If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
Georgina Woodward: on 7/19/17 at 14:51pm UTC, wrote All of physics, describing existent things and observation can not fit into...
Georgina Woodward: on 7/19/17 at 14:44pm UTC, wrote Re.the concept of existence: Phenomena happening over time are a different...
Georgina Woodward: on 7/19/17 at 10:48am UTC, wrote With respect, Rafael Bousso is incorrect thinking that existent things...
Yehuda Atai: on 2/14/17 at 18:25pm UTC, wrote Dear Durham. Very interesting article. we ratify our existence to each...
Steve Dufourny: on 12/12/16 at 13:12pm UTC, wrote That is why I am insisting on this comspoting at big global scale and the...
Steve Dufourny: on 12/12/16 at 11:58am UTC, wrote It is true Eckard ,we already reduce the animals and lifes on earth, we...
Steve Dufourny: on 12/12/16 at 11:46am UTC, wrote It was me.Sorry.I beleive that the thoughts implying principles of...
Anonymous: on 12/12/16 at 11:36am UTC, wrote Thanks for sharing,he sees general ,I see a lot of rational works in themro...
RECENT FORUM POSTS
amy jones: "Google Pay provides its customers with a wide range of Google Pay Customer..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...
Georgina Woodward: "Re. ant behaviour: More ants are attracted by the chemical trails left by..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...
Georgina Woodward: "To wipe away dead ants or not was an oversimplification. It depends on..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...
Georgina Woodward: "Newton's space and time permit grandfather type paradox and time reversal...." in Bonus Koan: Distant...
Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...
Robert McEachern: "The Tegmark Paradox: "Tegmark asks whether physicists posses skills that..." in Building an AI physicist:...
Georgina Woodward: "The filled space is not space-time as that's the space 'inhabited' by..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...
Eckard Blumschein: "Notions like bottom and top belong to particular models. Ellis is certainly..." in Downward causation:...
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.
Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.
Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.
Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.
Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.
Georgina Woodward: on 7/19/17 at 14:51pm UTC, wrote All of physics, describing existent things and observation can not fit into...
Georgina Woodward: on 7/19/17 at 14:44pm UTC, wrote Re.the concept of existence: Phenomena happening over time are a different...
Georgina Woodward: on 7/19/17 at 10:48am UTC, wrote With respect, Rafael Bousso is incorrect thinking that existent things...
Yehuda Atai: on 2/14/17 at 18:25pm UTC, wrote Dear Durham. Very interesting article. we ratify our existence to each...
Steve Dufourny: on 12/12/16 at 13:12pm UTC, wrote That is why I am insisting on this comspoting at big global scale and the...
Steve Dufourny: on 12/12/16 at 11:58am UTC, wrote It is true Eckard ,we already reduce the animals and lifes on earth, we...
Steve Dufourny: on 12/12/16 at 11:46am UTC, wrote It was me.Sorry.I beleive that the thoughts implying principles of...
Anonymous: on 12/12/16 at 11:36am UTC, wrote Thanks for sharing,he sees general ,I see a lot of rational works in themro...
RECENT FORUM POSTS
amy jones: "Google Pay provides its customers with a wide range of Google Pay Customer..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...
Georgina Woodward: "Re. ant behaviour: More ants are attracted by the chemical trails left by..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...
Georgina Woodward: "To wipe away dead ants or not was an oversimplification. It depends on..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...
Georgina Woodward: "Newton's space and time permit grandfather type paradox and time reversal...." in Bonus Koan: Distant...
Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...
Robert McEachern: "The Tegmark Paradox: "Tegmark asks whether physicists posses skills that..." in Building an AI physicist:...
Georgina Woodward: "The filled space is not space-time as that's the space 'inhabited' by..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...
Eckard Blumschein: "Notions like bottom and top belong to particular models. Ellis is certainly..." in Downward causation:...
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.
Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.
Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.
Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.
Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.
FQXi BLOGS
August 22, 2019
What exists? On the one hand, this seems like the kind of naval-gazing question that provokes derision and mockery from those more interested in practical matters. I exist, you exist, this blog post exists. It's self-evident, right? Of course one could simply presume that everything they experience is nothing but a dream or illusion and that only they, themselves, actually exist. But solipsism is a useless philosophy when dealing with the IRS, say, or anyone else for that matter. So it may seem to be a silly question to ask.
On the other hand, when one delves into it more than superficially, defining existence turns out to be about as complex as defining consciousness. Putting solipsistic arguments aside, there are some things that quite obviously exist. But then there are grey areas. In my recent blog post on consciousness, I mentioned that there was a good deal of overlap between the nature of consciousness and the nature of existence. Giulio Tononi, as I pointed out, believes that there are gradations to existence that are a result of the causal power of something. I gave the example of a painting that is completed by a painter, but then the painter and painting are immediately engulfed in flames such that no record is left of the painting leaving us wondering if it ever existed in the first place.
At a certain level, it is absurd to think it didn’t exist simply because no record of it was ever made. This is actually just a rehashing of Maxwell’s demon; there is a record of it somewhere in a real universe because the act of painting it increased the entropy of the universe in some manner. A better question (and, truthfully, the real question I have about the painting) is, what became of the information associated with the aesthetic appreciation of that painting?
To put it another way, I can imagine many fanciful things that I know simply cannot exist because they violate the laws of physics: artificial gravitational fields in relatively small, non-rotating spacecraft, spacecraft that make sound in empty space, etc. While they may not be physically realizable, they nevertheless exist in my imagination which, as part of my mind, which very clearly exists. (If you read the article on consciousness, you may recall that this was Tononi’s starting assumption about consciousness.)
In philosophical circles, this is known as ontological commitment and, as the name suggests, refers to a relation between a language and something that is proposed to be “extant” by that language, i.e. something that language says exists. It is generally understood that the “thing” that is proposed to exist does not necessarily have to be physical. One of the earliest and most influential formulations of ontological commitment was given by the philosopher W.V. Quine. What is interesting is that it centers around what can be stated in a formal language. In other words, it would seem to rule out the possibility of the existence of things that are “unspeakable,” i.e. not representable in a formal manner. This is, of course, closely (though not perfectly) aligned with Heidegger’s famous question, ‘What is a thing?’
In recent decades, physicists have even begun to consider the issues of existence and “thingness.” Chris Isham and Andreas Döring, for example, have even ventured so far as to discuss the latter directly in their work on topos theory in physics, something most physicists might be tempted to avoid, at least explicitly. So it is that FQXi convened an entire panel at this year’s conference devoted to discussing the concept of existence.
While Tononi was not actually on the panel himself, he did, as I mentioned, address the issue when he discussed consciousness, equating levels of existence with degrees of causal power: maximal existence is possessed by things with maximal causal power. Though the concept of gradations of existence is missing, Rafael Bousso’s theory of existence could be viewed as philosophically kin to Tononi’s. Bousso makes the claim that the only thing that exists is a particular causal “patch” in spacetime (this is somewhat similar to the concept of a causal “diamond”). It is his view that everything that we can measure is in a particular causal patch and it is meaningless to consider anything else. It might be tempting to think that Bousso’s approach is just a restatement of the hard-line operationalist view that would deny the existence of the moon if no one is looking at it, but I think that would be a mischaracterization. What he is really saying is that it is meaningless to talk about the existence of things that we have no hope of ever measuring. For example, he emphasized that this rules out the existence of a typical multiverse since it isn’t contained within our causal diamond (no word on what his theory might say about Wiseman’s many-interacting worlds hypothesis). The causal patch does contain many possible histories which, I suppose, might make it compatible with some consistent history theories of quantum mechanics. But the causal patch, which appears to be Bousso’s only bound on measurability, is fairly limiting. For example, it conveniently does not rule out the non-measurable aspects of string theory (of which he is a proponent). The fact remains that not all limitations on measurability are necessarily due to the dynamics of space and time.
Some of the questions I have already raised are indicative of the types of problems that the concept of a causal patch does not address. For example, Jenann Ismael asked how we can meaningfully talk about evolving interactions between the mind and the world if the mind is in the world? The more general formulation of this question might be to ask how we can meaningfully talk about interactions between a sub-system with a larger system of which it is a part. But then, as Steve Giddings pointed out, how do we properly define a sub-system?
When polled on the concept of existence, the panel offered a wide array of views, from Carlo Rovelli’s musings about the “existence” of Hamlet, to Laura Mersini-Houghton’s assertion that existence requires an observer. Ismael explicitly mentioned Quine by name, though said her views are a somewhat modified version of his arguments about ontological commitment. Bousso took a slightly different tack when pressed on the topic and said that, ultimately, what matters are the fundamental, base axioms from which everything else can be derived. In my notes, I wrote “I’m surprised to find myself agreeing with Rafael” on this point. But in hindsight I’m not sure why I wrote that since every attempt to axiomatically derive physics has, to date, failed. I wrote my PhD thesis on one such failed attempt (Eddington’s). So I suppose I will fall back on Tononi’s position: I know I exist. Perhaps the rest of you can be derived, but perhaps not.
this post has been edited by the forum administrator
report post as inappropriate
On the other hand, when one delves into it more than superficially, defining existence turns out to be about as complex as defining consciousness. Putting solipsistic arguments aside, there are some things that quite obviously exist. But then there are grey areas. In my recent blog post on consciousness, I mentioned that there was a good deal of overlap between the nature of consciousness and the nature of existence. Giulio Tononi, as I pointed out, believes that there are gradations to existence that are a result of the causal power of something. I gave the example of a painting that is completed by a painter, but then the painter and painting are immediately engulfed in flames such that no record is left of the painting leaving us wondering if it ever existed in the first place.
At a certain level, it is absurd to think it didn’t exist simply because no record of it was ever made. This is actually just a rehashing of Maxwell’s demon; there is a record of it somewhere in a real universe because the act of painting it increased the entropy of the universe in some manner. A better question (and, truthfully, the real question I have about the painting) is, what became of the information associated with the aesthetic appreciation of that painting?
To put it another way, I can imagine many fanciful things that I know simply cannot exist because they violate the laws of physics: artificial gravitational fields in relatively small, non-rotating spacecraft, spacecraft that make sound in empty space, etc. While they may not be physically realizable, they nevertheless exist in my imagination which, as part of my mind, which very clearly exists. (If you read the article on consciousness, you may recall that this was Tononi’s starting assumption about consciousness.)
In philosophical circles, this is known as ontological commitment and, as the name suggests, refers to a relation between a language and something that is proposed to be “extant” by that language, i.e. something that language says exists. It is generally understood that the “thing” that is proposed to exist does not necessarily have to be physical. One of the earliest and most influential formulations of ontological commitment was given by the philosopher W.V. Quine. What is interesting is that it centers around what can be stated in a formal language. In other words, it would seem to rule out the possibility of the existence of things that are “unspeakable,” i.e. not representable in a formal manner. This is, of course, closely (though not perfectly) aligned with Heidegger’s famous question, ‘What is a thing?’
In recent decades, physicists have even begun to consider the issues of existence and “thingness.” Chris Isham and Andreas Döring, for example, have even ventured so far as to discuss the latter directly in their work on topos theory in physics, something most physicists might be tempted to avoid, at least explicitly. So it is that FQXi convened an entire panel at this year’s conference devoted to discussing the concept of existence.
While Tononi was not actually on the panel himself, he did, as I mentioned, address the issue when he discussed consciousness, equating levels of existence with degrees of causal power: maximal existence is possessed by things with maximal causal power. Though the concept of gradations of existence is missing, Rafael Bousso’s theory of existence could be viewed as philosophically kin to Tononi’s. Bousso makes the claim that the only thing that exists is a particular causal “patch” in spacetime (this is somewhat similar to the concept of a causal “diamond”). It is his view that everything that we can measure is in a particular causal patch and it is meaningless to consider anything else. It might be tempting to think that Bousso’s approach is just a restatement of the hard-line operationalist view that would deny the existence of the moon if no one is looking at it, but I think that would be a mischaracterization. What he is really saying is that it is meaningless to talk about the existence of things that we have no hope of ever measuring. For example, he emphasized that this rules out the existence of a typical multiverse since it isn’t contained within our causal diamond (no word on what his theory might say about Wiseman’s many-interacting worlds hypothesis). The causal patch does contain many possible histories which, I suppose, might make it compatible with some consistent history theories of quantum mechanics. But the causal patch, which appears to be Bousso’s only bound on measurability, is fairly limiting. For example, it conveniently does not rule out the non-measurable aspects of string theory (of which he is a proponent). The fact remains that not all limitations on measurability are necessarily due to the dynamics of space and time.
Some of the questions I have already raised are indicative of the types of problems that the concept of a causal patch does not address. For example, Jenann Ismael asked how we can meaningfully talk about evolving interactions between the mind and the world if the mind is in the world? The more general formulation of this question might be to ask how we can meaningfully talk about interactions between a sub-system with a larger system of which it is a part. But then, as Steve Giddings pointed out, how do we properly define a sub-system?
When polled on the concept of existence, the panel offered a wide array of views, from Carlo Rovelli’s musings about the “existence” of Hamlet, to Laura Mersini-Houghton’s assertion that existence requires an observer. Ismael explicitly mentioned Quine by name, though said her views are a somewhat modified version of his arguments about ontological commitment. Bousso took a slightly different tack when pressed on the topic and said that, ultimately, what matters are the fundamental, base axioms from which everything else can be derived. In my notes, I wrote “I’m surprised to find myself agreeing with Rafael” on this point. But in hindsight I’m not sure why I wrote that since every attempt to axiomatically derive physics has, to date, failed. I wrote my PhD thesis on one such failed attempt (Eddington’s). So I suppose I will fall back on Tononi’s position: I know I exist. Perhaps the rest of you can be derived, but perhaps not.
report post as inappropriate
Hello Mr Durham I beleive simply God was alone,so this infinity has created a project of love to share its infinite consciousness:)wonderfull article Mr Durham.We are because we are physical créations in evolution and gravitational souls in evolution.The codes,information are created and evolve ..;
Warmest regards
report post as inappropriate
Warmest regards
Hi Ian, interesting article. It is useful to differentiate between actualisations, bodies that are fermion particles or consist of collections of such particles and images of such objects produced from received information, or generated internally from stored information; Perception and imagination of objects (manifestations). Concepts and/or knowledge of something without imagining or perceiving it forms another category of existence, into which Hamlet may fall.A pattern of brain activity associated with experience of ideas about Hamlet. Or he might be imagined and experienced as an imagined manifestation, or even, if acted by a person he would be an actualisation named Hamlet (for the role).I think this shows that the ideas about existence have been too narrow, often considered as just one category. The assertion that existence requires an observer is considering only an aspect of existence-the information derived existence. Important is, how the information within the World, available to the mind, is used; and to realize that what it produces from that information is not the external world itself.
report post as inappropriate
Re. what becomes of the aesthetic appreciation of the painting? The appreciation of the painting is not merely contained in the information emitted from the intact painting but is produced by the observer using both the input information and other knowledge, experience and memory. For example if the picture shows corn flowers the colour my remind one viewer of the sea on a sunny day, and another of visiting Grandma. The arrangement of the information may evoke recognition if it is a realistic image or evoke thoughts and emotions because of the arrangement of forms or colours. The burnt painting will provide different information that might evoke repulsion, sadness , confusion or other responses. The appreciation of the painting is a new pattern (of brain activity) produced from the processing of the received information -a different pattern formed if the Painting information has been disorganized in the fire.
report post as inappropriate
My views on existence are:
1. I think a thing exists if it is a grouping or relationship defining what is contained within. This grouping/relationship is equivalent to a surface, edge or boundary defining what is contained within and giving "substance" and existence to the thing. Some examples of existent entities and their groupings defining what is contained within are as...
view entire post
1. I think a thing exists if it is a grouping or relationship defining what is contained within. This grouping/relationship is equivalent to a surface, edge or boundary defining what is contained within and giving "substance" and existence to the thing. Some examples of existent entities and their groupings defining what is contained within are as...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Interesting view Roger. It seems to me that the simple building blocks of matter, the fundamental particles must also be considered to exist. Pure sensations such as sharp pain are also experienced as real.There are also those abstract things not being thought about, residing in records such as books and memories, or other kinds of record. There are at least 3 different kinds of existence falling under the one term existence. Existence in records is very different from the manifestations of imagination and perception and all of the aforementioned are very different from actualised objects existing independently of minds and records of them. A dinosaur in a book is very different from a dinosaur imagined and a dinosaur beast in the flesh. So the term existence, without differentiation, is inadequate for physics.
report post as inappropriate
As pointed out by Ian, there are gradations of existence. Man exists so does the simplest bacteria. A computer like Deep Blue exists so does the cheapest handheld calculator. And as Georgina pointed out, what should be the concern of physicists is what is physical existence? Love, happiness is not the province of physicists and belong to different categories.
Then as to what physically exists? It can’t just be red things, because the color can be removed and the thing will still exist, transparent things exist. It can’t be mass, because massless things exist. It can’t be charge either because chargeless things exist. Can it be extension, i.e. being of some size (length)? If you remove size from something can it still exist?
I would think the answer will be No to the last question. If so, the most fundamental prerequisite to say something exists is to be extended.
But not only do things exist in our universe, we see activity. Therefore an associated property of such fundamental extended things is that they must be capable of moving. Or as some physicists will like to put it, it must be capable of acting or being acted upon.
In summary, to apprehend the quality of physical existence it could be helpful to apprehend that of non-existence and infer from this that anything possessing properties opposite to that of non-existence exists. Thus, anything that has no extension, that cannot move or that cannot act or be acted upon does not exist.
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Then as to what physically exists? It can’t just be red things, because the color can be removed and the thing will still exist, transparent things exist. It can’t be mass, because massless things exist. It can’t be charge either because chargeless things exist. Can it be extension, i.e. being of some size (length)? If you remove size from something can it still exist?
I would think the answer will be No to the last question. If so, the most fundamental prerequisite to say something exists is to be extended.
But not only do things exist in our universe, we see activity. Therefore an associated property of such fundamental extended things is that they must be capable of moving. Or as some physicists will like to put it, it must be capable of acting or being acted upon.
In summary, to apprehend the quality of physical existence it could be helpful to apprehend that of non-existence and infer from this that anything possessing properties opposite to that of non-existence exists. Thus, anything that has no extension, that cannot move or that cannot act or be acted upon does not exist.
Akinbo
There is nothing wrong with reducing existence to an identity; existence is what exists. We learn as young children certain primal axioms that anchor consciousness with belief. The simplest axioms are beliefs in matter and action and from those identities, our spectrometer of consciousness then makes sense out of the universe.
The spectrometer of consciousness builds moments of thought with neural aware matter that then grows into the connectome of the primitive mind. The circularity of primal belief is necessary to anchor this process and avoid the unending recursion of madness and schizophrenia.
WhyDoesTheWorldExist?
1A) A book without any matter is a pure idea and exists in the neural matter of someone's brain as a thought.
1B) The set of all positive integers is also a pure idea and so exists in the neural matter of someone's brain as a thought.
1C) Feelings like love exist in the primitive mind and are due to the connectome. Each feeling that we have is a neural object largely from subconscious thought.
These are all identities. Thoughts exist because they exist. Ideas are neural objects in which we simply believe and those beliefs we all share in order to make sense out of sensation and the pleasure of discovery.
2) Things exist because we sense them due to the pleasure of discovery in spite of any anxiety over the unknown. This is an identity. Things exist because they exist.
report post as inappropriate
The spectrometer of consciousness builds moments of thought with neural aware matter that then grows into the connectome of the primitive mind. The circularity of primal belief is necessary to anchor this process and avoid the unending recursion of madness and schizophrenia.
WhyDoesTheWorldExist?
1A) A book without any matter is a pure idea and exists in the neural matter of someone's brain as a thought.
1B) The set of all positive integers is also a pure idea and so exists in the neural matter of someone's brain as a thought.
1C) Feelings like love exist in the primitive mind and are due to the connectome. Each feeling that we have is a neural object largely from subconscious thought.
These are all identities. Thoughts exist because they exist. Ideas are neural objects in which we simply believe and those beliefs we all share in order to make sense out of sensation and the pleasure of discovery.
2) Things exist because we sense them due to the pleasure of discovery in spite of any anxiety over the unknown. This is an identity. Things exist because they exist.
It is interesting, an idea exist, like a stone.
There is not a direct measurability of an idea, or rather even a reading, or rather an interaction with a physical object containing the idea is a measurability of an idea with human senses (for example touch sense for the blind, or sound waves).
But exist an object that interact with a space zone where the human race will never see? From an human point of view that object does not exist, and an idea does not exist if there is not a communication channel (using interactions) between object and human (otherwise we rely on faith and the existence of angels, and fairies that exist only as ideas in the brain of the children).
It seem that the existence is purely a human concept (or a conscious being concept), if an object exist then it must be measurable physically, with senses or sensors.
report post as inappropriate
There is not a direct measurability of an idea, or rather even a reading, or rather an interaction with a physical object containing the idea is a measurability of an idea with human senses (for example touch sense for the blind, or sound waves).
But exist an object that interact with a space zone where the human race will never see? From an human point of view that object does not exist, and an idea does not exist if there is not a communication channel (using interactions) between object and human (otherwise we rely on faith and the existence of angels, and fairies that exist only as ideas in the brain of the children).
It seem that the existence is purely a human concept (or a conscious being concept), if an object exist then it must be measurable physically, with senses or sensors.
Hi Domenico,
I like the point you are making about measure-ability. I think it must be admitted that things can exist without human knowledge of them. If not there would be no new discoveries-yet new species are being discover still. Such as the Ghost snake discovered recently in Madagascar. Without knowledge, the unknown do not exist within human thoughts and records, yet can still be independently existing, interacting with their human-less immediate environment. While it is important to admit there may yet be things unknown to humankind in the universe, it is important to realize that that is not saying therefore all unseen and unknown things that might be imagined must also have actualized existence. I think the actualized existence of something makes it potentially measurable yet it can still be un-measureable due to, for example, inaccessibility or lack of knowledge that it exists to be measured. While the technology is still in its infancy it is possible that thoughts can be measured and known from that. I have seen reports (in the New Scientist and News reports) of experiments where the brain waves detected when a subject is viewing an unknown image can be matched to brain waves detected during previous known viewing of the same image-thereby allowing knowledge of the thought that is occurring. So though a thought does not exist in the same way as an object in external reality it is also potentially measurable.
report post as inappropriate
I like the point you are making about measure-ability. I think it must be admitted that things can exist without human knowledge of them. If not there would be no new discoveries-yet new species are being discover still. Such as the Ghost snake discovered recently in Madagascar. Without knowledge, the unknown do not exist within human thoughts and records, yet can still be independently existing, interacting with their human-less immediate environment. While it is important to admit there may yet be things unknown to humankind in the universe, it is important to realize that that is not saying therefore all unseen and unknown things that might be imagined must also have actualized existence. I think the actualized existence of something makes it potentially measurable yet it can still be un-measureable due to, for example, inaccessibility or lack of knowledge that it exists to be measured. While the technology is still in its infancy it is possible that thoughts can be measured and known from that. I have seen reports (in the New Scientist and News reports) of experiments where the brain waves detected when a subject is viewing an unknown image can be matched to brain waves detected during previous known viewing of the same image-thereby allowing knowledge of the thought that is occurring. So though a thought does not exist in the same way as an object in external reality it is also potentially measurable.
Hi Georgina.
Yes, good points.
An unknown object may be known as an indirect measure of its tracks (fossils, Archimedes palimpsest), but this is possible because of the object can still be interacted with us.
Objects that live outside of our measurability sphere (like human races, in these little thousands of years) will remain forever unknown (zone in Minkowski space beyond the light cone, in the absolute elsewhere): so that these object exist for the Nature, but does not exist for us.
report post as inappropriate
Yes, good points.
An unknown object may be known as an indirect measure of its tracks (fossils, Archimedes palimpsest), but this is possible because of the object can still be interacted with us.
Objects that live outside of our measurability sphere (like human races, in these little thousands of years) will remain forever unknown (zone in Minkowski space beyond the light cone, in the absolute elsewhere): so that these object exist for the Nature, but does not exist for us.
Dear Durham.
I can prove that the real observable Universe must be of the simplest physical construction obtainable, and the simplest visible observable construction that can be seen by any real observer am unified infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
Your meandering pretentious speculation about any abstract person’s invisible consciousness is utterly unrealistic.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
I can prove that the real observable Universe must be of the simplest physical construction obtainable, and the simplest visible observable construction that can be seen by any real observer am unified infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
Your meandering pretentious speculation about any abstract person’s invisible consciousness is utterly unrealistic.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Fisher,
Why do you only use people's last names? Just curious.
Durham, Unrealist
report post as inappropriate
Why do you only use people's last names? Just curious.
Durham, Unrealist
Dear Dr. Durham,
Please forgive me, I meant no disrespect. Could you now comment on my sublime proof that the real observable Universe must be of the simplest physical construction obtainable, and the simplest visible observable construction that can be seen by any real observer am unified infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Please forgive me, I meant no disrespect. Could you now comment on my sublime proof that the real observable Universe must be of the simplest physical construction obtainable, and the simplest visible observable construction that can be seen by any real observer am unified infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Dear Mr. Fisher,
To be completely honest with you, I really don't understand your sublime proof. Perhaps you could offer some details?
ITD
report post as inappropriate
To be completely honest with you, I really don't understand your sublime proof. Perhaps you could offer some details?
ITD
Existence by ontological commitment is a complexifiction of the simple identity that objects exist because they exist and so the stuff of objects, matter, is simply a primal belief. Likewise, ideas exist because they exist and so the notion of ideas as aware matter objects in the brain is really quite simple as well. The aware matter objects in our brain form from moments of thought during...
view entire post
view entire post
"classical measurements are invariant with respect to order" This is not true.
It is true for linear systems, but frequently untrue for non-linear systems.
Audio beats are a familiar example. They are mathematically equivalent to a sum of closely spaced sinusoids, but you NEVER heard that - you hear an amplitude modulated single tone: squaring a signal, then filtering it to reduce its bandwidth, yields a completely different result than that obtained by reversing the order of the operations.
Canonical commutation relations are defined in relation to functions that are each others Fourier Transform; which exist in both the classical and the quantum realm. Indeed, the quantum uncertainty relation, the best known commutation relation, is merely a special, limiting case of the Classical expression for the Shannon Capacity.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
It is true for linear systems, but frequently untrue for non-linear systems.
Audio beats are a familiar example. They are mathematically equivalent to a sum of closely spaced sinusoids, but you NEVER heard that - you hear an amplitude modulated single tone: squaring a signal, then filtering it to reduce its bandwidth, yields a completely different result than that obtained by reversing the order of the operations.
Canonical commutation relations are defined in relation to functions that are each others Fourier Transform; which exist in both the classical and the quantum realm. Indeed, the quantum uncertainty relation, the best known commutation relation, is merely a special, limiting case of the Classical expression for the Shannon Capacity.
Rob McEachern
I am afraid that I have to respectfully disagree. It is true that the filter applied to a squared signal is different from the filter applied to the original amplitude, but the results are the same for classical noise. FS + SF, F^2 S^2 = S^2 F^2.
The Shannon capacity is limited by both classical as well as quantum noise. When the Shannon capacity is limited by quantum noise, what you claimed is true and there is a noncommutivity. When the Shannon capacity is limited by classical noise, the filter commutes with the products. You have to know that this has to be because that is how Fourier filters work...
report post as inappropriate
The Shannon capacity is limited by both classical as well as quantum noise. When the Shannon capacity is limited by quantum noise, what you claimed is true and there is a noncommutivity. When the Shannon capacity is limited by classical noise, the filter commutes with the products. You have to know that this has to be because that is how Fourier filters work...
It is only the same if the bandwidths remain the same. The point you are missing, is that non-linear systems can change the bandwidths of both signals and noise. Hence, it matters if you change the bandwidth, before or after any filtering, that further limits the bandwidth.
There is no difference between classical and quantum noise, except in the manner observers have chosen to perceive them - a priori knowledge (or beliefs about what is being observed) can, and do, have a real effect upon both the measurements and their interpretations.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
There is no difference between classical and quantum noise, except in the manner observers have chosen to perceive them - a priori knowledge (or beliefs about what is being observed) can, and do, have a real effect upon both the measurements and their interpretations.
Rob McEachern
George Berkeley answered this question about 300 years ago: what exists is what is experienced. Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg etc. gave us the same answer from an experimental perspective: time (the moving present) and particles (with position and momentum) are observations, not fundamental realities. They exist to the extent they're observed, i.e. experienced.
If we want to talk about what 'exists' we need a meaningful, non-circular definition of 'existence' - it's no good just waving hands and saying, ha, ha, we all know what 'exist' means so let's move on. And when we make a serious attempt we all end up at the same place: 'exists' means 'is experienced' and absolutely nothing else.
When confronted with this inescapable conclusion, the trendy thing to do is to label it "new age nonsense" or something similar - and then change the subject. Of course, Berkeley anticipated this defense and his response to it is as timeless as the rest of his thoughts on the subject.
Physics has spun its wheels for the last 100 years in trying to reestablish a 19th century frame of reference for any discussion of ontology or consciousness. It's only impeded progress.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
If we want to talk about what 'exists' we need a meaningful, non-circular definition of 'existence' - it's no good just waving hands and saying, ha, ha, we all know what 'exist' means so let's move on. And when we make a serious attempt we all end up at the same place: 'exists' means 'is experienced' and absolutely nothing else.
When confronted with this inescapable conclusion, the trendy thing to do is to label it "new age nonsense" or something similar - and then change the subject. Of course, Berkeley anticipated this defense and his response to it is as timeless as the rest of his thoughts on the subject.
Physics has spun its wheels for the last 100 years in trying to reestablish a 19th century frame of reference for any discussion of ontology or consciousness. It's only impeded progress.
report post as inappropriate
Jim with respect I strongly disagree. QM requires an ontic background to be a complete model. The apparatus, its adjustments/settings and the observer have to exist of themselves.There have to be admissible beables. And relativity contains a category error whereby material reality is muddled with images generated from received EM information. The same ontic background is missing from both physics models. You wrote " 'exists' means 'is experienced' and absolutely nothing else." I think you might agree that hallucinations can be experienced but are not considered to be the same as external material objects. There needs to be differentiation of different kinds of existence to overcome a number of problems in physics.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
Berkeley also addressed the "existence of dreams" objection. Dreams aren't shared, can't 'experienced' by others, so are in a different category. Berkeley saw reality as the shared story which is the sum of all our universally verifiable experiences.
With regard to an ontological requirement of QM, I'm not familiar with that idea. I think "physical" is just as lacking in definition as "existence". It's an empty concept - really just a placeholder for a concept we somehow wish we had.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Berkeley also addressed the "existence of dreams" objection. Dreams aren't shared, can't 'experienced' by others, so are in a different category. Berkeley saw reality as the shared story which is the sum of all our universally verifiable experiences.
With regard to an ontological requirement of QM, I'm not familiar with that idea. I think "physical" is just as lacking in definition as "existence". It's an empty concept - really just a placeholder for a concept we somehow wish we had.
report post as inappropriate
Yota Space launch Mikailovsky Castle The shared experience of the audience of this presentation is derived from the projected and then reflected information. It is different from the underlying reality of the material castle. For the castle to be both as it is seen and experienced here and as it is unseen IE, its material atomic structure, there have to be two different categories of reality/existence. The produced from received information and agreed upon by corroboration of experience and the independently existing. No independently existing material castle there is no backdrop for the projected information from which the different experience is produced.
report post as inappropriate
Hi Ian ,
you wrote"When polled on the concept of existence, the panel offered a wide array of views,..." Was there any discussion about the different categories of existence? As it is so important. You wrote "For example, Jenann Ismael asked how we can meaningfully talk about evolving interactions between the mind and the world if the mind is in the world?" Though the thoughts due to brain activity are part of the ever changing configuration of the Object universe (the material universe) that brain activity is not itself featured as a product of that brain activity- unless the person is looking at an read out of their electrical brain activity for example. The information derived product of the mind is not itself the material world. Compare: The story in a book is not the world in which the book exists. You mention "Laura Mersini-Houghton’s assertion that existence requires an observer." Knowledge of something requires receipt of information. So that it can 'exist' in the mind; but an object does not need an observer to receive information from it to exist. The Image reality product requires the Object reality source but the source does not require the Image reality. It's a one way street.
report post as inappropriate
you wrote"When polled on the concept of existence, the panel offered a wide array of views,..." Was there any discussion about the different categories of existence? As it is so important. You wrote "For example, Jenann Ismael asked how we can meaningfully talk about evolving interactions between the mind and the world if the mind is in the world?" Though the thoughts due to brain activity are part of the ever changing configuration of the Object universe (the material universe) that brain activity is not itself featured as a product of that brain activity- unless the person is looking at an read out of their electrical brain activity for example. The information derived product of the mind is not itself the material world. Compare: The story in a book is not the world in which the book exists. You mention "Laura Mersini-Houghton’s assertion that existence requires an observer." Knowledge of something requires receipt of information. So that it can 'exist' in the mind; but an object does not need an observer to receive information from it to exist. The Image reality product requires the Object reality source but the source does not require the Image reality. It's a one way street.
Re.the concept of existence: Phenomena happening over time are a different category of existence, being a pattern that emerges over the sequence of uni-temporal configurations; Rather than existent "material"things that can exist within uni-temporal-Now. The product of brain activity reaching conscious awareness as thoughts is a phenomenon.
report post as inappropriate
SOME AREAS OF PHYSICS STILL AFFECTED BY PARMENIDES CURSE
About the 5th century B.C.E., the Greek philosopher and thinker, Parmenides, who was also a teacher to Zeno of Elea proffered a line of thought that has virtually become a spell binding mathematicians, physicists and philosophers after him. The spell goes thus: "How could what is, thereafter perish? And how could it come into...
view entire post
About the 5th century B.C.E., the Greek philosopher and thinker, Parmenides, who was also a teacher to Zeno of Elea proffered a line of thought that has virtually become a spell binding mathematicians, physicists and philosophers after him. The spell goes thus: "How could what is, thereafter perish? And how could it come into...
view entire post
Akinbo,
The thing to remember regarding the infinitesimal from calculus is that it is the difference between two values. The derivative is defined as {f(x+dx) - f(x)}/dx.
The reason that it works is because the algebraic functions expand in such a way that there is a dx in the numerator that cancels the dx in the denominator.
Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
The thing to remember regarding the infinitesimal from calculus is that it is the difference between two values. The derivative is defined as {f(x+dx) - f(x)}/dx.
The reason that it works is because the algebraic functions expand in such a way that there is a dx in the numerator that cancels the dx in the denominator.
Regards,
Gary Simpson
Gary,
As I hinted in previous conversation on Calculus 2.0 I am not expert in math. But from what you wrote, The derivative is defined as {f(x+dx) - f(x)}/dx, does it apply to dx = 0? If so, the derivative has an indeterminate value that can either be 0, 1 or ∞. I am therefore of the view that this is a mathematical trick aimed at resolving a physically difficult situation. How can something have three different values?
Moreover, now that quantum gravity theorists are now inclined towards "atoms of space", and space that is no longer infinitely divisible what becomes of your darling Calculus? Can't you come up with a better mathematical trick?
I have come up with mine. dx does not exist eternally but is eroded (i.e. disappears) in the direction of motion of a body.
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
As I hinted in previous conversation on Calculus 2.0 I am not expert in math. But from what you wrote, The derivative is defined as {f(x+dx) - f(x)}/dx, does it apply to dx = 0? If so, the derivative has an indeterminate value that can either be 0, 1 or ∞. I am therefore of the view that this is a mathematical trick aimed at resolving a physically difficult situation. How can something have three different values?
Moreover, now that quantum gravity theorists are now inclined towards "atoms of space", and space that is no longer infinitely divisible what becomes of your darling Calculus? Can't you come up with a better mathematical trick?
I have come up with mine. dx does not exist eternally but is eroded (i.e. disappears) in the direction of motion of a body.
Regards,
Akinbo
Akinbo,
Consider the following:
Let f(x) = ax.
df/dx = {a(x+dx) - ax}/dx
df/dx = {(ax + adx) - ax}/dx
df/dx = adx/dx
df/dx = a
Did you notice that the dx term cancels in the numerator and denominator? It does that for all of the algebraic type functions. You might need to work through the details to convince yourself. For the example above, the...
view entire post
Consider the following:
Let f(x) = ax.
df/dx = {a(x+dx) - ax}/dx
df/dx = {(ax + adx) - ax}/dx
df/dx = adx/dx
df/dx = a
Did you notice that the dx term cancels in the numerator and denominator? It does that for all of the algebraic type functions. You might need to work through the details to convince yourself. For the example above, the...
view entire post
Dear Fellow Sagacious Comment Providers,
The physical construction of the observable Universe must be of the simplest nature permissible. All I am asking you to do is to notice that no matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed varied colored surfaces. You cannot see invisible empty space. There must only be one unified infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. When one uses the word “is,” one implies a finite state arising from a finite state of was. The word “am” is truly descriptive of a state of infinity.
If you disagree with me, kindly provide me with an explanation for your disagreement.
Thank you for reading my spellbinding material,
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
The physical construction of the observable Universe must be of the simplest nature permissible. All I am asking you to do is to notice that no matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed varied colored surfaces. You cannot see invisible empty space. There must only be one unified infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. When one uses the word “is,” one implies a finite state arising from a finite state of was. The word “am” is truly descriptive of a state of infinity.
If you disagree with me, kindly provide me with an explanation for your disagreement.
Thank you for reading my spellbinding material,
Joe Fisher, Realist
What exists?
This was the question that Zeno addresed in his paradoxes.
If the midpoint that Zeno described in the race with the tortoise exists, then in a world of finite sequences, there is no way that Achilles can overtake the tortoise.
But Achilles somehow (beyond just thinking about it) knows something that trumps (sorry) even his own beliefs. Which suggests another story:
Achilles and the tortoise walk into a bar the night before the big race.
Tortoise starts drawing again and again on napkins. The by-standers hear Tortoise ask Achilles again and again after each napkin--
"Are we there yet?"
Achilles: "No."
Tortoise crumples up the napkin and draws on another.
Again and again.
So--
Will Achilles show up the next morning to run the race?
(Your answer here.)
My answer:
Of course.
Achilles will show up to run the race the next morning.
No matter what the Tortoise might have convinced him to believe the night before.
Why?
Because somehow, beyond just thinking about it, Achilles knows who he is.
That is, he knows what exists
He knows that he exists.
A human being--
who can easily walk faster than a tortoise.
More on this here.
report post as inappropriate
This was the question that Zeno addresed in his paradoxes.
If the midpoint that Zeno described in the race with the tortoise exists, then in a world of finite sequences, there is no way that Achilles can overtake the tortoise.
But Achilles somehow (beyond just thinking about it) knows something that trumps (sorry) even his own beliefs. Which suggests another story:
Achilles and the tortoise walk into a bar the night before the big race.
Tortoise starts drawing again and again on napkins. The by-standers hear Tortoise ask Achilles again and again after each napkin--
"Are we there yet?"
Achilles: "No."
Tortoise crumples up the napkin and draws on another.
Again and again.
So--
Will Achilles show up the next morning to run the race?
(Your answer here.)
My answer:
Of course.
Achilles will show up to run the race the next morning.
No matter what the Tortoise might have convinced him to believe the night before.
Why?
Because somehow, beyond just thinking about it, Achilles knows who he is.
That is, he knows what exists
He knows that he exists.
A human being--
who can easily walk faster than a tortoise.
An equation for what exists--
Shrodinger wrote that his equation modeled only a spherical wave, not the continuous existence of a unique particle. (The quotation is here.) Continuous existence of the particle would have to be modeled by a different equation.
This might be the simplest:
particle = (physicalExtension, particle)
Which on recursive application, becomes:
particle = (physicalExtension, (physicalExtension, particle))
particle = (physicalExtension, (physicalExtension, (physicalExtension, particle)))
And so on.
In this equation the particle is not an object. It is a process.
The physical extension might be here, it might be there... "physical extension" is the *type* of the element produced. And as Schrodinger wrote, observation is not a continuous process. It is a discrete event.
report post as inappropriate
Shrodinger wrote that his equation modeled only a spherical wave, not the continuous existence of a unique particle. (The quotation is here.) Continuous existence of the particle would have to be modeled by a different equation.
This might be the simplest:
particle = (physicalExtension, particle)
Which on recursive application, becomes:
particle = (physicalExtension, (physicalExtension, particle))
particle = (physicalExtension, (physicalExtension, (physicalExtension, particle)))
And so on.
In this equation the particle is not an object. It is a process.
The physical extension might be here, it might be there... "physical extension" is the *type* of the element produced. And as Schrodinger wrote, observation is not a continuous process. It is a discrete event.
There are problems with models of existence based on the continuum, according to John Baez in his paper Struggles with the continuum.
A worldline in GR spacetime, a point in 3D space, or a point moving on a timeline, each as a model of something that exists, involve a pre-existing continuum before the line or point that models the existence of something can be imagined. From this continuum, arise the various problems of which JB informs us.
Alternatively, is there a way to model existence of something without imagining any continuum at all?
The equation self = (self) might be an example.
It is a non-wellfounded set.
(Again, the references I use are here.)
Nothing existing would mean the empty set: ()
To create something that exists would mean to put it inside the set. So instead of nothing existing inside the set, there is now inside the set the thing that exists: (self) Writing "(self)" would model creation.
Next, setting self=(self) generates a stream of such creations.
self = ((((...(self)...))))
Existence would be an on-going stream of creations.
This could also be modeled by a Petri net. Please see the attached drawing.
attachments: image.jpeg
report post as inappropriate
A worldline in GR spacetime, a point in 3D space, or a point moving on a timeline, each as a model of something that exists, involve a pre-existing continuum before the line or point that models the existence of something can be imagined. From this continuum, arise the various problems of which JB informs us.
Alternatively, is there a way to model existence of something without imagining any continuum at all?
The equation self = (self) might be an example.
It is a non-wellfounded set.
(Again, the references I use are here.)
Nothing existing would mean the empty set: ()
To create something that exists would mean to put it inside the set. So instead of nothing existing inside the set, there is now inside the set the thing that exists: (self) Writing "(self)" would model creation.
Next, setting self=(self) generates a stream of such creations.
self = ((((...(self)...))))
Existence would be an on-going stream of creations.
This could also be modeled by a Petri net. Please see the attached drawing.
attachments: image.jpeg
What exist is a mathematical structure that the reality we experience is a proof of.
This structure gives rise QM AND gravity in one coherent system.
you can run these easy simulations for yourself and confirm this structure.
www.reality-theory.net/a.htm
Don't miss out on gravity.
www.reality-theory.net/gravity.html
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
This structure gives rise QM AND gravity in one coherent system.
you can run these easy simulations for yourself and confirm this structure.
www.reality-theory.net/a.htm
Don't miss out on gravity.
www.reality-theory.net/gravity.html
report post as inappropriate
Dear Adel Sadeq,
Finite mathematical symbolism needs a real surface for its representation. As real observable surface am infinite, it follows that only infinite symbolic representation can be projected onto any surface.
The physical construction of the observable Universe must be of the simplest nature permissible. All I am asking you to do is to notice that no matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed varied colored surfaces. You cannot see invisible empty space. There must only be one unified infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. When one uses the word “is,” one implies a finite state arising from a finite state of was. The word “am” is truly descriptive of a state of infinity.
If you disagree with me, kindly provide me with an explanation for your disagreement.
Thank you for reading my spellbinding material,
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Finite mathematical symbolism needs a real surface for its representation. As real observable surface am infinite, it follows that only infinite symbolic representation can be projected onto any surface.
The physical construction of the observable Universe must be of the simplest nature permissible. All I am asking you to do is to notice that no matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed varied colored surfaces. You cannot see invisible empty space. There must only be one unified infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. When one uses the word “is,” one implies a finite state arising from a finite state of was. The word “am” is truly descriptive of a state of infinity.
If you disagree with me, kindly provide me with an explanation for your disagreement.
Thank you for reading my spellbinding material,
Joe Fisher, Realist
The most concise definition I have heard for "to exist" is by Henri Bergson. Bounded by the terms of self-organization:
"To exist is to change. To change is to mature. To mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly." ~ Matter and Memory
It's bad logic to take existence as a property to itself.
report post as inappropriate
"To exist is to change. To change is to mature. To mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly." ~ Matter and Memory
It's bad logic to take existence as a property to itself.
Tom, this definition choice surprises me. Not because existence and change are not associated but because they are not synonymous, and not all change is maturation, it isn't endless- maturation is usually followed by senescence and decay, and it isn't a particularly concise definition. I can see from the source you have mentioned that that definition has likely been taken from a particular context. So it would be great if you would expand a bit on that context. I'm also interested in why you say it is bad logic to take existence as a property to itself. We do assign all sorts of properties to things that can't be of themselves in in isolation. I think of change as energy which is a different concept from existence. the difference between doing and being. Even if in nature they are inseparable, as concepts I'd say they are separable and not synonymous.
report post as inappropriate
Tom, I've been thinking that this definition you have given may be referring to all of existence and not things that exist within that. Like a secular alternative to the Creation. I still have my doubts about the "endless maturation". Certainly there is change; structures form and structures disintegrate, cells mature and die or are 'pruned' by apoptosis, individuals die and individuals are born, species rise and become extinct , astronomic bodies form and are destroyed and new ones form from the debris. I'm not sure it is overall maturation rather than continuous change and recycling. Maturation carries with it an implication of a stage of maturity, whereas it seems the whole existence consists of many different ages and stages of things and the changes throughout the whole of existence are not always toward increasing complexity. I am guessing the context. The quote does say "to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly" That makes me wonder about the "oneself" referred to. If it means a person then the endlessly seems not to apply as people are finite. Maybe it should not be taken literally. Perhaps you could clarify the intended context, it would be helpful.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina,
Given the boundaries of self-organization ("all physics is local," as Einstein said) the capacity of a system to change is self-limiting.
That system may be an atom, a cell, an organism or a universe.
To be comprehensible, though, elements of a system (electron in an atom; DNA in a cell; planet in a universe) can't be taken in isolation. In that context -- the context of concepts, as you say -- they don't exist.
Now, no doubt Bergson meant to make a philosophical point -- 'creating oneself endlessly' is equivalent to Socrates's "the unexamined life is not worth living" -- though who's to say what demarcates life from death? Or to say what part of life is not conscious?
Ian mentioned WVO Quine, who is credited with saying "To be is to be the value of a (bound) variable". That's not peculiar to an atom, a cell, an organism or a universe.
As you know, I support the universality of Bar-Yam's theory of multi-scale variety. Extended from Gordon Ashby's law of requisite variety -- I find it sufficient to explain the self-limiting varieties of self-organization as distributed, laterally rather than hierarchically, among scales from atom to universe.
So existence at one scale is not necessarily existence at another scale. As scales differ, the terms of existence (bounded variables) between scales differ, though the generalized laws of physics are unitary.
report post as inappropriate
Given the boundaries of self-organization ("all physics is local," as Einstein said) the capacity of a system to change is self-limiting.
That system may be an atom, a cell, an organism or a universe.
To be comprehensible, though, elements of a system (electron in an atom; DNA in a cell; planet in a universe) can't be taken in isolation. In that context -- the context of concepts, as you say -- they don't exist.
Now, no doubt Bergson meant to make a philosophical point -- 'creating oneself endlessly' is equivalent to Socrates's "the unexamined life is not worth living" -- though who's to say what demarcates life from death? Or to say what part of life is not conscious?
Ian mentioned WVO Quine, who is credited with saying "To be is to be the value of a (bound) variable". That's not peculiar to an atom, a cell, an organism or a universe.
As you know, I support the universality of Bar-Yam's theory of multi-scale variety. Extended from Gordon Ashby's law of requisite variety -- I find it sufficient to explain the self-limiting varieties of self-organization as distributed, laterally rather than hierarchically, among scales from atom to universe.
So existence at one scale is not necessarily existence at another scale. As scales differ, the terms of existence (bounded variables) between scales differ, though the generalized laws of physics are unitary.
What do we mean by "exist?" That something is in some way present? Assuming the conservation of energy, it would seem that whatever exists requires some quantity of this property called energy. Even if it is the passing speculation of a mind.
Could a platonic realm be said to exist? By definition, no. That would cover what we refer to as laws, as well. Which would seem to be forms abstracted from deeper processes(energy again) in the first place.
report post as inappropriate
Could a platonic realm be said to exist? By definition, no. That would cover what we refer to as laws, as well. Which would seem to be forms abstracted from deeper processes(energy again) in the first place.
Thanks Steve. The times are getting more interesting. Even in science some of the conventional wisdom appears shaky.
report post as inappropriate
The Platonic realm certainly does exist in the neural aware matter of the brain. Thought involves neural action and even though science may not yet completely understand neural action, it is likely that eventually science will understand the neural action of thought and ideas.
Once science measures the neural action that is the thought of an infinitely small point in space, that neural action will then define the imaginary Platonic notion of a point as a real action of thought.
What we call imaginary thoughts are real neural packets of aware matter and thoughts do have measurable energies and therefore masses. Existence exists...
report post as inappropriate
Once science measures the neural action that is the thought of an infinitely small point in space, that neural action will then define the imaginary Platonic notion of a point as a real action of thought.
What we call imaginary thoughts are real neural packets of aware matter and thoughts do have measurable energies and therefore masses. Existence exists...
Hello Jedis of The Sphere :)
Defining existence is a big entropical secret in fact.How the matter exists ? What is the cause ? By what have been created these elements.The codes, central seems essential.If we consider before this hypothetical Big Bang that a kind of infinite consciousness of pure entropy, absolute without physicality,let's name this entity God,is a reality.I have thought a...
view entire post
Defining existence is a big entropical secret in fact.How the matter exists ? What is the cause ? By what have been created these elements.The codes, central seems essential.If we consider before this hypothetical Big Bang that a kind of infinite consciousness of pure entropy, absolute without physicality,let's name this entity God,is a reality.I have thought a...
view entire post
What is the real secret of our physicality, why we exist, why are we,how are we,....We search after all answers to our universal laws on this entropical irreversible Arrow of time.A physicality has been created billions years ago.Codes of evolution, gravitational have been created and informations of evolution.But the real ask is by what ? What is this infinite consciousness above our physicality?Why this entity ,eternal has created this universal sphere with sphères and codes? I have thought a lot about that.I am asked me why?Perhaps simply that this infinite entropy was alone.So this infinity,let's name it God has wanted to create an system to share its universal love.We are Inside so a system in evolution of matter energy.The optimisation becomes relevant.It is fascinating in fact simply.We are babies in irmpovement.Now let's return at this instant zero of begining of this universal sphere,the hypothetical Big Bang.I consider personally a gravitational spherical expansion from a central BH where all codes of evolution come from.This center becomes very intriguing.I beleive that if we are connected with God, it is there because if my équations intuitives are correct E=mc²+ml² and mlosV=constant.This central BH of the universal sphere produces the smallest and speedest spherons.These particles are in ogic thismatter not baryonic the dark matter.The standard model seems encircled by gravitation if we consider quantum BHs and spherons.The weakest force ,this gravitation does not seem to be baryonic.The spherons encoded are weakest than the elecr
report post as inappropriate
Dear Steven,
There is no secret to existence. Only visible infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light has ever existed. You have a complete skin surface and you seem to think that your surface is somehow apart from the surface of an ape. But it is not. There is only one visible surface, so it must be physically unified. Although some surfaces appear to be of solid, or liquid or vaporous objects, this is the only way visible infinite surface can be apparent to everybody every time they look in any direction.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
There is no secret to existence. Only visible infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light has ever existed. You have a complete skin surface and you seem to think that your surface is somehow apart from the surface of an ape. But it is not. There is only one visible surface, so it must be physically unified. Although some surfaces appear to be of solid, or liquid or vaporous objects, this is the only way visible infinite surface can be apparent to everybody every time they look in any direction.
Joe Fisher, Realist
Hi Joe,
If I can ,what is for you the entropy above our physicality, this infinity ?Could we have your points of vue?
Regards
report post as inappropriate
If I can ,what is for you the entropy above our physicality, this infinity ?Could we have your points of vue?
Regards
Akinbo,
I've started a fresh thread to make this easy to find. I have not left town yet.
See the attached .pdf file below. It is a copy of pages 528-533 from "Vector Mechanics for Engineers Statics and Dynamics". The authors are Beer and Johnston. I have a copy of the third edition which was copy written in 1977.
The .pdf file has redundancy in it to make certain that everything is legible. I have manually numbered the pages. Start on p 528 at the arrow.
I don't expect that you will alter your view however at least I have provided a copy of the subject as it is taught to under-graduates.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
Edit ... the pdf file is 3 MB and was not uploaded since it exceeded to 1 MB limit. Akinbo, if you will give me an email address, I will email it to you. I will try to break the file into pieces.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
I've started a fresh thread to make this easy to find. I have not left town yet.
See the attached .pdf file below. It is a copy of pages 528-533 from "Vector Mechanics for Engineers Statics and Dynamics". The authors are Beer and Johnston. I have a copy of the third edition which was copy written in 1977.
The .pdf file has redundancy in it to make certain that everything is legible. I have manually numbered the pages. Start on p 528 at the arrow.
I don't expect that you will alter your view however at least I have provided a copy of the subject as it is taught to under-graduates.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
Edit ... the pdf file is 3 MB and was not uploaded since it exceeded to 1 MB limit. Akinbo, if you will give me an email address, I will email it to you. I will try to break the file into pieces.
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo,
Pages 1 and 2 ...
Gary Simpson
attachments: ME213_Orbital_Dynamics_p1.pdf, ME213_Orbital_Dynamics_p2.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Pages 1 and 2 ...
Gary Simpson
attachments: ME213_Orbital_Dynamics_p1.pdf, ME213_Orbital_Dynamics_p2.pdf
Akinbo,
Pages 3 and 4.
Gary Simpson
attachments: ME213_Orbital_Dynamics_p3.pdf, ME213_Orbital_Dynamics_p4.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Pages 3 and 4.
Gary Simpson
attachments: ME213_Orbital_Dynamics_p3.pdf, ME213_Orbital_Dynamics_p4.pdf
Akinbo,
Pages 5 and 6.
Good Luck and Happy Reading.
Gary Simpson
attachments: ME213_Orbital_Dynamics_p5.pdf, ME213_Orbital_Dynamics_p6.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Pages 5 and 6.
Good Luck and Happy Reading.
Gary Simpson
attachments: ME213_Orbital_Dynamics_p5.pdf, ME213_Orbital_Dynamics_p6.pdf
Gary,
I have had a look at the stuff you attached. Thank you.
I have not seen much difference from the equations in the other text book I attached although there is much more mathematical detail in yours.
The expression for force is the same.
In your text, the velocity at perigee is said to be >√(GM/r), and at apogee, the velocity is
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
I have had a look at the stuff you attached. Thank you.
I have not seen much difference from the equations in the other text book I attached although there is much more mathematical detail in yours.
The expression for force is the same.
In your text, the velocity at perigee is said to be >√(GM/r), and at apogee, the velocity is
report post as inappropriate
*The Edit function didn't work properly last post.
Gary,
I have had a look at the stuff you attached. Thank you.
I have not seen much difference from the equations in the other text book I attached although there is much more mathematical detail in yours.
The expression for force is the same.
In your text, the velocity at perigee is said to be >√(GM/r), and at apogee, the velocity is below √(GM/r), page 531.
I cannot see any formula for total energy. But since you are agreeable to P.E. = -GMm/r, I will use this velocities to derive the expressions for K.E. at apogee and perigee and see if total energy is conserved.
One problem with your text is that the radius ro is written as if it is conserved while referring to perigee and apogee.
Regards,
Akinbo
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Gary,
I have had a look at the stuff you attached. Thank you.
I have not seen much difference from the equations in the other text book I attached although there is much more mathematical detail in yours.
The expression for force is the same.
In your text, the velocity at perigee is said to be >√(GM/r), and at apogee, the velocity is below √(GM/r), page 531.
I cannot see any formula for total energy. But since you are agreeable to P.E. = -GMm/r, I will use this velocities to derive the expressions for K.E. at apogee and perigee and see if total energy is conserved.
One problem with your text is that the radius ro is written as if it is conserved while referring to perigee and apogee.
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo
Gary is correct, these are elementary physics results, check out these two links, I think they will help you.
http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~broholm/l24/node1.html
https://ww
w.khanacademy.org/science/physics/work-and-energy/work-and-e
nergy-tutorial/a/what-is-conservation-of-energy
Gary
We have communicated during the last contest. I would appreciated if you look at the updated results of my idea(theory!). I finally produce long range Newton's gravity law from the same system that produces QM. World's first:)
This structure gives rise to QM AND gravity in one coherent system.
you can run these easy simulations for yourself and confirm the results.
http://www.reality-theory.net/a.htm
gravity simulation.
http://www.reality-theory.net/gravity.html
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Gary is correct, these are elementary physics results, check out these two links, I think they will help you.
http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~broholm/l24/node1.html
https://ww
w.khanacademy.org/science/physics/work-and-energy/work-and-e
nergy-tutorial/a/what-is-conservation-of-energy
Gary
We have communicated during the last contest. I would appreciated if you look at the updated results of my idea(theory!). I finally produce long range Newton's gravity law from the same system that produces QM. World's first:)
This structure gives rise to QM AND gravity in one coherent system.
you can run these easy simulations for yourself and confirm the results.
http://www.reality-theory.net/a.htm
gravity simulation.
http://www.reality-theory.net/gravity.html
report post as inappropriate
Adel et al,
"The total energy of a harmonic oscillation, W is given by W = ½ sA2 (eq.17), where s is the stiffness and A, the amplitude, i.e. the maximum displacement of ±∆r on either side of the oscillation....The energy cycle in harmonic motion involves kinetic and potential energy interchanges. The potential energy is usually stored in the medium between the vibrating mass...
view entire post
"The total energy of a harmonic oscillation, W is given by W = ½ sA2 (eq.17), where s is the stiffness and A, the amplitude, i.e. the maximum displacement of ±∆r on either side of the oscillation....The energy cycle in harmonic motion involves kinetic and potential energy interchanges. The potential energy is usually stored in the medium between the vibrating mass...
view entire post
Your stubborn intuition continues to question the nature of physical reality and the magic of field mechanics. How does kinetic energy exchange with potential energy in any field much less a gravity field?
Go ahead and say it...it is discrete aether. Gravity force is completely equivalent to the notion of aether decay into the action center of an orbit. A body gains or loses aether mass from which the notion of motion emerges completes the story with mass-energy equivalence.
Don't forget to include both bodies in the orbital calc, by the way. The only circular orbit is for reduced mass motion around the center of mass or action. Both bodies are in orbit with each other and so neither is ever circular. Of course stiffness is present in any field and it is not clear why you make a big deal out of it until the idea of aether comes into play.
There is a way to substitute gravity with aether decay and still keep action limited to the speed of light. Such a model must still adhere to mass-energy equivalence and as long as space and time emerge from matter and action, all of GR follows as well.
Classical gravity action always involves two or more bodies and therefore at least four measurements by an observer; arrival time and momentum or matter spectra for each of two bodies. Quantum action, however, involves just two measurements; arrival time and matter spectrum or color for a single photon. science deduces quantum action from measurements of single photons.
While the order of time and momentum measurements affects quantum action, the order of time and momentum measurements does not affect quantum gravity action. The reason is the symmetry of the quantum gravity biphoton. Measuring gravity action always involves (in principle) measuring at least two entangled photons and the order of measurement of time and momentum is therefore complementary between the photons and the order of measurement makes no difference for quantum gravity.
report post as inappropriate
Go ahead and say it...it is discrete aether. Gravity force is completely equivalent to the notion of aether decay into the action center of an orbit. A body gains or loses aether mass from which the notion of motion emerges completes the story with mass-energy equivalence.
Don't forget to include both bodies in the orbital calc, by the way. The only circular orbit is for reduced mass motion around the center of mass or action. Both bodies are in orbit with each other and so neither is ever circular. Of course stiffness is present in any field and it is not clear why you make a big deal out of it until the idea of aether comes into play.
There is a way to substitute gravity with aether decay and still keep action limited to the speed of light. Such a model must still adhere to mass-energy equivalence and as long as space and time emerge from matter and action, all of GR follows as well.
Classical gravity action always involves two or more bodies and therefore at least four measurements by an observer; arrival time and momentum or matter spectra for each of two bodies. Quantum action, however, involves just two measurements; arrival time and matter spectrum or color for a single photon. science deduces quantum action from measurements of single photons.
While the order of time and momentum measurements affects quantum action, the order of time and momentum measurements does not affect quantum gravity action. The reason is the symmetry of the quantum gravity biphoton. Measuring gravity action always involves (in principle) measuring at least two entangled photons and the order of measurement of time and momentum is therefore complementary between the photons and the order of measurement makes no difference for quantum gravity.
Steve A,
When you said not to forget to include both bodies in the orbital calculation you touch on an area difficult for me to visualize. From Newton's gravitational law as well as his third law: action and reaction are equal and opposite, the earth orbits the sun at the same time as the sun orbits the earth. This is difficult to describe. It is easier to visualize for double stars in...
view entire post
When you said not to forget to include both bodies in the orbital calculation you touch on an area difficult for me to visualize. From Newton's gravitational law as well as his third law: action and reaction are equal and opposite, the earth orbits the sun at the same time as the sun orbits the earth. This is difficult to describe. It is easier to visualize for double stars in...
view entire post
In the background of the stars, both the earth and sun follow orbits that are the minimum energy paths from the action integral. Action is the difference between KE and PE and is the usual way to predict the paths of orbital mechanics.
So the orbit of earth is a result of its following its minimum energy path and is a result of a large number of factors and perturbations. What you have been...
view entire post
So the orbit of earth is a result of its following its minimum energy path and is a result of a large number of factors and perturbations. What you have been...
view entire post
@Ian Durnham,
The problem about existence is probably not so difficult; see the image at: https://phia.home.xs4all.nl
The image represents 4 simplified situations – A, B, C, D – in order to choose the right existence within ultimate reality.
The sphere represents phenomena (e.g. objects) and the surroundings of the sphere represents everything that’s not like a phenomenon (e.g. empty space). The gray shade represents causal existence. There cannot be more possibilities.
Situation A, B and C represent local situations of elements within an all-inclusive set. It is easy to recognize our daily sensory reality (B). However, situation D represents not the relational (phenomenological) view, but the view of the all-inclusive set. That’s why A, B and C are simplified representations of ultimate reality within our universe. So D represents “true” existence and it shows to be non-local.
report post as inappropriate
The problem about existence is probably not so difficult; see the image at: https://phia.home.xs4all.nl
The image represents 4 simplified situations – A, B, C, D – in order to choose the right existence within ultimate reality.
The sphere represents phenomena (e.g. objects) and the surroundings of the sphere represents everything that’s not like a phenomenon (e.g. empty space). The gray shade represents causal existence. There cannot be more possibilities.
Situation A, B and C represent local situations of elements within an all-inclusive set. It is easy to recognize our daily sensory reality (B). However, situation D represents not the relational (phenomenological) view, but the view of the all-inclusive set. That’s why A, B and C are simplified representations of ultimate reality within our universe. So D represents “true” existence and it shows to be non-local.
I'm surprised nobody discusses physics constants. If you take them away, then nothing exists. Yet they are arbitrary independent constants that permit complex chemistry. We should wonder about physics constants like c, h and G. Without physics constants there would be no reality.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
@Jason Mark Wolfe,
You are completely right. However, no serious researcher will start that issue as comment “1517” in the topic “Alternative Models of reality” (FQXi forum: Ultimate Reality). Neither you can write an article or a blog topic and send it to FQXi. Only members are allowed to contribute. To become a member you have to win an award in the annually FQXi contests first (or try to get a FQXi grant).
Anyway, it isn’t impossible to start an attractive scientific website that is dedicated to research in the field of the foundations of physics and/or mathematics (see “IJQF” by the Chinese academy of science).
Even when scientists start a blog that is hosted by Blogger, it is possible to communicate in a more attractive and fruitful way. Unfortunately, https://www.FQXi.blogspot.com isn’t free any more: I have reserved it 5 minutes ago ;-))
Jason, do you want to contribute?
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
You are completely right. However, no serious researcher will start that issue as comment “1517” in the topic “Alternative Models of reality” (FQXi forum: Ultimate Reality). Neither you can write an article or a blog topic and send it to FQXi. Only members are allowed to contribute. To become a member you have to win an award in the annually FQXi contests first (or try to get a FQXi grant).
Anyway, it isn’t impossible to start an attractive scientific website that is dedicated to research in the field of the foundations of physics and/or mathematics (see “IJQF” by the Chinese academy of science).
Even when scientists start a blog that is hosted by Blogger, it is possible to communicate in a more attractive and fruitful way. Unfortunately, https://www.FQXi.blogspot.com isn’t free any more: I have reserved it 5 minutes ago ;-))
Jason, do you want to contribute?
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason
I have indirectly addressed your concern in a post on Sep. 24, 2016.
In the Bohr like Hydrogen atom I show how the constants arise. The constants are not arbitrary but have a relation between them to give the atoms a stable structure in the mathematical structure concerned. However so far G seems to be independent but still its value relating to Lp^2 is still -seems- to be needed to create the stable atoms as the gravity simulations hint.
report post as inappropriate
I have indirectly addressed your concern in a post on Sep. 24, 2016.
In the Bohr like Hydrogen atom I show how the constants arise. The constants are not arbitrary but have a relation between them to give the atoms a stable structure in the mathematical structure concerned. However so far G seems to be independent but still its value relating to Lp^2 is still -seems- to be needed to create the stable atoms as the gravity simulations hint.
HI Marcus,
I don't doubt that raising money for a physics website is tough. It is nice to be able to talk to other science minded people here for free. I do wish you luck with your website.
Hi Adel,
I suspected a connection between the gravitational constant and the total energy content of the universe based on the idea that the universe was once very small, at the big bang. A small radius would be a significant curvature that would have to balance a certain amount of mass-energy. Maybe if G was 60 orders of magnitude smaller, it would go off like a fire cracker, a few joules.
I do appreciate that smart people can talk about the constants. Even the strong force has to be balanced precisely. Too small results in no helium or higher elements. Too large results in too little hydrogen because it all fuses to helium and higher.
Fine Tuning gives us permission to look for either an engineer Creator or a multiverse, or perhaps both.
report post as inappropriate
I don't doubt that raising money for a physics website is tough. It is nice to be able to talk to other science minded people here for free. I do wish you luck with your website.
Hi Adel,
I suspected a connection between the gravitational constant and the total energy content of the universe based on the idea that the universe was once very small, at the big bang. A small radius would be a significant curvature that would have to balance a certain amount of mass-energy. Maybe if G was 60 orders of magnitude smaller, it would go off like a fire cracker, a few joules.
I do appreciate that smart people can talk about the constants. Even the strong force has to be balanced precisely. Too small results in no helium or higher elements. Too large results in too little hydrogen because it all fuses to helium and higher.
Fine Tuning gives us permission to look for either an engineer Creator or a multiverse, or perhaps both.
I like to imagine the big bang to be a medium that exploded into existence. As a medium that has energy states in the form of virtual photons and real photons. I physics constants are just properties of the medium.
It is interesting to imagine two overlapping mediums with different physics constants. Could one calculate fermions or boson's that might jump between the two mediums.
report post as inappropriate
It is interesting to imagine two overlapping mediums with different physics constants. Could one calculate fermions or boson's that might jump between the two mediums.
I would speculate that any exchange between two spacetime mediums might be in the form of some spacetime with some information content, energy content.
report post as inappropriate
A transfer of some mass-energy from spacetime 1 (our spacetime) to spacetime 2 (another separate spacetime) will have some odd qualities. First, the transfered mass-energy takes with its contribution to the gravitational constant. I think the gravitational constant is proportional to the mass energy contained inside the universe.
Second, mass energy transferred from spacetime 1 is accompanied by some spacetime 1 medium. If your careful, you will have a pocket of spacetime 1 transferred to spacetime 2. It could contain an astronaut in a spaceship. If however, the pocket of spacetime 1 converts to spacetime 2, then of course the astronaut and spaceship will disintegrate.
report post as inappropriate
Second, mass energy transferred from spacetime 1 is accompanied by some spacetime 1 medium. If your careful, you will have a pocket of spacetime 1 transferred to spacetime 2. It could contain an astronaut in a spaceship. If however, the pocket of spacetime 1 converts to spacetime 2, then of course the astronaut and spaceship will disintegrate.
John,Eckard,Tom,Steve...
I discussed with Mr Tor Fla on LinkedIn.I don't know the semigroups and the functions of green and Kernels.You know more ? Could you explain me.I search the works of kernels but I don't find.Regards
report post as inappropriate
I discussed with Mr Tor Fla on LinkedIn.I don't know the semigroups and the functions of green and Kernels.You know more ? Could you explain me.I search the works of kernels but I don't find.Regards
Steve D,
Cosine transformation and Fourier transformation differ in their most basic part, their kernel, i.e. the function to be integrated. Cos(x) is a real valued seemingly particular case of the complex kernel cos(x) + i sin(x) as IR+, the positive reals are considered a part of IR. However, IR is as infinite as is IR+ and therefore not larger than it. It only differs by providing and demanding a reference point zero that can and must be arbitrarily chosen. This mathematical but not physical degree of freedom makes Green's function shift-invariant if based on the complex kernel.
Hilbert physics denies the existence of the natural reference "now" and benefits from the putative freedom of arbitrary shift. Common sense tells us that there is causality. Shifting of time only works on paper. Nothing gets younger. Non-causalities are artefacts.
++++
report post as inappropriate
Cosine transformation and Fourier transformation differ in their most basic part, their kernel, i.e. the function to be integrated. Cos(x) is a real valued seemingly particular case of the complex kernel cos(x) + i sin(x) as IR+, the positive reals are considered a part of IR. However, IR is as infinite as is IR+ and therefore not larger than it. It only differs by providing and demanding a reference point zero that can and must be arbitrarily chosen. This mathematical but not physical degree of freedom makes Green's function shift-invariant if based on the complex kernel.
Hilbert physics denies the existence of the natural reference "now" and benefits from the putative freedom of arbitrary shift. Common sense tells us that there is causality. Shifting of time only works on paper. Nothing gets younger. Non-causalities are artefacts.
++++
Hello Eckard,I am thanking you very much.It is nice.Your general knowledges in maths are always welcome :)
(--)(--)(--)(--)
report post as inappropriate
(--)(--)(--)(--)
Dear Ian
I would comment on existence from the perspective of the Cartesian rationalist. The Cartesian meditator is in a bind with respect to existence insofar as most things that might be admitted into an ontology are suspect, leaving the most sparse landscape possible, at least at the beginning of one's inquiry.
A way to consider existence is to use Kit Fine's idea of what he calls a 'constructional ontology' in which the things that populate the ontology are built from givens. One starts with what he calls a 'possible ontology' meaning a dialectical ontology which accepts any possible world imaginable or even unimaginable. From this, for the endpoint skeptic, one is obliged as a matter of intellectual honesty, to accept into the 'actual ontology' (the model of what actually exists)all those things whose is indefeasible. One such thing is the meditator himself/herself because his/her existence is immune to doubt and must be accepted as a matter of skeptical commitment.
One must also accept into the actual ontology, a certain principle of equivalence, which is a necessary condition of all possible worlds. I cover this in my LinkedIn posts and it is included in my FQXI competition essay on 'It from bit or bit from it'. At the time I did not realize that the model I developed there actually implies that the universe must contain 7.1 x 10^121 bits, which coincides with the Bekenstein-Hawking information bound. So, if the content of that essay is correct, one can also say that necessarily the information implied to exist in that essay, also exists in the actual ontology, hence must be existent, at least for the Cartesian meditator.
Best wishes
Stephen Anastasi
report post as inappropriate
I would comment on existence from the perspective of the Cartesian rationalist. The Cartesian meditator is in a bind with respect to existence insofar as most things that might be admitted into an ontology are suspect, leaving the most sparse landscape possible, at least at the beginning of one's inquiry.
A way to consider existence is to use Kit Fine's idea of what he calls a 'constructional ontology' in which the things that populate the ontology are built from givens. One starts with what he calls a 'possible ontology' meaning a dialectical ontology which accepts any possible world imaginable or even unimaginable. From this, for the endpoint skeptic, one is obliged as a matter of intellectual honesty, to accept into the 'actual ontology' (the model of what actually exists)all those things whose is indefeasible. One such thing is the meditator himself/herself because his/her existence is immune to doubt and must be accepted as a matter of skeptical commitment.
One must also accept into the actual ontology, a certain principle of equivalence, which is a necessary condition of all possible worlds. I cover this in my LinkedIn posts and it is included in my FQXI competition essay on 'It from bit or bit from it'. At the time I did not realize that the model I developed there actually implies that the universe must contain 7.1 x 10^121 bits, which coincides with the Bekenstein-Hawking information bound. So, if the content of that essay is correct, one can also say that necessarily the information implied to exist in that essay, also exists in the actual ontology, hence must be existent, at least for the Cartesian meditator.
Best wishes
Stephen Anastasi
Akinbo,
I've made another fresh thread to make this easy to find.
I'm back in town but will not be here for long.
It is not clear to me whether or not you have finally understood your error, so I will provide a little more input.
You keep asking about total energy ...
E = (1/2)m(vsub0)^2 - GMm(1/rsub0) = CONSTANT
Notice that I have not made it a function...
view entire post
I've made another fresh thread to make this easy to find.
I'm back in town but will not be here for long.
It is not clear to me whether or not you have finally understood your error, so I will provide a little more input.
You keep asking about total energy ...
E = (1/2)m(vsub0)^2 - GMm(1/rsub0) = CONSTANT
Notice that I have not made it a function...
view entire post
Adel,
I will take a look at what you have posted, but it won't be in the near future. I am travelling quite a bit at the moment tending to family matters. I should be completed with this by the end of the year. Who knows when - or if - we will have another essay contest ...
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
I will take a look at what you have posted, but it won't be in the near future. I am travelling quite a bit at the moment tending to family matters. I should be completed with this by the end of the year. Who knows when - or if - we will have another essay contest ...
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
Gary,
While you were away Adel posted a derivation for total energy for an elliptical orbit which turns out as:
-GMm/r + GMm/2r = -GMm/2a
(see my post above on Akinbo Ojo replied on Oct. 20, 2016 @ 11:24 GMT).
This version is simpler for discussion compared to
E = (1/2)m(vsub0)^2 - GMm(1/rsub0) = CONSTANT
But let me reply you on your own terms.
I...
view entire post
While you were away Adel posted a derivation for total energy for an elliptical orbit which turns out as:
-GMm/r + GMm/2r = -GMm/2a
(see my post above on Akinbo Ojo replied on Oct. 20, 2016 @ 11:24 GMT).
This version is simpler for discussion compared to
E = (1/2)m(vsub0)^2 - GMm(1/rsub0) = CONSTANT
But let me reply you on your own terms.
I...
view entire post
Akinbo,
You have stated that Adel derived the following:
E = -GMm/2a
for total energy. If he used the six pages that I posted as a starting point, then this might be correct.
Look at the individual terms on the right hand side of the equation ... For a specific object in a specific orbit, "G" is a constant, "M" is a constant, "m" is a constant, and "a" is a constant. The result of Adel's derivation is a CONSTANT VALUE for a given object in a given orbit.
If he or she started with the equations that I posted then it is not surprising that the result would be a constant value because what I posted had conservation of energy built into it ... so it appears that Adel did his or her algebra correctly.
Congratulations! You have demonstrated conservation of energy.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
You have stated that Adel derived the following:
E = -GMm/2a
for total energy. If he used the six pages that I posted as a starting point, then this might be correct.
Look at the individual terms on the right hand side of the equation ... For a specific object in a specific orbit, "G" is a constant, "M" is a constant, "m" is a constant, and "a" is a constant. The result of Adel's derivation is a CONSTANT VALUE for a given object in a given orbit.
If he or she started with the equations that I posted then it is not surprising that the result would be a constant value because what I posted had conservation of energy built into it ... so it appears that Adel did his or her algebra correctly.
Congratulations! You have demonstrated conservation of energy.
Best Regards,
Gary Simpson
Gary,
Adel did not start with the equations you posted. Actually he was just kind enough to attach a derivation from an internet source. To verify the constancy or otherwise, you can plug in perihelion and aphelion values of "v" and "r" into your own equation, E = (1/2)m(vsub0)^2 - GMm(1/rsub0) = CONSTANT.
The minus (-) sign in -GMm/2a also tells a story. Is the total energy a negative value? If so, why?
Regards,
Akinbo
report post as inappropriate
Adel did not start with the equations you posted. Actually he was just kind enough to attach a derivation from an internet source. To verify the constancy or otherwise, you can plug in perihelion and aphelion values of "v" and "r" into your own equation, E = (1/2)m(vsub0)^2 - GMm(1/rsub0) = CONSTANT.
The minus (-) sign in -GMm/2a also tells a story. Is the total energy a negative value? If so, why?
Regards,
Akinbo
Hi Gary,
Looks impressive. Your calculation suggests energy conservation.
I will concede this round as I am yet to fault your calculations (more interested in the earth-sun orbit).
Although you have expressed reservation that the total energy formula -GMm/2r will only apply to circular orbits, you may note that this value is about half the value of the P.E. at aphelion and perihelion (-GMm/r, take note of the denominator 2). If this is the case then simply dividing the values of P.E. that you obtained will give
Total energy at aphelion = -2.6055 x10 33J, and at perihelion = -2.6945 x10 33J, a difference of about 8.9 x10 31J.
I suspect the devil is in the formula or values used for K.E. I will look more closely to see if the value of your K.E., i.e. ½mv2 equals GMm/2r. If they are equal then the value for total energy is half the P.E. values at aphelion and perihelion, i.e. -GMm/2r and these are not equal.
You have been a worthy opponent, Gary. I don't desire a winner-loser situation so I will probably keep my finding to myself.
We live to "fight" on another topic :)
Best regards and have a pleasant day.
Akinbo
*For earth-moon orbit, the terms used are apogee and perigee.
report post as inappropriate
Looks impressive. Your calculation suggests energy conservation.
I will concede this round as I am yet to fault your calculations (more interested in the earth-sun orbit).
Although you have expressed reservation that the total energy formula -GMm/2r will only apply to circular orbits, you may note that this value is about half the value of the P.E. at aphelion and perihelion (-GMm/r, take note of the denominator 2). If this is the case then simply dividing the values of P.E. that you obtained will give
Total energy at aphelion = -2.6055 x10 33J, and at perihelion = -2.6945 x10 33J, a difference of about 8.9 x10 31J.
I suspect the devil is in the formula or values used for K.E. I will look more closely to see if the value of your K.E., i.e. ½mv2 equals GMm/2r. If they are equal then the value for total energy is half the P.E. values at aphelion and perihelion, i.e. -GMm/2r and these are not equal.
You have been a worthy opponent, Gary. I don't desire a winner-loser situation so I will probably keep my finding to myself.
We live to "fight" on another topic :)
Best regards and have a pleasant day.
Akinbo
*For earth-moon orbit, the terms used are apogee and perigee.
Akinbo
What problem EXACTLY are you trying to solve with your "harmonic" point of view?
can you be brief and concise please.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
What problem EXACTLY are you trying to solve with your "harmonic" point of view?
can you be brief and concise please.
report post as inappropriate
Adel,
- Gravitational orbits show an alternate and repetitive coming together (attraction) and moving apart (repulsion). This is a feature associated with harmonic motion. Or can bodies repel each other without the agency of a force given Newton's laws?
- If harmonic, ALL such motion are characterized by a property called stiffness, just like your spring constant. This property requires two oppositely directed forces to maintain the stability of the motion. As a result, while one force causes the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy, the other causes the conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy. Gravity is an example of a P.E. to K.E. converter. It cannot convert K.E. to P.E. For the simple pendulum, gravity converts P.E. to K.E., while the tension in the string converts K.E. to P.E. What converts K.E. to P.E. in gravitational orbits?
- In harmonic oscillations only a fraction of the total energy is available for alternate inter-conversions between P.E. and K.E. hence the stability of the orbit. If not nothing stops the total conversion of all the energy from P.E. to K.E. with orbital collapse, or the conversion of all the energy to P.E. with orbital escape.
- This harmonic view therefore forces us to contemplate that the space in-between is not an 'inert nothing' but a participant in orbital phenomena as a storer of energy and the residence of the stiffness property.
I have tried to be brief. You may read more details in the e-book I referred to Akinbo Ojo wrote on Oct. 16, 2016 @ 11:02 GMT.
Regards,
Akinbo
*I asked Gary a question above about providing the mathematical relationship (if any) between the force on an object and its velocity in an elliptical orbit.
report post as inappropriate
- Gravitational orbits show an alternate and repetitive coming together (attraction) and moving apart (repulsion). This is a feature associated with harmonic motion. Or can bodies repel each other without the agency of a force given Newton's laws?
- If harmonic, ALL such motion are characterized by a property called stiffness, just like your spring constant. This property requires two oppositely directed forces to maintain the stability of the motion. As a result, while one force causes the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy, the other causes the conversion of kinetic energy to potential energy. Gravity is an example of a P.E. to K.E. converter. It cannot convert K.E. to P.E. For the simple pendulum, gravity converts P.E. to K.E., while the tension in the string converts K.E. to P.E. What converts K.E. to P.E. in gravitational orbits?
- In harmonic oscillations only a fraction of the total energy is available for alternate inter-conversions between P.E. and K.E. hence the stability of the orbit. If not nothing stops the total conversion of all the energy from P.E. to K.E. with orbital collapse, or the conversion of all the energy to P.E. with orbital escape.
- This harmonic view therefore forces us to contemplate that the space in-between is not an 'inert nothing' but a participant in orbital phenomena as a storer of energy and the residence of the stiffness property.
I have tried to be brief. You may read more details in the e-book I referred to Akinbo Ojo wrote on Oct. 16, 2016 @ 11:02 GMT.
Regards,
Akinbo
*I asked Gary a question above about providing the mathematical relationship (if any) between the force on an object and its velocity in an elliptical orbit.
Hi Akinbo,
I'm not sure if I understood, what you try to do. However if you are interested in the oscillating movement it might be useful to write the total energy in polar coordinates.
E = -mMG/r + 1/2*L^2/r^2 + m/2*v_r^2
where v_r is the radial velocity and L is the conserved angular momentum. At the perihelion and aphelion the radial velocity is 0.
The middle term with angular momentum came from the kinetic energy in euclidean coordinates. It is in my opinion a question of convention, whether you want to see it as potential or kinetic energy in polar coordinates. (It is in a way the potential creating the centrifugal force).
Regards,
Luca
By the way if you trough a ball up gravity converts K.E. into P.E. When the ball is falling down again, gravity converts the P.E: into K.E. It is the same force. No need for an additional mechanism.
report post as inappropriate
I'm not sure if I understood, what you try to do. However if you are interested in the oscillating movement it might be useful to write the total energy in polar coordinates.
E = -mMG/r + 1/2*L^2/r^2 + m/2*v_r^2
where v_r is the radial velocity and L is the conserved angular momentum. At the perihelion and aphelion the radial velocity is 0.
The middle term with angular momentum came from the kinetic energy in euclidean coordinates. It is in my opinion a question of convention, whether you want to see it as potential or kinetic energy in polar coordinates. (It is in a way the potential creating the centrifugal force).
Regards,
Luca
By the way if you trough a ball up gravity converts K.E. into P.E. When the ball is falling down again, gravity converts the P.E: into K.E. It is the same force. No need for an additional mechanism.
Akinbo,
See the attached .pdf file for orbital energies for Mercury - Pluto and the Moon. In each case. conservation of energy is shown.
The data is from NASA. The url for the data is
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/xxxx.html
Substitut
e for xxxx the following: mercuryfact, venusfact, earthfact, moonfact, marsfact, jupiterfact, saturnfact, uranusfact, neptunefact, and plutofact.
I could not locate information for Ceres or Vesta.
Now please, stop the nonsense and learn some physics. Your credibility has fallen to nearly zero. This is observational data used to predict the locations of all of these objects. It has been accumulated over several centuries. This is all Classical Physics.
Regards,
Gary Simpson
attachments: OrbitalEnergies.pdf
report post as inappropriate
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
See the attached .pdf file for orbital energies for Mercury - Pluto and the Moon. In each case. conservation of energy is shown.
The data is from NASA. The url for the data is
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/xxxx.html
Substitut
e for xxxx the following: mercuryfact, venusfact, earthfact, moonfact, marsfact, jupiterfact, saturnfact, uranusfact, neptunefact, and plutofact.
I could not locate information for Ceres or Vesta.
Now please, stop the nonsense and learn some physics. Your credibility has fallen to nearly zero. This is observational data used to predict the locations of all of these objects. It has been accumulated over several centuries. This is all Classical Physics.
Regards,
Gary Simpson
attachments: OrbitalEnergies.pdf
Gary,
Thank you for taking the trouble to attach the different orbital energies as calculated using -GMm/2a and from this deriving the orbital velocities of earth at aphelion and perihelion 29,290m/s and 30,290m/s respectively.
Newton tells me that his inverse square law, which themselves follow from Kepler's work have a near universal application. Certainly, no exceptions have been...
view entire post
Thank you for taking the trouble to attach the different orbital energies as calculated using -GMm/2a and from this deriving the orbital velocities of earth at aphelion and perihelion 29,290m/s and 30,290m/s respectively.
Newton tells me that his inverse square law, which themselves follow from Kepler's work have a near universal application. Certainly, no exceptions have been...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo,
The calculations that I presented are based upon DATA rather than any particular hypothesis.
The tangential velocity is equal to radius*omega. There is also a radial velocity that you have ignored. The radial velocity contributes to kinetic energy but not to centripetal force.
Regrettably, you are currently in the 70% that fail first year physics. Please, you are capable of learning this material. Your thoughts on divisibility of space are interesting. However, you must crawl before you can walk and you must walk before you can run. You must correctly understand what is known before proposing to add to or revise what is known.
I'm about to leave town again.
Best regards,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
The calculations that I presented are based upon DATA rather than any particular hypothesis.
The tangential velocity is equal to radius*omega. There is also a radial velocity that you have ignored. The radial velocity contributes to kinetic energy but not to centripetal force.
Regrettably, you are currently in the 70% that fail first year physics. Please, you are capable of learning this material. Your thoughts on divisibility of space are interesting. However, you must crawl before you can walk and you must walk before you can run. You must correctly understand what is known before proposing to add to or revise what is known.
I'm about to leave town again.
Best regards,
Gary Simpson
Defining existence and lifes and responsbility.....universal.
The composting at big globalscale and the vegetal multiplication are foundamentals,without this simple truth, it does not exist future.Of course we must also recycle correctly our matter ,it is not the case actually.And also we must reduce our pollutions.
The main important thing is that we must adapt this planet...
view entire post
The composting at big globalscale and the vegetal multiplication are foundamentals,without this simple truth, it does not exist future.Of course we must also recycle correctly our matter ,it is not the case actually.And also we must reduce our pollutions.
The main important thing is that we must adapt this planet...
view entire post
How is it possible that nothing is made in the high sphères of power? Are they conscious to where we go ??? It is a reality our global problems.And our global sytem has reached its limits.We are obliged to change for the well of all.All must understand that we are going to loose all.It is evident that even the richest are in the boat.Them also they shallloose all if nothing changes quickly.It is a simple result, mathemarical and phsycial.We cannot continue like that.If they were not a reality these solutions, I could understand, but they exist and are rational.All wins with this liberation of funds for harmonisation on earth and space.We can do it.China has reached its limits also.India 300 millions of persons are without energy ...In Europa, the system is tired and has reached also its limits.In africa it is the chaos.Usa also must change.The fact that all wins without exception is foundamental.
report post as inappropriate
The most impressing is that a minority are aware of this truth.I don't want to alarm but it is a reality,the global system is arrived at its limits and we are at the doors of many chaotical exponentials.The world is not prepared to this adaptation.The governments and this G20 and ONU must really change several foundamentals quickly.It is crazzy in fact, a system continues and we know that it is in...
view entire post
view entire post
Alan M.Kadin ?I see that he is relevant on Google in all case.I learn always now things with you Eckard :)bBut you are going still to tell me,no steve it and other kadin :)
report post as inappropriate
Thanks Eckard to share this thinker, it is a real jedi of the Sphere :)Let's change this planet during that we can still ....I have sent him an invitation on linkedin.Regards Do you think Eckard that it is possible to unite all the universalists having concrete global solutions ? They exist these solution.FQXI could do it in fact with MIT Princeton,Harvard....It is time for a real global harmonisation simply.It is a moral obligation in fact.
report post as inappropriate
That said I see an article about surpopulation and the fact to reduce it.I am not for the reduction of population because we does not lack nor space in our solar sstem nor energy which tends to infinity.We must evolve and colonise correctly our solar system witha liberation of funds.If we insist only on earth with our problems, of course that will not go.But when we open our mind to this universe and first this solar system, it is not a problem but a solution.
report post as inappropriate
Let's take China where they have limited the births with one child.Now they have stopped this law.I beleive that we cannot create these kinds of laws .But of course it is was a past choice in function of past parameters.Now of course China have reached its limits also due to space.It is essential to change our global system.China and USA must take their responsabilities and the world bank also,the others countries shall follow them.China and USA in taking the good universal choices shall reasure this planet where the psychology is became a big problem.It will be a real hope for all ,the richs like the poors.All without exception.The freedom is essential,foundamental, the consciousness also.We must open our earth to this universe, this universal sphere,our solar system in first.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Durham.
Very interesting article. we ratify our existence to each other. Movements as a phenomenon ratify their existence to each other and as such choose a subjective action. the existents ratify their self organization from a grained of sand to a human being or to a galaxy. Please read my essay in the existing FQXi contest "we are together, therefore I am"
thanks
yehuda atai
report post as inappropriate
Very interesting article. we ratify our existence to each other. Movements as a phenomenon ratify their existence to each other and as such choose a subjective action. the existents ratify their self organization from a grained of sand to a human being or to a galaxy. Please read my essay in the existing FQXi contest "we are together, therefore I am"
thanks
yehuda atai
With respect, Rafael Bousso is incorrect thinking that existent things exist within space-time. I don't know whether where existence exists was talked about in the meeting but I think it is important. There needs to be three models to cover what is happening. The first uni-temporal Now, which is temporal expression of the configuration of all existing things. The configuration is continually...
view entire post
view entire post
All of physics, describing existent things and observation can not fit into just one of the models, space and time or space-time, and work. It isn't an either or problem.
report post as inappropriate
Login or create account to post reply or comment.