Search FQXi


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.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author 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

Steve Dufourny: on 10/17/19 at 15:58pm UTC, wrote Personally Joe me I see like that ,imagine that this infinite eternal...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/17/19 at 15:18pm UTC, wrote Joe it is wonderful this,so you are going to have a nobel prize in...

Joe Fisher: on 10/17/19 at 15:00pm UTC, wrote Steve, The 300 Ph.D. Diploma holders fully understand my letters to them...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/17/19 at 14:57pm UTC, wrote lol Joe,you are a phenomen in fact and the Word is weak.Can you please tell...

Joe Fisher: on 10/17/19 at 14:43pm UTC, wrote Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/17/19 at 14:32pm UTC, wrote CAUSALITY :) I am going to create a group to convice this UN with Concrete...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/17/19 at 9:38am UTC, wrote Hi Rob,Eckards, Dear Rob,it is well said all this indeed.Friendly

Robert McEachern: on 10/16/19 at 21:02pm UTC, wrote Eckard, "You referred to..." I was referring only to my final comments...



FQXi FORUM
October 17, 2019

ARTICLE: First Things First: The Physics of Causality [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Anonymous wrote on Jul. 16, 2019 @ 23:14 GMT
Despite what physicists might say, the actual physics’ view is that the universe is like a perfect machine that is fuelled by number change: i.e. the equations of physics would indicate that an initial number change is the fuel that perfectly drives the universe forever afterwards. In this view, quantum mechanics might be seen, by some, as an anomaly that will be brought into line just as soon as the right equations are found.

The physics’ view is that initial number change is the perfect fuel that runs the universe ever after, and no number-change (i.e. fuel) top-ups are ever required. But what if top-ups are required in the form of quantum jumps of number? It seems more likely that the number jumps of quantum mechanics are the essential sources of change in the universe [1].

But what is causing quantum number jumps? Seemingly the only candidate is matter itself. So instead of the view of physicists and philosophers, including physicists Anthony Aguirre [2], Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli [3], of a numb, dumb matter that is ruled by laws, and where genuine free will [4] is an impossible anomaly, we come to the view that matter itself has the free will to “jump the numbers”, i.e. matter itself is driving change in the universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jul. 16, 2019 @ 23:17 GMT
The above post was from me, Lorraine Ford.

Above post continued:

1. Note that time, energy, mass, and position etc, are in effect merely categories that can be represented by numbers; time, energy, mass, and position can’t themselves cause number change: a lot of people get confused by this issue. Similarly, law of nature relationships are merely relationships: they can’t cause number change.

2. Cosmological Koans, https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3261

3. First Things First: The Physics of Causality, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/236

4. Free will: “The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate”, https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/free_will (Oxford dictionary)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 17, 2019 @ 02:36 GMT
My view is that physicists are making this idea of time way harder than it needs to be. Specifically, my comments are:

1. I may not be understanding this correctly, but do physicists think that the equations of physics work fine when time runs backward and forward because they can put negative numbers in their equations and still get some result? To me, it seems like just because a person...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Roger Granet replied on Jul. 17, 2019 @ 02:37 GMT
By the way, this post was from Roger.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jul. 17, 2019 @ 05:53 GMT
I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that Sean Carroll prefers as a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics.

To illustrate the problem, let's do a gedankenexperiment:

Suppose that tomorrow i will go to the quantum laboratory and make a superposition experiment with two distinct possible outcomes. No matter what measurement outcome i will see tomorrow, my "clone" will the the complementary outcome.

My question now is: does this clone already exist today? If yes, in what sense does it exist already today?

If not, i must take the usual narrative of a branching universe seriously (for the sake of the argument) and infere that a whole universe is generated at the moment the wave function collapses.

The puzzle now is twofould, namely who was the original person in the lab and who is the clone. If i am the clone then i merely have a false memory about my past - i did not live that past but the original did live it. The clone therefore lives in a virtual reality equal to a boltzmann brain that believes its full blown memory about the past indicates that it lived it in the past.

If an infinitude of "original me's" has lived my life from birth to tomorrow (when i go into the lab and perform my experiment) and after the experiment one of those "original me's" is differentiated from me (by seeing the complementary measurement result), I have to ask in what sense it was *not" me before the measurement outcome took place. Are there an infinitude of identical universes stacked upon each other at every point in time? And last but not least - does the formalism of quantum mechanics indicate in any way that such an infinitude of identical "copies" is inherent in the superposition that will take place tomorrow?

I would be thankful for some enlightening answers.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Jul. 21, 2019 @ 16:21 GMT
"does the formalism of quantum mechanics indicate in any way that such an infinitude of identical "copies" is inherent in the superposition that will take place tomorrow?"

No. See my comments here

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 16, 2019 @ 17:05 GMT
Robert,

You referred to "Philosophers On a Physics Experiment that *Suggests There’s No Such Thing As Objective Reality*”.

Academia and Quora Digest are bombarding me with offers that are also not welcome to me.

Well, I read the paper "‘Cantor on Infinity in Nature, Number, and the Divine Mind’".

However, should I also read "The influence of Spinoza’s concept of infinity on Cantor’s set theory", Achtner's "Perspectives on Infinity from History", "Spinoza's Metaphysics of Substancet", WITTGENSTEIN AND THE LABYRINTH OF ‘ACTUAL INFINITY’: THE CRITIQUE OF TRANSFINITE SET THEORY,"A Substance Consisting of an Infinity of Attributes: Spinoza on the Infinity of Attributes", a related Descartes, René paper "A Mathematical Interpretation of Spinoza's Ethics: Short preliminary remarks", "Perspectives - The Nature Of The Definiteness Of The Set-Theoretical Universe", "On Some Philosophical Aspects of the Background to Georg Cantor’s theory of sets", "Review of Pauline Phemister's Leibniz and the Natural World", "Leibnizian Continuity", "Monads Facing the Labyrinth of the Continuum", etc.?

No, having thoroughly studied what I see as irrelevant ideas of monism, I don't need Wittgenstein as to feel sympathy with Georg Cantor who might have understood being wrong with his AC and therefore ended up in a mad house.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Oct. 16, 2019 @ 21:02 GMT
Eckard,

"You referred to..."

I was referring only to my final comments (in my browser, my link goes directly to my final comments, rather than the top of the web-page) in which I stated “the Fourier analysis will simply and automatically change the model-of-reality it creates, to perfectly match the ever changing observations” and the light that statement may shed on the correct interpretation of Everett’s Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM or the existence of an actual Multiverse.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Jul. 18, 2019 @ 15:51 GMT
Dear Reality Fans,

The real VISIBLE Universe never “started out.” Physicists have only ever proven that all real matter has a real VISIBLE surface. They have never proven that any invisible empty space has ever existed. Physicists have only ever ASSUMED that a void once existed and that there was a finite “early universe”. Physicists have only ever ASSUMED that there were three finite dimensions. Obviously, NATURE must have provided only one VISIBLE reality. The real Earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of real years BEFORE Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their unnatural guesswork concerning finite laws of invisible thermo-dynamics. There has only ever been and there will only ever be one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERLALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Jul. 19, 2019 @ 15:56 GMT
(Zeeya's note: Joe I've deleted the text of this post. It appears to be addressed to Nima Arkani Hamed, but there's no reason to think he's reading this thread.

Please stay on topic.)

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Jul. 21, 2019 @ 13:23 GMT
"it gave him a way to define "meaningful information"—and that even slipperier idea, "meaning" itself."

But his definitions leave something to be desired. Here are some better ones

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 05:10 GMT
These interviews of Carroll and Rovelli are both quite interesting since they show two very smart people with many related but very different narratives about the nature of reality. Narratives with measurement are what guide science and without measurements, there really is no role for science. However, narratives without measurement are what guide philosophy and there are philosophy is a perpetual discourse among many very smart people about the nature of physical reality.

“Every philosopher believes they are correct in disagreeing with every other philosopher and so only one philosopher could ever actually be correct.” Paul Skokowski.

Neither Carroll nor Rovelli acknowledge the unknowable precursors that result from quantum phase correlation and superposition, but both accept the notion that the universe changes and that outcomes all have precursors, i.e., cause and effect. However, they do not discuss the two very different kinds of changes that make up things that happen: First there is the very slow change of the universe due to gravity; Second, there are the very fast changes of atoms due to charge.

Black holes are endpoints of time and space, but black holes are still subject to the slow changes of universe matter and action. In mattertime, the universe pulse destiny is a single black hole and that destiny births the next antiverse/universe pulse. An antiverse expansion is the first half pulse that grows with antimatter precursors then a universe matter pulse decay is the

second half pulse.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 06:46 GMT
But the philosophers belief in the correctness of their disagreement could be wrong. E.g. Sometimes people are talking about the same things in different words. And so there need not be just one correct philosopher. I think the statement by Paul Skokowski is just a put down regarding philosophy; as if the explanation of things is unimportant. Is agreement without understanding, or the attempt to understand, better? I think not.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 15:43 GMT
Dear Georgina,

Please remember that: Cogito, ergo sum is (sic) a Latin philosophical

proposition by René Descartes usually translated into English as "I think,

therefore I am". The phrase originally appeared in French as je pense, donc je suis in his Discourse on the Method, so as to reach a wider audience than Latin would have allowed. Wikipedia

René would have been closer to telling the truth had he averred: Je suppose que,

comme tout le monde sur la planète “I guess, just like everybody else on the

planet does.” All philosophers and theoretical physicists would come closer to telling

the truth if they would only preface all of their remarks with the term:

“I guess.” Professor Markus Mueller of the Vienna Institute for Quantum Optics

and Quantum Information has confirmed to me by email that all philosophers and theoretical physicists have always guessed about the real structure of the Universe. But he insists that he only makes “good” guesses, not arbitrary ones.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 22:56 GMT
Does this mean all of your statements about reality will be prefaced with "I guess" from now on?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 06:30 GMT
Hi Kate, BTW re. your "Does drinking a glass of red wine with dinner make you live longer? Does it make cancer cells less likely to grow?". "In its Report on Carcinogens, the National Toxicology Program of the US Department of Health and Human Services lists consumption of alcoholic beverages as a known human carcinogen." https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/a
lcohol/alcohol-fact-sheet

Worth knowing I think. However it may reduce likelihood of other stress related illnesses.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jul. 23, 2019 @ 22:41 GMT
The 2019 FQXi conference [1] has pinned this article [2] to the top of its twitter page. The speakers and attendees have spent a lot of time trying to decide what life, agency and free will are, and whether they are compatible with current physics, or whether new physics is required.

But the topology of life, agency and free will is completely different to the topology of determinism:

…..Determinism means that laws of nature determine all outcomes for matter.

…..Agency/ free will means that matter itself determines some of its own outcomes. This is new physics only in the sense that it is a different view of matter.

The other issue is that the nature of life, agency and free will is only representable as (but not determined by) algorithms; the nature of life, agency and free will is not representable as equations and numbers alone. Yet there is no way that equations and numbers can transmogrify into algorithms. This is new physics only in the sense that the behaviour of matter needs to be represented by algorithms.

1. Mind Matters: Intelligence and Agency in the Physical World, 20-25 July 2019.

2. First Things First: The Physics of Causality, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/236 .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Jul. 26, 2019 @ 15:40 GMT
...however, it is not possible to know all of the precursors for agency/free will...otherwise, agency free will would also be determinate.

This is why quantum uncertainty plays a key role in agency/free will...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


David Vognar wrote on Sep. 7, 2019 @ 23:29 GMT
I read Sean Carroll's piece in the New York Times. Very insightful. I would say we'll probably never have a complete theory of quantum mechanics because there is always more to know about different dimensions, or degrees of freedom. Quantum mechanics happens at 10 ^-35, but there are other degrees of freedom above and below this dimension. Sometimes when these dimensions interact, we have interesting things, like reverse causality in the transactional interpretation of QM. When the pilot wave or DeBroglie wave extends to infinity, QM kind of can't be complete. Descriptions of other dimensions are not static. Neither are relations between degrees of freedom.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Sep. 8, 2019 @ 16:06 GMT
Dear David Vogner,

There will never be an unnatural published true humanly contrived finite theory of invisible quantum mechanics.

Joe Fisher, Knowing Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

David Vognar replied on Sep. 8, 2019 @ 16:52 GMT
Hi Joe,

I agree somewhat. I question some of the specific terms you use, like unnatural. I think what Von Neumann and the non-Copenhagen schools taught was that there was a natural, real aspect to QM wave functions. For Von Neumann, it was geometrical. We're beginning to see the confluence between physical properties and numerical properties, such as the interesting research out of Princeton last year about prime numbers being encoded in special crystals.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 19, 2019 @ 09:14 GMT
I have an idea for quantum gravity that would also be the physics of causality. I can also explain the physics constants: c, h and G. I was inspired by the idea by looking at several facets of physics that include: big bang cosmology, the derivation of special relativity, the spacetime interval, the spacetime continuum, quantum mechanics, and the Casimir effect. There can only be one...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 19, 2019 @ 09:19 GMT
Incidentally, causality is transmitted outward at the speed of light because these spacetime geometry wavefronts travel outward at the speed of light.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Sep. 19, 2019 @ 16:14 GMT
(Zeeya's note: Joe I've deleted the text of this post. It appears to be addressed to Dr Kuhn, but there's no reason to think he's reading this thread.

Please stay on topic.)

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 20, 2019 @ 00:20 GMT
You do believe the large Hadron collider has been slamming protons into each other, and measuring their byproducts, right?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Sep. 20, 2019 @ 15:31 GMT
(Zeeya's note: Joe I've deleted the text of this post. It appears to be addressed to Nima Arkani Hamed, but there's no reason to think he's reading this thread.

Please stay on topic.)

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 21, 2019 @ 18:55 GMT
Without subjectivity research, physics will become a new religion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvJIzBX5uAY

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Sep. 21, 2019 @ 21:35 GMT
It am all very well for Professor Carroll to be awarded funds for adding to the vast amount of information about humanly contrived finite physical causality. Hundreds of physicists have also been awarded funds for writing about the same subject. However, the physicists have never been able to prove that empty curved space has ever existed. Credentialed physicists have only ever been able to prove that the real planet Earth (and all real matter) had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years BEFORE Professor Carroll ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his parroted unnatural guesswork concerning invisible physical causality. Obviously, NATURE could have only provided one VISIBLE form of reality and that the VISIBLE form of reality could never have contained dual components of space and matter. Nature did never have humanly projected finite causality.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Sep. 22, 2019 @ 15:50 GMT
After I had inserted the word causality into the Google Search Engine, a drop down list of ten items appeared: causality definition; causality models reasoning and inference; causality meaning; causality loop; causality collapser; causality correlation; causality game; causality synonym, and causality manipulation. After I had selected the word causality and depressed the Google Search button I was informed that the Google Search Engine had found About 16,000,000 results (0.52 seconds)

NATURE must have provided only ONE form of VISIBLE physical reality. The only true fact every credentialed physicist has ever proven was that the real planet Earth (and all matter) had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years BEFORE any information about invisible causality was ever published. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 24, 2019 @ 21:10 GMT
Housewife intelligence is much more alive than the intelligence of the Ph.D. physicist. The development of science will happen by layman people. They still have a common sense which theoretical physics has lost long ago. Today science is lost in its own mental labyrinths. Today 5 years of Ph.D. is needed for things which my grandma knew it just by walking in the fields. Science has become a new religion. If you think differently, you are out, you are disbeliever, a dissident. Only alive housewife intelligence can push science forward.

attachments: Einsteins_Relativity_for_Housewives.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 25, 2019 @ 08:00 GMT
While cause and effect belong to reality as I understand it, systems, choice entropy, God, and all that seem rather to be something manmade.

Is there actually at all an immediately complete reality of elementary particles? My conjecture of reality as the most reasonable open framework is emancipating from creationism.

If determinism requires the unrealistic view of the world as limited system, may we then hope for "understanding" rather than accepting elapsing time of reality?

I go on criticizing non-causalities and generalized arbitrarily chosen references.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Sep. 25, 2019 @ 15:23 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Recently published humanly contrived information concerning invisible cause and effect has absolutely nothing to do with naturally provided VISIBLE reality.

Joe Fisher, Natural Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 25, 2019 @ 16:47 GMT
Dear Joe,

Imagine a sponge with six visible surfaces each of 1 x 1 cm^2. Its inner surface is much larger than 1 cm^3. For several reasons, visibility is definitely not the only criterion of reality. Material things tend also to be audible, tangible, etc. real

Even a plan may come true as a real cause of a real effect.I mentioned Morgenthau's one as a horrible example. Conjectured existence of something we are calling reality is just the most reasonable logical opposite of a perhaps wrong attribution, in particular a belief or another premature explanation.

We both might hopefully agree on that it is often premature to accept a theory and its putative consequences as facts for good. Some physicists imagine a deterministic world ruled by generalized laws that are symmetrical in time. This is obviously unreal because these laws do certainly not completely correspond to the conjectured reality.

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Sep. 27, 2019 @ 15:47 GMT
Dear Eckard,

VISIBLE reality am not a theory. NATURAL VISIBLE REALITY am the only fact.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 27, 2019 @ 16:46 GMT
Hi Eckard,Joe,

Well Joe you continue in telling us the same ironical conclusion. Please explain your conclusion because we understand Nothing. With your visible surface and am and this and that.What is the origin of your concclusion,philosophical,mathematical,physical.Please stop your non sense and explain because it's Simply stupid there ,really.It's for you that I say this me,you are odd Joe really and Don't answer,steve visible reality am the only fact,explain….

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 27, 2019 @ 16:50 GMT
LOL imagine Joe is I repeat Always am sphere an infinite spherical am reality ? you Don't find this odd you? am sphere visible spherical reality the only fact insn't it? lol me I want well but it's irritating and frustrating there

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Sep. 28, 2019 @ 13:31 GMT
Dear Steve,

Question: Am the Universe VISIBLE? Answer: Yes. Question: When did the universe become VISIBLE? Answer: The universe must ETERNALLY be VISIBLE. Question: Am unnatural published human guesswork about invisible finite good and evil and invisible finite quantum particles that could be in more than one invisible place at the same time, the least bit sensible? Answer: No. Question: When was all of this preposterous speculation published, and how much longer am it likely to be taught to children? Answer: It was published recently and it will continue to be taught to children for as long as ignorant priests and professors are employed.

Je Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 29, 2019 @ 15:32 GMT
Hi Joe,

Thanks,you develop a little bit,it's better but you can still make better in inserting physics and maths.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 1, 2019 @ 10:23 GMT
Incidentally, In Sean Caroll's excellent speech, I stumbled about "a part of infinity".

Eckard Blumschein

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 1, 2019 @ 10:50 GMT
Hi Eckard,

I am curious,what is your philosophical idea about this infinity and infinities.Do you consider a main cause to our reality,like an Eternal infinite consciousness sending,creating codes informations,to build this universe? You can explain me with maths,numbers,physics .What is in resume the origin of our physicality.Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Oct. 1, 2019 @ 16:23 GMT
Dear Steve and Eckard,

When the finite word “infinity” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 818,000,000 results (0.74 seconds)” NATURE must have provided only ONE reality. The only true fact every physicist who has ever lived has been able to conclusively prove about the real physical universe was that the real planet Earth (and all matter) had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years BEFORE men ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing 818,000,000 finite results for the finite word “infinity.” There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified INFINITE VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by One form of non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 1, 2019 @ 16:26 GMT
Hi Steve,

While I appreciate to some degree discussions about superfinitism by mathematicians like Katz, cf.

https://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2017-November/020691.html ,

and I hesitated to completely swallow the superfinitist view of Mückenheim who argues against the infinitum absolutum, I got aware of confusion due to two quite different meanings: being infinite as a property, and Leibniz' relative infinity. With respect to physics, I rather perfer Salviati (Galileo).

Regards,

Rckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 6, 2019 @ 15:22 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:

“I think science is humanity’s greatest cultural achievement, collectively. Having said that, there are limits that are always going to be present.”

British physician and neuroscientist Raymond Tallis discusses the limitations of science, including its failure to explain fundamental metaphysical questions like, "why is there something rather than nothing?" Watch other experts weight in: http://bit.ly/2nfw5cr

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and my own Facebook page:

When the FINITE question: "why is there something rather than nothing?" was entered into the Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 107,000 (supposedly FINITE) results (0.47 seconds)” Seeing that the Planet Earth had a visible surface for millions of years before Raymond Tallis ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing his unnatural supposedly FINITE guesswork concerning FINITE something and invisible nothing. Obviously, Nature could have only provided one sort of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one form of finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 6, 2019 @ 15:35 GMT
dear Joe,

please explain us differently.Philosophically,physically,mathematically.There we don4t understand nothing. Please explain the causes of your conclusion, it is odd there,we need more details to encircle what you mean,what you tell us.Invisible,visible,am,this and that,me I want well but your Words aren t sufficient simply.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Oct. 7, 2019 @ 14:31 GMT
Steven.

Was there a real visible Earth surface millions of years ago?

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Oct. 7, 2019 @ 14:35 GMT
Steve,

Did humanly contrived supposedly FINITE mathematics and physics exist millions of years ago?

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 9, 2019 @ 10:51 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:

“Warren Brown talks about the God Module: the idea that there is a section of the brain responsible for religious experiences and that those experiences can be brought on by epileptic seizures. Brown argues that the term "God Module" is an overinterpretation. Can the entirety of religious experience be attributed to brain structure and chemistry?

Watch more interviews on evolutionary psychology and religion: http://bit.ly/2Ok867q”

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:

When the FINITE question: “Can the entirety of religious experience be attributed to brain structure and chemistry?” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 1,010,000 (supposedly different FINITE) results (1.01 seconds)” But Nature must have provided only one undifferentiated visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one form of finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Normal Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 9, 2019 @ 11:25 GMT
Hi Joe,well we have understood,let s go farer please.I have several questions.When I was 17 years old I searched answers to our universe.So I have read a Little bit of all,books of philosophy,the talmud,the bibble,the coran,the buddhism ,this and that.The best answers I must say were given by sciences,I have ranked a Little bit of all,the animals,the vegetals,the minerals,the Chemistry,the biology,the physics,the maths mainly.So in all humility we can discuss about all.So I repeat do you beleive in God,what is your personal faith.Me I beleive in this infinite eternal consciousness but with determinism,I am not religious because they are human inventions simply but I respect the persons having faith in their religions chosen.So tell me you are christian ? or others ? please explain me what you mean by your analyses,thanks

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Oct. 10, 2019 @ 14:21 GMT
Steve,

All science books supposedly provide myriad pieces of FINITE information. But Nature provided only one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 10, 2019 @ 14:31 GMT
Joe ,still you don t develop,it becomes crazy to Always repeat the same,are you conscious of that? We have understood Joe,so now explain why philosophically speaking.Is it a joke Joe? Your Words are nor relevant ,nor interesting,really,you have found nothing in fact.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 10, 2019 @ 14:14 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:

“Biologist Jeff Schloss discusses how evolutionary psychology has delivered supports both for and against religious cognition. He weighs in on the innate human disposition to belief in the supernatural. Is there justification for religious belief? And has evolutionary psychology led to certainty in theological debate or further ambiguity?

Watch more interviews on evolutionary psychology and religion: http://bit.ly/2Ok867q”

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:

When the FINITE question: “Has evolutionary psychology led to certainty in theological debate or further ambiguity?” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 432,000 (supposedly differing FINITE) results (0.98 seconds)” When the FINITE question: “Has regular everyday psychology led to certainty in theological debate or further ambiguity?” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 607,000 (supposedly differing FINITE) results (0.94 seconds) Nature could have provided only one undifferentiated form of visible reality. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one form of finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Singular Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 11, 2019 @ 14:21 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:

“Philosopher J.L. Schellenberg warns against the fallacy of supposing you can move directly from what you know about the origin of a belief to a conclusion about whether or not that belief is true or false. However, knowing the origin of a belief can lead to increased skepticism. Does evolutionary psychology create doubt in religion by examining the origin of religious expereinces? Watch more interviews on evolutionary psychology and religion: http://bit.ly/2Ok867q”

I have posted this sensible remark at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:

When the question: “Does (FINITE invisible) evolutionary psychology create (FINITE invisible) doubt in (FINITE invisible) religion by examining the (FINITE invisible) origin of (FINITE invisible) religious expereinces?(sic)” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 11,300,000 supposedly differing FINITE results (0.76 seconds)” When the question: “Does (FINITE invisible) pre-evolutionary psychology create (FINITE invisible) doubt in (FINITE invisible) religion by examining the (FINITE invisible) origin of (FINITE invisible) religious expereinces?” (sic) was entered into the Google Search Engine, it yielded: “About 9,880,000 (supposedly differing FINITE) results (1.05 seconds)”Nature provided only one infinite visible reality.

Joe Fisher, Visible Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 12, 2019 @ 14:21 GMT
Yesterday’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:

“Does evolutionary psychology undermine religion? What function does religion serve in society? Watch acclaimed author Jared Diamond's full interview: http://bit.ly/2Mfo5B1”

I posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:

When the FINITE question: “What FINITE invisible function does FINITE invisible Religion serve in a FINITE abstract society?” was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 4,810,000 results (0.96 seconds)” But Nature could have only eternally devised one infinite visible reality. The only true fact every credentialed physicist has ever proven was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface for millions of real years before Jared Diamond and the other 4,810,000 humans ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing their unnatural supposedly FINITE guesswork concerning the supposedly FINITE invisible effects of FINITE invisible religion on abstract societies. There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Normal Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 13, 2019 @ 14:47 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:

“Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Alan H. Guth talks about one of the oldest questions: where did everything come from? What are the origins of our universe?

Watch the interview: http://bit.ly/33rEA3N”

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and n the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:

When the finite question: “What are the origins of our universe?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 82,700,000 supposedly finite results” (0.84 (finite) seconds) But the visible universe provided by nature must have been infinite. The only true fact every credentialed physicist was ever able to prove was that the real planet Earth and all real matter had a real visible surface. Not one of them has ever been able to prove that there was any amount of curved or dead straight invisible space. One real visible universe could not possibly have had a single finite origin. There has only ever been, and there will only ever be one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe William Fisher wrote on Oct. 15, 2019 @ 16:00 GMT
Today’s Closer to Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar assertion:

Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:

“How did this whole universe thing begin? Cosmologist Laura Mersini-Houghton discusses the big bang theory, time, the multiverse, and the ultimate nature of the universe.

See more interviews about the origins of the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 15, 2019 @ 16:44 GMT
Joe,do you understand that the universe is finite like our series of particles coded and that we have constants and infinities too inside this physicality like tools ,and now philosophically speaking ,above ,beyond this physicality we have an infinite eternal consciousness and this infinity created this fionite physicality in sending codes ,informations to build this universe? so all what you tell us need details simply,we don t need courses about what is this infinity,the infinities like pi or others and the finite systems coded,DEVELOP PLEASE

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Oct. 16, 2019 @ 14:09 GMT
Steve,

What was a visible surface called 25 million years ago? Oh, that’s right, there was nobody around 25 million years ago to call anything.

Joe Fisher, Literate Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 16, 2019 @ 14:25 GMT
Joe, study a Little bit the evolution of this Earth,we have bones analysed with the carbon 14,we know the age of the Earth and its evolution in billions and millions years ,so please explain me what you mean because really I don t understand nothing.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 17, 2019 @ 14:32 GMT
CAUSALITY :) I am going to create a group to convice this UN with Concrete global solutions,mainly the liberation of funds of this World Bank and the industiralisation with determinism of our solar system and a harmonisation on Earth of ecosystems and their interactions.We must give water,food,energy,jobs,hopes to the majority and our actual global system cannot reach the points of equilibrium.The persons in this team must be totally univeral and altruist and skilling in sciences without Vanity.We can do it with the good persons and the good solutions,we cannot accept this globality and for the next generations this stupid global system forgetting the universal foundamentals.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Joe William Fisher replied on Oct. 17, 2019 @ 14:43 GMT
Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of news:

“Scientists postulate that 73 percent of the universe is dark energy. What does that mean, how do we know that and what are the implications? Cosmologist John Peacock explains.

Watch more videos on dark energy: http://bit.ly/33DShgl”

I have posted this sensible comment at the website and on the FQXi.org Community Board and on my own Facebook page:

When the finite question: “How much of the finite universe is finite dark energy?” was entered into the finite Google Search Engine, it elicited: “About 3,650,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.84 (finite) seconds) But if we ask ourselves what was the Universe made of millions of years ago before white scientific males made those 3,650,000 (supposedly finite) results (0.84 (finite) seconds) speculations? We have to rely on the one true fact every credentialed physicist has been able to prove. The Universe had a visible surface then and of course the Universe has a visible surface now. Obviously, Nature must have only provided one infinite visible surface and all human speculation about any possible finite invisible aspect of the universe am utter pretentious codswallop.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 17, 2019 @ 14:57 GMT
lol Joe,you are a phenomen in fact and the Word is weak.Can you please tell us more about your philosophical point of vue? please,please,PLEASE Joe my friend human of this Sphere :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.