Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[saviourmachine]

The math is not difficult at all...

Matrix mechanics

With regard to the issue of mathematics and simplicity, do you have any knowledge of matrix mechanics or matrix multiplication? I am wondering if I will have to teach you the subject as it comes up pretty quickly from where we are at the moment.

Aah. The basic concepts about matrix multiplication etc, I know. I did my bachelor electrical engineering (e.m. waves etc). I'll say it, if something is too difficult for me. I don't know a thing about Heisenberg's matrix mechanics. I forgot a lot about Schrödinger's equation. It was thrown at me in a course about semiconductor physics.

Probability theory

(Just as an aside, there is an individual out there who has some major difficulties with probability theory and is getting a reception roughly equivalent to the one I manage to generate with authorities. I have a strong suspicion his complaints are very rational.)

Interesting. And that's not Stephen Jay Gould in "Full house" I guess... Who is it? What is his/her message?

Dot product

Now add to the above the standard definition of a "dot" product of vectors (seen as a definition of a procedure) and the notation $\vec{G}^\dagger \cdot \vec{G}$ results in a sum over a collection of positive real numbers which must be positive definite. Lastly, the sum over all possibilities (or the integral if the number of possibilities is infinite) must be greater than any sum (or integral) over any sub set of possibilities. It follows that

$$1 \geq \frac{ { \int \int \cdots \int \vector{G}^\dagger \cdot \vector{G} \, d^n x} }{ { { \int \int \cdots \int \vector{G}^\dagger \cdot \vector{G} \, d^n x} } } \geq 0$$​

so long as the denominator is summed (or integrated) over all possibilities.

I am clueless about what you're doing overhere. You defined an universal function: G, linking a list input numbers with a list results. You defined it's adjoint. Okay. And now you're defining a dot product of these functions. Does that have any meaning? And subsequently taking a volume integral. Does that mean anything? Or are that conventional mathematical tricks that always apply?
Recapitulation. Taken into consideration the tabel C we talked about. G does map the B's in that tabel to another tabel with a same amount of entries, but with only two columns (the real and imaginary part). The dot product between G and $\vec{G}^\dagger$ does lead us to another tabel with one column. This column is integrated n times, each time over one of his (n) elements.

Psi function

If follows that, if one defines the function $\vec{\Psi}$ via

$$\vec{\Psi}(\vec{x},t) \equiv \frac{ \vec{G}(\vec{x},t) }{ { \sqrt{ \oint \vector{G}^\dagger \cdot \vector{G} dv} } }$$​

we can "define" the probability of the $B_j$ to be given by

$$P(\vec{x},t) = \vec{\Psi}^\dagger(\vec{x},t)\cdot\vec{\Psi}(\vec{x},t)dv$$​

where $dv \equiv d^n x$.

Ah, there we have our old familiar P again. I don't know how you did achieve that. It's pretty if it's right. It's like Euler's formula connecting pi, e, and i in some magical way. Can you explain why you did take a square root? Can you explain why the probability P is given by $\vec{\Psi}$ and its adjoint? What kind of value is the denominator?

Rewriting the psi function

Finally, since we want to work with $\vec{\Psi}$, we need to re-express the relationships developed earlier in terms of the probability. The relationships already written may be rewritten as

$$\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\vec{\Psi}\,=\, i \kappa \vec{\Psi}\,\,\,and\,\,\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\Psi}\,=\, im\vec{\Psi}$$
​

This can be proved quite simply. The complex conjugates of the above expressions are,

$$\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\vec{\Psi}^\dagger\,=\, -i \kappa \vec{\Psi}^\dagger \,\,\,and\,\,\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\Psi}^\dagger\,=\, -im\vec{\Psi}^\dagger .$$
​

And this is quite difficult for me too. Is this matrix mechanics?

Result

This, together with the chain rule of calculus guarantees that any $\vec{\Psi}$ which satisfies the above relations also satisfies the relation on the probability stated earlier. In the interest of saving space, I will show the result explicitly for the time derivative (the derivatives with respect to the arguments $x_i$ go through exactly the same.

$$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}P(\vec{x},t)$$

$$=\,\, \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\Psi}^\dagger \right) \cdot \vec{\Psi}+\vec{\Psi}^\dagger \cdot \left( {\frac{ \partial}{ \partial t}} \vec{\Psi} \right)$$

$$=\,\, -im \vec{\Psi}^\dagger \cdot \vec{\Psi}+im \vec{\Psi}^\dagger \cdot \vec{\Psi}\,\,=\,\,0.$$​

And, yes, the result is that the derivative of P with respect to t is zero. And I trust you that the others will be zero as well. It's difficult for me to follow this, but I hope that I lack only a few basic physical or mathematical concepts. If you're not disappointed I hope you'll continue your lectures. See you soon!

Andy

 

[Doctordick]

The tricky bit is logically reconciling all the underlying and related thoughts to derive at a generally acceptable conclusion.

Reconciling all the underlying and related thoughts? Isn't that "internal self consistency"?

... let alone come to a common conclusion.

We have lots of common conclusions; what is necessary is to expand that commonality. Find and expand agreements which are applicable to that underlying immense task.

The problem gets even worse when there is a huge divisionism between disciplines.

What you are talking about here is the extremely closed minded approach taken be all. Everyone wants their point of view to be the perspective in which the solution is to be expressed. (That doesn't require them to understand others.)

Until all the disciplines involved begin to accept the fact that there is no significant difference in what they are trying to explain at their specific scale or layer of reference, then we should all kiss goodbye to any form of progress in this project!

I could not agree more; and you might as well kiss the idea of progress goodbye. All we have going on here is a bunch of people stirring that pot of confused and ill defined concepts with the forlorn hope that some great solution will float to the top. They need to carefully examine those concepts and define exactly what they are trying to express. They might begin to see some of the problems with their ideas.

...whatever conclusions that they derive at in their overall explanations of this same subject matter must inevitably reconcile both quantitatively and logically.

Again, I agree with you completely.

There ought to be neither a metaphysically vexing remainder nor a quantitatively and logically irreconcilable deficit in a multidisciplinary derived explanation of this subject matter. That would be the day!

And the day could be at hand if egos could be laid aside and a little serious thought put into the problem. The problem with the reconciliation is the fundamental failure of these people to communicate. I say it has to do with the vagueness of the language they use and they all deny they are being vague and refuse to worry about the issue of definition at all. They all know there personal concepts are as clear as glass; why should they bother with definition?

They are all, within their own private "disciplines", attempting to find explanations of the things that interest them. So, if we are looking for multidisciplinary agreement, shouldn't our first concern be, "exactly what do you mean by 'an explanation'"? Apparently not. Everybody here seems to believe that they "know" exactly what is and is not an acceptable explanation". If they are correct, how come there is so much argument over the acceptability of each others "explanations"?

I have proposed an abstract mathematically exact definition of http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/Explain/Explain.htm in an attempt to expand that commonality in thought required and received not the first interest in examining the consequences of that definition. Do I get any discussion? No, what I get is, "That's not the correct definition!" (I wouldn't really mind if they gave me a good definition of what they think they are talking about; but they don't.) If the issue of explanation is not approached, how can anyone expect to achieve a multidisciplinary explanation of anything? I would like to talk about it if you are interested.

And, Andy, it is good to hear from you. I had about given up hope. You have asked some very good questions (with deeper significance than what might appear on the surface) and I want to think them over carefully as I answer. I will post a reply within the week.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

[coanacl]

Can everything be explained using physics?

If you mean physics in it's present form that answer is absolutely not! But since physics is a growing discipline (it alters itself as new realities become apparent), you have to say that eventually the science will gain ground on the new realities.

But you have to wonder if it has any chance in some realms.

For example, do you remember the old hypothetical 2 dimensional world "Planeverse"? How could their science ever hope to describe our world, not to mention a 9th dimensional world.

 

[Paul Martin]

For example, do you remember the old hypothetical 2 dimensional world "Planeverse"? How could their science ever hope to describe our world, not to mention a 9th dimensional world.

The answer to your question seems pretty clear to me. The answer is by mathematics and imagination.

First of all, if their "Planeverse" were curved so that the Pythagorean Theorem didn't apply everywhere, such as if part of their Planeverse was part of the surface of a 3D sphere, they would be able to detect this fact by 2D measurements of features of their world. This should give them the hint that there might be extra spatial dimensions that are inaccessible to them. Then they could use mathematics to deduce what type of 3D structures might be possible in a 3D world and how those structures might behave according to laws of physics that could also be inferred from mathematics.

I think this scenario should also apply to us. We know from direct measurements of our universe that it is curved. This should give us the hint that there might be extra inaccessible spatial dimensions (and I know of no cogent reason why those extra dimensions must be "curled up".) Next, I think we could make some progress if we investigated the constraints and possiblities for hyper-dimensional structures and processes using mathematics, and then looking for manifestations of those structures and processes that might be evident in our 3D world. This might be analogous, for example, to an inaccessible 3D object casting a shadow on the Planeverse which might be detectable by its inhabitants and which might reveal something about the 3D object.

Nine dimensions would be a lot harder, but we could start with four and proceed to five and work our way up. Or we could use suggestive features revealed by mathematics, such as the classification of finite groups, to suggest what might be a more fruitful approach.

 

[coanacl]

The answer to your question seems pretty clear to me. The answer is by mathematics and imagination.

As I understand, it was Newton's imagination that first led him to consider the effects of gravity.

I agree that Planeverse residents would likely use their 2 dimensional mathematics to descibe the phemonena that they were observing, but it will likely be their inability to imagine the 3rd dimension that will limit the application of their science.

 

[Doctordick]

Aah. The basic concepts about matrix multiplication etc, I know.

Good, that's all you really need to know. If you know that, then everything else is really nothing more than logic (you can write out and look at the details of that multiplication). The really important aspect of matrix multiplication (in so far as physics is concerned: i.e., the reason we will want to use them) is that it is possible to construct "anti-commutating" matrices. Anti-commutation (a*b=-b*a) allows us to establish a very valuable "logical" relationships: i.e., we can define an expression (a symbol for something) consistent with the concept of multiplication where (ab-ba) is not zero. The true value of being able to do that is that it allows us to write some very complex relationships in a manner which appears to be simple. I don't know; could that be called the essence of "reductionism"? It seems to me that, if "reductionism" is expressing complex phenomena in simple terms, that is exactly what using "anti-commutation" is all about. I will make that clear a little further down the road.

Actually, when Dirac showed that "matrix mechanics" and "wave mechanics" were equivalent (leading to the notion that Dirac's "bra"-"ket" notation {this, < |, is a "bra" and this, | >, is a "ket"} expressed something fundamental about reality), the real essence of the thing is the ability to encompass mathematical expression of the phenomena (ab-ba) not being zero. In Dirac's notation that would be (|a><b| - <b|a>) not being zero. In his case, the symbols look quite different and confusion with ordinary "numbers" is impossible. But, as my interest is with the difference between what "really exists" and what "we presume exists", it is the relationship and the essence of reductionism which is important, not the notation.

That brings up mathematics. Mathematics is a language just like any other language (except for the care with which mathematicians have stripped it of inconsistencies). It has its grammar, syntax and vocabulary. The importance of a mathematical expression is the wide extent of rather exact communication. One should always remember that specialists in any field have a bad habit of developing "jargon" only understood by insiders (I think it's a ego protective measure) and specialty use of mathematics is as full of "jargon" as is any language. The "proper" notation is "jargon" and learning the proper "jargon" of a field is a waste of time if one fails to comprehend the essence of the concepts which gave rise to that "jargon". Sounding like you understand things is not equivalent to understanding them.

I did my bachelor electrical engineering (e.m. waves etc). I'll say it, if something is too difficult for me. I don't know a thing about Heisenberg's matrix mechanics. I forgot a lot about Schrödinger's equation. It was thrown at me in a course about semiconductor physics.

The details of Heisenberg's matrix mechanics are not important at all unless one is interested in how the ideas of quantum mechanics arose historically. True relationships are seldom recognized by accident. One is usually led to them through examination of complex representations of things already known to be true. Once one begins to comprehend the structure of some complex representation, that structure itself often turns out to be a consequence of some simple ideas (reductionism again ).

Newtonian mechanics and calculus led to a long history of problem solving techniques and it was the attempt to standardize those techniques which eventually led to quantum mechanics. Just following that sequence and how ideas lead to other ideas is a fascinating study in itself. Every serious student should be taken through that development in detail just to understand how simplicity arises from complexity.

Probability theory

Just as an aside, there is an individual out there who has some major difficulties with probability theory and is getting a reception roughly equivalent to the one I manage to generate with authorities. I have a strong suspicion his complaints are very rational.

Interesting. And that's not Stephen Jay Gould in "Full house" I guess... Who is it? What is his/her message?

His name is ThinhVanTran. I ran across him when I was surfing the web; I believe it was a post he made on one of the scientific forums hosted by Yahoo but I could be wrong as it was quite a while ago. He has a website at the link above. Since my work is a direct consequence of careful examinations of the process of obtaining valid expectations, I wanted to know exactly what his complaint was. After all, my work is essentially making an accurate estimate of probabilities (expectations) based on information without any knowledge of what the information represents (since "what it means" has to be derived from it and nothing else). So I took the trouble to get in touch with him.

He sent me a copy of his book and I corresponded with him for a while. I read his book very carefully and came to the conclusion that he may have something. I told him that his approach was wrong and that, if he wants to get his ideas published, he should lean on the experimental data and not worry about why it's wrong. Just show the details of his calculations and his assumptions and how the results differ from reality. Finish with the correction factor as a simple phenomenological correction. If others are having the same problem, the existence of the problem will become evident and others will use the correction factor. (He might tell them in an appendix how he came up with the correction but don't make a claim that it's the only explanation.) But he has already decided he knows where the problem is and wants everyone to recognize that he is right and they are wrong (actually, that sort of sounds like what people think I am doing :rolf:).

After reading his thesis, I was satisfied that it has no bearing on my work. Essentially what he says is that there is a constraint on the calculations which the professionals are not taking into account (having to do with the finite nature of reality). That constraint is that the probability calculations must agree with the historical results. Since the universe is finite, the historical results cannot contain some of those very very improbable possibilities. This fact skews the "correct" results away from the standard probability calculations. That is, the very probable events must be slightly more probable than probability theory says they are. He has created a correction factor based on that analysis and his calculated results agree with experience. The problem is that his correction looks too much like a phenomenological correction factor for some element being left out of his calculations and that is precisely the explanation the authorities jump to.

That doesn't bother me in the least as my whole attack is to find the consequences of requiring a "theory" to be consistent with the known information on a probabilistic basis. That is almost exactly the problem he is talking about. At any rate, I have been unable to sway him and his stuff will probably never be published. They won't publish him, instead they just tell him he is not doing his calculations correctly and that the distributions will never be exactly what he calculates anyway as that is the nature of probability. That is, "he's not an authority and can't possibly be correct".
Dot product

I am clueless about what you're doing overhere. You defined an universal function: G, linking a list input numbers with a list results.

No, I didn't define any function at all. What I am doing is defining a way of representing a function (a notation or a symbol for a function). The central issue being that any and all conceivable functions can be so represented. The notation puts no constraint whatsoever on the function under discussion; the function itself is undefined, it is an unknown. "A is a function of B" means nothing more or less than the fact that, if B is known, A is known. Since anything can be represented by a set of numbers (a set of labels), both A and B can be seen as a set of numbers no matter what they are. In order to represent something significant, they must be properly defined; but, what is important here is that by approaching the issue in an abstract manner, we can put off the definition until later. The function is nothing except the answer to the question: if I have a specific B, what A do I have? The function (that specific answer) is "an unknown"; something we would like to know. It is thus a valid abstract representation of any question and its answer. Now don't confuse the words "valid" and "useful"; I said it was valid but I didn't say anything about its usefulness other than the accuracy of the abstract concept itself.

You defined it's adjoint. Okay. And now you're defining a dot product of these functions. Does that have any meaning?

The process I am describing has only one purpose. The purpose is to define a universal representation of a procedure which will convert any arbitrary function into a function where A (the result) is a positive definite number. I do that because I want to express "expectations" (what I expect to be true). The point is that my expectations constitute something which can be represented by a probability: a positive definite number between zero and one. Except for magnitude (which is just a measure of size) the dot product I have defined always qualifies.

What I have shown is that any specific answer to any question which can be answered via a probability weighted yes/no answer can be represented by the dot product of $\vec{\Psi}$ with its complex conjugate. That is, if a method of obtaining the answer exists, that method is a member of the set of all possible function. Obviously, if it isn't a member of the set of all possible functions, the method doesn't exist. If a method of answering the question doesn't exist, the question cannot be answered via any attack. What we are talking about is the problem of selecting the correct answer from the collection of all possible answers.

And subsequently taking a volume integral.

$$1 \geq \frac{ { \int \int \cdots \int \vector{G}^\dagger \cdot \vector{G} \, d^n x} }{ { { \int \int \cdots \int \vector{G}^\dagger \cdot \vector{G} \, d^n x} } } \geq 0$$​

Note that the structure of the numerator and the denominator are exactly the same. The only thing which makes them different is the comment; "so long as the denominator is summed (or integrated) over all possibilities. What range the numerator is to be summed (or integrated) over is left open. Since the dot product is positive definite, the sum (or integral) is monotonically increasing real number no matter how the sum (or integral) is done. The expression can be interpreted as a probability of various "B's" (that collection of labels which define a specific answer). If that sum (or integral) is over all possibilities, the result is exactly one (the standard constraint on "probability").

Does that mean anything? Or are they conventional mathematical tricks that always apply?

Not really. What I am doing is laying out a specific procedure for creating a functional relationship which can always be interpreted as a probability. What is important here is that no constraints of any kind have been placed on the underlying functional relationship (that unknown $\vec{\Psi}$). Again, if a method for obtaining those expectations exists, then a $\vec{\Psi}$ which will yield them must exist. Actually, what I have just given you is not really a proof of that assertion; however, it is not difficult to construct a proof that the assertion is true. If you want the proof, let me know and I will lay it out for you in detail.

Recapitulation. Taken into consideration the table C we talked about. G does map the B's in that table to another table with a same amount of entries, but with only two columns (the real and imaginary part). The dot product between G and $\vec{G}^\dagger$ does lead us to another table with one column. This column is integrated n times, each time over one of his (n) elements.

I have a suspicion that you are a little confused. I am talking about two very different things here. The set C and its members B constitute what we want to explain. What I want to avoid doing is defining the elements of B as I want those definitions to be the best possible in light of that explanation which I do not yet have. That is why I am working in the abstract. I want to use numerical labels for those elements because I have a lot of those labels and they don't necessarily carry any inherent meaning. Notice that any meaning attached to the elements of B must be communicated via C anyway so there exists no reason to preemptively assign any meanings. Assigning a meaning is tantamount to claiming you know what you are talking about. Until you think you understand the problem and have some kinds of expectations, definition is pretty much a waste of time.

On the other hand, mathematics is a fairly well defined language. I can lay out specific procedures for manipulating numbers with a very strong assurance that the reader will obtain exactly the same results from that manipulation which I do. If knowledge of C (which is, by definition, a finite collection of B's) provides us with the information necessary to specify our expectations for any specific B then that knowledge will allow us to obtain those expectations from the labels which specify that B. That is, a function exists which will yield that result. That function must be a member of "all possible functions" so it must be representable by that unknown expression we are referring to as $\vec{\Psi}$.

Psi function

If follows that, if one defines the function $\vec{\Psi}$ via

$$\vec{\Psi}(\vec{x},t) \equiv \frac{ \vec{G}(\vec{x},t) }{ { \sqrt{ \oint \vector{G}^\dagger \cdot \vector{G} dv} } }$$​

we can "define" the probability of the $B_j$ to be given by

$$P(\vec{x},t) = \vec{\Psi}^\dagger(\vec{x},t)\cdot\vec{\Psi}(\vec{x},t)dv$$​

where $dv \equiv d^n x$.

Ah, there we have our old familiar P again. I don't know how you did achieve that.

It is nothing more or less than exactly what I said above. $\vec{\Psi}$ is a magnitude adjusted version of $\vec{G}$, our unknown function. The dot product changes that into a simple positive definite number and the division by the sum (or integral) over $\vector{G}^\dagger \cdot \vector{G}$ guarantees that, when we sum (or integrate) our probability over all possibilities (that is, sum or integrate the numerator), we get exactly one. You have to take a square root because the factor come into the calculation of probability twice: once from the $\vec{\Psi}(\vec{x},t)$ and a second time from the $\vec{\Psi}^\dagger(\vec{x},t)$.

What kind of value is the denominator?

The denominator is an unknown number. It cannot be known until we establish exactly what that unknown G is. Remember, the output of G is defined to be a list of numbers and the dot product is defined to be the sum of the members of that list multiplied by their complex conjugate (which guarantees the result will be a sum of positive numbers which is a number). Since G can be any function, problems could possibly arise with the fact that the resultant number could be zero or infinity, but these are easily argued away as not really causing any difficulties at all. Again, if you need to have that demonstrated, I will do so in detail.

Rewriting the psi function

And this is quite difficult for me too. Is this matrix mechanics?

No, it is just simple calculus. I am merely asserting that the solutions I quote are completely equivalent to the relationships developed earlier in terms of the probability. I then prove that statement by substituting the dot product for the probability and work out the differential via the chain rule. In order to do that, I have to know what the differential of the complex conjugate is. That is why I wrote them down specifically. The definition of the complex conjugate is nothing more than the original expression where all appearances of the imaginary number i is replaced with -i. Since the solutions I am asserting are complex entities, I need to know what the complex conjugate of the expressions are. The issue here is that requiring the differential of the probability to be zero is equivalent to requiring the differential of $\vec{\Psi}$ to be proportional to i times the original function. When the chain rule is expanded out, the added terms cancel out.

It's difficult for me to follow this, but I hope that I lack only a few basic physical or mathematical concepts.

I suspect that the biggest problem is that you are unfamiliar with the expressions I am writing down and you think there is supposed to be more than the obvious: i.e., you don't understand where I am going so the steps don't seem to be meaningful. If you still have questions about anything I have put down, please let me know. If all this makes sense to you, I will establish the final two steps and then pull all the diverse threads together.

I hope I have not run you off – Dick

 

[Rob55]

Can't even get started

I’ve got trouble with first principles of math and physics. I can't imagine physics without math - but I guess they did something like it long ago in Greece. I can imagine zero but I can’t find it in the real world. The same goes for infinity – is forever really something? And as for 1, I can hold, taste and see things that are similar but I’ve never found anything that is identical to something else. So you can see that I also have problems with 2 and equals and on and on…
However, my real problem is not how I can create an elaborate mathematics based on my creativity, but it’s when I impose these imaginary concepts on the real world, for some mysterious reason they seem to fit so well. In fact, my enthusiasm peaks every time I see a fractial fern leaf and it makes me ponder, that with hard work, it may be possible to describe everything with pure physics. But then I remember the essence of the leaf, its quality, and the old saying that existence precedes essence.

 

[Doctordick]

I’ve got trouble with first principles of math and physics.

First principles of mathematics is an extremely esoteric subject. A lot of it is well beyond my understanding but I have managed to pull down an overall viewpoint which makes (to me at least) sense of their approach and their results (their jargon is often beyond my comprehension). I have come to define mathematics as the invention and study of internally consistent systems (systems being any collection of "things" together with set of rules involving those "things"). That definition is a statement of what I mean when I refer to mathematics. I only make that comment because I have found it impossible to achieve agreement on this forum. Everyone else seems to think that is not the definition of mathematics but none of them have told me what they think mathematics is so I am left holding the bag.

What I think most everybody misses (particularly people ignorant of mathematics) is that numbers are mere symbols for things and that the operations (addition, multiplication, integration, ...) are just sets of rules which have been shown to establish internally consistent systems.

I can't imagine physics without math - but I guess they did something like it long ago in Greece.

Well, physics is the study of reality. An attempt to explain our experiences. Now an internally inconsistent explanation is a pretty worthless thing. By definition, an internally inconsistent explanation is one which gives different answers depending on the specific path taken through the logic (that would be the supposed rules presumed by the explanation). In that case, it doesn't provide an answer so its purpose is defeated.

Now nobody wants an inconsistent explanation of anything but we none the less use them all the time. That's because it is often very difficult to prove an explanation is internally consistent. (You should note that, if you can prove it is an internally consistent structure, mathematicians will accept it as a branch of mathematics! Think about why Newton is credited with the invention of calculus.) It follows, as the night the day, that any field which can reduce its arguments to mathematics can establish at least some real support to the idea that their explanations are at least internally self consistent. One of the problems with modern physics is that a lot of it is compartmentalized. The individual fields may be internally consistent within the field of interest but it is often very difficult to make those different fields consistent with one another. The prime example of that difficulty is the conflict between quantum and general relativity.

The conflict between quantum and general relativity rears its ugly head in tachyons, collapse of the wave function, and the fundamental inability of the physics community to set off a correct general relativistic version of quantum mechanics. What I am trying to point out to you is the fact that there are still a lot of internally inconsistent explanations in physics: i.e., it is still not possible to reduce the whole to mathematics (an internally self consistent system).

The issue I am trying to get attention to is the fact that a self consistent explanation of anything can be seen as mathematics. If physics is an explanation of reality and anything which can be explained with an internally consistent set of rules (mathematics) will be absorbed into physics (as was electricity and magnetism, which was once thought to be inexplicable) then it follows that anything which can be explained can be explained by physics. Case closed, question answered.

It is the requirement that all explanations must be internally self consistent which needs to be examined carefully. I have done that and found some very interesting consequences which are apparently of little interest to anyone. You are new to the forum and I thought I would try to make myself clear.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

[Chronos]

It is the requirement that all explanations must be internally self consistent which needs to be examined carefully. I have done that and found some very interesting consequences which are apparently of little interest to anyone.

The evidence appears to be mounting that all our models of this universe are not necessarily internally self consistent... e.g., cpt violations.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The evidence appears to be mounting that all our models of this universe are not necessarily internally self consistent... e.g., cpt violations.

Experimentalists are of course eagerly looking for CPT violations, just as they eagerly look for any evidence beyond current theory. That's part of their job. But could you cite any reliable result where they have detected full CPT violation? I check the phenomenology section of the arxiv pretty frequently and I haven't seen anything. I mean here full CPT violation, not CP, which is old news ("parity violation") dating back to the 1950's with kaons and a great many observations recently with B particles (mesons containing a bottom quark).

 

[Doctordick]

Hi selfAdjoint,

Note that, if their space time continuum hypothesis is erroneous, full CPT violation might be a possibility. In any case internal inconsistency is the death knell of any theory. The scientists generally avoid that particular consequence by compartmentalizing their theories. Thus they can say their theories are valid so long as you remain within the defining boundaries of the theory. A necessary cop-out as to refuse to accept anything but the final correct solution leaves them with nothing. A method of reckoning things is certain special conditions is a very valuable result; however, it's still a cop-out of a full valid explanation of what is going on.

And Chronus, you are absolutely right. That is essentially what is meant by a TOE: an internally self consistent theory which is valid in all circumstances. And there are people who think we are close. -But they still won't pay any attention to me. - I just got a response from another "professional physicist" I managed to contact.

I am very sorry, but after a look at the second website
you mentioned (Explain) I have to tell you that there is
certainly nobody with a degree in physics who could make
sense out of this.
To give you just one technical remark: It is easily possible
to write down the general solution of your four constraints
for the function Psi: it is Psi=0.

Besides this, your attempts are much more concerned
with the Philosophy of Science than with theoretical
physics. Therefore I would urge you to please study
Karl Popper's treatise on "The Logic of Scientific Discovery".

Best wishes,
Rainer Dick

http://physics.usask.ca/~dick/rainer.htm

Psi=0 is indeed a solution but it is certainly not a general solution by any stretch of imagination.

Competent is not a word I would use to describe him. And I am sorry if I am insensitive.

Have fun -- Dick

Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

[Bobby R]

Magnetic reversal/global warming

Doctor D, I appreciate your comments as they make sense. Maybe you could help me on my poser:
Interestingly, our Sun oscillates in and out of the plane of the galaxy (up and down) every 70 million years (approx.). Which means we pass through the Galactic mid-plane about every 35 million years. The number of cosmic rays which hit the Earth increases during the near hundred thousand years we are closest to the Galactic plane. What happens to Earth’s temperature during this transition through the mid-plane? Could one assume influence on Earth’s magnetic field as well?
Our Sun is located in a small spiral arm we call the Orion arm (or local arm) which is really a connection between the two nearest major spiral arms (Sagittarius and Perseus). We pass through a major spiral arm about every 100 million years taking about 10 million years to go through. During the transit, there would be a higher rate of ’nearby’ supernova and possible other ’environmental stresses’ which could alter the climate of Earth.
Simply put, as our Solar System travels in Galactic orbit there are many potential stresses we can speculate ‘cause and effect’ from. Along with our Sun there are approx. 400 billion other celestial bodies in the Milky way.
One Galactic orbit of our Solar System lasts between 220 and 240 million years (very approx.) There are so many variables anything is possible! I am spacifically interested in magnetic reversal and global warming. ...Bob sends...:-)

 

[Doctordick]

Doctor D, I appreciate your comments as they make sense. Maybe you could help me on my poser:
Interestingly, our Sun oscillates in and out of the plane of the galaxy (up and down) every 70 million years (approx.). Which means we pass through the Galactic mid-plane about every 35 million years. The number of cosmic rays which hit the Earth increases during the near hundred thousand years we are closest to the Galactic plane. What happens to Earth’s temperature during this transition through the mid-plane? Could one assume influence on Earth’s magnetic field as well?
Our Sun is located in a small spiral arm we call the Orion arm (or local arm) which is really a connection between the two nearest major spiral arms (Sagittarius and Perseus). We pass through a major spiral arm about every 100 million years taking about 10 million years to go through. During the transit, there would be a higher rate of ’nearby’ supernova and possible other ’environmental stresses’ which could alter the climate of Earth.
Simply put, as our Solar System travels in Galactic orbit there are many potential stresses we can speculate ‘cause and effect’ from. Along with our Sun there are approx. 400 billion other celestial bodies in the Milky way.
One Galactic orbit of our Solar System lasts between 220 and 240 million years (very approx.) There are so many variables anything is possible! I am spacifically interested in magnetic reversal and global warming. ...Bob sends...:-)

I agree with you. There are a lot of issues to take into account here but you are asking about their influence on the Earth's climate. That would be an issue to take up with experimentalists in the appropriate fields; however, as an opinion and nothing more (as these are issues I have never much worried about), I doubt very much that their influences would have a very large effect. In fact, it would be my suspicion that dust density changes would probably be the most important effect by intercepting solar radiation.

Sorry I can't be more helpful -- Dick

 

[GSMichaels]

copenhagen interpretation

This is simply an age old debate famously argued by Neil Bohr and Einstein. I believe the quote was god does not "play dice." If string theory proves to have any validity then perhaps we will be able to break down the universe into mathimatical equations. The difficulty with such theories is they are very difficult to test experimentally. Although they do have plans to do so when the Large Hadron Collider is completed in France.

 

[microtech]

Did some recent finding invalidate Gödel's incompleteness theorem?

 

[Philocrat]

This is simply an age old debate famously argued by Neil Bohr and Einstein. I believe the quote was god does not "play dice." If string theory proves to have any validity then perhaps we will be able to break down the universe into mathimatical equations. The difficulty with such theories is they are very difficult to test experimentally. Although they do have plans to do so when the Large Hadron Collider is completed in France.

"God does not Play Dice with the universe" metaphysically implies (1) the Originating (Creative) States, (2) the Intermediate (Transportational) States and (3) the Destinational (Perfect) States of reality or things are qauntitatively and logically equivalent regardless of time duration within and between states, regardless of how much fluctuations exist within and between states, and regardless of the variations or differences in the sum totality of all the laws involved. In other words: ORDER IS DECISIVELY CHAOS!

 

[Dr.Yes]

How true is the claim that everything in the whole universe can be explained by Physics and Physics alone? How realistic is this claim? Does our ability to mathematically describe physical things in spacetime give us sufficient grounds to admit or hold this claim? Or is there more to physical reality than a mere ability to matheamtically describe things?

I'm going to revert to a statement I made on my thread "What is a law?" where I said something like "without the physical properties of a heart pumping blood to the brain and without the physical properties of the brain, there would be absolutely no "everything" to explain. Therefore, it is with great glee that I chime-in with those who voted for the premise that "everything can be explained with physics".

Whether or not the physics we speak of is explained in the language of mathematics or by way of actual physical examples or in layman's terms, physics and the laws of physics are the best way to explain everything we experience in the physical universe.

Besides, we are physical beings using our physical attributes to perceive a physcial state. Any attempt to understand the meta or non-physical states is done so with the physical attributes we have been born with... so... we still explain the "non-physical" or "spiritual" or "metaphyscial" states by way of physics and the laws held therein. We are somewhat bound to this state of physicalness by our own physical nature.

There are physics formula for Karma by some Russian physics dude. There is a wonderful physics formula for Ethics by John Adams.

I believe, wholeheartedly, that the most accurate method of describing or explaining a phenomenon and/or event/result is by way of physics for reasons I have already laid out here, in this thread.

 

[saviourmachine]

Please, can you give me an example!

Anti-commutation, Dirac, probability

Good, that's all you really need to know. If you know that, then everything else is really nothing more than logic (you can write out and look at the details of that multiplication). The really important aspect of matrix multiplication (in so far as physics is concerned: i.e., the reason we will want to use them) is that it is possible to construct "anti-commutating" matrices. Anti-commutation (a*b=-b*a) allows us to establish a very valuable "logical" relationships: i.e., we can define an expression (a symbol for something) consistent with the concept of multiplication where (ab-ba) is not zero.
...
Actually, when Dirac showed that "matrix mechanics" and "wave mechanics" were equivalent (leading to the notion that Dirac's "bra"-"ket" notation {this, < |, is a "bra" and this, | >, is a "ket"} expressed something fundamental about reality), the real essence of the thing is the ability to encompass mathematical expression of the phenomena (ab-ba) not being zero.
...
His name is ThinhVanTran.

Hi Doctordick, you do have a revealing way of describing things. The way you're talking about it, I "squink" that anti-commutation is a form of symmetry breaking.
I read just about Dirac's notation in "The Emperor's New Mind" by Penrose. I took a quick look for Van Tran's website, but the main introductionary article "http://www.thinhtran.com/probability.html" isn't online yet. By the way, it seems like he followed your advice:

For communication-related reasons, I have de-emphasized my common-sense double book "The End of Probability and the New Meaning of Quantum Physics", in favor of a new edition, titled "Symmetry and the End of Probability", which is focused only on my analysis against the probability theory.

The notation

No, I didn't define any function at all. What I am doing is defining a way of representing a function (a notation or a symbol for a function). The central issue being that any and all conceivable functions can be so represented.

I beg you pardon. Indeed G is a notation for a function, and not a function in itself. Sorry, for my sloppiness. I agree with you that if you take G and its complex conjugate and subsequently the normalized volume integral, a probability factor between zero and one results.

I need a demonstration, but not about abstract details. It will help me very much if you could give a numerical example until the output of G: a list of numbers. And maybe even until the results of $\vec{\Psi}$ and P. It doesn't matter for me that these numbers doesn't signify anything now, I only want to be sure that I understand the mathematics. I want to see the numbers and functions at work. When I read your texts it's like a description of a watch, without being able to see it at work. Please, can you do that for me?

See you next time!

 

[Philocrat]

I'm going to revert to a statement I made on my thread "What is a law?" where I said something like "without the physical properties of a heart pumping blood to the brain and without the physical properties of the brain, there would be absolutely no "everything" to explain. Therefore, it is with great glee that I chime-in with those who voted for the premise that "everything can be explained with physics".

Whether or not the physics we speak of is explained in the language of mathematics or by way of actual physical examples or in layman's terms, physics and the laws of physics are the best way to explain everything we experience in the physical universe.

Besides, we are physical beings using our physical attributes to perceive a physcial state. Any attempt to understand the meta or non-physical states is done so with the physical attributes we have been born with... so... we still explain the "non-physical" or "spiritual" or "metaphyscial" states by way of physics and the laws held therein. We are somewhat bound to this state of physicalness by our own physical nature.

There are physics formula for Karma by some Russian physics dude. There is a wonderful physics formula for Ethics by John Adams.

I believe, wholeheartedly, that the most accurate method of describing or explaining a phenomenon and/or event/result is by way of physics for reasons I have already laid out here, in this thread.

But there are those who would argue (and quite rightly so) that even Cosmic Debris, let alone larger cosmological objects such as planets, comets and galaxies, are obeying comological laws of some sort. However, equally, that there are certain properties of the mind that do not exhibit or exemplify physical laws...that if at all there is a glimpse of luck that the mind is matter or a physical entity, certain properties of it lack physical exhibits.

The standard argument therefore is that if the Mind were a physical entity then all its properties, however mysterious, ought to be all reducible to physical, or at least pass a physical explanation. But as you may have observed so far on this thread (if you have had enough time to go throught it) several postings or arguments and counter-arguments clearly suggest that this is not really the case. There is a metaphysically vexing remainder still plaguing its explanation from one discipline to the next. You need to overthrow all these disputes with a coherent but generally accpetable argument.

NOTE: Remember, most importantly, that laws operate in all disciplines and the overall implication of this is that all the operating laws in each discipline ought to be analytically or explanatorily compatible with those in another discipline as one moves from one scale of reference or explanatory layer to the next. No half-measures or incomparirbility of any sort would surfice!

 

[Dr.Yes]

But there are those who would argue (and quite rightly so) that even Cosmic Debris, let alone larger cosmological objects such as planets, comets and galaxies, are obeying comological laws of some sort. However, equally, that there are certain properties of the mind that do not exhibit or exemplify physical laws...that if at all there is a glimpse of luck that the mind is matter or a physical entity, certain properties of it lack physical exhibits.

The standard argument therefore is that if the Mind were a physical entity then all its properties, however mysterious, ought to be all reducible to physical, or at least pass a physical explanation. But as you may have observed so far on this thread (if you have had enough time to go throught it) several postings or arguments and counter-arguments clearly suggest that this is not really the case. There is a metaphysically vexing remainder still plaguing its explanation from one discipline to the next. You need to overthrow all these disputes with a coherent but generally accpetable argument.

NOTE: Remember, most importantly, that laws operate in all disciplines and the overall implication of this is that all the operating laws in each discipline ought to be analytically or explanatorily compatible with those in another discipline as one moves from one scale of reference or explanatory layer to the next. No half-measures or incomparirbility of any sort would surfice!

Ah, thank you Philocrat. I must remember to adhere to protocol and to the scientific method even when I point out the obvious!

Several neurophysicists were summoned by the Pope and by the Dali Lama to explain the difference between the "mind" and the "brain".

The collection of international neurophysicists told these ambassadors (Dali and the late Pope) to the unknown, unseen and unfelt realms beyond the physical world that there is no difference between the mind and the brain.

What is true is that the brain is a collection of various, semi-plastic regions that deal with as many functions as are necessary to survive as a social and physical entity within the physical universe.

What was noted by the group of neuropsych, neuroscience and neurophysicists was that when you have a collection of anything, there is another, less discernable region that will develop that is often referred to as "the sum of the parts".

The sum of the parts appears mysterious and non-familiar to us because its roots come from many different regions and areas of disimilar function. The sum of the parts of the brain becomes the "mind" and its "thoughts".

I'm not sure what "metaphysically vexing remainder" the people discussing this question about "reducing everything to pure physics" are talking about, but, my guess is that it is this very thing that the Pope and the Lama were asking about. And, I calculate that it is simply the sum of the parts.

I maintain my position which is that, as a physically existent entity, I am unable to ascertain or understand anything beyond the physical universe... and so, therefore, I am, furthermore, bound to explain my experience by reducing everything to pure physics.

Part of the human condition is the bias and falacy of being physical .

 

[Dr.Yes]

A Law Runs Through It

Philocrat adds a "NOTE: Remember, most importantly, that laws operate in all disciplines and the overall implication of this is that all the operating laws in each discipline ought to be analytically or explanatorily compatible with those in another discipline as one moves from one scale of reference or explanatory layer to the next. No half-measures or incomparirbility of any sort would surfice!"

This is an "ought" statement. The reality is, (though no one has spent much time studying the reality), all law does run through all scale and layers of existence, they are sometimes unrecognizable as the same laws because of juxtopposing viewpoints ie: relative observations and the many matrixs through which the laws pass, gathering refinement and constantly changing (which is one of the more observable laws on any scale or level. eg. constant change).

 

[Doctordick]

Anti-commutation, Dirac, probability
Hi Doctordick, you do have a revealing way of describing things. The way you're talking about it, I "squink" that anti-commutation is a form of symmetry breaking.

I would need a much clearer discourse on what relationships you have in mind before I could address that issue. The question in my head is, what kind of symmetry are you speaking of? Remember, I have taken a somewhat abstract definition of symmetry which associates the symmetry with ignorance (symmetry breaking is then the removal of that ignorance). Here, if one wants to view anti-commutation as a symmetry breaking thing, the ignorance being removed must clearly be ignorance of the order of operation. I had never thought of it that way but I certainly think one could.

However, in my case I use it as a mathematical trick. I can use the fact of anti-commutation to make something quite complex look as if it is simple. Mathematically, it allows a quick bridge over complications which cannot otherwise be expressed succinctly. How that works will be quite clear to you when I get to it. I'll just let it lay for the moment.

By the way, it seems like he followed your advice:

My last contact with him was in 2003 so I don't know what he is doing.

I need a demonstration, but not about abstract details. It will help me very much if you could give a numerical example until the output of G: a list of numbers. And maybe even until the results of $\vec{\Psi}$ and P. It doesn't matter for me that these numbers doesn't signify anything now, I only want to be sure that I understand the mathematics. I want to see the numbers and functions at work. When I read your texts it's like a description of a watch, without being able to see it at work. Please, can you do that for me?

Well, we are working in the abstract for the very simple reason that the abstract can cover very easily a range of things which cannot even be conceived in the particular. First, my purpose in writing G as I did (a given set of numbers producing a second set of numbers), is that absolutely any "functional relationship" can be so expressed. I do not want my notation to place any constraints on what G is.

Let us for the sake of argument (and I am sure this one will create some arguments ) an example of the following kind. One might say that, "the kind of woman a man might fall in love with" is a function of "his ancestry, his culture, his experiences, his social standing, his wealth, his education, his circumstance and maybe a few more things I can't think of at the moment". Now, if it is possible to establish that such a relationship (that is, if a way of determining the answer) exists, then it can be expressed by my notation of G.

All one has to do is make a table (quite a big table admittedly) in the following manner. First, one has to establish the argument of the function! We begin with an exact description of every man on Earth ("his ancestry, his culture, his experiences, his social standing, his wealth, his education, his circumstance and maybe a few more things I can't think of at the moment"). Now convert every element of that description into numbers (for the fun of it, use the binary representation of the Internet packets necessary to communicate the information). We now have the argument of G as a list of numbers.

The next step is get a relevant description of every possible woman on earth. We then establish a library of those descriptions, giving each description a unique library number.

Now we can make that table. Down the left side of the table is the complete list of those exact descriptions we created (all possible arguments of G), each particular entry being a set of numbers (the description itself).

Now we go to the person who knows how to find the answer (remember I said, "if a way of determining the answer exists") and ask them what the answer is for each man on Earth and enter the library numbers which identify the girls that man might fall in love with. When we finish filling out the table, our G is defined (at least for all the men that actually exist).

The point being that any relationship which can be described can be so represented. Even if we cannot do it, we know that if it is ever done, the result can be represented by my notation. The notation is absolutely general and no functional relationship is omitted.

So let's step off in the direction of that probability. Instead of asking for the list of women he might fall in love with, let us ask the probability of two people falling in love. Now the argument of G becomes the descriptions of the two people we are asking about and the entry of the table is the probability. We go to the person who knows how to find the answer and make an entry for that probability. When we finish the table, we have the probability function we were looking for.

Our problem in this case is that the notation is not absolutely general. In our analysis of the problem (since we are working in the abstract) we need to get rid of the problem of making sure the collection of functions we go to examine do indeed satisfy that constraint that they be real and bounded by zero and one. Certainly the "absolutely general" G is not properly limited (there exist a whole lot of G's which can't possibly be right because the end result of using them yields something else). However, the normalization method I showed (of the internal or "dot" product) guarantees the final result will be interpretable as a probability. This means that either the correct G exists in the set of all G's or, if it doesn't, the answer can not be found by any method.

I am off to China and won't be back until October so you can all think this over while I am gone.

Have fun -- Dick


Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

 

[Philocrat]

Ah, thank you Philocrat. I must remember to adhere to protocol and to the scientific method even when I point out the obvious!

Several neurophysicists were summoned by the Pope and by the Dali Lama to explain the difference between the "mind" and the "brain".

The collection of international neurophysicists told these ambassadors (Dali and the late Pope) to the unknown, unseen and unfelt realms beyond the physical world that there is no difference between the mind and the brain.

What is true is that the brain is a collection of various, semi-plastic regions that deal with as many functions as are necessary to survive as a social and physical entity within the physical universe.

What was noted by the group of neuropsych, neuroscience and neurophysicists was that when you have a collection of anything, there is another, less discernable region that will develop that is often referred to as "the sum of the parts".

The sum of the parts appears mysterious and non-familiar to us because its roots come from many different regions and areas of disimilar function. The sum of the parts of the brain becomes the "mind" and its "thoughts".

I'm not sure what "metaphysically vexing remainder" the people discussing this question about "reducing everything to pure physics" are talking about, but, my guess is that it is this very thing that the Pope and the Lama were asking about. And, I calculate that it is simply the sum of the parts.

I maintain my position which is that, as a physically existent entity, I am unable to ascertain or understand anything beyond the physical universe... and so, therefore, I am, furthermore, bound to explain my experience by reducing everything to pure physics.

Part of the human condition is the bias and falacy of being physical .

Yes, you are substantially right in some of your observations. You hit it right on the head by rasing a very fundamental metaphysical problem, which in the process chain-reacts into epistemological, logical and quantitative problems. Metaphysically, the "sum of parts" is treated as a single, self-standing and self-identifying category that should never at any point in our overall calculus confuse with its equally underlying self-accountable parts. In many disciplines, people tend to muddle things up when they are trying to shift or reduce from parts to a whole. What I have come to realize and notice over the years is that a 'PART-WHOLE Reductionism' naturally manifests into multiple-layer of reductionism. If you turn into mathematics, you could look at it as sets within sets in a downward movement from larger scales to ever smaller scale.

Ok, to appreciate a glimpse of what I am trying to explain here, ask the following experts in their respective disciplines to define the term "PERSON":

1) A Biologist

2) A Chemist

3) A Physicist

How would these experts define it without running into what is generally known in Metaphysics as 'Category Error'. Yes, I do agree with those who define this sort of term in their own disciplines with all the relevant or governing laws applied. But the fact remains that they must also think about how the same term would be defined in another discipline down the explanatory scale. The content of this thread so far seems to suggest that physics has the last word in every definable term or subject matter. Do you accpet this as wholly true? Or do you take the whole project as beyond the realm of physics as is often suggested in some of the disciplines? Are all definitions of a given term or subject matter compatible in all disciplines? Is the notion of a person in physics compatible with the notion of a person in, say, Biology, Chemistry, Psychology or Religion? Do we have a multi-disciplinarily derived definion of a Person?

 

[Dr.Yes]

Yes, you are substantially right in some of your observations. You hit it right on the head by rasing a very fundamental metaphysical problem, which in the process chain-reacts into epistemological, logical and quantitative problems. Metaphysically, the "sum of parts" is treated as a single, self-standing and self-identifying category that should never at any point in our overall calculus confuse with its equally underlying self-accountable parts. In many disciplines, people tend to muddle things up when they are trying to shift or reduce from parts to a whole. What I have come to realize and notice over the years is that a 'PART-WHOLE Reductionism' naturally manifests into multiple-layer of reductionism. If you turn into mathematics, you could look at it as sets within sets in a downward movement from larger scales to ever smaller scale.

Ok, to appreciate a glimpse of what I am trying to explain here, ask the following experts in their respective disciplines to define the term "PERSON":

1) A Biologist

2) A Chemist

3) A Physicist

How would these experts define it without running into what is generally known in Metaphysics as 'Category Error'. Yes, I do agree with those who define this sort of term in their own disciplines with all the relevant or governing laws applied. But the fact remains that they must also think about how the same term would be defined in another discipline down the explanatory scale. The content of this thread so far seems to suggest that physics has the last word in every definable term or subject matter. Do you accpet this as wholly true? Or do you take the whole project as beyond the realm of physics as is often suggested in some of the disciplines? Are all definitions of a given term or subject matter compatible in all disciplines? Is the notion of a person in physics compatible with the notion of a person in, say, Biology, Chemistry, Psychology or Religion? Do we have a multi-disciplinarily derived definion of a Person?

Hello Philocrat,

thank you for your effort to understand my position concerning the explanation of all phenomena by way of the laws and properties of physics (pure or not!). It must have been quite an effort since I am a rambling idiot when it comes to physics who does his best to avoid oppoprium and inappropriate use of inappropriate language... in other words, I should just keep my mouth shut... most of the time!.

The definition of any word is of the uttmost importance to any discussion. It must be agreed upon by all parties concerned. The root of the word must be exposed and thouroghly agreed upon as well. This can take years of research or, with any luck, the word will have been studied already by linguists and already documented with regard to where the word hails from.

"Person" is a patriarchial term describing a succession of sons per son per son... if I'm not mistaken. I don't think any daughters on the team of those responding to the question about the word would or should appreciate any other definition of the word.

But, that is the physical origin of the word. That is explaining the word by way of its physical origin.

What it means to each person from each discipline is insignificant and trivial and the fodder of drama-queens.

Personally I would immediately steer the multidisciplinary committee toward the word "people" and hope there would be a more universal origin for this word rather than the utterings of one gender's group of scallywags!

I look forward to further discussion on this topic.

What's more is, as a physical being... being physical... there's no way in hell my bias will allow me to understand anything beyond the physical. The sum of my physical parts will only add up to a notion that could be right or could be wrong... 50/50 odds do not a right make. That's called leaving it to chance. Very unscientific. Very misleading. Exploration is the key but, hey, Columbus thought he made it to China.

 

[Philocrat]

Dr. Yes, I find you discussion very interesting. Your texts are touching an angle that many people tend to ignore: 'Inter-disciplinary Definitition of terms of reality'. Your last posting raises two fundamental questions:

(1) Is every discipline's definition of a given term of reality as good as any?

(2) Should every discipline be content with its own definition and altogether steer clear of other disciplines? What goes on elswhere is not my stew!

Ask me whether I know the answers to these questions and I would immediately reply :"your guess is as good as mine!". Yes, I don't know the answers, yet these are serious unavoidable questions that must be confronted head on with utmost rigour and honesty. I find it difficult to disagree with those who stay content with definitions of these terms in their respective disciplines. Do you contemplate or see otherwise?

 

[Dr.Yes]

Dr. Yes, I find you discussion very interesting. Your texts are touching an angle that many people tend to ignore: 'Inter-disciplinary Definitition of terms of reality'. Your last posting raises two fundamental questions:

(1) Is every discipline's definition of a given term of reality as good as any?

(2) Should every discipline be content with its own definition and altogether steer clear of other disciplines? What goes on elswhere is not my stew!

Ask me whether I know the answers to these questions and I would immediately reply :"your guess is as good as mine!". Yes, I don't know the answers, yet these are serious unavoidable questions that must be confronted head on with utmost rigour and honesty. I find it difficult to disagree with those who stay content with definitions of these terms in their respective disciplines. Do you contemplate or see otherwise?

The word definition:

A definition of 'definition'

Suppose we have decided to define a certain word or a concept associated with that word. Suppose also that we have identified which sense of the word we are interested in, and we have noted clear cases, some unclear cases, and some borderline cases of the application of the word. The question then is: how can this word be defined? What is desired here is a description of the intension of the word: that is, an account of the set of properties that characterizes all and only members of the extension. In that case, it seems the following is a serviceable account of the meaning of '(intensional) definition':

The definition of a concept, or of (a given sense of) a word or phrase, is a description of its intension--that is, the set of properties that characterizes all and only members of the extension of the word; the extension is all the things that the concept, word, or phrase applies to.


Some philosophers have criticisms of this sort of definition of the word 'definition'; or perhaps it would be better to say that some philosophers think that it is, for various reasons, impossible to give exhaustively exact definitions of most concepts, words, and phrases. Two prominent critics are Wittgenstein and Quine. Still most philosophers still acknowledge that in philosophy something similar to giving definitions of important philosophical concepts is necessary.
[edit]


Quote

Nothing is more usual than for philosophers to encroach on the province of grammarians, and to engage in disputes of words, while they imagine they are handling controversies of the deepest importance and concern. — David Hume

I'll have to leave you with this for now... I'd like to continue my interpretation later.

 

[Dr.Yes]

(1) Is every discipline's definition of a given term of reality as good as any?

(2) Should every discipline be content with its own definition and altogether steer clear of other disciplines? What goes on elswhere is not my stew!

(3) I find it difficult to disagree with those who stay content with definitions of these terms in their respective disciplines. Do you contemplate or see otherwise?

1) It would be best if each definition of a word were universal and any dialectic useage remained as a regional use or one of novelty and for research purposes. Otherwise its a lot of unecessary work to communicate properly and that kind of work leads away from the goal of most discussions.

I realize there are a myraid of components that can belong to just one word. As the on-line dictionary I quoted points out, the definition of a word must, by all means and costs, be defined by both the origin of the word and the roots of the word that lay outside of a single, use of the word. I haven't quoted it properly here. It is a daunting task to arrive at a quorum with respect to the definitive definition of a word. But it can be done.

2)"What goes on elsewhere is not my stew"? There's an ethical law here that is eluding me. On one hand there is a group of people incorrectly defining a word like "Aspertame" and thinking the definition is that aspertame is better than sugar. There is the uninvited but ethical intervention where you tell them the true definition of aspertame (as described by research doctors around the world regarding neurotoxic effects etc...). The people using aspertaime haven't asked for help or questioned its definition because their ignorance of the substance and associated dangers keeps them from doing so.

Adhering to Ethical Laws ensures less expenditure of energy, over time, in every case. The person who uses the faulty definition of a substance and ends up in the hospital or a mental health facility or on the street will end up causing the overall society to spend more of its energy or resources because of an unethical choice concerning the proper definition of a word. A small minority (usually the perpetrators using a fraudulent definition of a word to reap a profit) will profit from the lack of a definition but, in the long run, there results a catastrophic expenditure of energy and the perp is rendered ineffective by way ethical/physical laws. (I maintain that ethics is a part of "pure physics" and can be used to explain why certain physical events take place but... perhaps not why "everything" takes place.

3) Its only when people ask for your help with definitions that you can, in someway, influence a more cohesive understanding of a word or definition.

Thank you!

NB: Furthermore to define something means to make it more visable and/or discernable as in easier to see or understand. There are some words that have remained simple to define like "tree" or "cut" and so on... and there are other, more widely adopted, popularized and commercialized words that have lost all definition... such as "love" or "god".

 

[Philocrat]

1) It would be best if each definition of a word were universal and any dialectic useage remained as a regional use or one of novelty and for research purposes. Otherwise its a lot of unecessary work to communicate properly and that kind of work leads away from the goal of most discussions.

I realize there are a myraid of components that can belong to just one word. As the on-line dictionary I quoted points out, the definition of a word must, by all means and costs, be defined by both the origin of the word and the roots of the word that lay outside of a single, use of the word. I haven't quoted it properly here. It is a daunting task to arrive at a quorum with respect to the definitive definition of a word. But it can be done.

2)"What goes on elsewhere is not my stew"? There's an ethical law here that is eluding me. On one hand there is a group of people incorrectly defining a word like "Aspertame" and thinking the definition is that aspertame is better than sugar. There is the uninvited but ethical intervention where you tell them the true definition of aspertame (as described by research doctors around the world regarding neurotoxic effects etc...). The people using aspertaime haven't asked for help or questioned its definition because their ignorance of the substance and associated dangers keeps them from doing so.

Adhering to Ethical Laws ensures less expenditure of energy, over time, in every case. The person who uses the faulty definition of a substance and ends up in the hospital or a mental health facility or on the street will end up causing the overall society to spend more of its energy or resources because of an unethical choice concerning the proper definition of a word. A small minority (usually the perpetrators using a fraudulent definition of a word to reap a profit) will profit from the lack of a definition but, in the long run, there results a catastrophic expenditure of energy and the perp is rendered ineffective by way ethical/physical laws. (I maintain that ethics is a part of "pure physics" and can be used to explain why certain physical events take place but... perhaps not why "everything" takes place.

3) Its only when people ask for your help with definitions that you can, in someway, influence a more cohesive understanding of a word or definition.

Thank you!

NB: Furthermore to define something means to make it more visable and/or discernable as in easier to see or understand. There are some words that have remained simple to define like "tree" or "cut" and so on... and there are other, more widely adopted, popularized and commercialized words that have lost all definition... such as "love" or "god".

Dr. Yes, your assessment has as several aspects:

GENUINE IGNORANCE & DEFINITION

Defining something and being satisfied with it even where we are totally ignorant of its underlying implications. In philosophy this is very problematic as it affects many disciplines, including epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, philosophy of language, philoso[hy of science, logic etc. Many philosophers, espicially the so-called analytical philosophers have drawn our attention time and time again to this problem. A typical example of this is Peter Strawsons' Presuppositions (making propsitions that are epistemologically packed or loaded with underlying presupposed meanings or definitions.) Consider, for example, such terms as:

a) I do not exist!
b) Nothing exists!
c) I am dead!
d) Have you stopped beating your wife?

Now, just consider all other underlying propositions that these terms may imply or presuppose.

Ok, what about other singular terms such as:

1) Something?
2) Nothing?
3) Matter?
4) Mind?
5) Person?
6) God?
7) Unicorn?
8) Pegasus?

How do you satisfactorily define these terms - a multi-disciplinarily acceptable definition for that matter?

MORALITY & DEFINITION

It is currently not clear whether science as a whole is PRODUCTIVE and PROGRESSIVE. If it is, the standard assumption should be that all moral statements are reducible to scientific statements and vice versa. The current problem is to assume that morality can be defined in isolation from science. This is not only metaphysically wrong, but also epistemologically, quantitativelly and logically wrong. It is just not possible. For the very seat of morality is the very thing or being that we force it upon. While it is not a bad thing for the moralist to define and enact moral laws, it is equally of utmost importance (and infact unvoidable) that science must reconcile such laws with its own fundamental laws.

REDUCTIONISM & INFINIT REGRESS

The project of reducing a given term of reality from one scale of reference to the next is substantially regressive in scope and in substance. Up or down the reductive scale, things just get either ever bigger or ever smaller ad infinituum! It is not clear whether the definition of a given term of reality in each scale of reference is epistemologically sufficient. Is the knowledge that we obtain from the definition of a given term of reality within each reductive scale of reference sufficient?

 

[Dr.Yes]

Is the knowledge that we obtain from the definition of a given term of reality within each reductive scale of reference sufficient?

Only if we've done our research really well!

This would include updates "ad infinitum" as you say.

Nice exposé Philocrat. I'd say a large percentage of discussions, perhaps as high as 98%, cannot come to an agreement or a conclusion or a solution because of the scandalously wreckless use of words that have been defined only by threads of information picked out of hearsay and gossip by the discussion's participants.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Did some recent finding invalidate Gödel's incompleteness theorem?

I just saw this.

Goedel's theorem is valid but you have to be very careful about what it actually says. It is about formal systems that have in them the proof of arithmetic, including all the theorems of number theory. Necessarily such formal systems will include universal quantifiers (for all x in whatever, Y is true of x), Existential quantifiers (there exists an x in whatever for which Y is true), and mathematical induction (if Y is true for some integer n0, and whenever Y is true of an integer n it is also true of the successor of n, then Y is true for all n > n0). Indeed Goedel's proof uses the existence of these functions to construct his numbering scheme which is at the heart of his proof.

There are logical systems which do not use these functions, and Goedel's theorem does not apply to them. Tarski showed that the quantifiers can be eliminated from geometical proofs and mathematical induction is not used in them anyway. So geometry and measure theory are not affected by Goedel's theorem or its extensions. Roughly, formal systems of digital processes are goedelable, but formal systems of analog processes are not.

 

[zelldot]

Physics alone cannot create a guide to everything, physics was created by humans, and humans can only see from a humans point of view, can physics tell us why we are able to walk into an empty room after an argument and feel tense without knowing the argument ever happened only to find out later on, or why some people are able to tell something bad is going to happen just before they do? The human race is not yet open minded enough to take in the fact that there maybe more than just atoms and energy. i like to think of things on many layers, the same universe but different dimentions, think of it like this, when you see a map in a game there are different ways of viewing the map, wireframe, solid, textured and so on.

 

[Philocrat]

Physics alone cannot create a guide to everything, physics was created by humans, and humans can only see from a humans point of view, can physics tell us why we are able to walk into an empty room after an argument and feel tense without knowing the argument ever happened only to find out later on, or why some people are able to tell something bad is going to happen just before they do?

There are several problems to this observation:

1) THE NEED TO EXPLAIN THINGS SO THAT WE CAN COMMUNICATE THEM TO OTHERS IN THE WAY THAT THEY CAN UNDERSTAND US.

The questions therefore are (a) 'What are the methods of explanations', (a) Do people understand us at all when we explain anything to them?, (c) If they do at all, how much of what we pupport to explain do they understand (what is the percentage)?, and (d) Ultemately, what is the purpose of Communication, if any? Some people, without much thought may give very simple and staightforward answers to these questions, possibly claiming that we do manage to explain enough for us to understand each other, even in the presence of occasional errors and deviations in scope and in substance. But philosophy thinks and presumes otherwise: that either we explain and understand absolutely nothing or what we pupport to explain and understand are substantially vague. So, you can quite rightly say that 'VAGUENESS' is what keeps philosophy in business. The whole notion of philosophy is to explain things in the clearest and consistent way possible. But is this really the case?

2) THE NOTION OF EXPLANATION, EXPLAINER AND SELF-EXPLANATION

Serious question arises as to whether the explainer can explain both other things and his or herself, given that the explainer did not give rise to him or herself. If you neither create youself nor anyting else in the world, how could you possibly explain anything, let alone yourself? Is there a bootstrap mechanism in the universal process that permits this to happen? The standard philosophical headache is that if I created myself or anything else, then I should have in my possession some sort of blue-print or master-plan of the entire process. Or should I not? That is, self-created entities can explain themselves and everything else that they are responssible for. It is therefore not clear whether things or beings that are ignorant of their origins can self-explain!

The human race is not yet open minded enough to take in the fact that there maybe more than just atoms and energy. i like to think of things on many layers, the same universe but different dimentions, think of it like this, when you see a map in a game there are different ways of viewing the map, wireframe, solid, textured and so on.

The problem of thinking about/of things in terms of layers is that you are immediately committed to the notion of 'INTER-LAYER EXPLANATION OR REDUCTIONISM? I have already pointed this out above in several places. Not only must you explain things as they are or perceived in each layer but also how they are from one layer to the next up or down the exlplantory or reductive layer. As you may have noticed above, I sometimes refer to this as 'Reductive Scale'. Here I am taking them to be one and the same thing, presumably. Or is it not? So, the biggest problem now is that all the explanations in all these layers must ultemately in the end reconcile both quantitatively and logically, let alone metaphysically!

NOTE: Note that this thread so far tends to suggest that ONLY physics has the last word in everything explainable! Is this correct, given the current resuslt of the related survey? What about inter-disciplinary explanation that your posting and many other postings on this thread tend to point at?

 

[Dr.Yes]

NOTE: Note that this thread so far tends to suggest that ONLY physics has the last word in everything explainable! Is this correct, given the current resuslt of the related survey? What about inter-disciplinary explanation that your posting and many other postings on this thread tend to point at?

All disciplines are disciplines rooted in physics and the physical universe. They study the phenomena created by a physcial universe. The most amorphic topic can be traced to having roots in physics and the physical world. If the topic is truly detached from the physical world then the act of observing the subject is a physical act and firmly rooted in a physicallity.

All topics would benefit greatly through being explained by pure physics.

 

[Castlegate]

NOTE: Note that this thread so far tends to suggest that ONLY physics has the last word in everything explainable! Is this correct, given the current resuslt of the related survey? What about inter-disciplinary explanation that your posting and many other postings on this thread tend to point at?

If the universe is exclusively a physical entity, there is no doubt that it can only be explained by physics (Case closed), and it would seem that most people agree with this. I consider the universe to be entirely conceptual, but there is no room to be heard above the din in a thread full of physics junkies. It is acceptable to make what is termed a physical observation as far as I am concerned. I just mark it as if there were an asterisk by conforming it to a purely conceptual enterprise. Physicality to me is no more than an illusion once the trick be known.

 

[Daminc]

Physicality to me is no more than an illusion once the trick be known.

Why would you think this?

Is it just your gut feeling? A twist of percerption based on a personal philosophy? Or something else?