Do you believe in Physics ?
socratus
You don’t have to be so sure. Why ?
=== .
How does Physics look now?
#
The basis of the Physics consists of:
1.
Abstract ‘ inertial movement’.
2.
Abstract ‘ideal gas and ideal particles.’
3.
Abstract ‘absolute black body.’
4.
Abstract ‘entropy’
5.
Abstract SRT negative 4 - D space,
abstract 5D, …….and 11 - dimensional spaces. .
6.
Abstract separated absolute space and time of Newton.
7.
Abstract ‘virtual particles’, ‘dark matter and dark energy’.
8.
Abstract ‘big bang’.
9.
Abstract " method of renormalization ". . . . . . etc.
=========..
And therefore we can read.
Conclusion from the book ‘ The Holographic Universe ’
by Michael Talbot.
‘ Science is not always as objective as we would like to believe.’
#
Conclusion from some article:
‘ One of the best kept secrets of science is
that physicists have lost their grip on reality.’
============ . .
In my opinion to understand the paradoxes we must
reconsider the old basis of the Physics.
=== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=23624&st=15
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2547&st=105
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548
================== . .
M Purcell
All ideals are abstracts but are needed to provide relationships. Do
you understand rudamentary limits?
Sir Frederick
Let's see Physics answer that.
Something spooky going on!
bigfl...@gmail.com
No need for the term 'belief'. There are practical aspects of physics
which need no belief. I dont 'believe' in aircraft for instance.
This applies to most, if not all beliefs. There are both and
theoretical practical aspects.
An excellent illustration of the role consciousness plays. You dont
have to have a greater intellect to qualify as a physicist, then to
work in the 'quantum field'(pun intended). Just different states of
awareness.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
We will have to nickname you 'spooky' because you keep going on about
it :-).
You know there is 'something', so what are you going to do with your
share?
BOfL
Sir Frederick
Ask questions, including 'why'.
Not blow froth.
ZerkonXXXX
> Do you believe in Physics ?
I may ask "Do you believe in baking?" and claim this is relevant to your
question because baking and physics deal with the same common principles.
Of course the need to believe in baking while eating a cake seems
unnecessary. It would seem also as unnecessary to believe in physics when
it meets some tangible need, like the cake.
Baking makes great use of numbers. Baking does not use recipes, for
instance, but formulas. The numbers in these formulas reference very
basic tangible elements (eq flour, water, salt etc) so the numbers and
the formula immediately loose all abstraction at least at the moment the
result comes from the oven.
This is not the case in theoretical physics is it? Numerical constructs
are verified by other numerical constructs. The 'cake' as it were is
either so very big or very small that direct experience, even
observations are abstracted from other abstractions.
What hopefully is the same though is all abstractions are constantly open
to revision if need be. Like the baker, it would be counter productive
and make no sense at all to 'believe' in something that did not work.
Unfortunately in theories of science this may take generations to really
understand, if ever at all.
Whatever the case if the physicist like the baker stays true to method,
things will work out sooner or later, I believe.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:08:14 -0800 (PST), "bigflet...@gmail.com" <bigflet...@gmail.com> frothed:
>
> >On Nov 21, 1:59 pm, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
> >> "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"
> >> Let's see Physics answer that.
> >> Something spooky going on!
>
> >We will have to nickname you 'spooky' because you keep going on about
> >it :-).
>
> >You know there is 'something', so what are you going to do with your
> >share?
>
> Ask questions, including 'why'.
> Not blow froth.
So if you make headway on the issue, you would not pass it on, because
you would expect the same derision that you project?
The history book are full of such examples. Socrates was one of the
first in our history. The general level of consciousness is always
defensive/conservative, for the reasons I stated above. Of course it
is much worse when a totalitarian regime is in power.
This is an illustration of the self blocking mechanism I often 'go on'
about.
In a spooky way, it is similar to riding a bike. It seem impossible,
until you are actually doing it, but of course, such words will be
predictably processed.
BOfL
M Purcell
If there was nothing, the question wouldn't exist. This is like asking
why humans evolved, we can try to understand the factors involved but
the fact of the matter is that we did.
Sir Frederick
But there is something, and the question does exist.
Now give me a why, physics please, not folk talk fantasy.
I know 'our' brains are constrained, but 'we' can ask the question.
And the answer is ...
The simile I confabulate is some kind of hyper painting.
Wherein 'life' is ubiquitous and humans just another 'life'.
Trivial in commonality, and superfluous except in hubris based
'self' stories. 'Meaning giving' stories, if you will.
turtoni
It's more simple than "why is there something rather than nothing."
The question is: why is there why?
We why; because we don't want to be deceived.
Sir Frederick
But 'we' are deceived, and 'we' deceive, and 'we' are commonly pissed.
Thus the "why", and a pissed one at that. Such is life (stuck life).
turtoni
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:emagg5t90h82r6l8k...@4ax.com...
Unless we stop the why there will always be deceit. Long live the deceit;
the truth is dead!
Sir Frederick
The "truth" may be beyond 'our' ken. Thus the deceit may be all 'we' have.
'We' are stuck, even with a stuck 'why'. And a bunch of half assed stories.
I think the local situation (local context) has changed enough to make the
extent stories problematic, 'we' need new meaning giving stories that aren't
so problem causing.
M Purcell
You can ask why and try to find some answers or you can confabulate
anything you like. Good answers do not contradict our enviornment,
better answers allow predictions to be made. You seem to believe
physicists should be omniscient.
THE BORG
<bigfl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:01078cd9-74d3-4016...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...> You don�t have to be so sure. Why ?
> === .
> How does Physics look now?
> #
> The basis of the Physics consists of:
> 1.
> 2.
> Abstract �ideal gas and ideal particles.�
> 3.
> Abstract �absolute black body.�
> 4.
> Abstract �entropy�
> 5.
> Abstract SRT negative 4 - D space,
> 6.
> Abstract separated absolute space and time of Newton.
> 7.
> 8.
> Abstract �big bang�.
> 9.
> Abstract " method of renormalization ". . . . . . etc.
> =========..
> And therefore we can read.
> by Michael Talbot.
> � Science is not always as objective as we would like to
> believe.�
> #
> Conclusion from some article:
> that physicists have lost their grip on reality.�
> ============ . .
> In my opinion to understand the paradoxes we must
> reconsider the old basis of the Physics.
> === .
> Best wishes.
> Israel Sadovnik.
> Socratus.http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htmhttp://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=23624&st=15http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2547&st=105http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548
> ================== . .
No need for the term 'belief'. There are practical aspects
of physics
which need no belief. I dont 'believe' in aircraft for
instance.
This applies to most, if not all beliefs. There are both and
theoretical practical aspects.
An excellent illustration of the role consciousness plays.
You dont
have to have a greater intellect to qualify as a physicist,
then to
work in the 'quantum field'(pun intended). Just different
states of
awareness.
BOfL
***
So if you are VERY aware you become a quantum physicist, if
you are not so aware you become a mere physicist and
supposedly if you are not aware at all you become a pig
farmer?
Oh very good.
Excellent teaching for planet Earth Fletcher.
I am sure schools will be on the lookout for future
physicists depending upon the level of conscious awareness
of the children.
Mind you a WHACK round the head will soon shape em up eh?
THE BORG
THE BORG
> But there is something, and the question does exist.
> Now give me a why, physics please, not folk talk fantasy.
If you look for your answer in physics then you will ask
your question for ever.
You will never find the answer in either science or physics.
Nor in any religion.
Not in anything currently known of or heard of on Earth.
If there was an answer on Earth Sir Frederick, then EVERYONE
would know!
This is the nature of the Truth, is that answers to
questions are the same answers for EVERYONE.
As no humans agree on ANYTHING, thus no humans have ANY
answers.
Yet.
THE BORG
turtoni
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:11:28 -0500, "turtoni" <turt...@fastmail.net> wrote:
>
> >"Sir Frederick" <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
> >news:emagg5t90h82r6l8k...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:43:49 -0800 (PST), turtoni <turt...@fastmail.net>
Yes.
> Thus the deceit may be all 'we' have.
Peel the onion.
> 'We' are stuck, even with a stuck 'why'. And a bunch of half assed stories.
>
> I think the local situation (local context) has changed enough to make the
> extent stories problematic, 'we' need new meaning giving stories that aren't
> so problem causing.
I'm not so sure. They seem to be "ok". Deceit is good in that we can
know it it's always deceit because it's when they become the "truth"
it becomes scary and dangerous.
Personally i prefer to remain "free" in my deceit than any zombie
locked in it's "truth". And i say zombie because as things stand,
without the peeling of the onion, we might as well be dead. But of
course, as i peel my onion, who knows what wonders may live inside..