The state of physics is worse than I thought

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
161

Yes, that is precisely the point. All we have right now is ONE measurement, ONE type of measurement that we are capable of for that reading.

Exactly.

Methinks the gentleman is too sensitive in correlation to the accusations he feels comfortable making. I call them like I see them. No need to get upset.

Well, that is different then. The claim was that it was monitored. The reality was that its traces were detected. In some confusing way that you do not lay out. This is precisely the issue at hand. when you observe directly, so that whatever you are measuring is affected, the reading changes, and it changes because the system changes.

Again, this is far too vague.

I am afraid Wikipedia has proved strenuously lacking even in the simpler things we are discussing, and I have had to rely essentially on my own knowledge. That is alright, the only reason to resort to Wikipedia is the hope that something might be found there worded in simpler terms. When dealing with even light, this is not the case with Wikipedia.

162

And now double-downs - Unfortunate.

163

Well, maybe you should try not being dishonest.

164

Here’s another one for you to lose sleep over:

Modern physics holds that density is a function of surface area, not volume.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, go fucking figure, don’t blame me.

165

I think it has to do with the fact that, as discovered through studying black holes, the only way for the entropy that is represented by density to exist is by having entry and exit points throughout the surface, so that the surface will account for 100% of the entropic radiation through which you can determine density, and the volume, which deals with space which is an imaginary expression of quantum field dynamics, is really kind of imaginary. Or rather, since space itself is a variable, an expression of quantum field dynamics, something that is contained in space cannot be a constant indicator of density. If space itself fluctuates, what is contained in space cannot be used to measure, as a measure, accurately, at the quantum field level.

166

I know this gives a lot of people discomfort, but it gives me more and more comfort.

It was always obvious to me that atoms are a schematic representation, not an actual picture. If, when you break down a molecule to the scale of an atom, most of what you see is empty space, evidently, it seemed to me, we are not dealing with “space” anymore. The “space” rules don’t apply. Space is not what we are looking at.

167

You will have to start thinking of space as a substance, not even now an outline, like with Einstein, but a substance, space itself, produced by dynamics at a decidedly subatomic level.

168

Coming to think about it, that would also make sense of the paradox of an infinite universe with a limit. Like, what is behind the limit, is the old question?

Now, the universe is still infinite, but after you run out of quantum fields, there is just no more space being produced.

169

And then, of course, it is no mistery that there might be any amount of dimensions, any amount of directions space might get shot in, which then would get stabilized into 3 at a certain scale as its interactions become more massive.

170

You have to understand, the math behind all the shit I’m saying is 100x more accurate than the math used to describe previous explanations for the physical world.

When I say accurate, I mean corresponding to observed physical phenomena.

171

Because of the similarity of “cause” and “affect”, you can also say “to cause means to cause a change”. The word “affect” and the word “cause” are not completely, but almost completely interchangeable. If you say “to affect means to cause change”, you can also say “to cause means to cause change”. Well, we all know that both statements may not mean exactly the same thing, but they mean almost exactly the same thing.

“All of science is built upon ontologies”, yes, but scientists would never admit that. In fact, it is so much the case, as Heidegger once said, that scientists depend on thinking or philosophy (metaphyics/ontology), because they themselves do not think, are not capable of thinking. Scientists have nothing to do with thinking and do not want it at all, but they are dependent on thinking, and this being dependent is denied by them since their triumph over thinking (philosophy).

Interestingly, the Ancient Greek at the time of the Presocratics, “logos” meant “gathering”, but after that it became more and more what we know as “speech”, " talk", “lecture”, “exposition”, became a system with Aristotle and we know it since then as “logic”.

If one undertakes a linguistic-historical (philological) investigation, one soon notices that in the course of time the understanding of being has changed fundamentally at least three times. The understanding of being, as it has been attempted since Aristotle by means of the logic system just mentioned, is that which also underlies RM:AO. One can also say that RM:AO has its orientation between the great masters of this system - Aristotle (in the beginning) and Kant or Hegel (in the perfection).

But does that solve the problem that this thread is about?

As I said, a cause can also be defined as “(the ability to cause change is) the ability to change - something”.

Ultimately, language (including thinking [including mathematics]) was, is, and will be used here - as always when it comes to knowledge.

Existence is that which has a cause.

Existence is that which has an affect.

In RM:AO it is called “affect”, so that it can be applied to psychology and sociology as well.

Existence is that which the Presocratics knew much more directly and of which after them more and more farewell was taken, that’s why for a similarly more direct knowledge more and more patience has to be applied (detours have to be accepted).

172

It is probable that the original meaning of the word “affect” was limited to human psychology but nowadays the word can be (and often is) used in the broader sense to refer to an act of something causing change in something else. And that’s how James and Observer use the word. To them, affect as a noun is not an emotion but any kind of caused change. When you kick the ball, you affect it – you cause it to change its position as well as its constitution. So the meaning they assign to the word is not strictly human. It kind of merely means “change”. Nothing human about that.

As for its falsifiability, whether or not you affect a ball when you kick it is pretty falsifiable, right? You can easily test it and thus prove it or disprove it.

As far as information-theoretic approach to physics is concerned, I don’t really know how they use the word “information”. Do they use it the normal way it is used to refer to any portion of reality that represents someone’s knowledge (at the very minimum, someone’s true beliefs) that thereby has the potential to inform others?

173

And somewhere he explains that back in his time the word “affectance” was used exclusively in the world of psychology to refer to the subtle influences on infants - but he expands its use to include the subtle influences on ALL things.

174

I don’t think so. James’ explanation seems more credible - the root “log” referred to the immutable - as in a heavy log or to “log” or to document - make secure and undeniable. And Aristotle’s “dialectics” - the use of consistent language - became known as “logic” - indisputable statements.

175

No, if you didn’t affcect it, then you didn’t kick it. Affect is implicit in kicking, it is an interpretation of a physical event, applicable to all phyisical events, and not a postulation on an external phenomenon separate from human interpretation. No, it cannot be falsified. No matter what interation takes place, it can be said to be affected, the affectedness of it cannot be broken down, cannot be disproven, it is atomic, it is a thought indicating a thought. And we went over what thoughts are.

Sort of.

I mean yes.

It is an admission that the only referenceability of these readings is our knowledge of them. And it does constitute knowledge, because it is based on readings received from the physical world, external information that was not a theoretical postulation, but an instrumental reaction to the physical world.

Yes it is a useful word, can be used to usefully describe many aspects of physical phenomena.

176

We have just received this report:

In order to directly ‘observe’ a quantum field in terms that would allow us to form an image and develop an actual falsifiable postulation of what they ‘might be,’ we would need a collider roughly the size of the Solar system. Not outside the real of possibility, hopefully some century they do it.

177

0D7079B4-77E6-4376-94B6-83F902FF3F62.jpeg
0D7079B4-77E6-4376-94B6-83F902FF3F62.jpeg480×640 76.4 KB

178

Malcadena 1998.png
Malcadena 1998.png551×608 160 KB

179

Falsifiable = the ability to arrange an experiment that could show if a theory is false.

The theory = kicking a ball will affect it.
Experiment = take measurements of a ball and its situation - kick the ball - remeasure.

Theory -

  • False if no measurements change
  • Not false if measurements change

Science doesn’t deal with what might be true - only with what hasn’t been proven false.

180

The theory = kicking a ball will generate information in it.
Experiment = take measurements of a ball and its situation - kick the ball - remeasure.

Theory -

False if no measurements change
Not false if measurements change

The theory = kicking a ball will generate change in values in it.
Experiment = take measurements of a ball and its situation - kick the ball - remeasure.

Theory -

False if no measurements change
Not false if measurements change

Falsifiability doesn’t refer to logical consistency.

It refers to whether the postulation itself is true or not.

How do you disprove the truth of affect? Or value? Or information? They are implicit in language, they are interpretations. They do not refer to the world. They refer to methods of interpreting the world.

How do you disprove string theory ‘strings?’

There you go.

You all are welcome.