However it is a perfectly valid expression of subjective experience and its evaluation.
Georgina et al.,
Good to hear from you once in a while!
To enlighten you a bit further on 'the dark side' of the cosmic coin, herewith the troublesome '18':
The number '18' is called 'Spiritual-Material Conflict' and is reported to have the most difficult symbolism to translate of all numbers in the system. 18 symbolize materialism striving to destroy the spiritual side of nature and are associated with wars, social upheaval and revolution. Below only some examples of this vibration which however fully tell the story in my opinion: 'Fate' 'Drugs' 'Pills' 'Virus' 'Anarchy' and 'Water' (the next world war is in all likelihood to be about water resources) 'Black Gold', the common synonym for oil, as well as the entities '21st Century' 'The World', 'West' 'Us-Them' 'Wall Street' 'Market' 'Elite' 'Ego's' 'Texas' 'Dubai World' 'Kashmir' 'Child labour' 'Spiral' 'Fame' 'Freak' 'Laden' 'Nine Eleven' 'Jesus'' 'Christ' 'Cross' 'Saddam Hussein' 'Blair, Bush and Berlusconi', 'Cosa Nostra' 'Military Power' and the words 'Ruler' 'Flags' 'Void' 'The cautious' and 'Error' as well as 'TV-Violence' 'The Doctrine' and the concept 'Civil World' as well as the city names 'Rome' and 'Berlin'
As Ray would say 'have fun'!
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 18:23 GMT
OK - If we are talking about interesting numerology, '18' is one of the Lucas numbers:
18 = (phi)^6 + (phi)^(-6)
= (1.618034...)^6 + (1.618034...)^(-6)
= (17.94767...)+(0.05573...)
= 18 EXACTLY
It is the occurance of the Golden Ratio phi=(Sqrt(5)+1)/2=1.618034... and Lucas numbers: 2,1,3,4,7,11,18,29,47,... that enforces scale invariance in Nature.
You spelled 'Child labour' the British way. Would it still be an '18' if you spelled it the American way, 'Child labor'?
Thanks for that '18-demo'. Looks good to me! Have to disappoint you on 'CHILD LABOR' but the American is a (poor) derivative of QE!!!
Dera Jelle,
LOL! Of course we Americans messed up the Queen's English! My daughter purposely abreviates and mispells words while texting because its 'cool'. In 20 years, people won't be able to spell without their technology...
Hihihi and us in belgium we are a derivative of a mix.
A little if I said ,the coca cola coke for usa and the pepsi for England...thus I drink water simply !
hihihi have fun have fun and the responsabilities my dear scientists,
INDEED THE WORLD WAITS....
From -The pronunciation of British English by A.C.Gimson........In fact, English has had a standardized form of spelling for not much more than 200 years, the present inconsistencies in in our orthography reflecting the historical development of the language......It is not until the end of the 18th Century that English began to sound more completely like the language we speak today. What is more, with the appearance of the great dictionaries of that century, the orthography was standardized into a form almost identical with with our present one.
(Which means the modern Queen's English is a relatively recent historical development given 14 Centuries of evolution of the language.)
With all respect to your daughter but it worries me 'no end' that by the 'virtue' of technology languages are massacred and consequently our 'beings', the only thing we have!!! It started with calaculators which threw basic (head) calculus out of the window and now the language follows, only to produce roboticized 'monsters' as politics purposefully intends with the blessing of religion!
The evolution of language is not something new though. Spoken English is by no means uniform even within the British Isles. Received English has numerous dialects and sociolects...Init?!
The Queen's English is taught in schools and is spoken by the well educated and the upper and upper middle classes of society. Being "well spoken" , using appropriate standard language and verbal courtesy, is still an indicator of social class in the United Kingdom. Despite the political pressure for a classless society and acceptance regional dialects and sociolects as equally acceptable English.
Are you saying that the language in use 200 years ago in that tiny region of the world somehow happened to tune itself to the vibrations of the Universe but is now going out of tune as is and has been every other language of the world? How and why should that be?
hide replies
John Merryman wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 16:43 GMT
What is reality?
Is that a religious, philosophic, or physical question?
Whenever an answer is given, it raises further questions. Religion and superstition raised questions philosophy tried to answer and philosophy raises questions physics tries to answer. We laugh at the foolishness of those who came before, but fail to see the limits they had to understand. Who knows how history will treat our efforts. Will our generation be viewed as giants, or fools, or some combination of the two.
John Merryman,
To me it's entirely a philosophical-physics question to which mathematics plus the english language provide 'key keys'! It's a matter clearly of 'allowing' metaphysics and metaphilosophy!
Also in answer to an earlier post by James, herewith a 'tip of that veil' te words EXISTENTIALISM and EXISTENTIALIST are, according the 'The Ancient' equivalent to:
'PHYSICS OF SOCIETY' 'REALITY IS UNKNOWABLE' 'CONNECTION' 'TELEPATHY' 'EXISTENCE' 'INNER LIFE' 'THE WORLD OF LOVE' 'COSMIC PLEASURE' 'ETERNITY' 'RELIGION' 'GOD OF ABRAHAM' 'ANCIENT CHALDEANS' 'CHALDEAN' 'KEYWORD' 'NUMBERS' 'ALL THINGS ARE NUMBERS' 'TRUTH IN NUMBERS' 'GOOD NUMBER SENSE' 'NAMES-NUMBERS' 'EYESIGHT' 'SOULMATES' 'GOOD VIBRATIONS' 'CONTACT' 'OUR COSMIC NAMES' 'COSMIC THEORY' 'WE ARE PART OF NATURE' 'NATURE IS BEAUTIFUL' 'NATURE'S BEAUTY' 'BEAUTIFUL' 'ALL LIFE IS ONE' 'DIASPORA' 'INFORMATION' 'DECISION MAKING' 'KNOWLEDGE' 'IMMENSE' 'LIMITLESS' 'MASTERFUL' 'AMINOACID' 'ADRENALIN' 'LANGUAGE' 'LANGUAGE COGNITION' 'POETRY AND MUSIC' 'THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CONTAINS THE KEY' 'WRITTEN' 'COLLECTIVE MEMORY'
Take it or leave it 'world'!
To which I should like to add what the american publisher of my book wrote on its back:
This fascinating book promotes oneness among humanity and examines the ways all people are interconnected
Pittsburgh, PA (Vocus) August 5, 2010 -- The Natural Theory of DEALISM: 'Quest for a Better Understanding Between Humanity and Nature' for 'A Better World' by Number Six has been released by Dorrance Publishing Co., Inc
The globalization tide ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall has anything but provided the global community with a common sense of identity. On the contrary, it seems to have generated further polarization, cultural impoverishment, worrying environmental instability, a strongly materialistic and individualistic orientation, and mainly uncertainty and fear of the future. Identity is an umbrella term, a collection of ideas and characteristics of how we see ourselves as a group.
This book, on the basis of a three thousand-year-old cosmic code, demonstrates in a variety of ways that we are indeed all connected through a basic natural and mathematical principle, originating in the Big Bang and handed down to us by the ancient Sumerian Chaldeans and in what Pythagoras called "Everything Is Number," confirmed by Plato and Spinoza each in their own ways. The book makes a number of proposals to promote more "oneness" among humanity and introduces the concept of "Dealism," a universal "21" vibration, derived from "Idealism," a blind "22" vibration, by eliminating the "I," i.e., the ego factor. All is geometry, interrelated and indeed relative. Happiness lies in understanding!
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/dplHZ9
And its rather encouraging that the financial community is starting 'to get wind of and interest in' these metaphilosophical-metaphysical wrings! Something seems to be moving then!
If you don't know it already I'm sure you'll enjoy this 'litle movie' anout Numbers in Nature http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkGeOWYOFoA
To me beautiful proof of both the number as well as geometry argument, whatever the 'driving force'!
show all replies (1 not shown)
I like the video's presentation of the Fibonacci sequence, golden ratio and the golden spiral. I have also been playing with the Lucas numbers lately:
2,1,3,4,7,11,18,29,47,76,123,...
These numbers are also very related to the golden ratio and the Fibonacci sequence.
Please give an example of a question that philosophy has raised, that is tractable to the objective method of physics.
John Merryman replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 01:41 GMT
I didn't say the previous disciplines raised the questions. I said the answers they gave raised further questions. Each level of insight only raises the bar a little further.
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 17:23 GMT
I say two cheers for philosophy, followed by a boo. On balance that is positive, but with caveats.
I too in college was intrigued by philosophy and took a number of courses in the subject. There were some philosophers I was quite interested in. Clearly the ancients had the most to say, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle being the great trinity, and Democritus and Lucretius used such inductive thought to intuit the existence of atoms. The late ancient world had Augustine, who gave very penetrating reasoning about the nature of time. The medieval world gave us Averoes and Aquinas. Then we get into the modern age, where I think David Hume had the most to say at the start of this age.. It is in more recent time that philosophy seems to have run out of some oomph. However, I found Hegel and Sartre to be of interest. With Hegel I found the idea of dialectics to be interesting, for quantum mechanics is a sort of dialectic system. Here you have a complementarity principle, where a physical system has 2n degrees of freedom, but you can only access half of them in a measurement. The other n degrees of freedom are uncertain. Quantum mechanics this is a sort of dialectic, but much clearer than what Hegel wrote, such as in his Science of Logic. Hegel's ideas were taken up in a rather loose associative way by Engels' and Marx in a social context, and this fertilized an intellectual minefield for people such as Lenin. So why mess around with Hegel at all? Just go to the real complementary system called quantum mechanics.
Anyone who looks to philosophy for answers I think may have things upside down. Philosophy might better be seen as something which brings focus on certain questions. I read an article on some quantum optical measurements which put strict limits on the linearity of quantum mechanics. The upshot is that in wave interference it is a bilinear process with no outside "paths" which introduce nonlinearities. However, gravitation is very nonlinear. So we are faced with a sort of dialectic: How can something be both linear and nonlinear in one consistent system? So dialectical reasoning might be a way of framing a question.
Cheers LC
T H Ray replied on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 17:49 GMT
Lawrence, I'm glad you brought up the influence of philosophy on Marxist-Leninism, because I think that it is _the_ definitive example of mischief caused by mixing philosophy and science.
Few Americans, I think, while expounding on Marx and socialism (particularly the bloviators who clog the airwaves) understand that the true name for Marx's economic philosophy is "scientific socialsm." Marx's theory was held to be genuine science, on a par with physics and biology. What we see, however, is that the practical experiment of Marxist-Leninism failed because the science of Marxism actually turns out to be a religion -- with its prophets and prophecies, its savior cult, its bible and its plan for redemption.
One example of the grave damage to Soviet science is the clinging to Lamarckism in biology long after science had soundly discredited the theory -- because it agrees with the Marxist philosophy. For the same reason, Creationism among many believers persists in spite of evidence, reason, experimental results, etc. -- it agrees with their religious philosophy, science be damned.
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 21:43 GMT
Marxism is clearly not a scientific concept. There is nothing particularly empirical about it. The cases where it has been tried under governments which tried to "make it so" are failures by and large. Lenin used Marxism as a way to institute an authoritarian system, by "making it so," which given that Russia was nearly a failed state in 1917-18 it almost couldn't have been any other way. On the other hand some of these small start up companies in and around Silicon Valley (San Jose) have funny similarities to Marx's vision that workers would assume control of the means of production.
There is a converse trend currently to formulate capitalism as some science or something inherent in natural science. The first champion of this idea was Ayn Rand, who wrote novels that start out somewhat engaging and end up as rants that are abysmal to finish. I see this as a sort of flip side of the idea of scientific Marxism. The rejection of global warming by the right wing is a sort of refusal to admit their system is not perfected as they might want to believe.
Politics and economics of all varieties have remarkable similarities to religion, or are secular forms of religion. It is also telling that just as religious "truth" is ultimately upheld only by authority, political systems and ideology have similar trends.
Florin Moldoveanu replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 01:23 GMT
Lawrence,
I assume that you familiar with Spekkens toy model. However, dialectics is not that, and it was the target of the criticism in "The Open Society and Its Enemies" by Popper where Popper argues that Hegel violates logic to the aim of deriving any conclusion it fits him.
Unfortunately for me I studied Hegel and Marxism way too much in my school years under communism in Eastern Europe and I know enough to write a book on what's wrong with it.
Wouldn't the original complementary system be the Tao?
Western logic tends to grudgingly accept the reality of complementary systems, but not the logic and always tries to find some singular basis for them, whether it's God, TOE or the Big Bang.
A purely unitary state would be featureless. Reality is a function of contrast.
Florin,
I guess I missed out on Spekkens toy model. I have only done a quick Wikipedia scan on this so far.
The idea of complements is very old. The biblical creation story is really about separation (Kodesh) where the world is divided into complements: light from dark, dry land from sea, etc.
Spekkens's model is about QM from information principles, but outside the C* formalism.
While Hegel was the official apologist of the repressive state in his time, Marx came with genuinely new and correct economic ideas for his time.
By stating that in every aspect there are two opposing factions is equivalent to stating from an inconsistent state and deriving anything you want as Popper observed. (True implies true, while false implies both true and false. ) Lenin saw this too and he combined Hegel's dialectics with Marxism ideas to justify communist revolution.
Lenin was a big terrorist who by a twist of history got this good will mythology build around him, in part because he led the successful revolution, and in part by contrast with Stalin. Stalin was basically a blue collar Lenin with no interest for writing books, but both were mass murderers.
Marxism is based on a utopia and on the economic bubble of industrialization in agrarian societies. The utopian appeal created this enormous support and enthusiasm but as with any utopian ideas, communism did not fit reality and the only way it could work was by repression, terror, and murder. (Outside communist states the utopian appeal lasted until the publication of: "One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn)
The ultimate collapse of communism came after the completion of industrialization bubble which was followed by the great stagnation period in Russia in the 70s, because Marxist economic ideas were no longer applicable in the new context and centrally planned economies went the way of the dinosaurs unable to cope with the change.
The problem is that you can't apply Hegel's dialectics. They are not mathematical structures or equations you can solve. They are ideas which may instantiate in various cases. In the case of physics this is quantum mechanics, a system of complements that exist in a consistent formalism. Quantum mechanics was not derived by people pouring over Hegel's philosophy, but on its...
view entire post
The problem is that you can't apply Hegel's dialectics. They are not mathematical structures or equations you can solve. They are ideas which may instantiate in various cases. In the case of physics this is quantum mechanics, a system of complements that exist in a consistent formalism. Quantum mechanics was not derived by people pouring over Hegel's philosophy, but on its own, and where philosophers then redact the situation and draw the comparison after the fact.
Marx and Engels "derived," if that word is at all appropriate, their social philosophy from Hegels dialects by some loose comparisons. Their conclusion that the synthesis of capital and labor would lead to some "new man" is a sort of secular form of resurrection parallel in some ways to Christianity. Their little book "Manifesto of the Communist Party" has some interesting things to say, in particular in its critique of capitalism. "Das Kapital" I found to be impenetrable tombs of nonsense and utterly boring. As I can see the vast number of copies of these published in Russia are best used probably as insulating bricks in so called eco-friendly home building.
VI Lenin was a crafty bastard in my opinion. Even with some socialist leaning people I know I have found it interesting how much they can uphold Lenin as some ideal of socialism. The man instituted the Cheka and turned Russia from a Tsarist medieval autocracy into a more modern totalitarian state. He paved the way for the penultimate living horror named Stalin. He was only surpassed by Hitler in his capacity for psychopathological evil, and curiously Hitler delivered Stalin the ability to consolidate his power and to extend it into Eastern Europe though a nightmare episode from 1941-45.
The problem is that economic and political ideologies are instruments by which people can be controlled by how they think and ultimately used for the benefit of some powerful elite whose hands are on the levers of the apparatchik. What people are not as aware of is that the United States has many elements of this, and over the last several decades this nation has transformed into more and more of a managed economy. It is just managed by large corporations and financial institutions that have the ability to convert the Republic of this nation increasingly into a choreographed theatrical presentation. The process by which this occurs is subtle and people are fooled by politicians who distract their minds with nonsense about "right to life," and the threat of gay rights, or the need for gun rights and lots of rubbish. People so distracted think they by voting for the political right will have greater freedom, and all the while we have more and more surveillance, police power, secret monitoring of communications, internal quasi-military power and so forth. Sadly, my experience with Russia and E.Europe is that after decades of entombment by Communism people seem blinded by American ideological stuff. The rock band "The Who" did a wonderful song, "Don't Get Fooled Again." When American state department wogs show up in Bucharest or any other capital of a former Warsaw pact nation don't be taken in by their smooth talking nonsense. It is probably best to send them back to the US of A empty handed. Believe me, the big problem nation for the entire world is my own. If we get through that, then it may in the future be China.
At the end, religion and economic ideologies are upheld by authority and little else. Behind that authority is a fist, or a fist holding a knife, and no matter how veiled that is it is still there. The more that people are made to internalize the "thought-script," which can involve some elements of Orwellian double think, the more the fist or knife can remain veiled. So long as those who are in positions of authority can stunt the minds of people by thinking according to nonsense the better they can cover their fat asses in positions of power. It has largely always been this way.
I was going to discuss some on the Spekken toy, but time sort of got away from me. I will try to write about that later.
view post as summary
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 23:31 GMT
You said "I read an article on some quantum optical measurements which put strict limits on the linearity of quantum mechanics. The upshot is that in wave interference it is a bilinear process with no outside "paths" which introduce nonlinearities. However, gravitation is very nonlinear. So we are faced with a sort of dialectic: How can something be both linear and nonlinear in one consistent system? So dialectical reasoning might be a way of framing a question."
I think this is very interesting. You ask how can something be both linear and non linear in one consistent system? But that is just what I have been proposing. We observe linear change within 3D space, describable with 3 dimensions. However there is also absolute non linear change, rotation of earth , orbit and other astronomic change. Both are happening. However in observed space-time the absolute nonlinear spatial change is omitted and time is used instead. This works perfectly well with what is observed and measured from within 3D space but is not the absolute reality because the absolute change in spatial position and orientation has been omitted.
It is not possible to easily combine both the atemporal model incorporating absolute spatial change with the space-time model that uses time instead of absolute spatial change. But they can be used along side each other. They give different viewpoints of reality. One the subjective,relative, experienced viewpoint and the other the not experienced underlying spatial-material ontology.
How can both exist and both be real. We can accept an optical illusion. The experience says one thing but the underlying reality is something else. They can not be made the same but both are real in their own way. Likewise we can accept perspective. A building may be experienced as variable in size but it is also in material reality unvarying in size, (discounting thermal expansion and contracting).Unfortunately this means that things that are obviously unequal are also equal. They are just being viewed differently. It shows that experience and observation is not the same as underlying reality. Seeing (observing) should not be believing. If it is the con, the illusion, the deception triumphs over the credulous mind.
Georgina,
While I can appreciate your ideas here, this relationship beteen what is linear and nonlinear is a tad more deep. One thing I might note is that a lot of what you site as nonlinear is in fact pretty linear. Now agreed that with many bodies 9more than 2), such as planets, the differential equations do not solve in closed form and there is so called deterministic chaos.
Without going into a lot of mathematics, but a little, this is my work on a modular gauge theoretic formalism which includes S and T dualities as special cases. The AdS_n ~ S^n spaces have a duality with respect to a discrete Kleinian group Γ and the quotients (AdS_n/Γ)xS^n and AdS_nx(S^n/Γ), which correspond in dimensions 6 and 10 to a 4-d gravity wave plus D1+D5 and the Taub-NUT spacetime plus D1+D5. The duality here is a T duality on a permutation of coordinates interpolated with an S-duality. The S duality involves switching between the NUT-parameter (a gravi-magnetic monopole) and mass on the Misner-Dirac string, and the T-duality is on the interpolation between the gauge space in S^n and its invariance on r - -> 1/r. The gauging of this is with modular rotations, in particular Jacobi θ-functions, defines homomorphisms between SL(2,C) and O(n,2) groups. These homomorphisms in a semi-direct products are a discrete Heisenberg group. So the unitary group rotations on the gauge group, the SCT in the S^n, transform generally into the hyperbolic groups of spacetime, and do so by discrete group rotations in a Heisenberg group. This is related to the existence of a discrete time operator which does not violate the problem Pauli found with stationary or discrete Hamiltonian eigen-values. It is in this way that quantum mechanics as a linear system exists and is the quantization of a nonlinear system such as general relativity.
This recent article by AAAS "Science," an article by Sinha, et al discusses an experiment which puts constraints on nonlinearity in quantum mechanics. The born rule has that interference terms are of the form ψ_i^*ψ_j and are not cubic or higher. Using three slits the quantum optical measurements demonstrate that higher order nonlinearities in quantum mechanics are absent to within 10^{-3}. Yet quantum gravity is nonlinear. This means there is a sort of paradox or the appearance of one, maybe a dialectic, which needs to be given considerable thought. This approach seems to be a possible way in which this can be overcome.
Well that may all be very well and good for those that can comprehend what you are saying. I can't tell, though it looks and sounds jolly complicated.
Perhaps I am not explaining what I mean very well because I just do not have the background to communicate my ideas correctly. I hope this will explain why I am calling something that might generally be regarded as pretty linear by physicists as something non linear. I had been calling it scalar spatial. I don't know what to call it. If it has a name.
If I take my tea cup and move it from one side of the desk to the other I can draw the path taken as a line from starting position A to end position B. It is a linear change of position. If I do not move the cup and it stays at A, the cup has still moved. All of those astronomic changes have occurred and now A is not at the same absolute position as it was previously. I can not using the 3 dimensional co-ordinate system of local space to draw a line to represent how it has moved. The 3 dimensional co-ordinate system does not allow it to be done.
However it can be represented by another spatial dimension. That can not be another dimension in the same way as the others. It does not represent the same kind of change observed from within the local 3D space under consideration. It is the combination of many cyclic changes at different scales. I imagine it more of a spiraling, possibly a rotation, translation and scaling transformation rather than a simple linear change that can be represented by a vector direction.
I just read the rest of your post (for some strange reason I did not see the "view entire post" link). Unfortunately I had to study "the Capital" during many years in school. What Marx did was trying to answer where the extra value is coming from. It cannot come from buying and selling, because this means it is a zero sum game. He concludes that it comes from pure labor, with the capital playing the role of a catalyst in chemical reactions. He also analyses the structure of a cyclical economical crisis. From the 3 ingredients: labor is creating the value, the capital has a parasitic necessary evil role, and the cyclic nature of economic crisis he gives the recipe for "progress": nationalizing the means of production and planned economy. The hidden assumption is the presence of an infinite demand for anything that is produced, which of course had to stop at some point.
The best idea on what life was under communism was, is obtained by reading Orwell's books: the animal farm, 1984. They were absolutely right on the money.
After the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, Wild West capitalism took hold and the big plunder took place by the cronies of the second tier communist apparatchiks. Those excesses were curbed only under political pressure by EU with the promise of joining EU.
In US I find the ideologies to resort mostly to fear mongering, but I do not yet share your cynicism. Believe me, it could be much worse.
PS: I don't know how to reply to the NP – gravity discussion. I'll sleep on those ideas for the near term, and maybe I'll come up with a fresh perspective in the future.
Lwrence B.Crowell replied on Aug. 7, 2010 @ 12:33 GMT
What you say about moving or not moving a cup on a table is something pretty easily understood according to coordinate frame transformations. This is something which can be understood without appealing to extra dimensions and the rest. Extra dimensions come about from attempts to unify spacetime physics with gauge fields such as electromagnetism.
Lawqrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 7, 2010 @ 12:51 GMT
Marx and Engles said that labor was all that gave something valued added. I think that labor, brain power, creativity, fuel and machine work and so forth clearly do generate an added value. The role of capital, or the investment system, is that it generates and in a sense "computes" information required to make all of the above function properly. That is what Marxism fails to recognize. The one thing which has happened in America is we have gone to the other extreme. We have developed an economy based on the idea that investment capital is everything and labor, creativity etc can be discarded according to will. One thing which has occurred is that almost every profession except investors and banking and so forth have been relegated to second rate status. To be a teacher or an engineer in the US of A is to be subject to lower tiers, and even medical doctors are being seen with less and less respect. So what has happened is the flip side of Marxism, and the productive economy of this nation is being reduced to a mere ghost of its former self, while investors have gotten wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice.
I think that we see things very differently because I am trying to get down to the very foundational level of how things are and you are working from an already constructed mathematical model and applying that to what is being said. I know the cup can be stationary and it can be moving and either version can be modeled within space-time by moving the co-ordinate frame. Thats not what its about. Its about underlying reality without time but with continuous spatial change that can not be observed in local 3D space.I thought I saw a glimpse of common ground but I was mistaken.
I don't think the rotation of the earth, orbit of the earth around the sun, movement of the solar system, rotation of the galaxy and procession of the galaxy all combined can be used together with consideration of perceived or detected change of position in a local space, unless that change is represented by a dimension other than the 3 vector spatial dimensions.
If the observer keeps looking at the stationary cup it does not move. It is only by not being that observer and taking up another view point of the scene, which is outside of the universe looking in, that the overall absolute change can be observed. Impossible I know but just observing the rotation of the earth or the solar system is not enough.
Therefore it is necessary to opt out of having an observer or a relative frame of reference for the absolute spatial change. The experimenters are not taking the "God's eye view" into consideration at all, but are concentrating on local space. Therefore the absolute spatial change is not taken into consideration. It may be irrelevant as you think but I think it can answer too many questions to be so easily dismissed.
Problems of planetary motion are largely solved using Newtonian mechanics. Where there are small deviations, in particular with the orbital motion of Mercury, there is another dimension which enters into the picture, time. In particular one has to work with spacetime in four dimensions.
thank you once again. I must be trying your patience. When you say problems of planetary motion are solved using Newtonian mechanics, you are referring, I think, to the motion of the planets themselves. Once again that is not really what I am thinking about.
If I take a stationary point in 3D space observed by a stationary observer, (which could be the experimenter observing part of his experiment), that stationary point is moving with the rotation of the earth including any wobbles, it is orbiting the sun. It is moving with the solar system, I have read of 3 kinds of movement. It is moving as the solar system moves with the rotation of the galaxy and with the motion of the galaxy processing within the universe as well. So all of that absolute movement is altering the position of the point observed to be stationary. It is undeniably a spatial change of position. I do not know the best physics term to use for that kind of motion. Perhaps scalar and non linear just do not fit the intended meaning.
That change is not taken into account in the experiment by the experimenter, to the best of my knowledge. It is not a direction within the 3 dimensional space -that he is observing-, that is local space. Time is used to give another dimension of change but time is not regarded as a spatial dimension in its own right.
So there are two different things going on simultaneously. The experimenter is using a space-time model in which he assumes passage of time is occurring and the only possible spatial change, of the observed point, is within the 3 dimensional space he is observing. However unobserved by him an unseen spatial change is continually occurring. This becomes relevant when people start talking about time travel. It is relevant to the grandfather paradox and Zeno of Eleas' paradoxes. Change in position along that dimension, in underlying reality, is a spatial change not a change in position along a historical time line,imo.
Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 19:52 GMT
Lawrence: "So we are faced with a sort of dialectic: How can something be both linear and nonlinear in one consistent system? "
The universe does seem to operate as an enigma, a paradox; it waits patiently for the opportunity to contradict established beliefs with truth that has been overlooked, ignored.
There is a long trend in the foundations of physics whereby two separate categories, such as space and time, or magnetism and electricity, are seen to be aspects of the same thing, or equivalent in some way. We are faced with the same issue now. Quantum gravity is a funny business, for we have some proximal ideas about it but we have yet to uncover the big idea. That involves seen past contradictory dualities and into something similar to a dialectic.
Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 02:10 GMT
I read once that if you could look at the quantum scale, it would appear to be bubbling with virtual particles constantly being created and annhilated. Have you ever of the quantum scale described this way?
Think of it this way: A single thread is linear, but a tapestry is non-linear. Then the history of a single tapestry is linear. Each level is embedded in the next level.
The problem with our disciplines is that they start off as very linear and focused, then in their effort to expand beyond their original level, lose that focus and can only revert to a belief system enshrining that original insight.
Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 19:58 GMT
Next step ,the x strategy....philo vs sciences....I d say .....3D vs business....
results...last strategy before the truth.
Step of essay....copenaghen vs maths without sense....
solution......3D AND TIME CONSTANT.
AHAHAHA algebras without limits, not but really let's be serious a little.
Cristi Stoica wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 20:11 GMT
Good problem "Philosophy vs. Physics"!
When a physicist reads philosophy expecting to find answers physics problems, it will be disappointed. Because philosophy is not physics. But philosophy has its role, and it has its important role in physics too.
In general, philosophy has its role in educating systematic thinking, which is very important in science. Good philosophy does not provide answers, but teaches you to ask questions. Students at theoretical philosophy learn logic, critical thinking, epistemology, ontology, philosophy of science in general and of physics and mathematics in particular.
Even if someone believes only in falsifiability and deduction, he should remember that Popper himself acknowledged that science doesn't know yet how hypotheses are created. To create hypotheses, you need to have a systematic thinking which is not always pure deduction. You need to have an imprecise thinking, somehow between random mutations and intuition. Creativity in science is a form of art, a form of philosophy. And I would add that conceiving the best tests for a hypothesis requires as well creativity.
Cristi,
I missed this excellent observation first time around.
It's more than just acknowledging that one does not know how hypotheses are created -- in Popper's philosophy, it doesn't _matter_. His protege David Miller expounded on this in chapter 3 (cleverly titled "A critique of good reasons") of his book Critical Rationalism: a restatement and defence.
Popper's student Feyerabend took this aspect of Popper's philosophy to extreme lengths, with an "anything goes" philosophy of his own, far from Popper's rationalism.
At any rate, though, the playful part of science can't be neglected. Even a sober statement such as Bronowski's "All science is the search for unity in hidden likenesses" barely conceals a subtext that at the end of the day, science is the art of good guessing.
Steev Dufourny wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 20:29 GMT
Jung d say to Marx, Don't be Nietschieian,because the the lenisnism is like the community of societarism.
It's as if Darwin slept at the door of Lamarck.
Even Prigogine didn't have the time to analyze the eternity.
Don you see in the Eclesiast a dance of irony, or in the Seneque words a road of confusiopns.
Do you see an evolution when we were this entanglement ,even hubble knew that.
The book of deads and these pyramids in the sky, even descartes will say, they are spheres.
Rousseau said, the man born good....and this society which corrupts even the innocents, Oh my God,the sciences are the sciences.
We turn we turn and we evolve, we revolve .....all turns and the sphere like a link between philosophy and sciences....
Fast Fred wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 21:01 GMT
Here is your first great philosophical/physics statement:
The self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of the totality of experience by combining conscious and unconscious experience.
Experience then becomes a more direct expression of the self that is increasingly representative of a greater totality of experience as well.
Accordingly, human experience is more profoundly (and generally) impacted and structured in accordance with the laws/forces of physcics than was ever previously imagined.
Also, the caring and perceptive reader will want to see my recent posts in "Essay Contest 2010: What..."
Your mature and thoughtful comments and questions are welcome. This is a very serious and important matter/discussion, for many more reasons than are (at first) apparent.
Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 22:05 GMT
William Orem,
You said " We don't have to construct those odd sentences around him that we do around pure philosophers, such as "For Einstein, length measurements are relative to the observer's reference frame," or "In Einstein's view, gravity is the result of four-dimensional spacetime curvature." These aren't positions in Einstein's systematic philosophy of Being: they are something far more profound. They are true."
I must strongly disagree with you here. Nothing is ever proven in science, only not dis-proven. So however unlikely it may seem that Einstein is wrong his ideas should not be portrayed as -truth-. To accept them as truth is to accept them as a belief rather than the currently most likely and acceptable explanation, that may in time be superseded. That is what happens in science new ideas replace the old in time. I think to be fully accurate one should use the "For Einstein..." introduction to his ideas because his explanations are framed within a specific model. 3n plus 1 space-time. Outside of that model the findings and explanations that apply only to space-time do not apply. To say Einstein was completely correct and we know as a fact that space-time is all that exists, because experimental observations confirm his theory, is shutting the door on advancement beyond those ideas.
Physicists should not forgets that physics is a natural science, in the same way that biology and chemistry are natural sciences. It is not a branch of mathematics.To be conducted and advanced only by highly skilled mathematicians. Knowledge is comprised of facts. Facts alone do not always provide meaning or explanation. Facts alone can not do it. Mathematics alone can not do it.It is necessary then to interpret the facts and that requires logical thought.
It is more than just a collection of meaningless facts that are sought, but an understanding of the natural world. Darwin did not just make a fine collection of specimens and merely remark "look they are all slightly different". He sought a logical explanation for those observations. That achievement is hailed as a great scientific accomplishment not mere philosophy. If physics is entirely cut aware from philosophy or reason then it is cut away from any meaning or significance. It ceases to be a part of the growing comprehension of the natural holistic Universe and is no more than a collection of meaningless facts and definitions described by mathematics, imo.
Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 07:01 GMT
PhDs should second Georgina's reminder of Popper. While I see metamathematics and metaphysics justified, the blog made me aware of a point of view that Einstein shared with the "Dummkopf" Kant: the notion of an a priori existing time. If a theory turns out persitently mysterious, then we should not exclude any fallacy. Perhaps the crowd of modern philosophy is too much adapted to mainstream science as to help us out.
Eckard
In fact, Einstein did not propose time as a priori. Neither space nor time have independent existence in general relativity. Only spacetime is physically real.
Popper's philosophy of falsifiability is often misunderstood as saying that the truth of a scientific result cannot be determined. Actually, every failure to falsify is a verification, in the sense that a theory more closely approaches verisimilitude ("truth-likeness"). General relativity is a mature theory -- a hundred years of testing and retesting (as William cited) makes it as true as any scientific theory can ever be. It is mathematically complete, with all predictions validated within the classical limit.
You said "As true as any scientific theory can ever be" Thats a good way to put it Tom. That is not the same as saying "this is the truth".
Also, there is -the truth- and there is -the whole truth-. They are not the same either.
Einstein did not propose but thoughtlessly adopt anticipation even into spacetime. "As true as a scientific theory ever can be?" Mistakes like those by Zeno or by G. Cantor persisted for more than a hundred yearsand will perhaps continue to persist. While I did not get aware of any doubt that electromagnetism and the related plausible use of complex calculus have sound foundations, several paradoxes of spacetime and quantum mechanics rather remind me of the paradoxes with Cantor's naive set theory. I see it more worthwhile to hunt some bugs in allegedly waterproof theories than to evade into more and more sophisticated remedies. Important things tend to be simple and unambiguous. Experimental evidence is always based on assumptions. I recommend using Nimtz's claimed evidence for ftl signal propagation as to train students. They should learn how to reveal fallacies, and why some experts were worried over so many years.
What about spacetime and QM, I do not expect them entirely but possibly partially wrong.
Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 3, 2010 @ 22:12 GMT
"Two hundred years later, Kant remains influential, insightful, challenging—but was he right?"
Very good question, but we do know the answer (from a long time ago). The crux of the matter is in the two meanings of true: true as a mathematical theorem, or true as agreement with reality.
If the question is: "were Kant's ideas in agreement with Nature?" then one need to simply ask Nature (after Galileo's recipe of doing physics).
If the question is: "were Kant's ideas consistent within an axiomatic system?" the answer is not yet, because we need to isolate the exact math to do that. However, he does seem consistent, and the likelihood of being true in this sense is very high.
Now apply this argument to philosophy as a whole. Is philosophy in agreement with Nature? (or is it "right"?) Not at all, this is physics' job. Do we need philosophy? Yes, if we are trying to make sense of the world. But can philosophy be successful in pointing us to new fruitful directions? Here I agree with Weinberg that the answer is most of the time sadly no. The reason for this, as Weinberg pointed out, is that philosophy tends to stick out with stale/deprecated ideas for way too long a time past their expiration date. Math may have a similar problem, but unlike philosophy math is timeless and can stand on its own: so what Euclidean geometry is not valid in curved spaces, it is a self-consistent axiomatic system. On the other hand physics is very dynamic as long as Nature has unexplained puzzles.
And here is the good news: philosophy does help out with progress in physics sometimes. For example each quantum mechanics interpretation does suggest new ways of looking at things and finding unexpected applications. And any new truly novel way of approaching problems has at its core (explicitly or not) a different philosophical paradigm.
You said, "It is necessary then to interpret the facts and that requires logical thought."
Do you think that quantum mechanics is logical? Do you think that Bell's theorem is logical?
What you said is probably where most physicists go astray in there quest to unify QM and GR (or whatever they're working on).
I don't think there is a logical explanation as to how the universe works. But I think we can find an explanation that fits all the facts and it still Occam's razor simple.
So, does quantum mechanics behave logically?
I tend to agree as well. Outside of maybe framing us with certain questions, or in making us think in different ways, philosophy is not likely to have a direct impact on physics. I would be surprised if some philosophical system were translated into physical terms and codified mathematically into a new theory.
I have previously talked about magical illusion. The purpose was to show how easily one can be mislead by lack of information. Considering the rabbit out of the hat trick, once again. The audience member (observer) does not know whether or not the rabbit is in the hat until the rabbit is removed. (Assuming he does not know how the trick is performed and is innocent of the possibility of deception.) Using the mathematics of uncertainty he might write that the magical rabbit exists in a non materialized state somewhere between existing and non existing. A supposition of states. Nothing more can be known about it (from his perspective). When the rabbit is removed from the hat it becomes real to the observer. It becomes a part of his subjective experienced reality. So there is, according to his interpretation, decoherence of the supposition of states and the other possibility vanishes or continues on in a parallel universe.
This is building an interpretation based upon the -magic-or illusion caused by lack of information, rather than the underlying reality of the situation. There are no magic rabbits. They can not exist in a supposition of states. If the magician pulls out a rabbit it has previously been put into the hat or climbed in itself, even if it was not observed to do so. The whole trick depends upon lack of observation of the rabbit entering the hat. I am sorry to anyone reading this who was unaware of that. That imagined mathematical description of the rabbit out of the hat trick gives an unrealistic interpretation as, in my opinion, do similar QM descriptions. It is not so much illogical as naive,imo. In the nicest possible sense and only for the reason that I have tried to explain with the analogy above.
Dear Georgina,
I read what you wrote and I couldn't find anything that I disagreed with. I would have cut and pasted everything that you wrote, and posted your comments back to you to make my next point.
Quantum Mechanics is like a interplay between what is known and what is hidden, mysterious. This is just my fanciful opinion, but that which is hidden from view, becomes magical. It is this belief that allows me to penetrate very deeply into a comprehension of the physics. Please test me on this if you think I'm full of it. Any time you turn on the lights or take a measurement, the magic vanishes. I think that the intuition works this way as well. QM is perfectly adapted to the imagination.
Then what is reality?
Partly physical/logical/factual; another part is mysterious and exists as Bell's Theorem.
You said "That which is hidden from view becomes magical" It is not just being out of sight that matters but being unknown. If I take an object and place it just out of sight there is no magic. As I know that it is there, even though I can no longer see it. However the contents of the magician's hat are magical because they are completely unknown. He may pull out a bunch of flowers, an item from a member of the audience, anything that will fit into the hat. Even more than can possibly fit into a hat, as it can be refilled many times. The magic is in the unknown.
When the contents of the hat are known prior to them being revealed there is no magic. Now you know the rabbit is in the hat it is no longer a magic rabbit, it just an ordinary rabbit. Once the object has been revealed, an observation made, a measurement taken it is just an ordinary object again there is no magic. Not knowing how a trick is performed makes it magical. Once it is known it is ordinary reality again.
Can magic be considered real? It can feel real and when it is gone it feels as if something has been lost. So it is a kind of personal subjective reality and during a performance the same kind of experience can be shared by many people so it is an inter-subjective or verifiable subjective reality. However it is still just illusion... There is a lack of complete information from which to construct an accurate interpretation of the situation, so magic occurs. It is -not- the underlying reality however real it might seem. I think that some physicists need to bear this in mind. I do not think that mathematics can distinguish between illusion and concrete underlying reality, but an experienced human mind can.
Not only doesn't mathematics distinguish between illusion and concrete reality , it is incapable of learning. If a person has encountered many optical illusions, when presented with a new one, the mind, although it still produces the illusion, also provides the message "this is not the complete reality or this is an illusion."
If the illusion is modeled by mathematics it will always be the same no matter how many illusions are described. There is no cognition by the mathematics. The best that will be observed in the mathematics is that things that should be equal are not. As in special relativity. That is a clue, imo.
Hi Georgina,
I agree with everything you've said. If mathematics can't learn from being fooled, then perhaps fundamental particles are the same way. We might be able to fool quantum particles.
For example, photons redshift in a gravity field. Yet, I might be able to generate a frequency shifted photon using the right RF electronics. I might have to light up the phase angles. According to the Equivalence Principle, the photons I generate should result in an acceleration field.
If this were true, it might add weight to the idea that photons/light are directly responsible for causality and the four forces. If that were so, then the universe is an optical illusion.
Lawrence, Florin, William, All,
Mathematics will treat information that is available only as it has been designed to do. It can not make qualitative judgments about the information. In that respect it is naive, unintelligent and gullible. However advanced the mathematics is. Through learning, the cognitive functions of the mind can identify when there is a lack of complete information leading to deception of the mind. The deception, the con, the magical illusion, the optical illusion can be identified as such, even though it is not obvious. Then it is not treated as if it is just "ordinary" reality.
What one don't know is sometimes more important that what one knows. It is what isn't known that allows the -correct- interpretation to be made. Without acknowledging that component the interpretation will always be incorrect. It is also called taking things at face value. Accepting something because of the way it first looks or seems, without thinking about what else it could mean. (That note might be a worthless forgery.) In this respect Quantum physics is not so much illogical as naive, imo.
The two hemispheres work together to give us intelligence. The left hemisphere calculates with the available information. The right hemisphere brings information together for consideration. To compare and contrast. When some new information arrives it can be compared and contrasted with previous information, to identify similarity or compatibility. If previous deceptions have been correctly identified, new encounters will be scrutinized in order to identify whether or not the mind is being similarly deceived. Mathematics alone does not do this.
It seems almost bizarre that scientific advancement in physics has been largely delegated to the unintelligent, gullible mathematical process, (If the mathematics says so it must be true) and the comparative cognitive functions of the mind have been deemed as unreliable and irrelevant. There is another English saying. The fool and his money are easily parted.
Anonymous replied on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 19:55 GMT
Stick with math Florin, not philosophy.
Don Limuti (www.zenophysics.com) wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 01:35 GMT
"Dreams of a Final Theory" Vs. "The Dreams of Reason"
Steven Weinberg rails against philosophy, but then feels sympathy for string theory's lack of success because it has so much mathematical beauty.
I much prefer physicist Heinz Pagels take on the mix of science and philosophy in his book: The Dreams of Reason. The best of science and the best of philosophy in a readable form.
FAST FRED replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 18:50 GMT
Don, Physics and Philosophy by Sir James Jeans is superior to Weinberg's book.
The book is not outdated, and it is a classic exposition of the philosophical implications of scientific knowledge. Have you read it?
"There is no more eloquent, interesting or persuasive exposition of what may be called the science of philosophy than Sir James Jeans's." -- New York Times
I will check out the book you mentioned, thanks.
Don Limuti (www.zenophysics.com) replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 05:24 GMT
Thanks for the recommendation on Physics and Philosophy by Sir James Jeans
I have not read stronger reviews.
I will look forward to reading it.
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 02:34 GMT
Excellent subject! Much of my position is expressed in my essay on the limits of physics.
Truth: Truth is an absence of choice. A truth is the product of a truth system.There are many truth systems. So, a truth in our physical reality is not a truth in the underlying reality.
Philosophy: proceeds to answer question by choosing from contemporary material and knowledge. Proceeding by...
Philosophy: proceeds to answer question by choosing from contemporary material and knowledge. Proceeding by choice makes it a system of opinion, not a truth system. (One can't prove a truth i.e. an absence of choice by making choices….) These opinions are time stamped in that they pertain to a specific era.
Science: Starts from an absence of choice (impossibility) and proceed by finding the choice less consequences. Science is a collection of a few truth systems that in the end do not mix (e.g. QM & GR). Experiments are repeatable by anyone without a choice about the results, and the experimental part of science translates well through time. What changes is the models or metaphysical consequence we draw from those experimental results.
No matter how close we get to understand the underlying reality, we will always spoil it in order to make it testable in our reality. GR is such a bridge or hybrid concept that combines elements of our reality and what we know about the underlying reality. But it would be a mistake to interpret GR as the ultimate description of the underlying reality, i.e. what the universe is really about in itself. This is where a proper metaphysics, an ontology constructed as a truth system can produce actual knowledge. This ontology has to be based on an impossibility, must used what we have learned with science while removing entirely any observer contribution from it.
Philosophers: Early last century, feverish physicists, too busy with real physics, turned around and, feeling a deeper meaning to it, asked philosophers about what to make of GR and QM. Cautious philosophers, who had been shunned by science for the last 200 years got real excited, and decided to answer the question using a scientific approach… turning their backs on the very foundation of their discipline..
An illustrative tale: a dentist calls a plumber for work at his house. The plumber wants to impress this new client by starting to work on the plumbing with dentistry tools. The dentist is not impressed or amused and fires the plumber…
In retrospect. The strength of philosophy is its freedom. It is good for stepping back, asking questions, finding new angles but not for producing truths, which is a consequence of its freedom. Philosophy does not have the required structure of a truth system. Science is a collection of truth systems, each providing a special window into the underlying reality. All the views can't merge in our reality because they each originate form a different impossibility, theorized or proven, and what they have in common lies in the underlying reality as the actual subject matter. Each time science asks "why", the answers retrofitted for testing, always return a metric "how". The ultimate substance and cause belong to ontology. In the present context and attitude, what the universe is really about is totally out of the reach of science. Science can only say what the universe looks like and how it appears to work. It can never say what the universe IS, because to say what IS, belongs to ontology. As an empirical approach, science can never find out what the universe is by itself, without us in the picture, because in principle, we are part of the empirical picture.
Marcel,
I think that behind any statement in physics there is some kind of philosophical background. Thomas Kuhn speaks about paradigms. Changing the paradigm or the interpretation leads to a change in the direction of the research itself.
In quantum theory there is much room for interpretation, and the interpretation is like drawing a figure when solving geometry problems. The figure is not ideal, but it helps putting the thoughts in a frame, conferring them stability.
Even in general relativity there is room for interpretation. For example, we can view spacetime as static, eternal, or we can view it as dynamical. Some even are still trying to interpret it using the ether theory. We can view it as flat with non-euclidean distances, or as curved.
Interpretation is philosophy, it doesn't follow from science. It helps building an intuition of the phenomena, but it also limits the intuition. Therefore, knowing how to ask the right questions and working with multiple views are important.
To extend the notion of interpretation, various quantum interpretations such as Copenhagen, MWI, Bohm and so forth are more metaphysics than physics. They are attempts to "transduce" a complex valued system into something we can understand with our real valued perceptions and mental biases. There is of course a sort of nexus which compels these ideas, which is the reduction of states in a measurement.
However, these interpretations are not useless and various problems can be solved by invoking them. The problem comes when physicists try to take them as testable theories.
In the same vein philosophy can be of some value in framing questions. However, this is pretty tangential at best.
Jens Koeplinger wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 13:01 GMT
Interesting - "unreasonable ineffectiveness of philosophy" makes me wonder what goal it would be that cannot be achieved effectively, and subsequently, whether this goal is even aimed at by a philosopher. If one acknowledges a "working philosophy" as a useful tool already, then the perceived ineffectiveness appears similar to - say - pure mathematics when used for the description of observable nature. "Not my goal" says the pure mathematician and walks off. Prof Weinberg's philosophy as quoted above is very likable, "a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories" ... if indeterminate measurement outcomes from a quantum system are de-scoped from requiring an explanation. But when individual, objectively observable measurements are governed by random probabilities, can cause-and-effect be an ingredient in a fundamental theory? Surely, we don't know yet, and maybe it's unknowlable. But it is valuable to me to speculate about what could be, and different philosophies are providing some structure to the otherwise unbounded thought.
I can't accept what the sciences community implies so many confusions about our reality.
How some people can say these things about the pure School of Copenaghen.
Furthermore ,when some theories explain the higgs ,the god particles.
It's paradoxal .
It's really bizare.
Do you believe that quantum entanglement might permit the transmission of information faster than the speed of light?
Ray Munroe replied on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 20:28 GMT
Dear Jason,
You know that I am a fan of tachyons, and they should travel faster than the speed of light. But what does it mean for quantum entanglement to transmit information faster than the speed of light? Does that mean that the particle 'knows' its quantum numbers before we do? I'm tempted to say 'DUH'. Is it that obvious or not?
None of this is at all obvious. No "Duh"'s are necessary. Have you ever played with your chewing gum? Or stepped in it? I think quantum entanglement is exactly like that. For a pair of entangled electrons, there is something between them that is unconcerned with the speed of light velocity restriction for information. In my model, everything is implemented with photons (oscillating objects); you might prefer super-strings; either one will do.
Between the two entangled electrons, there exists a wave amplitude, vibrating object. That vibrating object transmits wave information instantaneously, without regard to the speed of light. Now, information is typically thought of as ones and zeroes, right? How many Fourier terms does it take to produce a distinguishable 0 or 1? Several. You might have to use large quantities of entangled pairs in order to transmit 1's and 0's with an acceptable bit error rate (BER).
I think the quantum numbers tell you about the available eigenstates. How does a house remember that it has a living room, two bedrooms, 2 baths and a garage? It doesn't. That's just the way the house was built. Same with quantum numbers.
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 10:43 GMT
It's indeed a limit which causes problems for the future interactions between mass.
It's possible indeed, but perhaps with a vue above our star system, here the sun.
Ps Jason,I think a lot about your ideas of discovery of our Universe.
And your spaceship.
Jason ...and if you consider the planet Earth as a space sphip.
In fact we turn always...perhaps our Earth can be a spaceship.
Ps 2 about the tachyon, it's few probable because we analyze them with our perceptible system due to our sun.....on the other side, if we pass the limit????
I know you like tachyons. I believe that photons include the speed of light and the fine structure constants as some of its characteristics. I think that virtual photons implement our laws of physics.
What if tachyons were really another kind of photon, with a different speed of light, that implemented some other some other laws of physics, and has exhibits different fine structure constants? They might not even interact with photons or electromagnetic fields at all.
Tachyons must have an imaginary mass. Therefore, they are not photon-like (zero mass). If a particle is one extreme of localized energy, then perhaps tachyons are the opposite extreme of non-localized energy. Do particles 'know' their quantum numbers by being in communication with hyperspace via tachyons and/ or via being in communication with spacetime via photons/ W's/ Z'z/ gluons/ gravitons?
In my book, I called the Grand Unified Mediating boson a GUM boson, so that I could make the play on words that "The Universe is held together with Strings and GUM (bosons)".
Strings and GUM? Eeek!
Localized versus non localized energy? Cool idea.
"Tachyons must have an imaginary mass." Can this imaginary mass be zero? Can you help me understand the argument that says that tachyons have to have a non-zero imaginary mass, as opposed to a zero imaginary mass, which is more like a photon?
Back when neutrinos were assumed to have zero mass (the early '90's and before), they were also assumed to travel at the speed of light (not faster). Now we assume that neutrinos must have tiny positive masses to be consistent with the PMNS neutrino mixing matrix. Thus, neutrinos should travel *SLIGHTLY* slower than the speed of light.
I don't have a problem with a "tachyonic neutrino" in the sense that it has a tiny imaginary mass. In fact, I think these tachyons may be part of the origin of mass, and thus, have masses of comparable magnitude as the observed particles, but imaginary.
If you play with Einstein's Special Relativity equations, you will see that zero masses should travel at the speed of light, positive masses should travel slower than the speed of light (and tend toward c for infinite energies), and imaginary masses should travel faster than the speed of light (and also tend toward c for infinite energies).
I honestly think that virtual photons implement space-time. Consider this, a photon ALWAYS moves at the speed of light, c. How is this possible? When light transitions from one reference fram to another, here is what happens:
In other words, when light moves from one inertial frame to the next, the wavelength and frequency will always change is such a way as to insure that the speed of light is always c. But guess what,
if the frequency changes, then time dilation is occuring; and
if the wavelength changes, then length contraction is occuring.
If this is true, then the photon has to be, somehow, implementing space-time and the laws of physics.
If this is true, then a photon with different constants can implement another space-time; perhaps even a coexisting space-time.
If a coexisting hyperspace is to exist, then it is being implemented with a "hyper-photon" that is similar to a photon, with the exception that its inherent constant (c, h, etc.) are different.
I'm not sure if a tachyon is required to interface between two space-times.
If virtual photons are implementing space-time, then they will have the Lorentz transformation already built into their nature. They will radiate outwards in three spatial dimensions, but the "fourth dimension" is not a true dimension. Instead, this -ct gives photons the ability to regulate the flow of time to insure that the speed of light is ALWAYS c.
Since virtual photons are also responsible for the laws of motion, they cause 3D space, the flow of time, and motion to occur.
Without photons, there is nothingness. There is no universe. In fact, the laws of physics will not exist either. The photon manifests all of these.
Jelle U. Hielkema wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 14:30 GMT
Most interesting discussion which shows that in the some 400 years since Newton, Galileo and Spinoza humankind seems to only have divided itself on 'key questions' and therefore regressed, resulting in 'this our poor world'!
Those interested in my findings in this regard may wish to take a look at
the attached 'current manuscript' which was published as a book earlier in March this year and can be found at Amazon.
To my mind this material shows beyond a shadow of a doubt thatt Philosophy, Science and Art can have agreat deal of 'mutual support' and as such clarify 'what in why things happen in our part of the Universe.
For 'transparency sake' I attch a copy of my summary CV.
Regards from Rome
Jelle U. Hielkema
[manuscript file updated 6th Sept. 2010 at the author's request - eds.]
attachments: Dealism21Current_Manuscript.doc, CV_Jelle_U._Hielkema.doc
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
Hi Jelle. I read some of what you provided. Most interesting. Thanks.
That experience comes in threes is interesting:
1) man, woman, child
2) Three dimensions
3) past, present, future
4) electromagnetism/light, gravity, quantum phenomena
5) emotion, feeling, thought
......ETC., ETC.
What do you think of the following please:
The structure and form of thought is generally reflected in the structure of experience, and this is ultimately reflected in the laws/forces of physics and in dreams.
This also reveals the limits of physics, as the ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.
The self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of the totality of experience (and forces/laws of physics). The known mathematical unification of gravity and electromagnetism proves this.
The dream is GENERALLY incorporating quantum mechanical phenomena as well, in keeping with the union of gravity and electromagnetism/light.
As DiMeglio says: Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general.
And, to quote Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: "Thoughts are relatively shifting and variable. Accordingly, dream vision is relatively shifting and variable. Therefore, the quantum mechanical nature of both thought and dream vision is quite apparent. Indeed, the unpredictable and random aspects of quantum phenomena are clearly evident in dreams. The dynamic nature of quantum energy/entities is also apparent in dreams. (Light is known to be quantum mechanical in nature.)"
"The dream represents the underlying and fundamental process/manifestation by which the totality of experience is attained to and known/understood at its deepest level."
thank you. I have taken a look at your attached paper.I have not read the entirety of it. I do not believe in numerology, though I do think that numbers have their part to play in the world. You do include a lot of beautiful and interesting philosophical quotes from throughout history. I particularly like the ideas of Heraclitus. He was a very wise man.
Quoting from Dealism 21, You said "Maybe it is indeed time to reverse the "Tower of Babel"of currently some 6000 languages and establish a universally adopted cosmic language, based on the natural vibrations of all things, using the English language as its instrument of communication, a lingua franca. In addition to every person's natural mother tongue this may well fill this requirement in a highly sensible way and moreover not difficult to learn and master."
The English language is not easy. It has evolved over time, in part by incorporation of different languages, brought by foreign invaders and occupiers of the British Isles. It has led to a very rich and diverse language with multiple terms for the same or subtly different things with different linguistic roots. It has led to a language with spelling that is puzzling to many native speakers and very difficult for those learning English as a second language. It allows diverse means of expression and reflects the cultural history of the language but is also not straightforward to learn.
When English is used alongside other languages it is sometimes difficult to sustain the other languages, as the fall out of use. The Welsh language was in danger of being lost prior to the concerted effort to keep in alive in wales and the Maori language in NZ is in a similar predicament. The native languages themselves can be seen as a cultural treasure and identity, not something to be replaced by common English. The question then becomes how do you stop people using English and encourage them to use the native language instead.
Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Aug. 6, 2010 @ 10:25 GMT
As there is no 2 without a 3 -at least in Italy- and to answer Fast Fred's 'trinity argument' herewith another quotation from Chapetr 9:
At the Millennium changeover a few years ago humanity spent considerable energy and resources to overcome the global fear of the Y2K bug and entered the 3rd Millennium. Undoubtedly this inspired new hopes for our common future, only to be rather shattered 21 months later. On the basis of what we see and hear around us in recent years, it seems that there is a deeply perceived need for a radically new approach to counteracting drifting individualism, the ever-increasing mindless and certainly soulless quest for 'money'' and 'power', that champion '22' and the highly frustrating and contradictory '28', same as 'military-industrial complex' and 'financial' and the dominance of 'technology', the highly conflictuous '43'. This radical change requirement has only been exacerbated by recent global events and repetitively underlined in order to better the human condition in the natural world in the much-revered 21st Century. After all, 2+1 = 3; this is called the number of the Mind. In ancient geometry it is linked to the triangle, the symbol of logic, intellect and reason. In the number account of creation, God, i.e. Nature, is believed to have called upon the power of 3 to give consciousness to his creations on Earth."
And I say no more!
The Lightbringer wrote on Aug. 5, 2010 @ 22:57 GMT
Why philosophy is critical to physics -- Fast Fred's above post proves this.
Also, time marches in step with space. Dreams occur during one sixth of our lives because there are six dimensions/directions which involve/comprise the structure of dream space/experience. This is due to the compressed/energetic nature of dreams, whereby each of the three spatial dimensions is basically halved. This reduces the one third time (spent sleeping) by a further half (for dreams). This relates to the proportionate reduction of gravitational feeling and thought in dreams. From two comes one. Think! The child at the center of the body.
The integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought go hand in hand in and with time. Accordingly, we spend less time sleeping (sleeping includes dreaming) than waking. From two comes another (one third increase).
The proportionate reduction of thought, emotion, and feeling in dreams -- coupled with what is the emotion-centered experience therein -- accounts for the one third of time spent sleeping.
You all didn't even know what physics was (regarding its applicability/manifestations/involvement) until DiMeglio taught you better.
Many thanks for your thoughtful comments and you all make valid points which in my opinion warrant some further 'systematic' investigation! If you contact me at
dealism21@gmail.com I can let you have a powerpoint -too big for this blog- which nicely demonstrates the relationship between numbers and Nature.
For now in answwer to various points made two further...
For now in answwer to various points made two further quotations from my book to underline my 'observations and findings':
"There are a number of advantages in this spelling change of that key word 'IDEALISM' under which people often 'sell' and 'buy' the funniest things to and from each other. First of all, the cosmic vibration, as well as that of DEALIST, would change from that blinding, damaging and full of mistakes and moreover fateful '22' to the blessed and universal '21'.That would be, as you may have been able to deduct from the above, a major improvement and would land it in very good company, such as, among others, love, truth, human, sense, good, pure and ethics.
Furthermore, as the word Dealism itself indicates, it suggests a link to the Deities which could serve the purpose of maybe better understanding and accepting our proper place in the god-given, i.e. natural scheme of things. Thirdly, it can be considered, as it does not exist yet, as something completely new which always has the potential of having a spiriting effect, like the 'New Deal', launched by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930's in response to thàt economic crisis, had in most amazing ways on the entire American nation, and the world for that matter, in a very difficult time with very little hope for the future. And Roosevelt had essentially only the radio as a means of communication!
Dealism, and its related offshoot, if introduced in the right way, using currently available mass-communication technologies at various levels, through the awesome communication power of the internet, schools, institutions of higher education, social and cultural as well as personal and business networks and, very much so, the beleaguered United Nations system, may well have the potential of achieving that radically different way of thinking that Albert Einstein was referring to. A kind of, unlike in his case, fairly easily achievable philosophical-socio-economic-scientific-technological-enviro
nmental-religious-political, for short all-in 'Unified Field Theory'. 'Father Albert' tried to achieve this but did not manage to put it together in the area of Physics in his lifetime."
"On the basis of the evidence presented above we could be 'Moving towards a Reality based Future', a '27' by no chance in which 'Oneness', the '6/33', will be the 'Central Principle', one of the '5/32's' referred to early on in Chapter Three. If we bear in mind, speaking of vibrations, that the expression 'Resonance of Form'' contains both a '27', The Sceptre, a '15' 'The Magician'' and a '21' 'The Universe', jointly constituting again a '27', the point seems to have been made. The first sentence of Chapter One of this short treatise 'As all Life is One, the World should come together as One' has the same cosmic vibration as both the word 'Resonance'' as well as 'Resonance of Form'', i.e. the '27', 'The Sceptre'. And moreover, this has the same vibration as the sentence 'It is Time for this Nonsense to be called to a halt''!
Lastly I attach an article by David Brooks in the Herald Tribune of Febraury 2006 but more true than ever!!!!
Cheers from the Eternal City.
attachments: CULTURE.doc
Jason, "Electromagnetism establishes distance in space apart from our [natural] motion." -- Per DiMeglio.
You had said: "Without photons, there is nothingness. There is no universe. In fact, the laws of physics will not exist either. The photon manifests all of these."
Gravity may be reduced, and yet distance in space may remain as great -- as long as a relative immobilization, inertia, brightness, and energy compensate.
In other words, increased gravity increases distance in space (from the eye). However, lesser/no gravity increases distance in space as well (as in outer space). The key is to offset the decreased gravity with increased energy/inertia/immobilization -- this happens in dreams, the semi-immobilized state therein balances and unifies gravity and electromagnetism.
Distance in space becomes a function of balanced repulsion and attraction as feeling/energy is consistently experienced at the gravitational mid-range of feeling in dreams. Accordingly, emotion, gravity, touch/tactile experience AND vision all manifest in conjunction with this balanced mid-range of feeling. This balances distance in space as it is seen electromagnetically AND felt gravitationally.
Also see: http://radicalacademy.com/studentrefphilfmd13.htm
A majority of the problems in this world can be traced back to one source:
the speed of light is too darn slow.
As a result, it takes too much energy to move anything. This causes poverty.
If the speed of light could be symbolized as information processing speed, the physical universe would be a SLOW computer that you had to sit and wait forever for it to get anything accomplished.
The solution is not to time travel to the past, which is like reloading the same computer game.
The solution is to buy a faster computer. Let's look for a universe with a faster speed of light. At least 2c, but preferably 10c or better.
FTL yields time travel IS NOT a fact; it is an interpretation.
It is an incorrect interpretation.
as we have evolved in this universe with this speed of light, going into a new environment with faster light speed would mess up our sensory perception. Everything would seem closer than with normal light speed.
Wear glasses.
There is refraction through glass which can give a slower measured light speed but I don't think thats going to be enough with the extreme differences you are talking about. They will have to be very special glasses and you are just the man to invent them!
The human mind is very malleable. Perhaps in time it will adapt. Though prior to that I can imagine a really freaky claustrophobic illusion of reality. It wouldn't be safe to walk about.
The speed of light is still c between the glass molecules. However, absorption and re-emission take some time. At the atomic level, light still moves at c between atoms/electrons.
I think that the laws of physics, and in fact everything, are being implemented by photons (virtual/real). The laws of physics are built into the photon; the photon just manifests the physics.
Don't be surprised if there are hyper-photons that exist everywhere in space, that implement there own laws of physics.
Just want to add this 'coincidence' as she said it herself two days ago. The Ancients claim that the name GEORGINA PARRY is equivalent to her 'admission' "Numbers have a role to play" and carries the name "Communication and one of the key 'players' in my book. Moreover the name GEORGINA is a '27' called "The Sceptre", another 'key quantity' so I tend to believe what Georgina said and have included her statement in my 'current manuscript'. Thanks Georgina!
http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Theory-Dealism-U
nderstanding-Humanity/dp/1434906752
My words have been take out of context as I did also say "I do not believe in numerology..." Having made that clear, thank you for your flattering numerological appraisal.
Pleasure Georgina and there's more as the name PARRY equives to the word SUN, spelled interestingly enough in numbers as 365!
Keep up your non-belief in numerology, which indeed is a 'cult science' badly damaged by humanity but leave space for Numbers, for example by consulting this absolutely beautiful "Statement of Proof".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkGeOWYOFoA
Say no more once more!
I don't see anything wrong with numerology. It's like soduko for the creative mind. In a quantumly entangled universe, numerology opens doors to greater realities.
The distribution of primes inside a finite evolutive sphere....helps for the good number and the numbers of superimposings.
Even the oscillations are .....
Speaking of primes, here is another quite amazing example of how Mother Nature has 'organized things' and keeps them 'hanging together':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulam_spiral
Hi Jelle. Do you agree that when examining dreams and waking experience the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of the totality of experience by combining unconscious and conscious experience? In this way, our growth and our becoming other than we are allowed/accounted for, correct? The Philosopher Plotinus says that nature contemplates. (The dream is a natural experience.)
LightBringer,
Can't help you much on that I think but do believe that in our sleeping self our 'societal box' -by no a formidable straightjacket like a medieval harness made of coins!!!- sets us 'free' -the extent is debatable- and we are allowed to assume our true natural self for a while and, indeed, maybe grow this way.
All I can say.
The Lightbringer replied on Aug. 8, 2010 @ 21:00 GMT
Jelle, being, expereince, and thought are more the same in dreams.
LB,
Very much agree with that and JUST BEING happens to be the lead character, the '21', a '3' in my book.
I should also like to respond to James Putnam's Einstein comment with the question as to what 'Father Albert' meant by this:
'IF HUMANKIND WANTS TO SURVIVE, IT HAS TO ADOPT
A RADICALLY DIFFERENT WAY OF THINKING'
The Lightbringer replied on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 00:54 GMT
Hi Jelle. Dreams also add to the integrated extensiveness of being, experience, thought, gravity, and electromagnetism/light. Dreams unify gravity and electromagnetism.
James Putnam replied on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 01:27 GMT
Hi Jelle U. Hielkema,
"I should also like to respond to James Putnam's Einstein comment with the question as to what 'Father Albert' meant by this:
A RADICALLY DIFFERENT WAY OF THINKING'"
I just found your message. I have been off the Internet for three weeks. I do not know what message of mine you are referring to; however, with regard to the Einstein quote you gave above:
My opinion is that Einstein was saying that he believed in his ideas. He had a very high degree of confidence that they must be correct. Since his ideas did not make sense, I think he was saying that: We must look to ideas that do not make sense to us in order to understand the nature of the universe. My opinion is that he fouled things up but good. I think his theory is clearly wrong. I think that basing science on unprovable properties opens up the field to other ideas that do not make sense. The field is now wide open for theoretical speculations. My opinion is that speculation, based upon unprovable properties, has become the engine of theoretical physics.
Thanks for your reaction and I was responding to to your comment to William Orem of 9 August. To follow up some more on what you said I would like to send you a 'clarifying document' of what I mean. Where do I do that as it is slightly too big for this blog.
James A Putnam replied on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 03:53 GMT
I have great appreciation for the opportunity that fqxi.org has made available to us, I prefer, so that others here may read your information, that you post your response here in the blog section using more than one message and connecting them by referring each following message, in your first sentence, back to a previously posted message. However, fqxi.org does provide for links to other sources to be posted in messages, although they may not be direct links. The instructions are at Posting Links.
Referring to my previous post regarding posting links, leave off the http://
For example, my website is http://newphysicstheory.com. If I wish to provide a link to it I must refer to its name as newphysicstheory.com without the http:// part. For example the link My Website which I actually type as left-bracketlink:newphyscistheory.comright-bracketMy Websiteleft-bracket/linkright-bracket. My referrences to Left-bracket and right-bracket refer to the symbols [ and ] respectively.
I received your email and attachments. I hadn't read all your messages here so, it was not clear to me that you promote numerology. It still is not clear to me why you asked:
'IF HUMANKIND WANTS TO SURVIVE, IT HAS TO ADOPT
A RADICALLY DIFFERENT WAY OF THINKING' "
Is it your point that the radically different way of thinking is numerology?
I assume that you responded to my message directed to William Orem because I specifically mentioned numbers. My point was that the numbers do not verify our interpretations. We observe patterns in changes of velocity of objects and record those patterns by mathematical representations that are basically a variety of shortcuts to replace counting. In other words, the numbers represent counting things. The numbers are not the things. The things are whatever we interpret them to be. Our interpretations may be correct or incorrect. The numbers cannot make clear which is the case.
I am not familiar with numerology. I assume from your writings that you accept that the numbers can and do make reality known to us. In other words, the numbers, to numerologists, represent understanding that goes far beyond counting things. If my representation here is correct, then, I must admit that I do not see what you see. In your writings and even with your author's name you represent everything, including yourself with numbers. I do not understand this approach to achieving understanding.
Anonymous wrote on Aug. 7, 2010 @ 20:24 GMT
Correction/addition --- In this way, our growth and our becoming other than we are are allowed/accounted for, correct?
I was watching a really interesting movie called: The Phoenix Lights, Beyond Top Secret.
Apparently the "V" shaped object with lights on it is about a mile wide. It doesn't fit the description of flares. The lights are attached. What is interesting is that this object has flown across Arizona about 6 or 7 times over a period of several years.
There were other accounts of air force personnel who witnessed bright balls at an air force base:
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm
A UFO shot down an intercontinental ballistic missile. Other missiles silos were shut down while security officers were reporting strange red objects hovering above.
I had been thinking that UFO people were usually a bunch of idiots that could look at a piece of dust and think it was an alien spaceship. There really are some stupid people out there. However, Colonel Charles Halt, Sgt. Jim Penniston and Robert Jacobs come across as competent.
My opinion is that these are not alien spaceships capable of transporting humanoids. They're more like probes or organo-optical devices controlled by some "intelligence". They're signaling or advertising devices being used to subtlety hint that they're open to communication. It's like they're saying: "Look here! Look at me! I can do things you can't! Look at the light!"
About 80% of the UFO reports out there can be debunked as nonsense. But there is another 20% that is hard to explain.
I also found out that UFO's were seen during WWII. They were called FOO fighters. More balls of light and some saucers.
Anyway, it looks like were not alone. However, we should all cling to our paranoid paradigms anyway. By the way, I don't think they're using radio waves or else SETI would have discovered them.
Since these gentlemen were very credible, Colonel Charles Halt, Sgt. Jim Penniston and Robert Jacobs, I predict that the media and/or government will attack there credibility. They'll put out reports that these men beat there wives and use hallucinogens. The paradigm has to be protected, you know. We need to be able to stick our heads in the sand, right?
James Putnam wrote on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 00:52 GMT
William Orem
From your blog: "So far, every indication is that Einstein was absolutely right. Not "influential," not "challenging us to see things in a new way," - just right. We don't have to construct those odd sentences around him that we do around pure philosophers, such as "For Einstein, length measurements are relative to the observer's reference frame," or "In Einstein's view, gravity is the result of four-dimensional spacetime curvature." These aren't positions in Einstein's systematic philosophy of Being: they are something far more profound. They are true."
Would you please expound more upon why your above quote separates theoretical physics from philosophical musings? Is it the numbers that work out correctly that raises theoretical physics above philosophy? Does "So far, every indication is that Einstein was absolutely right." hold true even if unity has not been achieved? What is your perspective about the nature of energy? Is the idea of energy the idea that makes philosophy unecessary? Why is energy not a philosophical speculation? If there is not a single idea, such as energy, that suffices to separate musings from truth, then are there multiple fundamentally separate ideas that do it? Can disunity be physical truth? How would one show that interpretations are truth so long as those interpretations are applied to equations for which the numbers work out correctly, insofar as empirical evidence informs us?
Repeating: "For Einstein, length measurements are relative to the observer's reference frame," or "In Einstein's view, gravity is the result of four-dimensional spacetime curvature." These aren't positions in Einstein's systematic philosophy of Being:..."
Why aren't they positions in Einstein's systematic philosophy...(His choice of belief about the fundamental nature of the universe)? Is it the numbers that keep his view truth? Is it your position that Einstein was "absolutely" correct about the invisible, untestable idea of space-time? If so, how do you know this? Is it the numbers that make his interpretations a certainty?
Repeating: "We don't have to construct those odd sentences around him that we do around pure philosophers,..."
Is this because you personally chose to believe it or can you say more to prove it beyond a belief system? I am looking for input that applies to the interpretations of properties and not to the numbers. The numbers are fine, but, what are the properties and how do we know this?
Lastly, the first name, among philosophers, that you mentioned was Augustine. Have you read his book titled 'Concerning The Teacher'?
Because I would be surprised if William responds, and because you and I have already been over the difference between science and philosophy about a dozen times, and because you still insist that philosophy supersedes science in some way, I would consider it a privilege to answer those questions for you again:
"Is it the numbers that work out correctly that raises theoretical physics above philosophy? Does "So far, every indication is that Einstein was absolutely right." hold true even if unity has not been achieved?"
In the first place, do you think the Pythagorean Theorem is true? If logic means as much to you as you say, then the extension to four dimensional Riemannian geometry follows smoothly. In the second place, "unity" _has_ been achieved with general relativity -- the theory is mathematically complete; i.e., from first principles, the theory predicts phenomena that are experimentally verified in the classical domain to which relativity applies.
"What is your perspective about the nature of energy? Is the idea of energy the idea that makes philosophy unecessary?"
Unless energy is supernatural, the idea of it surely does make philosophy unnnecesary. If it is supernatural, it is beyond the range of scientific theory.
"Why is energy not a philosophical speculation? If there is not a single idea, such as energy, that suffices to separate musings from truth, then are there multiple fundamentally separate ideas that do it? Can disunity be physical truth?"
Disunity (discontinuity) _is_ physical "truth." That's the difference between continuous function classical physics and quantum physics. That's why all the bother to try and unify them with quantum gravity, into a single theory.
"How would one show that interpretations are truth so long as those interpretations are applied to equations for which the numbers work out correctly, insofar as empirical evidence informs us?"
The abundant physical evidence for relatiivty that William referred to is easily accessible. The numbers work out correctly, because they are in principle the same numbers by which the Pythagorean Theorem is deemed proven.
Disproving the Pythagorean Theorem should keep you occupied for a while.
James Putnam replied on Aug. 9, 2010 @ 17:09 GMT
I know that you are a believer. I do not agree with your philosophical ideas about what constitutes science. I will wait to respond to your message because I want to keep my message to William Orem the focus. If he chooses to not respond that is his perogative. I will find that out from him and not you. Lets see what transpires.
If you're still not convinced of the important relation between the numbers and the science, try this attached article by Yvon Gauthier. IMO, it's a superior survey of the topic, and an outstanding tribute to Weyl, whose contributions toward the unity of science and mathematics are often underrated. A sample:
"A truly realistic mathematics should be conceived in line with physics, as a branch of the theoretical construction of the one real world, and should adopt the same sober and cautioned attitude toward hypothetic extensions of its foundations as is exhibited by physics." ~ H. Weyl, Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science, 1949.
Weyl on Minkowski/Riemann
Just where do you see my personal belief impinging on the science (very familiar science, BTW, with GR a very mature theory)?
Sorry the link doesn't work. Try:
www.philo.umontreal.ca/.../HermannWeylonMinkowskianspace
-timeandRiemanniangeometry.pdf]Weyl
I'm an idiot. Correcting typo:
www.philo.umontreal.ca/.../HermannWeylonMinkowskianspac
e-timeandRiemanniangeometry.pdf
I just can't make the link work. A lot of the web world is still a mystery to me. Anyway, google Gauthier Weyl Riemann and you'll find a free PDF download.
"So far, every indication is that Einstein was absolutely right. Not "influential," not "challenging us to see things in a new way," - just right."
Just one question this time. Is there a difference between saying that:
Putting the correct numbers into Einstein's equations and receiving the correct numbers as solutions proves that his interpretations of the properties involved are correct?
Putting the correct numbers into Einstein's equations and receiving the correct numbers as solutions proves that his equations, devoid of his interpretations of the properties involved, accurately micmic the patterns observed in empirical evidence?
A question for you:
Quoting you from your message at the top to William Orem:
"Weinberg's _Dreams of a Final Theory_ is one of my personal favorites, and I am among those who think that it's a good thing that we are seeing the twilight of philosophy.
In this forum every day, you will find numerous respondents who _do_ believe that Einstein's results are " ......
In this forum every day, you will find numerous respondents who _do_ believe that Einstein's results are " ... positions in Einstein's systematic philosophy of Being". It becomes tedious to correct those misconceptions and the false conclusions that arise from them. No amount of citing and reciting facts, experimental results, mathematical models and the like will dissuade the believer."
Ok, so you believe that: "...No amount of citing and reciting facts, experimental results, mathematical models and the like will dissuade the believer." Since you are probably correct that William Orem will not bother to respond to my questions, I invite you to respond, I will in kind respond to your earlier detailed response, to my previous message to Mr. Orem:
[ "So far, every indication is that Einstein was absolutely right. Not "influential," not "challenging us to see things in a new way," - just right."
Putting the correct numbers into Einstein's equations and receiving the correct numbers as solutions proves that his equations, devoid of his interpretations of the properties involved, accurately micmic the patterns observed in empirical evidence? ]
To you Tom in particular: Do results, in the form of correct numbers, verify the interpretations placed upon the properties that the theorist thinks might exist?
I have said that I know you are a believer. I assume that you think that your own quote above, about dissuading believers, does not apply to you and what you believe? let me clarify that: My first question above to Mr. Orem is one that might help to clarify who is the 'believer'? Real philosophy attempts to distinguish between believers and knowers. Theoretical physicists are most often not real philosophers. I say they are typically believers.
Yes, they and you have the numbers, but, you also have the pretense to put yourselves forward as knowers about things that you do not know. For example: What is any single cause? I am not asking for the name only. Also, I am not asking for the numbers only. I am asking for the physical evidence of any cause. Just to make clear: I am not asking for the physical evidence of effects. We all know that they are what we observe. I am asking what it is that makes a cause known to you by its own nature? If the cause exists by its own nature even before affecting effects, then surely today's 'facts', you pointed to them above in the effort to prove that you understand how to do this, include the basis for 'knowing' a cause?
You have said some things that caused me to believe that you may not be interested in explaining cause. I have gotten the impression that you might feel comfortable with theoretical causes that appear to you to be compatible in equations that correctly transform initial conditions into final condtions. In other words, it is the initial conditions and final conditions that really matter. The added on information is not crucial to science. If an asserted cause appears to fit with effects, that is good enough. If I am incorrect in representing your view, then please make your view clear.
T H Ray replied on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 10:17 GMT
James, it doesn't require personal belief to correlate measurement standards with physical theory.
I respect your desire to know what "is" is. Don't expect to find it in science.
"James, it doesn't require personal belief to correlate measurement standards with physical theory."
Of course it does. Come on now. You do not know what cause is. Physics theory is fundamentally the practice of substituting personal belief ideas about what cause may be assuming that those personal beliefs are correct. In other words, the fundamentals are not truly represented by the nature of cause. The fundamentals are represented by the personal beliefs about what causes may be compatible with those personal beliefs.
"I respect your desire to know what "is" is. Don't expect to find it in science."
You keep substituting the word science when we are talking about theoretical physics. Switching words is artful dodging. Theoretical physics is not science (The state of knowing, and knowledge as opposed to belief.), it is a guessing game.
It is true that the game is played by those who know the most about effects. However, they do not know what cause is. The guesses have piled up and the theorists have become experts at attempting to patch all the guess work together. They can't do it. The errors have simply piled up deeper and deeper.
Theoretical physics is the professional's best efforts of guessing about what cause may be. When the professionals believe that the universe is fundamentally dumb and consists fundamentally of the ability to simply push and pull and disect or join together, then their work offers us only a mechanic's view of a universe.
This universe that has given birth to intelligent life is clearly far beyond being simply mechanical. Since all effects are the result of properties that existed from the beginning of the universe, the fundamentals must include the means to develop life and intelligence. Theoretical physics is devoid of life and intelligence in any form simple or otherwise.
Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 02:27 GMT
You said: "Theoretical physics is not science (The state of knowing, and knowledge as opposed to belief.), it is a guessing game. "
You're darn right it's a guessing game. It's a really fun guessing game. It's the ultimate puzzle. If you solve it, you get to discover what technologies are really possible.
I think that being on the outside makes the chances of solving the puzzle very small. However, I also am certain that since many of those on the inside cannot see that it began as and still is a guessing game, there remains the opportunity for anyone to solve or stumble on real answers. You have your approach and I have mine and many others have theirs. I think I have already learned the correct answers to the questions that I raise. However, until theoretical physicists agree, it does not matter what I think. Maybe my work is wrong. Maybe yours or someone else's is correct. What matters in the end is that someone gets us free from the errors of theoretical physics.
Speaking directly to you, I think that it is possible to come up with better mechanical solutions than those offerred by theoretical physics. I think that is what you are working on. However, in order to rise above a mechanic's understanding of the universe, someone has to finally connect their ideas, in a believable way, to life and intelligence. The word 'inferred' has been used before by Dr. Crowell. The winner will not need that word.
When you say that intelligence needs to be part of the final "Explanation", I would say: becareful what you asked for, you may get it. What do quantum entanglement and networks have in common? What do networks and brains have in common?
You keep mentioning mass as being important. I'm starting to look again at the Higgs field. While talking with Ray, he brought up the idea of holes; solid state physics/crystals talk about electrons and holes. The same idea might work for space-time itself. I'm looking at whether or not the Higgs field might be causing space-time to exist. If we created a hole in the Higgs fields, we might be able to ... well, I'll talk more about it later.
James, Wlliam and Superman,
Responding to this in a post from James:
"Why aren't they positions in Einstein's systematic philosophy...(His choice of belief about the fundamental nature of the universe)? Is it the numbers that keep his view truth? Is it your position that Einstein was "absolutely" correct about the invisible, untestable idea of space-time? If so, how do you know this? Is it the numbers that make his interpretations a certainty?"
Alebert Einstein postulated once very seriously:
and furthermore these key statements of 'recognized luminaries' seem to underscore his thinking:
* "Mathematics is the queen of the sciences and number theory is the queen of mathematics." — Gauss[5]
* "God invented the integers; all else is the work of man." — Kronecker[6]
* "Number is the within of all things." — Attributed to Pythagoras[7]
Why di Philosophy and Physics in the face of these 'beliefs based on experience and bservations' lead there separate lifes until they both sort of 'ground to a halt' and lost themselves in 'bickering about futile details'. Part of the answer to my mind is definitely "Because politics came into being and is by its nature divisive: 'Divide and Rule'"!
Religions played its own murky role in this of course and 'fuelled' the division considerably more by intoducing "The fear of God" and boy has that worked!
Anyway the modern God's are still there and Frank Martin diMeglio seems to be one of them. Problem with the humanly induced God's is that they just talk -and sometimes convincingly cleverly too- but Nature on the other hand doesn't talk but just DOES 'this that ànd the other' and humankind can only follow!
IF HUMANKIND WANTS TO SURVIVE, IT HAS TO ADOPT
Indeed indeed...that's why I will create an International Humanistic Sciences Center focus on global priorities....the intelligence is the sister of the consciousness and the brother of the harmonious evolution.....it's simple, work alone or work together, all is there above the differences, the weapons, the frontiers, the monney.....The solutions exist, the united of faith,universal,and rational systems can create a harmony between animals and vegetals, it's essentiazl and even ESSENTIAL.
United...sciences...ecology....harmony...we have the solutions....you know dear Jelle, I have in,vented many inoovant and news systems ,for example a sphere of composting with CH4 ,or powder for soils, or acceleration of multiplication of plants or news eoliens,I have even a machine with pulleys and turbins ,mgh becomes so weak dear jelle but 1/2mv² is so big .....in fact I have many agricultural, ecological, energetical,sociological,......inventions.I just want help ,.....and I beleive alone we are nothing in fact.It's only simple that this I think humbly.If people who wants sincerely changing this sad planet shall be united ...of course the solutions shall be more quick to implant.
This sciences center will not be there to cause problems about politic, no just with humanity and sciences.It's more quiet ....
ps the Universe is a beautiful sphere in optimization.
ps2 all are welcome for this center,the united is important, if not it will be not possible.
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 15:47 GMT
Steve said: "IF HUMANKIND WANTS TO SURVIVE, IT HAS TO ADOPT A RADICALLY DIFFERENT WAY OF THINKING"
How about getting the physics community to Seek the TRUTH. Physicists and skeptics hate the word TRUTH. That's why they're stuck. That's why they're BLIND.
"When you say that intelligence needs to be part of the final "Explanation", I would say: becareful what you asked for, you may get it. What do quantum entanglement and networks have in common? What do networks and brains have in common?"
I have no problem with someone else explaining the nature of the universe. However, while intelligence is an inescable part of the universe and experimental physics may encounter evidences of it, theoretical physics thumbs its nose at any possible link with this most natural property of intelligence. Anyway, what is your point with regard to "What do quantum entanglement and networks have in common? What do networks and brains have in common?" I need it spelled out so that I may get your meaning right.
While it is the case that I do not know as much as many others, it is also the case that artificial this or that does not go passed me. What part does reality represent in your message? This is not a judgemental message or a refutation. I am simply asking for more information.
I think we can all agree that intelligence appears to come from the brain (as opposed to the elbow, stomach or behind). The brain is a very complex neural network. My point here is that neural networks are a stepping stone from computer processing to artificial intellgence to real intelligence. With networks and the brain, you have nodes (neuron) with wires (axon) running from everywhere to everywhere in massive parallel processing.
Quantum entanglement, as well as wave functions, are starting to look like wave-guids for photons. If the universe really is massively quantumly entangled, then it would be similar to a network, and even a brain. At this point, we transition from science to metaphysics.
My first reactiuon is: Of course the universe operates like a brain! It operates like a brain and far more! The difference between the brain and the universe is that the brain is looking for understanding about the information of patterns in changes of velocity that are storming at it at the speed of light. The universe has to have already developed the brain in a form ready to have access to that understanding. The universe had to have provided the ability for the brain to understand meaning. That ability can only come a source of equal or greater understanding.
I have repeatedly put forward the situation where the human brain must make sense of a mixed storm of photons carrying only incremental information about changes of velocity of an extreme multitude of particles. Obviously, photon information has to carry more intelligent information, and, the brain has to have the incredible ability to perceive meaning far beyond the artificial base level perspective offerred by mechanical theory.
Understanding the universe is far beyond the capabilities of theoretical physics and of theoretical physicists of today. I think that ideas about mechanical possibilities available in this universe should be well supplanted and integrated into the intelligent possibilities available in this universe. There has to be unity all along the way for the journey that this universe has traveled. Intelligent possibilities cannot arise from lack of intelligence.
For anyone who might wonder what intelligence I am referring to, it is the intelligence by which our intelligence is made possible. I cannot describe it except to say that it not only had to provide our intelligence, but, it had to have the means by which to do that providing. The act of providing is far more interesting than the act of receiving. It cannot come from dumbness.
The cause for our intelligence is an original cause and must be a significant, and perhaps total part, of the fundamental properties of the universe. Theoretical physics knows nothing of these properties. It would rather propose the magic of energy to us and avoid any mention of intelligence. It is very strange (I address this to theoretical physicists) that energy should be the key ingredient for this universe that gave birth to intelligent life, and, yet energy is purely mechanical and stupid.
Quantum entanglement has an eerie intuitive quality to it. I don't know what your life experience has been like, but mine has been blessed with countless experiences with the occult/mysticism/psychic, all those words that terrify close minded logical people. It is frustrating to have so many amazing experiences that never quite amount to "proof" of the supernatural.
If the universe was indeed classical, than Occam's razor would suggest that the paranormal is all just nonsense and unfounded hope. Unfortunately for the skeptics, Bell's theorem and the Uncertainty Principle change the result for Occam's razor.
The simplest solution is that the paranormal exists.
The small minded logical bloggers on this website will seethe with anger about this.
Interesting.Thanks.
I beleive a real scientist and searcher of TRUTH try to find solutions.
The Earth is a specific system in evolution, and we can't destabilize the global and natural equilibrium.It's purely unconceivable and unthinkable.
The aim of a scientist is to act and that to improve our ecosystems.
The biotechnology is so young still.
The real intelligence is to have the consciousness to act in localities,that will permit to balance the globality.
the soils in the ocean and in the air are essentials for our alimentary chain.
Can we loose time at this moment.....No .
Jason, no one is seething with anger over your conclusion that the paranormal exists as the simplest answer to unexplained phenomena.
Because it's probably wrong.
Such an explanation is actually the most complicated -- it requires ever more expanding assumptions about the origin of complex systems through a hierarchy of causes, until one is left with a "first intelligence," a primary cause from which all sprang. It could just as well be the brow of Zeus.
The simpler explanation is that there is no hierarchy of causes. Peter Atkins uses the metaphor "infinitely lazy creator" to describe a continuously evolving self organized system.
This being true allows no boundary between what you think is "out there" and what we find "in here." That is, whatever novel forms you imagine that are consistent with the local constraints on the physics of your imagination exist to the extent that the physics is theoretically correlated with measured results.
There is never enough evidence to support a scientific conclusion. One can whip oneself into a histrionic state over the abundant evidence for this or that, without ever having made a testable theory over the means by which "this" = "that." Science has learned to resist those histrionics, because we know beyond reasonable doubt that correlation is not causation.
So what would you prefer -- a reality in which a primary cause explains all (which actually explains nothing), or one in which unexplained phenomena are never outside of comprehension in the context of a unified system?
You said, "...your conclusion that the paranormal exists as the simplest answer to unexplained phenomena...Because it's probably wrong."
While there are lots of holes in your argument, I'm aiming for the kill shot. I can kill your argument.
Quantum entanglement, Bell's theorem, etc., PROVE that there exists a "bandwidth" , a slice of reality that FUNDAMENTALLY defies LOGICAL explanation.
It is perfectly reasonable to call it noise until proven otherwise.
It is perfectly reasonable to believe in the paranormal, occult, God, ghosts, UFO's, magic, psychic power, astral projection, alchemy, astrology, numerology, and all of the truly weird stuff that makes logical people cringe, for the simple reason that QM provides available bandwidth.
Having said that, it is most likely true that there are a lot of lost souls who cannot satisfy their desire for magical power.
It is merely my personal opinion that only a precious few have stumbled upon something real, for better or for worse. The rest are just fantasizing.
So, in your statement: "probably wrong", show some backbone and change that to simply: "wrong".
I give you back your "wrong" with a spear through it's heart.
Your argument is slain. Dead. Finished.
Quantum logic follows different rules than one's experience informs.
So it is that quantum logic predicts that you are probably wrong.
How did you, in fact, know that I was "alive" in the first place, so that you could spear me? Hmmmm?
I'm just reading about quantum logic. It is "propositional".
It was your argument I killed. Is it still dead?
Space-time is true. Quantum Mechanics is true. Lots of things are true. Autobiographies are true. Established facts are true. War, poverty and starvation all over the world, are true.
If something is true, do we just stop?
Saying it is so is not enough. There must be more to say. There has to be more to say. The invisible and untouchable do not become visible and touchable unless the theorist calls upon experimental physicists to show proof. My message was written for the purpose of inviting evidence and not words. If the evidence is the numbers then that is fine for empirical equations. It is not sufficient to support the theoretically disfigured equations. Theoretical disfigurement results from philosophical ideas that are forced onto the equations by the theorists. The philosophical ideas ride the backs of the empirical equations and give the image of explaining the unexplainable.
1. Do we agree that QM and Relativity (GR & SR) are true?
2. Do we agree that the speed of light is always c, for all observers?
3. Do we agree that atomic clocks in free fall run a little faster than atomic clocks that are subjected to an acceleration field?
All three of these statements have experimental evidence to support them. Do you agree?
The equations, meaning the numbers primarily, and possibly some of the theoretical ideas, work very well. My questions were directed toward inviting explanations that show that the theoretical ideas are as truthful as are the numbers.
The speed of light is always measured the same as a local constant. It varies for remote observers. The experimenter must be in the same conditions as is the light they are measuring for the speed of light to always measure as C.
Atomic clocks located at higher levels of altitude run faster than atomic clocks at lower levels of altitude. Atomic clocks in free fall are in an accdeleration field. If the acceleration field is not capable of replicating the near perfect consistency of gravity, then the results will be different. In any case, time is not the product of atomic clocks.
You said: "My questions were directed toward inviting explanations that show that the theoretical ideas are as truthful as are the numbers."
I think that GR and QM will produce numbers that match measured results. The best I can do is to suggest that space-time is implemented by a quantum boson called the virtual photon. These virtual photons are being created everywhere in space. They emit outwards at the speed of light.
Virtual photons:
1. transmit causality
2. transmit energy
3. cause electromagnetism to work
4. the strong force relies upon color force which are partial charges; charges rely upon virtual photons.
5. are related to gravity in that they red-shift/blue-shift along the radial of a gravity vector.
6. virtual photons are responsible for atomic clocks running at different rates.
7. virtual photons define 3D space, time, and the laws of physics;
8. virtual photons manifest geometric properties everywhere in space.
9. the fine structure constant is a virtual photon characteristic.
"I think that GR and QM will produce numbers that match measured results. The best I can do is to suggest that space-time is implemented by a quantum boson called the virtual photon. These virtual photons are being created everywhere in space. They emit outwards at the speed of light."
I respect the quality of your knowledge and the originality of your ideas. The list you gave should be evaluated by professional physicists. The first sentence in the quote cited above is the most relevant to my first post to William Orem. I wondered how convinced he or others may be that matching measured results is sufficient to make physics theory independent of philosophical assertions. For me, it clearly is not enough, so I asked for more supporting argument showing that physics theory is free or nearly free of philosophy.
I say it is loaded with philosophy. I think every theoretical substitute put forward to stand in for cause is artificial and represents our ignorance and not our understanding of reality. I think that this practice places some limitations on the usefullness of the equations, but, does not harm their accuracy for matching predictions with observed measurements. That accuracy is inherent in the equations because they are based upon empirical evidence. The limitations, mentioned above, caused by imposing theory have to do with limiting the ability of those equations to reveal the true physical nature of the universe.
I say this because if we invent substitutes for cause, then our equations become subservient to that artificial 'understanding'. The equations cannot free themselves from our meddling. We did the meddling and we must do the unmeddling. My message to William Orem is restricted to asking for a more thorough justification for stating that " Physicists do of course carry around with them a working philosophy. For most of us, it is a rough-and-ready realism, a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories." I say those ingredients, born out of theoretical guesses, are very much the fruit of philosophical assertions. I also say that reliance upon the correctness of the numbers involved does not prove theory nor does it remove philosophical assertions.
None of what I am saying here is intended to challenge your specific ideas. The real physicists here have been generous with their time and knowledge. Still, I would like to see more of their feedback about your ideas. It is their opinion that counts.
J: "I respect the quality of your knowledge and the originality of your ideas. "
I appreciate your encouragement.
J: "Still, I would like to see more of their feedback about your ideas."
J: "I say it is loaded with philosophy. "
The idea is that if you can come up with a good philosophy, one might be able to predict possible consequences that can be tested.
For example, if the laws of physics are implemented by a continuous fountain of virtual photons, each of which carries 3 dimensions, causes time and causality, etc., then there are natural consequences that are testable.
First, virtual photons have to be able to explain everything.
Second, frequency shifting would be equivalent to gravity.
Third, RF antennas might be able to influence the laws of physics in useful ways leading to new technology; e.g. tractor beams.
In reality, the physics establishment is too stubborn to consider anything other than a narrow set of questions that don't lead to any new or useful technology.
The established physics community won't go anywhere near "unexplained" phenomena because they don't want to risk looking silly or hurting their career or reputation. They generally don't give a crap about humanity, civilization or anyone else.
In truth, the ufologists and the government are the major players in the advancement of technology and human development. Physicist are just disinterested bystanders.
Jason et al.,
This statement:
"The established physics community won't go anywhere near "unexplained" phenomena because they don't want to risk looking silly or hurting their career or reputation. They generally don't give a crap about humanity, civilization or anyone else."
is 'bigger than a house' and probably the real crux of why philosophy, science, poiltics and religion can't see 'more productively' eye to eye and....get somewhere for the benefit of humanity.
Wellput Jason!
As I watch the various Youtube videos and ponder everything I've heard about and experienced, I've come to a conclusion about Fermi's paradox. Fermi's paradox was solved a hundred years ago. Foo fighters and UFO's have been with us for almost a century.
But here is the problem. Skeptics/physicists can't comprehend alien life if it's NOT hostile. If the aliens don't attack us, kill us or blow something up, they don't exist. As it turns out, most of the aliens are friendly. The abductions, probings and inserted transceivers (tagging) don't count as hostile enough to warrant our attention.
The other problem is that, to go from "Are we alone" to "welcome to the intergalactic community, come be weird like us" pretty much blows up all of our paradigms. The aliens don't want to eat us, destroy us or enslave us, that's a Hollywood fantasy. They want to socialize with us. There was an Air Force Colonel who, with a squad of soldiers, witnessed several large glowing lights. One of the lights was oval shaped. The colonel said it "winked" at him.
Physicists don't have the mental circuitry to comprehend that our interstellar neighbors are ... friendly?
Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 20:34 GMT
Perhaps we can comprehend the idea, but our pride doesn't allow us to accept it. Any ET life capable of travelling here has probably evolved past us, our greed and our wars. I suppose that we prefer not to think of ourselves as a "science project" involving evolution, technology and sociology.
You and Jelle are the only two intelligent lifeforms I have come across with regard to this topic. Everyone else is splitting hairs with respect to "what is time" or "what is a point".
The ET's have most definitely evolved ahead of us. They have shut down our missile silos on several occasions.
You might be right that our pride doesn't allow us to see it.
What would UFO's and ET's do to progress in string theory?
But I have already evolved beyond String Theory...
Scale Invariance allows us to simultaneously consider BOTH discrete integers AND continuous real numbers, BOTH quantum AND infinity, BOTH particles AND waves, and BOTH kissing spheres AND strings...
This dual nature of reality is obvious, and it simultaneously constitutes BOTH our Thesis AND our Antithesis. The quest for the TOE thus becomes a search for the Synthesis...
You said: "The quest for the TOE thus becomes a search for the Synthesis..."
I can appreciate that. But will it lead to any new technologies? Did you know that I was inspired with shift-photons/tractor beams about a month after reading about UFO observers/witnesses who were knocked down when the UFO shot off (flew off). It left me with the impression that they had been bombarded with a gravity wave. I had to figure out if gravity waves could somehow obey Action-Reaction laws of symmetry.
In other words, I thought it might be productive to examine UFO phenomena for clues about how the universe really works.
Ray, I'm really one of the least mathematically talented people here. But I followed the UFO/ET path to see where it would lead; and I came up a possible new technology based on the Equivalence Principle-frequency shifting-gravity and boiled it down to the shift-photon.
When does skepticism give way to the drive to ACHIEVE?
Now you need to write up a good proposal, and stand in line waiting for a small slice of that government research money floating around out there. I'm a maverick - my recommendation probably wouldn't help much. I suspect that other people have had the same idea, but were never able to overcome the technological barriers. Have you contacted Emeritus Prof. Raymond Chiao at UC Merced?
Thank you for the contact, I'll look into it.
I don't think it's a technological barrier. I think its a paradigm barrier. Either it's a belief that someone else has already done it. Or it's a belief that it has been tried and doesn't work.
I've never liked conspiracy theory. But I know of at least one person who will swear under oath before Congress that they were part of the conspiracy to cover up UFO's. Is the US patent office part of this conspiracy? So far, it's only a rumor.
I'll get to work on my proposal.
Anonymous wrote on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 00:22 GMT
Jason -- You said "3. Do we agree that atomic clocks in free fall run a little faster than atomic clocks that are subjected to an acceleration field?"
Do clocks run faster in outer space because motion (e.g., of photons) is more rapid?
Gravity and electromagnetism both ultimately relate to distance in space.
This, in conjunction with balanced attraction and repulsion, is how gravity and electromagnetism must be demonstrated as being unified.
Many thanks for the compliment Jason which I am happy to share with 'Cosmic Ray' and, indeed, it is high time that we let the 'friendly extraterrestrial' into our part of the Universe as we desperately need to 'learn and understand' a few things aboout the 'bigger scheme'. Myopians we are in the extreme!!!!
Cheers from the Eternal City!
I think at first there's going to be a lot to learn; our paradigms are going to be blown away. It will be like drinking from the cosmic fire hydrant of knowledge. But eventually, after a new paradigm emerges, there will be a lot of new technology and physics. The world economy will boom. Evening news may become fun and interesting to watch.
Let's hope that humanity will open itself up to the learning process and help a scio-cultural-schientific paradigm shift along Jason and that whatever technology is in stoe for us will always have a 'human face'. I see too much robotization on the way and kids can nether spell nor count anymore, and not only kids!!!!
And than this 'bloodthirstyness' at all levels. Madonna as we say here!!!
You may also wish to give a look at this site http://www.rainbow21122012.org/
which I developed with an australian friend as a sequel to my book. Scrolls to the right and apart from the further content 'behind the church windows' are some interesting articles about 'our troubled times and their future'!
Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 00:41 GMT
I found some article quotes:
"Einstein predicted the gravitational redshift of light from the equivalence principle in 1907, " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity.
"By
measuring a spectacularly small difference in the ticks of two quantum clocks, physicists have proven a pillar of Albert Einstein's theory of gravity to be on firmer footing than ever before."
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100217/full/463862a.
I'm trying to establish that the rate at which atomic clocks progress in time is directly and causally related to gravity and acceleration fields. I am also trying to establish that the Equivalence Principle points to the direct cause of gravity/acceleration fields; it points to the frequency shifting of light.
I have to respectfully disagree; I don't see how distance in space is directly causal to gravity or acceleration.
Gravity increases with distance in space, and a larger space (outer space) may more forcefully fix position/distance in space.
You said:"Gravity increases with distance in space,"
Newtonian gravity states that gravitational attraction is proportional to 1/r^2, where r is the distance from the massive body.
"...forcefully fix position/distance in space..." What does this mean?
The Lightbringer wrote on Aug. 10, 2010 @ 21:00 GMT
Bravo Anonymous, words from one of the greatest thinkers ever.
Anonymous Frank,
You said: "...but, with due respect, you need to broaden your thinking. "
Broaden my thinking!!! ROFLMAO!
Frank, my talking about UFO's is an indication that my thinking might be getting "too broad".
I troubleshoot electronics. When something doesn't work, it's like a phenomenon that I have to track down. If I can't find the part, I have to figure out what's causing it.
Physics is the same way. Physics is just a phenomenon. It is primarily caused by GR and QM. To save time, I accept that GR and QM are true. Then I ask myself: what causes GR and QM to work? I think it's virtual photons. I think virtual photons cause all of the laws of physics and the mathematical/geometric behavior. They pop up everywhere in space, and they travel outwards at the speed of light, carrying information with them.
Do virtual photons contain historic information in the form of previous quantum entanglements? I dunno. But if they did, that might give the past an existence of its own in the form of an accumulating database.
You said: "Gravity and electromagnetism both ultimately relate to distance in space." Using Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations, can you explain how this is so?
You said: "When thought (in general) is more like sensory experience (in general), here we have the unification of physics -- ideas and experience both together." What does this have to do with physics? Can you tie this into physics. I only have a bachelor's degree in phyiscs. But if you could explain how your ideas tie into physics, at an undergraduate level physics explanation, I would appreciate that.
Alll,
Nice thinking all this led by anonomous Frank. To my mind still human however and 'distinct from Nature' which we aren't! Two days ago, 'pushed' by the LightBringer I determined that 'BEING, CONSCIOUSNESS AND DREAMS' equals a '27', the ultimate number, called 'The Sceptre' like for instance
'WE ARE PART OF NATURE' 'BEYOND 2012' 'UNIVERSAL PEACE' 'CULTURAL EVOLUTION' 'PRAGMATIC' 'SELFESTEEM' and …… 'THE SKY IS JUST NOT THE LIMIT!' just to mention a few of very many 'meaningful characters'!
So I think that if we put our common brains ànd common sense together we actually might get somewhere and finally, 'W' being out of the way', let the 21st Century begin!
Superman wrote on Aug. 11, 2010 @ 18:49 GMT
Jason, the experience of television is based upon Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism/light. Television is a form of dream vision AS waking vision (as the following proves). See if you can understand how dreams incorporate electromagnetism/light with gravity in accordance with the following.
The overeating during television occurs in keeping with the fact that TV is an extended, interactive,...
The overeating during television occurs in keeping with the fact that TV is an extended, interactive, and unnatural form of dream vision AS waking vision. Bodily feeling/sensation is therefore reduced during TV (as is the case during dream experience), so the feeling of fullness is reduced/lacking. Dr. Joyce Starr agrees with this as well. (Television is an unnatural creation of generalized thought; accordingly, TV may be held to be a generalized hallucination.) The experience of sound and vision in/as TV is even more like thought than in the case of the vision and sound in the dream.
Emotion is manifest as sensory experience and feeling.
TV involves emotional detachment, disintegration, contraction, and loss; and this certainly relates to (or involves) depression and anxiety as well. Importantly, TV also reduces memory and thought; and this is also consistent with/similar to dream experience. Hence, the overeating while watching television relates to the reduction in thought and memory as well.
Television is only possible because this disintegration, reconfiguration, contraction (i.e., compression), and extension of visual sensory experience occurs during dreams. Accordingly, both television viewing and dreams may be said to include (or involve) reduced ability to think, anxiety, and increased distractibility. Television thus compels attention, as it is compelled in the dream; but it is an unnatural and hallucinatory experience. Hence, television is addictive. Similar to the visual experience while dreaming, television compels attention to the relative exclusion of other experience. Television reduces consciousness and results in a flattening of the visual experience as a result of combining waking visual experience with relatively unconscious visual experience. Television involves the experience of what is less animate, for it involves a significant reduction in (or loss of) visual experience. This disintegration of the visual experience (as in the dream) also results in an emotional disintegration (i.e., anxiety). That television may be so described (and even possible) is hard to imagine; but this is consistent with the fact that it took so very many different minds (and thoughts) of genius in order to make the relatively unconscious visual experience of the dream conscious. Since the thinking that is involved in making the experience of television possible is so enormously difficult, it becomes difficult to think while partaking of that experience. Television may be seen as an accelerated form or experience of art, thereby making someone less wary (or less anxious) initially, but less creative and more anxious (as time passes) as the advance of the self becomes unsustainable. The experience (or effects) of television demonstrates the interactive nature of being and experience; for, in the dream, there is also a reduction in the totality (or extensiveness) of experience.
Thought involves a relative reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling. In keeping with this, dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general. Accordingly, both thought and also the range and extensiveness of feeling are proportionately reduced in the dream. (This reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling during dreams is consistent with the fact that the experience of smell very rarely occurs therein.) Since there is a proportionate reduction of both thought and feeling during dreams, the experience of the body is generally (or significantly) lacking; for thought is fundamentally rendered more like sensory experience in general. Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings. By involving the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense, dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general. The reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling during dreams is why there is less memory and thought therein.
Dream vision is generally closer (or flattened), thereby resulting in a loss/reduction of peripheral vision as well. Comparatively, television further flattens vision; and it also involves a reduction in peripheral vision.
In the dream, vision and thought are semi-detached from touch (and feeling). One may or may not be able to touch what is seen in the dream. In the visual experience that is television, the visual images may not be (and are not) touched at all. In the case of waking vision, one can [generally] touch what one sees.
It is not only in the dream that the vision of each individual person is necessarily different. That is obvious. Importantly, the experience of television is uniquely that of the individual.
Television may be understood as a creation of generalized thought. The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense.
Television makes thought even more like vision than in the dream, thereby reducing thought and vision. Thoughts are relatively shifting and variable. Likewise, dream vision is relatively shifting and variable. In the case (and form) of television, the visual images become more shifting and variable than that of the dream; and this is in keeping with attention being compelled and sustained in conjunction with these images being even more like (or consistent with) thought. People tend to believe what they see (and hear) during television.
Ordinary (and natural) vision is removed and replaced in the case of television. Unlike art, which can be the interactive creation of any one person, television is impossible for any one person to possibly create or otherwise experience.
Television is an hallucination. Hallucinations are already known to be connected with/associated with/"caused by" all sorts of very serious mental/physical/emotional conditions or disorders. It is undeniable that this is a very important and serious matter.
By "the dream" you mean consciousness. I still think that everything in the physical universe owes its existence to the photon (virtual/real). From the virtual photon, you get get to the paranormal as well as a universal consciousness. The universe (multiverse) can be described as ... dreaming.
Dear Superman,
The Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity is also consistent with/similar to Kryptonite/Halucination experience.
Your Nemesis,
Dr. Cosmic Ray
Jason, the dream has a definitive and stable sensory, energetic/light, and felt/gravitational structure, as DiMeglio proved. The dream includes BODILY presence/sensation (to an extent), gravity, light, language, minor pain, emotion, thought, concern, intention, hearing, colors, touch/tactile experience, feeling, etc., etc.
Having watched Shakespeare's -the Man of 'What's in a Name?- '"Coriolanum" yesterday evening I wish to add another 'string' to this interesting discussion:
'NUMBERS, SPACE AND TIME' 'PARTNERSHIP' 'TOGETHER' 'WE ARE THE WORLD, WE ARE THE CHILDREN' 'COMMON DESTINY' 'EXPERIENCE' 'BEING, EXPERIENCE AND DREAMS' 'MOTHER EARTH' 'MATRIARCHY' 'UNITED WE STAND' 'POWER TO THE PEOPLE' 'ENTHOUSIASM' 'LIFE IS A GAME' which is the number '26' called 'Partnerships' by 'The Ancients'.
Nice 'coincidence' I would say!!!
Dear Jelle....
The united of universalists is ESSENTIAL.....the unification is that also in my humble opinion.
The unification, this spherization for me,is everywhere in all centers of interest.
The partnership of real universalists, universal scientits is became an essential also.
You know I know several people who works for the humanity, it's my aim, unite, unify these persons and act rationaly on ground without politic.The politic is so chatic thus no for me.I prefer work quietly with good people.
But I must admit I am a very bad administrator.I d like create it in Belgium.You know several people are ok and wait the creation of this center.I must create it for my credibility.My theory of spherization...quantum spheres...specific numbers....evolution ...cosmological spheres....UNIVERSAL SPHERE.....IS LESS IMPORTANT FOR ME THAN THE CREATION OF THIS INTERNATIONA HUMANISTIC SCIENCES CENETR......we must act quickly in fact for the well of all.
If we produce adapted solutions, naturals and ecologicals, all will be easier ....the foods, the energy,water, the education,the health...mainly .
Ps ....congratulations for your splendids works about the classments and datas.I saw it on the nasa website .
You know dear Jelle it's a big passion for me the classment of animals and vegetals.
I class all,I like that.The evolution is fascinating....quantum spheres...evolution...H ...HCNO....CH4 H2O HCN NH3....ENERGY(do you know Oparin(e) and his ideas)..amino acids....protists ...unicels pluricels.....and that continues with the complexification in 3D.
All is coded indeed and the mass polarises the light if I can say...the mass increases.
If the intelligence and the consciousness are resulsts of this coded evolution, thus we can understand that we are catalyzers of this universal coded love.Thus we have a rule of complementarity with our environments and ecosystems,it's simple and logic.
We have the potential of harmonization simply.The soil is the key....
Thanks for this data center of the Goddard space center of Nasa.We need concrete datas about our actual states.We could adapt thus the solutions in correlation of local problems.
FQXi, these posts by Anonymous prove DiMeglio's unification of grav. and electro.
Thanks so much Frank! History in the making.
It's about TIME too Anonymous et al. and look at these 'cosmic equivalents' of That Word:
The word NATURE itself is a 5/23 like MODES and the word 'GOD' is a 5/14, like the words 'SUN' 'ALL LIGHT' 'IMAGE' 'THE' 'THAT' 'ELECTROMAGNETISM' 'TIME'' 'MIND' 'BRAINS' 'EYES' 'IDEAS' 'TEAM' 'DAY ONE' 'WAR AND PEACE' 'JUST' 'SAINT' 'MYTH' 'GALAXY' 'ALL THERE IS' '.COM' and the statements 'IT IS TIME'' 'EVERYTHING HAS ITS TIME' 'NONDETERMINISTIC' 'CYCLIC' 'TIDE' 'PHI' 'QUASAR' 'QUBIT' 'BIG BANG THEORY' 'BIG BANG MACHINE' 'ALL IS ENERGY' 'MASS-ENERGY' and Albert Einstein's immortal formula 'E=MC-2', 'H2O' 'ROMA' 'S.P.Q.R.' 'VIA APPIA ANTICA' and, funny and good enough, 'LUCK', 'PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE' 'MAYAN CULTURE' 'COSMOTHEOLOGY' 'MULTIPLICATION BY TIME' and 'THE TRUTH IS IN THE HANDS OF NATURE ONLY' and 'THE TRUTH IS IN THE HANDS OF GOD ONLY' and 'IN GOD WE TRUST' 'SMILE AT LIFE AND LIFE WILL SMILE AT YOU' 'PERFECTIONING THE WHEEL' and 'IN NATURE WE TRUST' and….. 'IN THE BEGINNING', 'A MATTER OF TIME' 'A MOMENT IN TIME' 'A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE' 'IN REALITY' 'I.O.U.', all Mercury vibrations, which clearly underpins the connection between God and Nature.
Superman replied on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 18:07 GMT
Jelle, there is no "god". Christianity is a delusional, weak, vengeful, ungrateful, and toxic devaluing of people and THIS life. We only have this life and each other. Now let's start acting like it!
You mentioned time. The integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand in and with time.
The 45-degree angle of the Chimpanzees back (while knuckle walking) is in the...
The 45-degree angle of the Chimpanzees back (while knuckle walking) is in the middle of (between) our waking and dream experience. (Picture the 90-degree angle of these two experiences.)
The self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of the totality of experience by combining unconscious and conscious experience. Experience then becomes a more direct expression of the self that is increasingly representative of a greater totality of experience as well. In comparison to the Common Chimpanzee, we are understood as being more conscious in conjunction with experience that is (on balance) more unconscious; and this is evident in our waking and dream experiences.
The Common Chimpanzee lives two-thirds (in captivity, of course) as long as we do -- another perfect match (right between -- and in the middle of -- our waking and dream experiences.)
DiMeglio is the best thinker at FQXi. More supplemental info.:
Dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience at the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense. Since dreams [already] involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience at what is the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense, the sense of smell very rarely occurs while dreaming, and the lighting and sound levels are fairly constant (and proper) therein. Memory integrates experience. There is less memory in the dream because experience is already better integrated, and also because experience is less extensive. Dreams improve upon memory and understanding by increasing (or adding to) the integrated extensiveness of being and experience (including thought) in and with time. The sense of relative familiarity involving dream experience is associated with the improvement of understanding and memory therein. Dreams and memory integrate experience; and both add to the extensiveness of experience (including thought) as well, while involving a [relative] reduction in the totality of experience.
Since the self has extensiveness of being and experience (in and with time) in conjunction with the integrated and natural extensiveness of sensory experience, we spend less time dreaming (and sleeping) than waking. The integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand in hand.
Emotion that is comprehensive and balanced advances consciousness. Dreams are an emotional experience. The comprehensiveness and consistency of both intention and concern are central to our consciousness, life, and growth. (Desire consists of both intention and concern, thereby including interest as well.) The comprehensiveness and consistency of both intention and concern in relation to experience in general is ultimately dependent upon the natural and integrated extensiveness of sensory experience. In keeping with this, consciousness and language involve the ability to represent, form, and experience comprehensive approximations of experience in general; and this includes art and music as well. If the self did not represent, form, and experience a comprehensive approximation of experience in general, we would be incapable of growth and of becoming other than we are.
Superman,
Couldn't agree more with you on God, the word being in the English language however. I am totally with old Marcus Tullius Cicere who, about two thousand years ago, said:
All theology.....is a massive inconsistency derived from ignorance.....The Gods exist because Nature has imprinted a conception of them on the minds of men
Cicero, 3/21
Had he been listened more attentively this world would be an entirely different and much better place to live in!!!
Philosophy just smashed physics into pieces, literally.
I really want to explain my ideas within the context of established physics; basic physics, quantum mechanics and general relativity. To me, dreams, consciousness, and all of that "in the mind" stuff can be boiled down to: signal transmission and detection. The building blocks of signal transmission/detection are: photons.
Gravity is intimately related to the rate of flow of time: time dilation. I attribute that to photon frequency and the red/blue-shift of photon frequency.
Dreams and consciousness are not the building blocks I choose to use. Photons are much more deeply entrenched in the physics; every physicist knows what a photon is and what its accepted characteristics are.
Synonymous wrote on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 00:51 GMT
From Anonymous: "Honor consists of respect and pride, and it is to be earned."
To Anonymous: Therefore: You cannot award it to yourself.
"Great post Synonymous!!!"
Thank you Magnonymous! Now I must be gonymous! So longymous!
The Unknownymous
Upset Jason with what was said about "god"? Shooting the messenger (DiMeglio) won't work. Your big lies won't work either. You act like a childish idiot Jason. It is better to face the facts and acknowledge/realize the truth -- but you come up short here too.
Did you read the prior post about the limitations of vision Jason?
Here is overwhelming, clear, and simple proof of what is...
Here is overwhelming, clear, and simple proof of what is the most fundamental, foundational, and important union in physics to date.
Obviously, the next contest should address this. You should award DiMeglio a prize/grant/or well-deserved recognition and make him a member. He earned it.
Did he not?
Decreased gravity may be offset/balanced by increased
inertia/immobilization, thereby balancing scale (distance in space).
This balances attraction and repulsion, and this demonstrates space as
gravitational/electromagnetic energy -- in these different
manifestations of the same. The MID-range of gravity is equivalent
with the SEMI-immobilized condition therein -- (picture us in outer
space/the sun) vs. earth (full gravity) -- in dreams. Touch/tactile
experience is also at the same energy/feeling level as the
gravitational experience in dreams. Read Mach on inertia and gravity.
Understanding that the self represents, forms, and experiences a
comprehensive approximation of the totality of experience is crucial
to ULTIMATELY understanding mathematical description and physics, and
the limits thereof.
The gravitational contraction (to the center of the body) may be
understood as being balanced by (and involving) an electromagnetic
repulsion/expansion. Larger and smaller spaces (contracted space vs.
outer space). The heightened concern/energy, touch/tactile experience,
the gravity in dreams, semi/half immobilized/"inertialized" - they are
all manifestations of what is essentially the same. Union of gravity
and electromagnetism in dreams.
Decreased gravity may be offset/balanced by increased inertia/immobilization, thereby balancing scale (distance in space). This balances attraction and repulsion, and this demonstrates space as gravitational/electromagnetic energy -- in these different manifestations of the same. The MID-range of gravity is equivalent with the SEMI-immobilized condition therein -- (picture us in outer space/the sun) vs. earth (full gravity) -- in dreams. Touch/tactile experience is also at the same energy/feeling level as the gravitational experience in dreams. Read Mach on inertia and gravity.
Understanding that the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of the totality of experience is crucial to ULTIMATELY understanding mathematical description and physics, and the limits thereof.
I insist -- with overwhelming proof now here at FQXi -- that the next contest should be about proving:
1) Whether or not the [known] mathematical union of gravity and electromagnetism has a real/physical/sensory basis. If not, why?
2) How does space manifest as gravitational/electromagnetic energy? Or, to what degree does it? Or does it not manifest as gravitational/electromagnetic energy at all? (You may consider: dreams, astro./telescopic obs., etc.)
3) The ability of thought to describe (including mathematically) OR reconfigure sense is ultimately/fundamentally dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience. (True or untrue -- and provide reasons therefore.)
FQXI -- the gravitational contraction (to the center of the body) may be understood as being balanced by (and involving) an electromagnetic repulsion/expansion. Larger and smaller spaces (contracted space vs. outer space). See how this fits with the Superman's post(s)? The heightened concern/energy, touch/tactile experience, the gravity in dreams, semi/half immobilized/"inertialized" - they are all maifestations of what is essentially the same. Union of gravity and electromagnetism.
Thanks for sharing with us. Understandable response. I had not encountered that before, so I have learned something new today!
Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 12, 2010 @ 21:48 GMT
Projection A defense mechanism, operating unconsciously, in which what is emotionally unacceptable in the self is unconsciously rejected and attributed (projected) to others.
From Terms in the field of Psychiatry and Neurology John F. Abess, M.D.
Georgina, you are not nearly as smart in ability as you think.
Manners maketh the man
Evil Sock Puppet replied on Aug. 13, 2010 @ 02:18 GMT
I found a link that might be helpful to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
"Community of FRANK DIMEGLIOS, of insane physicists, of insane skeptics, WAKE UP and EMBRACE REALITY!!!!!! "
All for it as TRUTH is a '21' = '3' = the number of the Mind. It stares us in the face but.....we are locked up in our disciplines and....have tremendous problems with both our personal as well as collective Ego and.....have been poised totally by figures which are dead whereas numbers are fully alive and.....tell the truth!
It's this simple. Physics is at a crossroad. What happens if the velocity is faster than the speed of light? Either
a. time travel occurs
b. faster than light travel/propulsion occurs.
Which choice is more likely?
Choice A suffers from the grandfather paradox and the need to have multiple identical universes; thus, it massively violates conservation of energy. There are also no reports of time travelers.
Choice B: billions of reports, sightings, video, pictures, references in ancient texts, etc.
So what does the physics community chose? Time travel.
That is called: Frank DiMeglio insanity.
Jason, what do you have that is comparable to the following?
http://radicalacademy.com/studentrefphil24fmd.htm
ontribute something meaningful, serious, mature, and true/real.
Georgina, a person who cannot know the truth cannot know his/her limitations. A person who does not know her limitations cannot know the truth.
And you are overly critical of ideas that are beyond your comprehension. You criticize ideas that are smarter than you are, in other words. Then you attack the messenger (Mr. Frank Martin DiMeglio). DiMeglio's ideas go directly against yours. Might that be part of the reason? You have been all over him since he first came here. It is ridiculous.
Do not waste our time here at FQXi Georgina. That is the message.
What do you have that is comparable to the following (below). Let's see if it compares. The readers here will tell you that whatever you have (and, please, feel free to post it now) does not compare to the following -- if you are that out of it, then ask them:
http://depletedcranium.com/frank-martin-dimeglio-author-grea
t-thinker-ass/
Your right! You've written a book, but I haven't. So guess what! That qualifies you to be their leader; leader of the time travelers. You are hereby given the office, title and position of:
Frank DiMeglio, TIME LORD
Good to know that it's simple with which I agree because Nature is simple. Herewith some TRUTH equivalents according to 'The Ancients', all '21''s called 'The Universe':
'LOVE'' 'ENERGY' 'THE DIVINE LOVE' 'TIME IS ENERGY' 'LAW OF TIME' 'TIME DOES TELL' 'ONLY TIME' 'AT THE RIGHT TIME' 'RIGHT AND WRONG' 'HUMAN' 'ECCE HOMO' 'AIN SOPH AUR' 'THE BEING' 'THE IDENTITY' 'THE HUMAN WORLD' 'ONE WORLD' 'THE REAL WORLD' 'THE CHAOS THEORY' 'OUR NAME' 'LINGUA FRANCA' 'THE ENGLISH' 'THE HUMAN WILL'
and below (s selection of) the cosmic 'snag' which this world has to deal with, the '22' which is the 'blind and blundering' vibration:
'WORLD' 'MANKIND' 'MONEY' 'MORE MONEY' 'CATCH TWENTYTWO' 'THE STUPID' 'TIME IS MONEY' 'AGENDA'S' 'AGENDA 21' '1990s' 'OUR COMMON FUTURE' 'WATER COMPETITION' 'WARMING' 'PEACE' 'DOVE' 'SUMMIT' 'CHARTER' 'ALLIANCE' 'BORDER' 'WORDS' 'EMPTY' 'SOCIAL NETWORK' 'ROBOT' 'SOCIAL ROBOT' 'JETSET' 'EARNING' 'SAFETY' 'MOBILE' 'TERROR' 'PRIVACY' 'SECRECY' 'FEAR OF…' 'CHANGE' 'THE PARANOIA' 'FICKLE' 'BREAKING NEWS' 'HAVOC' 'IDEALISM' 'IDEALIST' 'HUMAN BEINGS' 'BULLYISM' 'DUALISM' 'EGO FORCE' 'ACADEMIC' ' 'SHEER ARROGANCE'
See what I mean?!
I understand; point well taken.
Georgina, women and babies are more emotionally centered.
The community of skeptics and physicists is filled with Frank DiMeglios. If you believe in time travel, but you scoff at UFO's, then you are a FRANK DIMEGLIO. You are insane, and you are boastful. You are blinded by your own lies.
Where are the time travelers? Where are the time lords?
The Air Force hasn't seen any!
The missile silo commanders haven't see any!
The FAA hasn't seen any!
The Chinese government hasn't seen any!
The Russian government hasn't seen any!
The Mexican government hasn't seen any!
The French government hasn't officially announced the existence of Time Travelers!
The British government hasn't officially announced the existence of Time Travlers!
Community of FRANK DIMEGLIOS, of insane physicists, of insane skeptics, WAKE UP and EMBRACE REALITY!!!!!!
James, Jason and all,
James you asked "Lastly, the first name, among philosophers, that you mentioned was Augustine. Have you read his book titled 'Concerning The Teacher'? "
I haven't read Augustine's book but....found a most interesting account on the same by Prof. Peter King which I feel is worth going through in the context of this discussion. At least it supports my views that 'we all know all there is to know, we just have to remember'! Nature provided most generously!!!
Article attached.
attachments: Augustine_on_Teaching.pdf
Having said that I should also like to invite you all to spend a few minutes with
www.rainbow21122012.org which I developed as a sequel to my book and contains a number (no numbers!) of pertinent articles about 'where we are'. Particularly the ones behind the 'church windows'!
You wrote "For anyone who might wonder what intelligence I am referring to, it is the intelligence by which our intelligence is made possible. I cannot describe it except to say that it not only had to provide our intelligence, but, it had to have the means by which to do that providing. The act of providing is far more interesting than the act of receiving. It cannot come from dumbness.
The cause for our intelligence is an original cause and must be a significant, and perhaps total part, of the fundamental properties of the universe. Theoretical physics knows nothing of these properties. It would rather propose the magic of energy to us and avoid any mention of intelligence. It is very strange (I address this to theoretical physicists) that energy should be the key ingredient for this universe that gave birth to intelligent life, and, yet energy is purely mechanical and stupid."
Well here are some of my preferred '33's by 'chance' the number of my conventional as well as penname:
'UNIVERSE' 'NATURE'S INTELLIGENCE' 'QUANTUM COMPUTERS' 'THE UNIVERSE IS US' 'AS THE INDIVIDUAL IS IS THE UNIVERSE' 'LIGHT OF THE UNIVERSE' 'AS THE UNIVERSE IS IS THE INDIVIDUAL' 'INTUITIVE' 'THE PLANETS ARE US' 'ANCIENT RELIGION' 'UNLIMITED' 'UNIVERSAL LAW' 'THE UNIVERSE IS UNKNOWABLE' 'NATURE AND NUMBERS' 'LOGOS IS NUMBER' 'NUMBER IS LOGOS' 'SOLITONS' 'POLYMATH'
So, indeed it is not 'dumbness' it's just 'numbers' that provided the intelligence for our 'being and acting'!
Remember Heraclites who 'posted' 2500 years ago:
"Whosoever wishes to know about the world must learn about it in its particular details.
Knowledge is not intelligence.
In searching for the truth be ready for the unexpected.
Change alone is unchanging.
The same road goes both up and down.
The beginning of a circle is also its end.
Not I, but the world says it: all is one.
And yet everything comes in season"
Heraclitus of Ephesus
5th Century B.C.
And I, for me, find it very funny if not astonishing that this cannot be seen, accepted ànd acted on!!!
But then the same Ancients say 'The World is blind'!
Nice post Jelle. The big picture now is on "undivided wholeness" -- as D. Bohm put it. And as a recent prior post made clear, there are serious limits to relying soley upon visual prediction and visual "truth" when it comes to the extensiveness and accuracy of the understanding IN GENERAL.
For example, astronomical/telescopic observations are ALREADY more like thought (or a creation of thought), so they cannot be well understood. This is similar to the fact that (in dreams) vision is already more like thought (shifting and variable) too, so that the dream visions are not well understood.
Importantly, dreams involve a "telescoping"/narrowing of vision.
Dreams unify gravity and elcetromagnetism/light, as the below proves:
and electromagnetism.
The inherently smaller space (contraction/attraction) is balanced with
an inherently larger space (expansion/repulsion), including constant
energy, thereby uniting gravity and electromagnetism/light. Space
manifests in what may be understood as a "middle distance/middle
feeling as well" -- in front of us -- in dreams.
Importantly, the eye does have a black and clear/interior space.
Our growth and our becoming other than we are require a
unification/coordination/surmounting/extension of the forces of
gravity and electromagnetism. How else would we gain extension in and
with time and space as well?
To the website moderator, can we go back to simple time stamping without the "sub threads"? I have spent 20 minutes looking for someones reply, and I can't find it. I copied and pasted the whole page into notepad and did a FIND. The comment wasn't on the page indicated by "Recent Blog Comments".
Would strongly support Jason's proposal as it's rather 'labyrintal' as is!
I agree FQXi -- too controlling. The only way you control something/someone is by reducing it (or them). And you are moving posts, and deleting other posts that are excellent as well.
FQXI moderators, please continue to delete derogatory, ill mannered, and libelous posts. It would also be good if the continuous blatant vanity and boasting, that has nothing to do with discussion of foundational issues, could also be removed. It is inappropriate, generally un-amusing and tiresome for the socially intelligent contributors to the forum. It is also an ongoing public disgrace to the poster and this site.
THE MAN wrote on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 16:40 GMT
FQXi, Jason and Jelle, what do you have to say about the following (below), regarding the limitations of vision? It is key to the limits of physical/mathematical understanding (and, ultimately and significantly relevant to your various ideas).
Jelle, you quoted Jason as saying:
"Community of FRANK DIMEGLIOS, of insane physicists, of insane skeptics, WAKE UP and EMBRACE REALITY!!!!!!...
"Community of FRANK DIMEGLIOS, of insane physicists, of insane skeptics, WAKE UP and EMBRACE REALITY!!!!!! " ... and then you (Jelle) said: " All for it :....." --- What did you mean by this in relation to Frank Martin DiMeglio? Do you know him? Have you read his ideas? Have you read any of this (his ideas)?:
Jason, again, what do you have that is comparable to the following?
ason, you have much to learn if you want to truly and significantly contribute to the advancement of the human understanding. That is the message. Contribute meaningfully and seriously, in a mature and realistic fashion.
Again, you lack the foundational truths/basics upon which you must build in the first place. Try Jason, try.
Visually, the universal experience of the body is one of visual transparency (i.e., invisibility). Accordingly, when our bodies are visually distinguishable (or visible), then each of our visible experiences of the body (and of everything else for that matter) must necessarily be different (or unique); and individuals are then visually distinguishable as well. Since all of our bodies are visually transparent (or invisible), each of our bodies (considered individually) must necessarily be different when visible. Since the experience of the body is both visible and invisible, the visible experience of the body is necessarily changing (or inconstant), unique, and finite. The disintegration of the visual experience when an object is close to the eyes is demonstrative of the relationship between visibility and invisibility. The visible appearance of the body (including that of experience in general) is relatively unique, finite, and limited. (This conclusion is also in keeping with the fact that thought and vision are necessarily different.) The thoughtful understanding of the visible is properly understood as variable and finite in relation to the totality of experience, including that of the body.
Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings. Our thoughts, emotions, and feelings are largely (or often) indiscernible to others in keeping with the fact that the body is transparent (or invisible inside the eye).
(Importantly, the body is visually transparent. That is, the interior of the body and eye are experienced as invisible.)
Now, did you all know that vision begins invisibly inside the eye and body because invisible space is felt more weakly relative to visible space. This has significant bearing/relation to the [increasing] range of gravitational feeling as we experience it in the body (downwards, that is).
The Man whoever that is,
No I don't know FMdM but what I've read of him tells me that he is obviously a very clever thinker and may grasp 'elements of reality' but....makes it, in typical human fashion, way to complicated for any practical use. At least I cannot see that so it's bound to remain in the realm of theorethical physics where I feel he exactly intends it to remain, thereby precluding other avenues, for example those 'walked on' by Jason and James, to be seriously explored.And I do feel there is more 'light for humanity' there!
Correct me if I'm wrong!
THE MAN replied on Aug. 14, 2010 @ 17:19 GMT
Jelle, you know you haven't read DiMelio (http://radicalacademy.com/studentrefphil24fmd.htm)
DiMeglio is saying that we are basically "outsmarted" in the dream. Furthermore, he is sounding a loud gong that basically says: THE END OF PHYSICS! -- (including jobs/funding/grants) in physics. Why would he not have enemies/adversaries here? -- He does, of course.
CENTRAL to this entire discussion is the fact that the ability of thought to [mathematically] describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience. Accordingly, it is impossible that this known mathematical unification of gravity and electromagnetism is not basically/fundamentally correct. DiMeglio brings dreams into it of necessity. You do not agree? DiMeglio has proven many on here to be wrong and fundamentally off base/seriously lacking in what is their right and proper thinking. They do not appreciate it; indeed, they resent it.
DiMeglio truly leads FQXi and this forum in actuality/reality. What have you to say? Reading and comprehending DiMeglio is the requirement. His ideas are very consistent, extensive, and deep when taken/considered together.
The Man,
I've read some more and stand to some extent corrected on my earlier statement. If what FdM allows for Mathematics -in the simplest of forms- to play its fundamental and deserved role I'm with him in declaring 'the end to physics as a dominant of all'. This has gone on for hundreds of years and, indeed, is firmly, too firmly entrenched!
I should like to re-refer to the 'Augstine Article' by Prof. Peter King, distributed earlier today, which in my opinion goes quite a length in 'connecting' these various issues for the benefit ànd understanding of humanity.
Frank diMeglio's writings are 'pretty abstract' to say the least and I should like him to descend a bit from his 'throne'. I'm saying this without wanting to be fascetious, not at all.
I had hoped to discuss physics, but nobody is talking. So, what's on your mind?
You said, "Jason, again, what do you have that is comparable to the following?"
Once is reasonable. Asking again is called boastful. Are there any physics equations in your book?
You know, I took a look at the publisher Eloquent Books, NY NY. Did you have to pay them? Still, that's a useful pieces of information. If you can publish your ideas, maybe I should write a book.
Thank you Frank. You are indeed a Time Lord
The more I read DiMeglio/Anonymous/Superman, etc, the more he makes sense on fundamentals of great importance and relevancy to physics. He is like Brock Lesnar, in a sense, with the FQXi refs. not stopping the fight -- and with him coming out on top in the end. More power to you DiMeglio. You are doing loving, important, and great work.
This idea does explain the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, and it pulls dreams into play as well (the "OR reconfigure..." part, that is):
The ability of thought to describe (INCLUDING MATHEMATICALLY) OR reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience. Dreams fundamentally make thought more like sensory experience in geenral, including gravity and electromagnetism/light.
Accordingly, "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE KNOWN MATHEMATICAL UNIFICATION OF GRAVITY AND ELECTROMAGNETISM IS A COINCIDENCE (OR UNTRUE)." -- I agree.
DiMeglio is a genius of the highest order. FQXi, seriously, you cannot continue to ignore ALL of these great truths (and others as well) -- that are all over this forum -- by DiMeglio.
Reply please. How do you even begin to get around all of it?
Brendan, any of you? This is a very serious and important matter that you keep evading and denying. The truth/reality matters.
Re my earlier reply the The man, more and more with you on this statement!
Would defintely wish for a better balance between 'quantitative philosophers' and 'physicists 'at the end of their rope'' in this discussion! Something has to move and it better be forward fr the betterment of the human condition!!!
Anonymous and The Man,
I've done some further reading and this I think shows 'the other side of the coin' we are talking about and....to be taken into account. Too many selfproclaimed 'hero's of whatever' have 'bitten the dust'! Good, even great, thinking is highly valuable but it has always to be 'in touch and humble':
http://depletedcranium.com/frank-martin-dimeglio-aut
hor-great-thinker-ass/
The top line on this commentary about Kennedy reflects very well whhat I was trying to say earleir!
FQXi deletes truthful posts of fundamental and serious importance. See all the above posts under review?
Focus on the great ideas, not the messengers.
We are here to advance the human condition and human understanding.
You cannot judge DiMeglio's work Jason. That is obvious.
Do you think that time travel is possible?
I just thought of another reason why the photon implements physics and space-time. All, I repeat, ALL of the fundamental particles owe their existence to a particle-anti-particle creation with ... high energy photons at the moment of the Big Bang.
Photons implement all particles.
Don't know whether it will be of help to you but 'coincidence' has it that the word PHOTONS has, among others, these 'cosmic equivalents':
'SINGULARITY' 'THE SECRET OF THE UNIVERSE' 'THE LAW OF RESONANCE' 'MAGNETISM''RHYTHM OF LIFE' 'MULTIVERSE' 'INCEPTION' 'THE SECRET CODE OF THE COSMOS' 'CALENDAR STONE' 'BEYOND BELIEF' 'SUPERNOVAE' 'FOUR MILLION YEARS OF EVOLUTION' 'SUNLIGHT' 'ALL LIFE COMES FROM LIFE' 'THE LANGUAGE OF THE SUN' 'MODUS PONENS' 'SUBTLE IS THE LORD' 'THE POWER OF NOW' 'THE POWER OF POLYTHINKING' 'THE POWER OF THE INTERNET' 'FREEDOM OF THOUGHT' 'THE AGE OF EMPATHY' 'GENUINE' 'THE SEARCH FOR THE BALANCE' 'THE CREATIVE MINORITY' 'SPACE, TIME, NUMBER AND IDENTITY' 'MATHEMATICAL TRUTH'
Good Sunday on which, according to the (ignorant) Christian world Mary went to Heaven and only God knows what she was coming to do there!!!
The movie at the beginning of this site shows PHOTONS and associated NUMBERS in all their glory.
http://www.rainbow21122012.org/
Enjoy as it's beautiful and true too!
Everything you say about the photon is true.
I have said that the photon is responsible for implementing the laws of physics and causing the universe to exist. If you can name the passage from the Bible that says the same thing, I will declare you a genius.
You stated to my great satisfaction "Everything you say about the photon is true." To me that means that otentially, human nature permitting, philosophy and Physics might peacefully meet, cohabitate and get 'thing human' on a diffrent plane of understanding, perhaps?
The nice thing about PHOTONS is that it's a '30', i.e. another 3, the number of the mind. I have postulated with otehr physicists that Higgs Boson, n which billions of €€€€ are being spent under and around Geneva sofar without any breakthrough, is nothing else than the '21' = '3' of its very name. No reply from nobody!
At this point, and maybe to pull the 'Frak's of this word' also along, I should like to introduce this form to a most important character, the '8' and its mate '26' and below you will see why:
The '26', which adds up to the number '8', a Saturn vibration and the number of Destiny as well as the 'Big Bang', 'Big Picture' 'Number is the within of all things' 'Metaphilosophy' and 'A Global Thinker' as well as 'Opportunity', 'To be or not to be, that is the question' 'Say No' and 'A Mayan Cosmogenesis', carries the name 'Partnerships' and the following '26' vibrations may provide an insight in this important cosmic character in the context of human relations and endeavour:
'NUMBERS, SPACE AND TIME' 'NUMBERS, SPACE, TIME AND GRAVITY' 'PARTNERSHIP' 'TOGETHER' 'WE ARE THE WORLD, WE ARE THE CHILDREN' 'COMMON DESTINY' 'EXPERIENCE' 'BEING, EXPERIENCE AND DREAMS' 'BEING, EXPERIENCE, CONSCIOUSNESS AND DREAMS' 'MOTHER EARTH' 'MATRIARCHY' 'UNITED WE STAND' 'POWER TO THE PEOPLE' 'ENTHOUSIASM' 'LIFE IS A GAME' 'BIOGENESIS' 'EXISTENCE AND BEING' 'HUMAN NATURE' 'MATRIARCHY' 'INTERNATIONAL' 'PANTHEON' 'TASKFORCE' 'ORA ET LABORA' 'FIFTY-FIFTY 'SPACE AND TIME' 'DIVINE LAWS' 'INFINITE JUSTICE' 'THOUGHT' 'MATHEMATICS' 'GOD IS MATHEMATICS' 'MATHEMATICS IS GOD' 'UNITY IS GOD' 'REALITY IS GOD' 'PRIME NUMBER' 'GROUP' 'CODE AND CYPHER' 'THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM' 'CHANGING THE WORLD' 'CRITICAL THINKING' 'COSMIC INSTRUCTION' 'COSMIC VIBRATIONS' 'ORDER OUT OF CHAOS' 'KEEP IT SHORT AND SIMPLE' 'PLANET' 'EVOLUTION' 'MOTHER-EARTH' 'THE FORCES OF NATURE' 'THE POWER OF NATURE' 'THE COLOURS OF THE RAINBOW' 'SPIRIT OF BEAUTY' 'FAITH IN BEAUTY' 'UNIVERSAL VALUE'
on the 15th of August, an 8 by all the digits of the date!
Having been encouraged by Jason, Anonymus and The Man too I should like to 'exhibit' one of the key articles on my website as, human nature being what it is, maybe you just don't get there so easily!
It's from in my view key book, published right at the turn of the Millennium -and never have I read a more comprehensive book- as follows:
Quantum...
Quantum Philosophy
Understanding and Interpreting Contemporary Science
by Prof. Em. Roland Omnès
There is no doubt that we are going through a period of fracture, whose first perceptible manifestations are four centuries old, dating back to the dawn of modern science. But if fracture there is, what is it exactly?
There are at least two aspects of this fracture whose significance is widely recognized. The first one concern's humankind's place in the universe and our perception of it, while the second has to do with the pervading consequences of modern technology. The former aspect influences the mind, the latter affects life as a whole.
Who can ignore today that we are part of the evolution of all species, of the universal flow of life; that the formation of the sun and the earth extends our lineage even further back in time, right down to matter, to the oxygen breathed by the first living creatures, to the atoms that compose us and which once were part of long-dead stars – that the universe had a beginning?
I would assume that we know all these things , and that they are the intellectual background of the 20th century. As for the proliferation of technology, our earth is being crisscrossed by airplanes, electronic waves, and information, the changes in our daily life, the impact of medicine, and the cries of a world in pain and suffering, we know how important they are, but, again, these things are well known and I have nothing to add to the many books and essays that discuss them.
I would like to talk of a fracture that is more discreet and little noticed, but also important. It concerns a profound transformation of science, one that measured on a historical scale has just occurred, and which greatly affects the nature of human thought, the act of understanding. It takes part in an eminently positive movement, the powerful trend toward coherence and order we mentioned in the Preface (to the book), where the laws originating from each particular science come together to form a seamless bundle of imposing unity.
The fracture is nevertheless there, in the fact that these laws are, when seen through the eye of average intelligence or classical philosophy, absolutely incomprehensible. In a nutshell, the more we know, the less we seem to understand.
We often hear the legitimate complaints of those who cannot understand the principles of contemporary physics or mathematics which no amount of "popularization" succeeds in communicating. There is in this situation more than meets the eye, more than the consequence of an excessive specialization or an immoderate taste for abstraction: the existence of an intrinsic darkness.
It is even worse, as we shall see, and the traditional foundations of philosophy now give up under the pressure of science. It is impossible to describe this breakdown in a few words, for it does not seem to have been recognized in all its ramifications. Let us just say that we are losing the spontaneous representation of the world that used to be at the origin of every thought, common sense is defeated together with the philosophical principles it generated. A strange predominance of abstractness, of formalness, exists at the very heart of reality. There can only be one remedy: to invent a new way of understanding.
The cracklings announcing the fracture were clearly heard, but their deep rumblings went unnoticed, and it's under this incomplete form that they traverse philosophy. First, there was a retraction of logic on itself, when it becomes formal and introspective. The books are full of it, from Russell to Wittgenstein and from Garnap to Quine or Popper. Formal logic helped another, wider renewal in mathematics, cutting the last ropes that still tied it to reality. Mathematics became autonomous, a pure game of relations, Logos renewed, where Forms were no longer forms of something concrete but ready to accommodate anything. Many authors discussed it, those mentioned above as well as others, such as Jean Cavaillès and a number of our contemporaries.
The major upheavals took place in physics: first the theory of relativity and its questioning of the categories of understanding theorized by Kant; then, and specifically, this almost universal science of quantum mechanics, which is in fact the general expression of the laws of nature in a world made of omnipresent and almost imperceptible particles. It is this science that warned us of the limits of common sense and the fallibility of some fundamental philosophical principles: intelligibility, locality and causality for instance. Words fail us, they only encompass the most deceiving appearance of things, and bump into each other in multiple contradictions. Only mathematics has the fiber to capture the concepts of physics; not merely to render them precise, as in the science of the old days, but to articulate them – and nothing can replace it.
We have just outlined the essentials of this second part: a diagnosis of cataracts, the clouded vision of science, be it in formal logic (which we shall barely touch upon), contemporary mathematics, or quantum mechanics. We shall also recall in broad outline the acute philosophical perplexities that arose in connection with these sciences, be it in mathematics or in quantum epistemology. In doing so we are preparing the ground for a last stage, to be addressed in the final part of the book but requiring this preliminary analysis. Any attempt to renew that philosophy of knowledge at a level suitable to the complexity of current problems cannot be supported by a collection of disjointed reflections – a bit of logic here, of mathematics or physical sciences there – appearing in so many separate and specialized books, as is now the case. The keystone should rest on all these pillars at the same time, however unhappy the specialists may feel. This is the reason we build them now.
A last remark, concerning the terminology we shall adopt to better emphasize the philosophical characteristics common to these three sciences, and to identify the two major stages of their evolution. We have referred to physics before the fracture as "classical" science, and to mathematics afterward as "formal" science. Thus, Aristotle's logic is classical, as is Newton and Leibniz's differential calculus; while quantum physics, despite the number of its very concrete applications, will be called formal. This is simply a particularly convenient classification to render our arguments more transparent.
Not a word to be added but reactions clearly invited!
The photon was first cause. The photon is at the heart of all physics. The photon was here before everything else. What is a photon? A photon is ... light.
From the Holy Bible, Genesis, chapter 1, verse 1.
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
That is where the light came from. Physicists call this the Big Bang. After about 10-37 of a second, all of the fundamental particles began to form. This is established physics theory.
Guess what! This proves that God created the universe; ipso facto, God exists. What?
GOD EXISTS.
God does not exist but Nature's Intelligence does. Spinoza, with his 'Natura naturans' and 'Natura naturata' went out of his way to get the christians disclaim the existence of God and achieved worldwide recognition for his 'watertight proofs'. After that God slowly 'started to die' and now only exists in 'fundamental pockets' dangerous though as they may be!!!
On your Bible quotation I have to correct you as well some. The earliest Bible manuscripts started with a 'natural statement' saying "In the Beginning were Six" referring simply to six axes: left, right, up, down, forward and back. As simple as that!
However, we should not waste our time wit a 'God yes, God no' argument. We're well past that and there are much more fruitful avenues to explore and actually walk on!
Go read this link about the Big Bang. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Very high density of energy preceded the creation of the first fundamental particles. The photon, also known as light, is the purest most fundamental form of energy.
What does the Holy Bible, Genesis say?
Where did the Big Bang come from?
This proves that God created the Universe; ipso facto, God exists.
In other words, the origin of the Universe was geometry-based to which the BB throught the singularity provided its 'energy push', including, indeed the PHOTONS which provided the light! No 'God concept' needed!!!
Have a look at this http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0202008
"...the BB through the singularity provided its 'energy push', including, indeed the PHOTONS which provided the light! No 'God concept' needed!!!"
How did the energy do that Jelle? And, what property is the cause of intelligence?
Two realted ways of looking at the BB Singularity, mind you SINGULARITY being cosmiclly equivalent' to Jason's PHOTONS. Can' be coincidence as that does not exist!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_singularity
and here we are trying to find our way!
Where is the geometry coming from? How are dimensions being implemented?
Geometry, dimensions, Higgs fields, space-time, are all coming from the photon, from light.
Go into the light.
"...and here we are trying to find our way!"
You declared that: there was no need for God. My questions had to do with you making a declarative statement about ultimate cause. I asked what was your explanation for: How does energy do that? and What is the cause of intelligence? Please do not give me links to theoretical physics type answers. I asked for your answers. If you understand the links that you submitted, then, please explain in your own words why you say what you say?
John Merryman replied on Aug. 15, 2010 @ 22:53 GMT
It would seem space, "the void," pre-exists light, even in the biblical references.
That's where it gets confusing. How can space, or position and time, even exist unless something is implementing it. The void represents a "something" in which a Big Bang can occur in. Was there a universe already here before the Bibg Bang?
I honestly don't know.
I don't think of space as material. It's just that we can only measure points of reference, so the only way to define it is in terms of what occupies it. This energy/mass is collapsing as gravitational attraction and expanding as radiation. That they balance out, I don't think is coincidence, as Big Bang theory proposes. I think there is some convective correlation. possibly what is falling into gravity wells and is not radiated, or ejected out the poles of galaxies, emerges through some other process as quantum fluctuation and this creates the effect of expanding space, but which is then drawn back into gravity wells, thus resulting in an overall Euclidian flat space, as is observed.
The Big Bang theory falls apart, if you consider it requires Inflation to make it work, if there is space outside this universe, because it would be subject to quantum fluctuation and this would seriously inhibit Inflation.
I think a far more satisfactory explanation is that the vacuum is unstable, resulting in a background radiation that tends to collapse in chain reactions,creating gravitational vortices, which then heat up and radiate the energy back out.
Time is simply an effect of motion, i. e, the changing configuration. Yes, the speed of light can be used to correlate distance, which is one dimension of space, with duration, but that doesn't make time a dimension. It is a process and the secondary effect of reductionist linear configurations can be modeled as a dimension, but that's nothing new. It's called history.
Space and time are implemented by photons, virtual and real. Photons are carriers of energy simply because,
The clue that photons implement space-time comes from the very strange fact that atomic clocks slow down when they are lowered into a gravity well. Time has everyone so baffled, that FQXI had an essay about time. But time and gravity are very intimately entwined. Why is it that the potential energy well of gravity can remove energy from (redshift) or give energy to (blueshift) a photon. another clue is that relativity is all about how observers ALWAYS observe light to travel at the velocity c. Somebody should write a book about this and call it the Photon Conspiracy. The photon conspiracy would be about how Euclidean geometry is being ordered around by the photon. Why does the photon exert so much control over Euclidean geometry? I will tell you why. It's because the photon is doing all the work. Euclidean geometry wouldn't even exist physically if the photon wasn't creating it. How's that for a holograph? Huh? The photon calls the shots because the photon is doing all of the work.
Am I wrong?
By the way, what's wrong with Inflation theory? You don't think extreme amounts of energy can cause a superluminal event? Then why did the super massive black hole at M87 spit out a jet traveling at 6c? Of course, the physics community is very carefully editing out all references to superluminal events. They used to say that inflation was a superluminal event.
This is how physicists lie to us. They WORSHIP the speed of light as their idol because they cannot cope with the existence of GOD!
This is why there are FAA officials who will testify that they lied to the public about UFO's not existing.
This is why there are NASA employees who will testify before Congress that they airbrushed UFO's out of photographs to perpetuate the illusion of normalcy.
This is why physicists don't deserve the luxury of tenure. Tenure causes intellectual laziness and technological STAGNATION.
Go on physics community. Perpetuate our technological stagnation while you enslave us all to the DARKNESS.
I agree the geometry only defines what is, it does not control it. That's my point though. Spacetime is a mathematical construct in which the sequencing of events is treated as a fundamental property, rather than an emergent one.
Gravity can speed up or slow down a photon, but do you think Euclidian geometry creates space/the void, or does it simply define the references within it?
I do think the complementary properties of space, one an equilibrium state and two, being infinite, are ignored and this is causing conceptual problems.
The reason Inflation isn't considered a superluminal event is because that would mean the energy is expanding out across space. It is better to argue it is creating space. If it was expanding in a pre-existing space, there would have to be a center point, but by saying space is expanding, then it can be argued every point is the center point.
As for ufos, I'd be more inclined to think of them as emerging from higher levels of being, rather than physical creatures traveling from other solar systems. Having spent my life on a farm, I've become extremely aware of the lower levels of being and how the lines and layering are far more fuzzy and ethereal than our reductionist classifications can encompass. Think Uncertainty Principle. The more we measure one set of parameters, the more we miss others. Advanced human civilization exists in its own myopic bubble and we are not as alone as we think and far more delusional than we suspect.
You said, "Gravity can speed up or slow down a photon,..." No no no!!! BANG! BANG!! BANG!! That is me banging my head on the desk. Photons always travel at the same velocity c, locally. Gravity can rob a photon of its energy or give it more energy, but it can't change its speed. It can only change its frequency and direction. That's why time slows down as you approach the event horizon. That's why the GPS satellite system has to use GR to account for time dilation between the surface of the earth, and orbit.
Geometry is implemented, caused to exist, by photons (virtual and real). Before the Big Bang, it is reasonable to speculate that the vacuum state and previously existing universe might have been superluminal, and was implemented with hyper-photons (virtual and real); which amounts to saying that hyperspace existed before the Big Bang. You are free to agree or disagree since I can't prove there was a pre-existing hyper-space.
I'll try to explain my logic about why photons (virtual and real) implement space-time and the laws of physics. Let's imagine a universe that is implemented by ducks. Duck universe! There are feathers everywhere. Every time you perform a measurement, you measure either feathers or feathery constructs. Time is measured in quacks. When there is a lot of quacking, lots of things happen very quickly. When there is very little quacking, things get done slowly. Then some physicist comes along and says, well, Cartesian coordinates and clocks were here before ducks, so if you don't accept that as reality, then you must be a nutcase. Then they wonder why physics doesn't make sense.
UFO's may very well emerge from higher level beings. Personally, I think they can repel the Higg's field as a means to use the underlying hyperspace. That is not going to change the time ordering of events in any causality violating way; it just means that space-crafts will appear out of nowhere, and then vanish. Like they do on the UFO videos.
James, Jason, Steve and Superman,
To answer James' question about "....and here we are trying to find our way", I am more of a philospher than a physicist -?im somewhat glad to say too' and I don't have my own answer to these 'central what was where when questions'. I should like to leave you for reflection in this regard anotehr 'piece' from Prof. Roland Omnès with my own thinking added...
To answer James' question about "....and here we are trying to find our way", I am more of a philospher than a physicist -?im somewhat glad to say too' and I don't have my own answer to these 'central what was where when questions'. I should like to leave you for reflection in this regard anotehr 'piece' from Prof. Roland Omnès with my own thinking added to that in the end:
I wish to conclude this short treatise with a more than appropriate quotation from the outstanding book by Prof. Em. Roland Omnès "Quantum Philosophy"; 'Understanding and Interpreting Contemporary Science', first published in 1999 at the turn of the Millennium.
"Once we are aware of this fact, together with the chasm, i.e. between Logos and Reality, we mentioned earlier and the arguments of the mathematicians regarding the absolute consistency and miraculous prolificness of their science ('It's too beautiful, it's too beautiful, but it is necessary'), we are led to the conclusion that the existence of Logos is an entirely plausible hypothesis.
Thus, to the question concerning the nature of mathematics---is it part of Reality, does it exist through Reality, or does it have and independent existence? We shall answer: Part of Reality? No, because of the chasm, that irriducible hiatus that separates Reality's skin from its garments; do they exist through Reality? No, because the barren poverty of the particles reduced to themselves would be unable to sustain any symbols that might conceal the laws. Hence mathematics exists by itself, as the consistency and fecundity of the fragments already discovered by the human mind suggests.
Doesn't Spinoza say in his first Proposition of his 'Ethics': 'By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself'? We find it in it what it is, a Reality, and what conceives and conceives itself, a Logos, just as we find the same dichotomy in Nature, under its forms 'Natura naturata' and 'Natura naturans', i.e. receiving and giving shape. There is a lot to be learned and be had from Spinoza!"
When will Humankind both draw benefit from, both spiritually, culturally ànd materially, and consequently act upon the generous lessons offered by the immutable and consistent laws of Nature and as well realize and accept that its 'Existence and Being', that '8/26' destiny vibration called 'Partnerships', and all the consequences 'flowing' from it depend on that and just that Force? The very word 'Understanding' literally implies that One accepts to 'stand under a Higher Principle', i.e. that of 'Heaven', the '9/27', i.e. 'Logos and Reality' the '5/32', called 'Communication', same vibration as 'Love, Wisdom and Truth'!
'Only Time', the '21' can and will tell', alltogether a '32' 'Communication' once more!!!
I am fully ready to stand under the Higher Principle and don't care to much who 'dictated it', Nature, God or the Aliens!!! For me it's clearly nature!
You say light doesn't slow down, but time does? Isn't what ultimately determines time is light speed, so that clocks slow down because their atomic activity slows and this atomic activity is a function of light, thus physics argues C is constant because they essentially use something determined by light speed to measure it against?
I like your analogy of ducks quacking. The Cartesian coordinates are a measure of activity, not the basis for it. Though the point I made above seems to apply; when light slows down, time slows down, so for those within the frame, nothing changes, light is always C.
John Merryman made a number of pertinent observations which, having grown up on a farm myself I coudln't agree with more, such as:
"As for ufos, I'd be more inclined to think of them as emerging from higher levels of being, rather than physical creatures traveling from other solar systems. Having spent my life on a farm, I've become extremely aware of the lower levels of being and how the lines and layering are far more fuzzy and ethereal than our reductionist classifications can encompass. Think Uncertainty Principle. The more we measure one set of parameters, the more we miss others. Advanced human civilization exists in its own myopic bubble and we are not as alone as we think and far more delusional than we suspect."
Couldn't agree more and feel that we just should 'let it be' as the Beatles once instructed.
Having said that, we have to progress of course and I just discovered, late in my game, that QUANTUM LOGIC is equivalent with MATHEMATICS and quite a few other important characters which I 'exhibited' earlier.
Quantum Philosophy, the triple "Scepter", is the way to go!
"...do they exist through Reality? No, because the barren poverty of the particles reduced to themselves would be unable to sustain any symbols that might conceal the laws."
Could you please expound upon 'the barren poverty of the particles'? How barren are they? We recognize a 'barren' particle by what remaining means?
How far can we go with:Existentialism?
For instance, if it was humanly probable, if my 50 yr old Brain was transplanted into a donar body of say a 20 yr old physical complete body, would/could I experience my life over again?.. previous yrs between 20 and 50 birthdays? How would the human brain cope with the memories gained in the previous body, coupled withe the "new"experience of the transplanted brains "following" years?
Does this raise the question of: being?
If the process was repeated over and over, and lets say it was maybe Feynaman's brain, effectivly feynman and his thoughts on current stringtheory, may be beneficial to others currently working on the philisophical problems inherent to the theory.
Would this process enhance the Human Species?..the process for organ transplants has evolved to such a degree, genetically and physically to raise the philosophical question of living for ever, be it by organ transplant of the conscious vessel, brain.
Whoever you are, you make some great points. Nothing wrong with organ transplants. Although, it would be better to improve rejuvenation/regeneration technology so that our own physical body lasts longer. It would be nice to maintain the physiological conditions of a twenty year old, as is one's preference. There is ongoing research to find a way to disable the genetic obstacle to immortality.
Jason, you said "whoever you are" in your reply to Anonymous. Who cares who it is? That is why it is Anonymous. That is the message.
You do not run the show, nor are you capable of doing so. We are here to discuss concepts and to advance the understanding, not to battle and insult individuals.
You said, "You do not run the show, nor are you capable of doing so."
That sounds like Frank. I don't have any problem you or anyone talking about ideas. It's when you reply to your own ideas and say, "DiMeglio is saying that we are basically "outsmarted" in the dream. " If you want to defend you positions and ideas, then tell us why they are applicable to every day life. Tell us how they come right out of the physics.
You said, "We are here to discuss concepts and to advance the understanding, not to battle and insult individuals. " But Frank, you were banned from this website for insulting people like Georgina and Ray. You've insulted me as well, but it doesn't bother me. Defend your ideas with good arguments.
For example, take something in physics like the photon, fields, gravity, I dunno, something in physics, and then tell us why it reproduces your argument, your point of view.
Dear Jason and Frank,
We now know that the first anon was Paul. The second anon does sound like Frank. I don't get easily offended, and really don't mind Frank's presence as long as he presents his ideas well and briefly. I am getting tired of having these sites clogged with boastful sock puppets. These sock puppets have lowered this site's signal-to-noise ratio, and make it more difficult to find the real physics within the nested threads.
Frank - If you are intelligent, and if you are emotionally balanced, then you must realize that you cannot force us to understand or agree with your ideas by simply repeating the same old propaganda.
Funny that you bring up 'extentialism' as just yesterday I examined the 'cosmic meaning' of this historically charged word. Here are some equivalents and I take it that also Jason will be very happy!
'COSMOS' 'HEAVEN' 'THE DIVINE PRESENCE' 'THE NATURAL SPIRAL' 'HEAVEN AND EARTH' 'GARDEN OF EDEN' 'EXISTENTIALISM' 'EXISTENTIALIST' 'PRINCIPLES, LAWS AND FACTS' 'THE LAW OF DYNAMIC BALANCES' 'FORCE OF NATURE' 'QUANTUM GRAVITY' 'PHOTON' 'ELECTICITY AND MAGNETISM' 'ENTROPY-SYNTROPY' 'FORM-CONTENT' 'ADDITION' 'IMMUTABLE LAWS OF NATURE' 'WHERE HAS OUR NATURE GONE?' 'MATHEMATICAL' 'MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLE', a triple '27', 2The Sceptre"!
So I think we can go a long, long way with extentialism as also extentialist has the same vibration!
And here are some more equives of EXTENTIALISM:
'UNIFIED THEORY' 'SENSE AND REASON' 'NOBLESSE OBLIGE' 'GLOBAL UNITY' 'ECONOMY OF THOUGHT' 'REALITY IS IN NUMBERS' 'PARTICLE' 'ACCELERATOR' 'PARTICLE ACCELERATOR' 'QUANTUM' 'SUPERSTRINGS' 'HADRONS' 'FREE ELECTRON' 'WFPC2' 'THE GOD CONCEPT' 'THE SUPREME BEING' 'EXISTENCE' 'DIVINE MIND' 'HONEST-TO-GOD' 'THE ONE GOD' 'GODS AND DEMONS' 'ZENITH' 'DEEP TIME' 'PHYSICS OF SOCIETY'
I am often accused of "numerology" because I study lattice symmetries, broken symmetries, the golden ratio, and Fibonacci and Lucas numbers. But I don't understand how to ascribe a number to a celestial body or a word. If I was going to be "scientific" about it, I would probably assign numbers to celestial bodies based on maximum tidal effects (we know that the Sun and Moon are both important to Earth's tides). But how can we assign numbers to words? Wouldn't a word have different numbers in different languages?
I must admit that the waltz of numbers by Jelle is quite disturbing, and this, by the meanders of coincidence in his works.
I am of the same opinion that Ray, while observing a profound spirituality to the codes in our sphere optimization.
I totally agree that the numbers and their combinations, overlays,superimposings, adds, multiplications or complexification are a major component,a main piece, of course...if and only if they were surrounded by a finite serie of harmonic evolution, in this case,the sphere.
The number are specifics for all things indeed, for example it exists a specific number of stars ,planets, moons, BH ..in our Spherical Universe.
It's the same in my humble opinion for our quantum systems involving the specificity and the role of complementarity.This number seems the same for the two limits.
Evolution is a dance of polarization.
All that is fascinating when the serie is specific......because the number is specific, finite and inside a sphere.
Ray, Jason -- DiMeglio is way smarter than you two.
Ray, Jason, You constantly post against DiMeglio, to discredit him. But you have not even read DiMeglio, and you are incapable of understanding his ideas anyway. Why not give it a rest?
FQXi deletes everything that is even remotely associated with DiMeglio anyway.
DiMeglio is not entering the next essay contest either, and that is not a good thing. Only an idiot would think that that benefits us.
Da Best wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 00:45 GMT
Here is the theoretical/actual quantum mechanical nature of being, experience, and thought:
"Thoughts are relatively shifting and variable. Accordingly, dream vision is relatively shifting and variable. Therefore, the quantum mechanical nature of both thought and dream vision is quite apparent. Indeed, the unpredictable and random aspects of quantum phenomena are clearly evident in dreams. The dynamic nature of quantum energy/entities is also apparent in dreams. (Light is known to be quantum mechanical in nature.)" -- per DiMeglio.
Brendan, we told you that dreams make thought (in general) more fundamentally like sensory experience in general -- including gravity, electromagnetism/light, and quantum mechanical phenomena (as they GENERALLY relate to the union of/with gravity and electromagnetism/light, that is).
To the extent that there is/can be quantum gravity, it occurs in dreams.
The three questions Brendan. We are waiting.
paul valletta wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 10:09 GMT
Jason, sorry the anon you replied to was me about Existentialism?
Again sorry for the lack of identity.
No because, they, the particles, i.e. REALITY, exist through the 'charge' of LOGOS which exists of the 'God-given' integers 1-9 and my 'research seems to fully support that 'quantum philosophy' statement from Prof. Em. Omnès, whose book, published by Princeton Press in 1999 I can recommend to all.
My questions were: "Could you please expound upon 'the barren poverty of the particles'? How barren are they? We recognize a 'barren' particle by what remaining means?"
Quoting your response: "No because, they, the particles, i.e. REALITY, exist through the 'charge' of LOGOS..."
What is "the 'charge' of Logos."? It is the use of the word 'charge' that I am questioning.
Sorry to make this so 'deceivingly simple' but then Nature is, the 'charge' are the properties of the numbers, the 1 vibrating with the Sun, 2 with the Moon, 3 with Jupiter, 4 with Uranus, 5 with Mercury, 6 with Venus, 7 with Neptune, 8 with Saturn and 9 with Mars.
Ever thought of the statement "hey this doesn't add up" or 'One's number being called' when it's time to go horizontal?! And many, many more in our languages!
James Putnam wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 18:01 GMT
"...Nature is, the 'charge' are the properties of the numbers, the 1 vibrating with the Sun, 2 with the Moon, 3 with Jupiter, 4 with Uranus, 5 with Mercury, 6 with Venus, 7 with Neptune, 8 with Saturn and 9 with Mars."
A number can vibrate? What is a number? How does it vibrate? What is gained by your use of the word 'nature'? What is 'nature'? How does it differ from an intelligent Creator? How does it create? If you are saying that the numbers come first, what created them or where did they come from? How did they acquire meaning? Are the numbers a priori? I am looking for explanations that go beyond assigning numbers as if that explains things. Is the Sun real or is it the number one that is real?
James, Steve and Ray,
I obviously wasn't there when it all started and neither were you so we have no reason to blame each other for anything. My findings over the past 21 years which I am partly sharing with you -and sorry if it's disturbing Steve- and am happy to share more extensively with you if you contact me on dealism21@gmail.com have tought me and convinced me of what somebody said 1900 years ago as follows.
The Universe seems......to have been determined and ordered in accordance with Number, by the forethought and the mind of the Creator of all things; for the pattern was fixed, like a preliminary sketch, by the domination of number pre-existent in the mind of the Universe-creating God
Nichomachus of Gerasa, 5/32
ca. A.D. 100
to which Pythagoras had already 'added' 600 years earlier when postulating his 1st Law "Everything is Number":
Number is the ruler of form and ideas and is the cause of gods and demons
Pythagoras' Sacred Discourse
and to which Albert Einstein most seriously added what I've said before when postulating his 1st Law: "Everything is Number":
And I feel we should get on with that seriously too. The code which I am using was 'handed down' to us by the Ancient Sumnerians who, like the Maya, had suberb astronomers who knew more than our currentday rather 'mehanistic astromers' and were able to cature 'meaning in the Universe' it seems. And ...my experience is that it works and rather unfailingly!
Sorry for a typo. This "and to which Albert Einstein most seriously added what I've said before when postulating his 1st Law: "Everything is Number":" should be
"and to which Alebert Einstein most seriously added what I've said before"
Sorry for any confusion!
"The code which I am using was 'handed down' to us by the Ancient Sumnerians who, like the Maya, had suberb astronomers who knew more than our currentday rather 'mehanistic astromers' and were able to cature 'meaning in the Universe' it seems. And ...my experience is that it works and rather unfailingly!"
If it works unfailingly then why did you answer in this fashion? Jelle, I don't have any grudge against you or what you say. However, when you or anyone else makes the declarative statement to the effect that "God is not necessary." I want to hear why? I don't have a religion. I don't try to describe God. What I think I do know is that no one knows the cause of our origin. When God is dispensed with, I want to know why? If your numbers fit well with effects that is one thing. The interpretations of theoretical physics fit well also. However, we had an origin and anyone proposing that God is unnecessary needs to explain the other original cause that they believe in.
I have no problem with numbers, or with attributing charges (and numbers) to properties. Check out my essay at:
http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/520
I recieved my Doctorate in Particle Physics, once worked with NASA, and once taught College-level Physics and Astronomy. It is frightening how many non-science College Freshmen get Astronomy and Astrology confused (accidentally or on purpose?). When I taught Astronomy, I purposely pointed out that the modern "Zodiac" includes 13 constellations (including Ophiucus, the Snake Handler):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiucus
and that the dates in which the Sun follows those constellations has precessed (the equivalent of nearly two months worth) since these concepts were established in antiquity.
I understand belief systems. I am a Christian, and a Scientist working on concepts of Scale Invariance and an infinite (or near-infinite) Multiverse. Perhaps those are belief systems in the sense that it is difficult to develop a laboratory experiment to confirm or deny them. But any non-scientific interpretation of celestial bodies or words or names is also a belief system. The ancients were very superstitious, and their methods have vital flaws such as Geocentric interpretations and their inability to probe as much of the Universe as Hubble and more recent experiments can.
James and Ray,
It is difficult to set out my findings in detail in these post apart from giving some eaxamples of these 'seeming coincidences'. James -and also Jason- has acknowledges to have received my documentation so give that a 'rainy day lookover' and maybe the whole 'issue and approach' will be clearer.
Its not that the Sun, nice enough to be numerologically spelled as 365 which provides it with the enrgy from Jupiter, the emotions from Venus and the reason and communication from Venus, IS a 1 but vibrates as a 1 the number of 'origins'.
Mind you Einstein's 'recommendation' had the word 'radical' in it!!!
"It is difficult to set out my findings in detail in these post apart from giving some eaxamples of these 'seeming coincidences'. "
Nevertheless, you need to be able to explain what you believe and why. What do you know about physics theory?
"James -and also Jason- has acknowledges to have received my documentation so give that a 'rainy day lookover' and maybe the whole 'issue and approach' will be clearer."
No, nothing became clearer except that you have adopted a compartimentalized view of 'nature'. I acknowledge your strong commitment to it. I cannot see that it has anything to do with hard science.
"Its not that the Sun, nice enough to be numerologically spelled as 365 which provides it with the enrgy from Jupiter, the emotions from Venus and the reason and communication from Venus, IS a 1 but vibrates as a 1 the number of 'origins'.
In your belief system, this may make great sense; however, the kind of explanation that I asked about concerning an origin is not going to be satisfied by pointing to the number 1.
"Mind you Einstein's 'recommendation' had the word 'radical' in it!!!"
I assume your reference to Einstein's statement is an example of something that seems very clear in your mind. I do not know what you are trying to say.
I have asked questions that you have not answered. Do your answers have anything to do with physics?
I understand your frustration with me. Let me clarify that I am not a physicist and only 'take in' physics theory as an interested layman and even then more from the philosophical side like through Rolan Omnès' excellent book 'Quantum Philosopy'. So I cannot answer your 'hard questions', yet I do firmly believe that number theory has an important role to play to concretely connect Philosophy with Science, Religion and Politics for a more peace- and fruitful cohabitation for the benefit of humanity and.....in a very practical way!
FYI the name JAMES is equivalent to the word SUN, spelled as 365, and I'm not surprised!
"...yet I do firmly believe that number theory has an important role to play to concretely connect Philosophy with Science, Religion and Politics for a more peace- and fruitful cohabitation for the benefit of humanity and.....in a very practical way!"
Here is the problem as I see it. If you are crediting nature with the evolution of the universe, then you have to have an explanation as to why 'nature' is a cause? What is 'nature' and how does it do what it does? How does 'nature' create intelligence? I think that finding patterns in the operation of the universe or the behavior of humans and, then attaching systems of belief to them is far easier than discovering those patterns and explaining them.
Your offer of "...peace- and fruiful cohabitation for the benefit of humanity..." is attractive to most of us and yet is something to be wary of. The problem is that the promises of each 'self-satisfying' system of belief seem to most often require the other systems of belief to convert.
With regard to physics, it has used numbers to produce concrete physical results and yet it is not a subset of numerology. Do you see that as evidence of a failure of today's theoretical physics?
I'll sleep it over and come back to you tomorrow but leave the following with you as a thought. What I think has happened in Physics over time, let's say since Newton, is that they have used 'figures' to establish and report on their Principles and Laws in the 'sterile' sense. What number theory claims is that, at the level of principle, numbers, apart from being the building blocks of mathematics and geometry, have a meaning, call it charge, conferred on them by Nature in order for us humans to amke sense of each other through language of which English, accrding to my observations, is the most universal one.
"...numbers, apart from being the building blocks of mathematics and geometry, have a meaning, call it charge, conferred on them by Nature in order for us humans to amke sense of each other through language..."
These comments I cannot accept in their simplified form: 'meaning, call it charge,'; and 'conferred on them by Nature'. What is charge? If it is meaning then I prefer to call it meaning. Nothing is conferred unless the originator is identified and the means is explained. If you have a belief system that appears to fit with the effects you observe, then that is one thing. If you try to connect your belief system with original purpose and meaning, then you have a very big scientific problem; that is, unless you can explain the connection.
James (and Georgina and Ray),
A good noght's sleep always does wonders but then I also know I'm up against a bit of a hard-nosed physisist, no matter how friendly he comes across!
Georgina, thanks for the good news about the stability of QE and Ray fr the additonal support.
Let me start with some what I consider key quotes from both distant and recent past, assuming that by...
Let me start with some what I consider key quotes from both distant and recent past, assuming that by now Pythagoras "Everything is Number" and Einstein's (Need for a radicaly different way of thinking for humanity to survive) quotes in this regard are common knowledge.
The Universe is built on a plan the profound symmetry of which is somehow present in the inner structure of our intellect
Paul Valery, 9/27
Roland Omnès:
1. Until modern times, intuitive, rational thought was sufficient to describe the world; mathematics remained an adjunct, simply helping to make our intuitive descriptions more precise.
2. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, we arrived at a Fracture between common sense and our best descriptions of reality. Our formal description became the truest picture (most consistent with how things are, experimentally) and common sense was left behind. Our best descriptions of reality are now incomprehensible to common sense alone, and our intuitions as to how things are, are often negated by experiment and theory.
3. However it is, finally, possible to recover common sense from our formal, mathematical description of reality. We can now demonstrate that the laws of classical logic, classical probability and classical dynamics (of common sense, in fact) apply at the macroscopic level, even in a world described by a single, unitary wavefunction. This follows from the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics, with no need for extralogical constructs such as wavefunction collapse.
We will never find a common sense interpretation of quantum law itself. Nevertheless, it is now possible to see that common sense and quantum reality are compatible with each other: we can enter the world at either starting point, and we will find that each leads to the other: experiment leads to theory, and the theory can now recover the common sense framework in which the experiment was conducted (and in which our lives are lived).
"Quantum theory is the only Principle that permits us to oppose Reality and logos in pure form, so to speak, sword against sword, essence against essence. This direct confrontation is the key to their double and inexorable existence. A refution of this argument, the loss of both its revelation and strength, would take away our certainty. It would then be enough that some major breakthrough in Physics should carry with it the disappearance of the chasm (between Reality and Logos) to put us back in square one."
However, he continues:
"It is less well known that nearly all theoretical efforts in Physics have been mathematicl in nature and nowhere else has the penetrating force of Mathematics into the heart of Reality proved so prodiguous and no awl perforates so deep and so well."
No back to Plato in the 4th Century B.C.:
"Plato, himself by his name a 5/23 like the word Nature, in his 'Cratylus', also a 5/23,like also his 'Timaios' in which he discusses the geometrical nature of Nature, considered the question whether names are significant by nature or by convention. He wondered in some depth whether there is some special appropriateness of the sounds of names to the objects called by them or whether it merely reflects the ''usage of the community''. Thus Plato shows that language is an instrument of thought; that the test of its rightness is not mere social usage. Unbeknownst to himself, Plato lifted here more than a tip of the 'cosmic veil' but in the some 2400 years after him this was not further elaborated to any point of shining the full light on the matter and defining a possible beneficial course of action for humanity as a consequence."
Back to Roland Omnès:
Unlike Reality, Logos never offers itself in concrete form, even if it's present everywhere in the reality accessible to us. There is perhaps a beginning of an answer, a handle, so to speak, for whoever tres to get hold of it. We may not know much about Logos, but we possess a sort of living mirror of it: the brain -go back to Paul Valéry's statement on top- which was born and evolved to accomodate it, to exploit it, to recognize it. The brain carries a trace of its matrix like a meteor carries that of an inaccessible planet. Th eidea is quite simple: everything our brain translates as some form of order is perhaps the reflecting of a possibility of Logos"
Some of my findings square nicely with the above as follows:
'UNIVERSE' 'NATURE'S INTELLIGENCE' 'QUANTUM COMPUTERS' 'THE UNIVERSE IS US' 'AS THE INDIVIDUAL IS IS THE UNIVERSE' 'BEING COMBINES REALITY AND LOGOS' 'LIGHT OF THE UNIVERSE' 'AS THE UNIVERSE IS IS THE INDIVIDUAL' 'INTUITIVE' 'THE PLANETS ARE US' 'ANCIENT RELIGION' 'UNLIMITED' 'UNIVERSAL LAW' 'THE UNIVERSE IS UNKNOWABLE' 'NATURE AND NUMBERS' 'LOGOS IS NUMBER' 'NUMBER IS LOGOS' 'MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS' 'QUANTUM PHYSICS' all 6/33's
Moreover the word LOGOS is 'cosmically equivalent' to the word NATURE and the combination of REALITY AND LOGOS as well!
I rest my case although I'm sure that James will come back for not having received his wanted answers!
Cheers on the 21st, called 'The Universe'!
Pardon my oversight but I forgot to list QUANTUM THEORY and COMMON SENSE as a key 6/33's in this context and, as there is no 2 without a 3, 'THE NATURE OF REALITY' as well!
Just in case your reference about a hard nosed physicist might have been directed toward me, I am not a physicist. Cosmic Ray is a physicist.
OK James good to hear that and glad to take the hns back!
Yes - I am a maverick High-Energy Physicist. Two years ago, I allied with M.S. El Naschie for a brief period. El Naschie has recieved much critisism for "numerology". I have tried to keep an open mind, and consider the possibility that "numerology" may be "science" that we don't yet fully understand. Still, some of what Jelle talks about sounds too much like ancient superstition and astrology.
The younger generations may be losing their mathematical and language skills to technology, but at least I can type a message in English, convert it into French with google language, and e-mail it to my Belgian friend, Steve Duforny. Technology might help reduce language barriers - if it doesn't emphasize economic barriers too much.
Sorry that you have fallen prey to technology too, let your daugther be and....more importantly that somebody has waned you off numbers! Ancient yes but nothing inister and definitely zero astrological about it! The old Sumerians would have your ass for that statement!!!
You said "Ancient yes but nothing inister". Did you mean 'sinister'?
My current work involves 5-fold 'pentality' symmetries. The 2-D representation of the 4-D pentachoron is a pentagon. When you break pentagons into nested pentagrams, you get nested ratios of the Golden Ratio. The Sumerians liked the pentagram, and it seems ironic that the symbol was later identified with the occult.
I'm not opposed to 'numerology', but we need to approach this in as scientific a manner as we can - or else risk being completely ignored by the scientific establishment.
I agree Dr Cosmic Ray is a friend,he is very nice, I know it in private.
I am sometimes arrogant hihihi and I like catalyze as a babby ,even my friends hihihi
I like the number theory but I rest rational about numbers.
If the serie of distribution for the uniqueness of all things without any add or superimposing,...if this serie is harmoniously inside a closed evolutive system, spherical where the volumes change in time , as the density thus mass if we correlate with thermo.....thus that becomes a key towards the rotations of these numbers inside this sphere.
The primes appear as the builder of all series,if the entanglement is as our cosmological spheres in their pure number, finite...thus we can see our real, where the polarization with light is a key also.
The center , the main volume, is the number 1..............our moons are x and the rest is just an add or a multiplication.....thus between 1 and x we have a specific serie for the uniqueness....it's logic Ray.
Our quantum spheres are te same than our cosmological spheres, just different in their spheres, AND THEIR ROTATIONS SPINALS AND ORBITALS...THUS we see why the mass is....just because they turn....in this line of reasoning we have an other number 1 ....the universal sphere whic doesn't turn ,it !...thus the serie is in fact with two spheres the center and the universal and spherical limit. 1......x....y....z.....1 it's the serie of the spherization .like a beautiful oscillation, and the sinus dance.....
James, Ray, Steve, and Georgina,
Re my earlier post, you may wish to read up on LOGOS some, particularly what Heraclitus had to say about it which 'sits well' with late 20th century tinking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
Actually, my interest is in you justifying your positions yourself in so far as they pertain to the operation of the universe. My present main interest of study is the uncertainty principle and not in evaluating different philosophies of being. My own conclusion regarding the nature of the universe includes my understanding that it cannot be explained by pantheism.
James, (and Ray and Georgina and Steve)
As a 'parting shot' then this for reflection:
UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE consists of a 1 for the first and a 9 for the second and 'in between', including these two 'quantities', EVERYTHING HAPPENS!
Roland Omnès wrote in 1999 in 'Quantum Philosophy' towards the end in the Chapter 'Vanishing Perspectives':
"With respect to what was...
"With respect to what was formerly known, the new elements in the current state of science may be summarized in three points:
1. logic penetrates the world at the level of matter, and not at the level of our consciousness;
2. our knowledge of the laws of reality is now sufficiently ripe for this consciousness, its intuitive and visual representation, and the common sense it harbours to appear with near-certainty a the consequence of much more general principles and
3. finally we are ready to accept, pending a complete inventory, that there exists an irriducible, a chasm, between theory and reality.
That is the least new philosophy of knowledge should take into account, together with everything else that science might still supply."
This seems to be fully recognized in the statement by Aivanhov made in the '80's:
'All of Nature – mountains, rivers, trees, crystals, metals, all
living beings, even human beings – is nothing other than numbers
incarnated. If you study this question in depth, you will find
that nothing exists apart from numbers. Everything is number;
Nature and the whole Universe are built upon numbers, which form
an indestructible, geometric framework similar to the skeleton.
So mathematics is abstract only at the level of principles; in
the created world it takes on flesh and bone. For the moment,
mathematicians work without knowing how the results of their
calculations correspond to reality. One day, they will discover
that all the physical, psychic and cosmic processes are there,
all explained by numbers and their different combinations.'
Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov
9/27 = equivalent to MATHEMATICAL = equivalent to PRINCIPLE = equivalent to MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLE!!!
the numbers and the spheres are purely and universally linked.
Only when the specific number of the uniqueness is taken seriously.an atom of this or that has its specific numbers of quantum spheres.
And the distribution of primes inside a closed evolutive system thus is better understood, their oscillations are sphericals and harmonics.
Have I 'killed' the 'Philosophy vs Physics' blog yesterday I am wondering, noticing a dead silence. I would hope not!
To which I should add for reflection:
"The new 'Copenhagen Interpretation'?
Omnès' work is sometimes described as an updating of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is somewhat misleading. The relationship between the two accounts is as follows.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics (argued for most centrally by Niels Bohr) tells us to "shut up and calculate". It says that there are certain questions we simply cannot ask, and that there are inexplicable rules which we have to apply in order to get from a quantum description of reality (which we know is experimentally correct to at least 10 decimal places of accuracy) to the reality of our day-to-day, common sense lives (which seems self-evidently correct, and yet is apparently in contradiction with quantum law).
Omnès tells us that we no longer have to shut up in order to calculate: there is now a self-consistent framework which enables us to recover the principles of classical common sense - and to know, precisely, their limits - starting from fundamental quantum law.
And wondering how the physicists among you see that today, also in the light of what is and is not happening under Geneva!
No - Nothing against you. I tend to reduce my postings when Frank is on a rampage. Too much good physics gets lost in the sock puppet conversations.
I don't fully understand the approach that you have followed.
To me, 'labor' (American), 'labour' (British) and 'travail' (French),... should have different numbers. I also don't understand why you call a ratio 9:27 rather than 1:3. I also wonder about how 'the ancients' numbered the celestial bodies when Uranus and Neptune (and smaller Solar System neighbors) had not been discovered. And if we are going to be scientific about it, then this numbering system should be based on a fundamental property such as average (or maximum) apparent brightness (or average - or maximun - tidal effect) as observed from Earth. Your 'numerological science' might not actually be Astrology, but it is similar to astrology in the sense that someone (arbitrarily?) established the rules to try to fit observed patterns, and modern science doesn't understand the patterns or their full meaning.
No insult intended - I just don't understand it...
OK Ray, it eems to me that you have scientific life begin 'at Newton' whereas I firmly believe that there is key information for our use in our (much) more distant past.
Let it be!
Actually, 1: 3^3 has a certain transcendental elegance. :-)
You physicists talk about parallel universes, faster than light travel, time travel. The question becomes: Have you lost your minds?
No wonder you ran DiMeglio off this forum/site and deny and discredit the man and his ideas. He is too much truth -- and that means less money -- for you all. It is clear to all on here that have seen the man get gang banged from the start.
You said, "You physicists talk about parallel universes, faster than light travel, time travel. The question becomes: Have you lost your minds?"
So your official position is that all of these things are impossible? Nobody has ever seen time traveling phenomena, so I agree with you that time travel is impossible. However, there have been millions of reports of the supernatural, ghosts, UFO's. I would think that those reports constitute observations of parallel universes and FTL propulsion. Why am I wrong?
Your ideas involve unifying gravity and electromagnetism with dreams. What new technology do you anticipate will come from this?
DiMeglio is the overall leader and authority of unification theory in physics.
Let me give you an example. By following my approach to physics, the following technologies will be achieved:
a. faster than light propulsion; travel to other star systems in minutes or hours;
b. tractor beam technology;
c. artificial gravity between two parallel plates to maintain 9.8m/s2;
d. force fields
e. invisibility
What new technology will your ideas manifest?
Physics Master replied on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 16:16 GMT
FQXi members, Jason, here is your answer. See if you can fill in the blanks.
TRUE, COMPLETE, AND NATURAL/SUSTAINABLE GROWTH/EXPERIENCE. The goal is to increase the integrated extensiveness of one's thought, being, emotion, feeling, and experience generally. Indeed: "The ultimate and legitimate goal of truth, knowledge, and experience in general is the fundamental advancement and...
TRUE, COMPLETE, AND NATURAL/SUSTAINABLE GROWTH/EXPERIENCE. The goal is to increase the integrated extensiveness of one's thought, being, emotion, feeling, and experience generally. Indeed: "The ultimate and legitimate goal of truth, knowledge, and experience in general is the fundamental advancement and improvement of consciousness in conjunction with the healthy, natural, and instinctive extensiveness of experience."
What of television Jason? Is that a beneficial new technology?
We transfer our experience(s) Jason. Do you know what experiences we are capable of transferring? Do you know anything about this matter/subject? Has this idea ever occurred to you?
Consider what DiMeglio has said in extensive postings here about how we are so intimately bound up with, in, and by the forces/laws of NATURAL physics/physical/sensory experience.
Do you advocate more of this Jason:?
THE DISINTEGRATION AND CONTRACTION OF BEING AND EXPERIENCE
The great revelation of art (including music) is that the world requires and involves man; although science has been slow to recognize this; for the danger of technology is that it is creating a world of experience that is toxic and foreign to the self where man is neither truly involved nor required. By pervasively and fundamentally changing our various sensory experiences (including the range of feeling thereof), the self's ability to represent and form a consistent, comprehensive, and relatively extensive approximation of sense is being compromised; whereby sense and feeling [increasingly] cannot be properly experienced, utilized, and understood as the expression and extension of the self's desire; and it is not only our loss of language that we face. (Consciousness and language involve the ability to represent, form, and experience comprehensive approximations of experience in general; and this includes art and music as well.) The reconfiguration (i.e., disintegration, alteration, reduction, and/or replacement) of sensory experience in general (including range of feeling) is progressively involving a disintegration and contraction of being and experience (including thought). This is evident in (and includes) sleep disorders, depression, anxiety, autism, obesity, and the experience of television. (Clearly, obesity involves a disintegration, contraction, and detachment of being/experience; and it is associated with increased risk of death from all causes.)
Moreover, there is no true difference between what is foreign/unnatural and toxic. Artificially reconfigured sensory experience (including pollution, processed foods, television, etc.) makes the self increasingly unconscious (and reactive) in unpredictable ways. The disintegration, alteration, reduction, and replacement of sensory experience and feeling involve the loss of the instincts; as the self is disconnected and detached from what is natural and truly sustaining. The disintegration and contraction (and this includes detachment) of being and experience go hand in hand. Being and experience are becoming excessively (and increasingly) unconscious and less animate. Finally, in reference to sleep disorders, it is important that dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience at the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense, in conjunction with the natural extensiveness and interactivity of being and experience.
In both depression and anxiety, the emotional disintegration and contraction of being and experience involves increased feeling at the emotional center of the self. In anxiety, this is consistent with excessive concern, the reduction in the desirability of experience, emotional imbalance (or variability), bodily aches and pains (i.e., emotional disintegration), the mind "going blank", panic attacks (involving a sort of generalized paralysis and loss of experience), etc. Comparatively (and similarly), in depression, there is a contraction, detachment, disintegration, and loss of being and experience that also involves a loss of emotion. The loss of desire in both depression and anxiety involves a significant reduction in the comprehensiveness and consistency of both intention and concern as they relate to experience in general; and this has the dream-like effect of reducing thought, emotion, and memory, including the desirability and totality of experience as well.
Answer this post in a complete, honest, respectful, and thoughtful fashion Jason. This is a very serious matter.
You dodged my question, again. What new technologies would emerge from your ideas?
WHAT NEW TECHNOLOGY COMES FROM YOUR IDEAS??????
Do you know what "technology" is? What new capabilities come from your ideas?
I think that Frank should develop a prototype Dream machine and sell the idea to Nintendo.
That's what I thought. But he's not even suggesting that. In fact, using non-invasive brain implants, maybe there is a way to use computer networks to create shared dream experiences with your friends and loved ones.
Is that one Frank is suggesting?
Man up! What new technology can your ideas offer?
Even the efforts to prove time travel are for the purpose of creating a time machine. I don't think they can realize it, but that is there goal.
Do your ideas even offer a new technology?
This website is here for people with new ideas; strange ideas; unpopular ideas. It's OK to be creative.
But Frank, you have no reason to boast.
You dodge questions!
You blither on with your nonsense!
Then you congratulate yourself for NOTHING!
Cosmology is in a shambles because, as DiMeglio has shown, it is an interactive creation of thought that bears significant similarities with dream vision. That is, telescopic/astronomical observations and dream vision both involve a narrowing/"telescoping" of vision. Telescopic/astronomical observations and dream vision both make space more invisible/transparent. This accounts for magnification (and the red-shift).
The unnatural lessening/reconfiguration of visual experience in telescopic/astronomical observations lessens the comprehensibility thereof.
The dream, however, includes the visiual experience therein as part of what is a fundamental integration and spreading of being, experience, vision, and thought.
The interactive and integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand in hand, in and with time as well. Pepole readily resist this idea, because it is so shocking!
Now, back to where we were. FQXi, admit that DiMeglio has unified gravity and electromagnetism.
Is Jason FQXi's spokesperson? If yes, why?
Remember FQXi allowing posts to stand calling DiMeglio an ass, as Florin did this? Remember Florin lying as well, saying DiMeglio lied about Corda's statements on Frank's article -- and then FQXi declaring him (Florin) a winner.
You probably should be reported for this Florin. You thought DiMeglio was some punk you could insult and walk on, with FQXi's help. Frank's book is in the University of Maryland's library. Did you know that? We might report you yet to your bosses. You want so badly to discredit him. We are interested in what else you may have said and done.
FQXi -- You are lying and denying about what is the fundamental truth in physics, because it is goes directly against your funding, agenda, interests, and credibility. The dream unifies gravity and electromagnetism.
I agree. I just wish it was easier to find comments by name, date, and topic. In any event, I'll refrain from responding him.
Kevin Washington wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 16:05 GMT
The flattening of space in all 3 dimensions that DiMeglio has shown in dreams does seem to represent quantum gravity. How DiMeglio has now incorporated quantum phenomena with gravity and electromagnetism cannot be ignored.
Steve even commented upon how Florin and Corda ganged up on Frank. It was obvious.
Jay Johnson wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 17:07 GMT
Not so fast Florin. How do you explain the known mathematical union of gravity and electromagnetism, as DiMeglio says? Let's talk facts Florin. Keep your insults to yourself.
"The next ultimate theory/understanding will explain how thought (in general) is fundamentally more like sensory experience in general BECAUSE:
The ability of thought to describe (including mathematically) OR reconfigure sense is ultimately/fundamentally dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience." Answer Florin.
You know math Florin. You are not qualified, capable, and knowledgeable enough to speak of a theory of everything. What disciplines and other areas are you published on? DiMeglio has far more expertise and knowledge than you do when it comes to understanding being, thought, sensory experience, vision, experience, thought. His book, prior FQXi essay, and published work prove it.
BEST MAN wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 17:22 GMT
Florin, your prior essay, as it was commented then, relied upon multiple and TOWERING assumptions. Talk truth Florin, not evasions and personal insults.
The Big Bang idea precludes (or "kills") what must be the related experiences of thought, life, gravity, experience, being, and electromagnetism/light.
The fundamental laws of physics must be unified and also understood in a fashion that allows life and experience (in general) to be.
Consistent with this, dream experience is essential to the proper (and complete) understanding of both life and experience in general.
FQXi, Florin, Corda, Georgina, Ray, Lawrence, Jason...Gravity increases and decreases with distance.
You do not even know the basics upon which physics ultimately and fundamentally rests. DiMeglio proved this, and you go after him personally, and you deny and ignore his ideas.
He embarrassed you by exposing how much you don't know and by unifying gravity and electromagnetism. Now he has showed quantum gravity in dreams.
FQXI -- you continue to delete great posts here with great ideas by DiMeglio.
FQXi -- remember how you selectively deleted DiMeglio's posts in the prior essay contest with Florin, and yet you let his "replies" stand? So much for a record of the facts in the comments under/with Florin's garbage essay.
Hi Jay. Florin, how did you win in the past contest saying what is mathematically possible in physics while failing to basically address this????:
The ability of thought to describe (including mathematically) OR reconfigure sense is ultimately/fundamentally dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience." -- the KNOWN mathematical union of gravity and electromagnetism is plainly and significantly evident in our experience Florin. How could you win without addressing this, and by being totally wrong about it? Dreams make thought (generally) more like sensory experience in general Florin -- including gravity and electromagnetism/light.
FAST FRED wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 17:53 GMT
Nice post Anonymous. Florin, your essay about what is ultimately possible in physics mathematically totally blew it (and was wrong). Here is why:
The ability of thought to describe (including mathematically) OR reconfigure sense is ultimately/fundamentally dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience." The known mathematical union of gravity and electromagnetism HAS to be plainly and significantly evident in our experience, and this proves it. And this proves that in dreams it is.
DiMeglio is right, and you are wrong. And, you STILL insult him.
Next time Florin, quit while you are unfairly ahead.
FQXi, Florin is your buddy. That is obvious.
On the other hand FQXi, DiMeglio's ideas will ultimately cost you a fortune in funding, grants, participation, and articles/"research" by friends, associates, and members of FQXi. You get the point.
Tell the truth FQXi.
How long will lies, deception, money, insults, articles generated by/involving disputes over NOTHING/NONSENSE and "business as usual" rule the day over truth, nature/reality, health, sustainability, and people.
If we walk away from reality, reality will walk away from us.
DiMeglio, to me, seems to have unified gravity and electromagnetism with quantum gravity as well. The more he says, the more he is opposed.
The quantum mechanical, gravitational, and electromagnetic nature of being, experience, and thought are now clealy demonstrated at rock bottom as follows:
Here is the [theoretical/actual] quantum mechanical nature of being, experience, and...
Here is the [theoretical/actual] quantum mechanical nature of being, experience, and thought (at rock bottom):
Thoughts are relatively shifting and variable. Accordingly, dream vision is relatively shifting and variable. Therefore, the quantum mechanical nature of both thought and dream vision is quite apparent. Indeed, the unpredictable and random aspects of quantum phenomena are clearly evident in dreams. The dynamic nature of quantum energy/entities is also apparent in dreams. (Light is known to be quantum mechanical in nature.)
Dreams make thought (in general) more [fundamentally] like sensory experience in general -- including gravity, electromagnetism/light, and quantum mechanical phenomena (as they GENERALLY relate to the union of/with gravity and electromagnetism/light, that is).
Accordingly, to the extent that there is/can be quantum gravity, it occurs in dreams.
The next ultimate theory/understanding will explain how thought (in general) is fundamentally more like sensory experience in general BECAUSE:
The ability of thought to describe (including mathematically) OR reconfigure sense is ultimately/fundamentally dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.
Therefore, it is impossible that the mathematical union of gravity and electromagnetism is not plainly and significantly manifest in our experience. It is, in dream experience. DiMeglio proved it. The end of physics.
The dream has a definitive and stable sensory, energetic/light, and felt/gravitational structure, as DiMeglio proved. The dream includes BODILY presence/sensation (to an extent), gravity, light, language, minor pain, emotion, thought, concern, intention, hearing, colors, touch/tactile experience, feeling, etc., etc.
The big question is as follows: Nature as we experience it. The body and thought are subject to the laws of physics.
In the NATURAL [bodily] experience of gravity, the force of gravity increases with distance. Gravity also decreases with distance. So, we need to balance the mid-range of gravity in conjunction with what is both a larger and smaller space -- thereby balancing attraction (contraction) and attraction (repulsion). This unifies, enmeshes, and balances gravity and electromagnetism/light.
The mid-range of gravity manifests in three different [quantum mechanical as well -- see the prior Physics Master post) forms in dreams:
1) The experience of the mid-range of gravity in dreams.
2) The experience of touch/tactile experience at the mid-range of feeling (i.e., gravitational/electromagnetic).
3) The elevated concern/energy that is experienced emotionally in dreams.
This is similar to memory, insofar as it adds to/demonstrates the selectivity, specificity, and narrowness of experience/recall/memory.
DiMeglio has permanently widened the scope of physics, to say the least.
And here is another angle to the 'continuing yes-Frank---no-Frank saga' whih seems to lead nowhere. This is what I found in my computer this morning:
"In order to assess fairly the visions clairvoyants claim to have,
you have to understand that the nature of these visions is
identical to that of dreams. It is just a question of degree of
awareness, with the clairvoyant's vision occurring during the
waking state and the dream occurring during sleep. You may wonder
whether you can give any credence to either... Yes, you can, but
only inasmuch as they inform you of the degree of evolution of
those who experience them.
Dreams and visions always have meaning, but anyone who has not
succeeded in freeing themselves from the lower astral plane will
receive their visions and dreams from those dark regions. And, of
course, you cannot trust that these will give you true
understanding or the right answers to the questions you are
asking yourself. Only when human beings succeed in raising
themselves up to the causal, buddhic and atmic planes will their
visions and dreams be capable of enlightening us about reality."
Great visionary this bulgaran 'chap'. Look him up!
It was 'sinister' indeed and...glad to see you breaking up The Pentagon. About time too!!!
Herewith some equivalents for PENTAGRAM fYI:
'POLYMATH' 'PENTAGRAM' 'TRIANGLES BEAT SQUARES' 'SAPPHIRE' 'COMMON UNDERSTANDING' 'SPEAK-SPEECH' 'COUNT-LETTERS' 'UNIVERSAL SOUL' 'INFINITE LOVE' 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN' 'THE MASTER OF THE SCHEME' 'BIOLOGICAL SPACE' 'QUANTUM PHYSICS' 'QUANTUM THEORY' 'PROTON' 'SUPERSTRING' 'MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS' 'THEOREMA' 'HUMANKIND'
Certianly agrre with your statemnet on the need for a scientific approach to the meaning of numbers. But 'empiricism' is still valid isn't it?
Jelle, DiMeglio's ideas lead nowhere? Is that what you just said? We need new thinkers here. Bigtime!
If that's the case then our ways seem to separate until.....we meet again as I'm sure there is a connection! My three 'main characters' SUN, a 5/14, NATURE, a 5/23 and UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE, a 5/32 all constitute, by adding the numbers of each entity, a 1 (ONE) and that was Heraclitus' point about LOGOS!
Equally good friends.
Ray, (and Anonymous)
Thanks for the references to Frank's work which I went through. With all due respect for the author as trying to open up new avenues should always be rewarded in principle, to my mind this 'construct' is too artificial and 'dreamt up' by a human mind and that is not how Nature works. It fights with all kinds of logic and common sense I feel.
All I'm going to say about it!
You have fun too!
Jay Johnson, Kevin Washington. Thank you for your posts. Excellent post Anonymous.
Here is further clarification of the matter:
Decreased gravity may be offset/balanced by increased inertia/immobilization, thereby balancing scale (distance in space). This balances attraction and repulsion, and this demonstrates space as gravitational/electromagnetic energy -- in these different manifestations of the same. The MID-range of gravity is equivalent with the SEMI-immobilized condition therein -- (picture us in outer space/the sun) vs. earth (full gravity) -- in dreams. Touch/tactile
experience is also at the same energy/feeling level as the gravitational experience in dreams. Read Mach on inertia and gravity.
The gravitational contraction (to the center of the body) may be understood as being balanced by (and involving) an electromagnetic repulsion/expansion. Larger and smaller spaces (contracted space vs. outer space). The heightened concern/energy, touch/tactile experience, the gravity in dreams, semi/half immobilized/"inertialized" - they are all manifestations of what is essentially the same. Union of gravity and electromagnetism in/as dream experience.
This is the most important discovery in physics that quite possibly has ever been, and will ever be, made.
Now DiMeglio has demonstrated quantum gravity in dreams too (see the prior posts please.)
Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 12:59 GMT
The ergodicity is always there.
This way towards the ultim energy is fascinating,as a partition of spherization of course.
The recurrence about time and space for our concrete mesurements are essentials.
When Boltzman has inserted this theory of cinetics gas,the uniquity of the entanglement and its pure finite number correlated with thermodynamics, statistics and mechanics show us the road of the rotations implying mass.
The fractal is specific of course, and the system of rotating spheres more the volumes seem implying the codes of becomming on this line time.
Our invariances when we analyzze even a discrete system rest as they are.The locality and the globality are evidently the same in their pure dynamic.
All systems are proportionals and the ultim limit of physicality is in 3D and this time constant permitting to have our actual datas and rationalities.
The spherisation( quantum spheres ...specific numbers....evolution...time constant....cosmological spheres....increase of mass.....Universal sphere)
The system of ergodicity is essential to encircle our reals numbers.
Hamilton will be happy to see these fractalizations of rationality.
We can't imply the confusions for the public, the foundamentals are our foundamentals.
If we don't consider the temporal moyen and space moyen with their invariances, thus how can we know the real serie inside the correct referential.
If the infinity is inserted without rationality and limits, it will be difficult to encircle and to understand the real Alephs of Cantor.
All that becomes a real problem about the interpretation of infinity, the harmony and the chaos, sim^ply because some dicreteness are bad understood or bad inserted without real topology in 3 dimensions.
Conclusion.The chaos is just a photo.A short instant ,...a bad
interprettion....
You asked:"You are telling me in all seriousness that I am who I am either because of the exertions of an omnipotent God, or because of billions of years of an evolutionary process. "
Are you suggesting a third alternative?
You said,"We can dispense with the God theory immediately. "
Why? In what way is it obvious where the universe came from? In what way is it obvious where the laws of physics came from.
Jason, experience is not "created" because it is not thought/thinkable.
Thought is different from vision, for example. Thought is interactive and integrated with sensory experience (and more so in dreams), but to a limited extent -- but this then reduces the totality of experience (and thought) in dreams.
God is the teddy bear that you no longer have.
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 13:09 GMT
My boss called my reasoning "sowas von fundamental". Others called it philosophical. In brief: Future effects cannot yet be measured. They are more or less uncertain. Consequently, spacetime cannot describe reality. Is there a mistake to be found as to elucidate pertaining paradoxes? Critics tend to attack Einstein and his precondition of constant c. I suspect, there might be a deeper rooted mistake. That's why I am dealing with the already paradoxical putative length contraction in case of two objects that move towards each other with constant speed. It looks as if I have found a hidden flaw in metamathematics. See above.
Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 22:27 GMT
Who dealt with "Mathematical Invalidity of the Lorentz ..." by Aleksandar Vukelja 2005 http://www.masstheory.org?
Helmut Hansen wrote on Aug. 28, 2010 @ 06:01 GMT
In this blog the notion of God is very often mentioned. In fact GOD is the most philosophical aspect of philosophy itself. Weinbergs impression that philosophy is murky and inconsequential compared to the dazzling successes of physics goes back to this aspect.
Until today no one has an idea how to deal with it in a scientific way. The main problem is: How can something be proved or tested if it is considered of being invisible?
The answer: It can't be tested. If something is really (!) invisible in the truest sense of the word, there is, in principle, no empirical test so far.
Is this the end of all philosophy, especially of metaphysics?
No. Actually the property of invisibility includes very restrictive conditions with respect to the visible physical universe. It is quite obvious that a Universe must be organized in a very specific and unique way if it shall base upon an invisible foundation. Although Einstein asked: Did GOD have any choice in the creation of the universe, he did never make use of the properties, which are intimately connected with this philosophical term of GOD. But these properties are highly effective tools, if we are going to ask for their physical implications resp. conditions in a systematic way.
These conditions can't only be found they can actually be precised in such a way, that they are even testable. It seems that our (!) universe does satisfy just these conditions. There are empirical datas which do point to the existence of an invisible foundation of the UNIVERSE.
In brief, if a modern metaphysics is truly possible, it will change the course of modern physics, because it deals with a foundation that is by its very nature of fundamental character.
Further Details - see: http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/502
Helmut,
Very glad to 're-opened' this discussion with some substance! Without going into details here I should like to invite you -and others- to giev a look at the content of the attachment which has come about over the past 21 years. To my humble mind this might be the key to a peaceful and fruitful cohabitation between Philosophy, Science -notably Physics and Biology-, Religion and Politics and....for the benefit of humankind!
Just today I established that mathematically, according to The Ancient Sumerians, these 'terms' are equivalent:
'WHERE HAS OUR NATURE GONE?!' 'COMPASSION-ETHICS' 'THE POWER OF IMAGINATION' 'BEING, CONSCIOUSNESS AND DREAMS' 'COGNITIVE SCIENCES' 'INCARNATED LOGOS' 'INCARNATED TIME' 'INCARNATED NATURE' 'INCARNATED GOD' 'LATERAL THINKING' 'POWER OF SPEECH' 'THE POWER OF THE WORD'
attachments: 2_Dealism21Current_Manuscript.doc
I've no doubt that numbers are highly important to decipher the fundamental blueprint of the physical universe. This view is quite common within the scientific community.
Einstein f.e. maintained a long-term interest in the question of constants of physics. His most interesting statement on the matter occurs in private correspondence with Ilse Rosenthal-Schneider. In a letter, written in 1945, he expressed the idea, that dimensional universal constants such as the velocity of light are not really fundamental. Instead of that he believed that in a truly fundamental theory pure numbers like e or pi are the genuine universal constants. That we still relate to dimensional constants like c was due to the fact that we have not penetrated deeply enough into nature's secrets.
I myself followed this Einsteinian kind of numerilogical reasoning and discovered that the geometrical "picture" of the MANDALA is probably a secret blueprint of the universe. It shows as conceived by how space and time are organized at the most fundamental level. It includes space-time-segments which are not covered by the relativistic spacetime.
In brief, different persons make different assumptions about the scientific meaning of numbers.
The most important thing in science is of course the experiment: Experiment is the sole judge of scientific truth. (Feynman)
It seems to me that an unexpected (!) experimental prediction is the best proof for a convincing approach.
Have you got anything like this? I couldn't recognize that in your paper.
Thanks for your quick and good reply! As for your question about a 'verification experiment', no I don't have that but you may wish to have a look at
www.rainbow21122012.org (scrolls to the right) which is a follow-up to my book and which contains 1) an emotionally beatiful movie from Cristonbal Vila about 'Nature and Numbers' as well as a number of articles, particularly behind the 'church windows' which further 'dress u my findings.
Also, if you contact me on dealism21@gmail.com I can send you a 'visualizing powerpoint' on all this including the relationship with Nature.
By the way, I have see your article 'The Taming of the One' and it's right out of my heart and have include LOGICAL POSITIVISM, being equivalent with NATURE in my manuscript! Lots of future there but....the Sci-Establishment is tough, very tough!!!
Lastly I can agree with you on teh MANDALA being equivalent with the name ALBERT EINSTEIN and a '19' containing both the '1' and the '9' and all else is inbetween.
I spend some more time with 'Taming the One' and consider it fascinating! At this point I should liek to let you have these equivalents as they have a bearing on what you are postulating I think.
'COSMOS' 'HEAVEN' 'THE DIVINE PRESENCE' 'METAPHYSICAL UNIVERSE' 'THE NATURAL SPIRAL' 'HEAVEN AND EARTH' 'GARDEN OF EDEN' 'EXISTENTIALISM' 'EXISTENTIALIST' 'PRINCIPLES, LAWS AND FACTS' 'THE LAW OF DYNAMIC BALANCES' 'NOT, AND, OR, IF….THEN' 'FORCE OF NATURE' 'QUANTUM GRAVITY' 'PHOTON' 'ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM' 'ENTROPY-SYNTROPY' 'FORM-CONTENT' 'ADDITION' 'IMMUTABLE LAWS OF NATURE' 'MATHEMATICAL' 'MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLE', a triple '27'
Moreover, be informed that your own name is equivalent to the words UNIVERSE as well as ONENESS as well as OUT OF THE BOX and quite a few other 'key characters'!
Helmut and Eckard et al.,
Coming back to GOD -who Im sure we'll never get rid of anyway and shouldn't there be room for everybody always!- I came across, speaking of the MANDALA you brought up the other day, of a nice defintion of God as follows: "God is a circle with the centrepoint everywhere and the circumference nowhere".
Could it maybe therefore be that we are often going in circles without getting anywhere?!
In order to avoid the reproach of blasphemy, I will restrict my reply to the notion circle. Magnetic fields are vertex-fields without point sources. Static electric fields behave inversely. Time is growing steadily and can accordingly never loop. Nonetheless, we may benefit from using models that do fit reality for a while but not for good. Strictly thinking, future values of any physical quantity in reality are not yet available for sure. Integration from minus infinity to plus infinity is a common but not compellingly justified practice. Average physicists and even some engineers need some effort as to grasp that.
Helmut Hansen replied on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 14:10 GMT
the notion you mentioned is very popular among classical metaphysics: "God is a circle with the centrepoint everywhere and the circumference nowhere". This notion can be viewed in a physical way as a specific boundary condition at infinity. An infinite space f.e. has in fact its centrepoint everywhere. Hence, the statement you mentioned deals obviously with a specific kind of an infinite space. I assume that a "divine" space is characterized by the additional demand, that the local and the global aspect of it must explicitly "coincide".
To relate to your comment: Could it maybe therefore be that we are often going in circles without getting anywhere?! The original meaning of sin is: to fail the point.
Eckard replied on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 16:05 GMT
Physics still prefers the divine point of view with a center t=0 everywhere and extension from minus infinity to plus infinity. I see this just a risky model that arose by extrapolation after abstraction from unilateral limited observable range of time t smaller than zero, i.e. elapsed time larger than zero.
In other words, the two boundaries in IR+ are zero and infinity. We may use this philosophically quite different consideration as to deal directly with reality, e.g. in real time, without ambiguity due to redundancy. We should also get aware that any concrete consideration of a process is finished at a point t=0. For predictions, initial conditions may have a sound basis. Final conditions are always guesswork if we assume the world not closed in the sense of not completely calculable.
Dear Eckard, Helmut, and Jelle;
If you want to banish God from physics, then physics has to vigorously affirm that it cannot be used to explain ALL reality. There is a misconception that physics accounts for ALL forms of reality. That is why God keeps showing up in physics blogs and within ideas about physics.
Physicists, and those who practice physics, need to affirm vigorously and loudly that physics does NOT explain ALL aspacts of what is real.
James Putnam replied on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 19:09 GMT
Well said. I will add that physics has nothing to say about whether or not there is a God. The problem for physics is that it has nothing to do with explaining meaning, purpose, and intelligence. Theoretical physics has only to do with mechanical analysis of changes of velocity of objects. No one, representing some limited type of theoretical analysis, gets to assume intelligence for free. They must explain its origin. Intelligence is still scientifically inexplicable.
So that my message is noticed. I do not assume that you or anyone else agrees with me; but, I responded to your message. My point was that anyone who wishes to declare God dead must replace God by explaining the origin of intelligence? Self-assembly is a completely ineffectual response. It tells us nothing except about the effects that we already know exist. The argument seems to be: List the effects and we have explained the cause. That kind of answer is as empty as is patheism.
Let's please get this important point straight: No one can explain the origin of intelligence. No one gets the origin of intelligence for free. In other words, by simply declaring it to exist without expanation. Or, by implying that it originates from non-intelligent beginnings. Please show that path and I do not mean listing the effects. I mean give the cause.
I am not the final answer to the origin of intelligence; however, if anyone has an answer that actually is a cause, I am interested in reading it. What is it?
Yes Jason:
Physics cannot be used to explain ALL reality. I wonder a bit why FQXi obviously applauds if someone speculates as did Penrose on a link between physics and dreams. Shouldn't we try and scrutinize reasonable alternatives by e.g. Van Flandern to so far questionable foundations of physics instead?
When I wrote divine point of view, I meant the Einsteinian denial of the fact that the past and the future are quite different from each other. Einstein confessed his belief in the opposite: For believing physicists like him, the separation between past, present and future was just an although obstinate illusion.
I repeatedly tried to explain that the term present is deliberately imprecise and has in physics strictly thinking only the meaning of the border between past and future. Forgive me if I compare god with other attempts to intentionally abstract from reality including immortality or at least seeing into the future.
The "divine" concept of spacetime is a closed circle from eternity to eternity or even more speculatively including antiworlds. It ignores that our past is unchangeable while our future is open in the sense it cannot be predicted for sure by means of physics.
I consider my restricted point of view more appropriate and see my so far utterly uncommon paradigm confirmed by mounting evidence.
Dear Helmut:"Experiment is the sole judge of scientific truth"? While I agree with your intention, I do not exclude misinterpretation. Nimtz repeatedly measured a velocity of signal propagation in excess of c. Wasn't he definitely wrong? Your "unexpected (!) experimental prediction" looks silly to me. You meant confirmation of a prediction by an unexpected outcome of an experiment.
The unexpected explanation of an effect found by Eddington apparently supported Einstein's theory. Meanwhile, alternative explanations were also found.
May I ask you to check arguments against what has been accepted from the majority for about one hundred years while it still does imply paradoxes?
Please comment on Vukelja, if possible with respect to Lorentz and Voigt too.
If I recall correctly, Louis Essen the Lord of measurement at NIST considered the 1905 paper perhaps the worst he ever read. I partly share his opinion because Einstein did not quote key papers he relied on which were indispensable as to understand his reasoning. Essen further meant Gedankenexperimente do not provide a sound basis.
You seem to think as Einsteinian as is a physicist you are blaming for not understanding you. Einstein called the distinction between past, present and future an obstinate illusion. I maintain: The notion present is fuzzy physics. It may include near past as well as near expected moments. How large is |sign(0)|? Since Dedekind replaced Euclid's notion of number as a measure, mathematicians prefer arbitrary instead of reasonable rules. Hilbert was among the most brutish ones.
Further to my message earlier -about which I am serious mind you!- I just discovered, while having a 'capuccino freddo' in my favourate bar in Rome, that:
'PYTHAGORAS AND PLATO' and 'SPINOZA' and 'ABSOLUTELY RIGHT' all have the same 5/32 vibration, called "Communication" and....5+3+2 adds up to ONE like its 'counterpart' 5/23 for the word NATURE and...LOGOS and a host of other 'parameters' ruling our lives!
We have to get out of that 20th century 'box' -so carefully constructed by the combined forces of politics and religion- people! Doesn't get us anywhere but to endless bickering over everybody'e 'marbles' as I have witnessed on this blog over the past few weeks!
Do you consider Essen bickering? Doesn't it relate to MP3, to LHC, and to mind-impairing paradoxes that millions of people must learn to swallow? Essen called Einstein's relativity a cause for delay in development of science. FQXi claims to deal with foundational questions, and therefore it abstains from censorship even if Frank DiMeglio is perhaps very annoying to anybody.
I apologize for trifles like writing "as is" instead of "as does". However, do not consider me just drinking a Cappuchino. I learned a lot here at FQXi. Maybe it is still not yet sufficient.
Ciao Eckard,
Most interesting article which goes to show on what 'high and no doubt lonesome' pedestal the World has put Albert Einstein. In the context of his time it is understandable that, following the disaster of WW I, the world very badly needed 'a real hero' who was after all, as he often said himself, also just a human being! And what is 'cleaner' than Science?!
But it continues and there is no doubt in my mind that 'Father Albert' has helped Science, and Physics in particular, tremendously forward. Also probably because he was a Philosopher of quite some standing in his own right and, for me personally,I have always admired him more for hat he said than for what he did.
There was no name on the article. Is that on purpose?
Finally my reference to the 'bickering' was the still continuing 'yes Frank-no Frank' game which is quite annoying to say the least! Thre must be intersets at stake somehow is my european judgement!
Eckard,
What I forgot to mention was that CLOCK PARADOX is 'equivalent' to the name ALBERT EINSTEIN. Coincidence or what?!
And these two are furthermore equivalent with FYI:
The number '19', a Sun vibration, was described by The Ancients as one of the most fortunate and karmic reward numbers and it should be no surprise that the word 'BEAUTY' is a '19' and so are the words 'SPIRIT' 'SOUL' 'THE SOUL IS ....' 'SELF' 'DREAMS' 'LIFE AND DEATH' 'ODD AND EVEN' 'THE MIND' 'MIND'S EYE' 'KEEN EYE' 'WOW!' 'TIME AS MULTIPLIER' 'THE NATURE' 'POLY' 'THE GOD' 'CODE' 'THE SECRET CODE' 'REALISM' 'THE HUMAN GENOME' 'INNER BEAUTY', a double '19', 'TRUST' 'FAITH' 'FACTS' 'MANDALA' 'DIGNITY' 'THE SUN' 'SHINE' 'FUN' 'SO LONG' '1960s' 'UP AND DOWN' 'LAUGH' 'ENJOY' 'WHY WORRY' 'SHELL' 'LIVING' 'CHAOS' 'INERTIA' 'RESET' 'SEARCH' 'SPEAK' 'MAKE A WISH' 'PRAYER' 'MAKING LOVE' 'MAKING SENSE' 'USE AND DISUSE' 'SINGER' 'PAINT' 'GUIDE' 'ANIMAL WORLD' 'WE ARE....' 'TWO HEARTS' 'THE DIVINE CREATION' 'FATA MORGANA' 'MIRACLE' 'APPIA' 'REGINA VIARUM' 'NEW YORK' (although composed of a destructive '16' and a '12' 'The Victim'!) 'BLUES' 'KABBALIST' 'MASTER' 'THE GENIUS' 'HERO' and 'MAGICIAN'
And yo will have seen that the HERO is there too!!!
Jelle, Let me say it with very bitter irony: "Wer ein Volk [von Wissenschaftlern] fuehren will muss heroisch denken!" (Who aims leading a nation [of scientists] has to think heroic!)? The devil to whom I am alluding mislead the Germans.
Do we need heroes at all? Maybe it is by chance that the Czech Petr Beckmann as well as a Serbian uttered criticism against a German hero. They would have many reason for hating Germans.
By the way, Einstein was fostered by Max Planck. Well, Schroedinger seduced his 14 years old pupil Itha Juenger and later he caused her aborting his baby. I also dislike his pornographic poem Zittern. Nonetheless, his scientific thoughts seem to be honest. Schroedinger arrived at a non-relativistic quantum model of hydrogen.
In contrast to him, I consider Heisenberg even more speculative than Einstein and anything but a philosopher when he suggested: "The path comes into existence only if we observe it". Einstein derided entanglement as a spooky action at distance. In that he was most likely right.
What about Frank, nobody besides himself says yes. He cannot hide his stupidity. Maybe he intends to disturb us or has even been hired for doing so.
Eckard, how dumb are you for calling DiMeglio stupid? Are you ok?
Any help will be appreciated. Who dealt seriously with Vukeja , Van Flandern, or other critics? While my approach is different, I found coincidences concerning sign matters and consequences. Apparently I am the first one who demands strictly to exclude what is future with respect to the process of concern. Baez already understood that the laws are valid for future too while "states" are restricted to the past. However he has been reluctant to accept the due restriction of reality to IR+.
Mere denial of paradoxes and dazzling hints to allegedly confirming accuracy makes me even more suspicious. I feel reminded of the time when I was forced to propagate also questionable political doctrines. The question whether Einstein did cheat can be clearly answered with yes: He cheated his wife. Whether or not he also cheated in science does not matter at all.
I do not consider Einstein the first one who possibly went wrong. We have to look at Voigt and Lorentz. Well, Einstein's 1905 paper "Zur Elektrodynamik ..." reveals more obvious weak points. However, the twin paradox is already rooted in some earlier papers by Lorentz. Lorentz added a remarkable Anmerkung to his 1904 paper in 1914. Lets focus on delta psi=1/c^2 d_round^2 psi/ d_round t^2. I appreciate that someone picked up my finding: DEQs are not the primary relations. In reality, influences are superimposed and accumulated. Originally integral relations were stripped off and lost their immediate connection to the embedding reality. This does not only create redundant ambiguity but it also gives rise to possible mistakes.
Everything is possible when less assumptions are made, when one thinks more broadly and consistently, when one has increased ability to think broadly and consistently, and when one is educated in great thinking by the greatest thinkers.
Isaac Newton gave us an equation for gravity, about 400 years ago.
Quantum gravity requires constant energy, balanced attraction and repulsion, and inertial/gravitational balancing. Do you agree DiMeglio, or are you too lacking in physical understanding to reply?
The Lighbringer wrote on Aug. 29, 2010 @ 19:13 GMT
That is correct: "Quantum gravity requires constant energy, balanced attraction and repulsion, and inertial/gravitational balancing." DiMeglio showed this in dreams already to you all.
Einstein's universe is unstable (contracting OR expanding), and it is an incomplete approximation. DiMeglio has shown gravitational/electromagnetic space as contracting and expanding AT ONCE.
Nothing to say freaks?
TO ECKHARD:
Dear Eckard,
I mean an unexpected explanation of a well-known phenomenon accompanied by an unexpected experimental outcome.
Although I share your doubts about special relativity, but Einstein's theory is a very good example for what I mean: Einstein explained the invariance of the speed of light c in an unexpected way (by denying the ETHER), predicting that there is no difference between the motion of the source and the motion of the observer. According to Einstein only the relative velocity between both was important. This prediction was quite unexpected because it contradicted all our knowledge about the behaviour of waves.
Today this relativistic view is a kind of paradigm.
And just this view can equally be "transcended" by an unexpected explanation (two "faces" of c) accompanied by an unexpected experimental outcome, i.e. a subtl ether-drift.
I've written a paper in which the basic idea of this view is presented.
Its title: About the Dual Parametrization of c
Further Details see: http://www.worldsci.org/people/Helmut_Hansen
Eckard wrote on Aug. 31, 2010 @ 16:35 GMT
Experiments with unexpected to visitors outcome are most convincing contributions to an unbiased philosophical framework in a permanent exhibition that demonstrates the whole history of science, to be seen in Magdeburg at the river Elbe upstream to Hamburg where Helmut Hansen lives. If it didn't also show diverse biographies and explanations, children could get the impression that no hard work by means of mathematics is always required as to make genuine progress and to avoid mistakes.
Why are mathematicians and physicists mesmerized by idols like Cantor and Einstein, respectively? Perhaps, they collectively shy back from the admission being unable to understand them.
Florin demonstrated to me how increasingly abstruse even professional experts are trying to resolve paradoxes without admitting the possibility of any fundamental fallacy. Baez and others are letting the field of a critical analysis to those like Helmut Hansen who are perhaps not in position for finding any flaw in mathematics. I feel that e.g. a Dirk van M. may behave rude because he is correct in terms of usual mathematics while possibly nonetheless incorrect in a wider philosophic perspective.
Helmut, wave equations relate to a medium, ether, or elysiumn neither to c_source nor to c_observer. By the way, relativity was already described in 1632 by Galileo Galilei. I recall my teacher at school attributing what was clearly just Galilean relativity to Einstein.
I found strong but possibly not deep enough arguments by Thomas Van Flandern . So far I failed to decipher Voigt's paper although his style of introduction of unknown coefficients reminds me of what has been declared wrong by Vukelja .
Proponents of SR belittle Galilean Electrodynamics as just simpler. Should we accept a Lorentz relativity LR as suggested by the late Van Flandern? Could a new GR at all be build on LR?
I envision a clarification: The imaginary "ict" of spacetime might not belong to the already completed past but to a quite different extrapolated abstraction from it. This clarification would also affect QM. Could parts of GR and QM be united as being trash?
Dr, Eckard .,- do you here state that motion and inertia is dependent upon accelerasion thet involves equal repilsion/atraction???
Eckard replied on Aug. 31, 2010 @ 21:30 GMT
Let me add an easily understandable recast of Beckmann's book Einstein plus two by Tom Bethell. .
Anonymous Frank Di Meglio alias ..., you might call me either Eckard or Dr. Blumschein but please not Dr. Eckard unless you intend being impolite.
I decided to omit "Blumschein" for the sake of more space for details instead.
The name Eckard is rare enough as to avoid ambiguity.
I maintain calling you stupid, mainly because you are trying to hide your identity behind anonymity or names like Fast Fred, The Lightbringer, Superman, etc.
It happens, someone forgot using the option of indicating his name and is unintentionally called anonymous. He is still identifiable if he finishes his posting with signing his name or something characteristic, e.g. "have fun". You might guess who deliberately signed with anonymous for just one time ;-).
Philosophy provides the superior and knowledgeable interpretation of physics:
Sir Arthur Eddington: "When science has progressed the furthest, the mind has but regained from nature what the mind has put into nature. We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origin. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint, and lo! it is our own."
Sir James Jeans: "Fundamental physics, then, tells us something about our own minds, but nothing about the outer world."
To whomever,
"Philosophy provides the superior and knowledgeable interpretation of physics."
Maybe or maybe not. Why don't you explain why you believe what you believe?
ok James, ready to reject the truth AGAIN :
The ability of thought to describe (ncluding mathematically) OR reconfigure (as in dreams) sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense. Dreams make thought more like gravity AND electromagnetism/light.
In dream experience and in waking experience, the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of the totality of experience by combining unconscious and conscious experience. Experience then becomes a more direct expression of the self that is increasingly representative of a greater totality of experience as well.
It's all consistent.
AND James Clerk Maxwell: "The only laws of matter are those that our minds must fabricate and the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter."
Dreams unify gravity and electromagnetism/light, and they demonstrate quantum gravity as well. The highly ordered (and flattened) structure/form is balanced by increased "chaos"/randomness.
I didn't recognize your new messages. Carry on with The Truth.
Ukgatuba Ilgabaga wrote on Aug. 31, 2010 @ 20:26 GMT
"Dreams make thought more like gravity AND electromagnetism/light." what this mean? Dream reduce thought, gravity, and elcecromahgnetism, thereby making them all more the same. Is this what you say??
Excellent Ukgatuba. Precisely.
Physics has a foundation of quicksand at this point, the more the physicists say, the less sense it all makes, and the more they are sunk.
I put my money on DiMeglio.
Helmut Hansen wrote on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 04:57 GMT
Dear Eckhard,
it is true relativity was already described in 1632 by Galileo Galilei - and that is just the problem. Galilei's observation was related to a branch of very low velocities compared to the velocity of light. As Einstein made this observation to a universal principle he made a huge step. He generalized an observation made in the everydayworld to all kind of inertial motions. He stated - at least implicitly - that every forcefree motion of an object will last forever idendenpently how fast the object is. An object with a velocity of f.e. 12 km/sec will not slow down at any time, if it is moving along an inertial path. That's the core of relativity. I think the Pioneer Anomaly has opened up the possibility that this implicit statement of relativity which includes the validity of the first law of inertia could be wrong.
It is quite remarkable that Einstein used the outcome of the Michelson-Morley-Experiment as a proof for the principle of relativity, whereas great parts of the scientific community did see this outcome as proof for the ivariance of c. (J. Stachel - Einstein Studies). Einstein used this outcome as a strong evidence for the equivalence of all inertial frames of reference, but it could be as conceived by me a second still unseen version of the fundamental constant
of c.
By the way to deny relativity does not necessarily include a denial of the Lorentz invariance.
Jelle U. Hielkema replied on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 18:35 GMT
Thanks and good to know that that definition also has, in addition to the spiritual context and powerful image of THE ALL, a '21' called 'The Universe', a physical basis!
Anonymous replied on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 19:12 GMT
Helmut, inertia is ultimately related to the strength of gravity, as this all relates to motion and distance in space. There is an ultimate/fundamental inertial/gravitational equivalency that relates to distance in space as we ultimately can and do experience it. This is based upon/linked with the scale that we physically occupy and typically experience -- gravitationally and electromagnetically. This then makes possible a low energy union with electromagnetism, at this constant and balanced/centered gravitational/inertial energy. This representation is implied in the Einstein/Maxwell mathematical union (i.e., equations).
Anonymous, electromagnetism and electromagnetic energy/gravity are both central to distance in space regardless of/independent of our natural motion.
This is an obvious connection with inertia.
Increased inertia can offset/balance decresed gravity. This point is key to any unified theory of gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism. This representation is implied in the Einstein/Maxwell mathematical union (i.e., equations) as well.
What are you inclined to think?
Dear Anonymous,
the essential question behind all these discussions and reflections about the origin of inertia and gravity is: What is really fundamental? We don't know this. We have some kind of feelings, but there is no serious criterion that allows us to answer this question convincingly.
To my opinion a modern metaphysics is the only way to get these answers because it is the...
To my opinion a modern metaphysics is the only way to get these answers because it is the only discipline, which deals naturally with a fundamental entity, which is called by Platon the ONE. If we can precise the physical implications connected with it the answers will follow.
To give an example: If we suppose the existence of the ONE we have to assume very specific boundary conditions at infinity. I found that the Universe has to be in a forcefree state at two very specific levels. These levels are spatially connected with the Smallest (R = zero) and the Largest (R = infinity). There are empirical data, which seem to confirm this condition. In other words: The ONE is probably more than an illusion.
If this conclusion would be right, it would have tremendous consequences with respect to some fundamental principles of physics, especially to the equivalence principle, because this approach changes fundamentally the ontological status of the local inertial frame of reference (= a forcefree state). Connected with the One it must be asserted as a truly fundamental notion of the universe. And just this connection changes everything in physics.
We know that a freely falling frame of reference is locally (R = 0) indistinguishable from an inertial frame of reference. In our physics given by general relativity we does use this fact to break the preferred character of the inertial frame of reference. We assume that the equivalence principle is more fundamental than the notion of an inertial frame of reference, because the equivalence principle is "explained" by the general principle (!) of relativity.
That means, the inertial frame of reference is seen as a special case of an empty (non-real) universe.
In a modern metaphysics this relationship would be turned in the reverse direction. The local inertial frame of reference is really fundamental and the equivalence principle is thus determined by the ONE as follows: To suppose the ONE as fundamental branch of reality we have unavoidable to assume that the universe is locally in force free state. The equivalence principle can be "read" as a necessary condition to "guarantee" this force free state. Only if the difference between the inertial force and the gravitational force is completely solved the universe can locally be in force free state.
Of coure, the universe has also be in a force free state with respect to its global aspect (= the largest level).
There is a paper which seems to confirm this condition as well. It was published recently .
Does gravity operate between galaxies? Observational evidence re-examined
Authors: Francis J. M. Farley
(Submitted on 27 May 2010)
Abstract: The redshifts and luminosities of Type 1A supernovae are conventionally fitted with the current paradigm, which holds that the galaxies are locally stationary in an expanding metric. The fit fails unless the expansion is accelerating; driven perhaps by "dark energy". Is the recession of the galaxies slowed down by gravity or speeded up by some repulsive force? To shed light on this question the redshifts and apparent magnitudes of type 1A supernovae are re-analysed in a cartesian frame of reference omitting gravitational effects. The redshift is ascribed to the relativistic Doppler effect which gives the recession velocity when the light was emitted; if this has not changed, the distance reached and the luminosity follow immediately. This simple concept fits the observations surprisingly well. It appears that the galaxies recede at unchanging velocities, so on the largest scale there is no significant intergalactic force. Reasons for the apparent absence of an intergalactic force are discussed.
I think this view could be an indication, that the universe is globally in a forcefree state.
Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 10:51 GMT
Hi Helmut
Of course the reverse is also then true. Have you considered the actual postulates may be correct but the Lorentz Transformation wrong?
Observation tells us that light passing from glass to air accelerates instantly from say 140,000 to 180,000 miles/sec. with respect to each of those materials, no matter what direction or speed they're moving at with respect to anything else (i.e. Locally).
So why does mainstream physics tell us that light passing from the glass of a train windscreen to the air outside will do 'c' with respect to (wrt) the glass it just left, or the emitter and air inside the train?
Doppler shift can be as much evidence of light having changed speed between media as evidence of speed of observer. If 'n' is a function of relative speed as well as density etc of a medium the solution is not longer hidden.
But you must be prepared to drop some unproven paradox ridden preconceptions and find more mental dexterity than most posess to unveil the final theory.
I wish you luck
Karl Coryat replied on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 21:09 GMT
Light does not accelerate instantaneously when it changes media. Photons always obey c. In a medium, a photon tends to intersect an atom, and when that happens the atom is energized and then kicks out a different photon. If the new photon is kicked into empty space, it is statistically less likely to intersect another atom, and therefore the light ray at that point appears to "accelerate." But the individual photons obey c.
I say photons "obey" c, and "intersect" atoms, because I don't like to say that they travel or collide. Photons don't experience proper time and experience no distance (t and s both contract to zero in their frame), so "travel" isn't strictly correct; that is an anthropomorphic invention which leads the mind astray. They only *appear* to travel, to external observers. It is better to think of c as the space/time conversion factor (akin to 2.54 cm per inch), than to think of it as the velocity at which a photon "travels" or "zooms through space" -- a notion outdated by 100 years, even though you see it all the time in popular science articles.
Dear Karl Coryat,
What is your evidence?
Since I do not know you, I want to soften my previous message. Is your evidence some interpretation of theoretical physics? If you are depending upon empirical physics, then, what is your evidence?
I'm not sure what it is that you're objecting to, but if it's the second part, it's basic special relativity, at least as I understand it. Within a photon's reference frame, the universe is "traveling" at c and therefore, *for the photon* (that is the salient point), the universe contracts to zero distance and zero time. Meanwhile, the spacetime distance between two points along a light ray is zero, which is why we say they are null-separated. In other words, the photon *itself* does not experience proper time or distance. Am I wrong?
Karl Coryat,
No, you are not wrong, unless a physicist theorist corrects me. The point is that your support for your position is theory. That is ok so long as it is put forward as theory. I do not know you, so my question was directed at learning if you had empirical evidence. Perhaps a theoretical physicist will explain what they think about this? Anyway, hello to you and welcome.
Hello James, I have been lurking for about nine months and posting occasionally.
Okay, so we're assuming that special relativity is a correct interpretation of the evidence. I like to think of its implications -- for example, that a photon, as far as it is concerned, can potentially reach any point in the universe instantaneously (at least in 3D space; the local time of course goes in the opposite direction). Or, that a point here on Earth, today, is in the same spacetime "location" as a point four billion light years away, four billion years ago -- the "path" of a photon (as seen by us) making the connection between the points. If one takes a relational view, as I do, both the time and distance of the remote point, being physical descriptions, should be seen as a function of our reference frame in the here and now, rather than a description of any absolute "way things are."
John Wheeler said, "The photon that we are going to register tonight from that four-billion-year-old quasar cannot be said to have had an existence 'out there' three billion years ago, or two, or one, or even a day ago." I believe it is our measurement of photons like the one from Wheeler's quasar, given our frame of reference, that creates the context and structure that we understand about the universe.
"Okay, so we're assuming that special relativity is a correct interpretation of the evidence."
Not me, not by a mile. However, you may get responses to your message from professionally qualified others. I would be interested in reading those response. Lets see what transpires.
Once more I am coming back to you with a 'string of equivalents' which Th Ancients called "The Scepter", the '27':
'COSMOS' 'HEAVEN' 'THE DIVINE PRESENCE' 'METAPHYSICAL UNIVERSE' 'STELLAR-INERTIAL COMPASS' 'THE NATURAL SPIRAL' 'HEAVEN AND EARTH' 'GARDEN OF EDEN' 'EXISTENTIALISM' 'EXISTENTIALIST' 'PRINCIPLES, LAWS AND FACTS' 'THE LAW OF DYNAMIC BALANCES' 'NOT, AND, OR, IF….THEN' 'FORCE OF NATURE' 'QUANTUM GRAVITY' 'PHOTON' 'ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM' 'ENTROPY-SYNTROPY' 'FORM-CONTENT' 'ADDITION' 'IMMUTABLE LAWS OF NATURE' 'WHERE HAS OUR NATURE GONE?' 'MATHEMATICAL' 'MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLE', a triple '27', 'UNIFIED THEORY' 'THE WORLD IS RULED BY NUMBERS' 'SENSE AND REASON' 'NOBLESSE OBLIGE' 'GLOBAL UNITY' 'ECONOMY OF THOUGHT' 'REALITY IS IN NUMBERS' 'PARTICLE' 'EACH PARTICLE IS EQUAL AND STAYS EQUAL' 'ACCELERATOR' 'PARTICLE ACCELERATOR' 'QUANTUM' 'SUPERSTRINGS' 'HADRONS' 'FREE ELECTRON' 'WFPC2' 'THE GOD CONCEPT' 'THE SUPREME BEING' 'EXISTENCE' 'DIVINE MIND' 'HONEST-TO-GOD' 'THE ONE GOD' 'PANTHEISM' 'GODS AND DEMONS' 'FOR GOD'S SAKE!' 'ZENITH' 'DEEP TIME' 'PHYSICS OF SOCIETY'
In the light of these do you feel that there could be someting like the 'physics of society' to promote and give substance to a bettter undersatnding between Humanity and Nature?!
Peter and James,
T. Van Flandern explained convincingly that Lorentz contraction is an illusion. His Lorentzian relativity (LR) assumes an earth-bound elysium instead of the aether. It is consistent with all observations that were interpreted so far as evidence confirming Einstein's SR, and it is even preferred for GPS. So we should ask those like Karl Coryat who still believe in SR for taking issue.
I recall Peter arguing for faster-than-light (FTL) propagation. Van Flandern did not exclude FTL motion as a result of gravitation. Of course, the velocity of electromagnetic waves is limited to c. Nimtz is definitely wrong.
Not just the twin paradox remains puzzling to me. Van Flandern did not yet abandon the Lorentz transformation. Paul Davies claimed having resolved the twin paradox of SR by a rather mysterious to me combination of LT and Doppler effect.
I doubt. Doesn't LT mingle past and future? Who refuted Vukelja ? What experiment has shown that the sign of velocity between two points does not matter? I do not see Einstein's relativity obeying full symmetry.
I dealt with many derivations of LT. A pretty original approach by Victor Yakovenko at U of Maryland in 2004 is based on the assumption of "the symmetries of space and time". That's exactly what I am putting in question. IR+ ends at t=0. Well, we may mirror it. However, this must be done consequently by those who know what they are doing.
Admittedly, I did not yet deal with the many claimed experimental confirmations of SR and GR. However, I am familiar with electromagnetic and acoustic wave phenomena.
Could we please have physicist responses to Eckard's message?
T H Ray replied on Sep. 2, 2010 @ 18:14 GMT
Lorentz transformation does not "mingle past and future." Spacetime in general relativity is physically real; neither space nor time have an independent reality.
Thank you for replying. I wish your response hadn't been so 'matter of fact short'; however, I am interested in Eckard's response. I guess that will be tomorrow Germany's time.
Please refute Vukelja first before trying to judge. He found five errors on a single sheet of paper, e.g. Error 2: "Explanation is inapplicable. If rays of light are traveling in both positive and negative directions of the x axes, then one cannot combine their positive and negative x coordinates as they represent different events (addition of apples and oranges). ..." Error 1 may elucidate in part how already Voigt, FitzGerald, and Lorentz went wrong.
When Van Flandern updated the Lorentz Ether Theory, he successfully focused on providing convincing arguments against what he called time desynchronization. He did not ask whether or not Lorentz was entirely wrong from the very beginning. He called Lorentz contraction "an illusion introduced in special relativity by the lack of remote simultaneity".
Someone commented on how Paul Davies dealt with the twin paradox. He noticed that he agreed with him in that Einstein's reasoning was asymmetrical concerning the chosen observer. Indeed, Einstein considered only one photon traveling from A (past) to B (now) and return to A (future) instead of one each from A and B meeting in the middle (now).
Why? Einstein did definitely know the 1895 paper by Lorentz and most likely also some work by Poincaré. He was certainly happy having found a stunning interpretation. By the way, Lorentz admitted in 1914 still failing to reach full agreement with Einstein's SR. Maybe, Poincaré made in 1904 a decisive mistake when he attributed time to clocks that were synchronized by observers as if one did have god's eye and could look into the future. Why not accepting that ideal point-like events are strictly local and simultaneity of two events means that the arrows of free flight of light meet in the middle of spatial distance? A reflected ray may be disturbed. It is uncertain.
What remains to be done? I will try and search for a reason why Maxwell's equations gave rise for mingling past and future. The community of physicists should check to what extent notions like proper time and spacetime as well as theories like GR are at least partially tenable, and whether there will still be remaining paradoxes in physics.
Could we please have physicist responses to Eckard's followup message?
One has to have a basic understanding of general relativity and the role of spacetime in the theory -- there are no rays traveling into the past or future. Events are only timelike or spacelike according to their position in or outside the lightcone and the state of the observer. If one cannot grasp that space and time are not independently real in GR, there really is no ground for communication on the subject.
The foundational question is validity of the SR on which then timespace and GR are based. You will certainly not declare GR the basis of SR, will you? Perhaps you do not have anything to say that could defend SR. I agree on that "there are no rays traveling into the past or future" in reality. I consider such abstruse time travel an outgrow of a philosophical position shared by Einstein and perhaps you too but not by me.
Eckard, Einstein didn't invent special relativity. He only used the concept to show that spacetime coordinates are identical to proper time; i.e., that the speed of light is an absolute measure standard between mass points. There's been a hundred years of theory and experiment to suppport that conclusion.
We might as well argue if the world is really flat.
You are not a good advocate of SR. Read if possible the original of 1905 or at least [hint:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relati
vity] a survey. Proper time and spacetime were introduced by Minkowski in 1907.
You might be right in that Einstein did actually not contribute much to mistakes that go back to Voigt, FitzGerald, Lorentz, and in particular Poincaré. Their philosophical basis is already written down in the bible: anticipated existence from eternity to eternity. They considered DEQs the basis of physics.
"... the speed of light is an absolute measure standard between mass points."
The Lord of measurement, Essen of NIST, did not like this idea. So far we measure in meters and seconds. With meters per second we could not even distinguish between past and future.
There were also many decades of Marxist theory and experiment. You mentioned a conclusion. Is it falsifiable?
Yes, Eckard, E = mc^2 is indeed falsifiable.
These criticisms of SR are the veriest nonsense.
You said, "Yes, Eckard, E = mc^2 is indeed falsifiable. "
How is this falsifiable? They built the atomic bomb and dropped it on Japan. Don't you remember nuclear testing? The Cold War lasted forty years. What are you talking about?
"These criticisms of SR are the veriest nonsense." For clarification:
Does this remark refer only to Eckard's own statments or does it also apply to the arguments put forward in links he provided such as Van Flandern's?
The foundational question is still validity of LT and consequently SR. You are trying to distract. It does not matter whether or not Einstein's 1905 (Does the inertia...) and 1908 version of Newton's equivalence principle is correct. Langevin came to an equivalent result without SR but with Doppler effect. Nobody, except maybe those like Nimtz, denies the limitations to the speed of wave phenomena like light and sound.
The argument is: Non sequitur. In The Concept of Mass, Jammer says: "It is a curious incident in the history of scientific thought that Einstein's own derivation of the formula E = mc2, as published in his article in Annalen der Physik, was basically fallacious. . . the result of a petitio principii, the conclusion begging the question" (Jammer, 1961, p. 177). According to Jammer, Einstein implicitly assumes what he is trying to prove, viz., that if a body emits an amount of energy L, its inertial mass will decrease by an amount Δm = L/c2. Jammer also accuses Einstein of assuming the expression for the relativistic kinetic energy of a body.
I refuse accepting any endless defense that evades the basic questions and uses inappropriate language instead of factual arguments strictly belonging to the case.
Someone already dealt with your kind of thinking. IIRC it was Tom Bethell.
Jason, James. Eckard:
This is why knowledgeable people don't often like to reply on these forums. All it gets one is abuse, to pass on information that is well sourced and freely available.
Jason, E = mc^2 has to do with binding energy and mass defect.
James, there's no point in nitpicking arguments based on false premises.
Eckard, the "foundational question" for physics is not Lorentz Transformation. Special relativity is well tested and found valid. If there are problems with Lorentz's mathematics (not that I know of any), so what? -- it has nothing to do with physics. Newton/Liebniz calculus was used for centuries before it was put on firm theoretical ground.
I understand very clearly "...why knowledgeable people don't often like to reply on these forums. All it gets one is abuse, to pass on information that is well sourced and freely available." I wouldn't ask for evaluation of my own ideas. Tom van Flandern had a Phd in physics. So, when he was referenced, I was wondering how his work, assuming it is not being misrepresented, is answered by professionals who may disagree. Also, Eckard Blumschein has a Phd though he is not a physicist.
I don't expect professionals to fend off the Internet's always present multitude of incompetent challenges. If I do not belong in that pile, then I must dig myself out. I was hoping to see more detail in the responses. Generalized statements can be very correct; but, they also tend to give an impression of evasiveness. I thought more could be gained from that discussion. Still, thank you for responding.
I'm not trying to be abusive. It sounded like you were challenging E=mc^2. E=mc^2 is true for binding energy. The formula changes to
for relativistic mass. I am in agreement with the physics community that Relativity SR and GR, are true. Simultaneously, I have an idea about how to remove the speed of light obstacle to high velocity travel, without using significantly more enegy than what is easily available to us now.
I looked at Tom Bethell's website. Gravity really doesn't propagate faster than the speed of light. All gravity really is, is a sloping potential energy. The reason it's sloping is because a gravitationally significant object exists. But that "gravitationally significant" object was formed by particles/mass/energy traveling at the speed of light or slower.
I believe that the sloping potential energy of a gravity field, which can create an event horizon, is ultimately part of the Higgs field. The Higgs field is a giant graviational object, sort of like a weave of space-time. Space-time has to be "woven" with wave-functions. Perhaps wave functions are also known as superstrings. These wave functions can cross the event horizon. These wave functions create the potential energy of gravity. However, it is possible that these wave functions can have a potential energy barrier so large that light cannot cross it; and an event horizon is created.
"Gravity really doesn't propagate faster than the speed of light." Tom van Flandern also argued that it does. What do you think about his opinion?
Here at physics vs. philosophy, P. Jackson questioned the Lorentz transform. While neither Van Flandern nor Bethell revealed a cardinal flaw of Lorentz transform, they demonstrated that SR is not "well tested". I did not yet look into Kennedy . Maybe U. Conn and/or Robert W. Buss can also contribute to clarification. Main arguments by Bethell are as simple as convincing: Length contraction has not yet been observed in any experiment. Observed "time" dilatation was actually a slowing of clocks.
Please check my own objections and Vukelja on Mathematical Invalidity of the Lorentz Transformation.
Lorentz, Einstein and others intended to reconcile Galilei/Newton with Maxwell. Perhaps they overlooked that DEQs are not the basic relationships in reality.
I literally only have a few minutes to reply. Gravity radiates outward from massive objects. That massive object is made out of particles. If particles could have gravity fields, then the gravity field would move with the particle.
Gravity fields move with the particle (mas-energy). If the particle is accelerated to .99c, then the gravity field radiation will move at .99c as well.
What I'm trying to explain is that the gravity field moves with the mass/energy. Gravity fields don't have to propagate at c. They are already there. It's like each particle has a gravity "attachment" that moves with the particle.
Yes I understand. Apparently the argument rests on the propogation of gravity being infinite. In this case, the word propogation seems to be dropped as unnecessary. So, gravity adjusts instantaneously universally for every particle with mass. While I am certain that the speed of gravity is far higher than the speed of light and probably infinite, I do not see how relativity theory gets this exception for free. I understand that it is attributed to space-time; however, to me, it is one of many unobservable givens that, out of necessity because of unexplanable phenomenon, attach themselves to theories. I just wanted to know how you see it. Thank you.
You nailed it! There is a reason why QM and GR are so insidiously hard to understand, let alone, unifying them. In a way, both gravity and quantum entanglement have something in common; they both appear to permit FTL information transmission, but then they fall short.. Gravity is radiated instantaneously everywhere. But you can't really signal with it because you would need an insanely huge amount of energy to move a planet, star or black hole back and forth in order to transmit 01101110 bytes of information. In the case of quantum entanglement, you can have wave function interactions/correlations that span the Milky Way. But you can't transmit information as 1's and 0's either because information can only be transmitted by photon/causality carrying objects.
Forgive my anthropomorphizing, but I can just visualize some Creator somewhere just giggling and laughing at us as we try to comprehend the paradox wrapped in an enigma that we call physics. We are taught to believe that truth is supposed to be simple. Which of course makes this cosmic joke even more insidious because the universe was created to be the opposite of simple; it's fractal.
I don't blame you or anyone for talking about a "speed of gravity". However, there might be a better explanation. Maybe "fabric of space-time" really is a good idea. It would suggest that space-time is, in some way, a woven interconnection of ... wave functions perhaps. Wave functions themselves have only an ambiguous existence. They would exist well enough to transmit a gravity potential energy (gravity field). The deformation in space-time they produce is updated instantaneous and more than capable of creating an event horizon. However, gravity fields follow matter/energy; so gravity fields can't form or move faster than c.
I'll bet you can't signal FTL using gravity. Can you prove me wrong?
I have a question first: Is the speed limitation on communicating a fundamental principle without exception, or, is it a recognition of today's practical limitations on what we can accomplish? The point of asking this question refers back to your statment a few messages above that: "Gravity is radiated instantaneously everywhere. But you can't really signal with it because you would need an insanely huge amount of energy to move a planet, star or black hole back and forth in order to transmit 01101110 bytes of information."
You asked: "Is the speed limitation on communicating a fundamental principle without exception, or, is it a recognition of today's practical limitations on what we can accomplish? "
Using thought experiments, we can imagine creating our own universe complete with its own laws of physics. Transmitting information (signaling) from here to there is inherently challenging. Ultimately, information is a distinct difference in states, between 0 and 1. I wish I could say that quantum entanglement gets around this, however, in truth, the subject is so shrouded in mystery, so far removed from causality or or experimental lucidity that not even I can understand what it means to information signaling.
I asked the question because if your remark that "Gravity is radiated instantaneously everywhere. But you can't really signal with it because you would need an insanely huge amount of energy to move a planet, star or black hole back and forth in order to transmit 01101110 bytes of information." is held to be correct; then signalling instantaneously is, in principle occurring all the time. Every particle signals instantaneously to the rest of the particles in the universe. I assume that your use of digital examples for information is what could be raised as an objection to what I just said? If that is the case, then could you please elaborate? When I consider the case of a particle of matter moving, then I see information transmitted instantaneously across the universe. That information would be received in analog form. There have to be effects everywhere that result from changes in gravity anywhere. What do you think?
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 1, 2010 @ 15:25 GMT
I gave several links and asked for comments on Voigt, Lorentz 1895, 1904, and 1914, Einstein 1905 and 1920, Minkowski, Ritz, Yakovenko, Paul Davies, Beckmann, Essen, Van Flandern, Pavlocicc, Vukelja, and finally Bethell 2009. I did not yet mention FitzGerald, Poincaré, Ruggero Santilli, Herbert Ives, Howard Hayden, and many others. Certainly at least some out of them were at least partially wrong. Did you thoroughly deal with at least one of them? What overlooked mistake or antinomy did you find out? What do you confirm?
For instance, one could check whether the example given by Paul Davies is quantitatively correct and independent of the chosen value v/c.
Aren't you almost an expert concerning the Doppler effect?
Peter Jackson replied on Sep. 3, 2010 @ 17:48 GMT
Hi Eckard.
I liked Dopplers science. And believe Essen correct. And Maxwell needs extension by both multiple field limits/boundaries and multiple frequencies.
LT/Doppler and Observers frame are key to the solution. I don't believe any here will understand the following or its implications, but live in hope;
Optics revision would help. Ewald-Oseen Extinction extends Huygens Principle, saying not only does a new medium condense new oscillators but the new waves created travel at 'c' wrt the MOTION as well as the 'n' of the new medium.
The 'old' waves phase change cancels each other out (leaving a ground state 'flat' wave form with no power to condense more). This is niether just empirical or theory, it's the proven basis of optics, classically. The quantum equivalent is that the fine structure boundary electrons absorb the photons and pas them on (emit) at 'c' wrt the new mediums MOTION as well as 'n'. The definition of something in 'relative motion' is that it's in a different inertial frame.
This creates the Doppler shift of EM waves, and Fermats priciple emerges, but the modern Fermats priciple. And we are not seeing an optical illusion in M87 and all the apparent 'superluminal' gas jets. Like the middle of a fast flowing stream, no water molecule passes its neighbour at more than 1mph, but the middle will still be doing 6mph wrt the riverbank.
Einsteins train and light box are inertial frames. Only if we remove sides of the box will the light pulse, bouncing between the mirors, be left behind in the background inertial frame as the mirrors are, as one, moved away.
Wang is entirely correct. Light does 'c' locally. There is no-one to tell it how fast anything is moving apart from the media it is propagating in at any time.
Forget Lorentz, Fitsgerald, Larmore etc. We need to go back to Stokes-Planck and start again and it all works properly without paradox or anomaly. But it is very difficult for a mind not trained in the right way to conceive, and I suspect even you Eckard will not bother and find some preconception to avoid thinking it through. You must always envisage all 3 observer frames and changes betwen them to follow the frequency / wavelength transformations.
Einstein was so right in many ways, just not quite perfect, but the solution is both real and local.
Oh, and sorry Helmut, your 'subtle ether drift, like the 'Elecric Universe' is very consistent, also allowing Eckards absolute velocity.
If anyone else can do this please let me know, or do ask for help with how or links to any papers.
Having read several original papers repeatedly, I agree with you in that Lorentz contraction is perhaps based on an inappropriate consideration. Already Poincaré used the same ABA travel as did Einstein 1905 and he called t' = t - xv/V^2 the local time when dealing with recoil in his 1900 paper "The Theory of Lorentz and The Principle of Reaction" on p. 20.
The consideration is different from ABA travel in case of Doppler effect where one observer A sees or hears the length BC or wavelength of an emitting object increased, i.e. red-shifted or with a lower pitch, respectively in case of growing distance but decreased in case of decreasing distance.
Let's test the ABA procedure with sound. Given, a sender and receiver of sound, e.g. a flying and calling bat A or an airplane and a reflecting object B are moving toward each other with constant velocity v smaller than the velocity c of sound in air. Since light travels about a million times faster we may measure the positions as function of time with sufficiently small error as to judge whether or not there is a length contraction. Will we find any justification for application of Lorentz contraction on sound?
Recall, Voigt introduced what was later called local time when dealing with the Doppler effect for waves in an elastic medium with an approach similar to that by Lorentz 1895. Maybe, the idea of length contraction goes back to speculations by Heaviside and by FitzGerald.
While perception as well as measurement confirm that the Doppler effect depends on the sign of v. Lorentz contraction depends on v^2. This is plausible because ABA means doubled Doppler, back and force including the past before B has been reached and the future thereafter. "For us believing physicists the ..."
Let me add a correction to an error of mine:
While I do not expect the youngster Chris Kennedy having solved our problems I will give his correct page .
Peter, I do not understand, why did you mention Clausius-Mossotti?
I quote from Kennedy: "This means that if SR is correct, it would not be possible to sync the satellites with the ground and have the ground be in sync with the satellites at the same time."
Please check this.
I would like to further comment on the ABA vs. AB issue: Some insects have adapted to bat calls. Their ears are located at the muscles of their wings. Immediate reaction to a heard call causes their wings to try and save their lives. For them the insect where the call arrives at B the time of call flight from the bat A counts. ABA merely matters for the echo-locating bat.
For those who are more familiar with a duel using laser cannons: Here AB does also matter, not ABA.
Is there still any justification for ABA?
Concerning Vukelja I should add that his derivation of Lorentz transformation reverses the dependency of Minkowski's cone on LT. Nonetheless, Vukelja's criticism seems to be at least partially correct.
SR is correct. Yet, they do sync the satellites with the ground. The satellite clocks have to be slowed down so that the clock rates match.
There were several reasons for me to clarify some interrelated basic questions.
One of them was my argument that past and future are different from each other in reality but not in modern theory: "For us believing physicists ...".
Also I still maintain that while complex domain is an utterly valuable tool, one can always return to reality, provided one performs correctly and understands his business. This claim is evidently correct for all physics before SR and QM. I was and I am still curious how to interpret ict. That's why I tried to understand SR including the paradoxes related to it.
Woldemar Voigt and Paul Davies challenged me to search for a reason for why Doppler effect depends on the sign of v while Lorentz contraction does not. It looks as if the ABA' travel is inappropriate and perhaps misleading. ABA' definitely violates the symmetry between A and B, and it can also be seen as mingling past and future.
In all, I have any reason to guess that SR is based on an unrealistic point of view and therefore dispensable. Because I learned to distrust most splendid propaganda and idolization, I am curious if there are indications for getting rid of trouble with SR and its implications or even new complications.
Will a unification of "relativity" with QM be possible at all? Will quantum computing ever work as promised? Will LHC find the Higgs? Will string theory prove valuable?
Maybe GPS provides experimental evidence for or against ABA'? Perhaps neither you are nor I am expert enough in this field. So far I merely found utterances by the real expert Van Flandern who interpreted HK as evidence against SR and an apparently rather new analysis by Chris Kennedy dealing with http://www.aapt.org/doorway/TGRU/articles/Ashbyarticle.pdf
n you please provide hints to unbiased factual contributions?