There is yet so much that we, the physics community, do not understand. Quantum Mechanics is an advanced guessing game that they call information. Entropic gravity means that information attracts other information. I think it is becoming clear that we've reached our limit of understanding.
Jason Wolfe replied on May. 1, 2010 @ 22:03 GMT
Dear James,
For the life of me, I can't find your other message. I spend 30 minutes looking for it. I even copied the whole topic to MS notepad and searched for keywords, it's lost. I think if an FQXI Administrator had edited it out on purpose, he would have documented that: "such and such post was deleted because I didn't like it"; or something like that. I'm guessing it got lost or...
view entire post
Dear James,
For the life of me, I can't find your other message. I spend 30 minutes looking for it. I even copied the whole topic to MS notepad and searched for keywords, it's lost. I think if an FQXI Administrator had edited it out on purpose, he would have documented that: "such and such post was deleted because I didn't like it"; or something like that. I'm guessing it got lost or deleted by accident.
"The idea of introducing causes into theory introduces artificial stopping points in learning. I have said enough here in these forums and blogs to recognize that this viewpoint doesn't attract interest. " What could be more important that Cause? ... why? I was raised by my mother who was heavily entrenched into occultism and mysticism. Most intelligent people dismiss such ideas as being evolutionary firmware for the brain that fools our sense. But I'm one of the few highly intelligent persons who (1) does not suffer from schizophrenia and (2) has stood face to face with entities that are not supposed to exist.
CAUSE is extremely important to me. What causes these experiences? I regularly ask for help and assistance from disembodied intelligences; I make it a point to only work with those who are honorable and work within the framework of the Golden Rule. I like to be able to sleep at night, knowing that, whatever might be around me, it's trying to help me. I don't want anyone or anything to bring chaos into my life. I have no time for chaos.
Entropic gravity is a new level of the elaborate guessing game of physics. They say that information entropy causes gravity. I can't seem to get anyone to tell me exactly what kind of information they mean. But somehow, black-holes have 1's and 0's on their surface, and they call that holographic gravity.
I'm not knocking them for it. We are just very far away from what is solid and easily definable. We are exploring a conceptual landscape.
My point is this: determining the cause allows you to make progress; it's the ability to get results that nobody else can. To be bluntly clear, if I ask for help in physics from God, spirits and other dis-embodied intelligences, most intelligent people would expect my results to be confusion as I get lost in nonsense and gibberish. However, I have achieved results as follows:
1. shown that time travel must be impossible because it violates energy conservation.
2. Many worlds interpretation must be impossible because it violates energy conservation.
3. Faster than light propulsion DOES NOT lead to time travel; that is a fundamental misunderstanding of GR.
4. Astronomers look at light from far away stars, which is an image of the past. Even if we could travel FTL, we wouldn't be able to change the past of anything.
5. Alcubierre hyperdrive is energetically unfeasible. We can't just convert planets, stars and universes so we can trek around the galaxy.
6. Proper Hyper-drive physics requires a more reasonable use of energy. This forces us to consider/look for/hope for the existence of a faster space-time, a hyper space.
7. Messier 87, a huge and powerful galaxy 60 million light years away, has been emitting a jet of energy that appears to travel superluminally. Skeptics try to explain it away as being along our line of sight; however, it turns out that these jets, on average, not along our line of sight. Some jets clock a 9c.
Cause leads you to what is real. I think that non physical intelligences exist. If I am right, then I can ask them for help. I have, and I have gotten results. Very good results. My results are so good that nobody here on this blog wants to debate me. But I love to debate...
If you correctly identify the cause, you can figure out how to use it, how to correctly work with it. You can get results. You can demonstrate those results in real ways, like winning debates.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James putnam replied on May. 2, 2010 @ 04:07 GMT
Hi Jason,
I believe your message about mass referred to mass as something substantive that exhibits resistance to force? My response was to identify mass as the property of resistance to force. Matter resists force. Mass is the reason why. Mass is that property of matter that causes matter to resist force. When we finally learn why matter resists force, then we will learn what mass is.
When I challenge the credibility of theoretical guesses about what cause is, I am speaking only about theoretical physics. I am only confronting the mechanical ideas about what cause is. They are all theoretical guesses. We only learn about patterns in effects. Effects are all that we observe. If we could show that all effects are due to a single primary cause, then we would have only one unknown. No matter what the theory is, we will always have that one unknown, mechanically speaking that is.
However, what I see as having occurred is that there are patterns of effects that, we identify as being so different from one another that, we conclude they must be due to separate causes. In other words, our lack of understanding leaves us unable to see fundamental unity in the patterns of effects. We then conclude, in order that we may proceed into the unknown without explaining cause, that cause is whatever we need, because we are stymied as to how otherwise proceed, to give theoretical reasons for patterns in effects that appear to be unique. We cannot connect the various patterns together, so we conclude that it is due to the existence of separate fundamental causes.
I say that it is due to our lack of fundamental understanding about the nature of cause. Separate, unique causes are not real fundamental causes, they are evidence of intellectual gaps in our understanding about the operation of the universe. Every one of the causes of theoretical physics is theoretical, meaning artificial. The equations of theoretical physics never contain cause except in the symbolic representation of the equals sign. Initial conditions equal, in other words are caused to change into, final conditions.
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on May. 2, 2010 @ 06:07 GMT
Dear James,
I agree that mass resists force in the inertial sense. To me, energy takes different forms. Light (photons) are the electromagnetic form of energy that manifests as a field, it is spread out in space. Matter is a kind of energy that is very localized in space. When considering both gravity and inertia, mass and energy would be interchangeable. They should both generate gravitational forces, they should also both require a certain amount of force to change their inertial frame.
Cause is like a chain that is, on one side, attached to the bumper of a pickup truck, and the other side is wrapped around a stump. So, why did the stump suddenly get pulled out of the ground? Well, if we look, there are several links of a chain that wrap around the stump. Ok, so how did these links of the chain pull the stump out of the ground? Well, those links run, one link to the next, to the bumper of a pickup truck...
In other words, cause can be hidden as links in a chain. If any one of those links are removed, the chain is broken and the cause is removed. Yet one link alone is not sufficient to pull the stump out of the ground.
If you're an ant that lives in the ant pile next to the stump, you can barely comprehend the existence of one link. We are all the ants who are trying to understand the forces that operate in and around us. We need to understand these forces so that we can benefit from these forces.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on May. 4, 2010 @ 23:34 GMT
Jason,
I like your links in a chain explanation.I think also sometimes it is easy to find a chain of events and give simplistic cause for each event in the chain. Whereas the real situation is far more chaotic and there may be multiple unobserved or unaccounted influences that cause a tipping in a particular direction of change or influence the out come in some way. Assigning this or that as the cause does not mean that it acts in isolation.
To stay with your example, other variables might be condition of stump eg. wood rot, ground conditions, weather conditions, metal fatigue or corrosion of bumper, condition of vehicle engine, gears and tires, experience of operator, enough fuel to operate truck, maybe payment of cash in advance. All of the variables known and unknown must give those spatio-energetic conditions that permit the stump to be extracted.
Certain variables can be controlled in order to give a good probability of desired outcome. They are put into the system of the universe and there is an out come. Hopefully as expected but not always. Only by controlling every single possible variable known and unknown can the out come be certain. You might do every thing right for your stump extraction and then find the truck operator has died of a heart attack. The stump is still in the ground because despite all of your preparation and checks you didn't take the farm hands health on that particular day into consideration.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 00:09 GMT
Dear Georgina,
While imagining the stump in the ground metaphor, I was actually thinking in terms of the ants defending their home. If the driver had a heart attack, I would think that was just blind luck from the point of view of the ants.
But you are right, there are usually a great many things that have to go right in order for something planned to actually manifest. In terms of determining causes within the scope of physics, I guess it depends what you're looking for. If you're looking for an spatio-energetic point of view, then all you have to do is design/describe the right kind of transform that makes it easy to see; perhaps a quaternion model. If you're looking for a hyper-drive, then you have to figure out what is causing space itself function the way we observe it to.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 03:02 GMT
Jason,
Yes, looking on the bright side, lucky ants.
I think that the chaotic, complex and unpredictable nature of the universe needs to be taken into account as well as having simplified mechanistic models.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 04:34 GMT
Georgina,
Are you being humorous? If the universe is unpredictable, then you can't create a model to predict it. If it's too complex, you also can't make a model that is not incredibly and unproductively complicated. Mother nature has already provided us with a way to account for the chaotic, complex and unpredictalbe nature of the universe. It's called intuition.
report post as inappropriate
GeorginaParry replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 06:02 GMT
Jason,
No. The ants amused me but I am being serious about chaos.
The complexity can be simplified to give an approximation of what is occurring without being absolutely perfect in detail. It is not possible to map the change in position of every particle in the universe. So a model will be imperfect because of simplification of the complexity. A model is not reality itself it is a representation only. As are our our models of hydrological systems and weather and climate.
It is not possible to predict with absolute certainty because there are many different variables, known and unknown which are all playing their part. We can not use models to see nor control the future. We can only use them to give an indication of what is considered most likely to happen, given the variables that have been input into the model. This means that an unknown variable that has not been input into the model could change the out come completely.
Yes "intuition" or a guess as to what the weather will do in 2 weeks time may be as good or even better than the prediction of the best long range weather forecast model. Numbers in a model are not a real weather system. What happens in the universe has an element of chance or unpredictability due to chaos. That makes it more than a mechanistic clockwork system. There are many possibilities and any slight variation may possibly lead to a different outcome, which falls outside of the prediction based on simplistic mechanistic cause and effect and trends.Imo.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 10:36 GMT
Dear Georgina,
The complexity is not a correlation with the chaos.
The chaos is only a local perception or a short moment inside a harmonious serie.
We can't say that dear Georgina, the universe is not chaotic, really it's essential even .
The complexity is in the creations, the mass which evolve.
It's a pure road os harmony when we take the gauges and the main referentials, foundamentals furthermore with its intrinsic constants.
The complexity is not the sister of the chaos, it's purely impossible .The chaos is just a human perception and even actions by humans, that's all.These effects never shall interact with the universe in its whole, these causes thus do not exist in an universal point of vue.Thus the chaotic effects thus also do not exist in fact.
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 12:45 GMT
Dear Steve and Georgina,
'Chaos' can lead to 'simplicity'. Consider the Lucas numbers: 2, 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 18, 29, 47, ... where
2 = (phi)^0 + (-phi)^(-0) exactly
1 = (phi)^1 + (-phi)^(-1) exactly
3 = (phi)^2 + (-phi)^(-2) exactly
4 = (phi)^3 + (-phi)^(-3) exactly
7 = (phi)^4 + (-phi)^(-4) exactly
11 = (phi)^5 + (-phi)^(-5) exactly
18 = (phi)^6 + (-phi)^(-6) exactly
29 = (phi)^7 + (-phi)^(-7) exactly, etc.
with phi = (1+SQRT(5))/2 = 1.618034... = Golden Ratio,
with 2+1=3, 1+3=4, 3+4=7, 4+7=11, 7+11=18, 11+18=29, etc.,
and with 4/3 ~ 7/4 ~ 11/7 ~ 18/11 ~ 29/18 ~ ... ~ phi = 1.618034...
Thus, 'fractals' may lead to 'integers', and 'chaos' may lead to 'simplicity'.
You may e-mail me at mm_buyer@comcast.net if you want more details.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 15:52 GMT
Hi Dr Cosmic Ray,
The chaos seems just in the locality with a very short moment but never in the whole of the equation.
Could you tell me more please about this serie of Lucas.Why the two in first ?
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 16:10 GMT
Dear Steve,
You said "The chaos seems just in the locality with a very short moment but never in the whole of the equation."
If we introduce scales and scale invariance, then we might require equations that mix powers of phi with like powers (scaled) of the inverse of phi. Thus, the Lucus numbers only make sense in this application if there is a broken symmetry - such as Supersymmetry - that is scaled relative to the symmetry/ Universe that we observe.
You also asked "Could you tell me more please about this series of Lucas. Why the two in first?" Any number raised to the zeroth power is one, so (phi)^0 + (-phi)^(-0) is just a fancy way of writing 1+1=2 within the context of the Lucas pattern that is being defined here. The integer two is strange because 1/2 is not approximately phi, whereas ratios further down the sequence, such as 29/18 = 1.6111... ~ 1.618034... are approximately phi. However, the two is consistent as the zeroth term in the Lucas series within the context of 2+1=3.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 16:42 GMT
Thank you Dr Cosmic Ray,
The series are numerous, Bernouilli, Euler, Fibonacci, Lucas now....many divisions shall give this ratio in fact.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 16:56 GMT
James, you wrote to Jason "I believe your message about mass referred to mass as something substantive that exhibits resistance to force? My response was to identify mass as the property of resistance to force. Matter resists force. Mass is the reason why. Mass is that property of matter that causes matter to resist force. When we finally learn why matter resists force, then we will learn what mass is."
Einstein answered this long ago, with the equivalence principle. Because inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass, mass is what makes smooth spacetime lumpy.
It seems often that when what something "is" has been explained over and over, someone wants to know what "is" means.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 17:18 GMT
Hi Tom,
You said: "It seems often that when what something "is" has been explained over and over, someone wants to know what "is" means."
Wow, you just cannot seem to lower your eyes far enough to spot lowly me can you?
You said: "Because inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass, mass is what makes smooth spacetime lumpy."
Mass is mass. It is not a surprise that it looks the same in different equations. Mass is not a cause. Mass is an effect. That is why it shows up in equations. Cause never shows up in equations unless the theorist is distorting the properties included in the equations. Every cause is represented always and only by the equals sign. Nothing that we have seen or can do will ever effect either pace or time. There is no place on this earth where any physicist has captured and contained either space or time. For that matter, there is no place on this earth where any physicist has captured and contained energy either.
There are no known causes for anything. There are only imagined causes forced into equations, either the left side or the right side, by physicists. The right side is always about initial conditions. The left side is always about final conditions. The means by which initial conditions change into final condtions is represented by the equals sign. No one knows how to explain the power behind the equals sign. The invented forces of theoretical physics are only imaginary. The universe of theoretical physics is only imaginary. If we actually knew anything about why the universe operates as it does, there would be no need for theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is the practice of inventing imaginary causes.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 17:32 GMT
James, you wrote, "Wow, you just cannot seem to lower your eyes far enough to spot lowly me can you?"
Don't sell yourself short. I never reply to anyone when it's not worth it. And you always give me something to strongly disagree with. Put it in perspective, though: I disagreed so much with John Horgan's book The End of Science that I read it three times. It was a rich source of personal insights from the world's leading scientists, even though I thought, and think, that Horgan's premise ("ironic science") is completely wrong. As I do yours.
"If we actually knew anything about why the universe operates as it does, there would be no need for theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is the practice of inventing imaginary causes."
Theologians and philosophers want to know why. The less ambitious among us are satisfied to know how. And we do know how spacetime affects mass, and vice versa. Those causes and effects are empirical.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 17:40 GMT
Hi Tom,
You said: "Don't sell yourself short. I never reply to anyone when it's not worth it. And you always give me something to strongly disagree with."
Well I guess I maybe, kinda, sorta, shoulda be thanking you for that back handed compliment; but, I do not sell myself short, others dothat for me all the time.
You said: "Theologians and philosophers want to know why. The less ambitious among us are satisfied to know how. And we do know how spacetime affects mass, and vice versa. Those causes and effects are empirical."
You are mistaken again. You do not know even 'how'. You only know about patterns in effects. Everything else that you think you know is contrived. It is theoretical. It is made up. No one knows what cause is.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 18:17 GMT
James, that you perceive it as a backhanded compliment only further betrays your negative image of your own worth. What do you care what I think, anyway?
Saying that "no one knows what cause is," however, is equivalent to saying that "no one knows what existence is." You got me there.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 18:36 GMT
Tom,
You said: "James, that you perceive it as a backhanded compliment only further betrays your negative image of your own worth. What do you care what I think, anyway?"
Wow, you are looking even further down. If you do yet understand why you do not see me, it is because I am not down where you are looking.
You said: "Saying that "no one knows what cause is," however, is equivalent to saying that "no one knows what existence is." You got me there."
Everyone nows what existence is. Existence is experience. We experience. We do not know why we experience. No one knows why we experience. With regard to theoretical physics: No one knows how we experience. I repeat that: no one knows what cause is. Your causes are imaginary, in other words, theoretical. What is not imaginary is that we can experience existence. The important question, after we rid ourselves of mechanical theory, is: What is the origin of intelligence?
Your studies can help us solve mechanical type problems. Your science has nothing to offer us with regard to real meaningful existence. It is meaningful existence that is real. Why is it meaningful? It is meaningful because the universe is formed from the property of meaning. How do you know anything meaningful at all from that storm of photons that are crashing against you right now? Why not consider that problem first before claiming mastery over space and time?
James
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 21:14 GMT
Steve,
This is how it seems to me. Complexity is discernible order on the boundary between that which is so complex it appears disordered and that which has a relatively simple, clearly apparent order. Within that which appears disordered, chaos, there are so many unknown variables, that can not be accounted for, that any change could potentially cause a large difference in outcome. Having said that does not imply that there is -no- order within the chaos.
There are complex patterns of change that appear to be self similar over different scales and these patterns could theoretically be used to understand and make predictions of what -might- happen even within a chaotic system. By looking at the patterns of change rather than individual processes.This is necessarily another human simplification of a more complex natural phenomenon. The model may show one or several different equally possible out comes or probabilities of different possible outcomes, when different values for variables are input. Rather than always one and only one possible outcome.
I agree that there are discernible processes and series of events and rules within the universe that can be used in models that allow some predictions to be made. However there is, imo ,also chaos which makes it more than merely mechanical and totally predictable.
It unfortunate that within the English language chaos has negative connotations. It is considered too disorderly to deal with or cope with. It is considered dangerous because of its unpredictability. Because of that potential for harm and being the opposite of clear order it may be associated with evil. These negative associations have nothing to do with the scientific notion of chaos. It is not a bad thing. It leads to variation, the unexpected, new potential rather than mere mechanical repetition of the one and only possible course and its inevitable outcome.Imo.
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 21:25 GMT
James,you wrote "Everyone nows what existence is. Existence is experience. We experience."
We do, eh? How do you know?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 21:38 GMT
James,
I accept that ultimate truth is unknowable. I accept that it is not possible to construct a perfect scientific model of reality. Should that prevent scientists from making such attempts? I don't think so.
An artist may be incapable of painting a real lily pond. Even his best painting will lack the actual movement of the water, the realistic glimmer of light playing on the surface, the minute changes in the ripples as the breeze blows, the darting insect life etc etc. Does that stop the artist from wanting to capture a "distilled essence" of what it is to him. Made of paint and canvas not living water lily leaves photosynthesizing and live fish swimming and feeding and real rays of sunlight.
Of course the artist will always fall short of the perfect representation given -what- he is doing and what he is -using- to do it. Does it matter? I don't think so. He is creating something that he and others may appreciate for what it is. Not the real thing but a hopefully good, possibly beautiful representation. That allows others to comprehend something about what the lily pond is like. If the artist holds up his painting will you say "but that's not a real lily pond?"
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 21:46 GMT
Tom,
James,you wrote "Everyone nows what existence is. Existence is experience. We experience."
We do, eh? How do you know?"
That is the point. You do not know how we know. You do not know how you know. You are acting as if you know by promoting the imaginary, invented, theoretical speculations of theoretical physics. The answer is not a part of mechanical theories. There is nothing that you can offer that will help to answer your own question. The reason is that your answer is not allowed to include reason.
How are you ever going to explain reason if you must disregard reason? Theoretical physics is the science of mechanics extended to the operation of the universe. Mechanics is usefull dumbness. It is usefull by the intelligent properties that you do not yet recognize and therefore do not yet understand. With dumbness as your base you have no way to move forward. For example I asked in a previous message: 'How do you know anything meaningful at all from that storm of photons that are crashing against you right now?' I remain interested in your's or anyone's answer to that question.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 21:50 GMT
Dear Georgina,
You said: "Should that prevent scientists from making such attempts?"
This looks very much like a question. When you said 'enough questions' that was a two way street. You shut it down, but I start it up again. Are you interested in answering my questions?
James
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 22:01 GMT
When it's all said and done, Physics is just a model of nature. This is why I don't consider it disrespectful/ sacrilegious to talk about a TOE. After all, our best models of nature are only as good as our best data (which is incomplete - there are always new horizons to explore - LHC, astrophysical, etc.), our best mathematics (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says this is also incomplete), and our best models. As such, the search for a TOE is the evolution of a process.
If you look at a Feynman diagram, it is easy to define past and future, but the exact passing of time, the exact cause, and the exact effect may not be obvious. The irreversible nature of processes (2nd Law of Thermo) may not be obvious. Nor is the origin of consciousness obvious. These are some of the limitations of our models. Accept it and try to make progress despite it. Or reject it and try to make progress despite it. Physicists might care where you start and end, but nature doesn't.
An artist's rendering is only as good as his best canvas, his best brushes, his best pigments, and his best abilities. We don’t have 'magic paint' that can transform into the real thing.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 22:25 GMT
James,
it was a rhetorical question. I do not expect you to answer it. It was put there to emphasize a point and perhaps make you think about your own opinion on this matter. I have already stated my own.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 22:26 GMT
Georgina,
"...it was a rhetorical question. I do not expect you to answer it."
Then I won't. Best whishes to you.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 00:48 GMT
James, you wrote, "For example I asked in a previous message: 'How do you know anything meaningful at all from that storm of photons that are crashing against you right now?' I remain interested in your's or anyone's answer to that question. "
No, I don't think you really are interested. However, whether you understand it or not, or whether it means anything to you or not, the experiences that those photons excite in you or anyone or anything else physical, can be exhaustively and objectively explained by ... ready?
Mechanics.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 00:56 GMT
Hi Tom,
Ok, I will assume that you are not joking. I am ready! When photons hit us why does anything more than changes of velocity in our particles of matter occur?
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 01:22 GMT
James,
No, I'm not joking and you aren't ready. Why not learn some basics of statistical and quantum mechanics? Particularly when it comes to sense data, all that one _does_ know objectively is the mechanical chain of events by which data is translated into coherent statements which we call consciousness. That we create models from this sense data gives us science. Our personal experiences are not objective; the models are.
And, my good friend, information originates from changes in velocity. Einstein once said that one could describe a symphony as variations in sound wave pressure -- and that's absolutely true. He further said, however, that such a description would neither reveal the meaning of a symphony, nor contribute to our enjoyment of it. What he meant, as he also said elsewhere in various forms, is that no meaning transpires at all, until one constructs a theory, a model, which incorporates the data.
I know you don't see your view as anti-science. Can you find a scientist who shares it?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 01:30 GMT
Tom,
"...all that one _does_ know objectively is the mechanical chain of events by which data is translated into coherent statements which we call consciousness."
If you are one who knows this, then please explain the path from changes of velocity to consciousness?
"..What he meant, as he also said elsewhere in various forms, is that no meaning transpires at all, until one constructs a theory, a model, which incorporates the data. .."
This statement, that you attribute to Einstein, is obviously backwards.
Rephrasing it: No model can transpire at all until one attaches meaning to the data.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 01:44 GMT
James,
Until one has a notion of how science is done, I suppose it does look like smoke and mirrors.
I regret that I do not have the patience to start from the beginning. Just find one scientist who agrees with you, just one, and we'll have a go.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 01:54 GMT
Tom,
"Until one has a notion of how science is done, I suppose it does look like smoke and mirrors.
I regret that I do not have the patience to start from the beginning. Just find one scientist who agrees with you, just one, and we'll have a go."
Nice smoke and mirrors Tom. Lets remove both of them. If your defense is that the mathematics is too complex, then just explain the ideas behind the mathematics. Afterall, mathematics is only two things for the scientist. One is it provides a great many shortcuts to replace counting. The other is that its symbols represent our thoughts, and, its rules help us to keep our thoughts straight. You could try to explain your thoughts. The counting can come later.
James
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 10:53 GMT
Hello all,
Dear Georgina,
I thank you very much for this beautiful and clear answer.
It's interesting what you say about the language interpretation and the associations.
That permits to distinguish the real sense of this word indeed.
You insert also a good idea of superimposings.
These ideas can be indeed superimposed but can be sorted also....I beleive the objectivity is like a constant and the subjetivity like a serie which tends towards this rationality.In this case, we must be rational about the superimposings ,and thus too, the different subjective interpretations.
It exists only one reality and indeed several subjectives realities, how can we thus superimpose correctly ?
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 11:26 GMT
James, I'm asking you for just one scientist, one single reference from the scientific literature, that supports your philosophy. This idea that you have, that what you think reality "is," is universally shared, doesn't hold water. There is nothing objective there.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 13:58 GMT
Tom,
And I was asking for at least one straight answer. I work alone Tom. I have no references. By the way, your theories do not hold water. If they really did, then unity would not be the phantom of the universe or the universes or the extra added on whatevers. Unity would be right there in front of your eyes beginning with the fundamentals.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 15:02 GMT
James,
Excuse me? I work alone, too, and somehow I have no problem finding support in the scientific literature.
Now if you think that what you see in front of your eyes is in front of anybody else's eyes ... whose? Straight question.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 15:22 GMT
Dear Friends,
I know that there has been a lot of conversation on this thread about information and the emergence of intelligence. These are difficult issues for physics to directly address, but I was working my daily Sudoku puzzle (actually tomorrow's - I try to stay a day ahead of my calendar) and had this thought for the day.
I think that Hyperspace exists. OK - we don't yet know how to touch it, but an Octonion E8 of Hyperspace can contain a significant amount of information with 240 roots versus a simple zero/ one bit processor. This E8 digital memory storage device is how fundamental particles 'remember' their properties. Many of these quantum numbers are interrelated via (hidden, multi-dimensional) conservation laws. Now if we measure one quantity, it may affect the outcome of another quantity via these conservation laws. This causes 'entanglement' across Spacetime and Hyperspace and is analogous to solving one entry in a Sudoku puzzle that automatically solves an entry on the other side of the Sudoku puzzle via conservation laws (i.e. the 'conservation' rules of the game permit only one of each type of digit for each row, column and block).
I realize that this sounds very 'mechanical', and James would be frustrated at the lack of an explanation for intelligence. I understand your frustration James. I am also frustrated at the lack of an explanation for free will (if it exists!). As Tom says, the particles themselves have a degree of sentient intelligence - they at least have access to these Hyperspace E8 digital storage devices that allow them to 'remember' what 'digit' (particle properties) they are and the 'rules of the game' (conservation laws). Perhaps a small amount of the data gets 'scrambled' (one bad Sudoku entry can mess up the entire puzzle) in the translation from Hyperspace to Spacetime. This leads to smeared phase spaces that behave like probalistic quantum effects and statistical effects such as irreversible processes.
Do you like my thought for the day? Now I'll get back to finishing tommorow's Sudoku puzzle...
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 15:29 GMT
Tom,
Your question had to do with support from a scientist. I have no scientists as references. I wrote two essays for the two FQXi contests. Read the first one, electric charge just disappears into thin air. Read the second one about why theoretical physics does not represent the real universe. When I have completed work that I feel is correct, I post it at my website that has been number one on any search engine since 2001. I do not need approval from anyone to do that. Others may read it or not as they wish.
Search the words New Physics Theory. When I have a high degree of confidence in my work, I put it out for all to see. I take the heat for it without ducking. I say nothing about what I think until I can support it. What you will not get from me are circular, wordy answers that essentially go nowhere. It is not support from others that I seek. It is performing work that no one else will do. It is work that almost completely revises theoretical physics.
That is the kind of work that must be done by an individual. It will continue regardless of the extent to which some others might direct disrespect toward me. Disrepect has nothing to do with advancing science. Valid questions and meaningful answers advance scientific learning. How close are you to accomplishing unity? I start with it.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 16:09 GMT
James,
You wrote, "Your question had to do with support from a scientist. I have no scientists as references."
Of course you don't, because from a scientific viewpoint, your claims are the veriest nonsense. However, you still want to call your beliefs by the name of "science," don't you? Why? -- because for the last 400 years or so, science as we know it has overtaken by bounds the claims to truth of theology and philosophy. So now, many of those who want to credibly promote their claims to know how nature works, cry "YOUR science is crap. Fortunately, I have the TRUE science." This is also nonsense, because the scientific enterprise is a universally objective methodology. Science is cooperative and self correcting. It is not "my science" or "your science."
I respect your right and your ambition to publish, to have followers, to stand by your beliefs. It just isn't science, that's all. If you think that someone who points that out is "disrespecting" you, think about the disrespect you show to science by trying steal its hard won credibility.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 16:40 GMT
Tom,
"...So now, many of those who want to credibly promote their claims to know how nature works, cry "YOUR science is crap. Fortunately, I have the TRUE science." This is also nonsense, ..."
Actually I did no crying here. I was respectful and interested in what others have to say. You started throwing that Crap charge first. I think you have been disrespectful from the beginning. I also think that you dance and dodge but do not answer questions. If that is representative of your versions of science, you can have it. You decided early that my ideas were clearly wrong and you were disrespectful toward me about it, I am pointing out to you that you live in a glass house and, that is what my messages are meant to convey to you. You are of course welcome to begin to give straight answers in defense of your 'universally objective methodology'.
In the meantime, I say that beginning with unity is a superior approach to theoretical physics rather than instituting disunity and then scrambling near the end to force unity as if it is an afterthought. You invent causes. You have no connection to the two most important properties in the universe, life and intelligence. You cannot show unity for a universe that is clearly orderly. You speak about time and space as if you have experimented upon them.
Your science has left many unanswered and poorly answered questions behind, while, it pushed ahead by brute force. For example, what is thermodynamic entropy? You are welcome to give a mechanical answer. Your approach has left you with a science that has to be continually patched up. That is what I think. If you disagree, I have no problem with that. Why have you chosen to discuss my ideas? I believe it originally started with your belief that somehow mechanical can account for intelligence without intelligence. You nor anyone else can show that to be the case. I say you can't even begin to show that.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 16:54 GMT
Ray,
You wrote, "I realize that this sounds very 'mechanical', and James would be frustrated at the lack of an explanation for intelligence"
Heck, Ray, why apologize for saying what we know to be true? "Intelliigence" is never defined as a primary property of a system or an element of a system by anyone but James. Adaptation is perfectly adequate to explain a Gaussian distribution of degrees of adaptability in a population. Intelligence is a word to statistically describe variability; it has nothing to say about individual members of the population.
Aside from that, mechanics explains the kinetic activity that organizes members into that frozen picture (bell curve). Of course, there are many models that one could apply as a primary mechanism for the property of adaptation (e.g., self organization, self organized criticality, random mutation/natural selection, chemical self assembly ...). None start with an assumption of creative intelligence creating intelligence. I am expecting James to discover the Intelligent Design argument any day now, and then we'll have to debate that, too. I would rather stick to science.
You wrote, "As Tom says, the particles themselves have a degree of sentient intelligence ..." Not exactly. I said there is no way in principle to demonstrate that they don't.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 17:17 GMT
James,
You think I am being disrespectful to you personally, while I am actually (guilty as charged) disrespecting your claims. They have nothing to do with objective science. They go way back to William Paley, and have been found lacking.
You think my answers are obscure. They are not. They are for the most part, in fact, nocontroversial. Until you crack open the literature, we won't have any any basis for a scientific discussion, since practically all that wrote in this last screed has been falsified. I'm not going to delve into it point for point.
I will respond to "Why have you chosen to discuss my ideas? I believe it originally started with your belief that somehow mechanical can account for intelligence without intelligence. You nor anyone else can show that to be the case. I say you can't even begin to show that."
Heck, most any researcher in the field can show that to be the case; I don't ask you to take my word for anything. Try reading someone else's work. E.g., Steven Strogatz's book Sync. Murray Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar. And on the subject of quantum information, I am almost finished with a wonderful and newly published book by FQXi's Vlatko Vedral, Decoding Reality (it has its own discussion forum here).
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 17:57 GMT
This exchange started to seem familiar while I was recalling references. Check out the Wikipedia discussion page under the heading "Self-organization vs. self-ordering,"
here.
I also provided references and editorially cleaned up the section "Self organization vs. entropy" on the main article page, if you're interested in that.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 18:04 GMT
Tom,
Ok, you were only disrepecting my claims. Your answers are obscure. How does matter tell space what to do and how does space tell matter what to do?
From you, "Until you crack open the literature, we won't have any any basis for a scientific discussion, since practically all that wrote in this last screed has been falsified. I'm not going to delve into it point for point."
So I am unread. What about one point. I asked what is thermodynamic entropy?
From me: ""...I believe it originally started with your belief that somehow mechanical can account for intelligence without intelligence. You nor anyone else can show that to be the case. I say you can't even begin to show that.""
From you: "Heck, most any researcher in the field can show that to be the case; I don't ask you to take my word for anything."
The answers I have seen put forward are lists of parts involved. Listing the parts does not explain how they do what they do. Well, it is possible to give mechanical explanations for why parts do what they do so long as those parts do only mechanical functions, but the path from theoretical dumbness to factual intelligence has not been explained. The parts must be doing something far above the level established by mechanical theory.
I asked: How do you know anything meaningful at all from that storm of photons that are crashing into you right now? I am not asking for a list of the parts involved or the chemical processes that occur. As important as they are, they are still defined from the mechanical perspective. At some point, there has to be an introduction of meaning.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 18:11 GMT
Tom,
"Self organization vs. entropy" Ok I will read that link since you played a role in it. I will see if it is a real explanation. In the meantime, you keep using that 'self organization' phrase as if matter knows what to do without knowing what to do. How does dumb matter self-organize into intelligent life?
James
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 18:43 GMT
We are alone but we are not alone ...that is the real question....
About "Self organization vs. entropy" it's the same simply , it's the same, the codes are in the physicality and the entropy has two interpretations simply.
In fact when we analyse the whole,The mass was predicted, the intelligence too and the conscious increases....the mass increases, thus the intelligences thus the consciousness.
ps dear James you say what is the thermodynamic entropy?....I have a humble thought since several years about this entropy....all has the maximum entropy at the wall , thus with the fields , this entropy simply divides itself in correlation with its intrinsic systems of entangled spheres and their specific rotations wich implies rules and complemetatrity.
All has the maximum in the two sense towards walls,cosmologics or quantics.Behind these wlls ,it's a different entropy wich is infinite but with no sense of physicality.Hope I am understood hihihi
In fact it's a real potential around us but of course we are youngs at the universal scale.But the energy is everywhere in this maximum, it's interesting for the technology of thermodynamics.We could nourish the world with one water drop in this line of reasoning.It exist all the energy of the universe in one water drop like in one molecule of O2 or in a simple piece of Fe ....I think strongly that all the secrets of energies are in correlations with these rotating spheres iplying mass and energy .In this logic the time has polarised the light and the mass ,a little if we say "the gravity is a modulator of evolution in this constant of time, the density of this number of spheres increases and the quantic number doesn't change.The entropy is everywhere in the main central codes of becoming in fact.
In this logic we see the relativity, the gravitation, the time linked in their presents and evolving.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 6, 2010 @ 21:43 GMT
Tom,
I have read the Wikipedia article and its Talk portion. As you said there: "Self organization is indeed an observed natural phenomenon." Yes that is clearly true. Perhaps a part of our disagreement might be due to a perception that I think that an external element is necessary to impose self-organization. I don't think that is the case. I clarify this because of your remark: "I am...
view entire post
Tom,
I have read the Wikipedia article and its Talk portion. As you said there: "Self organization is indeed an observed natural phenomenon." Yes that is clearly true. Perhaps a part of our disagreement might be due to a perception that I think that an external element is necessary to impose self-organization. I don't think that is the case. I clarify this because of your remark: "I am expecting James to discover the Intelligent Design argument any day now, and then we'll have to debate that, too. I would rather stick to science." You have jumped to a conclusion that is unwarranted by anything that I have said. I have no quarrel with relying upon natural properties. I have no objection to accepting the obvious evolution of the universe and its intelligent life.
Quoting from the article: "As a result, processes considered part of thermodynamically open systems, such as biological processes that are constantly receiving, transforming and dissipating chemical energy (and even the earth itself which is constantly receiving and dissipating solar energy), can and do exhibit properties of self organization far from thermodynamic equilibrium."
Here is how I disagree: The quote above refers to energy. Energy is one of those many mechanically defined properties. As I have said in the past: Physics defines the fundamental properties of the universe to be dumb and mechanical. Energy has no intelligence. It is, however, scientifically bestowed with whatever powers are needed to form our universe. This is theoretical magic. Physics does not get to arbitrarily define powers to suit what is clearly an ideologically driven choice. They desparately want to avoid intelligence as a property, so they must define the world out of unintelligent properties. Yet these unintelligent properties are 'just given without derivation' all the secret powers needed to cause the universe to give birth to intelligent life.
Brash statements are made to the effect that: "...we can get all the consequences of the physical world from principles of self organization, in which intelligence is an emergent phenomenon. No need to assume intelligence a prior." You appear to equate learning about self organization with knowing the cause of self organization. No one knows what causes anything to occur in the universe. We only know about effects. That is all that you know about self organization.
With regard to intelligence being an emergent phenomenon, that is representative of the kind of thought that is holding scientific learning back. Instead of claming intelligent life for free, show the link between the dumbness and the emergence of intelligence. As usual I am not asking for a parts list. I am asking for a real scientific linkage between mechanics and meaning. There is no need to refer to a guiding hand of God. I don't use that kind of answer. I just refuse to go blindly along with the theoretical physics claim to knowledge that clearly lies outside its mechanical models.
The damage done is that other disciplines think that they must find ways to link their own knowledge back to that of fundamental physics. The mechanical ideology is holding the other disciplines back. I think the process should be reversed. I think that the other disciplines should be freed from mechanics and begin to lead theoretical physics out of its self-imposed chains. Then perhaps we could finally begin to understand the means by which self-organization of the universe and its most important properties, life and intelligence occur. Hopefully, scientists will learn to not run away from the very natural property of intelligence.
James
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 7, 2010 @ 11:01 GMT
James, you wrote: "Your answers are obscure. How does matter tell space what to do and how does space tell matter what to do?"
It is neither obscure nor mystical. We know that on the average, spacetime is flat, Euclidean. The presence of mass warps that smoothness, so that variations in mass follow the contours created by the warping.
"So I am unread. What about one point. I asked what is thermodynamic entropy?"
The process by which less energy becomes available to do work in a closed system. Colloquially, the tendency for a closed system to go from order to disorder.
"Well, it is possible to give mechanical explanations for why parts do what they do so long as those parts do only mechanical functions, but the path from theoretical dumbness to factual intelligence has not been explained. The parts must be doing something far above the level established by mechanical theory."
It is only you who assumes "dumbness." Theorists following scientific method do not. In fact, "intelligence" as an objective property has been very well explained. It is only your personal, private definition of "intelligence" that lacks both explanation and coherence.
"At some point, there has to be an introduction of meaning."
Yes. And objective meaning necessarily follows from coherent definitions and questions. Not from personal belief.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 7, 2010 @ 11:11 GMT
James, you asked, "How does dumb matter self-organize into intelligent life?"
How do you know that matter is "dumb?" Your question is entirely incoherent, because you are starting with an unprovable assumption leading to an erroneous conclusion based on an incomprehensible and subjective definition.
We already _know_ that matter self organizes into intelligent life, using an objective definition of intelligence, that refers to variations in adaptability. No one knows what you mean by "intelligence" except you.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 7, 2010 @ 11:41 GMT
James, you wrote, "Energy is one of those many mechanically defined properties."
No it isn't. One can't even parse what you mean by "mechanically defined." Energy is simply another form of mass. Even though we don't yet know the origin of inertia, we do know how it works.
Mechanics -- from Mach (The Science of Mechanics, a classic), to the statistical mechanics of Boltzmann and Maxwell, to quantum mechanics -- inform us of how simple things make complex patterns. Understanding phenomena in these terms doesn't tell us "what it all means;" however, it does tell us that one need not assume more complicated causes ("intelligence").
"Hopefully, scientists will learn to not run away from the very natural property of intelligence."
They haven't. You have.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 7, 2010 @ 12:10 GMT
I have not weighed in on this topic much. I think that we might want to replace the word "intelligence" with a more general concept called consciousness. We might then ponder whether consciousness is somehow scripted into the universe. It might be, but we are not at a point where we can really address that question. The reason is that we don’t understand what consciousness is. There have...
view entire post
I have not weighed in on this topic much. I think that we might want to replace the word "intelligence" with a more general concept called consciousness. We might then ponder whether consciousness is somehow scripted into the universe. It might be, but we are not at a point where we can really address that question. The reason is that we don’t understand what consciousness is. There have been a number of proposals about this, such as the anthropic principle, but the strong AP is in effect a tautology. So we are in effect faced with a measure of ignorance, but this does not mean that our understanding of the universe is false.
The question might be posed according to the so called fine tuning problem. In effect if the low energy values of gauge terms and fermion masses were different the universe would have different structures. The complexity of biological molecules suggests that if the fine structure constant α = e^2/ħc ~ 1/137 had been different that the structure of such molecules might not be possible. Polypeptide bonds for dihedral angles, and these would differ if the electrostatic force was different in its strength, and the net effect down a molecular chain would be amplified down the chain. So it does suggest that the observable universe may have some extremal condition on the level of complexity possible in the universe. This supremum or extremum for high complexity then leads to formation of life, by mechanisms not understood, which then sets up the evolutionary process and so forth. This ultimately lead to what we define as intelligent life, a form of ground ape exponentially rampaging out of control and which runs its world by construction thousands of nuclear warheads.
The high energy world involves grand symmetries with large gauge spaces. This grand symmetry is responsible ultimately for transforming a vacuum state into a vacuum state, or in preserving a void. Then as we run the renormalization group flow down from the Hagedorn temperature these symmetries are broken and at very low energy we have the world more or less as we observe it. The symmetry of the world is significantly reduced, but in its place there is a huge degree of complexity and structure. So the transition from the high energy vacuum, called sometimes the false vacuum, to the physical vacuum at low energy with broken symmetry and massive particles appears to transform symmetry into divergent structures with some extremal degree of complexity.
Back to the matter of consciousness, we might ponder whether the universe has this extremum of complexity so it can give rise to conscious observers who intelligently understand the universe up to some limit of what is knowable or observable. In this way maybe the universe confers a form of ontology to itself, so the universe by having internal conscious awareness of itself and an intelligent representation of itself there is some aspect of existential or ontological being-ness conferred to the universe, or what philosophers called reification. Of course it is not possible at this time to know scientifically whether this is or is not the case. Such a notion might remain permanently within the domain of philosophy.
This apparent ignorance does not mean that physics and cosmology is patently false. We do manage to understand something, even if we are not able to understand everything.
Cheers LC
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 7, 2010 @ 12:43 GMT
As a bit of a postscript, I attach an image of the histone octomere. This is an 8-fold polypeptide which DNA wraps around on to package DNA into chromosomes. Thes second of these is a channel gate across a cell membrane. Before one addresses questions about the nature of intelligence, we might first ponder how the universe is such that molecular complexity of this form can exist.
Cheers LC
attachments:
histone.JPG,
2bob_bio_r_500.jpg
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on May. 7, 2010 @ 12:45 GMT
Yes - Consciousness or the emergence of intelligence/ self is poorly understood.
Edwin Eugene Klingman tried to tie in a relationship between Gravitational and Consciousness Fields that is similar to the relationship between Electric (radial) and Magnetic (tangential) Fields. It is an interesting idea, but pure conjecture without better data.
Frank Martin DiMeglio tried to approach the TOE through the power of Dreams. Should we count Dreams as the sixth sense behind sight, hearing, touch, smell and taste? How many 'charges' does the Dream carry? We know that human vision is based on 3-color 'charges' (a red, green, blue triality symmetry) whereas birds have 4-color vision and many mammals have 2-color vision. We know that human taste is based on 4- or 5-flavor 'charges' (a bitter, sweet, sour, salty, umami pentality symmetry). I think that scientists have overlooked the Dream as a sense because everyone has different types of dreams, and it seems to tie in with our creative nature more so than our senses. But what if our Dreams are our way of sensing the Multiverse, and we have different Dreams because the Multiverse is so large? I think Frank Martin's First Postulate should be "Dreams are the sixth human sense". That assumption is either right or wrong, but it would allow Frank Martin to build the theoretical framework that he needs to present his ideas in a more scientific manner.
Regarding the discussion that James and Tom have had. Is intelligence an - as yet - unexplained emergent property of matter, or do fundamental properties each have their small quantum of 'intelligence'? How could we know?
Have Fun!
Ray
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 7, 2010 @ 16:11 GMT
Lawrence,
While I agree that intelligence and consciousness may share identity in many if not most properties, there is no way at present to make the definition of "consicousness" even intersubjective (which is as close, I think, as we could ever come to an objective framework for consciousness), while "intelligence" already has an objective operational definition.
Re the anthropic principle: if strong AP is tautology, weak AP is trivial. I.e., we interpret data only through our human filter, through theory. Though James seems to think that there is a way of knowing, without the benefit of theory a priori, he would never be able to demonstrate it. It isn't science. And while I am not so arrogant as to think that science will necessarily ever be able to answer every question, it is certainly suited to answer _scientific_ questions. And that is really the full extent of my objections to James's claims: don't call it science when it ain't.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 7, 2010 @ 16:32 GMT
Ray,
The postulate P: Dreams are a sixth human sense
is demonstrably untrue in the context of science. If P, then
Q: Information interpreted by the known physical senses may be false (inasmuch as dream experience often contradicts physical possibility).
If P and not-Q, then dreams are not differentiable from the known senses, and P is a superfluous assumption.
If P and Q, science is useless, a recreational delusion whose results are merely accidentally true.
If not-P and Q, science is unnecessary.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 7, 2010 @ 18:12 GMT
The weak AP is in a sense trivial, and frankly it does not do anything than to serve as some falsification of existing theories. An example was with the classical hypothesis for the energy source of the sun, which was gravitational contraction. That could only last a few 10's of thousands of years, but by the late 19th century it was well established that the Earth was many millions of years old and life evolved through this vast time period. We human arose from this process and so this acted to falsify that classical theory of the sun. This is an early example of how the WAP worked in science.
I agree that James' ideas are not scientific. He is frankly asking different types of questions IMO than scientific ones. He thinks that because relativity does not tell us how intelligence arose that it is somehow false. In one sense maybe he is right in that relativity makes no prediction for intelligence, ergo it fails outside this domains of experience. Yet this does not mean relativity theory is wrong on everything, which he seems to think. Indeed he has claimed that most of science is false because of this.
The matter of intelligence and consciousness is terribly subjective. We don’t know exactly what consciousness is, and it may not exist in any objective sense. Consciousness may simply be a sort of illusion or projection of sorts, no matter how much we experience it. Intelligence might be defined in a number of ways; linguistically, analytically, spatially and so forth. Octopi have a degree of problem solving abilities, and further have an enormous amount of neural processing abilities which permit them to change their colorations so as to camouflage themselves. So there is in these cases maybe spatial and analytical intelligence. They also communicate by color changes. Some birds have been demonstrated to have numerical abilities, and of course we know about whale communications or songs. We might never be able to prove it, but these animals probably do have a conscious experience associated with these abilities.
While we Homo sapiens have remarkable abilities to abstract things, project ourselves in space and through time (future planning etc), and can express these through linguistic expressions. We also have an incredible capacity for stupidity. This is largely seen in our penchant to select the worst of our lot to run our affairs at large. I am astounded by these people who fawn over Sarah Palin and want her to hold the highest office of this nation, when she can hardly hold a coherent or consistent thought. We humans have a tendency to let wackos run the show, with a rich history of mad kings, dictators, fuehrers, and of course the phase of mad emperors of Rome. So to the extent we are intelligent we are also deeply stupid and capable of being very dumb at the same time.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 7, 2010 @ 19:01 GMT
Tom,
My words: "Your answers are obscure. How does matter tell space what to do and how does space tell matter what to do?"
Yours, "It is neither obscure nor mystical. We know that on the average, spacetime is flat, Euclidean. The presence of mass warps that smoothness, so that variations in mass follow the contours created by the warping."
You know that on the average your...
view entire post
Tom,
My words: "Your answers are obscure. How does matter tell space what to do and how does space tell matter what to do?"
Yours, "It is neither obscure nor mystical. We know that on the average, spacetime is flat, Euclidean. The presence of mass warps that smoothness, so that variations in mass follow the contours created by the warping."
You know that on the average your equations tell you something. They do not tell you about space or time. They tell you about the motion of objects. They do this by modeling patterns in changes of velocity. Those changes are reflected in your equation by letters such as 's' and 't'. Neither of those letters has ever been able to reflect upon any properties of either space or time. Distance is measured by objects. Time is measured by rate of activity of objects.
Everything is tied to the objects. The objects are not made of space or time. The objects do what they do in the way that they do it for reasons that you do not know. That is unless you actually have some pieces of bent space and time to show to the world. Gravity is a force and it causes acceleration, It shares this ability with all other forces. You do not know why gravity does anything. That would be claiming to know what cause is.
No one knows what cause it. I say that repeatedly because theoretical physics keeps acting as if their equations tell them what cause is. The equations do not contain cause except as represented always by the equals sign. This spacetime thing should have been unsaleable to scientists. Peel back your onion on spacetime and you will find nothing there to present to the scientific world for proof. You might as well say that some supernatural agent is at work.
My words: "I asked what is thermodynamic entropy?"
Yours: The process by which less energy becomes available to do work in a closed system. Colloquially, the tendency for a closed system to go from order to disorder.
Yes that is kind of an answer. It is the explanation of the process that is the real answer. What is the role of temperature in that process? Also, if there is a container of an ideal gas in a condition of equilibrium and its walls are adiabatic, does the gas have the property of thermodynamic entropy?
Yours: "It is only you who assumes "dumbness." Theorists following scientific method do not. In fact, "intelligence" as an objective property has been very well explained. It is only your personal, private definition of "intelligence" that lacks both explanation and coherence."
Dumbness is not assumed. In theoretical physics it is a given. None of your fundamental forces include anything except the ability to cause changes of velocity. Your inanimate base materials can clump together, but they have no way of doing anything intelligent. I refer to theoretical physics as being mechanical, i.e. dumb. I use this term in a broad sense not limiting it to macroscopic examples of machinery type operations.
The mechanical concept that I use is one of inanimate, unthinking actions supposedly resulting from one or more of the fundamental forces of theoretical physics. It is dead and yet is full of useful action. It does not include properties of awareness and intelligent purpose. It is a universe described as being the opposite of intelligent life. From your unintelligent base properties you do not get a free pass to claim that they are what gave rise to intelligent life. You keep referring to effects as if that proves anything about your causes. You can study intelligence all you want, but you cannot relate it back to your dumb fundamental forces.
My words: "At some point, there has to be an introduction of meaning."
Yours: Yes. And objective meaning necessarily follows from coherent definitions and questions. Not from personal belief."
You keep claiming scientific rights to meaning. All you can do is to study the existence of meaning. Your 'belief' that you are defining the origin and evolution of meaning is false. You can do no more than tell what the universe reveals to us through its effects.
Your words: "We already _know_ that matter self organizes into intelligent life, using an objective definition of intelligence, that refers to variations in adaptability. No one knows what you mean by "intelligence" except you."
Of course we know that. It is the proof that theoretical physics does not describe the fundamental nature of the universe. By intelligence I mean the ability to discern meaning from data. How do you explain the fact that you can discern meaning from that wild storm of photons that are crashing into you right now? When you answer that question, then you will understand the meaning of intelligence.
My words: "Energy is one of those many mechanically defined properties."
Yours: "Energy is simply another form of mass. Even though we don't yet know the origin of inertia, we do know how it works."
Energy has no intelligent properties. It is what theoretical physics defines it to be. The definitions do not include any properties that have any chance of producing intelligent life. The fact that intelligent life exists is evidence that your equations do not include the real fundamental properties of the universe.
Energy is force times distance. Mass is resistance to force. Saying statements like 'Energy is simply another form of mass.' is one clear example of trading words for words without explaining anything fundamental. You cannot produce one thumble full of energy. No one has ever conducted an experiment on energy as a substance. Mass is not a substance, it is a property of matter. Matter resists force and we call that effect mass.
James
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 7, 2010 @ 19:08 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
"I agree that James' ideas are not scientific. He is frankly asking different types of questions IMO than scientific ones. He thinks that because relativity does not tell us how intelligence arose that it is somehow false. In one sense maybe he is right in that relativity makes no prediction for intelligence, ergo it fails outside this domains of experience. Yet this does not mean relativity theory is wrong on everything, which he seems to think. Indeed he has claimed that most of science is false because of this."
Theoretical physics went astray all the way back at f=ma. Einstein did not improve matters. He has made matters worse. Now we have to debate mystical ideas such as spacetime. My intent is to correct the fundamentals. That is what my work entails. The fundamentals are wrong. When we finally learn what mass is, almost all theory will change radically.
James
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 7, 2010 @ 20:16 GMT
F = ma is pretty canonical stuff, and frankly anyone who regards it as "astray" has gone out on a limb --- and sawed it off behind them. We have of course been over this, and it comes back to you assertion that the failure to include intelligence is what got physics astray. The funny thing is that we can well enough define force, mass and acceleration, but we are not sure what we mean by intelligence.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 7, 2010 @ 20:41 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
"F = ma is pretty canonical stuff, and frankly anyone who regards it as "astray" has gone out on a limb --- and sawed it off behind them."
It is not canonical. It is where disunity was first forced into theoretical physics. As far as that limb is concerned, I only speak about those matters for which I have already done the work.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 7, 2010 @ 21:39 GMT
James,
Your understanding of special and general relativity, statistical and quantum mechanics, scientific method, and contemporary research results in self organized systems is so vastly wrong that I don't where to begin correcting you.
So I won't.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 7, 2010 @ 21:53 GMT
I tend to second Tom's assessment. It is hard to know where to begin to repair the damage and set James straight on things.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 7, 2010 @ 22:42 GMT
Tom & Dr. Crowell,
I understand what you mean: Go read a book: Can't begin to explain: We know for certain: Its hard to know where to begin: Etc.
Tom, you did not answer my last question about thermodynamic entropy, the ideal gas and adiabatic, equilibrium example. That is something very simple that you could have straightened me out on. Does the gas have the property of thermodynamic entropy?
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on May. 8, 2010 @ 00:12 GMT
Anyone who thinks that the everything that is real (capable of causing other things) must have simple or finite, definite or easy to see causes, might be naive.
I am an electronics technician. One of my jobs is to troubleshoot electronics boards. In effect, I am searching for the cause of some "phenomena". Occasionally I get lucky; for example, an LED doesn't light up, and it's because a resistor is missing from the pathway. That is an easy to identify "cause". I have also chased a problem into a processor chip with 160 pins. In that instance, determining the "cause" is not so easy.
Does science only deal with causes that are easy to identify?
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 8, 2010 @ 00:33 GMT
Jason,
"Anyone who thinks that the everything that is real (capable of causing other things) must have simple or finite, definite or easy to see causes, might be naive."
Since I certainly do not see myself this way, and since your did not make it clear whether or not you are thinking I might be naive, I will give an opinion that is meant to be helpful. When I speak of cause, I am speaking about the fundamental causes put forward by theoretical physics. I am not speaking about a billiard ball striking another billiard ball. I am reaching all the way down to why they impact each other in the manner that they do. The answer is far more general than restricting it to the billiard balls as if they have their own unique means of cause.
The causes of theoretical physics are all made up. The patterns seen in effects only tell us about effects. However, when there are patterns of effects that seem so very different from one another that, we cannot determine that they have the same source of cause, the practice has been to give up the search for unity and introduce another unique fundamental cause.
There is at least one cause. We cannot know what it is. We can give it a mechanical interpretation if we so chose. As long as we allow for one fundamental cause only, then no real harm is done. We have not introduced disunity into theory by that act. As soon as we start guessing that there are other fundamental causes, we have done theoretical damage at the fundamental level. All theory that uses those fundamental causes is inherently damaged.
That does not mean that the mathematics will not give us good results in predicting effects that fit within the patterns that the mathematical equations are designed to model. The damage is that we will not understand the true nature of the fundamental properties of the universe and, we will be confronted with higher level theoretical disunity that we cannot overcome and correct back to one cause.
So, just in case you were thinking that I may be naive, I do not agree.
James
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 8, 2010 @ 01:52 GMT
James,
Of course a gas which obey the natural gas law is thermodynamic.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 8, 2010 @ 02:01 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
"Of course a gas which obey the natural gas law is thermodynamic."
I asked if it had the property of thermodynamic entropy? The question has a purpose meant to clarify something about thermodynamic entropy. If thermodynamic entropy is a process, then what does the example tell us about that explanation? Does it support that answer or not?
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on May. 8, 2010 @ 02:20 GMT
Dear James,
I can't call anybody else naive without also calling myself naive; particularly about cause and causality. The laws of physics continue to stump us, not because we're not intelligent or thoughtful, but because the laws of physics have such a strange and weird relationship to causality.
For example, a photon finds itself in court, before the judge, for trespassing.
Judge: "Did you come through the left slit or the right slit?"
Photon: "Both."
Judge: "Don't get smart with me, boy. I'll put you in jail. Now answer my question truthfully. Did you come in through the left slit or the right slit?"
Photon, looking around nervously: "Will my jail cell have bars?"
All of the logic in the world is not going to change the nature of quantum mechanics. Since the photon can take both slits simultaneously, but only be caught in one slit or the other, then we have a problem with trying to establish causality. I am beginning to think that the laws of physics are not the result of anything mechanical, or anything that is distinct, solid, or physically understandable.
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 8, 2010 @ 12:33 GMT
James, I am not sure what you are asking. The natural gas law is a simple example of a thermodynamic system. For pV = NkT then dT = (1/Nk)d(pV) and entropy is computed as dS = dQ/T. For Q = cT, c = heat capacity c ~ Nk, then
S = c∫dT/T = c ln(T’/T).
One may substitute d(pV) in this and vary p or V as is of interest.
Beyond this I am not sure what you are asking.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 8, 2010 @ 13:42 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
This is not really a mathematics question other than being a matter of substraction from an initial state of thermodynamic entropy to a final state of thermodynamic entropy. Does the ideal gas, in a condition of equilibrium, inside a container with adiabatic walls have an initial state of thermodynamic entropy? If it was placed in contact with another container of ideal gas at a different and lower temperature level of equilibrium with only a diathermic wall between them, would my first container have a store of thermodynamic entropy such that it can transfer some of that thermodynamic entropy to the second container?
In other words: If there is an ideal gas, in a condition of equilibrium, inside a container with adiabatic walls, does that ideal gas have the property of thermodynamic entropy? While it is sitting there waiting for someone to change its adiabatic walls into diathermic walls and allow it to interact with the environment, does it have the property of thermodynamic entropy?
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 8, 2010 @ 14:41 GMT
Dear Ray,
"Regarding the discussion that James and Tom have had. Is intelligence an - as yet - unexplained emergent property of matter, or do fundamental properties each have their small quantum of 'intelligence'? How could we know?"
I don't think that the universe intends to reveal anything to us other than its track record. My choice is to follow the example of theoretical physics and take complex properties apart until we find the simpler ingredients that combine to form greater complexity. All of the potential properties necessary to form greater complexity must be present in those simpler ingredients. All of the effects that have ever occurred in this universe must have their cause fully in existence from the beginning of the universe. No magic should be added along the way of development.
The key, I think, to advance scientific learning so that we can stop pretending to explain intelligence and life with simple properties that lack intelligence and life even in the most rudimentary forms, we must be willing to rise above the mechanical interpretation of the operation of the universe. It is useful for solving mechanical type problems, but clearly outdated in terms of understanding the nature of this universe.
Mathematics is presently a tool for the mechanical interpretation of the universe. Mathematics about mechanical type functions can no longer be credited with being the language of the universe. The act of tracing life and intelligence inward, downward and backwards so that we may learn the universal properties that gave rise to intelligent life, will include the use of mathematics and logic. However, the properties to which mathematics and logic will be applied will no longer be those of current theoretical physics. That is what I think.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 8, 2010 @ 16:30 GMT
James, you wrote "Mathematics is presently a tool for the mechanical interpretation of the universe. Mathematics about mechanical type functions can no longer be credited with being the language of the universe. The act of tracing life and intelligence inward, downward and backwards so that we may learn the universal properties that gave rise to intelligent life, will include the use of mathematics and logic. However, the properties to which mathematics and logic will be applied will no longer be those of current theoretical physics. That is what I think."
Unfortunately, what you think is entirely disconnected from what mathematics and mathematical physics actually is.
Mathematics is a language, yes. However, any mathematical statement can, in principle (though it might be extremely tedious, unnecessary and impractical to do so) be translated into any natural language. IOW, anything of objective value that one can say in English or any other language, one can say using mathematics.
What you prefer, however, is not objective value -- you prefer whatever value that you arbitrarily assign to your personal beliefs. You start off believing that the universe is not mechanical and that intelligence a priori is the cause of intelligence a posteriori, without ever defining "intelligence". So in your false logic, intelligence is a non-mechanical property of "life" (which you also do not define), that originates from a source that science has no means to describe. If all that were true, science and mathematics would be obviated entirely, and we could all grok whatever meaning we individually pleased, even though our beliefs contradict one another, and all those beliefs would be equally valid. And hey, you could be right -- who knows? In fact, there is no way one could _ever_ objectively know, _in principle_.
If you understand nothing else of what I said, understand this: science is a cooperative, objective enterprise. If we are wrong, we are all wrong together. Your view, to once again echo Pauli, is "not even wrong."
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 8, 2010 @ 17:55 GMT
What a thread, don't stop dear Friends.....the entropy is so spiritual in fact.
a few people understands its meaning.
All the laws in thermodynamics are in this spriritual point of vue.
Let'sb take the ideal gas ......He Ne A ...vapors of.Na Cd Hg....Monoatomic 3/2R 5/2R 5/3R.....DIATMIC H2 D2 O2 N2 NO CO ...polyatomic CO2 CH4 Cl2 BR2 NH3...ALL THAT IMPLIES THE UNIVERSAL R constant ...this unit permits to see the heat capacity in its specific fractal of fields, specifics for all different systems of ideal gas.....the solids are in this logic
Dear James you say....If there is an ideal gas, in a condition of equilibrium, inside a container with adiabatic walls, does that ideal gas have the property of thermodynamic entropy? all is linked with this entropy.....all has the same maximum quantity of energy .Thus we can imagine the number of systems of entropy....wawwww a big big potential this energy everywhere.
And of course all that is in 3D SPHERE oooops the physics before and the maths after .hihihi
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam, replied on May. 8, 2010 @ 18:47 GMT
Tom,
You said: "Mathematics is a language, yes. However, any mathematical statement can, in principle (though it might be extremely tedious, unnecessary and impractical to do so) be translated into any natural language. IOW, anything of objective value that one can say in English or any other language, one can say using mathematics."
What does this have to do with what I said? I...
view entire post
Tom,
You said: "Mathematics is a language, yes. However, any mathematical statement can, in principle (though it might be extremely tedious, unnecessary and impractical to do so) be translated into any natural language. IOW, anything of objective value that one can say in English or any other language, one can say using mathematics."
What does this have to do with what I said? I said: "Mathematics is presently a tool for the mechanical interpretation of the universe. ..." I did not say that is the only thing that mathematics is used for. With regard to communicating in language, they are all formed from symbols period. Choose any one and translate it into another. This point of yours stops way too soon. The challenge is that everything communicated to us is in the form of symbols. Not those convenient symbols of choice used in math or verbal language, but, purely natural symbols with no meaning other than what we apply to them.
Regardless of the means which one may choose to discuss, the symbols are always in the form of photons. Tiny, truncated, discontinuous, scrambled, symbols informing us that a myriad of particles have changed their velocities. The point that you keep avoiding is that none of this could make any sense unless we already know everything that we will ever learn from it. We must apply the meaning to it without ever having received meaning from it. Learning that all learning comes in the form of photon symbols is the key to understanding what intelligence is and where it resides.
You said: "What you prefer, however, is not objective value -- you prefer whatever value that you arbitrarily assign to your personal beliefs. You start off believing that the universe is not mechanical and that intelligence a priori is the cause of intelligence a posteriori, without ever defining "intelligence".
See the above statement.
You said: "So in your false logic, intelligence is a non-mechanical property of "life" (which you also do not define), that originates from a source that science has no means to describe. If all that were true, science and mathematics would be obviated entirely, ..."
Your sources are not defined. Many of your properties used in your mathematical equations remain undefined to this day including mass. No one knows what cause is including you. Every cause that you build your fundamental beliefs upon are fabricated. They are invented. They are brought into being out of ignorance. You do not know how to derive unified fundamentals, so you divide them up by inventing separate causes. Every one of which is only a name incapable of being defined. The only things that you have to refer to on a fundamental level are effects.
You said: "If you understand nothing else of what I said, understand this: science is a cooperative, objective enterprise. If we are wrong, we are all wrong together. Your view, to once again echo Pauli, is "not even wrong."
I understand your frustration. I also am having a very difficult time getting you to understand that science must be based upon reality. That reality includes changes of velocity, life and intelligence. It has to include all three in a unified form. You do not get those last two for free. You define the fundamentals of the universe by excluding properties of life and intelligence. You observe that the universe gave birth to intelligent life, you then conclude that excluding life and intelligence is, therefore, the way to produce life and intelligence. This is not logic or science.
James
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 8, 2010 @ 22:10 GMT
Dear Steve,
Here is a copy of that message you couldn't locate:
You said: "Sorry still for my bizare litteral english,but I try to make simple."
You do not need to apologize. I am very lucky that we do not have to post our messages in French. I would not be able to participate. I thank others in the world like yourself that you can participate in English.
You said: "On the other side I agree about the confusions about the relativity, but the errors come from others and not from Einstein.....it's totally different, thus it's not false, just the interpretations of others are falses in my humble opinion."
I feel confident that the error is inherently in Einstein's theory. I acknowledge that it makes great predictions. I think though that its reliance upon relative space and relative time leaves it without a solid empirical base. We cannot experiment on either space or time. If his theory had real merit, then it would make predictions about the behavior of material objects without involving either space or time.
We experiment only with objects. We learn only about the behavior of objects. Our theories should be about objects and be firmly based upon experimental evidence about the behavior of objects. We know nothing about either space or time except that they exist. We move in space and we take our time doing it.
That is what I think. What do you think?
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 8, 2010 @ 22:44 GMT
James, you wrote: "I understand your frustration. I also am having a very difficult time getting you to understand that science must be based upon reality."
No, science is not based on a priori assumptions of reality. Reality is what science attempts to model.
"You define the fundamentals of the universe by excluding properties of life and intelligence. You observe that the universe gave birth to intelligent life, you then conclude that excluding life and intelligence is, therefore, the way to produce life and intelligence. This is not logic or science."
I'm afraid it is, James. What is not logical or scientific is to assume that which one is trying to demonstrate.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 8, 2010 @ 23:52 GMT
Tom,
You said: "No, science is not based on a priori assumptions of reality. Reality is what science attempts to model."
"...What is not logical or scientific is to assume that which one is trying to demonstrate."
Theoretical physics is presently victimized by both of these practices. Science is trying to model reality, yes. The difficulty it is running into is that it is also trying to remain true to an ideology at the same time. It cannot do both succefully. Reality includes change of velocity, life and intelligence. Theoretical physics has only the first of these.
Its models include belief in that ideology based upon making sure that life and intelligence never get mentioned anywhere close to the definitions of the fundamental properties of the universe and is to be kept out of consideration until it can no longer be denied. This ideology is unscientific. The other problem it encounters is that it embraces disunity right from the start of theory. Neither one of these practices has any scientific justification. Unity must come in and ideology must go out.
James
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 11:06 GMT
I thank you very much dear James, It's nice .
Stevi is happy .
ps I must study language ,you know I dislike that, it's the english rest of my school,thus of course I must improve.
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 11:09 GMT
James, your false premises continue to lead you to wildly erroneous conclusions.
Science is neither ideology nor religion, those enterprises that assume what they are trying to prove.
And although scientific knowledge never rises to the level of proof beyond all doubt, it is the only demonstrable form of objective knowledge.
Do yourself a favor and learn it. Perhaps you will discover that life and intelligence are indeed integrated into that process -- right from the beginning.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 11:17 GMT
Yes it's that and all in 8d with a time machine .....the spirituality is different and can be realist ,....your ideas are not realists and not spirituals ...just sciences fictions for the public and the sell of books ....all is said and all words are nout sufficients ....good book thus...
ahahaah transparence egal veritas =3d =universality .....
Inutile to imply confusions for people who understands ...don't loose your time with people who understands...hope you understand .
James understands you no
that's all for the moment !
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 11:30 GMT
All the equations you use have been made with "maths physics spirituality" by people who searched and search still and still ....if you focus only on one center of interest, never you shall ponder an universal equation.....like mvV FOR ALL PHYSICALS REALS OBSERVABLES SPHERES QUANTICS AND COSMOLOGIC INSIDE ONE 3D SPHERE .....
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 13:02 GMT
Humbly, it's purely and basically not possible to ponder an universal model without these foundamentals correlations which are ......the universal spirituality, the observables physical reality in 3d sphere and the mathematical methods inside this finite system implying the correct serie and its numbers.
The evolution is specific .
We can't insert falses roads simply.I am ok for the maths when they explain correctly our reality.
let's derivate of course but with rationality......many people says in the sciences community ...shut up and calculate...I d say shut up, observe, contemplate, analyze, and calculate finally .
It's not sufficient to calculate if you don't understand the main universal referential and its pure topology in 3d , the taxonomy and the topology are essentials.An unuiversal shere thus and its center where all turns around ....there is an ultim aim in this physicality between all these cosmological spheres .....
Regards
Steve
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 13:35 GMT
Tom,
You are not referring directly to what I say.
You said: "Science is neither ideology nor religion, those enterprises that assume what they are trying to prove.
And although scientific knowledge never rises to the level of proof beyond all doubt, it is the only demonstrable form of objective knowledge."
I said that theoretical physics has an ideology. That ideology is to assume from the beginning that the fundamental operation of the universe must be explained in mechanical terms only and anything having to do with life and intelligence must be barred. Then later when life and intelligence can no longer be denied, the believers in a mechanistic nature of the universe just blatantly claim without justification that life and intelligence arise from unlife and unintelligence. You could not possibly show that that is true. You can only declare it. Unprovable declarations do not pass by me.
You said: "Do yourself a favor and learn it. Perhaps you will discover that life and intelligence are indeed integrated into that process -- right from the beginning."
Of course they are. If only theoretical physics would recognize that to be the case, we could move forward in understanding the nature of the universe. That plus expelling disunity from its theories.
You would do yourself a favor if you learned first: What electric charge is. What mass is. What force is. What temperature is. Etc. Then at least your mechanical perspective would finally address its fundamental ignorance. Removing ignorance would at least straighten out mechanical theory so that unity would no longer be hidden and would leap out in front of your eyes.
Secondly, you would do yourself a favor if you actually attempted to answer at least one of my questions. The one you should start with is: How do we discern meaning from that wild storm of photons that are constantly crashing into us in mixes that are never repeated? You appear to avoid the most important questions that science should be addressing.
What about your 'information entropy' theory? Where physically does that future information reside? Where did your used 'past' information go to. Is it still around in this universe or is there an unaccessible storage space hidden in this universe? Are you talking about another theory based upon properties that can never be shown to be real?
I suggest, that before you start trying to extend the general 'entropy concept' into clever but unscientific models, that you actually first learn what thermodynamic entropy is. I suggest that you go back to the beginning and straighten out your fundamentals.
Your theoretical speculations are based upon a history of both learning and lack of learning. The scientific method should never allow theory to advance beyond unanswered or poorly answered questions without requiring a warning to be expressed that the theories that follow need repaired as soon as possible.
James
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 14:21 GMT
The universe operates on principles which can be understood or modelled by physical and mathematical methods. Call this materialism or mechanism or what ever you want, that is what constitutes physics. You and others, many of whom are in the religious communities, may object to this. Yet to assume otherwise is to say that some form of will, intention or supernaturalism is behind existence. This may be Shopenhauer's "Will & Representation," or it might be magic or gods or pixie dust. The problem is that these ideas have no logico-emperical represntation, and are thus excluded from consideration. To complain about this is not to say that theoretical physics has a flaw, but to effectively reject science itself.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 14:59 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
YOu said: "The universe operates on principles which can be understood or modelled by physical and mathematical methods. Call this materialism or mechanism or what ever you want, that is what constitutes physics. You and others, many of whom are in the religious communities, may object to this. Yet to assume otherwise is to say that some form of will, intention or supernaturalism is behind existence. This may be Shopenhauer's "Will & Representation," or it might be magic or gods or pixie dust. The problem is that these ideas have no logico-emperical represntation, and are thus excluded from consideration. To complain about this is not to say that theoretical physics has a flaw, but to effectively reject science itself."
Excerpt: "Yet to assume otherwise is to say that some form of will, intention or supernaturalism is behind existence."
You just will not admit that intelligence is natural. It is the first property to turn to to understand the operation of the universe. The universe came first, but everything we will ever understand about it comes from our own source of reason. I suggest that you drop the silly derogatory descriptions of those who do not agree with you, and recognize that the key to understanding the universe begins with understanding ourselves.
I notice that you do not answer direct question very well. What is your response to my question about discerning meaning about the universe in my last message to Tom? What happened to the response to my last question to you about thermodynamic entropy? What is your justification for pushing theory way beyond empirical knowledge? Why do you trust in theoretical properties that cannot be demonstrated to be real? Why do you trust in a mysterious, strange, unempirical series of causes that offer you nothing more than clumped objects bouncing off of each other throughout a dead, dumb universe?
Why do you resort to scientifically empty declarations that are only your opinion and are sometimes derogatory to promote your ideas instead of responding with direct, scientifically informative answers? I believe this is a repeat question of mine: What is the empirical, not speculative theoretical, evidence that demonstrates that gravity is not just another force, in a generic sense, that causes mass to accelerate?
James
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 15:08 GMT
I think we can have a spirituality and be rational in observing our world.
The universalism is evident .
The evolution is so beautiful, we see the harmonization since the 13.7 billions years ......we can't deny this evidence, and we can't confound the universalism and the human interpretations.
These confusions are not necessary in fact .
And it's more rational to speak in 3d evolution and harmonisation than with magics numberization of our dimensions.....in fact we have a wonderful universe which evolves and we can make many things but in accepting of course our foundamentals laws.
Sincerely
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 17:20 GMT
An excerpt from my contest essay:
Empirical physics has shown that we receive all information via photons. How do we discern meaning from their always changing formations flying to us at light-speed? Not only do we discern those meanings, but we intelligently adjust them enabling ourselves to view the universe in a more practical form. It is an important clue that we visualize things...
view entire post
An excerpt from my contest essay:
Empirical physics has shown that we receive all information via photons. How do we discern meaning from their always changing formations flying to us at light-speed? Not only do we discern those meanings, but we intelligently adjust them enabling ourselves to view the universe in a more practical form. It is an important clue that we visualize things differently from the literal interpretation of photonic information.
We receive photon information, but, we interpret the universe differently from what is literally communicated to us. How is it possible for us to visualize the universe differently from the only information we have ever received about it? Any original, intelligent conclusion on our part demonstrates the pre-existence of the information necessary to form that conclusion.
Why can we visualize anything at all? For example, we do not see what is happening at a distance. Our reception of information is not experienced over distance. We only know about distance because we receive information that our intelligence interprets and uses to form a visualization of distance. We form the image of distance in our minds without ever having experienced distance. The mind decides by its own inherent store of possible meanings, what it thinks the outside world is like.
Each individual photon is a very tiny sign that a nearly insignificant effect has occurred. The effect always involves change. That effect may or may not be related to effects signified by other photons. We absorb this mishmash of information about multitudinous effects and make sense of it. We have never seen that same data in that same form before. Our mind forms, by its own source of knowledge, a best guess concept of reality.
Our mind decides and selects which patterns are most significant. It superimposes continuity onto the selected data and draws an image of its conclusion. We anticipate properties that do not exist. For example, we anticipate continuity and no change. We experience discontinuity but invent continuity. To do this, we add information. That information is inherent within us. We experience change but invent no change. We have the ability to add unlearned information that fits neatly into learned information.
It is generally believed that learning comes through our senses. However, for patterns of information to be logical to us, the patterns and their possible meanings must already be in our possession. Both of these must be internally available for use before we can learn from even our very first experience with the outside world. Experiences must be anticipated by our minds or the signs signifying them can have no meaning. We are born with the ability to anticipate everything that we will ever learn about the universe.
We receive photonic information and think for ourselves about its possible meanings. Thinking is a process of multitudinous bit-by-bit discovery and best-fit evaluation of photonic information. The mind will even disregard good data in favor of what it expects to see. That is why optical illusions work. For example, lines that are definitely parallel will sometimes be visualized as being curved. Even when we know the answer is wrong, our mind continues to deliver it to us again and again.
Theoretical physics is not immune to the problems encountered by our minds when trying to understand reality. It is dependent upon choices and victimized by illusions. When professionally derived theory repeatedly dictates imaginary causes to our minds we become conditioned, similarly to experiencing optical illusions, to accept distorted concepts and images.
Theoretical physics should free itself from its mechanical ideology. It should correct its lack of fundamental unity, and, discard its odd, mathematically based, speculations. It should expand its ideas in favor of trying to learn the true, intelligence producing, fundamental properties of the universe. Otherwise, it risks reduced relevancy. Theoretical, mechanical illusions must ultimately give way to a study of the fundamental nature of intelligence.
James
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 18:19 GMT
Of course intelligence is natural. That is not what I am objecting to. I don’t think however that because physics does not include some theory of consciousness or intelligence that it is wrong. QED is a perfectly established and empirically supported theory of quantum EM and fermions (electrons), and these basic particles are no more intelligent than a door post. I don’t think the substratum of nature behaves in some intelligent manner or with a teleonomic goal. Molecules on the early Earth did not intelligently behave so as to give the emergence of life. Evolution further did not operate in some goal oriented process to give rise to Homo sapiens. A neuron does not decide to release an action potential so there is some mental awareness. The universe is simply large enough with a huge range of possible configurations and collective states so that life and what we call intelligence or consciousness can exist. Of course we don’t have an operating theory for this, but one start is to address the gauge hierarchy problem, the IR end point of renormalization group flow and how it is that say α = e^2/ħc ~ 1/137 has the value it has.
I simply don’t think that outside of our selves or similar intelligent life forms that the universe is somehow intelligent in the sense of consciously directed decision making. We might of course talk about molecular intelligence, such as how viruses or bacteria may evolve and select for hosts. Think of the AIDS pandemic as a battle between our neural intelligence and the molecular intelligence of a retrovirus. But this does not mean I think HIV virions are intelligent in the sense we are. The universe is a type of quantum computer that runs some grand encryption coding system, maybe the Leech lattice. Yet I don’t think this means the universe or black holes are some how intelligent. It just means that quantum information is transformed according to certain symmetries or sporadic groups so that quantum information is ultimately conserved.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 18:33 GMT
Hi all,
Dear James......The Universe is a synaptic system of interactions ....emission ....reception.....thus the center of our Universe and the centers of our quantum architecture are essentials.....The thalamus and the associative centers show us the road of the intellectual faculty ...the polarity and the biological captors continue to evolve and thus permit to increase their mass thus their intelligence thus their consciousness.
An example ...Selacian ...fishs...reptilians....inferior mamalian ..superior mammalian...human....with this simple example of evolution , you shall see the increase of the brain simply ...SPECIALISATIO,DIFFERENCIATION,EVOLUTIVE POLARITY,INTRINSIC CODE OF GRAVITY .......in this example, we see also the spherisation.
Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 18:45 GMT
It's not one particle which can be intelligent but a number of particles agenced ...like a biological life(here us the humans)....The intelligence was predicted because it's a catalyzer with the conscious of our environments.
We can imply universal stimulis for an universal optimization.
Sincerely
Steve
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 19:11 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
You said: "I don't think the substratum of nature behaves in some intelligent manner or with a teleonomic goal. Molecules on the early Earth did not intelligently behave so as to give the emergence of life. Evolution further did not operate in some goal oriented process to give rise to Homo sapiens. A neuron does not decide to release an action potential so there is some mental...
view entire post
Dr. Crowell,
You said: "I don't think the substratum of nature behaves in some intelligent manner or with a teleonomic goal. Molecules on the early Earth did not intelligently behave so as to give the emergence of life. Evolution further did not operate in some goal oriented process to give rise to Homo sapiens. A neuron does not decide to release an action potential so there is some mental awareness. The universe is simply large enough with a huge range of possible configurations and collective states so that life and what we call intelligence or consciousness can exist. ..."
What can be said is that all effects that have occurred in this universe whether patterns in changes of velocity, the evolution of recognizable life, or the climax of forming higher intelligence all had to have been provided for potentially since the beginning of the universe. This means that every combination of partcles that resulted in something new looking, whether we recognize it as having meaning or not, was designated by the initial properties of the universe to have that purpose. No magic is permitted or wanted here.
Every result had to have been designated according to the arrangement of particles. Our particles that are participating in our intelligent life cycle will return to the Earth. They will no longer be recognizable as having the potential to combine again into human intelligent life, but it is potentially possible because that is what they have always been able to do right from their first existence under favorable conditions. Universal meaning is there in some form whether simple or complex otherwise nothing meaningful can happen.
You do not get to claim these results have any connection to your theories unless you can show how. That means you must recognize that intelligence from its highest level can be traced back to its simple looking original disassociated parts and finally to those fundamental properties that have that potential to lead through a series of prescribed purposes to achieve that which it was always prepared to do. No new meaning, purpose, or other property can be added to the universe after its orgin unless one invokes some mystical outside cause. I do not.
You said: "I simply don't think that outside of our selves or similar intelligent life forms that the universe is somehow intelligent in the sense of consciously directed decision making. We might of course talk about molecular intelligence, such as how viruses or bacteria may evolve and select for hosts. Think of the AIDS pandemic as a battle between our neural intelligence and the molecular intelligence of a retrovirus. But this does not mean I think HIV virions are intelligent in the sense we are. The universe is a type of quantum computer that runs some grand encryption coding system, maybe the Leech lattice. Yet I don't think this means the universe or black holes are some how intelligent. It just means that quantum information is transformed according to certain symmetries or sporadic groups so that quantum information is ultimately conserved."
I don't know exactly what you have in mind when you say 'consciously directed decision making', but I would replace those words with the recognition that all effects of any kind had to have been provided for fully in their potential form or they could never have occurred. As far as what the universe is, it certainly is not a computer of any kind. It is the source of natural real intelligence that cannot be transferred to any computer system. I don't think that black holes are intelligent either, but whatever purposes they satisfy and whatever actions they perform, it was provided for in full in potential form right from the beginning of the universe. What do you think about my question regarding our ability to discern meaning from photons?
James
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 19:20 GMT
For the what do you think? in late but simply .
I think dear James, your are a real searcher of truth , and simply I like read your posts.
Steve
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 20:13 GMT
Lawrence wrote, of James, et al, philosophy:
"The problem is that these ideas have no logico-emperical represntation, and are thus excluded from consideration. To complain about this is not to say that theoretical physics has a flaw, but to effectively reject science itself."
What he said.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 20:44 GMT
James, you asked, "What do you think about my question regarding our ability to discern meaning from photons?" (You last asked this of Lawrence; however, you have asked it of me as well.)
I think you have no idea what "photon" means. A photon is a particle of light, a massless energy exchange particle in that class of particles known as bosons.
Like all bosons, it carries information from one mass point to another, about the state of the system at the instant of change. The meaning is in the state and the change of state.
You keep insisting that there is some meaning beyond what theoretical physics describes (in a quite precise manner, in fact); this is a hollow and meaningless claim. You are certainly free to assume some ineffable a priori meaning ("intelligence"); however, as I told you before, there is no logic nor science in assuming what one is trying to prove.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 21:03 GMT
The only thing I can offer, though very informally, is the prospect that at the Planck scale the universe may be a self-referential tangle of states. The emergence of structure at larger scales then means the self-referential aspects of this still persist. It persists in the existence of internal observers who come to some understanding of the universe. So consciousness might then be a manifestation of this. This is not a theory in a proper sense of the word, for there is as yet no handle from which to make such as conjecture work. This further may require that consciousness itself be some aspect of Godelian self-reference.
As yet we are so far removed from being able to address these issues that it is not worth devoting much time on them. I know, I spent quite some time on this matter in the early 1990s, and frankly we just don't know enough to say much about this. There is also considerable resistance to such an idea as well, for in a sense this might mean not the salvation of physics and cosmology, but rather their end.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 09:06 GMT
Hi,
I saw a post of Mr Johnstone on Cosmic consciousness....and it's well resumed ....here is the post
"Hello Dear Roy,
You say....I think there is enough evidence to show that the conscious mind/brain system most likely has quantum characterisics. There is already empirical evidence of quantum entanglement in photosynthetic organisms enabling highly coherent transport of excitations, with coherence times of order picoseconds in what are very "noisy" non-equilibrium environments. This is achieved by densely packed (antenna) protein molecule complexes. Genetically these organisms can be very complex with some having up to 4,000 more genes than human beings!
I totally agree ....the mass evolves .....the number of entanged spheres more their specificities like the velocities of rotations,.....are in a dance of evolution.
Thus James sees clear the rule of intelligence and the rule of the informations by the flow of photons, the informations of complementarity and of evolution are an evidence.
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 16:35 GMT
Tom,
You said: "I think you have no idea what "photon" means. A photon is a particle of light, a massless energy exchange particle in that class of particles known as bosons.
Like all bosons, it carries information from one mass point to another, about the state of the system at the instant of change. The meaning is in the state and the change of state."
Ok use your response above to help you answer my question below. It is about actual reality that involves something very important and fundamental about how our intelligence works.
Repeating my question: "What do you think about my question regarding our ability to discern meaning from photons?"
Here it is again in a previous form: "How do we discern meaning from that wild storm of photons that are constantly crashing into us in mixes that are never repeated?"
And in a still earlier form: "How do you explain the fact that you can discern meaning from that wild storm of photons that are crashing into you right now? When you answer that question, then you will understand the meaning of intelligence."
You said: "You keep insisting that there is some meaning beyond what theoretical physics describes (in a quite precise manner, in fact); this is a hollow and meaningless claim. You are certainly free to assume some ineffable a priori meaning ("intelligence"); however, as I told you before, there is no logic nor science in assuming what one is trying to prove."
You explain nothing here. You are certainly free to assume some ineffable a prior mechanical type causes so long as you choose to believe in theoretical physics. Physics theory is for those who do not know but wish to proceed with developing mechanically useful equations anyway.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 17:03 GMT
James, you wrote, regarding my response to your endless permutations of your ceaseless question, of how one derives meaning from information transmitted by photons:
"You explain nothing here. You are certainly free to assume some ineffable a prior mechanical type causes so long as you choose to believe in theoretical physics. Physics theory is for those who do not know but wish to proceed with developing mechanically useful equations anyway."
You have demonstrated zero understanding of scientific method, James. One does not assumne "mechanical like causes." There is no such thing, and that makes no sense. One assigns no a priori meaning to data _at all_. It is _theory_ by which we interpret data, and assign meaning. Theory is, in fact, the highest truth standard science can bestow, and personal belief has nothing to do with it. Now if you think you have some special knowledge beyond scientific theory -- fine. DON'T call it science, however. That is disingenuous.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 17:13 GMT
Dr. Crowell,
Thank you for this reply. It is seriously informative.
You said: "The only thing I can offer, though very informally, is the prospect that at the Planck scale the universe may be a self-referential tangle of states. The emergence of structure at larger scales then means the self-referential aspects of this still persist. It persists in the existence of internal observers who come to some understanding of the universe. So consciousness might then be a manifestation of this. This is not a theory in a proper sense of the word, for there is as yet no handle from which to make such as conjecture work. This further may require that consciousness itself be some aspect of Godelian self-reference.
As yet we are so far removed from being able to address these issues that it is not worth devoting much time on them. I know, I spent quite some time on this matter in the early 1990s, and frankly we just don't know enough to say much about this. There is also considerable resistance to such an idea as well, for in a sense this might mean not the salvation of physics and cosmology, but rather their end."
Repeating this except: "As yet we are so far removed from being able to address these issues that it is not worth devoting much time on them."
My question, repeated in my last message to Tom, goes right to the heart of this problem. I am certain the answer is far removed from a possible explanation by theoretical physics in its current form. However, logically it is approachable through my question. Either we must already have the answers available to us from some source other than the photon storm or the photon storm carries and communicates the meaning to us. It appears that there is no means by which the photon storm can carry its own meanings with it. Here is the question again:
A photon storm of extremely truncated pieces of data about changes of velocity originating from multitudinous sources of particles of matter, mixed up and scrambled together, arriving at the speed of light, in arrangements that are never repeated, and the only means by which we have ever received data, is worthwhile for immediate logical inquiry into the nature of intelligence.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 17:18 GMT
Tom,
You said: "You have demonstrated zero understanding of scientific method, James. One does not assumne "mechanical like causes." There is no such thing, and that makes no sense. One assigns no a priori meaning to data _at all_. It is _theory_ by which we interpret data, and assign meaning. Theory is, in fact, the highest truth standard science can bestow, and personal belief has nothing to do with it."
You statement is surprisingly misrepresentative of the nature of theory. Your belief in theory is very, very strong.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 17:41 GMT
Good grief, James. Whatever you think "the nature of theory" is, there is no scientist in the world who disagrees that we interpret data by _other_ than theory. This is not controversial.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 17:44 GMT
Correcting myself, I of course meant "agrees" rather than "disagrees."
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 17:51 GMT
Tom,
"Good grief, James. Whatever you think "the nature of theory" is, there is no scientist in the world who disagrees that we interpret data by _other_ than theory. ..."
You are the artful dodger. Here is a quote from your previous message:
"...Theory is, in fact, the highest truth standard science can bestow, and personal belief has nothing to do with it."
Theory is never the highest truth standard science can bestow. It is the best guess that a scientist can make about the possible meaning of data within his' or her's belief system.
James
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 17:53 GMT
I think some people confounds the sciences method with the maths method ....but who hihihihi
The crazzy spheric man
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 18:04 GMT
James, you wrote, "Theory is never the highest truth standard science can bestow. It is the best guess that a scientist can make about the possible meaning of data within his' or her's belief system."
As I noted, zero understanding of scientific method.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 20:14 GMT
Tom,
"As I noted, zero understanding of scientific method."
We are talking about theory. We are addressing the value of theory. We are contesting the nature of theory. You are not sticking to the subject.
The need for theory is lack of understanding about the nature of cause. Theory, for physics, is the practice of inventing cause. The causes of theoretical physics are made up. The lack of unity starting early with the fundamentals is evidence of erroneous guesses about the nature of cause. No one know what cause is.
Scientists make their best guess or guesses about the nature of cause, give them names and units of measurement, substitute them into their otherwise empirical equations, and proceed to make use of those equations to successfully make predictions about new points in the patterns of changes of velocity observed in empricial evidence. The empirical forms of the equations are the most correct forms.
However, the theoretical forms are helpful for keeping the scientists thoughts straight. It can be confusing to talk about or represent ideas using mathmatics when the patterns are very different looking. It is necessary to treat them as if they are not united because we cannot see how they might be united. When they are treated as not being united, then it is very convenient to give them names and units so that communication about the discrepancies in the patterns can be addressed without confusion.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 23:10 GMT
James, I don't know anyone who is confused about the nature and value of theory, except you. Theory is our _only_ means of interpreting data objectively.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 23:17 GMT
Tom,
"James, I don't know anyone who is confused about the nature and value of theory, except you. Theory is our _only_ means of interpreting data objectively."
Well you are certainly confused about the nature and value of theory. You belief it represents truth in science. I assume that you mean that it represents reality. You cannot support that belief, in fact, you don't give answers or explanations. You just make brash statements and repetitive claims about something which you have clearly bought into as a belief system, but, do not understand its real relationship to science. It is what you make up out of necessity when you do not know real answers.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 23:31 GMT
Yeah, okay, James, whatever. You apparently can't be swayed by logic, facts or references from the literature. Be well.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 23:41 GMT
Tom,
Ok, thanks for the conversation.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 11, 2010 @ 00:31 GMT
Dear Steve,
I was pretty busy trying to stay current with the many messages in this debate. I appreciated very much your kind words:
"I think dear James, your are a real searcher of truth, and simply I like read your posts."
"Thus James sees clear the rule of intelligence and the rule of the informations by the flow of photons, the informations of complementarity and of evolution are an evidence."
I think that the role of intelligence has to be a consistent part of any search for the truth. It is the key property to follow in order to understand the evolution of the universe. I think that it will be easier to trace it backwards rather than speculate about its origin. Speculating about its origin and then trying to imagine how it evolved probably has little chance of giving a correct understanding.
I think that we should start with our own intelligence. The greatest achievement of our intelligence is human free will. That is where I think the scientific search for understanding should begin. My question about human interpretations of photon data was meant to bring human intelligence and particularly human free will to the forefront of the discussion. Hopefully other readers understood that. Thank you again for your kind messages.
James
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on May. 11, 2010 @ 09:59 GMT
Hi all,
Dear James,
You are welcome, the intelligence and the potential of thougth are so importants.
The encoding of rational informations by the biological system is incredible in its sortings.
The tori of adn and the electromagnetism more all these captors of rationality in the gravitational stability permits to see the evolution of the intelligence.
The gravity and the gravities in fact are superimposed and the light is fractalized really in fact....Thus we can imagine the number of possible syncronizations between the mass and this light.The informations are so numerous and so specifics , we can imagine the decimals of the light , fractalized by the encoded gravity.
The encoding becomes a very complex system in 3D of evolutive polarization...where the informations are polarized in different localities of the entangled biological system.
The encoding is everywhere, in adn, brain.....and the adaptation takes all its sense.
Best Regards
Steve
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on May. 11, 2010 @ 13:58 GMT
Dr. Edwin Klingman,
A few messages ago I wrote to Steve my thoughts that:
"I think that the role of intelligence has to be a consistent part of any search for the truth. It is the key property to follow in order to understand the evolution of the universe. I think that it will be easier to trace it backwards rather than speculate about its origin. Speculating about its origin and then trying to imagine how it evolved probably has little chance of giving a correct understanding."
I was thinking through my own thoughts developed over years and the conclusions I reached that may be either for good reason or due to my own limitations. When I wrote those words above I had slipped back into my own thoughts and forgotten to give you credit for doing that which I said "probably has little chance of giving a correct understanding". You have devloped a new kind of theoretical physics that does included fundamental properties that are capable of evolving into human intelligence. I hope some day soon that rigid mechanical type ideology will give way to open mindedness so that professionally developed or approved ideas that may even be diametrically opposed can be freely discussed without unreasonable resistance.
James
report post as inappropriate
hide replies