- Rohit M Parikh added an answer:What do you think about the variations of communication skills between virtuality and reality?
as an example, here in RG, virtual communication skills are excellent, while real communications may look harder. the same is applied in other online media such as face book. how to explain such differences.
thanks in advance.
Communication skill is a reflection of our action meeting with the end of the person or professional who need your assistance in this respect .In the communication remain certainly the foundation of the communication .
Instances are notice that reality can not be ignore in the life of certain facts which may have a disturbing moral code however in the light with the effect of virtuality we may make our communication in the befitting manner so that the real aspects of communication may gets served..Following
- Marius Dejess added an answer:What are the ultimate components of the Universe?Some contemporary theories appear to create “sinkholes” in the extrapolation process toward the more fundamental. Special Relativity expresses an equivalency between matter and energy. The question “Is matter really energy condensed?” posed by Marcus Borges illustrates this conundrum. Condensation is often applied to situations where energy among matter components is expelled. The enigma is intensified when experiments are interpreted to indicate the creation of charged particles from photons, i.e. electrons and positrons. Where do charges lurk within energy? Quantum Mechanics presents dual personalities for bodies of matter; i.e. wavelike versus particulate. The question “What are valid interpretations of the quantum double slit experiment?” asked by Vang Lee illustrates this conundrum. A pathway that connects Relativity with Quantum Mechanics has not been established.
In various niches of the scientific realm components and properties are tailored to accommodate conceptual visions (theories). Matter distorts space-time in one niche while it exchanges gravitons in another niche to mediate gravitational effects. Some particles, including gravitons, are proposed to be massless. The gravitational effects of black holes supposedly do not allow the escape of photons. Do black holes exchange gravitons?
Contemporary theories as a result of their abstruse nature defy attempts at a consistent visualization. If one had a grasp of the ultimate components of a system, it should be possible, in theory, to envision a structure for the system that accounts for the phenomena as detected at the observational level and to explain the utility of theories. Where does one start? Initially it is proposed that individuals attempt to provide candidates for the ultimate components based on their perspectives. Since the musings of Democritus, storehouses of scientific observations have been accumulated that provide a background of information available for interpretation and reinterpretation. The objective is to reduce the “sinkholes” in the landscape of our scientific endeavors.
A proposal for the ultimate components is presented under William Blackmon at Researchgate.net. It has been a solo venture and criticism would be appreciated.
This may seem too simplistic, but in simplicity there is truth.
The ultimate components of the totality of existence which is more than just the material universe studied by physicists, are first the entity cause of everything else that is not the cause entity itself; then second everything else that we know to exist including ourselves or we are not in contact with at all but can only suspect to exist, they all are the effects of the cause entity of them (the effects of the cause entity). That entity is what I call the first cause, God.
You see, physicists do not go into the first cause of everything that is the effect of the first cause, physicists only want to find the ultimate parts whatsoever that make up the universe which they are studying, this universe is just a part of the totality of existence which, as I said above, is larger than just the universe studied by physicists.
So, physicists are looking for or trying to formulate a theory of everything, how?
Okay, tell me how they are looking for or trying to formulate a theory of everything. is it not by searching for another component within the universe itself which is the thing in charge of everything else?
So, my question to physicists and everyone else here and everywhere who happen to visit this webpage and come to my post here, is this component to be found and to be a part of the theory of everything, is this the cause of everything that is an effect, or it is itself still in need of a cause.
Please think about the need for man to think of a first cause, instead of evading all the time i.e. among some today's celebrity physicists and atheist thinkers, evading i.e. avoiding this first cause when they do not have any reason at all to avoid it, except for their taboo or phobia of this first cause concept and also entity.
Let me read your reactions.Following
- Rajat Pradhan added an answer:Why are there symmetries in nature?This question struck me when answering another related one. But nevertheless I feel that it is a good enough question to be discussed more widely taking in respondents from all fields.
This is a very good point that you have raised. The real symmetries in nature are truly approximate. We idealize them for purposes of convenience in dealing with a problem.
Thanks and regards,
- Paul Hubert Vossen added an answer:What are the limits of measurement in science?When I was in high school Bohr's atom of shells, s and p orbitals was introduced in chemistry. Realization was automatic that the world was explained according to theory that was verified by experiment. Through college and graduate school, looking for more complete explanation, theory is challanged but it is not brought to question "what is an electron or proton, if they have mass but are visible only in the sense that they emit light energy as photons that also have mass, "spots of light in orbit around nuclei?, the atom a solar system in minature"? Physicists will say this is not the picture they have evolved, but all that remains is the image of equations on a chalkboard, at best 'the image of things of a particle nature in alteration with things of a light nature'. Can a pieced-together stepwise reality of this nature be accepted? In the Feyman quote below pieces are added that can break any of the established laws "they are not directly observeable" or affect "causality". In this same meaning though neither electrons, protons, photons or atoms are observable and their causal effects are but a matter of humanly constructed theory and similarly based experimental apparatus. The possibility exists that theory and theory based apparatus entail one another and all that might be gotten is that the real universe is identical in this respect...i.e. existence entails the experienced universe and visa-verse.
"You found out in the last lecture that light doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find out that it doesn't go only at the speed of light! It may surprise you that there is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower than the conventional speed, c." These virtual photons, however, do not violate causality or special relativity, as they are not directly observable and information cannot be transmitted causally in the theory." (from "Varying c in quantum theory" http://www.researchgate.net/go.Deref.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FVariable_speed_of_light)
Long time ago, out of pure necessity, psychologists have started to worry about measurement in psychology (and closely related disciplines). They've built up an amazing stock of knowledge about and models of measurement, which may equally well be applied in other disciplines. Unfortunately, I suspect that most of these highly sophisticated developments are unknown outside a rather small circle of experts, probably because no one would expect such deep theorizing in psychology. I am sure that many physicists and economists could learn a lot about measurement in their resp. disciplines by having a closer look at this field.
P.S.: However, it may be that physics deals with a very peculiar sort of phenomena for which only one very special measurement theory and related procedures suffice. How fortunate! See e.g. the books and other works of B. Roy FriedenFollowing
- Marcel M. Lambrechts added an answer:Do co-authors always know the true contributions of the other participants in a publication?People often publish together, but does each participant in a multi-author publication truly know why co-authors were included in these publications? For instance, what fraction of the time were the contributors (co-authors) together to conduct the published research?
The contributions can be defined in different ways (data sampling in difficult conditions that can take months, private discussions that can take minutes, data analysss than can take less than an hour, reasoning, ideas/suggestions that can take a couple of seconds, administration tasks that can take days, looking for financial support that can take months, updating literature that can take days/months.....). All will contribute to the final story.
By the way, how many senior researchers/professors that write a short story based on own initiatives are willing to add co-authors?Following
- Ali Abdil Razzaq Muhammed Noori Aldallal added an answer:What is time? Is it linear or cyclic?My contention is that some regard time as an arrow or linear while some religions regard it cyclic (Kaal-Chakra). Also in his latest book, “The Grand Design” Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.” By inference and reference to his love of M-Theory, time may be considered as cyclic. Time starts when forces (super-gravity) and matter procreate themselves into universe spontaneously and it ends when big crunch occurs and again starts with the big bang spontaneously produce space.
Time has traditionally been viewed as either like a circle or like a line. Plato, Aristotle and many other Greek and Roman thinkers, particularly the Stoics, advoated a circular view of time. Linear time first appeared in Hebrew and Zoroastrian Iranian writings. Seneca was an advocate of linear time. Augustine thought time was specifically like a line segment. It had a distinct beginning and end, from Genesis to judgement day. Later on Aquinas agreed, and even further on Newton mathematically represented time as a line in his equations. Prominent thinkers such as Barrow, Leibniz, Locke and Kant all agreed with a linear type of time, and in the 19th century time was widely regarded, in both philosophy and science, like a line. It wasn't until 1949, when Kurt Godel, working with Einstein's equations, developed "closed loops of proper time", which are semi-circular in that they allow one to end up where they started after going forward in time. for more please read at the following link.
- Enrique Ariza added an answer:Modern Philosophical/Scientific perspective on death?The death of any person brings paramount influence on the person who is close to the deceased person. My question is, what perspective contemporary philosophy and physics hold on death or life after death?
My messages are brokenFollowing
- Donald G Palmer added an answer:Is Space a Complex Continuum?Currently mathematics uses the Real Numbers to define a continuum - as in the Real Number line.
If so much of physics makes use of Complex Numbers, why isn't there a Complex Continuum defining space?
Quaternions would seem to define a space where each spatial axis is complex (only the 'temporal' axis remains 'Real': Q = w +ix+jy +kz).
This would suggest that we are using two different models for space - a Real continuum and a Complex continuum model for spatial axes.
If this is true, then we should expect difficulties when crossing between these models.
Will these multidimensional functions be Real functions or Complex valued functions?
If complex, are the field lines complex? Which would indicate a complex continuum is needed, but we only have a Real continuum. So we need new mathematical tools.Following
- Hans van Leunen added an answer:Does the Copenhagen Interpretation require a facelift?Set Theory gives, by its nature, as much attention to individual behavior as to group behavior. The famous Copenhagen Interpretation (40 year old Niels Bohr, 24 year old Werner Heisenberg, 1925) places emphasis on group behavior denying possible logic in individual events. However, Cantor's Universe allows logic in group behavior (group events) as well as in individual behavior (individual events). Does the Copenhagen Interpretation require a facelift? This question is closely related to the matter of the Higg's particle that - as per its definition to be an exclusive mass-particle - is not supported by Cantor's Universe that brings all into relationship sometimes visible, detectable, sometimes not. For the same reason an exclusive mass-particle like the Higg's particle can't exist. Cantor's Universe gives new long vistas with hidden and unhidden logic. For this reason the Copenhagen Interpretation should, in terms of Cantor's Universe, be reviewed and its text be corrected/expanded. What is your opinion?
See also http://www.thehiggsfake.com/ on the Higgs-matter
A variation of the Copenhagen interpretation is the replacement of the measurement by the recurrent process of embedding the owner of the wave function in its embedding continuum. It means that at the instant of embedding the owner has an exact location. After the the undisturbed embedding the wave function is restored and a new embedding is initiated. That takes place at a new location. That new location is not known beforehand but the probability of this location is specified by the squared modulus of the value of the wave function for this new location. If the owner is actually detected at this location, then the wave function is not restored. The owner does not disappear, but is is converted in something new that has a different wave function. The owner might also disintegrate into multiple objects or it may be absorbed into something else.
If the recurrent embedding stays undisturbed then after a while the owner has hopped along a stochastic path of locations that together form a coherent swarm.
The elements of the swarm are locations that can be represented by quaternions and these quaternions can be interpreted as eigenvalues of a normal operator that resides in a separable (quaternionic) Hilbert space. The eigenvectors of the operators span a closed subspace of that Hilbert space. That subspace represents the owner of the wave function. This subspace can be considered as an eigensubspace of a second operator that adds sets of properties to the eigensubspace. These properties concern the dimension of the subspace, the statistical characteristics of the swarm, the discrete symmetry properties of the swarm and the dynamic properties of the hopping path. Together, with the current location of the owner this specifies a much richer state of the owner than the wave function can give.
This picture fits on owners that are (massive) elementary particles. Composites correspond to a much more complicated picture. In composites apart from locations also superposition coefficients play a role. They add to the dimension of the subspace that represents the composite.Following
- Eugene F Kislyakov added an answer:What is reality? What are facts?I have noticed some scientists/scholars to equate reality to facts and facts to reality with assertion. In my opinion using them synonymously is a fallacy which must be consciously avoided, because in: Facts are statements about some events or circumstances that exist or that have occurred. Facts are observable (measurable), verifiable and indisputable whatever measure of reason and logic is applied to or reject them.
Reality (Constructed, Objective, Subjective, Empirical, Instrumental and other Realities) is nothing but a collective opinion - an idea in which some confidence is placed or, a reasonable collective representation of “the way things are.” Reality is not simply acknowledged, but must be discovered or reasoned and is liable to falsification.
For example, we know it is fact day will come after night. It is a fact that the Earth rotates on its axis resulting in day and night. It can be verified or observed from space. It also can be verified that the Earth revolves around the Sun. On the basis of these two facts we reckon time. But, what is reality of time? To some it is linear, to some opinions it is cyclic and to some it is fractal. To convince one of one of these three realities of time, it is to be reasoned out on the base of some facts.
There is an objective reality out there, but we view it through the spectacles of our beliefs, attitudes, and values. ~David G. Myers
there can be only finite set of facts, but reality may be infinite.
- Oliver Hoffmann added an answer:What is information?Is everything information? If yes, then we need new kind of physics, informational physics.
Everything we know about the Universe is information, but why are most physicists blind to that?
First of all, "information" is what a human subject interprets into a "form". Subjectively speaking, information is meaning. Objectively speaking, information is a pattern. For the purpose of constructing information technology, Shannon merged objective forms with subjective meaning via standardized interpretation in the shape of dictionaries and "objective" predictability of symbols and created the abstract information unit of information content "bit". After the success of IT this abstract objectivist notion of information has been adopted by the mainstream and apparently now enters physics as well. I would think that sooner or later the notion "information" will bring back subjective reality into physics.Following
- Frank Landis added an answer:Could this be The One-inch Equation That Explains All Physical Laws: X=0, where x is everything or anything?If the Universe is simulation, then this simple formula makes the most sense to me, because the easiest way to store information is to compress it so that it becomes effectively nothing (zero), and all or almost all physics and math formulas we can rewrite in a form X=0, for example Newton second law we can write as F-m*a=0, where F-m*a=X. I think that this formula unites even Philosophy and Physics, because even at the first moments of Big Bang things were so different and opposite then now, that we can say they were 0, nothing, so this 0 nothing became everything X, and this everything X still always tends to be effectively 0, nothing.
So if X=0, and it is just my humble hypothesis based on my physics and philosophy knowledge, do not take it too seriously, but tell me your opinion.
When i think about most physics laws and formulas they are so simple and i wonder why people didn't earlier found them out, maybe the reason is that they expected something more complicated, but Nature is actually the more you know it and understand it, very simple in the root, and what could be more simple then X=0?
We can write all physics formulas as this, and we can explain really a lot with this one, and if we can not something, it doesn't have to be that this formula is not right, it can just be that we don't have all informations to prove that this is right, and i think that this x can be anything or everything, the important thing is that when we integrate anything and everything in infinity that somehow the result will be zero.There is no ontological philosopher without infinite (zero) answers.Following
- Bertrand Wong asked a question:What is reality?How can reality be interpreted or defined? How can reality be proved?Following
- Harshadray N Sanghrajka asked a question:What is the reality of time?In Jain philosophy, time is defined as a reality. Two views have to be kept in mind: the pragmatic world view defines time with identification of day, date hour, minute, second, etc., whereas the absolute view defines time as a flow of single smallest fraction of time, each moment being the same as the last flowing incessantly but only one at a time. Refer: Tattvartha Sutra; Dravya Samgraha; Jain texts defining reality.Following
- Paul M.W. Hackett added an answer:Can anyone tell me where this Leibniz quotation comes from?I have just been reading about Leibniz and I wonder if anyone can help me by telling me where Leibniz said "wholes have only a borrowed reality - borrowed from the reality of their parts". I am not sure whether this an exact quotation or an approximation.I agree, this was a lesson in forgotten Latin from many years ago.Following
- Mahesh T S asked a question:What is Atma? Is there any suitable explanation to be given for the concept?Many of us regard that Atma which is frequently mentioned in the scriptures as Soul. But when we go into the deeper description of the concept, then we observe it to be the energy which takes up various forms as a living and also as a non-living. It has nothing to do in this world or universe but still it has a vital role in this universe. The energy can neither be created nor it gets destroyed so is the description of Atma. When we observe and compare the facts and the theories we come to this understanding. What do you all think?Following
- Chris E Buddenhagen added an answer:Why has the concept of teleology made such a comeback in the sciences and social sciences in recent years?Mark Perlman writes: "Teleology has certainly made a comeback in philosophical circles in the last thirty years. It went from a suspect or disreputable notion, ready for elimination, to the hottest topic in philosophy of biology, psychology and mind."
Perlman, M. 2004, “The modern philosophical resurrection of teleology”, The Monist, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 3-51.
Why was the notion of teleology abandoned and why has it been revived?I'd be interested in people's thoughts about a related concept in evolutionary biology: the term "derived"....Following
- Hashem Adnan Kilani added an answer:Can you distinguish between Free Will and Destiny?Our actions produce results that do not always correspond to what we intended. Yet when they do, some of us will qualify such outcomes as intended consequences, whereas others attribute them to destiny, or unintended consequence. What is the basis of such distinction,? and how can we tell?People in general in the Arab world tend to place their destiny in the hands of fate and to believe that all that happens is God's will. This attitude is good because it develops acceptance of anything happen to one’s life. However, it can lead to excessive fatalism. On the other hand, people who live elsewhere, tend to place more emphasis on free will. Free will in this context implies that we feel we should get whatever we want out of life and, in extreme cases, which life owes us. Therefore people are motivated to exert effort in to change the world they live in.
Terms such as predestination and predetermination arise in the literature. Predestination is the religious belief that fate, Gods or mystical forces control all events in human existence. Genetic Predetermination is the biological concept that inherited genes predetermine most human traits, such as intelligence, appearance and temperament.
We as I believe possess both the predestination and the predetermination in different ratios. We never chose our parents but since we incarnate us should pre determine and plan our life. This issue can’t be covered in and discussed in short. It is a philosophical issue that interacts with the physics of action reaction and causality. I stop here because it is notorious subject.Following
- Hatem Maraqah added an answer:Are physical laws governing the universe of Parmenides wherein nothing is happening or the dynamic universe of Heracleitos of eternal becoming?The famous de Witt-Wheeler equation, i.e. the reformulation of Einstein’s general theory of relativity in terms of electromagnetic equations, governs a timeless universe. Barbour cited this remarkable quote of Dirac (1963): “… This result has led me to doubt how fundamental the four-dimensional requirement in physics is …”. Indeed, all physical states are directly related to one another and time becomes redundant. However, there are two types of time flows. Firstly, there is the thermodynamic evolution from order to chaos, secondly time emerges as evolution to more complex organic forms of life from chaos to order.Physical laws governing the universe but by conrolling from the God to everything happeningFollowing
- Ian Eagleson added an answer:Are transcendental idealism and transcendal realism really as incompatible as Kant (and for that matter H.Alison) argues?I find myself going in a paradoxical loop when I think about the distinctions. Insofar that it seems that the two need each other instead of one being valid over another.
For example, let us begin by accepting Kant's refutation of t.realism. T. idealism allows us to demarcate between noumena and phenomena. The phenomena is of an empirical idealist existence. Yet my question is, does not the intersubjectivity constituted out of empirical idealism create a type of transcendental realism? As soon as he puts the thought to paper, and write a symbol to be interpreted by another, does he not instantiate an existence that he previously refuted?To further comment on Kant's criticism of the alternative (transcendental realist) views, if space were a real thing in which objects reside, how, he would ask, do we come to comprehend the order of things in space? He would reject the idea of direct perception on grounds that many do today. Essentially, direct perception theory leaves out the role of comprehending in the comprehending of the order of things in space. We don't simply occupy space with other things, we (also) experience them. He regards experience of objects as impossible to explain in terms of a mere passive reception alone. What it takes to judge WHAT is the source of the content of experience is missing from that picture, (the picture associated with Newton). If space were merely a relational properly among things (as in Leibniz), then space would be a thoroughgoing conceptual (interpretive) overlay contributed by the mind. But this reduces to an uncritical idealism, since all the parts of any object are in space. This view would be consistent with a kind of conceptualism for which there would be no epistemic role for what is received in perception (though perception may certainly have, on this view, a merely causal role). Here there is no pre-relational (nonconceptual) presentation to which order may be attributed. The very ordering criterion is subverted.
We don't merely receive, and we don't fill in all the content of experience (conceptually) from mere causal "impingements." A capacity for a presentational ordering, pre-conceptually, is required. This presentational role is the role of sensibility and intuition in Kant, and this role directly implies transcendental idealism.Following
- Afaq Ahmad added an answer:Are there any mathematics for which there is absolutely no application in physics?It is interesting how maths is useful for describing the physical world. But are there any branches of mathematics that are totally useless for physics? Why? Could it be that we perhaps anthropocentrically chose to follow branches of math that are interesting to us (ie. could have possible application)? To prove a point, could we invent a branch of math that is totally useless?
Could we come up with a sophisticated group theory for the game of chess? Is the reason no one has attempted that because it would be in fact utterly useless with an unexciting loss of generality?Dear Professor Derek Abbott,
I have not heard and experienced about any use of Galois field and MOD theory in Physics.Following
- Cosmin Tudor Ciocan added an answer:It is possible to have a real dialogue between science and religion? If affirmative, which science and which religion are we talking about?Many philosophers, scientists and even theologians deemed utopian the dialogue between the two totally different systems of explanation of reality. In fact, none of the two has such an opening because of the impossibility of reconciling their visions.(for Glenn): The premise you are mentioning is not mine, but is a general view of the perspective issued here.
First possible answer would be here: (which science) one who assumes the limits of its knowledge and does not set itself up as in possession of the `final` truth
and (which religion) one that is not obsessed with fundamentalism.
This does not mean that each must give up their healthy ideas and their knowledge available, but merely to accept that maybe there is also another opinion, to listen to her and to try to understand it.Following
- Nainan Varghese added an answer:Do u think in our universe is fully created with energy onlyour universe is fully created with energy and all other things is only the change in that energy a/c to different dimension onlyKindly see http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0104 for some details.
- Bill Johnson added an answer:Does Critical Realism contain a theory of truth?Critical realism proceeds from the premise that in order to be a coherent form of enquiry the natural sciences presuppose that there is a material reality which is the object of enquiry. Scientific propositions, it is argued, are true if they correspond to the reality that they purport to describe or explain. But the critical realist argues that explanations are ontologically different to the material states that they are explaining and cannot therefore be understood as corresponding to them. In taking this view, does critical realism let go of the hand of truth?Mike I am not a Virtue Ethicist, but I am close. I am an Aristotelian, and somewhat of a Thomist. That would interest me very much. My Bodleian card needs to be reactivated in order to make the trip fully worthwhile, but yes, I am very interested. Thank you. I have to run this morning, but I'll look more closely at this later. I was looking at the program you work with in education a couple of days ago and am interested in speaking with you about it.
Best Wishes - BillFollowing
- Siddhartha Kumar Lahiri asked a question:What is the meaning of 'law will take its own course'?In public conversations, 'law will take its own course' tag has almost become a cliche. Corrupt politicians are very often found to take refuge under this umbrella to lengthen the courtroom proceedings and buy time. Moreover, 'law of the land' is also used very frequently. Thus, 'law' can be universal as well as local as per the aforesaid coinage. What is the institutional perception of 'law' as such?Following
- Clifford Miller added an answer:Did surrealism influence science?Surrealism, as an aesthetic movement in the creative arts, as a means to 'extend the reality', challenging the normative mode of appreciating the reality, has contributed tremendously in different forms of expressions during the twentieth century. Salvador Dali, the great Spanish painter; Luis Bunuel, the famous film maker and many prominent figures subscribed surrealism. The basic elements responsible for the growth of surrealism like questioning the reality, the existing belief systems are also essential to promote research minds. However, we seldom come across scientists influenced by surrealism. Why is it so? Is there any fundamental contradiction?I doubt very much that surrealism influenced post WW1 or WW2 science much or at all. [However, it might take a great deal of reading of biographies of scientists to discern if any art influenced their thinking, so I cannot write from that kind of knowledge.]
One reason it is unlikely is that science was already on what might once have been considered metaphysical or surreal paths well before WW1.
Nine years before WW1 started, in 1905, Einstein published the theory of special relativity [that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and that the speed of light in a vacuum is independent of the motion of all observers].
Einsteinian General Relativity was published in 1915, one year after the start and three years before the end of WW1 and that was after 10 years of thinking following the special theory of relativity.
I would conjecture the reason why science was not influenced by surrealism is because scientists when endeavouring to explain their observations of the physical world always have had to consider what might be thought surreal by others. It is part of being intellectual and of conceptual thinking.Following
About Nature of Reality
Group explores nature of reality