Philosophy Now Forum

Greylorn, seeing as you help me, I would like to return the favour if possible. I was interested in uwot's comment. Rather than deal with the problems of EPR paradox and Bell's theorem perhaps we could go with a different suggestion. If you are not interested that is fine, I won't mention it again.

uwot wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:Beon is a single entity with only one inherent property, the natural tendency to manipulate energy in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This allows beon to acquire the property of conscious thought.

I'm sure it's covered in the book, but from what I gather, by 'energy' you mean something roughly analogous with Einstein's own concept of ether, or, more recently concepts of 'quantum vacuum'; basically 'material' stuff. Beon is, to my understanding, something like a 'field' of consciousness potential. If that is fair, then what you have is your take on dualism and the question is: how do they interact? Is there a causal mechanism, or is it some 'spooky action at a distance'?

I see two distinct forms of energy at the fundamental level. All known forms, matter, charge, velocity, gravitational potential, electromagnetic, are time dependent. There is another form that my earlier writings referred to as "raw" energy. The discovery of "dark energy" got me thinking that this is the same as my weakly-defined raw-energy, and needs a deeper understanding.

I currently see my raw energy, dark energy, and the aether, as equivalent names for the same thing, the stuff of which the universe is created. By whatever name we choose, this is a primeval energy form that is not time dependent.

My notion of the aether is not Big Al's, and I regard notions of the "quantum vacuum" in much the same high regard as roadkill skunk meat. To makes sense of my opinions you'd probably want to peruse John Schulenberger's paper, Isomorphisms of Hyperbolic Systems and the Aether.

That's as far as I've been able to go, thinking alone. John died and didn't like me enough to return with assistance.

I regard beon as the product of a distinct space, same as energy. Since both must exist within another space, beon-space and energy-space may be regarded as manifolds within the space that contains them.

Your take on the nature of beon is not correct. Your definition is about one level higher than necessary. You're poking around for beavers atop their dam. At least you're poking.

I do not know the mechanisms for interactions between beon and energy. I do not know how my will to stick a finger up my ass actually causes my brain to accomplish that overtly simple, but extremely complex task. If I knew that, I'd know how beon interacts with brain, and all would be well until the next-gen CIA learns how to utilize that science.

What I do think that I "know" is that there is a causal mechanism, and that it seems to be dependent more upon relationship than distance. There is some action at a distance. This is required. I've caused physical events to occur elsewhere without normal forms of information or energy transfer. The psi research field is replete with similar, documented evidence. I've observed events "before" they occurred. This is common, but few share their experiences for fear of ridicule.

"Spooky" means, something we do not YET understand. Like TV in the 19th century, wherein Maxwell set out the four equations enabling the possibility.

Ginkgo wrote:Greylorn, seeing as you help me, I would like to return the favour if possible. I was interested in uwot's comment. Rather than deal with the problems of EPR paradox and Bell's theorem perhaps we could go with a different suggestion. If you are not interested that is fine, I won't mention it again.

Ginkgo,

I am genuinely touched by your offer. Thank you.

Would you be willing to put it in the context of ideas I've already expressed, whether your position is pro or con?

My first real job was programming a computer to control a little space telescope and retrieve the data it generated. This required a lot of knowledge, and I had six months to get the job done. On my first day of work there was a 300 lb. computer on my desk, a half-inch thick manual describing how it worked, and 2 more inches worth of documents describing the telescope and its associated telemetry systems. A lotta shit.

Previous studies in physics, math, and EE enabled me to comprehend the material and get the job done. Otherwise I'd have been a hopeless failure.

You apparently have an excellent background for dealing with the questions about which we share curiosity-- the equivalent, or better, of my univ. education. But you haven't read the manual because it's not on your desk-- it's in an Amazon warehouse or my tool room instead of on your desk. A year ago this omission would have deprived me of a $2.37 profit, but now, you buying my book from Amazon costs me about $4. Dealing with Amazon sucks. Right now I'd be happy to get rid of my fucking books at $8 printing cost plus $4 U.S. shipping, my break-even deal. It costs me 30 minutes to package the damn thing and another ten to stand in line at the post office, next trip into town. to reach "break even."

In the course of a half-century of idea development I've shared my theories with a variety of individuals, and received mostly negative feedback. Most people have ideas of their own. Some of these are their own invention (my favorites) but most are simply reiterations of theories they've learned elsewhere that I've already perused and was not interested in.

I've tried to contribute to a better understanding of theology, physics, metaphysics, cosmology, evolution theory, and brain science. Before doing so I learned some things in those fields. Not everything, obviously. It seems fair for me to ask that anyone trying to contribute to Beon Theory (WELCOME!) first learn Beon Theory. Anyone with a measure of intellectual integrity wanting to discredit Beon Theory might want to do the same.

Mostly what I get are individuals promoting their own theories. While I admire anyone with the balls to do that, I'm nearing the end of my life and do not have the time to examine any opposing theory whose author has not taken the trouble to put it into a book. That's just the first step, but important, because it involves a significant amount of time, money, and personal commitment.

All that I'm asking is for you, or anyone else who wants to criticize, redirect, or contribute to Beon Theory, to first learn what it is. That will require at least a half year committed to spending about an hour or less (two hours for speed-readers) daily, carefully perusing my book. At least twice. In the process, clarification questions are welcome.

I need all the help that I can get, but must obtain it from trustworthy sources who are at least on a similar page, and who have done their homework.

Best regards,
Greylorn

P.S. I'm rewriting the book with the help of an expensive editor, and the revised version will go on the internet. I'm also looking for outside critics. They'll need to work chapter-wise, as revisions appear. This is internet accessible material. Volunteer critics who fail to criticize will be dropped.

My ideas are surely imperfect, and their current presentation, although it contains all the requisite material, is flawed. My life is growing very short. Not much time left to kill, so either take me fairly seriously or write me off.

G

Ginkgo wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: Ginkgo,
This is an impressive and bemusing come back. I appreciate both the implications and the fine subtlety of your presentation.

Noting that were I to answer your question, it would make no difference to this conversation, and would be even further off topic than yours and NBore's forays into speculative physics. That said, the only way that I could answer your question would be to look it up in a modern atomic physics text or maybe Wikipedia, or to post the question on a physics forum and come back with someone else's answer.

BTW, I thought that "Sz" was a magnetic moment created by the spin of a charged particle, not a "projection along a magnetic field." After all, the spinning charge creates the field. Thus any projection of a magnetic moment is a self-generated phenomenon. Your explanation made it sound to any non-physicist who has not reached deep somnambulism at this point, as if the magnetic field was external to and independent of the busy particle. Correct me if I'm mistaken, please.

Yes, but I think we are talking about two different things here. I am talking about measuring spin projection along a vertical z axis.

Okay, Ginkgo, but where is the "z axis?" If the particle is spinning, shouldn't we be using a coordinate system expressed in radians? What about the displacement of the z-axis with respect to other components of an atom? Particles are dynamic little buggers, zinging around and within atoms for the most part, occasionally escaping. The notion of setting up a Cartesian coordinate system for an atom and supposing that all its particles are confined to that system is ever so slightly absurd.

It is impossible that a given particle be spinning in a plane of any sort, since its magnetic moment will be tweaked by fields elsewhere within its environs. It will wobble like a spinning top. Atomic physicists ignore this, like they ignore gravity, because they cannot deal with it. Until one can define the "z" axis, why discuss it?

Ginkgo wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: hoped that you would have figured by now that I am in complete disagreement with several aspects of modern physics. I took my last atomic physics course in 1963, and was so disgusted with the subject that I abandoned it. My grades were a B first term, C second term. What a stupid course! Just numbers and meaningless terms designed to make the math kind of work, with no physics involved that I could see. I recall asking the professor why we discounted the force of gravity within atoms, when according to any classical computation that force would become infinite between colliding mesons. He just got pissed off.

Some people do that to you. I guess I piss you off, but I try my best not to.

Then stop trying to not piss me off. Someone who doesn't piss me off now and then is unlikely to be interesting.

Pissing me off all the time is another matter, but you don't do that. You don't even come close. I like hanging out with people who have the balls to tell the truth. You do that. Your style is more polite than mine, but nonetheless meaningful to me.

I like people who have the courage to express their opinions, agreeing with mine or not. Their style is optional, but I demand that they defend their opinions with data and logic. You often do that. Your style is 180 degrees out from that of NeilsBore, who simply mouths off like Blaggard.

Ginkgo wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: Toward the end of that idiotic course (pre-Standard model) I predicted that we would build increasing larger particle colliders, and that each of them would spew forth a bevy of new particles, and that somewhere in the process physicists would come up with a revised mathematical model for particle behavior (the Standard Model) and that it would be tweaked and kludged to accommodate the next batch of particles. (Notice that the "observed" Higgs Boson was less massive than the models predicted, and was nonetheless heralded as a triumph of science. Bullshit.

Well done then

Not really. No forum published my predictions, making them irrelevant.

Ginkgo wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:

My work does not involve the parroting of arbitrary models. I know what they mean. You didn't need to explain "h-bar." If you wanted to explain something, why not explain the physics of "spin" for a particle?

Because ultimately I am interested in Penrose and Hameroff's Orch-OR

Fair enough. I've studied their theories enough to conclude that they are mistaken. They fail to account for human consciousness experienced outside of the body's confines. (c.f: Pam Reynolds, and the vast body of well-documented OBEs.) Or read Wilder Penfield's reports on late-1940s experiments with low-voltage brain probes. Or study the body of material reporting on the post-operative results of split-brain surgery, reading the early works from the sixties, ignoring the current research that has been edited to reflect current theories.

The P/H theories do not account for empirical data. Therefore, they suck.

Beon Theory may also suck, but it does account for all empirical data. It was engineered to do so.

Ginkgo wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:
From the perspective of LHB (Little Hard Ball) atomic theory, every particle is just a tiny, solid ball of matter with properties like mass, maybe some charge, spin, etc. But diffraction experiments show that when moving through spacetime, the LHB is really a wave. It looks like an LHB only when we observe it (i.e. "collapse the wave function"). So why don't you explain the physics of a spinning wavelet?

Already been done by Penrose and Hameroff.

I'm dubious about this claim, if only because I've not heard of either man showing an interest in matter-wave theory, and doubt that Hameroff is qualified. (He's more of a QM guy.) Would you kindly provide a reference?

Ginkgo wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: When you are done with that, explain what "charge" actually is. The Nobel Prize will be all yours.

I believe Penrose and Hameroff have already got one collective hand on the prize. Interesting to see come October.

Nice tease. Have you additional information? I would love to find a real physics-level explanation of charge.

Ginkgo wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: I'm just saying that parroting the current arbitrary model is not doing any physics. What I'm trying to do is honest physics. I want a sense of how the components of the universe actually work, not a mathematically degenerative model of how they work. Those models are tweaked with every new super-collider, which they must be, because there is no physics to them.

I believe that this approach is essential to understanding the physics of human consciousness, which is my ultimate goal.

Yes, I agree and good luck with that.

Greylorn, I think I am one of the few people here who are still prepared to hold a conservation with you. Could you please make your reply civil otherwise this will be my last correspondence.

Ginkgo,
Believe it or not, all my replies to you are civil, even when I'm seriously objecting to something that you have written. No doubt we come from different cultures. I grew up rough, got kicked around, learned to kick back, and carried brass knuckles for when the going got ugly. I'm more comfortable in a biker bar or strip-joint than a faculty party, because there's less bullshit in those kinds of places, and if you can find a conversation in the biker bar, it will be simple but honest.

For me that beats complex bullshit, which is what most people deliver when they can get away with it.

Consider adjusting your standards for civility. I once had a fine ladyfriend, but when I took her out for dinner and conversational evenings with friends, she'd get offended because my friends insulted me (by her reading of the conversation). She'd demand to be taken home, which I did, then returned to my friends. I disengaged from her, and retained friends who would speak their mind and tell me whatever they perceived to be the truth, of the moment.

I'm mindful that humans rarely actually figure out a truth, especially one of the moment. Friends are those to whom you can return and say, "About that argument we had last night..."

So feel free to get angry and annoyed with me. I will return the favor. The result will be a different level of (for you anyway) civility. We may both learn from the exchanges.

That you may be one of the few people left on this forum who want to converse with me is a testament to the effectiveness of my filtering style. I'm not here to find "friends" who are countable, like the scoring rings above pool tables. I'm looking for a few good thinkers. They are hard to find, while dogmatists and opinionated parrots are as freely available as people who dislike me.

Greylorn

Ginkgo wrote:

uwot wrote: How is 'quantum spin network' different to 'beon'?

Greylorn wrote:Beon is a single entity with only one inherent property, the natural tendency to manipulate energy in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This allows beon to acquire the property of conscious thought.

Networks composed of conventional flip-flops or single-atom flip-flops, components that require input energy in order to function, will never become conscious, no matter how marvelous they may be at processing information. (BTW the human brain is in this category of information processing devices, and if Hamerhoff's theories are even remotely correct, the brain is to some extent a quantum network that may or not involve atomic spin properties.)

Greylorn

Hameroff and Penrose think that spin networks are a fundamental part of space/time geometry Hameroff is prepared to say that this information system MIGHT be a candidate for qualia. Pernose is not prepared to consider spin networks as being in any way related to some type of basic consciousness.

Hameroff would be saying that qualia is an atomic property, just like mass,change and spin.

Ginkgo,

I don't care what someone is prepared to say, and what he, she, or it "might" say if they actually said something. Obama might be prepared to admit that he's a Kenyan-born Muslim living in the U.S. under badly-forged paperwork and stupidly (Republican) granted permission slips.

Nor do I especially care about anyone's assessment of what someone might say. But you know this, and have acknowledged as much in a subsequent post, so let's move on to more productive conversations.

Hameroff is not a physicist. He is a physician specializing in anesthesiology who, to his considerable credit became interested in human consciousness, I'm guessing because of OBE reports from some of his patients. He went on to learn some physics, more to his credit. His knowledge of physics is fairly superficial by Penrose's standards, and in many respects is superior to mine. Even so, I'd be surprised if he really put qualia at the same fundamental level as mass and charge. If he did that in front of me I would call him on it. Perhaps I'll get the chance, as I intend to drop a copy of my shitty book off at his office on my next visit to Tucson.

Penrose is a different kind of scientist, fundamentally a mathematician and logician with profound insights into physics at the most fundamental levels. I recently learned that he might be predisposed to consider Beon Theory, because he is uncomfortable with the current cosmological beliefs that the universe began at Entropy 0. Beon Theory is the only scheme I know of which describes a universe that started out at Entropy 1.

Penrose is also extremely curious about human consciousness, perhaps because he experiences it so intensely. Beon Theory lives at the intersection between consciousness and physics, so he might find it interesting. I suspect that his relationship with Hameroff came about because Hameroff devised a physics-based theory about consciousness.

Ginkgo wrote:Greylorn, could you explain how beon violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Sounds interesting.

I addressed this excellent question previously today but could not find it. I've drunk a lot and it's late.

No I cannot explain that. I thought that I was doing well to identify the concept, or at least the possibility, but have been aware that the "how" was missing-- as it is from most of physics. (How does a positive charge attract a negative charge or repel another positive charge? I never found the answer in any courses or subsequent studies.) Beon Theory does explain how matter bends space, but that one was so obvious that someone else must have figured it out already.

If Beon Theory is ever taken seriously by physicists (doubtful), it will be investigated by the most intelligent people in the world using either the finest experimental tools at their disposal, or new tools that they will invent. The answer to your "how" question may need to await those potential investigations. Don't let loose of that question, whatever. It must be answered, and you may be the one to accomplish that. Your reward will be one of three: Being ignored. A bullet in the head. A Nobel Prize.

I wish you the best of these possibilities, yet prefer a different one for myself.

Finally, I apologize for forgetting that you know physics, and implying otherwise. If I do that again, call me out please.

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell wrote:I see two distinct forms of energy at the fundamental level. All known forms, matter, charge, velocity, gravitational potential, electromagnetic, are time dependent. There is another form that my earlier writings referred to as "raw" energy. The discovery of "dark energy" got me thinking that this is the same as my weakly-defined raw-energy, and needs a deeper understanding.

Dark energy is simply the name given to whatever is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. It quite nicely illustrates how concepts get woven into our understanding, because it is novel(ish). We don't know the cause, but we are very quick to ascribe 'substancehood' to it. I appreciate that your concept of 'raw energy' is weak, but all it has to do to be the same as dark energy, is to cause the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. If that isn't what you originally invoked raw energy for, they are not the same thing.

Greylorn Ell wrote:I currently see my raw energy, dark energy, and the aether, as equivalent names for the same thing, the stuff of which the universe is created. By whatever name we choose, this is a primeval energy form that is not time dependent.

The foregoing notwithstanding, I think the most plausible explanation for all the phenomena that give the appearance of a universe made of some stuff, is some stuff the universe is made of. As you say, call it what you will.

Greylorn Ell wrote:My notion of the aether is not Big Al's, and I regard notions of the "quantum vacuum" in much the same high regard as roadkill skunk meat. To makes sense of my opinions you'd probably want to peruse John Schulenberger's paper, Isomorphisms of Hyperbolic Systems and the Aether.

I could only find it at Taylor and Francis Online, who'd charge me 28 quid to download it. So I didn't.

Greylorn Ell wrote:That's as far as I've been able to go, thinking alone. John died and didn't like me enough to return with assistance.

Well, you don't expend a lot of energy on being likeable. As you say, it doesn't matter what physicists call it; the idea that matter is some form of lump in a field goes back at least to Lord Kelvin, who thought particles might be 'knots'. (The idea that matter is some stuff that is radically different to it's perceptible qualities goes back to Anaximander, nearly 600 years BC.) Einstein, at least in 1920, believed:
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter."

Whether it is quantum fields, quantum vacuums, 'energy' fields, aether or unicorn tears, the simplest assumption is that there exists 'something' with 'mechanical' properties that the universe is made of. I suspect that Schulenberger's paper, as it has 'aether' in the title, is some variation of that theme, and that it expresses his own choice of shape and topology in mathematics that would mean little or nothing to me.

The quantum vacuum, at least according to my understanding of one version, is a sort of Copenhagen fudge, in that it doesn't nail itself to any particular ontology, but describes the field strength. (For people who don't like maths, this, I think, represents it very well: http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/theo ... nding.html ) As I have said in other threads, the same is true of general relativity; it describes the action of gravity as though there was a substance called space-time, it doesn't follow that there is. Since then (or even since Newton's hypotheses non fingo) any 'field' doesn't have to equate to any 'thing', it is simply the area in which behaviour of a particular type can be observed.

Greylorn Ell wrote:I regard beon as the product of a distinct space, same as energy. Since both must exist within another space, beon-space and energy-space may be regarded as manifolds within the space that contains them.

So is your theory dual aspect, as in the title of the thread, or is it pluralist, postulating at least 3 entities: space, energy/matter and beon.

Greylorn Ell wrote:Your take on the nature of beon is not correct. Your definition is about one level higher than necessary. You're poking around for beavers atop their dam. At least you're poking.

Tragically, I have not had the success poking for beavers that I would wish.

Greylorn Ell wrote:I do not know the mechanisms for interactions between beon and energy. I do not know how my will to stick a finger up my ass actually causes my brain to accomplish that overtly simple, but extremely complex task. If I knew that, I'd know how beon interacts with brain, and all would be well until the next-gen CIA learns how to utilize that science.

You're in good company; Einstein couldn't explain the mechanism by which matter warps space-time: ironic given his aversion to spooky action at a distance. No matter; the field equations describe the action of gravity better than Newton. If you want physicists to take an interest in beon theory, you will need to find some phenomenon that it accounts for, scientifically, I should add, that current mathematics fails to do.

Greylorn Ell wrote:What I do think that I "know" is that there is a causal mechanism, and that it seems to be dependent more upon relationship than distance. There is some action at a distance. This is required.

Do you think entanglement might be responsible any of that?

Greylorn Ell wrote:I've caused physical events to occur elsewhere without normal forms of information or energy transfer. The psi research field is replete with similar, documented evidence. I've observed events "before" they occurred. This is common, but few share their experiences for fear of ridicule.

Well, I won't ridicule it, but I have no such experience myself.

Greylorn Ell wrote:"Spooky" means, something we do not YET understand. Like TV in the 19th century, wherein Maxwell set out the four equations enabling the possibility.

I'm not sure that's what Einstein meant by it; I think he was fairly certain that there was no such thing as non local events.

Hi uwot,

Einstein's idea of "spookey action at a distance" is an argument for the following:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

This idea was also postulated by Leibniz a long time ago ,except he called it "pre-established harmony" Leibniz was probably trying to provide a solution to Cartesian dualism. Unfortunately for Leibniz nobody took took his theory seriously because it was simply incredulous. Hidden variables seem almost as incredulous in light of Bell's inequality. Einstein also thought his idea of a cosmological constant was a similar type of mistake.

So, why have these dead ideas of philosophers and physicists have come back life? Interestingly enough, pre-establishment is the thing I wanted to discuss with Greylorn, but you beat me to it.

Ginkgo wrote:Hi uwot,

Einstein's idea of "spookey action at a distance" is an argument for the following:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

Hi Ginkgo; isn't it more the case that hidden variable theories are arguments against spooky action at a distance?

Ginkgo wrote:This idea was also postulated by Leibniz a long time ago ,except he called it "pre-established harmony" Leibniz was probably trying to provide a solution to Cartesian dualism. Unfortunately for Leibniz nobody took took his theory seriously because it was simply incredulous.

I'll have to revisit the Monadology, but as I remember, Leibniz spoke of 'appetition', which in some ways is analogous to 'field', but I can't remember if it set a speed limit.

Ginkgo wrote:Hidden variables seem almost as incredulous in light of Bell's inequality.

Bell's inequality is something else I'll have look up again. I get that, when you draw out the tables, they don't add up (or something), but what is interesting to someone with no interest in maths, is that the experimental evidence supports it.

Ginkgo wrote:Einstein also thought his idea of a cosmological constant was a similar type of mistake.

As I understand it, the cosmological constant was introduced to support what should have been a collapsing universe. I think there are some who equate it with dark energy, but as with a lot of physics, we can see what is happening, but we cannot see the causes.

Ginkgo wrote:So, why have these dead ideas of philosophers and physicists have come back life? Interestingly enough, pre-establishment is the thing I wanted to discuss with Greylorn, but you beat me to it.

Well, at the end of the day, there is some material stuff or there isn't, there is some mental stuff of there isn't, there is some spatiotemporal stuff or there isn't and they all interact somehow, or they don't.

Greylorn Ell wrote: Bore,
You and Bill are destined to become great friends, and I wish you the best, in the truest American sense of the word. I do not want to know your nationality, lest I be tempted to subconsciously judge your fellow countrymen by your dismal level of competence.

The standard English language always capitalizes the names of other nations, no matter how they are used. This is a courtesy built into English. Even French fries, and certainly French, the elegant language.

Greylorn,

I do not know why you accord me so much importance, moreover to persist in the false!..

Okay, I let you know the scholastic uses in english through a simple example:

• The England (the States take a capital);
• An Englishman (the citizen take also a capital letter);
• the english language or the english people. In this last case, your opinion of elegance about french language is not relevant. Separated adjectives do not take a capital.

-I had already doubt about your intellectual honesty, taking my faith in Gingko for admitting blindly what he told me, what is not the case, as about the "false of Einstein", although I continue nevertheless to respect Gingko.

-I had already this doubt, but I begin to have also serious doubts about your basic culture as for your own english (and your notion of time when you took our discussion with Gingko).

To be honest, I think you are a frustrated teenager.

After that - I cannot be the police of your english use and I don't want (I have better to invest in time) -
you can answer that you use capitals for adjectives, in a way of courtesy, but it will make me even more skeptical...

uwot wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Hi uwot,

Einstein's idea of "spookey action at a distance" is an argument for the following:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory

Hi Ginkgo; isn't it more the case that hidden variable theories are arguments against spooky action at a distance?

Ginkgo wrote:This idea was also postulated by Leibniz a long time ago ,except he called it "pre-established harmony" Leibniz was probably trying to provide a solution to Cartesian dualism. Unfortunately for Leibniz nobody took took his theory seriously because it was simply incredulous.

I'll have to revisit the Monadology, but as I remember, Leibniz spoke of 'appetition', which in some ways is analogous to 'field', but I can't remember if it set a speed limit.

Ginkgo wrote:Hidden variables seem almost as incredulous in light of Bell's inequality.

Bell's inequality is something else I'll have look up again. I get that, when you draw out the tables, they don't add up (or something), but what is interesting to someone with no interest in maths, is that the experimental evidence supports it.

Ginkgo wrote:Einstein also thought his idea of a cosmological constant was a similar type of mistake.

As I understand it, the cosmological constant was introduced to support what should have been a collapsing universe. I think there are some who equate it with dark energy, but as with a lot of physics, we can see what is happening, but we cannot see the causes.

Ginkgo wrote:So, why have these dead ideas of philosophers and physicists have come back life? Interestingly enough, pre-establishment is the thing I wanted to discuss with Greylorn, but you beat me to it.

Well, at the end of the day, there is some material stuff or there isn't, there is some mental stuff of there isn't, there is some spatiotemporal stuff or there isn't and they all interact somehow, or they don't.

Yes, hidden variables are an argument against spookey action. Bell's theorem is generally regarded as mathematical proof- there is no spookey action. Many see Bell as providing an argument for non-locality.

The parallel I would like to draw is the relationship that exists between locality and Leibniz's monad theory. A longbow to draw at this stage, but it does overcome the problem of all types of dualism.


Who knows, Einstein and Leibniz may well be correct in the final analysis.

Ginkgo wrote:Yes, hidden variables are an argument against spookey action. Bell's theorem is generally regarded as mathematical proof- there is no spookey action.

That's odd. I thought it was evidende that there is, if not spooky, or even non local, at least superluminal action. What made it 'spooky' to Einstein was that Special Relativity said that couldn't happen.

Ginkgo wrote:Many see Bell as providing an argument for non-locality.

Which is how I understand it, at least, that's what I understand the experimental results to be showing.

Ginkgo wrote:The parallel I would like to draw is the relationship that exists between locality and Leibniz's monad theory. A longbow to draw at this stage, but it does overcome the problem of all types of dualism.

Well, I don't know if this is what you mean, but if Leibniz's idea of 'appetition' can be rendered as consciousness, or will in the language of later Germans, I suppose it would.

Ginkgo wrote:Who knows, Einstein and Leibniz may well be correct in the final analysis.

Who knows? I think the final analysis is a very long way off.

Ginkgo wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: I'm just saying that parroting the current arbitrary model is not doing any physics. What I'm trying to do is honest physics. I want a sense of how the components of the universe actually work, not a mathematically degenerative model of how they work. Those models are tweaked with every new super-collider, which they must be, because there is no physics to them.


I believe that this approach is essential to understanding the physics of human consciousness, which is my ultimate goal.

Yes, I agree and good luck with that.

Ginkgo,

Sorry because I took a lot of time in defending myself against him, and I lost the continuum of your discussion, and moreover of ours.

But there is a central question, above - and as you agree, I would like to know more, if you agree.

I think that trying any "ultimate" decomposition is only moving the problem to another place. I was also surprised because of corpuscular physics - of high energies or simply theoretical - in particular because I do not see any sense in the virtual photon in the interactions (I believe: of two electrons).

I was a prey of physics that I did not believe anymore, certainly moreover than Greylorn (if his studies are of 1963), but can we tell that - in a frequency of every new synchrotron ! - the models are not of physics ? I think Greylorn would say that there are no mechanics into them - I think there is a big difference between mechanics as such, and physics...

And I remember a physicist, who told that "quantic mechanics" should absolutely called quantic physics, precisely because of the previous reason.

I think there is a big deal in understanding the world in a way that precisely may not be mechanist...

otherwise, we certainly will ever think the world as causal training, what will give no more answer - only some illusion of understanding, or maybe some better precision.

I think Grelorn was overtaken in his courses, because he would think the world as isolated particles working as mechanics.

-So far as I know, proper corpuscular physics went after 1963, what can explain this state of affairs. But let's remember that even nuclear fusion for civil purposes were about to take 40 years in 1963 - and may most probably take 40 more years.

And particles in corpuscular physics are about to multiply them in collision (in synchrotrons), rather than to divide themselves. I do not think it is a fake. A well done theory about this phenomenon could lead to a revolutionary vision of the world - I mean: as physical one, absolutely different from mechanics.
------
N.B. to Gingko:
Do you think that what we believe can have even a few incidence on the world ?

NielsBohr wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: I'm just saying that parroting the current arbitrary model is not doing any physics. What I'm trying to do is honest physics. I want a sense of how the components of the universe actually work, not a mathematically degenerative model of how they work. Those models are tweaked with every new super-collider, which they must be, because there is no physics to them.


I believe that this approach is essential to understanding the physics of human consciousness, which is my ultimate goal.

Yes, I agree and good luck with that.

Ginkgo,

Sorry because I took a lot of time in defending myself against him, and I lost the continuum of your discussion, and moreover of ours.

But there is a central question, above - and as you agree, I would like to know more, if you agree.

I think that trying any "ultimate" decomposition is only moving the problem to another place. I was also surprised because of corpuscular physics - of high energies or simply theoretical - in particular because I do not see any sense in the virtual photon in the interactions (I believe: of two electrons).

I was a prey of physics that I did not believe anymore, certainly moreover than Greylorn (if his studies are of 1963), but can we tell that - in a frequency of every new synchrotron ! - the models are not of physics ? I think Greylorn would say that there are no mechanics into them - I think there is a big difference between mechanics as such, and physics...

And I remember a physicist, who told that "quantic mechanics" should absolutely called quantic physics, precisely because of the previous reason.

I think there is a big deal in understanding the world in a way that precisely may not be mechanist...

otherwise, we certainly will ever think the world as causal training, what will give no more answer - only some illusion of understanding, or maybe some better precision.

I think Grelorn was overtaken in his courses, because he would think the world as isolated particles working as mechanics.

-So far as I know, proper corpuscular physics went after 1963, what can explain this state of affairs. But let's remember that even nuclear fusion for civil purposes were about to take 40 years in 1963 - and may most probably take 40 more years.

And particles in corpuscular physics are about to multiply them in collision (in synchrotrons), rather than to divide themselves. I do not think it is a fake. A well done theory about this phenomenon could lead to a revolutionary vision of the world - I mean: as physical one, absolutely different from mechanics.
------
N.B. to Gingko:
Do you think that what we believe can have even a few incidence on the world ?

Hi Niels,

As far as the mechanics are concerned, Greylorn, uwot and a few others would be better qualified than myself to provide an answer. I could give you my overall opinion, but I am a bit busy at the moment. I will get back to you on this as soon as I am free.


Ginkgo

Thank you Gingko,

You are a gentleman.

uwot wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:I see two distinct forms of energy at the fundamental level. All known forms, matter, charge, velocity, gravitational potential, electromagnetic, are time dependent. There is another form that my earlier writings referred to as "raw" energy. The discovery of "dark energy" got me thinking that this is the same as my weakly-defined raw-energy, and needs a deeper understanding.

Dark energy is simply the name given to whatever is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. It quite nicely illustrates how concepts get woven into our understanding, because it is novel(ish). We don't know the cause, but we are very quick to ascribe 'substancehood' to it. I appreciate that your concept of 'raw energy' is weak, but all it has to do to be the same as dark energy, is to cause the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. If that isn't what you originally invoked raw energy for, they are not the same thing.

This is an interesting comment, and required some consideration time.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument, that there is a thing, dark energy. Now recall the old Zen tale of the four blind men fondling an elephant and trying to figure out what it is, each touching a part of it and basing his analysis upon that limited sensory perception. I don't recall the details, but the story went like, one of them played with the trunk (hose?), another grabbed a leg (pillar), touched the hide (wall), tail (rope), etc. In my version one would stand beneath the animal's dorsal orifice for a time (use your imagination).

The point of the tale was to show that a thing that exists is whatever it is, and has the properties its has, irrespective of our theories about it and our limited observations of its properties. Dark energy is thought to comprise 75% of the entire universe, and we only discovered it about 15 years ago. That's the equivalent of a humongous elephant. We haven't even tickled that critter, and serious fondling has yet to begin.

My "raw energy" notion came in a purely theoretical manner-- like someone who had never heard of "elephant" wandering through a jungle and finding a large destroyed baobab tree surrounded by seriously trampled plants and huge footprints, then extrapolating on the question, "What might the beast who did this look like?"

My "raw energy" concept was a theoretical necessity, derived from my extension of the experimental reality that events in this universe require the interaction of at least two opposing forces, a logical extension of Newton's Third Law of motion, and, given the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, an absolute requirement for a created universe.

At that point I'd not grasped the elephant's tail or even tripped over a turd, but I knew that something with the properties my theory required was out there.

I failed to pursue the theoretical questions in depth. I'd invented my little "raw energy" notion, but had not pursued its implications. Life got busy and ugly. I quit trying to write and lost touch with the kinds of people who once fueled new ideas, holing up in my private cave. Had I pursued the idea, my raw energy notion and Schulenberger's aether-concept might have yielded a theoretical prediction of dark energy a decade before its discovery. Had it done so, that would have been of no point, since there was not even a pop-sci journal that would have published a physics theory derived from theological considerations. As is the case today.

This was a lot of work to quibble with your comment, "If that isn't what you originally invoked raw energy for, they are not the same thing." You are mistaken. The thing, dark energy, is what it is. My early understanding of it remains valid (and limited), and my purpose in deriving that understanding is irrelevant. (If I was lost in the jungle looking for an outhouse, following the scent of shit, and discovered an elephant along the way, so what if I bumped into the elephant while looking for an outhouse? Roentgen's discovery of x-rays was not invalidated because he found evidence of them by accident.)

Your statement would be correct if, and only if, dark energy did not have the properties I had hypothesized, and was therefore irrelevant to Beon Theory.

As it happens, my correct hypothesis about one property of "raw" energy, plus the experimental observations behind dark energy, are sufficient to explain its behavior. Pissed at myself for not predicting the observations. Moving on, next step is to discover additional properties of dark energy. Found one related to elasticity last week, but have yet to take it anywhere. Wish that I'd not let my limited math skills slip, and that the physicists I worked with are dead. Alas.

Greylorn