New theory of quantum world

[EugeneMorrow]

James,

You wrote:

Not being infinite MEANS there is a maximum.

This assumes a maximum exists. Rational Metaphysics (RM) did not consider the possibility that there is no maximum at all, just like with integers and real numbers. It’s a subtle oversight.

The way to resolve this issue is for RM to simply acknowledge that RM assumes a maximum rate of change exists. If RM does not, academic philosophers (and mathematicians) will pick up on this point and say the same thing. Far from being a waste of time, I think this is a very useful analysis and can help RM become more refined.

I can imagine this is not a welcome idea. You have done years of work without having a second opinion, and that means there is a risk of unconscious assumptions creeping in. We are all vulnerable in this way. RM can survive this and still be published and may yet win over supporters with the results. The goal of a theory of physics (and anything else) is to have as few assumptions as possible. To reach a perfect zero assumptions may require living with a few while you keep moving towards your goal.

Eugene Morrow

[James_S_Saint]

in·fi·nite (nf-nt)
adj.

1. Having no boundaries or limits.
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless

You can try to inject your assumptions into all you want, but that is a definition.
Still merely wasting time… I have to assume now that it is intentional.

Or perhaps you are confusing a “definite/particular maximum” with “a maximum”.
I didn’t say anything about the maximum being a definite number, merely a number definitely not infinite, “finite”.

The maximum speed of a train depends upon the terrain, but it always has a maximum.

Oddly, you accept that propagation has a maximum (the “speed of light”), apparently not realizing that a propagation is merely a change. Each point along the path must change from what it was to its new value. The speed with which it does that directly determines the speed of propagation. If it could changed infinitely fast, the propagation speed would be infinite. If it has a maximum propagation speed, it can only be because it had a maximum rate of change.

[James_S_Saint]

RM defined terms;

) Potential to Change, PtA, is the only thing changing
) Time is the measure of change in potential
) Thus, 1 infinitesimal change in potential ≡ 1 infinitesimal change in time

These are not subject to truth debate. They are definitions that eventually (years later at this rate), you would discover not only explain every bit of sub atomic physics, but also use “time” in exactly the same way as contemporary physics and the world in general.

[EugeneMorrow]

James,

One of the most important parts of philosophy is to ask the right questions.

If someone asks “Is the largest integer infinite or finite?” then they have asked the wrong question. Both choices are wrong - an integer cannot be infinite, and any finite integer cannot be the largest. The correct question is “Does a largest integer exist?” and the answer is No.

On a maximum rate of change, Rational Metaphysics (RM) has asked the wrong question. RM has asked “is the maximum infinite or finite?”. The correct question is “Does a maximum rate of change exist?”.

RM has assumed a maximum exists, and RM has concluded that the maximum is finite since it cannot be infinite. The conclusion is based on the assumption that a maximum exists.

How can RM prove that a maximum rate of change must exist?

Eugene Morrow

[James_S_Saint]

@EugeneMorrow

One of the most important parts of philosophy is to ask the right questions.

IMH/SO, Yeah perhaps, but THE most important part of philosophy is to accept the right answer when it is given.

@EugeneMorrow

…RM has concluded that the maximum is finite since it cannot be infinite.

IMH/SO, That is a pretty rational conclusion considering there are only two options.

IMH/SO, Note that you can’t give any example of anything that is both infinite and also finite.
IMH/SP, And every value is either one or the other.
IMH/SO, If a value had no maximum, it would be “unbounded” and thus its maximum would be inherently “infinite”.

Why are you wasting time?

[EugeneMorrow]

James,

You wrote about the maximum rate of change at a point:

considering there are only two options.

My point is that there are THREE options:
A. The maximum if finite,
B. The maximum is infinite,
C. A maximum does not exist.

I have given three examples of C:

1. Integers,
2. Real numbers,
3. The energy of a single photon.

Since Rational Metaphysics (RM) has only considered A and B, then RM has assumed C does not apply. That is the hidden assumption in RM. By considering only A and B, RM has a logical flaw.

Eugene Morrow

[James_S_Saint]

@EugeneMorrow

James,

You wrote about the maximum rate of change at a point:

considering there are only two options.

My point is that there are THREE options:
A. The maximum if finite,
B. The maximum is infinite,
C. A maximum does not exist.

I see that you don’t mind totally ignoring the prior post just to rant your stance.
I already explained that having no maximum IS having an "infinite maximum. They are the same thing.

@EugeneMorrow

I have given three examples of C:

1. Integers,
2. Real numbers,
3. The energy of a single photon.

Each example you gave some time ago was shot down due to referring to two different values.
Each of those you just gave represent an “infinite set” and thus have an “infinite maximum” (except for the photon which you know nothing about).

You have anything more specific?
Any actual example will do.

Again, why are you wasting time?

As far as the two proofs that I have already provided, let me state them again;

1. If a value cannot be infinite, it must be finite because each of those is the merely the lack of the other.

2. Any value changing from one setting to another requires time (already agreed and due to the fact that time and change are effectively the same thing). But as any change is made from one value to another, it must go through the intermediate values; 1 must go through 1.1 and 1.2 and 1.3 and so on to get up to 2.0. Each of those also represent time passing. Since any change at all always has intermediate values, every change requires time to make. Thus no matter what the change, it must take more than zero time and thus must have a finite rate.

Neither of those goes into what is causing the change or what the maximum might be determined by or even if it is the same for each instance. But there is no possibility for a change to take place instantly and thus a finite amount of time is always consumed which prevents any change from ever being instantaneous, an “infinite rate”.

There is no alternative.

So again, why are you wasting time on something that you have already agreed upon?

[EugeneMorrow]

James,

Rational Metaphysics (RM) continues to repeat the logical flaw.

You wrote:

I already explained that having no maximum IS having an "infinite maximum. They are the same thing.

I do not accept this at all - this is where we disagree. An infinite maximum is not the same as a maximum not existing. Assuming these two are the same is a philosophical mistake. For example, saying “the maximum integer is infinity” is invalid, whereas it is valid to say “there is no maximum integer”. The difference is exactly what philosophy is about.

Earlier, I had written:

I have given three examples of C:
1. Integers,
2. Real numbers,
3. The energy of a single photon.

You wrote in reply (my underline):

Each example you gave some time ago was shot down due to referring to two different values.

Each of 1, 2, and 3 only refers to a single value - the maximum in each case. Each is a good example of concepts that have no maximum. Each is also an example where “the maximum is infinity” is invalid and the correct concept is “there is no maximum”.

I have shown clearly that Rational Metaphysics (RM) has ignored the possibility that there is no maximum rate of change.

This mistake is clear in these words:

1. If a value cannot be infinite, it must be finite because each of those is the merely the lack of the other.

There are three possibilities for the maximum (infinite, infinite or no maximum) , and so ruling out infinite leaves two choice behind, whereas RM assumes there is only once choice left.

The idea of no maximum rate of change can be called the “missing choice in RM”. Does RM have a reason for the missing choice?

Eugene Morrow

[James_S_Saint]

@EugeneMorrow

I already explained that having no maximum IS having an "infinite maximum. They are the same thing.

I do not accept this at all - this is where we disagree. An infinite maximum is not the same as a maximum not existing. Assuming these two are the same is a philosophical mistake. For example, saying “the maximum integer is infinity” is invalid, whereas it is valid to say “there is no maximum integer”. The difference is exactly what philosophy is about.

No. That difference is exactly what political semantics is about.
Saying the maximum is infinite means that it is an unbounded, unlimited value. You know that.
To say that “it has no value” would mean that there is no variable at all at any value.

You DO realize that “bound” means “maximum value”, right?
And thus “unbounded” means “no maximum value”.
And “infinite” means “unbounded”, which means “no maximum value”.

infinite [ˈɪnfɪnɪt]
adj
1.
a. having no limits or boundaries in time, space, extent, or magnitude [hence “no maximum”]

bounded [ˈbaʊndɪd]
adj Maths

1. (Mathematics) (of a set) having a bound, esp where a measure is defined in terms of which all the elements of the set, or the differences between all pairs of members, are less than some value, or else all its members lie within some other well-defined set
2. (Mathematics) (of an operator, function, etc.) having a bounded set of values [hence a maximum]

Or are you arguing that the dictionary doesn’t understand the word correctly?

We are talking about the set of all possible values for a particular variable, “x”.
We know that the value cannot be so great as to cause the variable to imply instantaneous; “1/x” must not equal 0.
That means that the variable x must not reach infinity.
For 1/x to not become zero, x necessarily must be finite.

I take it that you can’t find anything rational to argue.
Note that this is RATIONAL Metaphysics.

But since you want to play games with words, how about give me a specific example of a known variable that has no maximum value and yet has no infinite maximum value; perhaps a distance of something, a voltage, a volume, or whatever. Just saying “an integer” is obviously insufficient.

[EugeneMorrow]

James,

My argument is not politics nor semantics. There is definitely a philosophical difference between “The maximum is infinity” and “There is no maximum”. Many people casually consider the two phases to say the same thing, which is clearly not so.

The phrase “The maximum is infinity” implies the maximum can reach a value of infinity. I cannot think of any real world variable that can attain a value of infinity, so the phrase makes no sense.

The phase “There is no maximum” means no single finite value is the maximum, and this applies to many things in the real world.

You asked me:

how about give me a specific example of a known variable that has no maximum value and yet has no infinite maximum value

I have already given the example of the energy of a single photon.

Your other examples work too - the universe has no maximum voltage value, no maximum length value, no maximum volume, no maximum charge, no maximum pressure, no maximum gravitational pull, no maximum temperature.

By and large, finite maximum values are very rare. The universe seems to have only one finite maximum: the speed of light (c). Even then, you could argue that speeds faster than c exist as values, but just cannot be attained by anything real in this universe.

That is why Rational Metaphysics (RM) stands out with a claim that there is a maximum rate of change - the claim is asking for attention. If RM is ever published, this is going to be an easy target for critics. They will ask “Why does the rate of change at a point have a maximum value (like light), when most variables in the universe don’t have a maximum?”.

The choices to resolve this point are this:
(a) RM gives a logical argument why there must be a finite maximum rate of change at a point, or
(b) RM states an assumption that there is a finite maximum.

RM denies containing any assumptions, so RM needs to explain (a). This is not a waste of time - this is RM dealing with an issue that will be raised by many more than just me, especially academic philosophers and mathematicians.

If RM claims that “The maximum is infinity” means the same thing as “There is no maximum”, then RM is very vulnerable to being dismissed just on that claim. In comparison, making an assumption is OK - it just needs to be acknowledged.

Eugene Morrow

[James_S_Saint]

@EugeneMorrow

My argument is not politics nor semantics.

I’m afraid I have to disagree with you there.

@EugeneMorrow

There is definitely a philosophical difference between “The maximum is infinity” and “There is no maximum”. Many people casually consider the two phases to say the same thing, which is clearly not so.

Or perhaps it is you casually assuming that they do not say the same thing while once again arguing with the dictionaries and the world in general.

@EugeneMorrow

The phrase “The maximum is infinity” implies the maximum can reach a value of infinity.

Only to you.

If RM were to accept your usage of words, I’m sure RM would have far worse of a problem from those who do not misuse such words, because to those people, RM would be clearly stating a fallacy.

But none of that really matters because RM merely requires that the maximum NOT be infinite, not that “the maximum IS infinite”. You have assumed the wrong position for your argument.

@EugeneMorrow

The phase “There is no maximum” means no single finite value is the maximum, and this applies to many things in the real world.

I would agree that “There is no maximum” would mean that. But RM isn’t saying, “There is no maximum”.
RM is saying “There is a maximum”. And the mathematics displays exactly what that maximum is.
How would it look if RM claimed that there was no maximum and then showed the calculations displaying what the maximum is?
But all you really need to know is that the maximum is NOT infinite. And you have already agreed to that.

[EugeneMorrow]

James,

We have reached the focus of the debate is about Rational Metaphysics (RM) and a possible maximum rate of change at a point.

You wrote:

RM is saying “There is a maximum”.

Why must a maximum exist? There is no maximum energy for a single photon. There is no maximum temperature or gravitational pull or charge or pressure or length or volume. If so many things have no maximum, why does the rate of change?

RM has assumed that a maximum exists. RM has not included the possibility that there simply is no maximum value.

RM may still be true, and may yet demonstrate successes over the others we have discussed: quantum mechanics (qm) and the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW). The issue here is that RM has made an assumption - RM cannot claim to be based purely on logic. It’s not a big deal - how can we discuss things smaller than a photon without making some assumptions along the way?

Eugene Morrow

[James_S_Saint]

@EugeneMorrow

James,

We have reached the focus of the debate is about Rational Metaphysics (RM) and a possible maximum rate of change at a point.

Yeah, you keep saying that.

@EugeneMorrow

RM is saying “There is a maximum”.

Why must a maximum exist?

Because, as you know, a change cannot be infinitely fast. That translates into a maximum (despite your use of that word).

@EugeneMorrow

There is no maximum energy for a single photon.

Well, I keep telling you that you know nothing of photons, but do you seriously think a photon could have infinite energy?? Come on now. Even you know better than that.

@EugeneMorrow

There is no maximum temperature or gravitational pull or charge or pressure

Well, actually there is. But those all depend on the particulars of their situation. A charge has no definitive maximum, but certainly has a circumstantial maximum that would prevent it from ever being infinite. The same is true of the other concerns you mentioned.

@EugeneMorrow

or length or volume.

Those are concepts which have no actual measures and thus can be infinite.

@EugeneMorrow

If so many things have no maximum, why does the rate of change?

If so many Chinese believe in Buddhism, why shouldn’t we all be Buddhist?

@EugeneMorrow

The issue here is that RM has made an assumption - RM cannot claim to be based purely on logic.

Well, no one can claim logic to those who cannot see logic. What would be the point?
You have failed to show any logic fallacy, but then logic isn’t exactly your strong point.

@EugeneMorrow

It’s not a big deal - how can we discuss things smaller than a photon without making some assumptions along the way?

By defining exactly what you are talking about and sticking to the logic as it applies to those defined concepts.
You don’t seem to understand definitions very well nor are you very willing to stick to logic.
So for you, everything is an assumption of some kind.
You are not qualified to comment on who might be NOT assuming.
You seem to know nothing but how to assume.

RM makes no assumptions.
RM defines the concepts with which it develops an ontology.
The relationships developed are strictly the result of logical consequence.
You keep wanting to talk about things that you have merely assumed about.
RM doesn’t do that.
For you to claim that RM is making an assumption, you need to know the difference.
You have demonstrated that you actually don’t know the difference.

[EugeneMorrow]

James,

My point about Rational Metaphysics (RM) comes down to these words:

Step 1: you wrote:

RM is saying “There is a maximum”.

Step 2: I wrote:

Why must a maximum exist?

Step 3: you wrote:

Because, as you know, a change cannot be infinitely fast. That translates into a maximum (despite your use of that word).

There is a clear flaw in Step 3. I can show that by applying it to the energy of a single photon.

We both agree that the energy of a single photon cannot be infinite. Step 3 concludes there must be a finite maximum energy. That conclusion is wrong: there is no finite maximum energy for a single photon. So Step 3 is not a logical deduction for the energy of a single photon.

If Step 3 is not logical for a photon, why is Step 3 logical for a rate of change?

A rate of change might still have a maximum - so far we have no proof there is one. The challenge for RM is to prove that a maximum rate of change must exist. If RM cannot prove that, it’s an assumption.

Eugene Morrow

[James_S_Saint]

@EugeneMorrow

There is a clear flaw in Step 3. I can show that by applying it to the energy of a single photon.

You cannot legitimately say anything of that which you know so little.

@EugeneMorrow

We both agree that the energy of a single photon cannot be infinite.

Glad to hear you agree to at least that.

@EugeneMorrow

Step 3 concludes there must be a finite maximum energy. That conclusion is wrong: there is no finite maximum energy for a single photon. So Step 3 is not a logical deduction for the energy of a single photon.

But can’t you see that you are merely making an assertion (an “assumption”) without any evidence?

If something CANNOT have “infinite energy”, how can it NOT have a maximum of finite energy??
You’re not making sense.

[EugeneMorrow]

James,

You asked an excellent question:

If something CANNOT have “infinite energy”, how can it NOT have a maximum of finite energy??

The answer is when the maximum does not exist, so it’s not infinite and it’s not finite.

This is true for the energy of a single photon: which CANNOT have infinite energy and at the same time does NOT have a maximum finite energy.

Other examples are the maximum temperature, maximum charge and maximum gravitational pull in the universe.

If Rational Metaphysics (RM) claims that a maximum must exist, then RM has to give a value for the maximum energy of a photon, the maximum temperature, the maximum charge and the maximum gravitational pull. Without those values, RM is being inconsistent by claiming a finite maximum rate of change at a point.

Eugene Morrow

[James_S_Saint]

@EugeneMorrow

James,

You asked an excellent question:

If something CANNOT have “infinite energy”, how can it NOT have a maximum of finite energy??

The answer is when the maximum does not exist, so it’s not infinite and it’s not finite.

I KNEW you were going to say that.

Something “not having a maximum” MEANS that it has “no bound”, it is “boundless”, ie. “potentially infinite”.
You say that there is no potential for it to be infinite, yet proclaim that it could be infinite because it has no maximum.

If something CANNOT have “infinite energy”, it cannot be boundless. If it cannot be boundless, it has to be bounded, “finite”.
Its “boundary” is what we call its “maximum” being “finite”.

Of course the easy thing to say is simply, “In RM ‘maximum’ == highest achievable value. And circumstances determine what that value will be (also by definition of ‘circumstance’).”

Why are you going to so much trouble to waste time?
Is there some specific structural issue that you expect to fail in RM by using your version of words and their concepts?
Are you thinking that particles or atoms would not form or what?

[EugeneMorrow]

James,

I have found a subtle philosophical point that has escaped Rational Metaphysics (RM).

You wrote:

Something “not having a maximum” MEANS that it has “no bound”, it is “boundless”, ie. “potentially infinite”.
You say that there is no potential for it to be infinite, yet proclaim that it could be infinite because it has no maximum.

RM is claiming there are two choices:
Choice 1: the maximum is infinity.
Choice 2: the maximum is finite.

This has missed a choice. Let’s look at this very slowly.

For a maximum to exist, it must be a value that an entity can actually reach.

For example a photon can reach the maximum speed which is c, the speed of light. Choice 2 applies here. This is a rare example of an entity having a finite maximum that we can all agree on.

For many other things there is a different situation.

With integers, we know two things:
(a) An integer cannot have value “infinity”.
(b) Any actual integer cannot be the maximum, because we can always add 1 to it.

Choice 1: Can we say the maximum integer is infinity? No.
Choice 2: Can we give a finite maximum integer? No.
What can we say?
Choice 3: There is no maximum integer.

Choice 3 is different to Choices 1 and 2 because Choices 1 and 2 assume a maximum exists. It takes a philosopher to understand the difference and the correctness of Choice 3. Most people take a mental shortcut and assume Choice 1 and Choice 3 are the same, which they are not.

Perhaps RM does not care about integers. The problem for RM is that Choice 3 applies to all these things:

A. The maximum energy of a single photon
B. The maximum temperature.
C. The maximum charge.
D. The maximum gravitational pull.

My point is that the maximum rate of change at a point could be Choice 3 as well, whereas RM claims that is must be Choice 2. It is clear RM has not considered Choice 3, and so Choice 2 is an assumption, not a proven fact. Choice 2 might still be true, but RM has not given a proof that Choice 3 is excluded.

In short, RM has missed the possibility that there is no maximum rate of change at a point.

Eugene Morrow

[James_S_Saint]

@EugeneMorrow

James,

I have found a subtle philosophical point that has escaped Rational Metaphysics (RM).

You perceive it as “subtle” because it escapes you.

@EugeneMorrow

Something “not having a maximum” MEANS that it has “no bound”, it is “boundless”, ie. “potentially infinite”.
You say that there is no potential for it to be infinite, yet proclaim that it could be infinite because it has no maximum.

RM is claiming there are two choices:
Choice 1: the maximum is infinity.
Choice 2: the maximum is finite.

This has missed a choice. Let’s look at this very slowly.

Again/still?

@EugeneMorrow

For a maximum to exist, it must be a value that an entity can actually reach.

For example a photon can reach the maximum speed which is c, the speed of light. Choice 2 applies here. This is a rare example of an entity having a finite maximum that we can all agree on.

For many other things there is a different situation.

With integers, we know two things:
(a) An integer cannot have value “infinity”.
(b) Any actual integer cannot be the maximum, because we can always add 1 to it.

Choice 1: Can we say the maximum integer is infinity? No.
Choice 2: Can we give a finite maximum integer? No.
What can we say?
Choice 3: There is no maximum integer.

Choice 3 is different to Choices 1 and 2 because Choices 1 and 2 assume a maximum exists.

How many times do I have to say it;

[size=200]MAXIMUM OF INFINITY MEANS NO MAXIMUM!![/size]
They are merely two ways of saying [size=150]THE SAME THING[/size].
They are NOT different “choices”.

I suspect that your actual mental error and philosophical attempt involves the idea that a maximum is a SINGLE number or value.

Consider that in RM, a maximum might at one time by 3, at another be 10, and at another be 10,000. But it can never be infinite.
And to say that there is no maximum MEANS that the maximum is infinite.
Thus in RM, there is ALWAYS a maximum concerning any physical property of any entity (and in English too for that matter).

Your problem seems to be two fold;
A) learn what English words REALLY mean, not merely your connotative presumptions from growing up (like your “wave” definition).
B) Avoid presuming beyond the actual definition (the idea that a maximum is always/universally one particular number).

[EugeneMorrow]

James,

Your last response means that one problem has become three problems for Rational Metaphysics (RM).

[size=150]Problem 1: Not the same thing[/size]

You wrote:

MAXIMUM OF INFINITY MEANS NO MAXIMUM!!
They are merely two ways of saying THE SAME THING.
They are NOT different “choices”.

This is philosophy - the words “maximum of infinity” and “no maximum” are different ideas and different choices.

A maximum is a value that an entity can attain. We all agree that very few things (if any) can be infinite. RM uses the lack of infinity to conclude that there must be a maximum rate of change. That is not valid.

The example of integers shows that up immediately. An integer cannot be infinite, but that does not prove there is a maximum value. The same applies to the maximum energy of a single photon.

In both those cases, “maximum of infinity” is NOT true, but it is TRUE that “there is no maximum”. Hence “maximum of infinity” and “no maximum” are not the same thing. These two example are enough to totally invalidate the RM claim.

[size=150]Problem 2: A changing maximum[/size]

You wrote:

I suspect that your actual mental error and philosophical attempt involves the idea that a maximum is a SINGLE number or value.
Consider that in RM, a maximum might at one time by 3, at another be 10, and at another be 10,000. But it can never be infinite.

It is really good we are having such an detailed debate of this point - what a huge thing to say.

Does this changing maximum apply to the maximum rate of change at a point? What sort of things affect the maximum rate? Remember that RM started with the idea that underneath everything is just Potential-to-Affect (PtA) which varies from point to point, and when the value changes then that is Affectance. There’s nothing else - no matter or energy. What else could affect the maximum rate of change?

[size=150]Problem 3: maximums for everything[/size]

Thus in RM, there is ALWAYS a maximum concerning any physical property of any entity (and in English too for that matter).

Another huge thing to say. RM needs to tell us the maximums for these things (for starters):

3.1 The energy of a single photon
3.2 Temperature
3.2 Electric charge
3.3 Gravitational pull

Do these maximums change as well? RM needs to say why the maximum possible might vary from point to point in the universe and why.

Why did you say there are maximums in English too? Are you meaning the common mistake of Problem 1?

Eugene Morrow