: Re: A common ground between Absolutists & Relativists
Gerry Quinn
the fact that truths cannot be verified with certainty does not mean
that science can't find truths, or that the purpose of science is not to
find them. It is beyond reasonable doubt that science finds truths,
IMO.
- Gerry Quinn
RC
<ger...@indigo.ie> writes
Of course, all the scientists in the group agree totally with what you
say above. However, Patrick Reany is not a scientist - he is a
philosopher - and I don't think he understands science or the Universe.
--
The Universe
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC
Nemesis
wrote:
I think the notion that truth cannot be verified with certainty is a
lie perpetrated by modern scientists and philosophers in order to hide
or excuse their failure to comprehend the fundamental nature universe.
When I experience something, it is absolutely true that I experience
them.
The strongest argument against the assertion that truth cannot be
known with certainty is that it is logically circular. If truth cannot
be known with certainty, how does one know it to be true? If one does
not know it to be true, one does not know either that truth cannot be
known with certainty. As simple as that.
The truth of causality cannot be put to a vote. It is a consequence of
the fundamental ontology of existence. Here's an absolute truth and
everyone is welcome to take it or leave it. The universe endeavors to
correct any violation to the mother of all conservation principles,
the conservation of zero. Zero is the sum of all things that is
negative and positive. If things are created in pairs of opposites,
then there is no violation and everything is conserved. Nothing is
everything and everything is nothing. No absolute regress to fuss
with, no messy turtle-all-the-way theories. I believe it was RC who
called the idea of a universe ex nihilo "the ultimate free lunch", an
apt observation.
The conservation-of-zero principle imbues nature with a yin-yang
character such that things, ideas and concepts make no sense without
their opposites. If there is positive, there must also be negative and
if there is certainty, there must also be uncertainty. A proper
balance must be kept. I know this is reminiscent of Eastern and even
Judaeo-Christian philosophy but so be it. Many scientists seem to have
an irrational fear of religion and will not touch anything that is
embraced by religion. I think this fear is costing us a lot in our
search for understanding. Sure, religion is there as a stumbling block
but it should not stop us dead in our tracks as has happen with
gravity research. There should be only one philosophy and that is the
search for truth, the nay-sayers notwithstanding.
Truth waits for no fool and serves no master.
Nemesis
and...@attglobal.net
>
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:28:23 GMT, ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
> wrote:
>
> >Dunno what my newsreader was up to. Anyway, what I was saying is that
> >the fact that truths cannot be verified with certainty does not mean
> >that science can't find truths, or that the purpose of science is not to
> >find them. It is beyond reasonable doubt that science finds truths,
> >IMO.
>
> I think the notion that truth cannot be verified with certainty is a
> lie perpetrated by modern scientists and philosophers in order to hide
> or excuse their failure to comprehend the fundamental nature universe.
Okay. Show us how to prove that something can't be true.
Or that something that you haven't even thought
of yet can't be true. Or, if you do an experiment
that supports a hypothesis today, that you can't
do another experiment tomorrow that falsifies the
hypothesis.
You don't have a very good grasp of logic.
John Anderson
Nemesis
>Nemesis wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:28:23 GMT, ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Dunno what my newsreader was up to. Anyway, what I was saying is that
>> >the fact that truths cannot be verified with certainty does not mean
>> >that science can't find truths, or that the purpose of science is not to
>> >find them. It is beyond reasonable doubt that science finds truths,
>> >IMO.
>>
>> I think the notion that truth cannot be verified with certainty is a
>> lie perpetrated by modern scientists and philosophers in order to hide
>> or excuse their failure to comprehend the fundamental nature universe.
Here is the important part that you decided to snip to hide your
ignorance and advance your sophistry. I wrote:
>>The strongest argument against the assertion that truth cannot be
>>known with certainty is that it is logically circular. If truth cannot
>>be known with certainty, how does one know it to be true? If one does
>>not know it to be true, one does not know either that truth cannot be
>>known with certainty. As simple as that.
Why did you snip that part Mr. Anderson? Is it because you don't have
a counter-argument that will hold water? I think so.
>Okay. Show us how to prove that something can't be true.
There is such a thing as a mathematical proof you know. Your denials
won't make that fact go away. It is absolutely is true there is no
exact value for pi for example and, conversely, it is false that there
is an exact value for pi.
>Or that something that you haven't even thought
>of yet can't be true.
How does this relate to the subject at hand?
> Or, if you do an experiment
>that supports a hypothesis today, that you can't
>do another experiment tomorrow that falsifies the
>hypothesis.
If it is a hypothesis, it obviously follows that the author is relying
on induction as opposed to deduction. What does that have to do with
the price of tea in China? Everyone knows that inductive reasoning
does not guarantee certainty.
OTOH, it is absolutely true that something from nothing must leave
nothing, otherwise there is a violation of the logic of truth.
However, if one obtains two things out of nothing such that they are
exactly opposite in every way, there is no violation. That is the
fundamental ontology of existence and it is an absolute truth.
The idea that can only be uncertainty in the universe is false for the
reason that I have already given. It is also false because it is a
violation of the conservation of nothing, the mother of all
conservation principles.
All uncertainties of the universe are probabilistic and that too is an
absolute truth. What this means is that the probability that an
interaction will last a given duration is absolutely determined by the
degree of to which the conservation of nothing is violated.
>You don't have a very good grasp of logic.
I think you should look in the mirror Mr. Anderson. Your grasp of
honesty in debate is rather slippery IMO.
Nemesis
Patrick Reany
RC wrote:
Darn right I don't claim to understand the universe. Do you?
Does any scientist? Go on, explain the universe to us.
I am quite happy to challenge any scientist to prove any claim to
empirically/rationally determined truth, as I am to challenge any
nonscientist. Bring him or her on and we'll see how they do.
To make it easy for them, they already know my line of
argumentation, so they can prepare themselves for it at their
leisure. So one would think that they could do it well, right?
However, I don't give a damn about just "truths." The whole
issue is about verifiable truth. I am completely unimpressed
by any claim that science might be able to stumble upon
unverifiable truth. So what! If I were an absolutists (which I
once was!) I'd be ashamed to propose unverifiable truth.
If I were a real absolutist I wouldn't settle for anything less
than this:
Science is an enquiry of the Natural realm which has
proven itself to have unveiled Absolute Truths about Nature.
Truths that form a foundation to knowledge which are
uncontroversial, undeniable, simple, obvious, Eternally
reliable, universally applicable. These Truths aren't
mere categorizations of phenomena, but rather are
Truths that go to the very heart of deep reality.
Knowledge of these truths make us like unto God.
These Truths aren't sullied by the Problem of Induction.
Why, all we need do to recognize these Truths is to
wait upon that still small voice that confirms what
our prejudices have already decided. Absolute Truth
according to me! Now that's putting it on the line.
Afterall, the stakes are pretty high for Absolute Truth,
which is something lost on most of these so-called
"absolutists" around here. Now for the specifics: There
is an absolute space and the earth is moving with respect
to it at about 12,073 m/s in the direction of Alpha
Centuri, proven by incontestable direct measurement
(for example's sake, of course).
So if you're gonna talk about Truth to me, don't wimp
out about unverifiable truth. You forget that I used to
be just like you absolutists. In my eyes you don't even
know how to be true absolutists. You equivocate. You
take the safe positions. If you're gonna be an absolutist,
go all the way! You see yourselves as scientific, yet you
enslave yourself to unfalsifiable beliefs as though they have
some Absolute significance. Well I got news for you -- that
ain't a scientific attitude.
No self-respecting Absolutists should ever talk about
unverifiable Truth! That's disgusting. You so-called
absolutist can go on forever hiding behind your
sophistic reasoning of why the absolute exists but cannot
be directly detected. I will not settle for anything less than
direct incontrovertible detection for me to actively
believe in it. And I'm still open to the evidence, so
do bring it on if you have it!
Maybe that's why I got out of being an absolutist.
I could NEVER settle for an undetectable ether or
absolute space. If some damn ether was going to
forever hide itself from direct measurement, then I
wasn't going to have anything to do with it. But not
this batch of so-called absolutists that are content
to give their praise to ghosts. To play it so safe. They
don't need any falsification. No not them. You prove
to me that you have a definite, objective, measurable
value to the velocity of earth with respect to Absolute
space and I'll listen. Otherwise, leave me out of your
chimera.
Patrick
Daniel Weston
Good scientists, while in the pursuit of science, never look for truth.
Good scientists, while in the pursuit of science, avoid like the plague,
believing or disbelieving anything.
Rather good scientists, while in the pursuit of science, assign rates of
probability to purported statements of fact.
This assignment of probability is based upon the best knowledge
available to him.
"Truth" is a word that is not definable in disciplined scientific
discourse. Hence every time it is inserted into such scientific
discourse, and its presence is tolerated, it quickly disintegrates the
conversation. Many modern philosophy instructors forbid its use. It
always leads to misunderstandings and noses bent out of joint.
"Belief" suggests that the believer's mind is made up. Good scientists
try to always keep an open mind. Belief belongs in church, not in
science.
Daniel Weston
Gerry Quinn
>RC wrote:
>
>> In article <Biwr6.9675$r4.1...@news.indigo.ie>, Gerry Quinn
>> <ger...@indigo.ie> writes
>> >Dunno what my newsreader was up to. Anyway, what I was saying is that
>> >the fact that truths cannot be verified with certainty does not mean
>> >that science can't find truths, or that the purpose of science is not to
>> >find them. It is beyond reasonable doubt that science finds truths,
>> >IMO.
>>
>> Of course, all the scientists in the group agree totally with what you
>> say above. However, Patrick Reany is not a scientist - he is a
>> philosopher - and I don't think he understands science or the Universe.
>
[snip]
>Maybe that's why I got out of being an absolutist.
>I could NEVER settle for an undetectable ether or
>absolute space. If some damn ether was going to
>forever hide itself from direct measurement, then I
>wasn't going to have anything to do with it. But not
>this batch of so-called absolutists that are content
>to give their praise to ghosts. To play it so safe. They
>don't need any falsification. No not them. You prove
>to me that you have a definite, objective, measurable
>value to the velocity of earth with respect to Absolute
>space and I'll listen. Otherwise, leave me out of your
>chimera.
You seem to be engaged in a battle with your previous self. The
convert is always the most vehement proselytiser. Possibly some posters
here do believe in something like what you believed formerly, but I
should think they are relatively few.
It is you who have imposed a chimera of Verifiable Absolute Truth (you
come out with dozens of similar capitalised chimerae), and you who are
bitter about its non-existence, so bitter that you attack the whole idea
of truth. If you can't have your Truth, nobody must be content with a
more modest truth, or even probable truth. Or even a model of the
universe that includes things that cannot be directly measured (how
about quarks?).
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:28:23 GMT, ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
>wrote:
>
>>Dunno what my newsreader was up to. Anyway, what I was saying is that
>>the fact that truths cannot be verified with certainty does not mean
>>that science can't find truths, or that the purpose of science is not to
>>find them. It is beyond reasonable doubt that science finds truths,
>>IMO.
>
>I think the notion that truth cannot be verified with certainty is a
>lie perpetrated by modern scientists and philosophers in order to hide
>or excuse their failure to comprehend the fundamental nature universe.
>When I experience something, it is absolutely true that I experience
>them.
>
>The strongest argument against the assertion that truth cannot be
>known with certainty is that it is logically circular. If truth cannot
>be known with certainty, how does one know it to be true? If one does
>not know it to be true, one does not know either that truth cannot be
>known with certainty. As simple as that.
>
I refer to empirical truths. I have no comment on mathematical ones.
>The truth of causality cannot be put to a vote. It is a consequence of
>the fundamental ontology of existence.
One could probably define 'causality' in such a way as to be a
tautological, and therefore mathematical truth.
>Here's an absolute truth and
>everyone is welcome to take it or leave it. The universe endeavors to
>correct any violation to the mother of all conservation principles,
>the conservation of zero. Zero is the sum of all things that is
>negative and positive. If things are created in pairs of opposites,
>then there is no violation and everything is conserved. Nothing is
>everything and everything is nothing. No absolute regress to fuss
>with, no messy turtle-all-the-way theories. I believe it was RC who
>called the idea of a universe ex nihilo "the ultimate free lunch", an
>apt observation.
No idea what you are talking about. Conservation of electric charge is
an empirical observation, not a mathematical truth.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>
>Good scientists, while in the pursuit of science, never look for truth.
>Good scientists, while in the pursuit of science, avoid like the plague,
>believing or disbelieving anything.
Your evidence for this unlikely assertion about the habits of working
scientists?
Can they even believe that they are close to an insight? If not, why do
they sometimes go home early, and at other times work frantically all
night?
>
>Rather good scientists, while in the pursuit of science, assign rates of
>probability to purported statements of fact.
>This assignment of probability is based upon the best knowledge
>available to him.
>
>"Truth" is a word that is not definable in disciplined scientific
>discourse. Hence every time it is inserted into such scientific
>discourse, and its presence is tolerated, it quickly disintegrates the
>conversation. Many modern philosophy instructors forbid its use. It
>always leads to misunderstandings and noses bent out of joint.
Perhaps it is just as well then that philosophy instructors have little
input into the training of scientists.
>
>"Belief" suggests that the believer's mind is made up. Good scientists
>try to always keep an open mind. Belief belongs in church, not in
>science.
I believe you would benefit from the use of a dictionary.
- Gerry Quinn
Patrick Reany
Gerry Quinn wrote:
Gerry, you seem to misunderstand what I say more than
any other poster I can think of. I have no explanation for
this. I am not bitter now but I suppose that many years
ago I was. If a person would just admit unabashedly that
what they personally hold as a "truth" about the Natural
realm is just a personal belief of their own Natural
Philosophy, then this disgusting dogmatism found on both
sides would be over. You can have your "truths," just
don't try to dress them up with the pseudo-approval of
"science."
Scientific models have proven themselves to be wonderful
instruments of theoretical thought to encapsulate empirical
data and to produce testable predictions, but that doesn't
make them "scientifically" true.
The bitterness that I once had was mostly because I felt that
I had wasted a great deal of time in angst about this relative
vs. absolute controversy, which after I learned how to
resolve philosophically, was really anger at the establishment
for not having taught the philosophy of science along with
the science. I don't blame any scientist though, because they
were just brought up the same way: To put down all philosophic
meaning in any formal way. You're just as much a victim as I or
they because of this longstanding prejudice against philosophy
of science. Read the writings of the top physicists from
before 1945 and you'll see how often they include direct
references to philosophy and use terms such as heuristic,
epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, and many more. But we
have carefully expunged all such terms from textbooks!
And I present to you the following principle that I personally
hold because I have seen it in operation for decades now:
The natural state of a human who hasn't been philosophically
instructed is dogmatism. This is so easy to comprehend
because we humans have such a penchant for certainty and
we gravitate naturally for anything that promises us certainty.
Only the certainly isn't really there. The philosophers have
proven that centuries ago. [Note the distinction I make
between certainty of knowledge of the natural realm, such
as what science can produce, and the certainty that is
particularly epistemological. Knowledge itself is uncertain
because of the unremovable presence of legitimate doubt.
Apparently this is a subtle concept because many posters
interpret it as a self-contradictory argument. One
reason this could be is that these posters have the habit
of treating all knowledge as of the same kind.]
I have been called a "philosopher" on this NG, which puts
me in an amusing and delicate situation. Sure enough on this
NG being a philosopher is a truly low state, but among real
philosophers I am the least of all. This NG tends to use the
term philosopher exactly as I would have predicted, as a
pejorative. Someday perhaps you will come to see things
differently I hope. Values do not come from science per se,
but from one's philosophy. Your values about the absolute
vs the relative come out of your personal cache of values.
Please stop pretending that they come directly from science.
cheers,
Patrick
Nemesis
wrote:
>In article <ujhtatgeavseofrln...@4ax.com>, Nem...@nospam.com wrote:
>>On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:28:23 GMT, ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Dunno what my newsreader was up to. Anyway, what I was saying is that
>>>the fact that truths cannot be verified with certainty does not mean
>>>that science can't find truths, or that the purpose of science is not to
>>>find them. It is beyond reasonable doubt that science finds truths,
>>>IMO.
>>
>>I think the notion that truth cannot be verified with certainty is a
>>lie perpetrated by modern scientists and philosophers in order to hide
>>or excuse their failure to comprehend the fundamental nature universe.
>>When I experience something, it is absolutely true that I experience
>>them.
>>
>>The strongest argument against the assertion that truth cannot be
>>known with certainty is that it is logically circular. If truth cannot
>>be known with certainty, how does one know it to be true? If one does
>>not know it to be true, one does not know either that truth cannot be
>>known with certainty. As simple as that.
>>
>
>I refer to empirical truths. I have no comment on mathematical ones.
If you only rely on empirical means to obtain facts, then some truths
are certain and others are not. What is certain is the measurement you
make. What is uncertain is the repeatability of the measurement. As
far as mathematical truth is concerned, I was not referring to
equations, I was referring to logical deduction. Not everybody
includes logic as a part of mathematics.
>>The truth of causality cannot be put to a vote. It is a consequence of
>>the fundamental ontology of existence.
>
>One could probably define 'causality' in such a way as to be a
>tautological, and therefore mathematical truth.
Causality has to do with causes and effects. An effect is a change.
Every change is a response to a violation of a principle. The
violation of the principle is said to be the cause of the change. The
master principle that governs all changes is the conservation of zero.
It is the basis of all conservation principles and it stipulates that
the total energy of the universe tends to remain zero. You may think
of this as purely abstract but it is not. It is the basis of physical
existence. In the spirit of this thread, it is an absolute truth.
>>Here's an absolute truth and
>>everyone is welcome to take it or leave it. The universe endeavors to
>>correct any violation to the mother of all conservation principles,
>>the conservation of zero. Zero is the sum of all things that is
>>negative and positive. If things are created in pairs of opposites,
>>then there is no violation and everything is conserved. Nothing is
>>everything and everything is nothing. No absolute regress to fuss
>>with, no messy turtle-all-the-way theories. I believe it was RC who
>>called the idea of a universe ex nihilo "the ultimate free lunch", an
>>apt observation.
>
>No idea what you are talking about. Conservation of electric charge is
>an empirical observation, not a mathematical truth.
Not to me. If by mathematical truth you mean logical truth, then
conservation laws are grounded in immutable logic.
Nemesis
and...@attglobal.net
>
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:13:18 -0800, and...@attglobal.net wrote:
>
> >Nemesis wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:28:23 GMT, ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Dunno what my newsreader was up to. Anyway, what I was saying is that
> >> >the fact that truths cannot be verified with certainty does not mean
> >> >that science can't find truths, or that the purpose of science is not to
> >> >find them. It is beyond reasonable doubt that science finds truths,
> >> >IMO.
> >>
> >> I think the notion that truth cannot be verified with certainty is a
> >> lie perpetrated by modern scientists and philosophers in order to hide
> >> or excuse their failure to comprehend the fundamental nature universe.
>
> Here is the important part that you decided to snip to hide your
> ignorance and advance your sophistry. I wrote:
>
> >>The strongest argument against the assertion that truth cannot be
> >>known with certainty is that it is logically circular. If truth cannot
> >>be known with certainty, how does one know it to be true? If one does
> >>not know it to be true, one does not know either that truth cannot be
> >>known with certainty. As simple as that.
>
> Why did you snip that part Mr. Anderson?
Because it didn't make anymore sense than what I included.
In science, you don't know that anything that you believe
to be correct is "true". You know that experiments support
it. You don't know that another experiment tomorrow may demolish
it.
Science doesn't deal in absolute truth. It deals with hypotheses
that are supported by experiments. So your argument about truth
is irrelevant.
> Is it because you don't have
> a counter-argument that will hold water? I think so.
>
See above.
> >Okay. Show us how to prove that something can't be true.
>
> There is such a thing as a mathematical proof you know. Your denials
> won't make that fact go away. It is absolutely is true there is no
> exact value for pi for example and, conversely, it is false that there
> is an exact value for pi.
>
I'm talking about science, not mathematics.
I can constrain what I'm discussing in math
by saying that something is true or untrue
wrt the axioms of the mathematical theory
I'm discussing (note that Godel's
theorem tells you that there are true propositions
that can't be proven from the axioms, so
even what I wrote above is a bit too strong).
What are the axioms of nature?
> >Or that something that you haven't even thought
> >of yet can't be true.
>
> How does this relate to the subject at hand?
>
Because it may demolish your current beliefs.
> > Or, if you do an experiment
> >that supports a hypothesis today, that you can't
> >do another experiment tomorrow that falsifies the
> >hypothesis.
>
> If it is a hypothesis, it obviously follows that the author is relying
> on induction as opposed to deduction. What does that have to do with
> the price of tea in China? Everyone knows that inductive reasoning
> does not guarantee certainty.
>
Science isn't math and science isn't philosophy.
> OTOH, it is absolutely true that something from nothing must leave
> nothing, otherwise there is a violation of the logic of truth.
> However, if one obtains two things out of nothing such that they are
> exactly opposite in every way, there is no violation. That is the
> fundamental ontology of existence and it is an absolute truth.
>
That's meaningless verbal drooling.
> The idea that can only be uncertainty in the universe is false for the
> reason that I have already given. It is also false because it is a
> violation of the conservation of nothing, the mother of all
> conservation principles.
>
We're not talking about uncertainties. We're talking about
the idea that you are unlikely to find a nice set of axioms
that describe how the universe works and, therefore, you
can't decide whether a hypothesis about the universe is
true or false wrt those axioms.
> All uncertainties of the universe are probabilistic and that too is an
> absolute truth.
Uncertainty isn't relevant. Asserting that something is an
absolute truth is stating an axiom. It doesn't prove
it in a system that assumes that the same thing is false.
> What this means is that the probability that an
> interaction will last a given duration is absolutely determined by the
> degree of to which the conservation of nothing is violated.
>
Again, you're drooling.
> >You don't have a very good grasp of logic.
>
> I think you should look in the mirror Mr. Anderson. Your grasp of
> honesty in debate is rather slippery IMO.
>
Honesty? I just addressed the part of your posting
that I quoted. There is no implication that I addressed
the rest of it. But if you want to discuss that also,
it's just as screwy as what I quoted.
You don't understand the logic of the scientific method.
John Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
I have no disagreement with what you wrote except that ANY
scientist, not just good ones, should be aware that science
never reveals the truth. It just reveals what isn't true.
John Anderson
Nemesis
>Nemesis wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:13:18 -0800, and...@attglobal.net wrote:
>>
>> >Nemesis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:28:23 GMT, ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Dunno what my newsreader was up to. Anyway, what I was saying is that
>> >> >the fact that truths cannot be verified with certainty does not mean
>> >> >that science can't find truths, or that the purpose of science is not to
>> >> >find them. It is beyond reasonable doubt that science finds truths,
>> >> >IMO.
>> >>
>> >> I think the notion that truth cannot be verified with certainty is a
>> >> lie perpetrated by modern scientists and philosophers in order to hide
>> >> or excuse their failure to comprehend the fundamental nature universe.
>>
>> Here is the important part that you decided to snip to hide your
>> ignorance and advance your sophistry. I wrote:
>>
>> >>The strongest argument against the assertion that truth cannot be
>> >>known with certainty is that it is logically circular. If truth cannot
>> >>be known with certainty, how does one know it to be true? If one does
>> >>not know it to be true, one does not know either that truth cannot be
>> >>known with certainty. As simple as that.
>>
>> Why did you snip that part Mr. Anderson?
>
>Because it didn't make anymore sense than what I included.
Only because it went over your head. The circular fallacy of the next
sentence is precisely what it addresses.
>In science, you don't know that anything that you believe
>to be correct is "true".
Which means you also don't know that the statement above is true. This
demolishes the truth of the statement. Decidedly, the physicists on
this forum have a love affair with circualr logic. Is this what they
teach in schools these days?
>You know that experiments support it.
What one experiences is absolutely true.
>You don't know that another experiment tomorrow may demolish
>it.
This is a tautology. Relying exclusively on experiments to get facts
is an inductive process by definition. It's been known for millenia
that induction does not lead to absolute truth. However, some humans
have been endowed with the capacity for deduction. At this point, I am
beginning to have serious doubts regarding your membership in the
human species.
>Science doesn't deal in absolute truth. It deals with hypotheses
>that are supported by experiments. So your argument about truth
>is irrelevant.
No one set you up as master over what science is or isn't. Your
argument is presumptuous. Science should be a quest to understand
nature. Our goal as a species is to understand everything. If your
goals are otherwise, get the hell out of the way so others can do the
job right.
>> Is it because you don't have
>> a counter-argument that will hold water? I think so.
>
>See above.
Likewise.
>> >Okay. Show us how to prove that something can't be true.
>>
>> There is such a thing as a mathematical proof you know. Your denials
>> won't make that fact go away. It is absolutely is true there is no
>> exact value for pi for example and, conversely, it is false that there
>> is an exact value for pi.
>>
>
>I'm talking about science, not mathematics.
>I can constrain what I'm discussing in math
>by saying that something is true or untrue
>wrt the axioms of the mathematical theory
>I'm discussing (note that Godel's
>theorem tells you that there are true propositions
>that can't be proven from the axioms, so
>even what I wrote above is a bit too strong).
A bit too strong? It's crap.
>What are the axioms of nature?
There is only one: everything is made out of nothing. Using pure
deduction, one should be able to arrive at absolute truths about
physical nature from that single axiom. Everything that exists must be
logically consistent with it. Not that I expect you to understand any
of it. There may be other readers who might benefit.
>> >Or that something that you haven't even thought
>> >of yet can't be true.
>>
>> How does this relate to the subject at hand?
>>
>
>Because it may demolish your current beliefs.
In your dreams. The sentence is stupid in that it supposes the very
thing it purports to demolish: truth.
>> > Or, if you do an experiment
>> >that supports a hypothesis today, that you can't
>> >do another experiment tomorrow that falsifies the
>> >hypothesis.
>>
>> If it is a hypothesis, it obviously follows that the author is relying
>> on induction as opposed to deduction. What does that have to do with
>> the price of tea in China? Everyone knows that inductive reasoning
>> does not guarantee certainty.
>
>Science isn't math and science isn't philosophy.
Logic is philosophy? You mean all the voodoo stuff that physics has
invented, spacetime, geodesics, geometry of spacetime, virtual
particles, etc... are not philosophy? You sure fooled me. The very
term hypothesis is a quintessential philosophical term. The problem is
that you don't like any philosophy that demolishes your lies. So you
practice selective philosophy. Very cowardly and political of you.
>> OTOH, it is absolutely true that something from nothing must leave
>> nothing, otherwise there is a violation of the logic of truth.
>> However, if one obtains two things out of nothing such that they are
>> exactly opposite in every way, there is no violation. That is the
>> fundamental ontology of existence and it is an absolute truth.
>
>That's meaningless verbal drooling.
Translation: it went over your head.
>> The idea that can only be uncertainty in the universe is false for the
>> reason that I have already given. It is also false because it is a
>> violation of the conservation of nothing, the mother of all
>> conservation principles.
>
>We're not talking about uncertainties. We're talking about
>the idea that you are unlikely to find a nice set of axioms
>that describe how the universe works and, therefore, you
>can't decide whether a hypothesis about the universe is
>true or false wrt those axioms.
>
>> All uncertainties of the universe are probabilistic and that too is an
>> absolute truth.
>
>Uncertainty isn't relevant.
Funny. I thought it was the essence of your argument, i.e., you claim
that no one can be certain of anything. Never mind the logically
circular nature of the claim, which I'm sure, continues to go way over
your head.
> Asserting that something is an
>absolute truth is stating an axiom. It doesn't prove
>it in a system that assumes that the same thing is false.
>
>> What this means is that the probability that an
>> interaction will last a given duration is absolutely determined by the
>> degree of to which the conservation of nothing is violated.
>
>Again, you're drooling.
Translation: it went over your head.
>> >You don't have a very good grasp of logic.
>>
>> I think you should look in the mirror Mr. Anderson. Your grasp of
>> honesty in debate is rather slippery IMO.
>
>Honesty? I just addressed the part of your posting
>that I quoted. There is no implication that I addressed
>the rest of it. But if you want to discuss that also,
>it's just as screwy as what I quoted.
>
>You don't understand the logic of the scientific method.
I could ask, why should I try to understand dishonest logic and the
crap that goes with it? However, I have to admit that I understand it
perfectly: it's crap.
Nemesis
GLOBARR
In <3AB1A5...@attglobal.net>
John Anderson <and...@attglobal.net> wrote:
Ref: <3AAEFD...@attglobal.net>
<6647-3AA...@storefull-115.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
<3AB044...@attglobal.net>
<4hv1bt4v2uqciveho...@4ax.com>
<3AB1645B...@email.com>
<3AB15BCA...@mts.net>
<3AB17074...@email.com>
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Jackie & Barry wrote:
> > How might you determine that A implies B in the first
> > place?
>
> An hypothesis must imply its conclusion logically. This
> takes into account the meaning of the terms occuring in
> the hypothesis and t he ordinary rules of logic.
>
> This is how we INFER testable conclusion from hypotheses.
>
John Anderson wrote:
How do you know that an experiment measures what you
actually think it does?
Bertrand Russell drove himself to distraction trying to
figure out how to show how we know anything from first
principles. If you can't prove that something is
absolutely true, then you can't prove that it's absolutely
false either. Science doesn't claim to do either. If an
experiment supports a hypothesis, it doesn't prove it. If
an experiment contradicts a hypothesis, it doesn't disprove
it, but it does show that it has some problems relative to
the experiment. But someone who supports the hypothesis
has to do some work to show that the experiment is wrong.
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
Thank you, John. We do all have to work to support
anything that we `believe.' And we must all exercise a
little faith in order to believe anything that we
`believe.' And thus what any of us might want to believe,
is in a sense, up to each of us. But only up to a limit.
Some things that we might believe require more faith
than other things. The question is not if faith is not
required, but how much faith. To believe that the sun is
shinning is one thing, to believe that we cannot know that
the sun is shinning is another. We can each believe what
we want to believe, but the amount of faith required in one
is different that the amount of faith required in the
other. For me, I have no problems with saying that I
believe that the sun is shinning, especially when there are
times when I can see it shine with my own eyes. One out-
of-a-million might disagree with me!
You said above: `If you can't prove that something is
absolutely true, then you can't prove that it's absolutely
false either.' What a perfect statement!
You said above: `Science doesn't claim to do either. If
an experiment supports a hypothesis, it doesn't prove it.
If an experiment contradicts a hypothesis, it doesn't
disprove it, but it does show that it has some problems
relative to the experiment. But someone who supports the
hypothesis has to do some work to show that the experiment
is wrong.'
I personally use science to tell me what is true! I do
not let science tell me what is true, I do that. But I
make use of the science to help me decide, to the degree
that I think it is appropriate for the situation that might
exist at that time. I take responsibility for my acts. I
do not hold science or any one else responsible for my
assumptions!
Some of the things I have said above might be dumb, but
at least I try to be honest in my dumbness. To me, men do
have the ability to understand everything. And when we can
get repeatable and multiple evidences of certain things,
then we ought to accept that evidence, at least within the
limits of its accuracy! Certainly, until we do understand
everything, then we should always be prepared for failures
from time to time as we strive to achieve the final
understanding that presents us everything! These failures
do not indicate that anything is impossible. They are only
`stepping stones' that we must cross as we make this effort
that will eventually be achieved.
Thank you for your excellent statements!
Gerald L. O'Barr glo...@yahoo.com
Please Read: http://www.uc-online.com/absolute
And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
(We need to improve the SR FAQ)
Tom Clarke
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:05:47 -0500, Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Nemesis wrote:
> >
> >> On 16 Mar 2001 11:19:39 GMT, clar...@aol.com (Clarke768) wrote:
>
> >> [cut]
> >> >>Because logic that tells me that continuity requires infinity in
> >> >>the form of infinite regress. Now some of you may insist that infinite
> >> >>regress is logical, but I am not willing to argue this point.
>
> >> >You've never taken a calculus course?
>
> >> Those who have profaned science with the false god of infinity will
> >> soon be forced to repent from their sins. A world in love with truth
> >> would have banished them as crackpots, cranks and outcasts. Instead,
> >> they are put on a pedestal and paraded as heroes.
>
> >I take that as no exposure to calculus.
>
> I've had a year of calculus in addition to my own self-study.
You should have said so.
> Are you
> saying that calculus proves the existence of the infinite?
No. I am saying that calculus makes the infinite regress logical.
Above you said that you were willing to argue whether infinite
regress is not logical. Calculus and its more modern derivatives
provides a logical, non-contradictory way to deal with infinities.
As to whether something exists that is actually infinite, I leave that
up to the universe. But you cannot eliminate the possibility of
infinitely existing things by logical contradiction.
> If you are,
> I would take it as an absolute truth that your training as a
> mathematician did not do you any good. Indeed, I would claim that it
> made you rather stupid. And if I were you, I would file a lawsuit
> against my teachers and ask for my money back.
Silly. You are confusing the mathematics with physics.
I am disagreeing with your mathematics.
> >Nemesis-chan, how can you expect to argue successfuly against
> >positions whose basis you don't understand?
>
> Look who's talking. Do you think I enjoy arguing with the likes of
> you? Here's an example of your inability to comprehend simple
> sentences Mr. Clarke. I wrote:
>
> > If one cannot know anything for certain as you keep on
> > claiming, how does one know that something isn't true?
>
> You countered:
>
> >Because something else happens that contradicts that something!
So what is wrong with that? If the ball is red, it is not blue.
> So I am thinking, either Mr. Clarke does not know how to read or he is
> just plain stupid. Look at what I wrote over and over, Mr. Clarke. One
> day, hopefully, you may get it. Now I can't just wait for your next
> installment. I have the gnawing feeling that I am wasting my time with
> you.
Hmm. So you are saying that if I deny certainty in knowledge, then I cannot
know anything with certainty, even the falsity of things that are manifestly
contradicted by the evidence in front of my face?
Well I suppose if that is what you are expressing then, as long as the domain
of discourse is the physical world and not the abstract world of mathematics
and logic, I have to concede that I cannot even know with certainty that
something is not true either.
Of course I can be pretty damn sure. Sure enough to bet my life on certain
things being true, or not true, but I do have to admit an epsilon of uncertainty
in all things physical.
How are you certain?
I don't believe you ever answered my question to that effect.
Tom Clarke
Daryl McCullough
>
>Daryl McCullough wrote:
>>
>> Tom Clarke says...
>>
>> ANY scientist, not just good ones, should be aware that science
>> never reveals the truth. It just reveals what isn't true.
>>
>> In the usual way of speaking, revealing that something *isn't*
>> true is the same as revealing that its negation *is* true.
>>
>
>I said that, not Mr Clarke.
Sorry about that.
>Logic tells you that
>if (=> is logical implication)
>
> A => B
>
>then
>
> ~B => ~A
>
>where ~ is logical negation.
>
>That isn't what you said above.
Logic tells us a bunch of things. One of them is
A or (not A). So if we know that A is false, then
we know that (not A) is true. So I don't understand
what sense there is to saying we can never know that
something is true, we can only know that something is
not true.
>Also, science isn't based on axioms, it's based on supporting
>hypotheses. I don't know what the axioms of nature are
>so I can't use science to describe truth and falsehood
>in absolute logical terms that depend on proof wrt a set
>of axioms.
Then how can you say that we can know that something is
false? You said
...science never reveals the truth. It just reveals what
isn't true.
Are you making a distinction between something being false
and something being not true?
--
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
Nemesis
[cut]
>>Because logic that tells me that continuity requires infinity in
>>the form of infinite regress. Now some of you may insist that infinite
>>regress is logical, but I am not willing to argue this point.
>
>You've never taken a calculus course?
Those who have profaned science with the false god of infinity will
soon be forced to repent from their sins. A world in love with truth
would have banished them as crackpots, cranks and outcasts. Instead,
they are put on a pedestal and paraded as heroes.
Nemesis
Tom Clarke
I take that as no exposure to calculus.
Nemesis-chan, how can you expect to argue successfuly against
positions whose basis you don't understand?
Tom Clarke
Nemesis
wrote:
>Nemesis wrote:
>
>> On 16 Mar 2001 11:19:39 GMT, clar...@aol.com (Clarke768) wrote:
>>
>> [cut]
>> >>Because logic that tells me that continuity requires infinity in
>> >>the form of infinite regress. Now some of you may insist that infinite
>> >>regress is logical, but I am not willing to argue this point.
>>
>> >You've never taken a calculus course?
>>
>> Those who have profaned science with the false god of infinity will
>> soon be forced to repent from their sins. A world in love with truth
>> would have banished them as crackpots, cranks and outcasts. Instead,
>> they are put on a pedestal and paraded as heroes.
>
>I take that as no exposure to calculus.
I've had a year of calculus in addition to my own self-study. Are you
saying that calculus proves the existence of the infinite? If you are,
I would take it as an absolute truth that your training as a
mathematician did not do you any good. Indeed, I would claim that it
made you rather stupid. And if I were you, I would file a lawsuit
against my teachers and ask for my money back.
>Nemesis-chan, how can you expect to argue successfuly against
>positions whose basis you don't understand?
Look who's talking. Do you think I enjoy arguing with the likes of
you? Here's an example of your inability to comprehend simple
sentences Mr. Clarke. I wrote:
> If one cannot know anything for certain as you keep on
> claiming, how does one know that something isn't true?
You countered:
>Because something else happens that contradicts that something!
So I am thinking, either Mr. Clarke does not know how to read or he is
just plain stupid. Look at what I wrote over and over, Mr. Clarke. One
day, hopefully, you may get it. Now I can't just wait for your next
installment. I have the gnawing feeling that I am wasting my time with
you.
Nemesis
Nemesis
wrote:
>Nemesis wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:05:47 -0500, Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Nemesis wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 16 Mar 2001 11:19:39 GMT, clar...@aol.com (Clarke768) wrote:
>>
>> >> [cut]
>> >> >>Because logic that tells me that continuity requires infinity in
>> >> >>the form of infinite regress. Now some of you may insist that infinite
>> >> >>regress is logical, but I am not willing to argue this point.
>>
>> >> >You've never taken a calculus course?
>>
>> >> Those who have profaned science with the false god of infinity will
>> >> soon be forced to repent from their sins. A world in love with truth
>> >> would have banished them as crackpots, cranks and outcasts. Instead,
>> >> they are put on a pedestal and paraded as heroes.
>>
>> >I take that as no exposure to calculus.
>>
>> I've had a year of calculus in addition to my own self-study.
>
>You should have said so.
I realize now that I should not have. An argument is valid or not
valid on its own merit. The debater's background is irrelevant. People
like you Mr. Clarke who have turned the pursuit of science into a
political exercise.
>> Are you
>> saying that calculus proves the existence of the infinite?
>
>No. I am saying that calculus makes the infinite regress logical.
No it does not.
>Above you said that you were willing to argue whether infinite
>regress is not logical. Calculus and its more modern derivatives
>provides a logical, non-contradictory way to deal with infinities.
Not at all. One never deals with infinities in calculus. Who told you
this lie? No calculation can ever be done using an infinite number.
Why? because nobody can write down an infinite number. I have used
Mathcad on my *finite* and quintessentially discrete computer to solve
calculus problems and I have never had to use a single infinite
quantity. The notion that calculus uses infinities is a lie. I
challenge you to come up with one tiny example of the use of an
infinite quantity in a calculation. Just one.
The fact that calculus uses limits that are said to extend to infinity
does not mean that infinities are used in math. The notion of
continuity is a damnable one. Even Einstein (Mr. Continuum) was
beginning to realize that nature cannot be continuous. Needless to
say, nature is discrete.
>As to whether something exists that is actually infinite, I leave that
>up to the universe. But you cannot eliminate the possibility of
>infinitely existing things by logical contradiction.
The same logic applies to both math and physics. I hope you are not
advancing that nature can be illogical? I have seen Nobel laureates
advance nature does not have to be logical. They can get away with
crap like that because of their political stature. The same way
Feynman and Wheeler can get away with crap like "advanced and retarded
waves moving from the future to the past in spacetime" (absorber
theory).
[cut]
>Well I suppose if that is what you are expressing then, as long as the domain
>of discourse is the physical world and not the abstract world of mathematics
>and logic, I have to concede that I cannot even know with certainty that
>something is not true either.
>
>Of course I can be pretty damn sure. Sure enough to bet my life on certain
>things being true, or not true, but I do have to admit an epsilon of uncertainty
>in all things physical.
>
>How are you certain?
>I don't believe you ever answered my question to that effect.
As long as one chooses the top-down inductive approach toward
understanding nature, one cannot know whether one's hypothesis will
not be falsified. However, a top-down approach is not the only route
to understanding. There is the bottom-up approach, i.e., the universe
ex nihilo. Existence out of nothing is the only model of nature that
does not involve any infinite regress. To be made of nothing, all
things must amount to nothing, i.e., the sum total of all things must
be zero. This is the mother of all conservation principles and it is
the cause of all motion and changes. I call it the conservation of
ZERO or the first principle. From this single starting point, one can
use rigorous logic to come up with startling, absolute truths about
the universe. For examples,
-Nature is non-local and discrete.
-There exist only particles, their properties and their interactions.
-Time, size and distance are abstract concepts.
-Motion is caused by interactions.
-An interaction is a temporary violation in the first principle.
-The duration of an interaction is probabilistic.
-There are only four (4) dimensions (degrees of change).
-Position is a variable and intrinsic 4-property of every particle.
-All properties are associated with one or more of the 4 dimensions.
-All properties are intrinsic and therefore absolute.
Once a solid foundation is built at the bottom, one can use it to
build the rest. I hope to get my model to a point where I can publish
it in the foreseeable future. In the meantime I'll continue my battle
against the many falsehoods being preached by the physics community.
Nemesis
Patrick Reany
Gerry Quinn wrote:
[snip]
> >> My values about the absolute versus the relative? And what, pray, are
> >> those?
> >
> >Just how many times do we have to go over this stuff, huh?
> >Have you stopped to look at the title of this thread lately?
> >I find it against netiquette to engage in thread highjacking.
> >
>
> You chose the title. But I dropped in to challenge certain arguments
> that seemed directed against realists, rather than strawman Absolutists.
Why should I be coy or deceptive about my "real" target?
I have taken on the "realists" openly before. I'm not posting here
to win approval points from anyone.
> Maybe "Nemesis" or Gerald O'Barr are Absolutists in your sense. But
> you appear to be setting your sights somewhat wider.
>
Actually, I honestly thought I came upon an ironic basis for
agreement of the two groups, but no one wanted to deal with
that. Anyway, I started this thread without the goal of crossing
swords with anyone. The purpose of my original post was also
to provoke people to state clearly their reasons for
preferring absolutism over realism, and that would include
specific pro's and con's between the two choices. Nemesis
tries to do this. I give him credit for trying. But he needs to put
a lot of work into the logical foundation to his viewpoint. It
wouldn't hurt him to read up on the philosophy of physics for
a year either!
OK, Gerry, how do you see realism in the philosophy of science
as different from absolutism in the philosophy of science?
(If it helps to clarify the discussion to restrict the answer to the
philosophy of physics only, please do so.)
BTW, I have no problem with people changing the title of
a reply if it better describes the content of the post.
[snip]
Patrick
GLOBARR
Nemesis <Nem...@nospam.com>
Ref: <sv93btg5980naifa9...@4ax.com>
<20010316061939...@ng-cn1.aol.com>
<cvq4bto10omib4s16...@4ax.com>
<3AB2721A...@ist.ucf.edu>
<n1u4bt877ejo0mk1l...@4ax.com>
<3AB28149...@ist.ucf.edu>
> . . .
The same logic applies to both math and physics. I hope you
are not advancing that nature can be illogical? I have seen
Nobel laureates advance nature does not have to be logical.
They can get away with crap like that because of their
political stature. The same way Feynman and Wheeler can get
away with crap like "advanced and retarded waves moving from
the future to the past in spacetime" (absorber theory).
[cut]
Tom Clarke <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
> Well I suppose if that is what you are expressing then, as
> long as the domain of discourse is the physical world and not
> the abstract world of mathematics and logic, I have to
> concede that I cannot even know with certainty that
> something is not true either.
>
> Of course I can be pretty damn sure. Sure enough to bet my
> life on certain things being true, or not true, but I do have
> to admit an epsilon of uncertainty in all things physical.
>
> How are you certain?
> I don't believe you ever answered my question to that effect.
Nemesis <Nem...@nospam.com> wrote:
As long as one chooses the top-down inductive approach
toward understanding nature, one cannot know whether one's
hypothesis will not be falsified. However, a top-down approach
is not the only route to understanding. There is the bottom-up
approach, i.e., the universe ex nihilo. Existence out of
nothing is the only model of nature that does not involve any
infinite regress. To be made of nothing, all things must
amount to nothing, i.e., the sum total of all things must be
zero. This is the mother of all conservation principles and it
is the cause of all motion and changes. I call it the
conservation of ZERO or the first principle. From this single
starting point, one can use rigorous logic to come up with
startling, absolute truths about the universe. . . .
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
I hope not to interfere here too much, but for your
interest, the at theory also takes a similar approach, of
starting at the lowest level possible, and then working towards
the point where our present science seems to be. It is a most
interesting way to consider things, and although it is not
formal science, as we have been trained, it is, as you said,
interesting and productive!
Nemesis <Nem...@nospam.com> continues with an example of
beginning at what he considers to be `zero':
For examples,
-Nature is non-local and discrete.
-There exist only particles, their properties and their
interactions.
-Time, size and distance are abstract concepts.
-Motion is caused by interactions.
-An interaction is a temporary violation in the first
principle.
-The duration of an interaction is probabilistic.
-There are only four (4) dimensions (degrees of change).
-Position is a variable and intrinsic 4-property of every
particle.
-All properties are associated with one or more of the 4
dimensions.
-All properties are intrinsic and therefore absolute.
Once a solid foundation is built at the bottom, one can use
it to build the rest. I hope to get my model to a point where I
can publish it in the foreseeable future. In the meantime I'll
continue my battle against the many falsehoods being preached
by the physics community.
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
My base is a little different. I assume that ultimate
reality must be the simplest thing possible. Therefore, I
begin maybe even lower than you do. I begin at a point where
there is only a 3-D reality, in which there is only mass and
space. Mass and space forms the compound of your `zero,' where
mass is something and space is the nothing that makes mass
something. They both have to exist to give meaning to the
other. On this lowest level, all mass has the same intrinsic
property as all other mass, just as all space has the same
intrinsic property as all other space. But how these things
are proportioned out, and mixed, can vary, and how they
interact can vary, according to conservation laws as we
presently know them.
Thanks for your good ideas!!!!!
Now please be aware, I have been able to take my ultimate
simplicity, and get the effects of space reaching forces. Can
you do this yet???? And with these space-reaching forces, I
can, at least theoretically, combine objects together. Can you
do this??? And some of these objects, combined in specific
ways, can obtain momentum out of an otherwise random
background, and maintain a momentum with respect to the average
rest frame of the background. Can you do this yet????
And it is interesting that the effects of the forces that
are established are automatically seen to be both attractive
and repulsive, and exactly equal to each other. They have to
be equal because they are established by a change in the mix of
the background, and the change in the mix of the background has
to be a change that includes as many particles increased in
mass as decreased in mass. Thus, their equality is governed by
the conservation of matter assumption, which regulates the
degree of mix that can be allowed! And in terms of obtaining
the effects of forces, my approach is the very first success in
using simple collisional-type interactions, which result in
attractive like forces. LeSage and all other efforts have
always failed to produce attractive forces without violating
conservation laws at one level or another! Have you done any
of this yet?????? I have done all this mathematically, and
verified on the computer. And the computer was also used to
verify that no conservational laws were being violated. Have
you done any of this, and on a computer????
I would strongly suggest that you read the at theory, as
referenced below!
and...@attglobal.net
I'm replying to Nemesis who seems to think that you
can establish absolute truth scientifically.
You also can't establish something to be absolutely
false using experiments. You need to vet the experiments.
Physicists do that too.
John Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Nemesis
>
> >I, OTOH, have come to understand that it will always be true (opposite
> >magnetic poles will always attract) and I take it to be an absolute
> >truth.
>
> So you _define_ opposite poles as those that attract?
>
> [....]
>
> >Because logic that tells me that continuity requires infinity in
> >the form of infinite regress. Now some of you may insist that infinite
> >regress is logical, but I am not willing to argue this point.
>
> You've never taken a calculus course?
>
The posting that you're replying to sounds just like
Louis Savain. That dickhead's back. And he's trying to
pretend to be Nemesis.
John Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
Thank you too, you pompous idiot.
Is there any real point to your
posting other than to try to claim
that physics has "unfairly" ignored
ether theory?
Please stop responding to my postings just
to say that I'm stating the obvious
about science. If you don't realize that
it's obvious, then it's your problem.
John Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
Physics is practised by physicists not navel gazers, such as
yourself. Physicists define the field, not you.
If you don't like that, who cares?
John Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
>
> The above is based on the premise that one can never know anything for
> certain. It is a false premise because it is logically circular.
>
It is logically circular only if you assume that
there are some axioms (things that are a priori
assumed to be true) to establish the truth of a
given proposition "absolutely".
What are the axioms of nature?
John Anderson
Nemesis
>Physics is practised by physicists not navel gazers, such as
>yourself. Physicists define the field, not you.
>If you don't like that, who cares?
Frothy tantrum. Somebody is rabid, I'd say.
Nemesis
Nemesis
[cut]
>The posting that you're replying to sounds just like
>Louis Savain. That dickhead's back. And he's trying to
>pretend to be Nemesis.
I am not pretending anything since Nemesis is a fictitious name. It is
clear that, since you cannot come up with sensible counter arguments
to my replies to your sophistry, you decided that it's now time to
revert back to the favorite time-honored tactic of charlatans and con
artists: ad hominems. Let's see how far you can get with it.
Nemesis
Nemesis
>Nemesis wrote:
>>
>> The above is based on the premise that one can never know anything for
>> certain. It is a false premise because it is logically circular.
>>
>
>It is logically circular only if
There are no ifs or buts about it. If the statement "one cannot know
anything for certain" is true, one cannot know the truth of that
statement either. Therefore the statement is self-contraditory and its
validity is demolished by virtue of being self-referential.
> you assume that
>there are some axioms (things that are a priori
>assumed to be true) to establish the truth of a
>given proposition "absolutely".
>
>What are the axioms of nature?
I answered that question already but somehow you got so agitated and
offended that you missed it. Not that it would do you any good. Many
things seem to go over your head.
Nemesis
Clarke768
>>No. I am saying that calculus makes the infinite regress logical.
>No it does not.
What do you mean by "logical" then?
If you can demonstrate a fallacy or contradiction in the
mathematics of calculus then you would let it be known.
[...]
>Not at all. One never deals with infinities in calculus. Who told you
>this lie? No calculation can ever be done using an infinite number.
Now I seriously doubt that you have ever taken a
course in calculus, of if you have self studied that you
understood any of what you read.
Or perhaps you did not read what I said which was:
>>Calculus and its more modern derivatives
>>provides a logical, non-contradictory way to deal with infinities.
"deal with infinities"
Yes I know you never actually plug "infinity" into
an equation [although the recent development of
non-standard analysis legitimizes even this] but you
"deal with" infinities through a limiting process.
>Why? because nobody can write down an infinite number. I have used
>Mathcad on my *finite* and quintessentially discrete computer to solve
>calculus problems and I have never had to use a single infinite
>quantity.
What was your computer doing? Your were either using
a numerical _approximation_ to a values such as pi which
have no exact representation in a finite precision number,
or you were using the computer to manipulate the _symbols_
that represent values such as pi that cannote be finitely
represented.
>The notion that calculus uses infinities is a lie. I
>challenge you to come up with one tiny example of the use of an
>infinite quantity in a calculation. Just one.
In one sense as finite beings we share the limitations of
computers and cannot directly represent infinite quantities.
On the other hand we are intelligent beings and can
construct symbol systems that let us reason about infinite
quantities.
For example if aleph-zero is the
infinity that is the number of integers, then the
infinity that is the number of real numbers is 2 to the
aleph-zero.
>The fact that calculus uses limits that are said to extend to infinity
>does not mean that infinities are used in math. The notion of
>continuity is a damnable one.
Why this hostility toward a mathematical concept?
Have you ever considered therapy?
>Even Einstein (Mr. Continuum) was
>beginning to realize that nature cannot be continuous. Needless to
>say, nature is discrete.
It might be. But it need not be, at least I have yet
to see a proof.
Do you have one that involves more than shouting
and calling mathematical concepts "damnable"?
>>As to whether something exists that is actually infinite, I leave that
>>up to the universe. But you cannot eliminate the possibility of
>>infinitely existing things by logical contradiction.
>The same logic applies to both math and physics.
Precisely. Neither can contain a contradiction.
>I hope you are not
>advancing that nature can be illogical?
Of course not. That is why you cannot a priori eliminate
infinity from nature. Infinity is not contradictory.
>I have seen Nobel laureates
>advance nature does not have to be logical.
Can you give me a citation? I think you misinterpret
what was said.
>[cut]
>>How are you certain?
>>I don't believe you ever answered my question to that effect.
>As long as one chooses the top-down inductive approach toward
>understanding nature, one cannot know whether one's
>hypothesis will not be falsified.
That is pretty much my position.
>However, a top-down approach is not the only route
>to understanding. There is the bottom-up approach, i.e.,
>the universe ex nihilo. Existence out of nothing is the only
>model of nature that does not involve any infinite regress.
Are you talking about the creation of the universe ala Big Bang,
or are you talking about the derivation of physical theory?
>To be made of nothing, all things must amount to nothing,
>i.e., the sum total of all things must be zero.
>This is the mother of all conservation principles and it is
>the cause of all motion and changes. I call it the conservation of
>ZERO or the first principle. From this single starting point, one can
>use rigorous logic to come up with startling, absolute truths about
>the universe. For examples,
>-Nature is non-local and discrete.
What do you mean by non-local? Locality implies a concept
of space. Do you derive space from nothing?
>-There exist only particles, their properties and their interactions.
>-Time, size and distance are abstract concepts.
What do you mean by "abstract"?
>-Motion is caused by interactions.
Would not motion be an abstraction as well; being composed
of the quotient of distance and time, two abstract concepts?
>-An interaction is a temporary violation in the first principle.
>-The duration of an interaction is probabilistic.
>-There are only four (4) dimensions (degrees of change).
Why only four?
>-Position is a variable and intrinsic 4-property of every particle.
>-All properties are associated with one or more of the 4 dimensions.
>-All properties are intrinsic and therefore absolute.
Does this follow? After all in relativity every object has
its own intrinsic length etc as measured in its own reference
frame. Nevertheless, within the framework or relativity
absolute does not follow.
>Once a solid foundation is built at the bottom, one can use it to
>build the rest. I hope to get my model to a point where I can publish
>it in the foreseeable future. In the meantime I'll continue my battle
>against the many falsehoods being preached by the
>physics community.
The best way to conduct your battle would be to develop
your theory to the point where it predicts a
_startling_ new phenomena of nature.
If your theory can do so, then you will get an audience.
New interpretatons of old data are a dime a dozen and many
are in the attic of physics gathering dust like the
Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory that you mentioned.
Tom Clarke
Nemesis
>Nemesis
>
>>>No. I am saying that calculus makes the infinite regress logical.
>
>>No it does not.
>
>What do you mean by "logical" then?
>If you can demonstrate a fallacy or contradiction in the
>mathematics of calculus then you would let it be known.
There is no fallacy in calculus. Where did I say that? The fallacy is
in your understanding of it. You take infinity for granted because
that is what you were taught. It is considered good form to believe in
infinity. It may be the cool thing right now but it's pure crap
regardless.
>>Not at all. One never deals with infinities in calculus. Who told you
>>this lie? No calculation can ever be done using an infinite number.
>
>Now I seriously doubt that you have ever taken a
>course in calculus, of if you have self studied that you
>understood any of what you read.
And I seriously doubt that you understand what you learned.
>Or perhaps you did not read what I said which was:
>>>Calculus and its more modern derivatives
>>>provides a logical, non-contradictory way to deal with infinities.
>
>"deal with infinities"
>Yes I know you never actually plug "infinity" into
>an equation [although the recent development of
>non-standard analysis legitimizes even this]
In what way? I can tell you it's a lie without even seeing it.
> but you
>"deal with" infinities through a limiting process.
No you don't. There is no such thing as an infinitely smooth curve in
math or in nature. When was the last time you or anyone else plotted
every point on an infinitely smooth curve?
>>Why? because nobody can write down an infinite number. I have used
>>Mathcad on my *finite* and quintessentially discrete computer to solve
>>calculus problems and I have never had to use a single infinite
>>quantity.
>
>What was your computer doing? Your were either using
>a numerical _approximation_ to a values such as pi which
>have no exact representation in a finite precision number,
There is no such thing as a non-finite or infinite number. All
numbers, by virtue of being numbers, are finite, i.e., discrete.
>or you were using the computer to manipulate the _symbols_
>that represent values such as pi that cannote be finitely
>represented.
All numbers are discrete. You can say something to the effect that a
variable can increase to infinity but it never happens. There is
temporal aspect to infinity that mathematicians tend to ignore. You
cannot change something infinitely in zero time although I am sure
many mathematicians will claim otherwise.
>>The notion that calculus uses infinities is a lie. I
>>challenge you to come up with one tiny example of the use of an
>>infinite quantity in a calculation. Just one.
>
>In one sense as finite beings
Oh? Does this mean you have a counter example, an infinite being?
>we share the limitations of
>computers and cannot directly represent infinite quantities.
And you know something that can?
>On the other hand we are intelligent beings and can
>construct symbol systems that let us reason about infinite
>quantities.
No you can't. The term 'quantity' corresponds to a discrete finite
number. You can only reason about infinitely progressing variable
whose infinite value can never be reached. Calculus is about as
discrete as any math. Why? because it uses numbers and numbers are
discrete. If it did use infinity, it could not be done on a computer.
>For example if aleph-zero is the
>infinity that is the number of integers, then the
>infinity that is the number of real numbers is 2 to the
>aleph-zero.
>
>>The fact that calculus uses limits that are said to extend to infinity
>>does not mean that infinities are used in math. The notion of
>>continuity is a damnable one.
>
>Why this hostility toward a mathematical concept?
>Have you ever considered therapy?
Why do you insist on psychoanalyzing others? Is that a new debating
technique? I am not hostile toward math. I love math. I just can't
stand people who use their misconceptions of math to instill science
with their crap. It is for this reason that in 2001, we still have
people who believe there is such a thing as an infinitely smooth
circle.
I repeat, the notion of continuous structures is one of the most
damnable concepts of science. It has retarded progress in physics by
centuries. Even after the quantum era was ushered in through the
genius of the great physicist Max Planck, we still have people
(physics teachers no less) coming out of the woodwork to insist that
energy is continuous because of e = hf. Their argument is that since
frequency can take on any value, therefore energy is continuous. This
is the sort of crap that comes from believing in infinity. Would they
also insist that there are 1.2 person per square mile because an
equation says so?
>>Even Einstein (Mr. Continuum) was
>>beginning to realize that nature cannot be continuous. Needless to
>>say, nature is discrete.
>
>It might be. But it need not be, at least I have yet
>to see a proof.
>Do you have one that involves more than shouting
>and calling mathematical concepts "damnable"?
The proof is the concept itself, the very word 'infinity'. It requires
infinity to have a continuous universe. That is the proof. If you see
no problem with that, you may never get it and I feel sorry for you.
But then again maybe not.
>>>As to whether something exists that is actually infinite, I leave that
>>>up to the universe. But you cannot eliminate the possibility of
>>>infinitely existing things by logical contradiction.
>
>>The same logic applies to both math and physics.
>
>Precisely. Neither can contain a contradiction.
As I said the contradiction is in the interpretation. All numbers are
discrete.
>>I hope you are not
>>advancing that nature can be illogical?
>
>Of course not. That is why you cannot a priori eliminate
>infinity from nature. Infinity is not contradictory.
Infinity is not just contradictory, it's stupid.
>>I have seen Nobel laureates
>>advance nature does not have to be logical.
>
>Can you give me a citation? I think you misinterpret
>what was said.
I'll have to look for it. I have seen it said in regard to the
so-called wave-particle duality of light and the two-slit experiement.
[cut]
>>However, a top-down approach is not the only route
>>to understanding. There is the bottom-up approach, i.e.,
>>the universe ex nihilo. Existence out of nothing is the only
>>model of nature that does not involve any infinite regress.
>
>Are you talking about the creation of the universe ala Big Bang,
>or are you talking about the derivation of physical theory?
I was not aware that the Big Bang was posited as creation ex nihilo.
Whichever way matter was created, logic requires that it must have
come out of nothing. But I'll leave the creation issue on the side for
now. If you think infinity is logical, than you should have no problem
with infinite regress.
>>To be made of nothing, all things must amount to nothing,
>>i.e., the sum total of all things must be zero.
>>This is the mother of all conservation principles and it is
>>the cause of all motion and changes. I call it the conservation of
>>ZERO or the first principle. From this single starting point, one can
>>use rigorous logic to come up with startling, absolute truths about
>>the universe. For examples,
>
>>-Nature is non-local and discrete.
>
>What do you mean by non-local? Locality implies a concept
>of space. Do you derive space from nothing?
Well, if it's non-local, there is no space is there?
>>-There exist only particles, their properties and their interactions.
>>-Time, size and distance are abstract concepts.
>
>What do you mean by "abstract"?
Abstract means non-existent in the same sense that the unemployment
rate is not a physical entity. It's a mere concept in our minds.
>>-Motion is caused by interactions.
>
>Would not motion be an abstraction as well; being composed
>of the quotient of distance and time, two abstract concepts?
Not at all. All you need for motion is a position property and change
of position. Time and distance are abstractly derived from those two
things. Nature is neither redundant nor circular. The phrase "motion
in time" is logically circular. So is "motion in space."
>>-An interaction is a temporary violation in the first principle.
>>-The duration of an interaction is probabilistic.
>>-There are only four (4) dimensions (degrees of change).
>
>Why only four?
That is part of my theory which I am not at liberty to discuss at this
point. Suffice it to say that it is a direct logical consequence of
existence ex nihilo. What is important here is tha there is no time
dimension, since a time dimension (temporal degree of freedom) is
crackpottery. A time dimension forbids motion. One is left to wonder
what that does to modern string theory.
>>-Position is a variable and intrinsic 4-property of every particle.
>>-All properties are associated with one or more of the 4 dimensions.
>>-All properties are intrinsic and therefore absolute.
>
>Does this follow? After all in relativity every object has
>its own intrinsic length etc as measured in its own reference
>frame. Nevertheless, within the framework or relativity
>absolute does not follow.
I don't really care what does not follow from *interpretations* of
relativity. Relativists have made so many dumb claims over the last
century while riding on the coattails of relativity that only a
revolution out of left field could ever repair the damage.
If all motion is relative, as relativists claim (although this does
not follow from relativity) then we have a logically circular system
in which every motion is relative to itself. Not that this will bother
any relativist. They are prepared to argue against anything to death.
One day the scientific community will suddenly wake up from its stupor
and realize that they've been duped. There is only the absolute in the
universe. The relative is 100% abstract, a billion relativists
insisting otherwise notwithstanding.
Nobody takes someone's religion and trample it to the ground unless
one is willing to wage war. Relativists will wage war to try to
preserve their religion just like any other religionist. Too bad the
very theories they love to quote like the old and the new testaments
do not support their heretical doctrines.
>>Once a solid foundation is built at the bottom, one can use it to
>>build the rest. I hope to get my model to a point where I can publish
>>it in the foreseeable future. In the meantime I'll continue my battle
>>against the many falsehoods being preached by the
>>physics community.
>
>The best way to conduct your battle would be to develop
>your theory to the point where it predicts a
>_startling_ new phenomena of nature.
>If your theory can do so, then you will get an audience.
Predictions of new phenomena will have little or no impact on dogma,
IMO. What is needed is a gee-wiz, oh-my-god! demonstration that knocks
people's socks off, physicists and laymen alike.
>New interpretatons of old data are a dime a dozen and many
>are in the attic of physics gathering dust like the
>Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory that you mentioned.
Well, considering all the things we disagree about, it's comforting to
know that there are a few things about which we do agree.
Nemesis
Nemesis
> My base is a little different. I assume that ultimate
>reality must be the simplest thing possible. Therefore, I
>begin maybe even lower than you do.
I am sorry but I somehow doubt that.
>I begin at a point where
>there is only a 3-D reality, in which there is only mass and
>space. Mass and space forms the compound of your `zero,' where
>mass is something and space is the nothing that makes mass
>something. They both have to exist to give meaning to the
>other. On this lowest level, all mass has the same intrinsic
>property as all other mass, just as all space has the same
>intrinsic property as all other space. But how these things
>are proportioned out, and mixed, can vary, and how they
>interact can vary, according to conservation laws as we
>presently know them.
> Thanks for your good ideas!!!!!
Well you start with mass and space, and I start with absolutely
nothing. Which do you think is simpler? Not to discourage your
research but IMO, unless one starts with the simplest or most
fundamental foundation, one may find the need to backtrack a little.
There are inevitable consequences that arise by considering only
matter ex nihilo that cannot be arrived at any other way.
You may feel the urge to ask, what possible properties can one get
from nothing? At this point, all I can say is that, once it is
explained, it will make sense even to a child. The really nice thing
about the fundamental is that it is simple to the extreme, as simple
and unambiguous as can be.
>Now please be aware, I have been able to take my ultimate
>simplicity, and get the effects of space reaching forces. Can
>you do this yet???? And with these space-reaching forces, I
>can, at least theoretically, combine objects together. Can you
>do this??? And some of these objects, combined in specific
>ways, can obtain momentum out of an otherwise random
>background, and maintain a momentum with respect to the average
>rest frame of the background. Can you do this yet????
There is no space in my model. Entities do not exist in space. They
just exist. Nothings moves anywhere because there is no anywhere.
There are only particles, their properties and their interactions.
Interactions cause changes in the intrinsic properties of particles
which we interpret as motion. A change occurs only when the balance of
nature is modified, i.e., whenever there is a violation of the
conservation of zero. This can only happen when two particles have
equal positions.
Theoretically, given the right technology, it should be possible to
change the intrinsic position of a particle so as to cause it to
"move" from "anywhere" to "anywhere" in the universe instantly. Space
and time are figments of our imagination. They are necessary
perceptual consequences of the psychological and neurophysiological
underpinnings of our consciousness. Not that space and time are not
based on reality, but only that they emerge abstractly from underlying
reality but are not part of it.
This may all sound a little far fetched and even sci-fi-ish but I am
confident of its correctness.
> And it is interesting that the effects of the forces that
>are established are automatically seen to be both attractive
>and repulsive, and exactly equal to each other. They have to
>be equal because they are established by a change in the mix of
>the background, and the change in the mix of the background has
>to be a change that includes as many particles increased in
>mass as decreased in mass. Thus, their equality is governed by
>the conservation of matter assumption, which regulates the
>degree of mix that can be allowed! And in terms of obtaining
>the effects of forces, my approach is the very first success in
>using simple collisional-type interactions, which result in
>attractive like forces. LeSage and all other efforts have
>always failed to produce attractive forces without violating
>conservation laws at one level or another! Have you done any
>of this yet??????
Forces are abstract things in my model. Every phenomenon (force,
energy, motion, acceleration, inertia) are a direct consequence of the
conservation of ZERO principle and interactions. As I've said before,
an interaction is a temporary violation of the first principle. Nature
always tries to maintain a balance.
>I have done all this mathematically, and
>verified on the computer. And the computer was also used to
>verify that no conservational laws were being violated. Have
>you done any of this, and on a computer????
Not yet. I am still struggling with a few sticky points. Principles
are what is important. The math can come later. One thing that I think
will prove my model is the derivation of the gravitational constant
using just the speed of light and the Planck constant.
> I would strongly suggest that you read the at theory, as
>referenced below!
I'll take a look. It is heartening to know that others are using a
bottom up approach to understand nature.
Nemesis
Gerry Quinn
>>
>> It is you who have imposed a chimera of Verifiable Absolute Truth (you
>> come out with dozens of similar capitalised chimerae), and you who are
>> bitter about its non-existence, so bitter that you attack the whole idea
>> of truth. If you can't have your Truth, nobody must be content with a
>> more modest truth, or even probable truth. Or even a model of the
>> universe that includes things that cannot be directly measured (how
>> about quarks?).
>
>any other poster I can think of. I have no explanation for
>this. I am not bitter now but I suppose that many years
>ago I was. If a person would just admit unabashedly that
>what they personally hold as a "truth" about the Natural
>realm is just a personal belief of their own Natural
>Philosophy, then this disgusting dogmatism found on both
>sides would be over. You can have your "truths," just
>don't try to dress them up with the pseudo-approval of
>"science."
You only think I am misunderstanding you because your ideas look so
peculiar when examined closely.
Here's an example of what I'd call a truth: Apples fall towards the
centre of the Earth. It's not perfectly accurate, it's subject to a
degree of definition and interpretation, it can be argued to have a
thousand scientific explanations or to have none. But beyond any
reasonable doubt, it's a truth. A scientific truth, discovered by a guy
who wanted to find out how the world worked, and interesting to those
who still want to.
I don't care about pretty correlations, I can find them more easily in
the Mandelbrot set. I don't care about usefulness - pace a few minor
GPS corrections which the engineers could replace by fudge factors if
they had to, Newtonian gravity is sufficient for any technology that's
likely to be built in my lifetime. I just want to know how it works.
That big black book about general relativity has an *apple* on its
cover. Not a curve that a mathematician would call pretty, and not a
spacecraft plunging into a wormhole. It's the same Apple Adam bit, long
before philosophy was invented.
[--]
>Only the certainly isn't really there. The philosophers have
>proven that centuries ago. [Note the distinction I make
>between certainty of knowledge of the natural realm, such
>as what science can produce, and the certainty that is
>particularly epistemological. Knowledge itself is uncertain
>because of the unremovable presence of legitimate doubt.
>Apparently this is a subtle concept because many posters
>interpret it as a self-contradictory argument. One
>reason this could be is that these posters have the habit
>of treating all knowledge as of the same kind.]
It's not so much subtle as trivial, because it boils down to no more
than Cartesian solipsism. Stop dressing it up as more than that, and
most will concede it as a logical possibility. Any who doubt the
logical unassailability of solipsism, you can call absolutists if you
like. The rest of us are just saying that the purpose of science is to
understand the world, just as the purpose of medical treatment is to
save a patient. If the world is ruled by a mischievous Cartesian demon,
or if the patient dies, the purpose of the activity is not achieved. At
a metaphysical level, I'm quite happy to take on board the idea that
science may be doomed to fail in its purpose. And I'm much more
prepared to accept the possibility, or even likelihood, that we can
never get to the very bedrock of existence. Indeed, those of us who are
content to accept non-observables as valid objects of discussion are
probably those best prepared to deal with such issues. But if I though
that science wasn't really about understanding the world, I wouldn't be
particularly interested in it - it would have no more intrinsic interest
than, say, the theory of the Sicilian Defence in Chess. That's
interesting, and I know something about it, but it's not interesting in
the same way.
>
>I have been called a "philosopher" on this NG, which puts
>me in an amusing and delicate situation. Sure enough on this
>NG being a philosopher is a truly low state, but among real
>philosophers I am the least of all. This NG tends to use the
>term philosopher exactly as I would have predicted, as a
>pejorative. Someday perhaps you will come to see things
>differently I hope. Values do not come from science per se,
>but from one's philosophy. Your values about the absolute
>vs the relative come out of your personal cache of values.
>Please stop pretending that they come directly from science.
My values about the absolute versus the relative? And what, pray, are
those? I merely take issue with your dogmatic assertion that to
(for example) <consider treating special relativity as a
phenomenological theory> is not scientifically legitimate. And that
there are Experts who can and/or have determined this.
- Gerry Quinn
Patrick Reany
Gerry Quinn wrote:
[snip]
> Here's an example of what I'd call a truth: Apples fall towards the
> centre of the Earth. It's not perfectly accurate, it's subject to a
> degree of definition and interpretation, it can be argued to have a
> thousand scientific explanations or to have none. But beyond any
> reasonable doubt, it's a truth. A scientific truth, discovered by a guy
> who wanted to find out how the world worked, and interesting to those
> who still want to.
Only the guy who discovered it in his search for understanding
hasn't really explained it at all, did he? And he gave us no
certainty that gravity will work tomorrow as it does today.
You keep talking about truth in two fashions. Please stop
confusing these two fashions. I have been arguing against
scientific laws as Absolute truths, and you counter by
offering a "truth beyond reasonable doubt." That's ridiculous!
I have NO reasonable doubt myself that gravity will work
tomorrow as it does today, but that doesn't give me or you
the right to proclaim the Law of Gravity as an Absolute Truth,
fixed if form and function for all time and for all places.
The purpose of science is to give theoretical (anthropomorphic)
explanations for laws that have a "reasonable basis for belief."
> I don't care about pretty correlations, I can find them more easily in
> the Mandelbrot set. I don't care about usefulness - pace a few minor
> GPS corrections which the engineers could replace by fudge factors if
> they had to, Newtonian gravity is sufficient for any technology that's
> likely to be built in my lifetime. I just want to know how it works.
Well, fine! You don't care about these things but other people
do care about these things. You'll never know for sure how
anything really works. Nobody else will either.
[snip]
> It's not so much subtle as trivial, because it boils down to no more
> than Cartesian solipsism.
No. There are many more issues at stake here. How many times
do I have to warn you about the Problem of Induction, for
instance? If you don't know what this is then read up on it!
> Stop dressing it up as more than that, and
> most will concede it as a logical possibility.
All I can conclude is that you just don't know enough about
the issues here to know how much more complicated
things are than you suspect. Anyway, I do not see my
doctrines as "dressing up" Cartesian solipsism. I do not
see my doctrines as being necessarily based on solipsism.
Personally, I have no problem with believing in an
independently existing external world!
> Any who doubt the
> logical unassailability of solipsism, you can call absolutists if you
> like. The rest of us are just saying that the purpose of science is to
> understand the world, just as the purpose of medical treatment is to
> save a patient.
Then what the heck is all this arguing for!? YOU are most
certainly not just interested in how things work, or at the
very least the bulk of absolutists on this NG are not. They
want the ABSOLUTE knowledge about how things work.
These absolutists are the closest things to Positivists that
I can think of in the modern world! Whatever knowledge
humans formulate about the natural realm by use of empirical,
rational methods is undeniable constrained and tainted by
our anthropomorphic way of perceiving and thinking. You
just refuse to admit this obvious fact. You seem to think that
we humans are designed to be able to understand the True
nature of the world, and although I cannot prove that we
are not created to do so, you cannot prove that we are. So
I conclude that the right thing to do is to be humbled by this
lack of proof and just accept the Instrumentalist doctrine of
science.
> If the world is ruled by a mischievous Cartesian demon,
> or if the patient dies, the purpose of the activity is not achieved. At
> a metaphysical level, I'm quite happy to take on board the idea that
> science may be doomed to fail in its purpose.
Science will NOT fail in its purpose if one ascribes to it an
accomplishable purpose in the first place. That is the whole
motive -- as I perceive it -- for the Instrumentalist philosophy
of science.
[snip]
> >Your values about the absolute
> >vs the relative come out of your personal cache of values.
> >Please stop pretending that they come directly from science.
>
> My values about the absolute versus the relative? And what, pray, are
> those?
Just how many times do we have to go over this stuff, huh?
Have you stopped to look at the title of this thread lately?
I find it against netiquette to engage in thread highjacking.
> I merely take issue with your dogmatic assertion that to
> (for example) <consider treating special relativity as a
> phenomenological theory> is not scientifically legitimate. And that
> there are Experts who can and/or have determined this.
I have no idea what you are talking about, once again.
Yes, I argue that science is ultimately based on phenomena
and the arbitrary ways that scientists choose to theorize
about that phenomena, and this does, of course, include the
arbitrary foundation to science that must be laid first for the
whole enterprise to get started. You seem to refer to the
group of scientists as the "experts," right? Well aren't they?
If science is to be considered as an official enquiry -- I think
of it as such -- then someone or some group has to set the
rules for how it will get officially done. And the way that
goes is, as I have already listed elsewhere: The de facto official
governing elements in science are (in no particular order):
Esteemed scientist, esteemed textbooks or other books in
scientific fields, esteemed universities and their research
institutions, governments, and research facilities run by
governments or private companies. (Yes, I agree that it's a
strange structure.)
With the exception of Ilja, I suggest that all the rest of the
so-called "absolutists" on this NG stop posting here for
however long it takes you people to learn the rudiments of
the philosophy of science. There a number of good books
in this area. I think you will do well to get books that take
an unbiased historical approach. Don't get stuck on just
one viewpoint and do read a few essays by Einstein because
his philosophy has been very important, in my opinion, in laying
down the philosophical foundation to modern physics outside
the area of QM. If you people consider Einstein the "enemy"
then you should get to know what he really believed, if you
have the courage to do so.
A true absolutist, in my opinion, must be willing to search for
and accept any truth that contradicts what he or she believes.
Patrick
Nemesis
[cut]
>ANY
>scientist, not just good ones, should be aware that science
>never reveals the truth. It just reveals what isn't true.
Interesting. If one cannot know anything for certain as you keep on
claiming, how does one know that something isn't true?
Nemesis
Nemesis
wrote:
>Because something else happens that contradicts that something!
Read the question over Mr. Clarke.
Nemesis
Nemesis
Weston) wrote:
>
>Good scientists, while in the pursuit of science, never look for truth.
>Good scientists, while in the pursuit of science, avoid like the plague,
>believing or disbelieving anything.
>
>Rather good scientists, while in the pursuit of science, assign rates of
>probability to purported statements of fact.
>This assignment of probability is based upon the best knowledge
>available to him.
>
>"Truth" is a word that is not definable in disciplined scientific
>discourse. Hence every time it is inserted into such scientific
>discourse, and its presence is tolerated, it quickly disintegrates the
>conversation. Many modern philosophy instructors forbid its use. It
>always leads to misunderstandings and noses bent out of joint.
>
>"Belief" suggests that the believer's mind is made up. Good scientists
>try to always keep an open mind. Belief belongs in church, not in
>science.
The above is based on the premise that one can never know anything for
certain. It is a false premise because it is logically circular.
Nemesis
Tom Clarke
Because something else happens that contradicts that something!
You know it is not night because the sun is shining.
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
I guess you didn't read the answer.
"You know it is not night because the sun is shining."
And, yes, I acknowedge that this is not immune to solipsistic
and brain-in-bottle attacks and the like.
But those are silly.
How is that you know the truth?
Tom Clarke
Daryl McCullough
ANY scientist, not just good ones, should be aware that science
never reveals the truth. It just reveals what isn't true.
I don't think that that's exactly the right way to say things.
In the usual way of speaking, revealing that something *isn't*
true is the same as revealing that its negation *is* true.
I think that what you mean is that science never reveals
the truth of *theories*, it only reveals their falsity.
Karl Popper makes the distinction between observational
statements and universal statements. An observational
statement is something like "I saw a black crow". A universal
statement is something like "All crows are black". A single
observation can contradict (or falsify) a universal statement,
but no finite number of observations can prove a universal
statement. So universal claims can never be "revealed" to
be true, they can only revealed to be false.
Of course, things aren't quite that simple, either.
In practice, falsifying a universal statement requires
*interpretation* of observations, and there is no foolproof
way to know that there wasn't an interpretation mistake.
For instance, I see a white crow, and so I believe that
I have disproved the "theory" that all crows are black.
But a black-crow advocate can always counter with: "How
do you know that that was a crow, and not a seagull?"
In practice, the only thing that is falsifiable is the
entire package of theory + observations + interpretations
of observations. When one falsifies the package, there is
no way to know for sure which part was mistaken---is
the theory wrong, or did the experimenters make an
observational mistake, or were the observations interpreted
incorrectly? The advance of science can be messy.
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Nemesis wrote:
>
> >
> > Interesting. If one cannot know anything for certain as you keep on
> > claiming, how does one know that something isn't true?
>
> If an hypothesis predicts something and the something is
> counterindicated by a properly designed experiment, then
> the hypothesis is false. It works thus:
>
> If A implies B and not B then not A.
>
That's a logical statement. To "prove" it, you need some
way to determine whether A or B is true or false. You
can't do that absolutely. You need to assume a set of axioms
and prove it relative to the truth of the axioms. Even then,
there are true propositions that can't be proved from the axioms
(Godel).
You can't decide what a "properly designed experiment" is without
a way to decide absolute truth.
Nemesis just doesn't understand that physics isn't mathematics
and physics isn't philosophy.
John Anderson
Nemesis
<bobk...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>Nemesis wrote:
>
>>
>> Interesting. If one cannot know anything for certain as you keep on
>> claiming, how does one know that something isn't true?
>
>That is easy. A true statement never implies a false statement.
>If an hypothesis predicts something and the something is
>counterindicated by a properly designed experiment, then
>the hypothesis is false. It works thus:
>
>If A implies B and not B then not A.
Where do these people come from?
Nemesis
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Jackie & Barry wrote:
>
> >
> > How might you determine that A implies B in the first place?
>
> An hypothesis must imply its conclusion logically. This takes
> into account the meaning of the terms occuring in the
> hypothesis and t he ordinary rules of logic.
>
> This is how we INFER testable conclusion from hypotheses.
>
How do you know that an experiment measures what you actually
think it does?
Bertrand Russell drove himself to distraction trying to figure
out how to show how we know anything from first principles.
If you can't prove that something is absolutely true, then
you can't prove that it's absolutely false either. Science
doesn't claim to do either. If an experiment supports a hypothesis,
it doesn't prove it. If an experiment contradicts a hypothesis,
it doesn't disprove it, but it does show that it has some
problems relative to the experiment. But someone who supports
the hypothesis has to do some work to show that the experiment
is wrong.
John Anderson
Clarke768
> ANY scientist, not just good ones, should be aware that science
> never reveals the truth. It just reveals what isn't true.
>I don't think that that's exactly the right way to say things.
>In the usual way of speaking, revealing that something *isn't*
>true is the same as revealing that its negation *is* true.
I wasn't the one that wrote the above, actually.
But I don't think what you say is quite right.
If something isn't blue, then we don't know that it
must be red, or that it is truly green, or ...
we just know that it isn't blue.
>I think that what you mean is that science never reveals
>the truth of *theories*, it only reveals their falsity.
Yes, I think that is what the original poster was getting at.
[snip nice discussion of Popper's views]
>In practice, the only thing that is falsifiable is the
>entire package of theory + observations + interpretations
>of observations. When one falsifies the package, there is
>no way to know for sure which part was mistaken---is
>the theory wrong, or did the experimenters make an
>observational mistake, or were the observations interpreted
>incorrectly? The advance of science can be messy.
Deja vu all over again.
I was just speaking to Dennis about such packages
not long ago.
Unfortunately, not as articulately as you.
Tom Clarke
and...@attglobal.net
Because you do an experiment that contradicts it. But that's
not certain either. You can't be sure that the different outcomes
of the experiment map to unambiguous predictions of the theory.
It is actually possible to do poorly conceived experiments.
Also, if the theory is not complete, you can do an
experiment that contradicts it and then it can be shown to agree
with the theory when the theory is extended a bit. But,
yet again, the extended theory may disagree with a later experiment.
You're tilting at windmills.
John Anderson
Robert J. Kolker
Nemesis wrote:
>
> Interesting. If one cannot know anything for certain as you keep on
> claiming, how does one know that something isn't true?
That is easy. A true statement never implies a false statement.
If an hypothesis predicts something and the something is
counterindicated by a properly designed experiment, then
the hypothesis is false. It works thus:
If A implies B and not B then not A.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Nemesis wrote:
> >
> >If A implies B and not B then not A.
>
> Where do these people come from?
From places where standard logic is used.
Where do YOU come from?
Bob Kolker
and...@attglobal.net
>
> Tom Clarke says...
>
> ANY scientist, not just good ones, should be aware that science
> never reveals the truth. It just reveals what isn't true.
>
> I don't think that that's exactly the right way to say things.
> In the usual way of speaking, revealing that something *isn't*
> true is the same as revealing that its negation *is* true.
>
I said that, not Mr Clarke. Logic tells you that
if (=> is logical implication)
A => B
then
~B => ~A
where ~ is logical negation.
That isn't what you said above.
Also, science isn't based on axioms, it's based on supporting
hypotheses. I don't know what the axioms of nature are
so I can't use science to describe truth and falsehood
in absolute logical terms that depend on proof wrt a set
of axioms.
John Anderson
Nemesis
<bobk...@email.com> wrote:
>> Where do these people come from?
>
>From places where standard logic is used.
>
>Where do YOU come from?
Thanks for the input.
Nemesis
Robert J. Kolker
Jackie & Barry wrote:
>
> How might you determine that A implies B in the first place?
An hypothesis must imply its conclusion logically. This takes
into account the meaning of the terms occuring in the
hypothesis and t he ordinary rules of logic.
This is how we INFER testable conclusion from hypotheses.
Bob Kolker
Jackie & Barry
How might you determine that A implies B in the first place?
Surely if [not B] is true then all you know is either [not A] is true or
[A does not imply B] is true.
Barry
Nemesis
>Nemesis wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:24:58 -0800, and...@attglobal.net wrote:
>>
>> [cut]
>> >ANY
>> >scientist, not just good ones, should be aware that science
>> >never reveals the truth. It just reveals what isn't true.
>>
>> Interesting. If one cannot know anything for certain as you keep on
>> claiming, how does one know that something isn't true?
>>
>
>Because you do an experiment that contradicts it.
Well, in that case you can indeed know some things absolutely. Which
means that you know it as absolute truth that something is falsified.
So it is incumbent upon you to retract your earlier claim which I
quote: "Science doesn't deal in absolute truth."
>But that's
>not certain either.
Nobody is arguing that a hypothesis about nature cannot be falsified.
It is so by definition. You have built for yourself a theater of the
absurd on the stage of which you are the sole actor. All the examples
you gave in order to prove that hypotheses can be falsified are
exercises designed to prove something that is already agreed upon.
I've said this much in my posts.
What I disagree with is your claim that nothing can be known for
certain. The obvious self-referential nature of the claim aside, it is
known for certain that experiments with magnets in the past have shown
that opposite poles attract. That is an absolute truth. Certainly it
is also true that scientists do not know for certain that this will
continue to be so. But scientists are what they are and that is their
prerogative.
I, OTOH, have come to understand that it will always be true (opposite
magnetic poles will always attract) and I take it to be an absolute
truth. I know this because, unlike most physicists who reverse
engineer the universe from the top down, I take the opposite route. I
try to derive the universe from the bottom up, i.e., from absolutely
nothing, a universe ex nihilo. This approach reveals certain
fundamental and absolute truths about nature that cannot be obtained
using a top-down inductive approach.
Moving right along, I can claim that various aspects of nature are
absolutely true. I can claim, for example, that nature is discrete.
Why? Because logic that tells me that continuity requires infinity in
the form of infinite regress. Now some of you may insist that infinite
regress is logical, but I am not willing to argue this point. This is
the sort of things that people should figure out on their own.
You are welcome to reject any or all of the above. This is my last
post on the subject.
Nemesis
Clarke768
>I, OTOH, have come to understand that it will always be true (opposite
>magnetic poles will always attract) and I take it to be an absolute
>truth.
So you _define_ opposite poles as those that attract?
[....]
>Because logic that tells me that continuity requires infinity in
>the form of infinite regress. Now some of you may insist that infinite
>regress is logical, but I am not willing to argue this point.
You've never taken a calculus course?
Tom Clarke
Gerry Quinn
>
>
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Here's an example of what I'd call a truth: Apples fall towards the
>> centre of the Earth. It's not perfectly accurate, it's subject to a
>> degree of definition and interpretation, it can be argued to have a
>> thousand scientific explanations or to have none. But beyond any
>> reasonable doubt, it's a truth. A scientific truth, discovered by a guy
>> who wanted to find out how the world worked, and interesting to those
>> who still want to.
>
>Only the guy who discovered it in his search for understanding
>hasn't really explained it at all, did he? And he gave us no
>certainty that gravity will work tomorrow as it does today.
>You keep talking about truth in two fashions. Please stop
>confusing these two fashions. I have been arguing against
>scientific laws as Absolute truths, and you counter by
>offering a "truth beyond reasonable doubt." That's ridiculous!
A truth is true regardless of whether I doubt it, and what you place in
inverted commas is a deliberate misquotation. I said "Beyond any
reasonable doubt, it's a truth." I don't know if you have ever defined
the "Absolute truth" you keep on going on about - I don't see any need
for a truth requiring such a qualifier.
>I have NO reasonable doubt myself that gravity will work
>tomorrow as it does today, but that doesn't give me or you
>the right to proclaim the Law of Gravity as an Absolute Truth,
>fixed if form and function for all time and for all places.
>
>The purpose of science is to give theoretical (anthropomorphic)
>explanations for laws that have a "reasonable basis for belief."
No it isn't, the purpose is to find out how things work. Imagine two
cops, one wants to convict criminals, the other merely wants to put
whatever people behind bars such as the law gives a reasonable basis for
permitting. The second attitude would be considered at best
poorly motivated, at worst degenerate and corrupt. So too with the
corresponding attitudes towards science.
>
>> I don't care about pretty correlations, I can find them more easily in
>> the Mandelbrot set. I don't care about usefulness - pace a few minor
>> GPS corrections which the engineers could replace by fudge factors if
>> they had to, Newtonian gravity is sufficient for any technology that's
>> likely to be built in my lifetime. I just want to know how it works.
>
>Well, fine! You don't care about these things but other people
>do care about these things. You'll never know for sure how
>anything really works. Nobody else will either.
I may still know how it works.
>
>[snip]
>
>> It's not so much subtle as trivial, because it boils down to no more
>> than Cartesian solipsism.
>
>No. There are many more issues at stake here. How many times
>do I have to warn you about the Problem of Induction, for
>instance? If you don't know what this is then read up on it!
>
If you feel that your fretting about the justification of knowledge goes
beyond spinning your wheels into a deeper rut abound the head of
Descartes' pin, fair enough. But it isn't relevant to the apple.
[--]
>> Any who doubt the
>> logical unassailability of solipsism, you can call absolutists if you
>> like. The rest of us are just saying that the purpose of science is to
>> understand the world, just as the purpose of medical treatment is to
>> save a patient.
>
>Then what the heck is all this arguing for!? YOU are most
>certainly not just interested in how things work, or at the
>very least the bulk of absolutists on this NG are not. They
You see, you're calling me an absolutist. As it so happens, my interest
in science is based essentially on my wonder as to how things work. I
have many other interests, but even in maths I am drawn towards
algorithmic information theory etc. rather than towards the elaborate
and useful structures that have been built. You might say I am
interested in how math works, though here, of course, we risk veering
into recursive issues.
>want the ABSOLUTE knowledge about how things work.
>These absolutists are the closest things to Positivists that
>I can think of in the modern world! Whatever knowledge
>humans formulate about the natural realm by use of empirical,
>rational methods is undeniable constrained and tainted by
>our anthropomorphic way of perceiving and thinking. You
>just refuse to admit this obvious fact. You seem to think that
>we humans are designed to be able to understand the True
>nature of the world, and although I cannot prove that we
>are not created to do so, you cannot prove that we are. So
>I conclude that the right thing to do is to be humbled by this
>lack of proof and just accept the Instrumentalist doctrine of
>science.
I very much doubt that we were designed to understand the true nature of
the world, at least to the depth of understanding to which we now aspire
in various ways including science. It's even clear that there are
things too complex for us to be reasonably capable of understanding,
although we might augment ourselves or our successors in such a
manner that we - or they - might have more capability in that regard.
But one can know something without understanding completely, and it
appears to me that we know quite a lot.
>
>> If the world is ruled by a mischievous Cartesian demon,
>> or if the patient dies, the purpose of the activity is not achieved. At
>> a metaphysical level, I'm quite happy to take on board the idea that
>> science may be doomed to fail in its purpose.
>
>Science will NOT fail in its purpose if one ascribes to it an
>accomplishable purpose in the first place. That is the whole
>motive -- as I perceive it -- for the Instrumentalist philosophy
>of science.
>
You'd be happy in a birdcage, then, by adjusting your idea of freedom to
what is accomplishable. In fact you've adjusted it in advance, just in
case you are in a birdcage. Interesting philosophy, but most of us
don't need that crutch. If it works so well, why do you get so
distressed when someone mentions the word 'cage', or refers to the world
outside a possible cage?
>> >Your values about the absolute
>> >vs the relative come out of your personal cache of values.
>> >Please stop pretending that they come directly from science.
>>
>> My values about the absolute versus the relative? And what, pray, are
>> those?
>
>Just how many times do we have to go over this stuff, huh?
>Have you stopped to look at the title of this thread lately?
>I find it against netiquette to engage in thread highjacking.
>
You chose the title. But I dropped in to challenge certain arguments
that seemed directed against realists, rather than strawman Absolutists.
Maybe "Nemesis" or Gerald O'Barr are Absolutists in your sense. But
you appear to be setting your sights somewhat wider.
>> I merely take issue with your dogmatic assertion that to
>> (for example) <consider treating special relativity as a
>> phenomenological theory> is not scientifically legitimate. And that
>> there are Experts who can and/or have determined this.
>
>I have no idea what you are talking about, once again.
A phenomenological theory is something like the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, considered in the light of more modern theories of
statistical or quantum mechanics. To elevate relativity to a philosophy
of science is no different from elevating energy or entropy [come to
think of it, they've both been tried, mostly by philosophers, not
scientists, and only after scientists came out with them]. Special
relativity may be the consequence of more fundamental laws. [Nowadays,
most people believe that is the case for general relativity - special
relativity as fundamental still has its supporters. Contrary to what
you sometimes assert, the charter of this newsgroup is designed to cater
for both viewpoints.]
>Yes, I argue that science is ultimately based on phenomena
>and the arbitrary ways that scientists choose to theorize
>about that phenomena, and this does, of course, include the
>arbitrary foundation to science that must be laid first for the
>whole enterprise to get started. You seem to refer to the
>group of scientists as the "experts," right? Well aren't they?
>If science is to be considered as an official enquiry -- I think
>of it as such -- then someone or some group has to set the
I think the notion of science as "official enquiry" is absurd.
"Enquiry" is quite sufficient.
>rules for how it will get officially done. And the way that
>goes is, as I have already listed elsewhere: The de facto official
>governing elements in science are (in no particular order):
>Esteemed scientist, esteemed textbooks or other books in
>scientific fields, esteemed universities and their research
>institutions, governments, and research facilities run by
>governments or private companies. (Yes, I agree that it's a
>strange structure.)
>
>With the exception of Ilja, I suggest that all the rest of the
>so-called "absolutists" on this NG stop posting here for
>however long it takes you people to learn the rudiments of
>the philosophy of science. There a number of good books
>in this area. I think you will do well to get books that take
>an unbiased historical approach. Don't get stuck on just
>one viewpoint and do read a few essays by Einstein because
>his philosophy has been very important, in my opinion, in laying
>down the philosophical foundation to modern physics outside
>the area of QM. If you people consider Einstein the "enemy"
>then you should get to know what he really believed, if you
>have the courage to do so.
Here we go again - how am I an absolutist?
I have read Einstein mostly from secondary sources. He says a lot of
things, some of which contradict others. I don't think of him as any
sort of enemy - I think he was a great scientist.
>
>A true absolutist, in my opinion, must be willing to search for
>and accept any truth that contradicts what he or she believes.
Surely everyone should do that?
- Gerry Quinn
Clarke768
>>Yes I know you never actually plug "infinity" into
>>an equation [although the recent development of
>>non-standard analysis legitimizes even this]
>In what way? I can tell you it's a lie without even seeing it.
How can mathematics be a lie? It is either right
or wrong. You assume a bunch of axioms and
you derive theorems either you do this correctly
or not. This does not imply the necessity of choosing
to believe that those axioms apply in the real world.
But basically, Robinsoon in non-standard analysis
appends to the real numbers extra quantities
- infinitesimals that are smaller than any
non-zero number, but not zero. The infinitesimals
have recipricols that are like infinities - they are
bigger than any number. All this is done with
axioms and is quite rigorous. Robinsion proves
that anything you derive using infinitesimals/ities
is when restricted to ordinary numbers a valid result
that could have been derived using limits and
epsilon-delta arguments and such. In this sense
the use of infintesimal dx's and dt's in equations
and infinities is made legitimate.
>> but you
>>"deal with" infinities through a limiting process.
>No you don't. There is no such thing as an infinitely smooth curve in
>math or in nature.
There is such in math. If you deny it you are sadly
mistaken.
As to whether such smooth curves exist in nature,
that is another question as I have acknowledged.
You may not like smooth curves, but you can't disprove
their existence by attacking mathematics.
>When was the last time you or anyone else plotted
>every point on an infinitely smooth curve?
Silly. That is too hard. The mathematical way is
to prove logically from axioms that the curve has the
property of smoothness at every point. Then if it were
not smooth at some point, the axioms would be contradicted.
Of course you don't have to accept the axioms.
>>What was your computer doing? Your were either using
>>a numerical _approximation_ to a values such as pi which
>>have no exact representation in a finite precision number,
>There is no such thing as a non-finite or infinite number. All
>numbers, by virtue of being numbers, are finite, i.e., discrete.
You may get into trouble there. You may like the
Brouwer school of mathematics often termed "Intuitionistic"
which rejects any mathematical procedure which can't be
expressed as a finite algorithm, but the way you state
the above sounds like you may be contradicting some
mathematics that you would like to have.
Surely if you allow integers such as 2, then you must
allow the use of fractions such as "1/2" in your mathematics?
Surely you have 0 in your mathematics.
Then how do you make 0 discretely seperate from the
fractions? If N is an integer then 1/N is close to zero.
1/N is a close to zero as desirec by making N large enough.
Surely you are not limiting yourself to numbers less than
a certain size? If so what size?
>>or you were using the computer to manipulate the _symbols_
>>that represent values such as pi that cannote be finitely
>>represented.
>All numbers are discrete. You can say something to the effect that a
>variable can increase to infinity but it never happens.
Doesn't have to happen. You reason about what happens
as the number gets larger. Since I'm sure you don't
want to place an arbitrary cap on the size of numbers,
you have to consider what happens as they get larger.
If you consider N then you really should consider what
happens for 2N.
> There is
>temporal aspect to infinity that mathematicians tend to ignore. You
>cannot change something infinitely in zero time although I am sure
>many mathematicians will claim otherwise.
Did you mean to say "finite time" instead of "zero time"
above? Infinitely in finite or finitely in zero are bad enoug.
Time is a consideration of physics, not mathematics.
You may think that continuum mathematics is not a good
model of time. You are free to do this, but there is
nothing wrong with continuum mathematics unless you
have found an undiscovered contradiction.
>>>The notion that calculus uses infinities is a lie. I
>>>challenge you to come up with one tiny example of the use of an
>>>infinite quantity in a calculation. Just one.
>>In one sense as finite beings
>Oh? Does this mean you have a counter example, an infinite being?
No. Maybe I should have said bounded beings.
Bounded is a better mathematical concept for this probably.
We are beings who weigh less than 1000 tons say.
1000 tons is the bound. I set it so high to allow for the
possibility of whale mathematicians.
>>we share the limitations of
>>computers and cannot directly represent infinite quantities.
>And you know something that can?
The word "directly" was in the above sentence.
I would maintain that we can do so "indirectly" via
symbol systems.
>>On the other hand we are intelligent beings and can
>>construct symbol systems that let us reason about infinite
>>quantities.
>No you can't. The term 'quantity' corresponds to a discrete finite
>number.
Yes, you seem to be an intuitionist. Perhaps you have
your own school of mathematics.
>You can only reason about infinitely progressing variable
>whose infinite value can never be reached. Calculus is about as
>discrete as any math. Why? because it uses numbers and numbers are
>discrete. If it did use infinity, it could not be done on a computer.
Sigh. How much memory is in your computer?
128 meg. Then you computer can hold the number
2 to the billion. If you use hard disk maybe
something like 2 to the 128billion. All finiite numbers.
Mathematicians can provie things about such large
numbers e.g. Mersenne primes of the form
2 to the large prime -1
So a computer is numericaly limited in what it can
represent and mathematics beats any give computer.
A computer can beused to hold symbol strings, of course,
for example the paper that reports on the large Mersene
prime in TeX format, but that is using mathematical language,
not simple numerical storage.
>>For example if aleph-zero is the
>>infinity that is the number of integers, then the
>>infinity that is the number of real numbers is 2 to the
>>aleph-zero.
No comment?
>>>The fact that calculus uses limits that are said to extend to infinity
>>>does not mean that infinities are used in math. The notion of
>>>continuity is a damnable one.
>>Why this hostility toward a mathematical concept?
>>Have you ever considered therapy?
> Why do you insist on psychoanalyzing others? Is that a new debating
>technique?
A joke.
>I am not hostile toward math. I love math. I just can't
>stand people who use their misconceptions of math to instill science
>with their crap.
Then don't attack the messenger. It is physics not math
that you have a problem with.
>It is for this reason that in 2001, we still have
>people who believe there is such a thing as an infinitely smooth
>circle.
But there is - in mathematics - take the Euclidean axioms
etc.
You may not agree with the application of Euclidean axioms
to physics. That is your prerogative.
Wheeler has expressed the idea "it from bit" that discrete
logic lies at the root of everything - physically.
>I repeat, the notion of continuous structures is one of the most
>damnable concepts of science. It has retarded progress in physics by
>centuries.
I can only disagree. Had calculus never been introduced
we would still be in the dark ages.
> Even after the quantum era was ushered in through the
>genius of the great physicist Max Planck, we still have people
>(physics teachers no less) coming out of the woodwork to insist that
>energy is continuous because of e = hf. Their argument is that since
>frequency can take on any value, therefore energy is continuous. This
>is the sort of crap that comes from believing in infinity. Would they
>also insist that there are 1.2 person per square mile because an
>equation says so?
Of course not. And you rather oversimply in your treatment
of how E=hf is used.
>>>Even Einstein (Mr. Continuum) was
>>>beginning to realize that nature cannot be continuous. Needless to
>>>say, nature is discrete.
>>It might be. But it need not be, at least I have yet
>>to see a proof.
>>Do you have one that involves more than shouting
>>and calling mathematical concepts "damnable"?
>The proof is the concept itself, the very word 'infinity'. It requires
>infinity to have a continuous universe. That is the proof. If you see
>no problem with that, you may never get it and I feel sorry for you.
The universe has done whatever it wants. The universe
is constructed the way it is. The universe does not care
about what ape-men on terra think. If you don't get this...
>But then again maybe not.
No need to feel sorry for me.
>>>>As to whether something exists that is actually infinite, I leave that
>>>>up to the universe. But you cannot eliminate the possibility of
>>>>infinitely existing things by logical contradiction.
>>>The same logic applies to both math and physics.
>>Precisely. Neither can contain a contradiction.
>As I said the contradiction is in the interpretation. All numbers are
>discrete.
And what is the largest number and hence the
largest recipricol?
Or do you limit yourself to the numbers
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, .... MAX ?
>>>I hope you are not
>>>advancing that nature can be illogical?
>>Of course not. That is why you cannot a priori eliminate
>>infinity from nature. Infinity is not contradictory.
>Infinity is not just contradictory, it's stupid.
Now we are getting somewhere.
The mathematical concept of infinity is NOT contradictory,
however,
it MAY be stupid to apply the concept in physics.
>>>I have seen Nobel laureates
>>>advance nature does not have to be logical.
>>Can you give me a citation? I think you misinterpret
>>what was said.
>I'll have to look for it. I have seen it said in regard to the
>so-called wave-particle duality of light and the two-slit experiement.
Sounds like you are thinking of proposals that the
universe obeys quantum logic. In this case the universe
is logical, but differently logical. In particular the distributive
law fails [A and (B or C)] is not necessarily the same as
[(A or B) and (A or C)].
Again nothing contradictory but you may think it silly
to propose that the universe obeys non-standard logic.
I wrote a paper on this in a philosophy of science course
when I was an undergrad.
Personnally I don't much like quantum logic used this way
either.
>[cut]
>>>However, a top-down approach is not the only route
>>>to understanding. There is the bottom-up approach, i.e.,
>>>the universe ex nihilo. Existence out of nothing is the only
>>>model of nature that does not involve any infinite regress.
>>Are you talking about the creation of the universe ala Big Bang,
>>or are you talking about the derivation of physical theory?
>I was not aware that the Big Bang was posited as creation ex nihilo.
Some people have proposed that. Hawking for one.
>Whichever way matter was created, logic requires that it must have
>come out of nothing. But I'll leave the creation issue on the side for
>now. If you think infinity is logical, than you should have no problem
>with infinite regress.
Actually, I don't. I used to like the steady state cosmology
until cosmic microwave/quasars/helium abundance knocked
it out of contention.
[snip for brevity]
>>>-Nature is non-local and discrete.
>>What do you mean by non-local? Locality implies a concept
>>of space. Do you derive space from nothing?
>Well, if it's non-local, there is no space is there?
So that is what you mean by non-local? Non-space?
Another meaning is that existents are smeared out across
space - continuously - but I didn't think this way your
meaning.
>>>-There exist only particles, their properties and their interactions.
>>>-Time, size and distance are abstract concepts.
>>What do you mean by "abstract"?
>Abstract means non-existent in the same sense that the unemployment
>rate is not a physical entity. It's a mere concept in our minds.
OK.
>>>-Motion is caused by interactions.
>>Would not motion be an abstraction as well; being composed
>>of the quotient of distance and time, two abstract concepts?
>Not at all. All you need for motion is a position property and change
>of position.
Then I exactly don't understand how length is abstract.
A change in position would be a length.
>Time and distance are abstractly derived from those two
>things. Nature is neither redundant nor circular. The phrase "motion
>in time" is logically circular. So is "motion in space."
So time and space are illusions?
>>>-An interaction is a temporary violation in the first principle.
>>>-The duration of an interaction is probabilistic.
>>>-There are only four (4) dimensions (degrees of change).
>>Why only four?
>That is part of my theory which I am not at liberty to discuss at this
>point. Suffice it to say that it is a direct logical consequence of
>existence ex nihilo. What is important here is tha there is no time
>dimension, since a time dimension (temporal degree of freedom) is
>crackpottery. A time dimension forbids motion. One is left to wonder
>what that does to modern string theory.
You should looke at string theory. String theory is able
to show that 11 dimension and only 11 dimensions
(counting time as one) are required for consistent string
theory. Maybe you can get 4 in some similar way.
>>>-Position is a variable and intrinsic 4-property of every particle.
>>>-All properties are associated with one or more of the 4 dimensions.
>>>-All properties are intrinsic and therefore absolute.
>>Does this follow? After all in relativity every object has
>>its own intrinsic length etc as measured in its own reference
>>frame. Nevertheless, within the framework or relativity
>>absolute does not follow.
>I don't really care what does not follow from *interpretations* of
>relativity. Relativists have made so many dumb claims over the last
>century while riding on the coattails of relativity that only a
>revolution out of left field could ever repair the damage.
Think of it as an analogy. Don't let the word "relativity"
throw you. Or think of it as a bit of abstract mathematics -
Minkowski space time - that may or may not apply in physics.
[snip for brevity]
>>The best way to conduct your battle would be to develop
>>your theory to the point where it predicts a
>>_startling_ new phenomena of nature.
>>If your theory can do so, then you will get an audience.
>Predictions of new phenomena will have little or no impact on dogma,
>IMO. What is needed is a gee-wiz, oh-my-god! demonstration that knocks
>people's socks off, physicists and laymen alike.
That is my point. A new phenomena would be a
gee-whiz, oh-my-god! demonstration.
>>New interpretatons of old data are a dime a dozen and many
>>are in the attic of physics gathering dust like the
>>Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory that you mentioned.
>Well, considering all the things we disagree about, it's comforting to
>know that there are a few things about which we do agree.
You would probably like the Kronecker quotation
(don't let the word "God" throw you)
"God created the integers, all the rest is the work of man."
Tom Clarke
Patrick Reany
Nemesis wrote:
[snip]
> The fact that calculus uses limits that are said to extend to infinity
> does not mean that infinities are used in math. The notion of
> continuity is a damnable one.
Why? Do you oppose any use whatsoever of continuous models?
> Even Einstein (Mr. Continuum) was
> beginning to realize that nature cannot be continuous.
Give quote and reference, please.
[snip]
> >As to whether something exists that is actually infinite, I leave that
> >up to the universe. But you cannot eliminate the possibility of
> >infinitely existing things by logical contradiction.
>
> The same logic applies to both math and physics. I hope you are not
> advancing that nature can be illogical?
1) How do YOU know that Nature has to be logical, whatever
that's suppose to mean?
2) What is the intrinsic relation of math to Nature, or even to physics?
3) What's the intrinsic relation of physics to Nature?
[snip]
> -Nature is non-local and discrete.
> -There exist only particles, their properties and their interactions.
> -Time, size and distance are abstract concepts.
> -Motion is caused by interactions.
> -An interaction is a temporary violation in the first principle.
> -The duration of an interaction is probabilistic.
> -There are only four (4) dimensions (degrees of change).
> -Position is a variable and intrinsic 4-property of every particle.
> -All properties are associated with one or more of the 4 dimensions.
> -All properties are intrinsic and therefore absolute.
Prove everyone of your above assertions. I guess you are a
positivist.
Patrick
http://www.ajnpx.com/html/Science.html
http://www.ajnpx.com/html/AJNP_NP.html
http://www.ajnpx.com/html/AJNP_math.html
http://www.ajnpx.com/html/Mathematics.html
RC
<Nem...@nospam.com> writes
[...]
>As long as one chooses the top-down inductive approach toward
>understanding nature, one cannot know whether one's hypothesis will
>not be falsified. However, a top-down approach is not the only route
>to understanding. There is the bottom-up approach, i.e., the universe
>ex nihilo. Existence out of nothing is the only model of nature that
>does not involve any infinite regress. To be made of nothing, all
>things must amount to nothing, i.e., the sum total of all things must
>be zero. This is the mother of all conservation principles and it is
>the cause of all motion and changes. I call it the conservation of
>ZERO or the first principle. From this single starting point, one can
>use rigorous logic to come up with startling, absolute truths about
>the universe. For examples,
>
>-Nature is non-local and discrete.
>-There exist only particles, their properties and their interactions.
I think you're making a big mistake here. Particles are the
"condensation" of another type of matter which was the original
Existence of the Universe. The Universe of today is in a different
"phase" to what it was when it first originated.
>-Time, size and distance are abstract concepts.
>-Motion is caused by interactions.
>-An interaction is a temporary violation in the first principle.
>-The duration of an interaction is probabilistic.
>-There are only four (4) dimensions (degrees of change).
>-Position is a variable and intrinsic 4-property of every particle.
>-All properties are associated with one or more of the 4 dimensions.
>-All properties are intrinsic and therefore absolute.
>
>Once a solid foundation is built at the bottom, one can use it to
>build the rest. I hope to get my model to a point where I can publish
>it in the foreseeable future. In the meantime I'll continue my battle
>against the many falsehoods being preached by the physics community.
I still say you need a mathematical physicist to check that the
postulated interpretations fit with experimental observations and the
mathematical formulations. Unfortunately, I failed my chemistry degree
(due to loss of interest), so I need a person on the "inside" to write
and submit the paper. :) Nevertheless, you can rest assured that you are
not exchanging correspondence with a doofus layman. At school, I was
always at or near the top of the class, particularly, in maths and
science.
--
The Reality
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC
Nemesis
wrote:
>In article <ds15btcskp2ncob3h...@4ax.com>, Nemesis
><Nem...@nospam.com> writes
>
[cut]
>>-Nature is non-local and discrete.
>>-There exist only particles, their properties and their interactions.
>
>I think you're making a big mistake here. Particles are the
>"condensation" of another type of matter which was the original
>Existence of the Universe.
All matter is made of nothing. Anything else would violate the
conservation of nothing. I am not sure what you mean by "condensation
of another type of matter" What does "condensation" mean? At the
fundamental level there is no room for ambiguity in meaning. The
logical choices are extremely limited. Either you have it or you
don't.
[cut]
>>Once a solid foundation is built at the bottom, one can use it to
>>build the rest. I hope to get my model to a point where I can publish
>>it in the foreseeable future. In the meantime I'll continue my battle
>>against the many falsehoods being preached by the physics community.
>
>I still say you need a mathematical physicist to check that the
>postulated interpretations fit with experimental observations and the
>mathematical formulations.
Math is only needed at a high level involving the behaviors and
interactions of huge numbers of fundamental entities. The most
important level is well below that.
> Unfortunately, I failed my chemistry degree
>(due to loss of interest), so I need a person on the "inside" to write
>and submit the paper. :) Nevertheless, you can rest assured that you are
>not exchanging correspondence with a doofus layman. At school, I was
>always at or near the top of the class, particularly, in maths and
>science.
I've always had the highest respect for your intellect, your honesty
and your unusual interest in issues that most would consider to be
inconsequential or not worthy of study. How wrong they are!
Nemesis
Nemesis
<re...@firstworld.net> wrote:
>Nemesis wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> The fact that calculus uses limits that are said to extend to infinity
>> does not mean that infinities are used in math. The notion of
>> continuity is a damnable one.
>
>Why? Do you oppose any use whatsoever of continuous models?
I have never seen a continuous model. Many make the claim that
calculus maps continuous structures but fail to show it. When it comes
down the nitty gritty, it's always discrete. Regardless of how you
slice it, if it uses numbers, it is discrete. My argument against
continuity is simple: it requires infinity. One cannot map the
infinite onto the finite.
>> Even Einstein (Mr. Continuum) was
>> beginning to realize that nature cannot be continuous.
>
>Give quote and reference, please.
Here's a quote from the book "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais,
page 467:
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot
be based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
structures. In that case *nothing* remains of my
entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included,
[and of] the rest of modern physics."
Here Einstein makes the same mistake as everyone else. The discrete
nature of the universe at the fundamental level does not invalidate
relativity. Since GR is a macroscopic theory, calculus works very well
within measurable limits. It is only when one gets down close to the
Planck level that GR breaks down.
>> >As to whether something exists that is actually infinite, I leave that
>> >up to the universe. But you cannot eliminate the possibility of
>> >infinitely existing things by logical contradiction.
>>
>> The same logic applies to both math and physics. I hope you are not
>> advancing that nature can be illogical?
>
>1) How do YOU know that Nature has to be logical, whatever
> that's suppose to mean?
Great question! The answer is that everything that exists comes from
nothing and that includes logic and this logic is the same logic that
explains why things are made of nothing. Anything else leads to an
infinite regress. You may not think this is a particularly convincing
argument but so far, this is the only one I can come up with. Let me
add that I use it to obtain excellent results in my research.
>2) What is the intrinsic relation of math to Nature, or even to physics?
>3) What's the intrinsic relation of physics to Nature?
I am not sure about your use of the term 'intrinsic' above. Intrinsic,
to me, involves only the absolute properties of an entity. The
relative is both extrinsic and abstract, meaning that it depends on
properties other than those of the entity being considered. The
intrinsic is absolute (independent).
>[snip]
>
>> -Nature is non-local and discrete.
>> -There exist only particles, their properties and their interactions.
>> -Time, size and distance are abstract concepts.
>> -Motion is caused by interactions.
>> -An interaction is a temporary violation in the first principle.
>> -The duration of an interaction is probabilistic.
>> -There are only four (4) dimensions (degrees of change).
>> -Position is a variable and intrinsic 4-property of every particle.
>> -All properties are associated with one or more of the 4 dimensions.
>> -All properties are intrinsic and therefore absolute.
>
>Prove everyone of your above assertions. I guess you are a
>positivist.
Well, for that you'll have to wait until I publish and I will not
publish until I can derive the gravitational constant from first
principles. However I can provide arguments for some of them:
1. Nature is discrete because continuity leads to infinite
regress.
2. A temporal dimension does not exist because it forbids
motion.
3. Space does not exist because motion in space is redundant
and circular. This is subtle. Motion means change in a
positional property. Does the property belong to the moving
entity or to something else? Think about it. If it belongs to
something else, how does the entity get access to it? There are
several other reasons for the non-existence of space but this
will do for now.
4. The discreteness of nature forces it to use probabilistic
processes, meaning that the duration of most interactions are
probabilistic. Why? Because the conservation-of-ZERO principle
tries to maintain a balance but often the balance would mean
that fractional values of the fundamental speed (c) must be
used. Since this is impossible, nature uses the next best
thing, it uses wait periods that are multiples of a fundamental
duration.
Item 4 is manifested in the probabilistic nature of atomic decay.
However this happens all the time. When a particle moves, more often
than not it cannot do so in a straight line because of the
discreteness of positions. It moves in jagged jumps (for clarity's
sake, imagine that the jumps occur at the intersections of the lines
on a graph paper). To correct the discrepancies (imbalances or
violations of the first principle) that occur in such discrete series
of jumps, nature varies the durations of the jumps every so often.
By the way, gravity too, is due to such corrections. There is an awful
lot of particles flying about near a massive object. Many times, more
than one particle will be at the same place at the same time and this
creates a lot of imbalances: the ensuing interactions must 'borrow'
energy from 'NOTHING' and this energy must be repaid at the earliest
opportunity. I cannot go into details but this is the essence of my
gravity theory and I hope to use it to deduce the gravitational
constant from first principles, time permitting. Gravity, like all
phenomena, is the result of the principle of conservation of ZERO.
Nemesis
Robert J. Kolker
Nemesis wrote:
...........snip the Balderdash.....
constant from first principles, time permitting. Gravity, like all
> phenomena, is the result of the principle of conservation of ZERO.
>
> Nemesis
Meanwhile, predictions good to 12 decimal places are arrived at
by using continous methods. Which does not imply that nature
is continuous but certainly proves that the math based on
continuity is useful.
Bob Kolker
Nemesis
<bobk...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>Nemesis wrote:
>...........snip the Balderdash.....
One man's balderdash is another man's gold.
>>constant from first principles, time permitting. Gravity, like all
>> phenomena, is the result of the principle of conservation of ZERO.
>>
>
>Meanwhile, predictions good to 12 decimal places are arrived at
>by using continous methods.
So? The Planck constant is on the order of 10^-35 Js and the Planck
time is about 10^-44 s. The difference is astronomical in proportion.
Do you realize how small 10^-44 is? 12 decimal places are not event
close to the discrete level. Macroscopic predictions begin to break
down well before that.
>Which does not imply that nature
>is continuous but certainly proves that the math based on
>continuity is useful.
But the math is *not* based on continuity. It's a lie you keep
repeating like some sort of mantra in the hope that the force of
repetition will add truth to it. It does not. One has to use numbers
with the math and numbers are discrete.
Nemesis
Nemesis
[I tire of this infinity debate. I'll just respond to a few comments]
[cut]
>
>Surely if you allow integers such as 2, then you must
>allow the use of fractions such as "1/2" in your mathematics?
>Surely you have 0 in your mathematics.
>Then how do you make 0 discretely seperate from the
>fractions? If N is an integer then 1/N is close to zero.
>1/N is a close to zero as desirec by making N large enough.
>Surely you are not limiting yourself to numbers less than
>a certain size? If so what size?
Who says that fractional numbers are not discrete? You? All numbers
are discrete by virtue of being numbers.
[cut]
>> There is
>>temporal aspect to infinity that mathematicians tend to ignore. You
>>cannot change something infinitely in zero time although I am sure
>>many mathematicians will claim otherwise.
>
>Did you mean to say "finite time" instead of "zero time"
>above?
No. Assigning infinity to a symbol is equivalent to trying to map
infinity into the finite in zero time. But the length of time does not
really matter to make my point. The same argument works for any
finite amount of time.
>Infinitely in finite or finitely in zero are bad enoug.
>Time is a consideration of physics, not mathematics.
>You may think that continuum mathematics is not a good
>model of time. You are free to do this, but there is
>nothing wrong with continuum mathematics unless you
>have found an undiscovered contradiction.
There is no such thing as continuum math. It's a lie. The continuity
can never be demonstrated. It would take an infinite amount of time to
do that. Continuity is impossible to demonstrate.
>>>For example if aleph-zero is the
>>>infinity that is the number of integers, then the
>>>infinity that is the number of real numbers is 2 to the
>>>aleph-zero.
>
>No comment?
You can assign any discrete number to aleph-zero and the same
conclusion applies. You cannot assign infinity to it because infinity
is not a number. It is a concept that makes sense only when one talks
of variables changing towards a limit. Even the idea that a variable
can take on an infinite number of values as it changes from one number
to another is ludicrous. It cannot be demonstrated.
[cut]
>>It is for this reason that in 2001, we still have
>>people who believe there is such a thing as an infinitely smooth
>>circle.
>
>But there is - in mathematics - take the Euclidean axioms
>etc.
>You may not agree with the application of Euclidean axioms
>to physics. That is your prerogative.
Both Euclidean and non-Euclidean interpretations of geometry are based
on the concept of infinity. They are both mistaken. The instant one
gets rid of the infinity crap, all the paradoxes of geometry (such as
the ones regarding parallel axioms) disappear with it in one fell
swoop. As simple as that!
>Wheeler has expressed the idea "it from bit" that discrete
>logic lies at the root of everything - physically.
I could have sworn it was someone else who came up with the "it from
bit" idea. Oh well.
>>I repeat, the notion of continuous structures is one of the most
>>damnable concepts of science. It has retarded progress in physics by
>>centuries.
>
>I can only disagree. Had calculus never been introduced
>we would still be in the dark ages.
You keep insisting that calculus is continuous and I keep telling you
it is not. Continuity means infinitely divisible. Calculus does not
show that anything is infinitely divisible. On the contrary, it shows
the opposite. I don't think I'm going to argue this point forever. I
am satisfied with my understanding.
>> Even after the quantum era was ushered in through the
>>genius of the great physicist Max Planck, we still have people
>>(physics teachers no less) coming out of the woodwork to insist that
>>energy is continuous because of e = hf. Their argument is that since
>>frequency can take on any value, therefore energy is continuous. This
>>is the sort of crap that comes from believing in infinity. Would they
>>also insist that there are 1.2 person per square mile because an
>>equation says so?
>
>Of course not. And you rather oversimply in your treatment
>of how E=hf is used.
Not I am not. That is their precise argument to justify continuity.
It's a stupid one.
[cut]
>Or do you limit yourself to the numbers
>1, 2, 3, 4, 5, .... MAX ?
No I don't. The discrete does not necessarily mean integers. My
discrete computer can store and use floating point numbers pretty much
as easily as integers. One can however choose a small enough unit of
measurement to make any decimal fraction disappear.
[cut]
>Sounds like you are thinking of proposals that the
>universe obeys quantum logic. In this case the universe
>is logical, but differently logical. In particular the distributive
>law fails [A and (B or C)] is not necessarily the same as
>[(A or B) and (A or C)].
>Again nothing contradictory but you may think it silly
>to propose that the universe obeys non-standard logic.
>I wrote a paper on this in a philosophy of science course
>when I was an undergrad.
>Personnally I don't much like quantum logic used this way
>either.
There is only one logic. This non-standard logic crap is just that,
crap. There is no need to invent incompatible logics. There is a need
to gain more understanding about the phenomena in question as opposed
to pontificating about so-called "quantum logic" on the basis of pure
ignorance.
[cut]
>So that is what you mean by non-local? Non-space?
Non-spatial is the word. Nature is both non-spatial and non-temporal.
>Another meaning is that existents are smeared out across
>space - continuously - but I didn't think this way your
>meaning.
You are right. "existents smeared out across space" is pure nonsense.
[cut]
>>>Would not motion be an abstraction as well; being composed
>>>of the quotient of distance and time, two abstract concepts?
>
>>Not at all. All you need for motion is a position property and change
>>of position.
>
>Then I exactly don't understand how length is abstract.
>A change in position would be a length.
No. A change in position is motion. A length is the vector difference
between two positions. It is abstract. Only the positions exists as
physical properties.
>>Time and distance are abstractly derived from those two
>>things. Nature is neither redundant nor circular. The phrase "motion
>>in time" is logically circular. So is "motion in space."
>
>So time and space are illusions?
No. They are abstract. In the same sense that unemployment rate is
abstract. They are derived from real physically existent properties
and phenomena but they are themselves not physical.
[cut]
>You should looke at string theory. String theory is able
>to show that 11 dimension and only 11 dimensions
>(counting time as one) are required for consistent string
>theory. Maybe you can get 4 in some similar way.
String theory is big pile of crap. String theorists have no idea what
a dimension is. A dimension is a degree of freedom. (My personal
definition is that a dimension is a degree of separation.) All this
stuff in string theory about time being a dimension and about
dimensions being curled up in little balls is hogwash. So it their
nonsense about mass and energy being represented by vibrating strings.
It is based on a stupid misinterpretation of e = hf.
[cut]
>>Predictions of new phenomena will have little or no impact on dogma,
>>IMO. What is needed is a gee-wiz, oh-my-god! demonstration that knocks
>>people's socks off, physicists and laymen alike.
>
>That is my point. A new phenomena would be a
>gee-whiz, oh-my-god! demonstration.
Actually what I mean is that a little prediction that can only be
demonstrated in the lab with precision instruments is not going to cut
it.
>>>New interpretatons of old data are a dime a dozen and many
>>>are in the attic of physics gathering dust like the
>>>Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory that you mentioned.
>
>>Well, considering all the things we disagree about, it's comforting to
>>know that there are a few things about which we do agree.
>
>You would probably like the Kronecker quotation
>(don't let the word "God" throw you)
>
>"God created the integers, all the rest is the work of man."
Mr. Kronecker was absolutely right about this and I have read part of
his work. Nature uses only integer multiples of fundamental units.
However, the fundamental units of length, time, energy etc... are so
small that it would be hard to work with them at the macroscopic
level. There is nothing wrong with choosing one's unit of measurements
to make one's life easier. Either way, it is all discrete.
Nemesis
and...@attglobal.net
>
> and...@attglobal.net says...
> >
> >Daryl McCullough wrote:
> >>
> >> Tom Clarke says...
> >>
> >> ANY scientist, not just good ones, should be aware that science
> >> never reveals the truth. It just reveals what isn't true.
> >>
> >> I don't think that that's exactly the right way to say things.
> >> In the usual way of speaking, revealing that something *isn't*
> >> true is the same as revealing that its negation *is* true.
> >>
> >
> >I said that, not Mr Clarke.
>
>
> >Logic tells you that
> >if (=> is logical implication)
> >
> > A => B
> >
> >then
> >
> > ~B => ~A
> >
> >where ~ is logical negation.
> >
> >That isn't what you said above.
>
> A or (not A). So if we know that A is false, then
> we know that (not A) is true. So I don't understand
> what sense there is to saying we can never know that
> something is true, we can only know that something is
> not true.
>
Because when you say that A has to be either true or not
true, you're assuming a set of axioms that are absolutely
true and can be used to prove A or not A.
If you're working in math or logic, you just start with
a set of axioms. I don't know what the axioms of nature
are. Do you?
> >Also, science isn't based on axioms, it's based on supporting
> >hypotheses. I don't know what the axioms of nature are
> >so I can't use science to describe truth and falsehood
> >in absolute logical terms that depend on proof wrt a set
> >of axioms.
>
> Then how can you say that we can know that something is
> false? You said
>
> ...science never reveals the truth. It just reveals what
> isn't true.
>
> Are you making a distinction between something being false
> and something being not true?
>
I wrote that a little too quickly. You can't really
show that something isn't true either. You can show
that something isn't true relative to an interpretation
of an experiment if the experiment disagrees with
the hypothesis. But the interpretation depends
on a set of axioms.
John Anderson
Clarke768
>Who says that fractional numbers are not discrete? You? All numbers
>are discrete by virtue of being numbers.
What is your definition of discrete?
I was assuming you meant that numbers formed
a discrete set as opposed to a continuum.
I had the impression you do not like continua.
[...]
>No. Assigning infinity to a symbol is equivalent to trying to map
>infinity into the finite in zero time.
Gobbledygook. I too
>tire of this infinity debate
Apparently you are just making it up as you go
along.
>There is no such thing as continuum math. It's a lie.
What nonsense.
>The continuity can never be demonstrated.
You have no conception of what a mathematical
proof is.
>It would take an infinite amount of time to
>do that. Continuity is impossible to demonstrate.
Not so. It merely takes a proof by contradiction.
Assume non-continuity and arrive at a contradiction.
Since there are no contradictions, the only
possible conclusion is that continuity exists
[mathematically that is]
[regarding 2 to the cardinality of the integers
equaling the cardinality of the continuum]
>You can assign any discrete number to aleph-zero and the same
>conclusion applies.
So 2^2 equals the number of real numbers?
I exhibit {0,1,2,3,4,5} which has more than 2^2
elements.
>You cannot assign infinity to it because infinity
>is not a number. It is a concept that makes sense only when one talks
>of variables changing towards a limit.
If you want to be very precise, then aleph-zero etc
are defined limit-wise, but Cantor and others proved
that such limit-wise definitions have all the properties
of garden variety numbers so that it makes sense
to use the concept like a number.
>Both Euclidean and non-Euclidean interpretations of geometry are based
>on the concept of infinity. They are both mistaken.
Your program is doomed to failure. You will
never convince anyone of the value of your ideas
using this approach:
[snip more silliness]
>>I can only disagree. Had calculus never been introduced
>>we would still be in the dark ages.
>You keep insisting that calculus is continuous and I keep telling you
>it is not. Continuity means infinitely divisible. Calculus does not
>show that anything is infinitely divisible. On the contrary, it shows
>the opposite. I don't think I'm going to argue this point forever. I
>am satisfied with my understanding.
I am satisfied with my understanding and am satisfied that
you have no clue in these matters.
>[cut]
>>Or do you limit yourself to the numbers
>>1, 2, 3, 4, 5, .... MAX ?
>No I don't. The discrete does not necessarily mean integers. My
>discrete computer can store and use floating point numbers pretty much
>as easily as integers. One can however choose a small enough unit of
>measurement to make any decimal fraction disappear.
You really don't understand how your computer works, do you?
>[cut]
>There is only one logic. This non-standard logic crap is just that,
>crap.
The Japanese among others build real live function thermostats
using fuzzy logic. Do you really think they don't work?
>There is no need to invent incompatible logics.
Works good for thermostats. Other logics have other uses.
I said I don't think quantum logic is the right approach to
the problem of quantum ontology.
Why do you rail against what is, after all, only abstract
mathematics?
>[cut]
>>So that is what you mean by non-local? Non-space?
>Non-spatial is the word. Nature is both non-spatial and non-temporal.
I would advise, not that you will listen to advice from me,
that you use non-spatial and non-temporal instead of
non-local. I can see what you are getting at with
non-spatial/temporal. Non-local made no sense to me.
In as much as I am a typical stupid, idiotic, dupe of
the mathemtical-physical conspiracy, this suggests that
non-spatial/temporal is the better terminology.
>>Another meaning is that existents are smeared out across
>>space - continuously - but I didn't think this way your
>>meaning.
>You are right. "existents smeared out across space" is pure nonsense.
You wouldn't want your readers to think you are spouting
nonsense.
>[cut]
>>Then I exactly don't understand how length is abstract.
>>A change in position would be a length.
>No. A change in position is motion. A length is the vector difference
>between two positions. It is abstract. Only the positions exists as
>physical properties.
You still confuse me about how positions can exist in a non-spatial
universe.
[...]
>[cut]
>>You should looke at string theory. String theory is able
>>to show that 11 dimension and only 11 dimensions
>>(counting time as one) are required for consistent string
>>theory. Maybe you can get 4 in some similar way.
>String theory is big pile of crap.
Can't you every not reflexively respond with words like
"crap". I am sure you don't like string theory given your
other opinions.
Consider it as an analogy. There is something special
about 11 dimensions.
Likewise 4 dimensional manifolds have properties that are
different from any other dimension. [I know you don't
like manifolds, they are continuous, you need not say
crap or stupid] This may provide you with tools for
showing the necessity of 4 dimensions.
>. (My personal
>definition is that a dimension is a degree of separation.)
Do you have personal definitions for all the terms you use?
If so no wonder we have difficulty communicating. You should
add a glossary to your .sig.
>[cut]
>>>Predictions of new phenomena will have little or no impact on dogma,
>>>IMO. What is needed is a gee-wiz, oh-my-god! demonstration that knocks
>>>people's socks off, physicists and laymen alike.
>>That is my point. A new phenomena would be a
>>gee-whiz, oh-my-god! demonstration.
>Actually what I mean is that a little prediction that can only be
>demonstrated in the lab with precision instruments is not going to cut
>it.
Yes it will. MMX, a lab experiment with precision instruments
brought in the theory of relativity that you hate so much.
>>You would probably like the Kronecker quotation
>>(don't let the word "God" throw you)
>>"God created the integers, all the rest is the work of man."
>Mr. Kronecker was absolutely right about this and I have read part of
>his work. Nature uses only integer multiples of fundamental units.
>However, the fundamental units of length, time, energy etc... are so
>small that it would be hard to work with them at the macroscopic
>level. There is nothing wrong with choosing one's unit of measurements
>to make one's life easier. Either way, it is all discrete.
I thought you might like that quotation.
Tom Clarke
Daniel Weston
To Nemesis:
When you say that all numbers are discrete, does that mean that pi is a
discrete number?
Nemesis
[snip all preceding comments on infinity]
>You really don't understand how your computer works, do you?
I am beginning to think you don't understand anything at all. Believe
me, I probably know a lot more about computers than you'll ever have a
need to know.
>>There is only one logic. This non-standard logic crap is just that,
>>crap.
>
>The Japanese among others build real live function thermostats
>using fuzzy logic. Do you really think they don't work?
Listen. I have studied fuzzy logic and I can tell you that it is
definitely not a different logic. It is just a different method of
making decisions base on probability. The same old boolean logic is
used within it. "Fuzzy logic" is an unfortunate and rather silly
misnomer. Even Mr. Zadeh seem to agree.
>>[cut]
>
>>>Then I exactly don't understand how length is abstract.
>>>A change in position would be a length.
>
>>No. A change in position is motion. A length is the vector difference
>>between two positions. It is abstract. Only the positions exists as
>>physical properties.
>
>You still confuse me about how positions can exist in a non-spatial
>universe.
It's actually rather simple. The problem is that you've spent your
entire life thinking that there is a space that you can't think
without it. An imperfect analogy is that of a video game in which a
programmer uses a bunch program structures to represent movable
sprites. The programmer does not map every point in space before
placing the sprite at their respective position. It is a lot easier
and not at all redundant and wasteful to assign a variable property to
each sprite and call it the sprite's position (its coordinates).
Changing the sprite's position is a simple matter of changing the
positional property. The same goes for nature.
[...]
>>>You should looke at string theory. String theory is able
>>>to show that 11 dimension and only 11 dimensions
>>>(counting time as one) are required for consistent string
>>>theory. Maybe you can get 4 in some similar way.
>
>>String theory is big pile of crap.
>
>Can't you every not reflexively respond with words like
>"crap".
I call it like I see it. Sorry to offend your sensibilities.
>I am sure you don't like string theory given your
>other opinions.
I explained why it's a pile of crap. Why did you snip that part out?
Nothing like a little creative snippage to make a dishonest point.
>Consider it as an analogy. There is something special
>about 11 dimensions.
>
>Likewise 4 dimensional manifolds have properties that are
>different from any other dimension. [I know you don't
>like manifolds, they are continuous, you need not say
>crap or stupid] This may provide you with tools for
>showing the necessity of 4 dimensions.
No it won't. A manifold is an a priori space which is easily proven to
be false. Unless the number of dimensions is derived from first
principles as a logical necessity for the universe to exist, it's all
hot air. Like I told you, string theorists have no idea what a
dimension is. If they did, they would not have included time as one of
the dimensions of nature. The fact that a temporal dimension can be
trivially proven to be crackpottery has apparently escaped them and
nobody is honest enough to point it out to them. I guess that would
make a bunch of supposedly intelligent people look like fools. However
it is my bet that if it is pointed out to them, they would find a
myriad excuses based on sophistry and politics to obfuscate the issue.
A dimension, in the sense of 'spatial dimension', is a positional
degree of freedom. You don't curl up a degree of freedom into a little
ball. Not to mention that a curl is a continuous structure that leads
to an infinite regress. String theory is so damn laughable right out
of the gate, that sometimes I wonder it was developed by grown men.
It's not even wrong.
Nemesis
Nemesis
PI is not a number. It is a symbol. 3.1415 is a number and it is as
discrete as can be. Otherwise I would have a hard time using it in my
discrete computer.
Nemesis
RC
<Nem...@nospam.com> writes
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 14:40:46 +0000, RC <r...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <ds15btcskp2ncob3h...@4ax.com>, Nemesis
>><Nem...@nospam.com> writes
>>
>[cut]
>>>-Nature is non-local and discrete.
It is non-local in the sense that all particles are aware of all other
particles but interactions can only occur locally and instantaneously
due to the existence of the Absolute Now.
>>>-There exist only particles, their properties and their interactions.
>>
>>I think you're making a big mistake here. Particles are the
>>"condensation" of another type of matter which was the original
>>Existence of the Universe.
>
>All matter is made of nothing. Anything else would violate the
>conservation of nothing. I am not sure what you mean by "condensation
>of another type of matter" What does "condensation" mean? At the
>fundamental level there is no room for ambiguity in meaning. The
>logical choices are extremely limited. Either you have it or you
>don't.
I think that it is logical to assume that whatever was produced by
Reality was a single, discrete, homogeneous, isotropic entity. The
Universe was not born with all the particles of today, already formed.
All matter was in a different state of Existence, initially, and it then
changed into the particles we know of today.
Hartle and Hawking call it an "instanton".
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/ngt1000/origins/inaug-028.html
I was working on something similar to this myself in Nov./ Dec. '99. I
came up with the term "existaton" to describe an ultra-uniform "entity"
which experienced a tremendous rate of expansion and then changed due to
a "phase transition" of some sort. Is there any need for inflation to
happen if this "entity" really was in a perfectly homogeneous state when
it first formed?
[...]
--
The Existaton
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC
Clarke768
[snip mutual name calling]
Clarke768
[Snip mutual name calling - unfortunately a misclick
sent this posting before it was completed]
>>You still confuse me about how positions can exist in a non-spatial
>>universe.
>It's actually rather simple. The problem is that you've spent your
>entire life thinking that there is a space that you can't think
>without it. An imperfect analogy [to computer games]
>Changing the sprite's position is a simple matter of changing the
>positional property. The same goes for nature.
If the abstraction acts like space in all respects then it might
as well be space. If walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...
Do you have any specific expectations for how your
non-spatiotemporal theory will not act like space-time?
>[...]
>>Can't you every not reflexively respond with words like
>>"crap".
>I call it like I see it. Sorry to offend your sensibilities.
I'm not offended. But I'm sure you turn off readers with
less tolerance than I.
>>I am sure you don't like string theory given your
>>other opinions.
>I explained why it's a pile of crap. Why did you snip that part out?
>Nothing like a little creative snippage to make a dishonest point.
You can say that string theory is not good physics, but
you cannot say that the math is crap.
You have a real problem distinguishing logic/math from
physics.
>>Consider it as an analogy. There is something special
>>about 11 dimensions.
>>Likewise 4 dimensional manifolds have properties that are
>>different from any other dimension. [I know you don't
>>like manifolds, they are continuous, you need not say
>>crap or stupid] This may provide you with tools for
>>showing the necessity of 4 dimensions.
>No it won't. A manifold is an a priori space which is easily proven
> to be false.
Mathematical manifold. A well defined object in differential
geometry and topology. Please don't apply it to physics
if you don't like the concept. But you cannot say it is false
without sounding stupid.
> Unless the number of dimensions is derived from first
>principles as a logical necessity for the universe to exist, it's all
>hot air.
How do you derive the number of dimensions from first principles?
You said something about that part not being read for consumption
yet. Thinking that maybe meant you were still working on the
details, I try to point out something unique, a-priori, from
first principles that is true about four dimensions and no other
number.
[...]
>A dimension, in the sense of 'spatial dimension', is a positional
>degree of freedom. You don't curl up a degree of freedom into a little
>ball.
Why?
>Not to mention that a curl is a continuous structure that leads
>to an infinite regress.
Ah yes, you are an infiniti-phobe.
What do you think of the ancient Greek proof that
square root of two is irrational?
Tom Clarke
Patrick Reany
Nemesis wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 07:32:51 -0700, Patrick Reany
> <re...@firstworld.net> wrote:
>
> >Nemesis wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> The fact that calculus uses limits that are said to extend to infinity
> >> does not mean that infinities are used in math. The notion of
> >> continuity is a damnable one.
> >
> >Why? Do you oppose any use whatsoever of continuous models?
>
> I have never seen a continuous model. Many make the claim that
> calculus maps continuous structures but fail to show it. When it comes
> down the nitty gritty, it's always discrete. Regardless of how you
> slice it, if it uses numbers, it is discrete. My argument against
> continuity is simple: it requires infinity. One cannot map the
> infinite onto the finite.
The continuum in physics has been used since Newton: Formation
of the gravitational field by means of continuous model of matter
and Newton's law of gravity applied to an infinitesimal quantities.
Hydrodynamics, continuum mechanics. Calculation of electric
fields from distribution of charge in space, modeled as continuous,
such as a "continuous distribution of charge on a metallic sphere.
Now don't tell me that macroscopic matter is NOT continuous.
I never said it is and physics doesn't say it is. What I am saying
is that physics MODELS macroscopic matter as continuous if it
facilitates calculations, in some circumstances. Are you saying
that you've never heard of this form of modeling? It is very
common even in first year physics with calculus.
Physicists are NOT using continuous models to "map infinity
onto the finite." They use infinity in the continuous models to
map theoretical predictions onto empirical results.
> >> Even Einstein (Mr. Continuum) was
> >> beginning to realize that nature cannot be continuous.
> >
> >Give quote and reference, please.
>
> Here's a quote from the book "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais,
> page 467:
>
> "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot
> be based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
> structures. In that case *nothing* remains of my
> entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included,
> [and of] the rest of modern physics."
So, you DO read Einstein. Good for you!
> Here Einstein makes the same mistake as everyone else. The discrete
> nature of the universe at the fundamental level does not invalidate
> relativity. Since GR is a macroscopic theory, calculus works very well
> within measurable limits. It is only when one gets down close to the
> Planck level that GR breaks down.
But you need to read a lot more Einstein to get this stuff right.
You got things confused because, well, Einstein typically writes
essays from the viewpoint of a Natural Philosopher, not just
a pure scientists. So he mixes up his purely scientific beliefs
with his philosophic beliefs about what Nature TRULY is, or
at least how he liked to think about it.
Furthermore, there is a misconception about the Nature of
relativity itself. So-called "relativity" in physics has always
been a PROGRAM of scientific investigation to increase
the set of preferred frames in which the General Laws of
Physics can be stated, while simultaneously decreasing any
reference to any traditional "absolute" entities. Einstein
accepted this program without reservation. But there is no
unique way to instantiate this program with respect to any
large set of phenomena. So-called "special relativity" is just
Einstein's PARTICULAR theory of light "propagation"
consistent inertial-frame measurements and with the program
of relativity, having the effect of "unifying" mechanics with
optics (electromagnetism) and reducing the total number of
independent postulates.
Einstein's so-called "general relativity" is a misnomer from the
start. What it basically is is a sloppy combination of both the
Principle of General Covariance and a specific theory of gravity.
That's why it's proper to refer to GR as EINSTEIN'S theory
of gravity. In other words, Einstein's theory of gravity is not
uniquely determined by the principle of general covariance,
though it does highly restrict the choice of possible theories.
But even this is a misnomer, as GR proper is just a principle
that determines a program of physical research, and not
a theory of gravity per se, if GR is interpreted as just the
Principle of General Covariance. Things would have been less
confusing if Einstein had titled his paper, "The Relativized
Gravitational Field: A generalization of Newton's gravity based
on consistency with the Principle of General Covariance."
Now, Einstein saw physics as having "evolved" over the
centuries from a "particle and action-at-a-distance model" to
a field model. Einstein personally accepted the challenge to
re-write all the general laws of physics in a field-theoretic
fashion, if possible. He never said that he WOULD
accomplish this goal and he admitted that the goal might not
even be possible. But regardless of whether or not Einstein
personally believed that Nature is just a collection of
well-ordered fields or not, his program to treat them as such
through his efforts was just a free creation of the human mind.
In other words, physics cannot be used to tell us the "real"
truth of the issue, regardless of how seemingly successful our
endeavor appears to be in the end.
> >> >As to whether something exists that is actually infinite, I leave that
> >> >up to the universe. But you cannot eliminate the possibility of
> >> >infinitely existing things by logical contradiction.
> >>
> >> The same logic applies to both math and physics. I hope you are not
> >> advancing that nature can be illogical?
> >
> >1) How do YOU know that Nature has to be logical, whatever
> > that's suppose to mean?
>
> Great question! The answer is that everything that exists comes from
> nothing and that includes logic and this logic is the same logic that
> explains why things are made of nothing.
First, I don't see your reply as having answered my question.
Let me make it easier: What would have to be observed in Nature
in order for us to conclude that Nature "isn't logical"?
Second, you are engaged in a "free creation of your human mind"!
> Anything else leads to an
> infinite regress. You may not think this is a particularly convincing
> argument but so far, this is the only one I can come up with. Let me
> add that I use it to obtain excellent results in my research.
Not only is it not convincing, it isn't even clearly presented. If
you want to create a formal theory, you have to have a set of
postulates and definitions to start with.
> >2) What is the intrinsic relation of math to Nature, or even to physics?
> >3) What's the intrinsic relation of physics to Nature?
>
> I am not sure about your use of the term 'intrinsic' above. Intrinsic,
> to me, involves only the absolute properties of an entity. The
> relative is both extrinsic and abstract, meaning that it depends on
> properties other than those of the entity being considered. The
> intrinsic is absolute (independent).
I'll put it another way. Is Nature inherently mathematical, or
is the apparent conformity of phenomena to our human
mathematics just a coincidence, or at best a derivative of
human modes of reasoning? Is the mathematics we "see" in
Nature merely a manifestation of the mathematical habits of
thought that humans like to use?
Does physics report on deep metaphysical structure of Nature,
or is it only accountable to encapsulate and predict phenomena
(empirical results)?
> >[snip]
> >
> >> -Nature is non-local and discrete.
> >> -There exist only particles, their properties and their interactions.
> >> -Time, size and distance are abstract concepts.
> >> -Motion is caused by interactions.
> >> -An interaction is a temporary violation in the first principle.
> >> -The duration of an interaction is probabilistic.
> >> -There are only four (4) dimensions (degrees of change).
> >> -Position is a variable and intrinsic 4-property of every particle.
> >> -All properties are associated with one or more of the 4 dimensions.
> >> -All properties are intrinsic and therefore absolute.
> >
> >Prove everyone of your above assertions. I guess you are a
> >positivist.
>
> Well, for that you'll have to wait until I publish and I will not
> publish until I can derive the gravitational constant from first
> principles. However I can provide arguments for some of them:
>
> 1. Nature is discrete because continuity leads to infinite
> regress.
Continuity in physics is just a device to model. Physics is NOT
about deep reality. Physics can invent any theory it wants to to
encapsulate and predict phenomena, because phenomena is the
only basis we have to test our theories. But I don't understand
this infinite regress you speak of.
> 2. A temporal dimension does not exist because it forbids
> motion.
Can you explain this in more detail?
> 3. Space does not exist because motion in space is redundant
> and circular. This is subtle. Motion means change in a
> positional property. Does the property belong to the moving
> entity or to something else? Think about it. If it belongs to
> something else, how does the entity get access to it? There are
> several other reasons for the non-existence of space but this
> will do for now.
You are so addicted to thinking about what "really" is that you have
deprived yourself of the true freedom granted to theorists. Space is
a freely invented and postulated concept. Besides that, space has a
formal representation, such as a set of coordinates in some chosen
dimension. You have to disabuse yourself of thinking that formal
models are or should be necessarily isomorphic to the real world.
Physics is accountable ONLY for phenomena, not deep reality.
For example, which is TRUE: Special Relativity or Lorentz Ether
Theory? Since they have the same empirical content, physics
can't answer this question, and shouldn't try to anyway. It could be
that neither is TRUE. It could be that no human could even conceive
of the TRUE ontology of Nature. We just don't know.
> 4. The discreteness of nature forces it to use probabilistic
> processes, meaning that the duration of most interactions are
> probabilistic. Why? Because the conservation-of-ZERO principle
> tries to maintain a balance but often the balance would mean
> that fractional values of the fundamental speed (c) must be
> used. Since this is impossible, nature uses the next best
> thing, it uses wait periods that are multiples of a fundamental
> duration.
>
> Item 4 is manifested in the probabilistic nature of atomic decay.
> However this happens all the time. When a particle moves, more often
> than not it cannot do so in a straight line because of the
> discreteness of positions. It moves in jagged jumps (for clarity's
> sake, imagine that the jumps occur at the intersections of the lines
> on a graph paper). To correct the discrepancies (imbalances or
> violations of the first principle) that occur in such discrete series
> of jumps, nature varies the durations of the jumps every so often.
I look forward to your formal presentation of these "principles."
Patrick
Nemesis
wrote:
>In article <hod7btkmrv55nqk0v...@4ax.com>, Nemesis
><Nem...@nospam.com> writes
>>On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 14:40:46 +0000, RC <r...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <ds15btcskp2ncob3h...@4ax.com>, Nemesis
>>><Nem...@nospam.com> writes
>>>
>>[cut]
>>>>-Nature is non-local and discrete.
>
>It is non-local in the sense that all particles are aware of all other
>particles but interactions can only occur locally and instantaneously
>due to the existence of the Absolute Now.
It is non-local in the sense that there is no space. I don't think
that particles are aware of all other particles. Particles are only
feel other particles that interact with them. However nature must keep
the balance of ZERO, and it is for this reason that non-local
phenomena (e.g., entangled photons) happen even when the positions of
the particles are different. Theoretically, it should be possible to
move from "anywhere" to "anywhere" in the universe instantly as long
as the conservation of ZERO is obeyed.
>>>>-There exist only particles, their properties and their interactions.
>>>
>>>I think you're making a big mistake here. Particles are the
>>>"condensation" of another type of matter which was the original
>>>Existence of the Universe.
>>
>>All matter is made of nothing. Anything else would violate the
>>conservation of nothing. I am not sure what you mean by "condensation
>>of another type of matter" What does "condensation" mean? At the
>>fundamental level there is no room for ambiguity in meaning. The
>>logical choices are extremely limited. Either you have it or you
>>don't.
>
>I think that it is logical to assume that whatever was produced by
>Reality was a single, discrete, homogeneous, isotropic entity.
I am sorry but we cannot talk about the initial state of the universe.
Things do not come into existence by themselves even if they do so in
a way that does not violate the principle of the conservation of
energy.
>The
>Universe was not born with all the particles of today, already formed.
>All matter was in a different state of Existence, initially, and it then
>changed into the particles we know of today.
I have no idea what you mean by different state. On what basis do you
make this assertion?
>Hartle and Hawking call it an "instanton".
>
>http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/ngt1000/origins/inaug-028.html
Hawking et al believe in the existence of a time dimension. They are
hopelessly deluded.
>I was working on something similar to this myself in Nov./ Dec. '99. I
>came up with the term "existaton" to describe an ultra-uniform "entity"
>which experienced a tremendous rate of expansion and then changed due to
>a "phase transition" of some sort. Is there any need for inflation to
>happen if this "entity" really was in a perfectly homogeneous state when
>it first formed?
In my opinion, since particles or entities do not have size, they
neither inflate not contract. Space does not expand because it does
not exist. However I suspect you are talking about something else. You
are talking about some entity changing from a previous state to
another. What for? On what basis do you say this?
Nemesis
RC
<Nem...@nospam.com> writes
>On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 14:39:44 +0000, RC <r...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <hod7btkmrv55nqk0v...@4ax.com>, Nemesis
>><Nem...@nospam.com> writes
>>>On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 14:40:46 +0000, RC <r...@earthpoetry.demon.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <ds15btcskp2ncob3h...@4ax.com>, Nemesis
>>>><Nem...@nospam.com> writes
>>>>
>>>[cut]
>>>>>-Nature is non-local and discrete.
>>
>>It is non-local in the sense that all particles are aware of all other
>>particles but interactions can only occur locally and instantaneously
>>due to the existence of the Absolute Now.
>
>It is non-local in the sense that there is no space. I don't think
>that particles are aware of all other particles. Particles are only
>feel other particles that interact with them. However nature must keep
>the balance of ZERO, and it is for this reason that non-local
>phenomena (e.g., entangled photons) happen even when the positions of
>the particles are different.
This is the sort of thing I am getting at.
> Theoretically, it should be possible to
>move from "anywhere" to "anywhere" in the universe instantly as long
>as the conservation of ZERO is obeyed.
Let's not go too far.
>>>>>-There exist only particles, their properties and their interactions.
>>>>
>>>>I think you're making a big mistake here. Particles are the
>>>>"condensation" of another type of matter which was the original
>>>>Existence of the Universe.
>>>
>>>All matter is made of nothing. Anything else would violate the
>>>conservation of nothing. I am not sure what you mean by "condensation
>>>of another type of matter" What does "condensation" mean? At the
>>>fundamental level there is no room for ambiguity in meaning. The
>>>logical choices are extremely limited. Either you have it or you
>>>don't.
>>
>>I think that it is logical to assume that whatever was produced by
>>Reality was a single, discrete, homogeneous, isotropic entity.
>
>I am sorry but we cannot talk about the initial state of the universe.
We've got to! The state of the Universe at the moment is evolved
*directly* from its original state.
>Things do not come into existence by themselves even if they do so in
>a way that does not violate the principle of the conservation of
>energy.
I must disagree. We don't know a thing about Reality. The Existence of a
Universe is only a part of Reality. If "not in our Universe" is Reality
in a state of nothingness - an "entity" so barren that it doesn't even
contain nothing - then there are no laws to violate. The production of
something like an instanton is perfectly allowable.
>>The
>>Universe was not born with all the particles of today, already formed.
>>All matter was in a different state of Existence, initially, and it then
>>changed into the particles we know of today.
>
>I have no idea what you mean by different state. On what basis do you
>make this assertion?
I mean that all matter had a different form of Existence when it first
formed. Of course, I don't know what that Existence was - maybe it was
something like the Higgs field. You don't think the Universe appeared in
Existence with all the particles of today already pre-packaged?
>>Hartle and Hawking call it an "instanton".
>>
>>http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/ngt1000/origins/inaug-028.html
>
>Hawking et al believe in the existence of a time dimension. They are
>hopelessly deluded.
>
>>I was working on something similar to this myself in Nov./ Dec. '99. I
>>came up with the term "existaton" to describe an ultra-uniform "entity"
>>which experienced a tremendous rate of expansion and then changed due to
>>a "phase transition" of some sort. Is there any need for inflation to
>>happen if this "entity" really was in a perfectly homogeneous state when
>>it first formed?
>
>In my opinion, since particles or entities do not have size, they
>neither inflate not contract. Space does not expand because it does
>not exist. However I suspect you are talking about something else. You
>are talking about some entity changing from a previous state to
>another. What for? On what basis do you say this?
I don't think that the Universe was formed with all particles pre-
packaged. I think the original "entity" called the Universe was
something ferociously powerful, and it had a type of existence which
will always be difficult to comprehend.
Also, we know that the expansion of "something" happened, otherwise, we
would all be huddled around a very small, very hot fire. :)
--
The Existence
http://www.earthpoetry.demon.co.uk
RC
Nemesis
>Nemesis/clarke
[cut]
>>It's actually rather simple. The problem is that you've spent your
>>entire life thinking that there is a space that you can't think
>>without it. An imperfect analogy [to computer games]
>>Changing the sprite's position is a simple matter of changing the
>>positional property. The same goes for nature.
>
>If the abstraction acts like space in all respects then it might
>as well be space. If walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...
There is no abstraction for space at all. There are only the positions
of the entities to deal with. Everything else is superfluous and
redundant. What is it about you that you fail to stick to the subject
at hand?
>Do you have any specific expectations for how your
>non-spatiotemporal theory will not act like space-time?
Nothing acts like spacetime since spacetime is frozen. Spacetime is
not an abstraction for anything that is physical. Are you suffering
from some kind of mental disease that forces you to come up with one
non-sequitur after another? I don't have the patience of Job, you
know. I tire quickly of people who waste my time. Either I learn
something from you or you learn something from me, or this will be the
end of the discussion.
[...]
>>No it won't. A manifold is an a priori space which is easily proven
>> to be false.
>
>Mathematical manifold. A well defined object in differential
>geometry and topology. Please don't apply it to physics
>if you don't like the concept. But you cannot say it is false
>without sounding stupid.
This is a physics newsgroup, remember? A manifold is used as a physics
construct by physicists.
>> Unless the number of dimensions is derived from first
>>principles as a logical necessity for the universe to exist, it's all
>>hot air.
>
>How do you derive the number of dimensions from first principles?
>You said something about that part not being read for consumption
>yet. Thinking that maybe meant you were still working on the
>details, I try to point out something unique, a-priori, from
>first principles that is true about four dimensions and no other
>number.
There is only one first principle: everything is made out of nothing.
Anything else that does not use this as their starting point is mere
hand waving.
One of the first things one learns from the principle of existence ex
nihilo is the meaning of the word 'dimension'. String theorists
obviously don't have a clue. Their stuff is what I call cargo cult
physics. They worship something that they don't understand (e = hf)
and so they erect effigies (vibrating strings) to give themselves a
sense of power and mystique, not realizing how pathetically weak their
entire paradigm is.
[...]
>>A dimension, in the sense of 'spatial dimension', is a positional
>>degree of freedom. You don't curl up a degree of freedom into a little
>>ball.
>
>Why?
You don't curl up something that is abstract. It would be like curling
up the unemployment rate. Not that I expect you to have a problem with
curling up something that does not exist, mind you. I've come to
expect the absurd from you.
>>Not to mention that a curl is a continuous structure that leads
>>to an infinite regress.
>
>Ah yes, you are an infiniti-phobe.
>
>What do you think of the ancient Greek proof that
>square root of two is irrational?
The square root of 2 is like pi. You cannot get an exact value
precisely because there is no infinity.
Nemesis
P.S. Don't expect this exchange to continue much longer.
Nemesis
<re...@firstworld.net> wrote:
>
>
>Nemesis wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 07:32:51 -0700, Patrick Reany
>> <re...@firstworld.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Nemesis wrote:
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> The fact that calculus uses limits that are said to extend to infinity
>> >> does not mean that infinities are used in math. The notion of
>> >> continuity is a damnable one.
>> >
>> >Why? Do you oppose any use whatsoever of continuous models?
>>
>> I have never seen a continuous model. Many make the claim that
>> calculus maps continuous structures but fail to show it. When it comes
>> down the nitty gritty, it's always discrete. Regardless of how you
>> slice it, if it uses numbers, it is discrete. My argument against
>> continuity is simple: it requires infinity. One cannot map the
>> infinite onto the finite.
>
>The continuum in physics has been used since Newton:
People, including Newton, have always paid lip service to their belief
in continuity. When it comes down to proving it empirically or
otherwise, they fail miserably.
>Formation
>of the gravitational field by means of continuous model of matter
>and Newton's law of gravity applied to an infinitesimal quantities.
Newton's law of gravity or any other so-called continuous law of
physics have not come close to infinitesimal quantities whatever these
are. Besides, regardless of how small a quantity seems to you, it is
still infinitely larger than a so-called infinitely small quantity.
'Infinitesimal' is a highly deceiving word.
The Planck Constant is on the order of 10^35, multiple orders of
magnitude smaller than the highest resolution that can be approached
by gravity measuring instruments.
Continuity means infinitely divisible. To prove empirically that
something is continuous, one would have to divide it infinitely. It's
amazing that you keep raving about the supposedly great philosophy of
physics and when it comes down to putting their money where their
mouths is, physicists wimp out.
Where is the empirical proof of continuity that we may all marvel? All
this crap about continuous models being applied to reality is just
what it sounds like, crap. So is the lip service being paid to
empiricism. That's right, let's get on our high horse and throw
"empiricism" at our enemies when it suits our agenda of deception but
when it comes to supporting our own non-empirical stance, let us not
mention it. Hypocrisy to the extreme is what the physics community has
come to.
[nonsense about "continuous" models deleted]
>> >> Even Einstein (Mr. Continuum) was
>> >> beginning to realize that nature cannot be continuous.
>> >
>> >Give quote and reference, please.
>>
>> Here's a quote from the book "Subtle is the Lord" by Abraham Pais,
>> page 467:
>>
>> "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot
>> be based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
>> structures. In that case *nothing* remains of my
>> entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included,
>> [and of] the rest of modern physics."
>
>So, you DO read Einstein. Good for you!
It is obvious that Einstein's doubts is not to your liking. No need
for you to feign satisfaction.
>> Here Einstein makes the same mistake as everyone else. The discrete
>> nature of the universe at the fundamental level does not invalidate
>> relativity. Since GR is a macroscopic theory, calculus works very well
>> within measurable limits. It is only when one gets down close to the
>> Planck level that GR breaks down.
>
>But you need to read a lot more Einstein to get this stuff right.
Hogwash! I refuse to be part of any cult.
>You got things confused because, well, Einstein typically writes
>essays from the viewpoint of a Natural Philosopher, not just
>a pure scientists. So he mixes up his purely scientific beliefs
>with his philosophic beliefs about what Nature TRULY is, or
>at least how he liked to think about it.
This is supposed to make some profound point?
[more boring opinion about a boring theory snipped]
>Now, Einstein saw physics as having "evolved" over the
>centuries from a "particle and action-at-a-distance model" to
>a field model.
Einstein and other deluded relativists may have seen this but Newton
was specifically outraged at the notion of action-at-distance. A
"field" is a philosophical term that means nothing.
[more boring relativity stuff deleted]
I think I am the worst audience for your misdirected musings.
[cut]
>> >1) How do YOU know that Nature has to be logical, whatever
>> > that's suppose to mean?
>>
>> Great question! The answer is that everything that exists comes from
>> nothing and that includes logic and this logic is the same logic that
>> explains why things are made of nothing.
>
>First, I don't see your reply as having answered my question.
>Let me make it easier: What would have to be observed in Nature
>in order for us to conclude that Nature "isn't logical"?
The violation of the conservation of energy or momentum, for one. I
should clarify that nature does indeed allow for temporary violations
of conservations laws but these are corrected as fast as the degree of
violation requires. Change is nature's way of correcting these
violations.
>Second, you are engaged in a "free creation of your human mind"!
>
>> Anything else leads to an
>> infinite regress. You may not think this is a particularly convincing
>> argument but so far, this is the only one I can come up with. Let me
>> add that I use it to obtain excellent results in my research.
>
>Not only is it not convincing, it isn't even clearly presented. If
>you want to create a formal theory, you have to have a set of
>postulates and definitions to start with.
There is only one postulate in my model: everything is made out of
nothing.
>> >2) What is the intrinsic relation of math to Nature, or even to physics?
>> >3) What's the intrinsic relation of physics to Nature?
>>
>> I am not sure about your use of the term 'intrinsic' above. Intrinsic,
>> to me, involves only the absolute properties of an entity. The
>> relative is both extrinsic and abstract, meaning that it depends on
>> properties other than those of the entity being considered. The
>> intrinsic is absolute (independent).
>
>I'll put it another way. Is Nature inherently mathematical, or
>is the apparent conformity of phenomena to our human
>mathematics just a coincidence, or at best a derivative of
>human modes of reasoning? Is the mathematics we "see" in
>Nature merely a manifestation of the mathematical habits of
>thought that humans like to use?
>
>Does physics report on deep metaphysical structure of Nature,
>or is it only accountable to encapsulate and predict phenomena
>(empirical results)?
I really don't care what physicists think physics is about. Science is
not theirs to decree limits to it. The arrogance! Science should
endeavor to understand *everything*, period!
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> -Nature is non-local and discrete.
>> >> -There exist only particles, their properties and their interactions.
>> >> -Time, size and distance are abstract concepts.
>> >> -Motion is caused by interactions.
>> >> -An interaction is a temporary violation in the first principle.
>> >> -The duration of an interaction is probabilistic.
>> >> -There are only four (4) dimensions (degrees of change).
>> >> -Position is a variable and intrinsic 4-property of every particle.
>> >> -All properties are associated with one or more of the 4 dimensions.
>> >> -All properties are intrinsic and therefore absolute.
>> >
>> >Prove everyone of your above assertions. I guess you are a
>> >positivist.
>>
>> Well, for that you'll have to wait until I publish and I will not
>> publish until I can derive the gravitational constant from first
>> principles. However I can provide arguments for some of them:
>>
>> 1. Nature is discrete because continuity leads to infinite
>> regress.
>
>Continuity in physics is just a device to model.
Continuity does not exist in nature nor in models. It is a lie.
>Physics is NOT
>about deep reality.
It certainly is. Understanding deep reality would have unimaginable
beneficial consequences in our ability to make predictions and
formulate useful devices for the betterment of humanity.
> Physics can invent any theory it wants to to
>encapsulate and predict phenomena, because phenomena is the
>only basis we have to test our theories. But I don't understand
>this infinite regress you speak of.
The infinite regress of continuity is so simple a child can grasp it.
I am not going to repeat it.
>> 2. A temporal dimension does not exist because it forbids
>> motion.
>
>Can you explain this in more detail?
>
>> 3. Space does not exist because motion in space is redundant
>> and circular. This is subtle. Motion means change in a
>> positional property. Does the property belong to the moving
>> entity or to something else? Think about it. If it belongs to
>> something else, how does the entity get access to it? There are
>> several other reasons for the non-existence of space but this
>> will do for now.
>
>You are so addicted to thinking about what "really" is that you have
>deprived yourself of the true freedom granted to theorists.
You mean freedom to imagine crap that do not correspond to nature?
>Space is
>a freely invented and postulated concept.
I am also free to reject it as freely postulated crap.
>Besides that, space has a
>formal representation, such as a set of coordinates in some chosen
>dimension. You have to disabuse yourself of thinking that formal
>models are or should be necessarily isomorphic to the real world.
This is truly amazing. If a physics model does not model a damn thing
in the world, I should accept it as some sort of great revelation?
Should not physics be about understanding the world? Who are you, the
Antichrist?
You know, I tire quickly of crap like this.
>Physics is accountable ONLY for phenomena, not deep reality.
So say you. Like I said, the ability to grok deep truth about reality
is unimaginably useful, especially if predictions is what you worship.
>For example, which is TRUE: Special Relativity or Lorentz Ether
>Theory? Since they have the same empirical content, physics
>can't answer this question, and shouldn't try to anyway. It could be
>that neither is TRUE. It could be that no human could even conceive
>of the TRUE ontology of Nature. We just don't know.
Both relativity and LET are extremely boring and unenlightening
theories IMO, regardless of whether or not they make good predictions.
Nemesis
P.S. I don't think our exchange is doing either of us any good. We are
not learning much from each other. Let us just call it quits.
Patrick Reany
Nemesis wrote:
[snip]
> Continuity means infinitely divisible. To prove empirically that
> something is continuous, one would have to divide it infinitely. It's
> amazing that you keep raving about the supposedly great philosophy of
> physics and when it comes down to putting their money where their
> mouths is, physicists wimp out.
How many times do you have to be told that physicists do NOT
believe that matter is continuous. All I said was that it is often
convenient to MODEL matter as continuous.
[snip]
> >> Here Einstein makes the same mistake as everyone else. The discrete
> >> nature of the universe at the fundamental level does not invalidate
> >> relativity. Since GR is a macroscopic theory, calculus works very well
> >> within measurable limits. It is only when one gets down close to the
> >> Planck level that GR breaks down.
> >
> >But you need to read a lot more Einstein to get this stuff right.
>
> Hogwash! I refuse to be part of any cult.
How about the cult of the ignorant and self-deceived?
[snip]
> [more boring opinion about a boring theory snipped]
I'm sure you're no different at snipping out the philosophy as
is the Establishment, which is probably why you are so ignorant
of it.
> >Now, Einstein saw physics as having "evolved" over the
> >centuries from a "particle and action-at-a-distance model" to
> >a field model.
>
> Einstein and other deluded relativists may have seen this but Newton
> was specifically outraged at the notion of action-at-distance. A
> "field" is a philosophical term that means nothing.
Outraged or not, Newton USED it in his theory. Field is a model.
And for your information, most meaning in life comes from philosophy.
[snip]
> >First, I don't see your reply as having answered my question.
> >Let me make it easier: What would have to be observed in Nature
> >in order for us to conclude that Nature "isn't logical"?
>
> The violation of the conservation of energy or momentum, for one. I
> should clarify that nature does indeed allow for temporary violations
> of conservations laws but these are corrected as fast as the degree of
> violation requires. Change is nature's way of correcting these
> violations.
Then, by your own admission, Nature IS "temporarily illogical."
Though you still haven't defined precisely what you mean by
being illogical. That must be one of those "too boring things"
for you to spend your time on. Just where do you think
you're going to publish your half-baked theory with no
details in it?
[snip]
> >
> >Not only is it not convincing, it isn't even clearly presented. If
> >you want to create a formal theory, you have to have a set of
> >postulates and definitions to start with.
>
> There is only one postulate in my model: everything is made out of
> nothing.
And he thinks of me as the mystic! The self-made
"realist ontological idealist."
[snip]
> >Does physics report on deep metaphysical structure of Nature,
> >or is it only accountable to encapsulate and predict phenomena
> >(empirical results)?
>
> I really don't care what physicists think physics is about.
I didn't ask "physicists." I asked YOU.
> Science is
> not theirs to decree limits to it.
Physics IS theirs!
> The arrogance! Science should
> endeavor to understand *everything*, period!
Let's see: It's arrogant for physicists to admit that they cannot
know everything, yet it is unarrogant for you to proclaim that
you can.
[snip]
> >Continuity in physics is just a device to model.
>
> Continuity does not exist in nature nor in models. It is a lie.
Does continuity exist in any sense of the term? If not, how
do you know what it is that we are talking about?
> >Physics is NOT
> >about deep reality.
>
> It certainly is. Understanding deep reality would have unimaginable
> beneficial consequences in our ability to make predictions and
> formulate useful devices for the betterment of humanity.
True! Understanding deep reality could be very useful, but
how do we verify that we ACTUALLY KNOW deep
reality? What do we have to have in our possession in order
to be able to declare that this or that is truly "deep reality"?
> > Physics can invent any theory it wants to to
> >encapsulate and predict phenomena, because phenomena is the
> >only basis we have to test our theories. But I don't understand
> >this infinite regress you speak of.
>
> The infinite regress of continuity is so simple a child can grasp it.
> I am not going to repeat it.
Well, maybe that's for the best.
[snip]
> >You are so addicted to thinking about what "really" is that you have
> >deprived yourself of the true freedom granted to theorists.
>
> You mean freedom to imagine crap that do not correspond to nature?
What does it mean to "correspond to nature"?
> >Space is
> >a freely invented and postulated concept.
>
> I am also free to reject it as freely postulated crap.
True. But then what becomes of events in a formal theory?
You are going to someday get around to equations of motion
within a coordinate system, aren't you?
> >Besides that, space has a
> >formal representation, such as a set of coordinates in some chosen
> >dimension. You have to disabuse yourself of thinking that formal
> >models are or should be necessarily isomorphic to the real world.
>
> This is truly amazing. If a physics model does not model a damn thing
> in the world, I should accept it as some sort of great revelation?
> Should not physics be about understanding the world? Who are you, the
> Antichrist?
I always know that it's just a matter of time until the underlying
religious fanaticism shows itself. You are so rigid in your thinking
that you can only think of modeling in some profound, true, and
ontological sense. Physicists may restrict themselves to that limited
thinking if they wish to. That is quite legitimate. But formal models
may also be invented to make correspondence with the only
thing that exists that shows itself to us, and that is just experimental
data. (That and a conventional existence of common things needed
to jump-start science into a practical enquiry.)
So where do you think the devil is around here, anyway? He is
exactly where the cliché say he is: He's in the details, which are
apparently too BORING for you to deal with.
[snip]
>
> >Physics is accountable ONLY for phenomena, not deep reality.
>
> So say you. Like I said, the ability to grok deep truth about reality
> is unimaginably useful, especially if predictions is what you worship.
So how are we to do it in any fashion that is provable? Or does it
just boil down to truth according to Nemesis?
> >For example, which is TRUE: Special Relativity or Lorentz Ether
> >Theory? Since they have the same empirical content, physics
> >can't answer this question, and shouldn't try to anyway. It could be
> >that neither is TRUE. It could be that no human could even conceive
> >of the TRUE ontology of Nature. We just don't know.
>
> Both relativity and LET are extremely boring and unenlightening
> theories IMO, regardless of whether or not they make good predictions.
I am so sorry that physics is not more entertaining to you. We
here on this NG apologize deeply for having bored you.
Patrick
Nemesis
<re...@firstworld.net> wrote:
>> Science is
>> not theirs to decree limits to it.
>
>Physics IS theirs!
>
>> The arrogance! Science should
>> endeavor to understand *everything*, period!
>
>Let's see: It's arrogant for physicists to admit that they cannot
>know everything, yet it is unarrogant for you to proclaim that
>you can.
See ya!
Nemesis
Clarke768
>>If the abstraction acts like space in all respects then it might
>>as well be space. If walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...
>There is no abstraction for space at all. There are only the
>positions
>of the entities to deal with. Everything else is superfluous and
>redundant. What is it about you that you fail to stick to
>the subject at hand?
I could have sworn that you said position was an abstraction.
The mesh of positions of all your particles would be
indistinguishable from space. At least I think it had better be
if you want your theory to agree with observations.
Seems right on topic to me.
>>Do you have any specific expectations for how your
>>non-spatiotemporal theory will not act like space-time?
>Nothing acts like spacetime since spacetime is frozen.
Sigh. I have to be very precise when talking to you.
Does your theory make any precitions different from
what current theories would predict?
>Spacetime is
>not an abstraction for anything that is physical. Are you suffering
>from some kind of mental disease that forces you to come up with one
>non-sequitur after another?
You theory has an abstraction space does it not?
YOur theory has an abstraction time does it not?
It is a legitimate mathematical thing to do to
take the Cartesion product of these two abstractions
to produce another abstraction space-time.
This is just done for the sake of mathematical economy
of language.
No need to fly off the handle.
>>>No it won't. A manifold is an a priori space which is easily proven
>>> to be false.
>>Mathematical manifold. A well defined object in differential
>>geometry and topology. Please don't apply it to physics
>>if you don't like the concept. But you cannot say it is false
>>without sounding stupid.
>This is a physics newsgroup, remember? A manifold is used as a physics
>construct by physicists.
Sure. You can reject it if you like as a tool for physics.
Please do so it that is what you want to do.
Nevertheless a 4-d mathematical manifold has unique
properties whether it is used in physics or not.
You don't reject the use of all mathematics in physics,
do you?
>>> Unless the number of dimensions is derived from first
>>>principles as a logical necessity for the universe to exist, it's all
>>>hot air.
>>How do you derive the number of dimensions from first principles?
>>You said something about that part not being read for consumption
>>yet. Thinking that maybe meant you were still working on the
>>details, I try to point out something unique, a-priori, from
>>first principles that is true about four dimensions and no other
>>number.
>There is only one first principle: everything is made out of nothing.
>Anything else that does not use this as their starting point is mere
>hand waving.
>One of the first things one learns from the principle of existence ex
>nihilo is the meaning of the word 'dimension'.
Can you elaborate on how the meaning of the word
'dimension' arises for the principle of existence ex nihilo?
>[...]
>>>A dimension, in the sense of 'spatial dimension', is a positional
>>>degree of freedom. You don't curl up a degree of freedom into a little
>>>ball.
>>Why?
>You don't curl up something that is abstract.
Why not?
In any case string theorists would want these extra
dimensions to be physically real. They may be wrong,
of course. But they are not crazy and incoherent.
>It would be like curling
>up the unemployment rate. Not that I expect you to have a problem with
>curling up something that does not exist, mind you. I've come to
>expect the absurd from you.
Yes. I'm like the red queen in "Through the Looking Glass"
>>>Not to mention that a curl is a continuous structure that leads
>>>to an infinite regress.
>>Ah yes, you are an infiniti-phobe.
>>What do you think of the ancient Greek proof that
>>square root of two is irrational?
>The square root of 2 is like pi. You cannot get an exact value
>precisely because there is no infinity.
How do you deal with the distance between two particles
in your theory when they are seperated by 1 meter
in spatial dimension one (say east-west) and by 1 meter
in spatial dimension two (say north-south) and by 0 meters
in spatial dimension three (say up-down)?
>P.S. Don't expect this exchange to continue much longer.
Don't do me any favors.
Tom Clarke
GLOBARR
Nemesis <Nem...@nospam.com> wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
> My base is a little different. I assume that ultimate
> reality must be the simplest thing possible. Therefore, I
> begin maybe even lower than you do.
Nemesis wrote:
I am sorry but I somehow doubt that.
O'Barr wrote: . . .
> I begin at a point where there is only
> a 3-D reality, in which there is only mass and space.
> Mass and space forms the compound of your `zero,' where
> mass is something and space is the nothing that makes mass
> something. They both have to exist to give meaning to the
> other. On this lowest level, all mass has the same intrinsic
> property as all other mass, just as all space has the same
> intrinsic property as all other space. But how these things
> are proportioned out, and mixed, can vary, and how they
> interact can vary, according to conservation laws as we
> presently know them.
> Thanks for your good ideas!!!!!
Nemesis wrote:
Well you start with mass and space, and I start with
absolutely nothing. Which do you think is simpler? Not to
discourage your research but IMO, unless one starts with the
simplest or most fundamental foundation, one may find the need
to backtrack a little. There are inevitable consequences that
arise by considering only matter ex nihilo that cannot be
arrived at any other way.
O'Barr comments:
There is no question that if you could begin with nothing,
that that would be simpler. But to start with nothing might
require some guidance, because an original state of `nothing'
could mathematically result in anything, and we do not have
just `anything.' I took the first step from nothing on my own,
and maybe by doing this, allowed the danger of a little
backtracking being required, but in truth, you have not lost
this possible step either.
Rather than looking at who started with the simplest, maybe
it would be well to see who arrived at the simplest, once we
obtained the same equality in levels of existing of things.
Nemesis wrote:
You may feel the urge to ask, what possible properties can
one get from nothing? At this point, all I can say is that,
once it is explained, it will make sense even to a child. The
really nice thing about the fundamental is that it is simple to
the extreme, as simple and unambiguous as can be.
O'Barr comments:
I agree that whatever is done on the most fundamental level,
it must be the extreme of simplicity. And you cannot allow
impossible things, such as more than three space coordinates,
etc.
O'Barr wrote:
> Now please be aware, I have been able to take my ultimate
> simplicity, and get the effects of space reaching forces.
> Can you do this yet??? And with these space-reaching forces,
> I can, at least theoretically, combine objects together. Can
> you do this?? And some of these objects, combined in
> specific ways, can obtain momentum out of an otherwise random
> background, and maintain a momentum with respect to the
> average rest frame of the background. Can you do this yet???
Nemesis wrote:
There is no space in my model. Entities do not exist in space.
They just exist. Nothings moves anywhere because there is no
anywhere. There are only particles, their properties and their
interactions. Interactions cause changes in the intrinsic
properties of particles which we interpret as motion. A change
occurs only when the balance of nature is modified, i.e.,
whenever there is a violation of the conservation of zero.
This can only happen when two particles have equal positions.
O'Barr comments:
In my approach, on the lowest level, things are exactly as
they appear to be, simple particles freely moving in an open
3-D space. On our actual level where we see things, where
things appear to be simple particles moving in open space, we
actually have an ether in which all things move, and particles
are complicated systems moving in this ether. In my approach,
there are never any violations of anything at any time!
Nemesis wrote:
Theoretically, given the right technology, it should be
possible to change the intrinsic position of a particle so as
to cause it to "move" from "anywhere" to "anywhere" in the
universe instantly. Space and time are figments of our
imagination. They are necessary perceptual consequences of the
psychological and neurophysiological underpinnings of our
consciousness. Not that space and time are not based on
reality, but only that they emerge abstractly from underlying
reality but are not part of it.
This may all sound a little far fetched and even sci-fi-ish
but I am confident of its correctness.
O'Barr comments:
What ever. It sure does not sound simple, even if you
started with nothing. I did not start with simple nothing,
but what I end up with has none of the far-fetched concepts you
seem to need or want.
O'Barr wrote:
> And it is interesting that the effects of the forces that
> are established are automatically seen to be both attractive
> and repulsive, and exactly equal to each other. They have to
> be equal because they are established by a change in the mix
> of the background, and the change in the mix of the
> background has to be a change that includes as many particles
> increased in mass as decreased in mass. Thus, their equality
> is governed by the conservation of matter assumption, which
> regulates the degree of mix that can be allowed! And in
> terms of obtaining the effects of forces, my approach is the
> very first success in
> using simple collisional-type interactions, which result in
> attractive like forces. LeSage and all other efforts have
> always failed to produce attractive forces without violating
> conservation laws at one level or another! Have you done any
> of this yet??????
Nemesis wrote:
Forces are abstract things in my model. Every phenomenon
(force, energy, motion, acceleration, inertia) are a direct
consequence of the conservation of ZERO principle and
interactions. As I've said before, an interaction is a
temporary violation of the first principle. Nature always
tries to maintain a balance.
O'Barr comments:
In a reverse science approach, such as we both seem to be
trying, talk can be fairly cheap. These approaches are
worthless unless and until they result in things that are
concrete. The at theory more than meets these requirements.
It has been reduced to mathematics, and tested, and found
successful!
The at theory is the very first time that man has been able
to formulate a LeSage type gravity (attractive) force field by
the use of particles, without violation of any conservative
laws. This effort results in a world that has QM effects in
that the mass, momentum, energy, location, of the particles
participating in these effects, have a known degree of
variability (or uncertainty.) The `E = mc^2' relationship
appears, maybe not with a factor that is automatically equal to
exactly one, but factors do exist that can make it equal one.
And, for certain particles, a maximum velocity appears.
This last point is not very well established, since a degree of
unbalance seems to always exist. I can get a reversal in the
accelerations by going to extreme velocities, but I can never
seem to get an exact balance. I hope that in a full 3-D
testing of this, it will settle down to a steady motion. (My
work is mostly a `one-dimension at a time' approach.) This
steady motion, I believe, will include some cycling, as seen
with all particles.
Gerald L. O'Barr glo...@yahoo.com
Please Read: http://www.uc-online.com/absolute
And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
(We need to improve the SR FAQ)
Nemesis
I have to disagree. You have no idea how restricted your choices are
when you start with nothing. At the fundamental level you either have
it or you don't because the choices are extremely limited. The number
of choices then become exponentially great as you move to higher
levels due to combinatorial explosion.
> I took the first step from nothing on my own,
>and maybe by doing this, allowed the danger of a little
>backtracking being required, but in truth, you have not lost
>this possible step either.
> Rather than looking at who started with the simplest, maybe
>it would be well to see who arrived at the simplest, once we
>obtained the same equality in levels of existing of things.
The simplest is this: particles, their properties and their
interactions.
>Nemesis wrote:
> You may feel the urge to ask, what possible properties can
>one get from nothing? At this point, all I can say is that,
>once it is explained, it will make sense even to a child. The
>really nice thing about the fundamental is that it is simple to
>the extreme, as simple and unambiguous as can be.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> I agree that whatever is done on the most fundamental level,
>it must be the extreme of simplicity. And you cannot allow
>impossible things, such as more than three space coordinates,
>etc.
The impossible things are not the coordinates but space itself. A
coordinate is just a property of a particle. There is indeed a limit
to the number of dimensions but it's not 3. And this limit is a
logical consequence of existence ex nihilo. IMO, you have allowed the
constraints imposed by our visual perception to fool you into thinking
that there can only be 3 dimensions. Our perceptions also fool us into
thinking there is space and time. It is not so. I'm sure you'll
disagree but I expect it.
For a long time I took to saying that motion in spacetime is logical
circular. I said it because it is the truth and many people came to
realize that spacetime is just an abstraction and that gravity cannot
be caused by spacetime curvature but by something else altogether.
Fairly recently however I realized that moving in space is just as
logically circular as moving in spacetime and for pretty much the same
reason. Hopelessly circular. From my vantage point, this completely
eliminates both space and time as independent parts of reality.
>In my approach,
>there are never any violations of anything at any time!
There is a need for change or motion in nature only if an imbalance
occurs. The imbalance is what I called a violation of a principle of
conservation. Unless your model provides a cause for motion, you will
never be able to understand the causal mechanism of gravity.
>Nemesis wrote:
> Theoretically, given the right technology, it should be
>possible to change the intrinsic position of a particle so as
>to cause it to "move" from "anywhere" to "anywhere" in the
>universe instantly. Space and time are figments of our
>imagination. They are necessary perceptual consequences of the
>psychological and neurophysiological underpinnings of our
>consciousness. Not that space and time are not based on
>reality, but only that they emerge abstractly from underlying
>reality but are not part of it.
> This may all sound a little far fetched and even sci-fi-ish
>but I am confident of its correctness.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> What ever. It sure does not sound simple, even if you
>started with nothing. I did not start with simple nothing,
>but what I end up with has none of the far-fetched concepts you
>seem to need or want.
I don't want them. They are the logical consequences of the model. I
accept them as they come.
Well, good luck with your theory and keep working on it. I have a
piece of advice. Unless your theory explains why sub-atomic particles
decay in probabilistic fashion and predict their half-life from first
principles, or unless you can derive (predict) the value of the
gravitational constant from first principles, your theory will just be
another math theory. Furthermore, given the political reality of
modern physics, no new theory will be accepted (if that is your goal)
unless it is accompanied by a gee-wiz!, oh-my-god! demonstration that
will knock everybody's socks off, including Mr. John Q. Public.
Nemesis
Patrick Reany
GLOBARR wrote:
> In <97a6bt44ng2253ps0...@4ax.com>
> Nemesis <Nem...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
> > My base is a little different. I assume that ultimate
> > reality must be the simplest thing possible. Therefore, I
> > begin maybe even lower than you do.
>
> Nemesis wrote:
> I am sorry but I somehow doubt that.
Formulation of a physical theory is about trade-offs, just
like most everything else in life. Conceptual simplicity must
be balanced with efficient calculation or it's pointless.
[snip]
> O'Barr comments:
> In my approach, on the lowest level, things are exactly as
> they appear to be, simple particles freely moving in an open
> 3-D space. On our actual level where we see things, where
> things appear to be simple particles moving in open space, we
> actually have an ether in which all things move, and particles
> are complicated systems moving in this ether. In my approach,
> there are never any violations of anything at any time!
>
> Nemesis wrote:
> Theoretically, given the right technology, it should be
> possible to change the intrinsic position of a particle so as
> to cause it to "move" from "anywhere" to "anywhere" in the
> universe instantly. Space and time are figments of our
> imagination. They are necessary perceptual consequences of the
> psychological and neurophysiological underpinnings of our
> consciousness. Not that space and time are not based on
> reality, but only that they emerge abstractly from underlying
> reality but are not part of it.
> This may all sound a little far fetched and even sci-fi-ish
> but I am confident of its correctness.
Nemesis, you are so unerudite. Einstein said all this decades ago!
Read his essay on the nature of space, for example. But it's nice
that you came up with a reasonable basis of belief. Maybe, if
you keep an open mind and keep reading the works of
Einstein and the other top philosophers of science, you might
just learn that the old "dorks" aren't so wacky afterall. Much
of your philosophy is already pretty "Einsteinian" in flavor!
> O'Barr comments:
> What ever. It sure does not sound simple, even if you
> started with nothing. I did not start with simple nothing,
> but what I end up with has none of the far-fetched concepts you
> seem to need or want.
[snip]
> Nemesis wrote:
> Forces are abstract things in my model. Every phenomenon
> (force, energy, motion, acceleration, inertia) are a direct
> consequence of the conservation of ZERO principle and
> interactions. As I've said before, an interaction is a
> temporary violation of the first principle. Nature always
> tries to maintain a balance.
I guess principles are made to be broken. Can you calculate
anything at all with your theory?
> O'Barr comments:
> In a reverse science approach, such as we both seem to be
> trying, talk can be fairly cheap. These approaches are
> worthless unless and until they result in things that are
> concrete. The at theory more than meets these requirements.
> It has been reduced to mathematics, and tested, and found
> successful!
What's a "reverse science" approach?
[snip]
I trust that you guys are having a good time discussing your freely
created physical theories that are NOT uniquely determined by
the external world, hum? (Einstein)
Please excuse my interloping into your conversation, but you guys
interlope into this NG. Turnabout is fair play, don't you think?
http://www.ajnpx.com/html/Relativity.html
Patrick
Keep an open mind! That's the secret! -- Doctor Who
Gerry Quinn
>The same logic applies to both math and physics. I hope you
>are not advancing that nature can be illogical? I have seen
>Nobel laureates advance nature does not have to be logical.
>They can get away with crap like that because of their
>political stature. The same way Feynman and Wheeler can get
>away with crap like "advanced and retarded waves moving from
>the future to the past in spacetime" (absorber theory).
Here's something for you to think about: action is equal and opposite to
reaction, but what about action at a distance?
If the action is not instantaneous, think about the reaction. Where, or
rather when, is that coming from?
Just a point for you to ponder before you slag off Wheeler and
Feynman...
- Gerry Quinn
RM Mentock
>
> >You know that experiments support it.
>
> What one experiences is absolutely true.
But the conclusions that one draws from experience may not be.
And it is those conclusions that science is interested in.
You may claim to have stood upon your soapbox for twenty days,
and I'd take your word for it, but if you were then to claim
that that proves absolutely that you have not moved, then we'd
have a problem.
--
RM Mentock
panta rhei -- Heraclitis
http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/
Nemesis
<re...@firstworld.net> wrote:
[cut]
>> Nemesis wrote:
>> Theoretically, given the right technology, it should be
>> possible to change the intrinsic position of a particle so as
>> to cause it to "move" from "anywhere" to "anywhere" in the
>> universe instantly. Space and time are figments of our
>> imagination. They are necessary perceptual consequences of the
>> psychological and neurophysiological underpinnings of our
>> consciousness. Not that space and time are not based on
>> reality, but only that they emerge abstractly from underlying
>> reality but are not part of it.
>> This may all sound a little far fetched and even sci-fi-ish
>> but I am confident of its correctness.
>
>Nemesis, you are so unerudite. Einstein said all this decades ago!
>Read his essay on the nature of space, for example. But it's nice
>that you came up with a reasonable basis of belief. Maybe, if
>you keep an open mind and keep reading the works of
>Einstein and the other top philosophers of science, you might
>just learn that the old "dorks" aren't so wacky afterall. Much
>of your philosophy is already pretty "Einsteinian" in flavor!
You remind me of the tale of the Korean grocer who kept on insisting
that his store carried every possible edible item in the world. And
then someone walked in and asked for a pair of smoked bear testicles.
You know something Mr. Reany, you are so damn full of it! It's
bordering on the absurd. Would you care to provide a quote where
Einstein claimed that there was neither space nor time? While you are
at it, would you also provide a quote where he said that the position
of a particle is an intrinsic property of the particle, or that the
relative is abstract or that only the absolute exists?
Come to think of it, do me a favor and do not reply. I am beginning to
have serious doubts about both your integrity and your sanity.
Nemesis
Gerry Quinn
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> Maybe "Nemesis" or Gerald O'Barr are Absolutists in your sense. But
>> you appear to be setting your sights somewhat wider.
>>
>Actually, I honestly thought I came upon an ironic basis for
>agreement of the two groups, but no one wanted to deal with
>that. Anyway, I started this thread without the goal of crossing
>swords with anyone. The purpose of my original post was also
>to provoke people to state clearly their reasons for
>preferring absolutism over realism, and that would include
>specific pro's and con's between the two choices. Nemesis
>tries to do this. I give him credit for trying. But he needs to put
>a lot of work into the logical foundation to his viewpoint. It
>wouldn't hurt him to read up on the philosophy of physics for
>a year either!
>
>OK, Gerry, how do you see realism in the philosophy of science
>as different from absolutism in the philosophy of science?
>(If it helps to clarify the discussion to restrict the answer to the
>philosophy of physics only, please do so.)
I don't see any real connection at all.
Realism to me means the following unprovable postulates:
1.There is a world external to each observer.
2.Observations correlate to some extent with this world.
3.The world is not deliberately set up in such a way as to mislead us.
The third might be considered contentious, because there are possible
reasons for it being false that are not utterly implausible. It's hard
to argue that the first two are not true in at least some limited sense.
The third is important, though, because it justifies science as a quest
for truths about the nature of the entire world, as distinct from truths
about some sort of mirage that might not be a significant part of the
whole world, and might differ from it in nature. It is, I think, the
essence of realism to wish to learn the former kind of truths, and to be
relatively uninterested in the latter.
An absolutist in your sense would appear to be somebody who makes
certain descriptive assertions (as distinct from existence assertions
like the above) about the universe, and holds them to be true
irrespective of any evidence. Examples of such assertions might be "the
universe is infinite", "matter is ultimately discrete", or "there is no
absolute reference frame for motion".
Of course one can legitimately justify such assertions with evidence, or
one can select preferred concepts as heuristics - to do these things is
not 'absolutism'.
- Gerry Quinn
- Gerry Quinn
Nemesis
wrote:
>In article <o9u9bt8h8l6nldsmb...@4ax.com>, Nemesis
><Nem...@nospam.com> writes
[cut]
>> Theoretically, it should be possible to
>>move from "anywhere" to "anywhere" in the universe instantly as long
>>as the conservation of ZERO is obeyed.
>
>Let's not go too far.
I am not sure what this means. We must go as far as it takes.
[cut]
>>I am sorry but we cannot talk about the initial state of the universe.
>
>We've got to! The state of the Universe at the moment is evolved
>*directly* from its original state.
You are welcome to speculate about the history of the universe if that
is what you want. There is only so much you can deduce because the
combinations are astronomical. As for me I am only interested at this
point in giving a causal explanation of to observable phenomena such
as gravity and motion.
>>Things do not come into existence by themselves even if they do so in
>>a way that does not violate the principle of the conservation of
>>energy.
>
>I must disagree. We don't know a thing about Reality.
We can know that it is made of nothing and that it comes from nothing.
>The Existence of a
>Universe is only a part of Reality. If "not in our Universe" is Reality
>in a state of nothingness - an "entity" so barren that it doesn't even
>contain nothing - then there are no laws to violate. The production of
>something like an instanton is perfectly allowable.
The production of entities must obey the law of the conservation of
ZERO. However, if that were the only restriction to matter creation,
we would have a chaotic universe where all sorts of entities would be
popping in and out of existence. And no, I don't believe that things
are popping into existence in the vacuum as QM physicists keep on
claiming. We only see a slice of the 4-D universe at a time. As we go
from one slice to the next, it is perfectly logical to expect that
particles would suddenly appear as if from nowhere.
>>>The
>>>Universe was not born with all the particles of today, already formed.
>>>All matter was in a different state of Existence, initially, and it then
>>>changed into the particles we know of today.
>>
>>I have no idea what you mean by different state. On what basis do you
>>make this assertion?
>
>I mean that all matter had a different form of Existence when it first
>formed. Of course, I don't know what that Existence was - maybe it was
>something like the Higgs field. You don't think the Universe appeared in
>Existence with all the particles of today already pre-packaged?
IMO, yes. Besides, due to the rigorous constraints imposed by matter
having to obey the conservation of ZERO, there is only a limited
number of "forms" that fundamental particles can take, in terms of
types of properties. I have to add that my own investigation has led
me to conclude that there is a possible form of matter (from the
limited number of possibilities) that has not been detected by our
instruments.
[cut]
>Also, we know that the expansion of "something" happened, otherwise, we
>would all be huddled around a very small, very hot fire. :)
I am not so sure we know this for certain. It's too soon to draw
conclusions, IMO.
Nemesis
Patrick Reany
Gerry Quinn wrote:
[snip]
> >OK, Gerry, how do you see realism in the philosophy of science
> >as different from absolutism in the philosophy of science?
> >(If it helps to clarify the discussion to restrict the answer to the
> >philosophy of physics only, please do so.)
>
> I don't see any real connection at all.
>
> Realism to me means the following unprovable postulates:
> 1.There is a world external to each observer.
> 2.Observations correlate to some extent with this world.
> 3.The world is not deliberately set up in such a way as to mislead us.
[snip]
> Of course one can legitimately justify such assertions with evidence, or
> one can select preferred concepts as heuristics - to do these things is
> not 'absolutism'.
I agree with your last statement. But I disagree with your definition
of "realism." I discount myself as a realist or an absolutist. To me,
a realist would not treat your list of three as heuristics but rather
as absolute truths. After all, even I can accept your first principle
as a heuristic. In fact, I do. But I don't claim it to be True. Do you
claim it to be True?
Also, I don't really see the necessity of the latter two principles
to found science. After all, science can try to do science and
either succeed or not. I just don't see what is gained by having
a sort of a priori justification. For if science succeeds, then it
is superfluous. And if it fails then a priori justification does
no good anyway.
Furthermore, I don't see how these three principles you give
above are an indication of the larger scope beyond the
absolutists that you alleged that I was after. I agree with your
first principle and merely see the other two as unnecessary.
That hardly makes me out to be against your philosophy,
especially not in the devious manner that you suggested.
Frankly, your philosophy is not too different than my own.
You even say that your postulates are unprovable. I think
that you're just too enamored by the term "realist." I
think you are prejudiced against being a "nonrealistic" for
some undisclosed reason. I used to be. I got over it.
Science is an attempt to provide theoretical explanations
for and reasonable bases of believe for so-called scientific
laws. As long as science makes the attempt it always
succeeds in its purpose!
Patrick
Nemesis
wrote:
>In article <20010316203707...@ng-bh1.aol.com>, glo...@aol.com (GLOBARR) wrote:
>>The same logic applies to both math and physics. I hope you
>>are not advancing that nature can be illogical? I have seen
>>Nobel laureates advance nature does not have to be logical.
>>They can get away with crap like that because of their
>>political stature. The same way Feynman and Wheeler can get
>>away with crap like "advanced and retarded waves moving from
>>the future to the past in spacetime" (absorber theory).
[Mr. O'Barr did not write this. I did.]
>Here's something for you to think about: action is equal and opposite to
>reaction, but what about action at a distance?
There is no such thing as action at a distance. All particles interact
when they are co-positioned.
>If the action is not instantaneous, think about the reaction. Where, or
>rather when, is that coming from?
>
>Just a point for you to ponder before you slag off Wheeler and
>Feynman...
It is not a particularly good point. But then again, maybe I don't
understand your prose. Care to clarify what you exactly mean by
'action at a distance'? And what does it have to do with my "slagging
off" Wheeler and Feynman for their ridiculously false "absorber
theory"?
Nemesis
Gerry Quinn
>On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 17:11:43 GMT, ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <20010316203707...@ng-bh1.aol.com>, glo...@aol.com
> (GLOBARR) wrote:
>
>>>The same logic applies to both math and physics. I hope you
>>>are not advancing that nature can be illogical? I have seen
>>>Nobel laureates advance nature does not have to be logical.
>>>They can get away with crap like that because of their
>>>political stature. The same way Feynman and Wheeler can get
>>>away with crap like "advanced and retarded waves moving from
>>>the future to the past in spacetime" (absorber theory).
>
>[Mr. O'Barr did not write this. I did.]
>
>>Here's something for you to think about: action is equal and opposite to
>>reaction, but what about action at a distance?
>
>There is no such thing as action at a distance. All particles interact
>when they are co-positioned.
My mistake was to assume that this was Gerald's opinion, for which he
must thank his eccentric posting methodology. Perhaps the form
of language used should have alerted me. I agree my point will not
affect you.
- Gerry Quinn
Gerry Quinn
>
>
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >OK, Gerry, how do you see realism in the philosophy of science
>> >as different from absolutism in the philosophy of science?
>> >(If it helps to clarify the discussion to restrict the answer to the
>> >philosophy of physics only, please do so.)
>>
>> I don't see any real connection at all.
>>
>> Realism to me means the following unprovable postulates:
>> 1.There is a world external to each observer.
>> 2.Observations correlate to some extent with this world.
>> 3.The world is not deliberately set up in such a way as to mislead us.
>
>[snip]
>
>> Of course one can legitimately justify such assertions with evidence, or
>> one can select preferred concepts as heuristics - to do these things is
>> not 'absolutism'.
>
>I agree with your last statement. But I disagree with your definition
>of "realism." I discount myself as a realist or an absolutist. To me,
>a realist would not treat your list of three as heuristics but rather
>as absolute truths. After all, even I can accept your first principle
>as a heuristic. In fact, I do. But I don't claim it to be True. Do you
>claim it to be True?
I think it is true. I do claim it is either true or untrue.
>
>Also, I don't really see the necessity of the latter two principles
>to found science. After all, science can try to do science and
>either succeed or not. I just don't see what is gained by having
>a sort of a priori justification. For if science succeeds, then it
>is superfluous. And if it fails then a priori justification does
>no good anyway.
That reminds me of the fatalist fallacy, though it is not quite the
same. But anyway I don't want to "do science" per se. I want to find
out truths of a particular kind. It seems reasonable to consider under
what conditions science might yield such truths. Otherwise, maybe I
should look for truths about patterns in the Mandelbrot set, or about
the best moves in the Sicilian Defence. They are both intrinsically
interesting fields of study. I think, though, that science can teach me
more 'important' truths.
>
>Furthermore, I don't see how these three principles you give
>above are an indication of the larger scope beyond the
>absolutists that you alleged that I was after. I agree with your
>first principle and merely see the other two as unnecessary.
>That hardly makes me out to be against your philosophy,
>especially not in the devious manner that you suggested.
I don't know what you interpreted as me saying your manner was devious.
But you - or your philosophy - are indeed against my philosophy if you
see the latter two principles as unimportant.
>
>Frankly, your philosophy is not too different than my own.
>You even say that your postulates are unprovable. I think
>that you're just too enamored by the term "realist." I
>think you are prejudiced against being a "nonrealistic" for
>some undisclosed reason. I used to be. I got over it.
>
There are some who assert that the purpose of science is not to yield
truth. I disagree profoundly with them.
>Science is an attempt to provide theoretical explanations
>for and reasonable bases of believe for so-called scientific
>laws. As long as science makes the attempt it always
>succeeds in its purpose!
The definition seems circular, so it probably would...
- Gerry Quinn
GLOBARR
Patrick Reany <re...@firstworld.net> wrote:
Ref: <97a6bt44ng2253ps0...@4ax.com>
<20010318233937...@ng-ck1.aol.com>
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
> > My base is a little different. I assume that ultimate
> > reality must be the simplest thing possible. Therefore, I
> > begin maybe even lower than you do.
>
> Nemesis wrote:
> I am sorry but I somehow doubt that.
Patrick Reany wrote:
Formulation of a physical theory is about trade-offs, just
like most everything else in life. Conceptual simplicity must
be balanced with efficient calculation or it's pointless.
O'Barr comments:
What a sick position! There is only one thing that counts,
is it physically correct? Does it work the same way as
reality? You establish this by seeing if it gets the same
results as reality. If you do, then you are successful. Now
if the physical is too complicated and you have to make
adjustments or approximations in the math, that might be O.K.,
but the physical itself cannot be `adjusted.' If A does not
physically fit into B, you do not say, well, we will assume it
fits. Such an `adjustment' as this is silly and would never be
done. Surly, Reany, you must not understand what you say, or
you just do not understand what a physical theory is, versus a
math theory. I think you need an education!!!!!
[snip]
O'Barr wrote:
> In my approach, on the lowest level, things are exactly as
> they appear to be, simple particles freely moving in an open
> 3-D space. On our actual level where we see things, where
> things appear to be simple particles moving in open space, we
>actually have an ether in which all things move, and particles
>are complicated systems moving in this ether. In my approach,
> there are never any violations of anything at any time!
>
[snip]
O'Barr wrote:
> In a reverse science approach, such as we both seem to be
> trying, talk can be fairly cheap. These approaches are
> worthless unless and until they result in things that are
> concrete. The at theory more than meets these requirements.
> It has been reduced to mathematics, and tested, and found
> successful!
Patrick Reany wrote:
What's a "reverse science" approach?
O'Barr comments:
The normal approach in science is to go from the known to
the immediate unknown next to it. In this, there is a `normal'
growth, sometimes slow, sometimes fast, as we expand our
knowledge in this way. The `boundary' is fairly certain, and
the direction we need to go is usually fairly well marked, and
this approach is an approach that builds on what we know! This
is probably the safest and most reliable way to do things.
What I call the `reverse' science is by going beyond the
boundary, and then working backwards, back to the boundary.
This is a very dangerous thing to do, since the farther you get
from the known, the more uncertain things might be. However,
such things have been done in the past, and as we get closer
and closer to the end, it should become easier to do. It has a
lot of advantages when it works, in that the rate of growth is
speeded up by a large amount. Our understanding is increased
by leaps and bounds, so to speak!
The at theory is unique in that I believe I have made a jump
clear to the base of our reality. And although I have not
made a clear return to our present known limits, I have made a
return that has all the physics that we see in our know limits.
To me, this is sufficient to bring to people's attention.
Everyone should get excited over what I have done!!!!!
[snip]
Patrick Reany wrote:
I trust that you guys are having a good time discussing your
freely created physical theories that are NOT uniquely
determined by the external world, hum? (Einstein)
Please excuse my interloping into your conversation, but you
guys interlope into this NG. Turnabout is fair play, don't you
think?
O'Barr comments:
Join the fun. But it would be nicer if you really had
something of benefit to say!!!!! Have you put the at theory on
your computer? Have you been able to get one particle of mass
to chase another particle of mass? Have you determined how to
get c???? What mass exchange controls have your explored?
How have you switched around the roll of one repelling all, and
one attracting all, to likes repelling likes and to opposites
attracting, as we see things in our own world??? Which of
the three ways of doing this do you like the best??? How
have you gotten multiple level forces, such as gravity?
What have you done?
Thanks!!!!!!
Patrick Reany
GLOBARR wrote:
> In <3AB602E5...@firstworld.net>
> Patrick Reany <re...@firstworld.net> wrote:
>
> Ref: <97a6bt44ng2253ps0...@4ax.com>
> <20010318233937...@ng-ck1.aol.com>
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote:
> > > My base is a little different. I assume that ultimate
> > > reality must be the simplest thing possible. Therefore, I
> > > begin maybe even lower than you do.
> >
> > Nemesis wrote:
> > I am sorry but I somehow doubt that.
>
> Patrick Reany wrote:
> Formulation of a physical theory is about trade-offs, just
> like most everything else in life. Conceptual simplicity must
> be balanced with efficient calculation or it's pointless.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> What a sick position! There is only one thing that counts,
> is it physically correct? Does it work the same way as
> reality?
Gee! Conformance to experimental results! I would have never
thought of that!
> You establish this by seeing if it gets the same
> results as reality. If you do, then you are successful. Now
> if the physical is too complicated and you have to make
> adjustments or approximations in the math, that might be O.K.,
> but the physical itself cannot be `adjusted.' If A does not
> physically fit into B, you do not say, well, we will assume it
> fits. Such an `adjustment' as this is silly and would never be
> done. Surly, Reany, you must not understand what you say,
Or you don't understand what I say!
> or
> you just do not understand what a physical theory is, versus a
> math theory. I think you need an education!!!!!
O'Barr, you just seem to not get what I'm saying most the time.
Besides, you're contradicting yourself. Both SR and LET have
the same math content, as you love to tell us over and over.
Yet you chose LET over SR. I must conclude that even the great
O'Barr uses subjective criteria in make his preference. And there
is one more besides: A physical theory that claims to have the
means of making testable predictions yet cannot be used by any
human to actually perform the calculation due to its overly
complicated foundation is pretty much useless by most people's
reckoning. You idealists are so hung up on perfection that you
forget about practical matters, until it suits your particular situation
to remember it.
You, O'Barr and Nemesis. How many times have I asked you
folks to clarify something when I didn't quite know what you
were saying? More than I can count. Yet do either of you return
this courtesy to me? No. You guys just jump to some false
and often bizarre conclusion and get it all wrong. Typical!
Where's your use of the Golden Rule here, O'Barr? You
gonna just talk the superior ethics or put it into practice?
[snip]
"reverse science," "uncertainly," "dangerous thing." You sound like
a man who has engaged in a free creation of the human mind.
What is this "immediate unknown next to the known"?
> The at theory is unique in that I believe I have made a jump
> clear to the base of our reality. And although I have not
> made a clear return to our present known limits, I have made a
> return that has all the physics that we see in our know limits.
> To me, this is sufficient to bring to people's attention.
> Everyone should get excited over what I have done!!!!!
Quixotic.
[snip]
> O'Barr comments:
> Join the fun. But it would be nicer if you really had
> something of benefit to say!!!!!
That judgment lies totally within the attitude of the listener. You
might be right, though. I may indeed be wasting my time on you.
> Have you put the at theory on
> your computer? Have you been able to get one particle of mass
> to chase another particle of mass? Have you determined how to
> get c???? What mass exchange controls have your explored?
> How have you switched around the roll of one repelling all, and
> one attracting all, to likes repelling likes and to opposites
> attracting, as we see things in our own world??? Which of
> the three ways of doing this do you like the best??? How
> have you gotten multiple level forces, such as gravity?
> What have you done?
Well, Job, I don't seem to have the enormous amount of free time
that you have. Get the program to work, send me the executable
code with instructions and I'll take a close look at it.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
Gerry Quinn wrote:
[snip]
> >Frankly, your philosophy is not too different than my own.
> >You even say that your postulates are unprovable. I think
> >that you're just too enamored by the term "realist." I
> >think you are prejudiced against being a "nonrealistic" for
> >some undisclosed reason. I used to be. I got over it.
> >
>
> There are some who assert that the purpose of science is not to yield
> truth. I disagree profoundly with them.
I know. You profoundly disagree with me and I with you.
Nevertheless, it's you that have to explain to us in precise
logical terms how Truth is obtainable from postulates that you
admit are not themselves provable. I keep hearing about all
these terrible "positivists" in the Establishment these days.
Yet it is you realists and absolutists that ARE the positivists of
the modern age! The positivists are those after positive knowledge:
Certainty. Truth. As for me, I'm just interested in broad-based
theories that match experiment and obey the principle of logical
economy. I'm an instrumentalist.
But if you're after Truth, Gerry, from empirical methods then
you're an absolutist by my own definition. Truth IS an
Absolute notion!
Name one Truth that science has to its name, Gerry.
> >Science is an attempt to provide theoretical explanations
> >for and reasonable bases of believe for so-called scientific
> >laws. As long as science makes the attempt it always
> >succeeds in its purpose!
>
> The definition seems circular, so it probably would...
>
> - Gerry Quinn
It is not circular, but it is crafted to have a definite result.
Patrick
http://www.ajnpx.com/html/Relativity.html
http://www.ajnpx.com/html/Positivism.html
GLOBARR
<ger...@indigo.ie> (Gerry Quinn) wrote:
In <20010316203707...@ng-bh1.aol.com>,
>The same logic applies to both math and physics. I hope you
>are not advancing that nature can be illogical? I have seen
>Nobel laureates advance nature does not have to be logical.
>They can get away with crap like that because of their
>political stature. The same way Feynman and Wheeler can get
>away with crap like "advanced and retarded waves moving from
>the future to the past in spacetime" (absorber theory).
I did not write the above paragraph, and I have no intent
of defending it. I do understand the feelings that would
cause one to say such things that are in this paragraph, but
it is not my style to make such complaints!
Gerry Quinn wrote:
Here's something for you to think about: action is equal and
opposite to reaction, but what about action at a distance?
If the action is not instantaneous, think about the
reaction. Where, or rather when, is that coming from?
Just a point for you to ponder before you slag off Wheeler
and Feynman...
O'Barr comments:
Although I do not believe I am involved in any of this, in
the at theory, the only interactions that occur are collisions
where particle to particle contacts can occur. There are
never an actions at a distance, unless one wants to consider
the finite size (diameter) of a particle being involved in
these particle collisions. I believe your point, if you have
one, is with someone other than O'Barr!
and...@attglobal.net
>
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:28:49 -0800, and...@attglobal.net wrote:
>
> >Nemesis wrote:
> >>
> >> The above is based on the premise that one can never know anything for
> >> certain. It is a false premise because it is logically circular.
> >>
> >
> >It is logically circular only if
>
> There are no ifs or buts about it. If the statement "one cannot know
> anything for certain" is true, one cannot know the truth of that
> statement either. Therefore the statement is self-contraditory and its
> validity is demolished by virtue of being self-referential.
>
Assume that you can prove that a statement is true or false.
How do you deal with the following statement:
"This statement is false"
If it's true, it contradicts its own truth. If it's
false, then it contradicts what it says.
The same arguments apply to your premise.
> > you assume that
> >there are some axioms (things that are a priori
> >assumed to be true) to establish the truth of a
> >given proposition "absolutely".
> >
> >What are the axioms of nature?
>
> I answered that question already but somehow you got so agitated and
> offended that you missed it. Not that it would do you any good. Many
> things seem to go over your head.
>
What ARE the axioms of nature? My apologies
for missing them. They sure would be really
interesting if they existed.
If you already replied, then it's no skin
off your ass to cut and paste the reply
again instead of having a hissy fit.
John Anderson
GLOBARR
Nemesis <Nem...@nospam.com> wrote:
Ref: <97a6bt44ng2253ps0...@4ax.com>
<20010318233937...@ng-ck1.aol.com>
>
>Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) wrote: . . .
> There is no question that if you could begin with nothing,
>that that would be simpler. But to start with nothing might
>require some guidance, because an original state of `nothing'
>could mathematically result in anything, and we do not have
>just `anything.'
Nemesis wrote:
I have to disagree. You have no idea how restricted your
choices are when you start with nothing. At the fundamental
level you either have it or you don't because the choices are
extremely limited. The number of choices then become
exponentially great as you move to higher levels due to
combinatorial explosion.
O'Barr comments:
To tell you the truth, I do not believe it is possible to
start with nothing existing, because if you really did have
nothing, then there would have to always remain nothing. And
so you do need to present your case. Is there a reason you
have not explain your thinking on this?
O'Barr wrote:
> I took the first step from nothing on my own,
>and maybe by doing this, allowed the danger of a little
>backtracking being required, but in truth, you have not lost
>this possible step either.
> Rather than looking at who started with the simplest, maybe
>it would be well to see who arrived at the simplest, once we
>obtained the same equality in levels of existing of things.
Nemesis wrote:
The simplest is this: particles, their properties and their
interactions.
O'Barr comments:
This is perfect. I, too, end up with just simple mass
particles. I call them `at' particles. The only property they
intrinsically have is inertia, which allows them to have
momentum and kinetic energy. Their only interactions are
collisions, where an exchange of mass can occur. All
collisions obey the conservation laws of mass, momentum and
energy. This is all, other than designated rules as to how
much mass gets exchanged in each collision! Absolutely no
space reaching forces of any kind: no gravity, charge,
magnetic, strong, weak, or any other type of force. Only
inertia, and mass exchange rules if and when a collision
occurs, and nothing else!!!!!
>Nemesis wrote:
> You may feel the urge to ask, what possible properties can
>one get from nothing? At this point, all I can say is that,
>once it is explained, it will make sense even to a child. The
>really nice thing about the fundamental is that it is simple
> to the extreme, as simple and unambiguous as can be.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> I agree that whatever is done on the most fundamental level,
>it must be the extreme of simplicity. And you cannot allow
>impossible things, such as more than three space coordinates,
>etc.
Nemesis wrote:
The impossible things are not the coordinates but space itself.
A coordinate is just a property of a particle. There is indeed
a limit to the number of dimensions but it's not 3. And this
limit is a logical consequence of existence ex nihilo. IMO, you
have allowed the constraints imposed by our visual perception
to fool you into thinking that there can only be 3 dimensions.
Our perceptions also fool us into thinking there is space and
time. It is not so. I'm sure you'll disagree but I expect it.
O'Barr comments:
I do disagree. And it is not just our eyes that limits us
to 3 dimensions. What we feel, and what we calculate, and what
we build, and what we construct, and what we have in terms of
energy, and in terms of mass, and in terms of everything that
has so far been considered, 3-D is not going to go away.
>O'Barr wrote:
>> Now please be aware, I have been able to take my ultimate
>> simplicity, and get the effects of space reaching forces.
>> Can you do this yet??? And with these space-reaching
>> forces,I can, at least theoretically, combine objects
>> together. Can you do this?? And some of these objects,
>> combined in specific ways, can obtain momentum out of an
>> otherwise random background, and maintain a momentum with
>> respect to the average rest frame of the background. Can
>> you do this yet???
>
>Nemesis wrote:
> There is no space in my model. Entities do not exist in
> space. They just exist. Nothings moves anywhere because
> there is no anywhere. There are only particles, their
> properties and their interactions. Interactions cause
> changes in the intrinsic properties of particles which we
> interpret as motion. A change occurs
> only when the balance of nature is modified, i.e.,
> whenever there is a violation of the conservation of zero.
> This can only happen when two particles have equal positions.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> In my approach, on the lowest level, things are exactly as
>they appear to be, simple particles freely moving in an open
>3-D space. On our actual level where we see things, where
>things appear to be simple particles moving in open space, we
>actually have an ether in which all things move, and particles
>are complicated systems moving in this ether.
Nemesis wrote:
For a long time I took to saying that motion in spacetime is
logical circular. I said it because it is the truth and many
people came to realize that spacetime is just an abstraction
and that gravity cannot be caused by spacetime curvature but by
something else altogether. Fairly recently however I realized
that moving in space is just as logically circular as moving in
spacetime and for pretty much the same reason. Hopelessly
circular. From my vantage point, this completely eliminates
both space and time as independent parts of reality.
O'Barr comments:
And I believe you have also removed yourself from the world
of the sane! Why would anyone want to get rid of the very
things of which reality consists???? Certainly the 4-D of SR
spacetime continuum is silly and impossible, but simple motion
in empty space has no problems what-so-ever. Surely you must
be jesting!
O'Barr wrote:
>In my approach,
>there are never any violations of anything at any time!
Nemesis wrote:
There is a need for change or motion in nature only if an
imbalance occurs. The imbalance is what I called a violation of
a principle of conservation. Unless your model provides a cause
for motion, you will never be able to understand the causal
mechanism of gravity.
O'Barr comments:
There are places in physics where a cause for motion must be
addressed. This cause for motion must be addressed above the
ether level. But it does not have to be addressed in the very
lowest levels where true empty space exists. And I have no
problems with a force field that appears to attract all objects
locally. This force field reverts to an expansion at large
distances. This does not perfectly match Newtonian gravity,
but it is good enough if the large distances are kept larger
than our known universe, etc.
>Nemesis wrote:
> Theoretically, given the right technology, it should be
>possible to change the intrinsic position of a particle so as
>to cause it to "move" from "anywhere" to "anywhere" in the
>universe instantly. Space and time are figments of our
>imagination. They are necessary perceptual consequences of
>the psychological and neurophysiological underpinnings of our
>consciousness. Not that space and time are not based on
>reality, but only that they emerge abstractly from underlying
>reality but are not part of it.
> This may all sound a little far fetched and even sci-fi-ish
>but I am confident of its correctness.
>
>O'Barr comments:
> What ever. It sure does not sound simple, even if you
>started with nothing. I did not start with simple nothing,
>but what I end up with has none of the far-fetched concepts
> you seem to need or want.
Nemesis wrote:
I don't want them. They are the logical consequences of the
model. I accept them as they come.
O'Barr comments:
If you would consider the at theory, you might not have to
accept such impossible results!
>O'Barr wrote (about the primary force fields, not gravity):
Nemesis wrote:
Well, good luck with your theory and keep working on it. I have
a piece of advice. Unless your theory explains why sub-atomic
particles decay in probabilistic fashion and predict their
half-life from first principles, or unless you can derive
(predict) the value of the gravitational constant from first
principles, your theory will just be another math theory.
Furthermore, given the political reality of modern physics, no
new theory will be accepted (if that is your goal) unless it is
accompanied by a gee-wiz!, oh-my-god! demonstration that will
knock everybody's socks off, including Mr. John Q. Public.
O'Barr comments:
There is no longer a need for good luck. The theory is
already established. But it has no `attractiveness,' yet, to
`blow' anyone away with `new' things. It is just too simple.
But I now know that SR is impossible, and the LET type approach
is more correct. And I intend to begin here, as I have done,
and we are going to see this finished! SR is dead, as a
science, and those who continue to believe in it are no longer
scientific.
and...@attglobal.net
>
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 21:23:33 -0800, and...@attglobal.net wrote:
>
> >Physics is practised by physicists not navel gazers, such as
> >yourself. Physicists define the field, not you.
> >If you don't like that, who cares?
>
> Frothy tantrum. Somebody is rabid, I'd say.
>
I'm just pointing out that you're tilting at windmills.
John Anderson