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.
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 -
Science doesn’t deal with what might be true - only with what hasn’t been proven false.
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.
_
When did physics get so messy?
When winning a Nobel Prize for One’s efforts and One’s Peoples became a must, these last few years… which theory will win the day, and the prize?
The holographic AdS/CFT correspondence theory, it’s already been settled. Now they’re crunching numbers.
It’s fairly recent, so it took about 50 years for physics to get its shit together after Einstein was proven wrong.
They are dealing with stuff that is smaller than the galaxy is bigger than us, so it gets complicated.
…but not very refined imo.
Also… labelling Space ‘information’ is very Akashic Record, so not new at all… it is an ancient concept, as I’m sure you know.
It’s more refined than it sounds.
It’s just also alien. Nothing like it has been seen before. So it’s jarring.
But it’s of an unrivaled elegance.
Also, that is very kind of you, but I know next to nothing about budism.
Space is not what is called information here. Instead, and for convenience’s sake, not as a metaphysical statement, it is used to refer to that which interacts at the quantum field level that produces space.
All these images, Feynman’s slits and Schrodinger’s cat and endless other by now pop references, were designed by physicists not to describe some fantastical magic, nor to imply a paradoxical impossibility in the findings, but to illustrate how unfamiliar the territory is.
Alright, so you’re saying that the word “kick” is defined in such a way that it implies affect. In other words “To kick a ball is by definition to affect the ball.” I am not really sure about that, but instead of discussing what that word means, let me provide a different example. When we decide to kick a ball, what happens immediately before we do so? We move to a position close to it and we do so at certain speed. These terms clearly do not imply that the ball will be affected. So in order to determine whether moving close to a ball at certain speed will affect it or not, we have to look at more than just language.
Here’s another example. Instead of kicking a ball and asking ourselves “Did we affect that ball?”, let’s press a light switch and ask ourself “Did we affect the light bulb?” Here, it is pretty clear that the statement “Press the light switch” does not imply an affect upon the light bulb. At best, it implies an affect upon the light switch. This means the question cannot be resolved through the analysis of definitions. Instead, one has to look at something other than language.
In the general sense, “falsifiable” simply means “it can be proven false”. 2+2=4 can be proven false. It’s either true or false and we can discover which one is the case by looking at the definitions of the terms involved. It’s certainly not arbitrarily true. The same applies to every other statement about language. Any statement that says that some portion of the world is such and such is either true or false, and thus, can be either proven to be true or proven to be false. But before we can test a statement, we have to understand what it means. If we can’t do that, we can’t test it. Many statements that are deemed unfalsifiable are deemed so because they either have no meaning or they are not properly understood by those trying to evaluate their veracity.
What exactly do you mean by “the truth of affect”? I understand what it means to prove that affect exists and I also understand what it means to prove that a thing that has no affect exists. Is that what you’re asking?
Affect is merely an act of one thing causing change in another thing. You can prove or disprove that such things exist.
Value is merely a measure of how useful something is to someone. Any given thing is either useful to someone or it is not. For any given thing, you can prove or disprove that it is of value to someone. You can also prove or disprove the idea that valuable things (i.e. things that are of value to at least one person in the world) exist. (I am not sure this is how FC is using the word though. There’s a possibility he’s using it figuratively.)
Information is a portion of reality that represents someone’s knowledge and that has the potential to inform other people. Any given portion of reality is either information or it is not. You can prove it or disprove it. (I am, however, not sure this is how information theorists and modern physicists use the term.)
All three words can be used to describe (and they often are used to describe) what is out there.
The peculiar thing about “value” and “information” is that they are not terms that describe things in terms of how they affect our senses (e.g. how we see them) or how they influence the position and motion of other objects in space. I would say that’s the reason they are not a good fit for physics. Albeit I still don’t know what FC means by “value” and what physicists mean by “information” (my vague guess is that they use that word more in the sense of “sign”, kind of like how Charles Sanders Peirce, the original pansemiotician, used it.)
The ‘its a wave and a particle’ observed anomaly isn’t a current finding tho, so nothing new… this article is from 2013: wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/01/16 … or-a-wave/ so why the current excitement over the finding?
What has Buddhism got to do with it? …with the concept of all information being eternally accessible.
Sounds like a by-product of entropy, to me…
Well, that is sort of what I have been going over in this thread, and if all you are noticing is the fact of something not being a wave or a particle then I don’t think I can explain it to you. I will say it’s a fair bit more complicated than that, and that, as obsrvr also noted, the wave particle non-comformity was already a feature with relativity.
I really am not entirely sure what you are saying here.
Also not entirely sure.
Yeah, that’s pretty much the thing of it.
“Inform” refers to the form of something perceived by a mind - “in form - a dog looks like this - feels like this - acts like this - smells like this—”. The in-formation of the dog is a conceptual construct - a description of the dog - not the reality of the dog. The human information about a dog is not the dog itself.
That is true concerning quantum fields, waves, and particles - they are the information (in QM) they are not the actuality. Again - that is why the probability “field” (the “quantum field” - QM is entirely about probabilities) collapses when the human gets new data - new in-formation - a new description of the state. The field was itself made only of the calculated probabilities of where something might be - existing only in the human mind. Once the human gets more data about where the object might be - the field of probabilities changes - nothing physical changed at all.
A quantum is a mental item - not a physically real item. It is not science. It is mathematics. That is why they called it “quantum mechanics” - the mechanics of statistical calculation - strictly mental processes using the mental forms (never perfectly accurate representations of the physical item).
Quantum physics is mathematics pretending to be reality.
It’s not a probability field. Did you check the experiments I sent you? The Bell Inequalities?
The rest of what you said we have already discussed as well, and you either didn’t understand or are too emotional about it to understand. But I won’t start repeating myself. Thankfully, the thread is still not too long to go back over and review.
“Became”! Yes. But before becaming “known as logic”, “logos” meant something different.
We have several sources that prove what “logos” meant in Ancient Greek before it became - slowly ! - changed.
I choose Heraclitus as an example (I could also choose Parmenides or other Presocratics):
“Controversy” is here the translated word of the Ancient Greek word “polemos”.
The polemos is a dispute that prevails over all that is divine and human, not a war after human fashion. The fight conceived by Heraclitus lets the essence first of all come apart in the opposition, lets position and status and rank in the present first take place. In such a separation, gaps, distances, widths and joints open up. In the confrontation the world becomes. The confrontation neither separates nor destroys the unity. It forms this, is gathering (logos). Polemos and logos are the same.
From the one all-powerful divine primeval fire (logos) the multiplicity of the things emerges through discord and fight (“way down”); harmony and peace brings solidification, until the solidified returns again to the unity of the primeval fire (“way up”). In this eternal “up and down” “one” becomes “all” and “all” becomes “one”. Everything flows, but in this flowing the logos rules as law, which only few recognize. Thus God is day and night, summer and winter, war and peace, satiety and hunger; good is bad, bad is good - in everything opposites are united and yet hidden harmony, and this invisible harmony is better than the visible opposites. War (“polemos” resp. “logos”- see above) is the father of all things, and he proves some as gods, others as men, some as free, others as slaves.
The logos, which is to be equated with the polemos, means with Heraclitus the divine primeval fire as the pure reason, the world reason. But what does he mean by “world reason”? This world reason is identical with the impersonal lawfulness of the universe, the destiny, which is still enthroned above the gods.
Much later (in the Stoa) the logos was understood as a person, as God. In Philon, the Neoplatonists and Gnostics the Ancient Greek logos idea was merged with the Old Testament conception of God, the logos now appeared as the eternally dwelling reasoning power of God, the word and the eternal thought of God, who as logos created the world. He became the firstborn son of God, the other God, the mediator between God and man (logos mysticism). In Christianity, the logos becomes the word of God made flesh, the “son” of God who came to earth as the historical Christ. - These three examples among several others are a completely different definition of the logos than the one of the Presocratics and which changed more and more since Plato, but especially since Aristotle and the Stoa.
The doctrine of the logos as the reasonable thinking and concluding, which should always lead from true premises to a true conclusion, was called “dialectic” by Plato and “analytics” by Aristotle.
Back to the original meaning of logos as gathering / collecting:
Logos, in what it originally meant, had no direct relation to language. Lego, legein, Latin legere, is the same word as the English , “to glean”, “to harvest”, “to pick”: “reading a book” is only a variety of “gleaning”, “harvesting”, “picking” in the proper sense. This means: to put the one to the other, to bring together into one, in short: to gather; at the same time the one is set off against the other. This is how the Ancient Greek mathematicians use the word. A coin collection is not a mere mixture somehow pushed together. In the expression “analogy” (correspondence) we even find both meanings together: the original one of “relation”, “relationship” and the one of “language”, “speech”, whereby with the word “analogy” we hardly think of “speaking”, “analogously” as conversely the Ancient Greeks did not think of “speech” and “saying” with the word “logos” yet and not necessarily.
As an example of the original meaning of legein as “to gather / collect”, consider a passage from Homer, Odyssey, XXIV, 106. Here we have the encounter of the slain whoremongers with Agamemnon in the underworld; the latter recognizes them and thus addresses them: “Amphimedon, after what peril are you dived down into the darkness of the earth, all excellent and of the same age; and scarcely otherwise could one in search through a polis bring together (lexaito) such noble men”.
We only recall here that the word logos, even when it has long meant speech and statement, has retained its original meaning, signifying the “relation of one to another”.
If we consider the basic meaning of logos - gathering / collecting -, then we have still gained little for the elucidation of the question: To what extent are being and logos originally one and the same for the Ancient Greeks, so that they can subsequently diverge and must do so according to certain reasons?
The reference to the basic meaning of logos can only give us a clue if we already understand what “being” means to the Ancient Greeks: physis.
Logos is the constant collection, the in itself standing collectedness of the being, i.e. the being. Therefore in Frg. 1 kata ton logon means the same as kata physin. Physis and logos are the same. Logos characterizes being in a new and yet old respect: What is being, stands straight and distinct in itself, that is gathered in itself from itself and thus keeps itself in such gathering.
Because the being as logos is originally a collection, not a mixture, where everything is equally valid, the rank, the rulership belongs to the being. Heraclitus …: The ranking is the stronger. Therefore the being, the logos, as the collected harmony, is not easily and in the same coin accessible for everybody, but hidden contrary to that harmony, which is in each case only compensation, annihilation of the tension, leveling: “the harmony not (immediately and without further ado) showing itself is more powerful than the (always) obvious one” (Frg. 54).
Because the being is logos, armonia, aletheia, physis, phainesthai, therefore it just does not show itself arbitrarily. The true is not for everyone, but only for the strong.
Replace “gathering” with “firmly bound” - and I can buy that - it seems to fit the history you reveal (-“polemos”) as well as James’ “affixed”. 
Or perhaps - “the committed”.
“The gathering” just seems to meek - a birthday party is a gathering.
Next thing we’re gonna say it means ‘bound’ or a ‘bundle’, a ‘bound bundle of sticks,’ possibly representing the people.
You guyz.