show all replies (2 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

Some thoughts on your central thesis...

A question arises of whether Nobel was correct that Science can promote or foster the establishment of Peace, and both you and I answer this question in the affirmative. Years ago I discovered a formula for peace, which simply stated goes like this. "One open, as multiplicity and formless nothingness, finds peace in true relation, and knows all as...

view entire post

Some thoughts on your central thesis...

A question arises of whether Nobel was correct that Science can promote or foster the establishment of Peace, and both you and I answer this question in the affirmative. Years ago I discovered a formula for peace, which simply stated goes like this. "One open, as multiplicity and formless nothingness, finds peace in true relation, and knows all as self." When compared to what Science teaches us about the universe and where that leads us, we find it tells us we are made of a multitude of sub-atomic particles comprising atoms and molecules, but they are mostly empty space. So being open to the notion that we are made of a multiplicity of somethings full of nothing takes us to the next level.

The rest of the journey involves seeing what is on the far shore, beyond the borders of chaos, where order begins to become self-emergent because the chaotic forces have exhausted themselves or evened out. The proof by Perelman of Poincare's conjecture is a prime example of how there is unity behind the diversity, and simple ways a whole host of things can be related to each other or shown to be the same. In learning to play Piano, one encounters increasing complexity as one adds sharps or flats; but then comes a breakthrough when you realize that you are mainly playing on the black keys, and there are only a few white keys to remember. The true relation that brings peace is thus what lies beyond the appearance of complexity.

So ultimately; Science does support the notion that corporeal beings are the same as the universe, that we are made of star stuff, and that it is actually proper to know all as yourself. How do they say it? I think it goes "Aham Brahm Asmi" - I am the universe. So by simply acknowledging that we are not an isolated system, and are thus the same as the cosmos, the road to peace becomes clear. Therefore it appears that Nobel was right to believe that Science illuminates that road.

All the Best,

Jonathan

view post as summary

Dear Eckhard,

It seems each year you get better, and recall that I very much liked your essay last year.

I have glanced at many essays and have read yours twice, but it is so full of information I'm sure I have not digested all of your thoughts.

I would like to make a few observations. There many essays here that complain about the fact that a number of individuals have great...

view entire post

Dear Eckhard,

It seems each year you get better, and recall that I very much liked your essay last year.

I have glanced at many essays and have read yours twice, but it is so full of information I'm sure I have not digested all of your thoughts.

I would like to make a few observations. There many essays here that complain about the fact that a number of individuals have great wealth. While I am not a fan of bankers (who probably have the most wealth,) nor of children who inherit great wealth, Nobel illustrates a case where great wealth can be used very effectively to accomplish a purpose. As I noted in my essay, many billionaires are now supporting science, some are developing private space travel, some address health and education. What all have in common, in my opinion, is that they invest their own money much more effectively than governments spend tax monies. I would like to see more Nobels and fewer taxmen. If wealth is earned by solving problems or inventing solutions that people wish to buy I have no problem with it. Unfortunately corporations and governments "scratch each other's backs" and here corruption enters the picture. Anyway, I like your focus on Nobel.

Your insight into mathematics is applied well at analyzing Nobel's decision not to award a prize for math. In fact, as I was reading your essay, I realized that I really don't pay much attention to arguments about infinity as all infinities are mathematical objects, that is figments of imagination. There is no infinity in the physical world. There is continuity. Once the concept of infinity has been used to "justify" calculus and the limits of sequences, and used to derive Fourier theory, that pretty much satisfies my interest in infinity. I found your treatment of irrational numbers as only implicitly represented by an instruction interesting also.

My early math education followed the peak of Bourbaki power, and ruined much for me. I am naturally of the Heaviside or Feynman view of math, as a fluid, intuitive tool works to elucidate relations. But my teachers had been so heavily influenced by Bourbakis that I absorbed an attitude that perfect rigor was demanded. It is not! Certainly not for physicists.

I very much agree that speculative and formalist tenets are not directly relevant to reality. In fact, that is the problem with much (most?) of today's theoretical physics. Your remark on 'fans of Plato' is very apt. And your reminder that "abstraction is not a lossless process."

I also agree about Galilean transformations, and that relativity enters the picture with two observers in frames in relative motion connected only by a finite speed of light. And that "considering reality equal to that subjective perception denies the well confirmed causal coherence of the world."

I also appreciate "most basic entities don't change their sign"! Very nice. And "kinetic energy has nonarbitrary zero".

Eckhard, it was a joy to read your insight-filled essay. Thank you for writing it. I hope you find mine interesting.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies

Eckard,

I agree with Vladimir, you may well be the man to steer us through and out of the maze caused by current science as your essays path seemed anything but straight. I was expecting new ideas to avoid war and crimes against humanity. But I do applaud the concept that; "mankind as a whole can and must achieve a better command of Nature", which was my own theme (but developing a key...

view entire post

Eckard,

I agree with Vladimir, you may well be the man to steer us through and out of the maze caused by current science as your essays path seemed anything but straight. I was expecting new ideas to avoid war and crimes against humanity. But I do applaud the concept that; "mankind as a whole can and must achieve a better command of Nature", which was my own theme (but developing a key proposals to do so).

A few points confused me, possibly typo's but I know how particular you are so must check;

Did time dilution contribute to no price being set for Relativity? Or was it the 'dilation' rationalised by Poincare and abused in SR that discouraged the 'prize'. The latter makes more sense, but then you analysis didn't. As it's only the physical 'signal waves' after emission by the clock that get dilated by normal Doppler shift, are you suggesting that somehow means "time" itself is being changed?

I ask that because you suggest that this 'co-ordinate' time cannot be measured, where of course it's the only thing we CAN 'measure' when clocks elsewhere are moving wrt us as they emit sequences. Proper time then remains properly the time from clocks in our own rest frame. I assume that's what you really meant as we just get c+/-v. If not (somehow you suggest v^2!?) do please construct the logic.

Your most important and valid point I think (in the science part) is that the; "Cosine transformation of measured data yields the same essential result as does the seemingly more general complex Fourier transformation." Which is precisely what I invoke to remove the 'weirdness' from QM. That import has not yet been assimilated into present paradigms. I've steered my yacht across the Baltic at night in a storm doing intuitive complex Fourier transforms in my head to anticipate the larger waves from the darkness. I find superposed cosine iPAD's more intuitive and predictable.

One thing I may dispute is critical logic telling us that in reality things don't 'change sign'. If you consider touching one hemisphere of a spinning ball, then rotating it's axis (or moving round it) and touching the other, we then find the sign reversed with each half rotation. You're not the only one to miss that little jewel of 'non-mirror symmetry' of spin. When Neils Bohr did so he consigned us to 90 years of wonderland physics equalled only by the insane banning of the fluid interstellar medium (as he thought it was 'fixed') by the chap from your way which he had those tiffs with at Solvay. We've m now found it ah gain but can't fit it into theory. Seems he was right about or stupidity.

The last thing, which surprised me a little, was your proposed solution to the population problem identified by Georgina, Allan Kadin, Judy Nab and others. Eugenics and the Chinese way don't seem to be solutions, nor leaving babies to die in the mountains as Judy reports was common. I can't see the answer you propose in your blog comments above; "Peace must definitely be avoided" to score highly, but it would certainly seem to do that job!

However my intuition says that too was a typo. If so I thought I'd better raise it or some may get the wrong idea. (But not bad in all for a 'foreign language'). (Thanks for not picking out any typo's in mine by the way).

I did respond to your interesting blog on mine, also a bit confusing I must admit.

Best wishes

Peter

view post as summary

show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

Dear Eckard,

I read with great interest your depth analytical essay in the spirit of Cartesian doubt with a concrete statement of the problems of modern basic science and human society. Many thanks for the link «DONALD COXETER: THE MAN WHO SAVED GEOMETRY».

Fundamental science, mathematics and physics are in a "crisis of representation and interpretation» (T. Romanovskaya),...

view entire post

Dear Eckard,

I read with great interest your depth analytical essay in the spirit of Cartesian doubt with a concrete statement of the problems of modern basic science and human society. Many thanks for the link «DONALD COXETER: THE MAN WHO SAVED GEOMETRY».

Fundamental science, mathematics and physics are in a "crisis of representation and interpretation» (T. Romanovskaya), «crisis understanding" methodological crisis bases. Both these sciences have long been "lost certainty." Overcoming the crisis possibly if to Empirical Standard of justification of fundamental Knowledge in addition to enter the Ontological Standard of justification. As for mathematics, it is possible to agree with the conclusion of Alexander Zenkin in the article Science counterrevolution in mathematics :

«The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.» It is necessary to continue to look for «buried meanings» of Geometry. Here it is necessary to «dig» more deeply than Platon and Gusserl. By the way, Bourbaki here big assistants with their idea of "mother structures" (N. Bourbaki "Architecture of Mathematics").

Picture of the world of physics should be the same rich sense of "LifeWorld"(E.Husserl) as a picture of the world of lyric poets. Otherwise it will be difficult to steer the Future. And for this purpose the Science has to become more and more open for Humanity.

I fully agree with your conclusion deep:

«Every discovery and every ethically acceptable invention gets its value for humanity by contributing to all circumstances that will reduce mental resistance against reasonable from global perspective behavior and will help to steer any competition in a human direction. The doctrine of economic growth is as outdated and bad as are expansive group interests and intolerance against others in all religions. The suggestion to leave a destroyed earth or even the solar system as to rescue mankind is more utopian than were putatively ideal social systems. Let's learn from nature and adapt our behavior here and now to the mostly self-made challenges which mankind will face. It isn't the barons; it is the sum of all discoveries, inventions, and even of the seemingly irrelevant personal decisions of anybody that will steer humanity.»

We need a new "Big Common Cause" to save Peace, Nature and Humanity. Let's all work together in building up a more sustainable future of Humanity and hope for the best! It's time we start the path. The New Era and a New Generation demanded action.

Best Regards,

Vladimir

view post as summary

Dear Eckard,

I was persuaded by your argument that "Alfred Nobel's legacy might guide us to the appropriate perspective" on how to steer the future:

You say "[M]athematics understands itself as a manmade creation, as a play with chosen rules, independent from physics", and a real line continuum of numbers and infinite numbers are ideas rather than realities. Similarly you say that...

view entire post

Dear Eckard,

I was persuaded by your argument that "Alfred Nobel's legacy might guide us to the appropriate perspective" on how to steer the future:

You say "[M]athematics understands itself as a manmade creation, as a play with chosen rules, independent from physics", and a real line continuum of numbers and infinite numbers are ideas rather than realities. Similarly you say that physics' "belief that time is a dimension in which one can move back and forth as within space" is useful, but it gives "fallacious conclusions [about reality] including fatalism, denial of free will, and even denial of causality". In other words, the "Speculative and formalist tenets" of mathematics and physics "are not directly relevant to reality", and so they are not deserving of a Nobel Prize, and they are not a guide on how to steer the future.

You seem to be saying that patriotism that leads to war is naïve and against moral principles i.e. it is also a form of lack of realism. You quote Kant: "Peace is not a natural phenomenon" - it must be worked for. Nobel pointed "to the need of controlling the circumstances" and "That's why discoveries and inventions were and are valuable indirect contributions to peace and beyond", but these inventions must be "ethically acceptable".

Our obligation is to take "the global perspective" on our actions so that we don't "leave a destroyed earth ". And I agree with your conclusion: "Let's learn from nature and adapt our behavior here and now to the mostly self-made challenges which mankind will face. It isn't the barons; it is the sum of all discoveries, inventions, and even of the seemingly irrelevant personal decisions of anybody that will steer humanity. "

However I would disagree with your "Protection of environment and conservation of flora and fauna are subordinated to the logical priority of humans' point of view. They must not be generalized as independent goals":

I contend that we humans are not separate from, or more developed than, the universe we are part of. The idea that the universe developed completely new fundamental properties when humans came on the scene is typical human hubris (by underlying fundamental properties, I mean experience of information, subjectivity and creativity). Human hubris and narcissism says "I'm special! " In fact, the human body is itself an ecosystem - the "human microbiome" is "the microbial communities associated with the human body". The "average human body is carrying around 3 times more bacterial cells than human ones...There is general agreement that viruses outnumber bacterial cells, maybe by as much as 5 to 1. " The human body RELIES on "plenty of viruses, fungi, archaea, and single-celled eukaryotes" which COMPLETELY OUTNUMBER human cells, though they weigh less than human cells. This realisation that the human body is an ecosystem is very new - only about 10 years old. (http://microbio.me/americangut/img/FAQ_Human_Microbiome.pdf
)

Another thing I would like to mention, relating to your discussion of numbers, is that if there is only this universe and no platonic realm, then how do we explain the reality behind the numbers that are found when nature is measured? I suggest in my 2013 essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1888 ) that numbers are hidden information category self-relationships.

Another thing I would question is "Considering reality equal to its subjective perception denies the well confirmed causal coherence of the world...Measuring something directly against an observer's own perception is impossible". I think it is clear that subjective perception is an experienced point of view that can be partially REPRESENTED with symbols (numbers, parameters, words) by an observer or indeed by the subject himself/herself. Subjective perception/experience IS physical/material reality that can be measured/represented from the point of view of an observer, but because of complexity, any sort of precision is only possible with fundamental particles/subjects.

Best wishes,

Lorraine

view post as summary

show all replies (2 not shown)

hide replies

show all replies (2 not shown)

hide replies

Tihamer Toth-Fejel addressed my essay elsewhere.

Here is his complete post together with ++ my reply ++.

Dear Eckard,

Most essays considered the context of the word "humanity" in the contest question and it fits your definition #1 (mankind), though many also thought that our future would be brighter if we all acted more like definition #3 (show kindness).

++...

view entire post

Tihamer Toth-Fejel addressed my essay elsewhere.

Here is his complete post together with ++ my reply ++.

Dear Eckard,

Most essays considered the context of the word "humanity" in the contest question and it fits your definition #1 (mankind), though many also thought that our future would be brighter if we all acted more like definition #3 (show kindness).

++ Yes.++

You wrote: "To Muslims the doctrine "as many (Muslim) children as possible" is a value in the sense of #3, and when I lived together with a Tunesian he told me why: The more children, the more food for the elderly."

In a primitive society with no pension plans or social security, that certainly makes logical sense, don't you think?

++ Of course, all traditional ethics, in particular the monotheist ones, arose from former needs. ++

Rich countries have fewer children, and they also take better care of their environment (even if they keep growing their population). So ask the next question (as Ted Sturgeon always urged): Why aren't you trying making everyone rich?

++ Even if this did work, I see it a nightmare to the people who already told me that they lived in the capitals of pollution (cities like Calcutta or Peking) if all of the billions of poor people could live as comfortable as do I and perhaps you too. Marx was merely correct when he criticized Malthus for focusing on poverty which is indeed primarily a question of distribution. ++

Again, ask the next question: Why do Muslim countries (on average, even with all that Middle East oil) have the lowest standard of living on this planet?

++ Oil did not yet matter when Queen Victoria ruled India which was overly rich but also overly poor at a time. While India was the first country to start a population control policy in 1952, its industry l developed not as fast as did China’s. Purely Muslim countries worldwide as well as non-Muslim countries in Africa tend to suffer even more from growth of their population. ++

It's because they believe that Allah is utterly transcendent, and as Master over us slaves, he is not necessarily beneficent nor ordered. This is what Al-Ghazali, the 2nd-most influential prophet (after Mohammed himself), in fact did teach. The unintended consequence of this was that it destroyed the fledgling sciences in the once-great Islamic civilization--by denying that God's universe had predictable causes or that any causes would make sense. Science breeds technology, and technology is the lever of wealth, because it allows everyone to accomplish more with less. Hence the low standard of living for Islam.

++ Yes, Europe and Northern America benefited from the ages of renaissance and enlightenment. ++

You admitted that "the notion overpopulation lacks a reference value". I'm not sure what you mean by that, other than the fact the carrying capacity of an environment can be (and has been) changed considerably; first by the evolution of photosynthesis (which poisoned the atmosphere and caused a 300 million year ice age), then the evolution of multi-cellularism (the most totalitarian regime possible), the development of consciousness (which made psychological suffering possible; as opposed to only physical pain), and more recently the invention of fire, agriculture, food preservation, and the green revolution. Each step significantly increased the carrying capacity of Earth, though it changed the environment significantly too.

++ Boomsters believe in a horn of plenty that magically supplies its owners with endless food and drink. I consider such cornucopians irresponsible. ++

It seems that you cannot imagine the next step, so it cannot happen. Please read my essay on "Three Crucial Technologies" and tell me why nanotechnology and expanding into Space won't increase the carrying capacity of this solar system by many magnitudes.

++ I will comment on your hope elsewhere. ++

Are a conservative in the traditional sense: afraid of change?

++ I don’t see Nobel arguing for conservation of nature but for the perspective of mankind. ++

You also said, "It is indisputable that the consequences of unlimited growth cannot forever be compensated." I bed to differ. Our single-celled bacterial ancestors would probably have said the same thing 3.6 billion years ago. As Malthus said more than 200 years ago. Isn't it indisputable that the exponential growth of Moore's Law and Kurzweil's more general Law of Accelerating Returns have a much faster growth rate than human reproduction? (e.g. 18 months vs 30 years) I will concede that according to our best current scientific theories, Asimov's ball of flesh can't expand any faster than the speed of light.

++ As far as I know, Paul Ehrlich does not base his conclusions on inappropriate mathematical “laws”. Malthus definitely underestimated the technological progress and overestimated poverty. However, discoveries and inventions increase the possibilities and responsibilities of the mankind as a whole, and I am claiming to agree with Nobel on that they enforce more responsibility rather than providing unlimited possibilities. Let’s be wary of perilous optimism. ++

Finally, you said, "Ethics needs to be modified, and I consider this a pressing most fundamental necessity." Ethics *ought* to be modified?

++ Yes, this is something at variance with Marxism, libertarianism, free marked enthusiasm, American conservatism, some kinds of feminism, and blind advocating of human rights. In the abstract of my essay I listed authorities who are teaching futile speculative models, denial of causality, religious dogmas, naïve patriotism, heroism, and putatively ideal social systems as at variance with Nobel’s perspective. ++

Do you realize the inherent contradiction in your statement? How can you apply an imperative to changing a set of imperatives? You can't. At any rate, Ethics is objective, not subjective. If it was subjective, then it would only be an individual's or group's changing opinion. How do you know that it isn't your "personal ethics" that needs to be changed?

++ Ethics are moral beliefs and rules about right and wrong. If there will be an objective ethics then it must be the ethics of the whole mankind and must answer the question how to ensure the survival and wellbeing of mankind including the earth as its basis (not the other was round and also not related to some sort of personal opinion or god). I see this question a not yet completely answered fundamental one with serious consequences. ++

What's wrong with having a ball of humanity augmented by silicon, diamondoid, biology, and superconducting machines expanding into the universe at light speed, transforming all the dead matter in the universe into life that thinks, feels, and loves?

++ Unfounded guesses distract from what should be done he and now. A machine that expands into the universe at light speed contradicts to physics. What is dead matter? How can life think, feel, and love? Life is the quality which people, animals, and plants have. ++

Eckard

view post as summary