Philosophy Now Forum

Philosophy of Physics. / My opinion. /

After reading some scientific ideas:

The more I study the more I know
The more I know the more ideas I have
The more ideas I have the more they abstract
The more they abstract the less I know the truth

And therefore conclusion from some article

" One of the best kept secrets of science is
that physicists have lost their grip on reality "

Israel Sadovnik. Socratus
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php? ... ay&id=1372
========== .
How to make physics ideas clear . . .

==== .

The masses in the Universe are very few.
The distances between stars are very far.
About 99% of the matter in the Universe is unseen.
Nobody knows what it is.
But God using his > 99% Hidden mass of the Universe
take control over the < 1% Visible mass of the Universe.
He is a smart physicist and mathematician .
He smiles and laughs when others say:
‘ The formulas are cleverer than men’.
========== . .
#
In my opinion if God exists, He/She/It would necessarily
to work in an Absolute Reference Frame and had set of
physical and mathematical laws to create everything
in the Universe.
If we find and understand this Absolute God’s House then
is possible step by step to find and understand God’s Physics
Laws, which Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Planck,
Einstein and many others scientists discovered.
#
If you don’t like the terminology like ‘ God existing’ then
I can change my sentence.
I will say:
If we find and understand an Absolute Reference Frame in the
Universe/ Nature then is possible step by step to find and understand
the sense of all Physics Laws, which Copernicus, Kepler, Newton,
Maxwell, Planck, Einstein and many others scientists discovered.
Then we can understand the Physics without paradoxes.
============= . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

Physics & Religion. / My opinion /

‘ The idea that the universe can be viewed as the compound
of two basic orders, the implicate and the explicate, can be
found in many other traditions.
The Tibetan Buddhists call these two aspects the void and
nonvoid. The nonvoid is the reality of visible objects. The
void, like the implicate order, is the birthplace of all things
in the universe, . . .
. . . only the void is real and all forms in the objective world
are illusory, . . . .
The Hindus call the implicate level of reality Brahman.
Brahman is formless but is the birthplace of all forms in
visible reality, which appear out of it and then enfold back
into it in endless flux.
. . . consciousness is not only a subtler form of matter,
but it is more fundamental than matter, and in the Hindu
cosmology it is matter that has emerged from consciousness,
and not the other way around. Or as the Vedas put it, the
physical world is brought into being through both the
‘ veiling’ and ‘ projecting’ powers of consciousness.
. . . the material universe is only a second- generation
reality, a creation of veiled consciousness, the Hindus
say that it is transitory and unreal, or ‘ maya’.
. . .
This same concept can be found in Judaic thought.
. . . . in shamanistic thinking . . . . . .
. . . . . .
Like Bohm, who says that consciousness always has its
source in the implicate, the aborigines believe that the
true source of the mind is in the transcendent reality of
the dreamtime. Normal people do not realize this and
believe that their consciousness is in their bodies.
. . . . .
The Dogan people of the Sudan also believe that the
physical world is the product of a deeper and more
fundamental level of reality . . . . . .’
=== .
Book / The Holographic Universe.
Part 3 / 9. Pages 287 – 289.
By Michael Talbot. /
==================== . . .
My questions after reading this book.

Is it possible that Physics confirmed and proved the
Religion philosophy of life ?
How is it possible to understand the Religion philosophy
of life from modern Physics view?
#
My opinion.
Fact.
The detected material mass of the matter in the
Universe is so small (the average density of all
substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it cannot ‘close’ the
Universe into sphere and therefore our Universe
as whole is ‘open’, Endless Void / Nothingness /
Vacuum : T=0K.
Quantum Physics says the Vacuum is the birthplace
of all ‘ virtual’ particles . Nobody knows what there are,
but ‘the virtual particles’ change the Vacuum in a
local places and create Nonvoid / Material / Gravity
World with stars, planets and all another objects and
subjects in the Universe.
=== .
Without Eternal/ Infinite Void / Vacuum physics makes no sense.
But as Paul Dirac said:
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum,
in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics.
Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum,
how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex ? "
================== . .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

Different points of view.
1.
In Physics we trust. / Tarun Biswas /
and plus millions of other believers .
2.
Science is not always as objective as we would like to believe.
/ Michael Talbot. / and plus few others.
3.
Religion or Physics ? Faith or Knowledge ?
/ some doubtful people. /
4.
Science and religion in tandem can become a great force
to liberate the mind and help the humans to a fuller and better
understanding of reality.
/ G. S. Sidhu / and plus some individuals .
===== .
P.S.
In Physics we trust. Is it correct ?
Yes, it is logically correct. Why ?
Because only Physics can logically explain us
the Ultimate Nature of Reality.
=========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... 3624&st=15
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... 547&st=105
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2548
================== . .

The tangled SRT.
==== .
Dr. Kanda wrote: The whole SR is complete nonsense.

Socratus.
The Einstein’s SRT is right but its interpretation isn’t correct.
Why I say so ?

Dr. Kanda wrote: ‘ The question is asked
What is v in the Lorentz transformation? ‘

Socratus.
The Lorentz transformation uses two kinds of speed:
classical Galilean / Newtonian relative speed (v = dx /dt )
and Michelson/ Morley constant speed ( c=1). The interrelation
between them brings to introduce relativistic time, length and
another relativistic physical parameters.
Question.
Can we take classical Galilean / Newtonian body / object / particle
that moves with relative speed (v = dx /dt ) and add it to SRT ?
I think, not. Why ? Because Einstein wrote in his paper about
“ On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies.” And we know that
only an electrodynamics body produces electromagnetic waves in its
movement but about classical Galilean / Newtonian body / object /
particle we cannot say it. The classical Galilean / Newtonian body
cannot produce electromagnetic waves. So, on which right we pull
Galilean / Newtonian particle into SRT ? We don’t have such right.
On which right we compare them? We don’t have right to compare
them. Maybe therefore Dr. Kanda wrote:
‘The whole SR is complete nonsense.’

In the other words, the SRT says only about the electrodynamics
of moving body and we must forget about classical Galilean /
Newtonian body / object / particle into SRT.

What is the situation now ?
Now we have two electrodynamics bodies in SRT.
And one of them, which moves with constant speed ( c=1)
sees that other electrodynamics body changes its movement/
speed according to the Lorentz transformation.

Theoretically two scenarios are possible now:
1.
The changed electrodynamics body’s speed is less than constant
speed, it means c< 1 ( for example in another mediums).
2.
The changed speed of electrodynamics body is more than constant
speed, it means c > 1 ( for example in tachyon theory the constant
speed c=1 is minimal ).
3.
Theoretically and practically these both events are possible
( in my opinion).
==== .
P.S.
#
Most of the curious things in the theory of relativity are
connected with the velocity of light.
/ ABC of Relativity. Chapter 3. page 26. B. Russell. /
(Why is it ‘curious things’?
Because Maxwell gave grounds for thinking that quantum
of light is an electromagnetic wave.
But simultaneous quantum of light must be corpuscular too.
It is hard to understand this ‘curious thing ‘ when wave and
particle are connected as something unit . Socratus.)
#
The paradoxes of the SRT are only paradoxes because we are
unaccustomed to the points of view, and in the habit of taking
things granted when we have no right to do so.
/ ABC of Relativity. Chapter 5. page 48. B. Russell. /
#
The SRT arose as a way of accounting for the facts
of electromagnetism.
/ ABC of Relativity. Chapter 6. page 53. B. Russell. /
( Not the facts of classical Galilean / Newtonian mechanic.
Socratus. )
#
The general formula in question is the ‘Lorentz transformation’,
which tells, when one body is moving in a given manner
relatively to another, . . . .
/ ABC of Relativity. Chapter 6. page 63. B. Russell. /
( One electrical body is moving, not a mechanical object
like a rocket moves. It is impossible to compare them. Socratus.)
#
One thing which emerges is that physics tells us much less
about the physical world than we thought it did.
/ ABC of Relativity. Chapter 15. page 148. B. Russell. /
( And H. Hertz said that formulas cleverer us.
In my opinion, when Hertz and Russell said that the reason is
we cannot understand the nature of photon and electron. Socratus.)
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
www.socratus.com
=================================== .

Interesting thoughts Socratus, being that my current read is Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku.

John W. Kelly wrote:Interesting thoughts Socratus, being that my current read is Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku.

===========================
I think there are two Worlds: Vacuum and Gravity.
What was before Vacuum or Gravity ?
Does Gravity exist in Vacuum or vice versa?
== .
Fact and Speculation.
1.
Fact.
The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it cannot ‘close’ the Universe into sphere and
therefore our Universe as whole is ‘open’, endless Vacuum.
But what to do with the infinite Universe the physicists don't know.
The concept of infinite/ eternal means nothing
to a scientists. They do not understand how they could
draw any real, concrete conclusions from this characteristic.
A notions of ‘more, less, equally, similar ’ could not
be conformed to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity / Eternity is something, that has no borders,
has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
« If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated » .
Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.
Therefore they invented an abstract ‘dark matter and dark energy’.
They say: ‘ 90% or more of the matter in the Universe is unseen.’
And nobody knows what it is.
2.
Speculation.
Unknown ‘dark matter ‘ it is matter which makes up the difference
between observed mass of a galaxies and calculated mass……
which….will …’close ‘ ….the Universe into sphere, as …….
as……the astrophysicists want.
Question:
How can the 99% of the Hidden ( dark ) matter in the Universe
create the 1% of the Visible matter ?
========================== . .
#
Now it is considered that Newton / Einstein's laws
of gravitation are basis of physics, the first laws of Universe.
But the detected material mass of the matter in the Universe
is so small that gravitation field, as whole, doesn't work
in the Universe.
So, the Newton / Einstein's laws of gravitation are correct only
in the small and local part of Universe and we cannot take them
as the first ones.
What can the first law of the Universe be?
All galaxies , all gravitation fields exist in Vacuum (T=0K).
Gravitational effects took place only in a small area of Infinite Vacuum.
It is impossible to use GRT to the Universe as a whole.
Vacuum is “ The first law of the Universe.”
The Physics is first of all Vacuum.
Vacuum is the Source of the Universe .
Vacuum is the Absolute Reference Frame.
Without Eternal and Infinite Vacuum Physics makes no sense.
========== . .
#
Comment:
Socratus... the irony being, of course,
that there is no such thing as an absolute frame of reference.
/ dkt80 / and many others.
????????????????
=== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.

What does Religion expect from modern Science ?
What can modern Science learn from Religion ?
===========================================

What does Philosophy expect from modern Science ?
====================

What does Religion expect from modern Science ?

What can modern Science learn from Religion ?

What does Philosophy expect from modern Science ?

Philosophy expects Science to butt of its affairs.

The Supreme Being expects both Science to Philosophy to bow before Him in awe.

And Science being only a tool does not expect anything from Religion and Philosophy.

socratus wrote:What does Religion expect from modern Science ?

Technology and facts like everyone else I'd guess.

What can modern Science learn from Religion ?

To put ethics and morals at the forefront of their minds when reseaching and experimenting.

ray wrote:

What does Religion expect from modern Science ?

What can modern Science learn from Religion ?

What does Philosophy expect from modern Science ?

Philosophy expects Science to butt of its affairs.

The Supreme Being expects both Science to Philosophy to bow before Him in awe.

And Science being only a tool does not expect anything from Religion and Philosophy.

There are different scientific opinions.
For example.
John Polkinghorne and his book ‘ Quantum theory’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
=== .
I like to read his books because they raise many questions.
And these questions give information for brain to think.
John Polkinghorne took epigraph of his book ‘ Quantum theory’
the Feynman’s thought : ‘ I think I can safely say that
nobody understands quantum mechanics. ‘
Why?
Because, he wrote:
‘ ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
metaphysical decision ’.
/ preface/
‘ Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
and these are the subject of continuing dispute’
/ page 40/
‘ If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
it is that the world is full of surprises’
/ page 87 /
‘ Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
include: . . . .’
/ page 88 /
‘Quantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .’
/ page92 /
‘ Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and
instructive phenomenon, . .’
/ page 92 /

Togetherness.
John Polkinghorne, as a realist, want to know
‘ what the physical world is actually like’, but until now
physicists don’t have the whole picture of Universe.
And in my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing
what to understand the problems of creating the Universe:
‘ They will demand for their eventual settlement not only
physical insight but also metaphysical decision ’.
=== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
=====

socratus wrote:What does Philosophy expect from modern Science ?

Technology and facts, some ethics and morals, some awareness of epistemology and metaphysics as applied to their theories, and for many metaphysicians support for their pet theories.

Arising_uk wrote:

socratus wrote:What does Philosophy expect from modern Science ?

Technology and facts, some ethics and morals,
some awareness of epistemology and metaphysics as applied to their theories,
and for many metaphysicians support for their pet theories.

It is strange and unexpectedly to read this, but I am agree.

How so? Socratus.

p.s.
Please accept this in the spirit it is intended, i.e. helping someone refine their good grasp of another language.

"It is strange and unexpectedly to read this, but I am agree."

The beauty of English is that I can understand this but there are more correct ways to say it;

"It was strange and unexpected to read this but I agree."

"It was strange and unexpected to read this but I am in(of) agreement."

Although you could get away with "is" instead of "was" I suppose.