The Transformation of Non-Transformation__One/Many…???
Bolzano had an argument against scepticism which he thought proved the existence of true propositions. "Suppose there were no truths. Then the proposition that there are no truths would be a truth, so by reductio there is at least one truth".
Is it even possible to define 'discrete' and 'unified' in one Universe of Meaning...???
Are two or more 'wills' needed to describe our real mechanical Universe...???(this is an old idea)
We must differentiate between local and non-local determinacy as with the state of all points being causal to the point of the future outcome of the entire whole being a product of every point and time of the present, or the mere determinacy of the ability for any local point in the universe being able to replicate the same laws as any other distant point due to homogenous and isotropic mechanics embedded within the fabric of the FS spacetime matrix itself.
(Take this para with a grain of salt, as it’s very long, but I tried to get it all in here… It’s really about the problem of drawing our thinking from ‘One Source’__the ‘Self’, vs. the ‘Self, World and Universe…’ I keep going on about this issue Tim, because we can't solve any QM and RM unifications, without first admitting 'Absolute Background Independencies' for both QM and RM, as 'background dependencies' for either one, makes any unification impossible__due to RM being scientifically known to be 'background independent'__therefore indeterminacy and radomness must be allowed, but not pseudo-chaos, and methods must be allowed for the transformations between them, as per Va = Vr <--> Vu.)
I get a kick outta you trying to always throw in the determinacy issue, no matter how many times I try to show you the fallacy of such a position. Let me put it like this, ‘Naked Determinacy is the God Postion’__not the science position__as ‘Absolute Determinacy’ would absolutely eliminate our ability to have and excercize ‘Intelligence and Logic through Free-Will’s Necessity of Such Mechanical Action as even Math Decision Choices.’ Now, you can take this position all you want, but you can not possibly recover the intelligence from your own mind, to allow such intelligence to exist__and show its complete chainal path__without adding in some ‘Demon Created Intelligence’ as per the way all religions and belief systems do. Let me just walk you through this ‘Thought Mechanics Necessity Process’__when pertained to science. After I get through speaking, you must show me where you would get your intelligence from, in any other way__as you certainly have intelligence, I do respect greatly. This is the oldest philosophical, logical and scientific argument in the world, going back to the Pre-Socratic Greeks and others, so I’m stating nothing new, just re-stating what’s already been discovered of ‘Scientific Thought’ to be ‘Absolutely Necessary.’ Tim, we have two choices__We can draw our thoughts from the real objective World and the Universe of physical objects, or we can draw our thoughts from the innate world of personal psychological thoughts, imaginations and emotive states. If we draw them from the World and Universe, we know them to be provable by evidence and experiment of, for all the scientific world to see. If we draw them from ourselves and our private languages and egos, we have no chance in hell of ever proving such private facts to science. Now, let’s look deep at why non-deterninacy is ‘Absolutely Necessary’ as an aspect of the Universe, by way of the simple example of our own ‘Free-Wills’ necessary to produce the intelligence, talked about above, as can only be drawn from the real World and Universe. Were we to draw the information from our private language selves, we have no evidence path possible to show to the world of science, as all such information simply non-grounds back into the self-ego, as it’s no more than the circular logic, or non-logic, of the snake swallowing its own tail__Whereas, if we draw our knowledge from the real external World’s and Universe’s physical evidence, we can absolutely__proof positively__show any other individual in the world where this information is grounded, outside ourselves. If we choose to say such information is 100% pre-determined by absolute cause and effect, we immediately eliminate any possibility of intelligence choosing between fully un-grounded self-beliefs__and our self-intellectually-Ratio-logical systems of Intelligent Thought Processes, which can be fully proved by the external world’s comparisons of the mathematics_ratio-logic_ of this internal thought process, as it’s completely mechanically reproducible on paper__and directly relatable to real world processes__whereas all the internal psychological, emotional, imagination and belief system thinking is non-mathematical, thus non-reproducible in the external world, on paper__or by any physical means known of relaying proofs__Therefore ‘Free-Will to Choose Method, and not Determinism’ is required for any thinking mind to have such ‘Intelligence’ as we absolutely know exists. This is nothing more than pure and physically scientific thought mechanics, or ‘The Science of Thinking.’ We can’t avoid these most fundamentals of ‘The Modal Esoteric Differences’ of these two forms of thinking__that must be fundamentally first ‘Chosen’ by us, before we do any form of scientific thinking. We must purge the psychological element from our pre-thinking abductions__which ‘Determinism’ certainly is, unless corrected to mixed ‘Indeterminacy and Determinism’. Psychology is simply non-rational emotional belief states, thought and discussed by other non-rational emotional belief states, or no more than ‘Boutique Thinking’(except where cognitively logical)__and, Philosophy is simply about significant intellectual states of thought, being discussed and externally ground proveable by other significant rational intellectual states of ‘Real World and Universe Object Thoughts’__or otherwise put, ‘Significant States of Knowing’ not believing. My point being, ‘Determinism’ is not path recoverable in any externally grounded system of thought__due to the fact such statements of ‘Hard Determinism’s Absolute Cause and Effect Chain’ can only be found in ‘The Psychological Emotional Belief States’__and must be eliminated from science discussions, and a position of “Soft-Determinism” must be granted, with even “Softer-Non-Determinacy” being a real part of the Universe, to allow ‘Intelligence by Way of Free-Will’ to intellectually exist__to choose our most fundamental thoughts, and thought states, pertaining to the external real World and Universe__In the Fundamenatal First Thought Space State… “Determinism Absolutely Necessitates Choice, and Choice Absolutely Necessitates Free-Will” to choose its thoughts to scientifically function in its intellect__choosing information from the outside world__as vs. its emotions__choosing informations from the internal world__Even definitions and meanings must be chosen from the external world of proper dictionaries, to be acceptable to science… Tim, this is why philosophy is so important to physics, as only philosophy’s total knowledge paths, within and without the brain, can furnish the paths of knowledge necessary to prove meanings and interpretations of meanings, the internal mechanics lacks. It’s only the mechanics of thoughts’ total external to internal to external paths, that prove the evidential results, and their real world correspondences, quantifications and verifications of__We can’t do emotions or beliefs on paper__we can do ratio-logic and math on paper, and physics in the labs… But, and this is a big But__We can not distinguish either’s significance, without our bio-neuro-physically given Free-Will Choice to first do so…
Now, if you can show an argument around that, please do so… :-)
The above long para says appx. what this para says___"Bolzano’s epistemology rests on a theory of logical consequence that is twofold: an account of truth preservation that is epitomized in his notion of “deductibility” (Ableitbarkeit) on the one hand (See Siebel 1996, 2002, 2003; van Benthem 1985, 2003; Etchemendy 1990), and an account of “objective grounding” (Abfolge) on the other (see Tatzel 2002, 2003; see also (Thompson 1981; Corcoran 1975). The notion of deducibility presents a semantic account of truth-preservation that is neither trivial nor careless. The same holds for his views on probability. Likewise his attempt at a definition of grounding constitutes the basis of an account of a priori knowledge and mathematical explanations whose interest has been noticed by some authors, and in some cases even vindicated (Mancosu 1999)."
Tim, here's something important of Bolzano's logic, I just came across, but thoroughly agree__"Among Bolzano’s many idiosyncratic convictions, perhaps the most interesting, but also the most strange to the modern mind, was his belief that each branch of science has a unique, strictly scientific presentation, which for him meant not only a unique finite axiom system (a belief he shared with many) but also an essentially unique entailment (Abfolge) of each theorem of this science by the axioms, a belief which might well be unique to Bolzano."
It need not be totally ‘Deterministic’, as will be explained, as I procede.
The conservation mechanics along with our further inference of motion spectrum mechanics requires a degree of determinacy to replicate and +%produce the laws which we study and exploit per science.
A degree of determinacy_yes_and even a very high degree of determinacy, to even a 99+%, but never 100%. All ‘The Uncertainty Principle’ or ‘Universal Randomness’ needs is a 1,000,000th of a % to function__But, some minimal is ‘Absolutely Required’ as we absolutely know the Universe has quantum randomness, as does evolution, as does humanity with free-will, just for a few known examples. And that free-will forms a lot of humanity’s physically structured global communities, by sheer choice of intellectual thought, judgment, will, and action__to achieve the goals, we set for ourselves… That’s a lotta free-will choosing from that fundamental abduction pool… You can’t institute every abduction concept in your mind, at once__you absolutely must choose the one at a time, you wish to accomplish = Free-Will Goals…
Randomness at this stage represents chaos to me to the point that a physical law of any kind wouldn’t exist as distances and time would easily change the laws of physics as we know them.
Now you see, here’s where you are entering that belief system into your science, by mentioning chaos__where ‘Chaos’, ‘True Chaos’, is not known to science__It’s imo, a simply emotionally believed interpretation about science, or pseudo-science. How would you possibly prove to me that ‘True Chaos’ exists, when all I see around me is a ‘General World and Universal Uniformeity…?’__especially if science necessitates you to ground your thinking in any form of scientifically accepted method. ‘True Chaos’ only exists in ‘Naked Belief’__No…? I’m not trying to be hard on ya Tim__It’s just all these ‘Belief Demons’ must be purged from thinking, to achieve ‘True Scientific Thinking…’
I’ve admitted to the unknowable nature of the determinism of the entire system as randomness within quantum motions will forever be present from our reference frame, so the point is unarguable. Is there randomness to the universe?
Yes__as if it exists anywhere, as you admit, it exists everywhere, by the very laws of conservation of motion__Physical laws require it, by necessity… Using the word ‘Universe’ in the ‘God Context’ doesn’t get you around the conservation laws of the Universe… See what I mean…? David had this problem with me, and couldn’t see I was always grounding all my thinking in the many laws of physics, as scientific thinking can only be grounded in such laws__to be fully true__due to their absolute mathematicality and ratio-logic foundations and path integral informations’ requirements… If we don’t ground all our thinking in the Universal laws__our thinking is beyond any possible definitions and meanings within ‘The World of Scientific Necessities’__but at the same time, we must realize there exist incommensurabilities within the fundamental motions and maths, which have been known since early times. It’s just simple ‘Necessity Path Logic’__within ‘The Total Universal Circle of Possible Scientific Knowing…’ ‘Mathematical Laws’ must always ground in primary modal thinking, to distinguish and discriminate intellectual knowledge information__from emotional belief information__and the only possible method of this is the incommensurabilities' necessities between belief and rationality, even though both belief and rationality exist in the real World, at the same time… This complex reasoning always goes back to the incommensurabilities between ‘The One and The Many’ ancient problem, of ‘The Many Interpretation and Meaning, In The Pseudo-One’__that just may be a real single Universe__We just don’t know, as it’s beyond our present scientific knowledge limits…
We’ll never know, but I do know that I can expect the quantum mechanics to always replicate themselves to produce near exact outcomes both structurally and unstructurally, which is a high degree of determinism within the fabric of motion itself.
Tim, when speaking scientifically, one must parse their words precisely when talking deeply, the deeper one goes into the sciences__or the conflations and confusions multiply like wildfire. I’m not picking on you, but unless the language is used precisely, we can’t make real sense to each other. I know it’s extremely difficult to catch the misspoken concepts, but I pick them up instantly, as I know the importance and significance of the esoteric distinctions, to proper and successful science communication. Oh, I make the same mistakes also, but I’m just trying to clear up this one problem area of ‘Determinism vs. Indeterminacy’ since it’s so important to understanding the rest of the deep scientific aspects of CM, QM and RM…
Btw, we already know there’s ‘Randomness’ in the Universe__as we easily find it in personal choices of something so simple as what food to order in a restaurant, where telling the waitress when she asks what you want to eat; “Oh, it doesn’t matter__it’s already all determined cause and effect”__so she brings you a ‘Rock…’ No Tim, you must choose to tell here what you want, if you want to get, what you want to eat… :-)
It’s not so much the accuracy through time which I’m referring to Lloyd. It’s the relativistic accuracy due to acceleration as we currently have no absolute clock which doesn’t dilate or no absolute ruler which doesn’t contract due to acceleration or gravitational influence.
Tim, as a being locked in a c conservation Universe, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. We are bound by the laws and limits of the conservation, transference and transformation laws, we live or exist within__There ain’t no exit from the conservation laws of motion. The clocks work fine, and our mathematicians have correction algorithms for all positioning systems, or we wouldn’t get the accurate missle hits or space positionings we do… We just gotta live with the Universe’s limits of knowledge possibility. There’s no possible way to know beyond knowing’s ability to know. You’re trying to exceed the limits of possibles… That’s what epistemology was created for, by the Greeks and others, millennia ago. We all gotta know the epistemic limits of knowledge capacity, to do correct science… Limit knowledge is the most important subject in science and math__and it ain’t simple to rap your head around, completely__as it involves all the Planck scale limits, as well as the computational calculus scale limits of pure mathematics itself… That’s why I posted those Wolfram links… There’s no short path to total scientific knowledge, although many think there is… I spent years alone, just on understanding all the limit sciences, of the different disciplines__as they all vary in the particular law and math applications, then the meanings also vary, as different systems can be used for different methods of ‘Limit Science…’
Science has to make the mathematical corrections per Relativity itself as with the GPS system due to the inability for the clock to adjust itself per its increase and sustained velocity. There seems to be no common thread woven throughout all reference frames whereby allowing an absolute frequency and distance reference which would allow a self fluctuating invariant ruler and clock per velocity and gravitational effects, which is why I am suggesting a comparative analysis of two or more synchronized reference frequencies to perhaps accomplish such similar to how they do down the road with measuring the phase shift of the reflected laser in the videos you provided.
That’s because, it’s not possible Tim__There’s far too many variables involved. We can only do two ‘solid body math’, at present, and when it comes to stringing together all the varying densities and other variables, affecting and effecting velocities in the cause and effect chain, there’s just no possible way for any observation or math system yet devised, to figure all such variables, as the variables are so tremendously multiplied by gravity and magnetospheres’ complications__it’s just plain impossible to achieve what you are wanting to be the science of present reality. Science admits, and has to admit its limits, to do proper science__It’s just been all the Pseudo-ToeQuesters in the World, who don’t realize__‘Science Limits Must Be Learned, To Do Real Science…’
Perhaps to determine where, when and to what extent we are relative to all else within the absolute realm, we must perhaps use our demodulation abilities in relation to the EM medium and learn to establish the variances within it due to our motions which ultimately establish the invariance of absolute space and time.
Let me put it this way, Tim__This is where you have to start realizing information itself must be modulated into its possible, impossible and necessary realities__and that’s simple modal logic, or the very primitive logic we were born with__and it must be used first, just as we used it first as a child, and all cavemen used it to hunt and fish with. Academics has almost edited our necessary ‘Modal Logic’ from the scene of all physics textbooks, and physicists, philosophers, mathematicians and logicians aren’t going to make any further progress__until they relearn their basic logical instincts must be respected__the basic ratio-logical instincts. I don’t know how to put it any other way Tim__Modal logic is just so simple a system of thought, that sorts all our fundamental thoughts__we can’t live or do science without it… We gotta know how to think about thinking__first…
Einstein had it backwards, thus we must work backwards from him to establish truth. What aspect of the EM field is motion sensitive whereby its permeating nature would allow such to be exploited as an absolute reference frame to all other slower moving reference frames?
Again, beyond the limit capabilities of science__We can’t measure that hyper-fine a wave structure__there’s just far too much noise in the system, by all the other wave structures… You’d have to know what’s inside a photon, or what a photon is made of, and no-one has ever even seen a single photon__we only see quanta__Packets… We, and science, are limited, Tim__and the ‘Limit Wall’ ain’t about to fall, any time soon… Better to work in areas we can and do know are possible of answers…
We might find that the velocity of such might always produce a value of c due to our instruments, but the frequency aspect is known to shift, thus any frequency related aspects are exploitable IMHO.
Only if we can develop instruments sensitive enough to measure em… Don’t take my word for it, all this information is available even on Wiki…
As to the clocks nearing c, it’s only hypothetical as we haven’t worked out the exact acceleration decay mechanics whereby I can acknowledge the upper acceleration limits of a clock.
Maybe hypothetical Tim, but does science have any other evidence, or even a suspicion in this area…? Is it even possible for any other system of motion and Universal laws to exist…? I’d say it’s not even possible, though I have no proof of such a conjecture, but Statistical Mechanics, Fundamental Particle Science and The Laws of Physics lead me to think this is true…
Somewhere between the two extreme ends of the linear velocity spectrum of the most massive black hole and EM radiation, all structured systems are somewhere between near linear motionless and c. Just as with the concepts being discussed, their function and physical characteristics are derived by where they fall along this scale, whereby changing their position along this scale, or changing the reception rate of any encoded information about them due to a change in position of a receiver along this scale, totally changes the meaning of what one thing is.
Absolutely true…
I also like the direction you’re headed with your other thoughts as it goes back to my interpretation of an ultimate proof being the link between mechanics and thought, whereby we might some day be able to imply that rather than, ‘I think therefore I am’……… ‘I think therefore it must be so’
About Descartes’ statement__”This objection would be similar to that brought by Pascal against Descartes, when he asserted that we might also say, “I walk, therefore I am.” Steiner
“I once was a Rich man__I could think as a Child…”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please let us know your logical, scientific opinions...