Discussion
Started 15 August 2023

DEFINING THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs)

DEFINING THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs, meant for the theoretical approach in physics)
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
In the definition of the ontology of physics (generally as the study of the cosmos), I shall posit the necessity of the highest possible grounds that I find as fundamental for physics and philosophy alike. The reason for these Categories’ (a few universals that apply to all existents, and not merely to all discourses) being meant also for philosophy (especially for the philosophy of science) is that both philosophy and physics have physical existents in common as their object range.
Philosophy additionally has the pure universals of physics within the ambit of study, and both physics and philosophy have different manners of treating their object range. Hence, well-grounded physical foundations cannot do without the most suitable among these universals as its fundamental Categories, selected from among the universals forming part of the objects of philosophy.
Although many physicists and mathematicians may find the following definition of the ontology behind physics queer due to their pragmatic and near-sighted concept of physics (where physical objects are part of their object range, and not their universals / qualities / forms) in a non-grounded manner, I define here ontology for use in physics with the purpose of later elaboration of the various aspects brought forward in the definition.
The Ontology behind physics is (1) the rationally consequent science of the totality of physical existents, their parts, and their sine qua nons, namely, the pure universals (whereas “properties” are the conglomerations of universal qualities) as pertinents of existents and their parts, (2) prioritized as objects in terms of the To Be (Greek, Einai) of Reality-in-total and only thereafter in terms of the to be (einai) of its parts (reality-in-particular), (3) serving to achieve ever better measuremental approximations of the cosmos and its part-systems (4) in terms of the epistemological ideal of Reality-in-total, namely, the theoretically highest possible notion of Reality-in-general, (5) grounded in the unique and exhaustive implications of To Be, namely, Extension and Change, that are the absolutely necessary touchstones of observables and unobservables which exhaust the object range of physics, (6) in properly physical activities that let Reality and realities be measured in term of measuremental and classificational categories that facilitate both experiments and theories equally well.
I have merely used here the highest Ideals of philosophical and scientific thinking, namely, To Be, Reality-in-total, and Reality-in-general. These are not explained here well enough. I have treated them with detailed justifications in my books: Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, Frankfurt, 2015, and Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 2018, Berlin.

Most recent answer

All replies (42)

This discussion constitutes a few paragraphs directed at defining the ontology to be presupposed in physics (and the physical sciences). The definition is elaborate, divided into 6 important aspects.
Kindly share your well-considered opinions. Please note that this is not meant as a definition of conceptual engineering in physics. Nor is this meant for engineering sciences and other pragmatic approaches to doing science.
For those who treat physics merely as the theoretical backdrop for engineering sciences and other applied sciences, this definition will seem heavy. I do not address them. I address theoreticians and philosophers of physics who are concerned about the foundations of physics from as general a perspective as possible.
I do understand your argument. Physics and cosmology have many different methods. But basically both are physical sciences, and hence have some commonalities. The physical ontology of physics and cosmology (of course, also of astronomy, astrophysics, etc.) that I am trying to construct here is the most basic one which in the sense that it consists of the common features in them all. These are naturally to be the foundations of these sciences, too...! One may add to the list other sciences too, but if they study the physical existence of all that exists physically. This is the most basic of ontology that underlies all sciences, in my opinion!
But the prejudice that you suggest in the final part of your intervention in terms of physics and of philosophy could be evidenced in the following funny arguments parallel to yours:
Humans on earth have used and over-used nature, humans have killed the environment, and hence humanity is anti-science and has no place in research or even to exist...!
Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Darwin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Putin, etc. may have done many bad things. I and you too do such murdering in a minor manner, since we are not able to see science and philosophy from the most general and holistic manner, considering and including all possible aspects of science and philosophy. THAT IS THE POINT.
In any further justification of your argument above, if anyone says that I falsely accused you of "murdering in a minor manner", let that person know that I did not say so. It was just a metaphor. And if anyone still would think I said it badly, I shall remove 'you' and call only me as murderer in that sense and apologize a thousand times!
But the argument that you brought in was very prejudicial of the difference between science and some scientists on the one side, and philosophy and some philosophers on the other. I would even ask: Were and are all these persons that you mentioned just philosophers? Only a few of them had something to do with philosophy. What a generalization!!!
Have you heard the following argument in the first few lessons in logic in the high school or college? If a logician argues badly, we need not accuse logic as a bad science!!!
This is a very serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:
NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)
Salvador Daniel Escobedo
University of Guadalajara
Actually the term "Cosmology" was used to denote a branch of philosophy of nature (the philosophical study of the physical world) far before the same term was used to denote the modern astronomical cosmology.
Your claim "Philosophy is giving preeminence to ideas of the mind" depends of the philosophical school you are peaking. Historically scientific thinking has being developed under a philosophical framework, and it is due to philosophy that science actually exist as it is today.
1 Recommendation
AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.
Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia
THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
Ontological Universals, Virtual Worlds, and Linguistics: I create detailed concepts of universals as the inner constitution of what many thinkers and scientists have termed in a mutually confusing manner as universal, quality, and property. I define quality and property in terms of universals of three types. The basic type is ontological universals, but these are not meant in its traditional use of classifying the substance of entities with or devoid of accidents.
Ontological universals are the pure ways of being of beings, which (the ways) conglomerate and give rise to properties. Qualities, when meant in their ontological purity too are taken here as ontological universals. Hence, concepts like ‘tiger’, ‘man’, etc. are not ontological universals.
First of all, they are denotative terms with their conceptually pure connotative part in presupposedly pure consciousness. Denotative universals have their conceptual ingredients, i.e., the pure connotative universals, which are pure mental reflections of ontological universals. Denotative universals are either actual concepts (connotatives plus brain elements) in minds or linguistic terms or words (connotatives plus linguistic elements) in language. Actual tiger, man, etc. are token entities within the natural kinds termed tigers, humans, etc., classified under certain properties, not under universals.
These properties are what many analytic and scientific thinkers today term qualia. Some mean the perceptual or conceptual occurrences, some the linguistic terms, some their instantiations in existent processes, and some a mixture of some or all of them! This is a highly confused state in philosophy – in my opinion, causing much wastage of journal and monograph pages, as will be shown in Chapter --.
Thus, to achieve clarity briefly, a star consists of many indivisible ontological universals and the matter-energy proper to it. The latter in its totality alone does not make it a token in the natural kind. Each ontological universal in a star’s common property is present as a common pure quality in all the members of the star as a type. By reason of the property (not the ontological universal) in all tokens, the natural kind may be characterized to be a natural set under the pertinent set (property) of pure ways of being termed ontological universals.
Thus, a star as a token in a natural kind has many universals plus the finite matter-energy process involved. Anything denoted other than existents and their directly pertinent ontological universals may be termed perceptions, imaginations, emotions, thoughts, truths, quasi-truths, falsities, theories, etc. In this capacity as denotable but non-existent, these realities have existent counterparts that are not identifiable with the imaginations, emotions, etc.
These may variously be termed virtual worlds of various kinds in that they, in their concatenative nature, represent most of the time the states of affairs within the world or its parts. These are not the same as existent worlds or their directly pertinent pure “ontological universals”.
It is the work of science in general and of the science of verbs, nouns, and attributes to define and describe the primary nature of and connection with Reality-in-total, of what are termed perceptions, imaginations, emotions, thoughts, truths, quasi-truths, falsities, theories, etc.
Since these are not existent like things, but represent existent worlds in a theoretical manner, they may in general be termed virtual worlds – some of them with more conceptual representation capacity with respect to their objects outside the minds, and others with least representation capacity that reduces them to mere virtuals.
As regards the Causality in them, their matter-energy-type processual counterparts alone are causal. Language is a way of making least virtual and highly virtual worlds; although the occurrences of language and the virtual worlds in concepts are causal and are not themselves virtual worlds. In the present work I attempt to base universal-causally these virtual worlds in existent worlds.

Similar questions and discussions

HEIDEGGER: How a Philosopher Destroys His Own Thought's Coherence and Adequacy
Discussion
81 replies
  • Raphael NeelamkavilRaphael Neelamkavil
The Anthropic Notion of Existence and Being-Becoming in Heidegger: Heidegger’s continuous engagement with ‘nothingness’ in his works has not been about the non-existence of anything specific or the whole of what we call Reality or of its To Be. [-----] Heraclitus never had a notion of becoming that makes everything to escape into absolute nothingness; Parmenides never dissociated from human beings’ notion of being the apparent becoming. Apparent becoming, he thought, is a contradiction to his concept of being. Heidegger depended much on his re-interpretations of Heraclitus and Parmenides. None of them shewed away from Heidegger’s thought whatever is existent or seemingly existent into any absolute becoming or absolute seeming of becoming or absolute nothingness that would reduce the stuff of everything into a nothing in existence.
What Went Wrong in Heidegger's Thought: For the above reasons, within the ‘becoming’ that meant continuous activity, and beyond the ‘being’ that often presented the sense of permanence, Heidegger (1) did not think of the metaphysical approval of ontological commitments behind notions, thoughts, feelings, etc., sought a non-traditional notion of existence that he thought is discourse-bound and language-bound which thus became an anthropic notion of Being without commonalities with other existents, and (2), did not possess methods of dissociating (a) mere subjective and intersubjective objectivity from (b) subjectively and intersubjectively obtained objectivity via objectuality in discourse. Thus, he ended up holding only the (a) above and laughably anthropologized philosophy, science, and human institutions through a sense of superiority of the merely anthropically Being-thinking humans over all others. His politically overshadowing such a notion of Being-thinking humans by a vague identification of it with the Hitler race was naturally a gimmick to use the opportunity to save and elevate himself and his thought and additionally obtain a long opportunity to laugh privately of his own professor.
A NATURAL REASONING AGAINST EXISTENCE OF ANY PART OF THE COSMOS FROM AN ETRNAL PAST. This is simple, but mind-boggling.
Discussion
3 replies
  • Raphael NeelamkavilRaphael Neelamkavil
THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENT ATTRACTS THE MINDS OF COSMOLOGISTS AND PHILOSOPHERS ALIKE:
There is a natural question, based on any valid form of reasoning, to be answered by anyone who reflects of the cosmos in a general way. If every finite part of the cosmos is existent from the past eternity proper of each, meaning it was not created (and of course continues to exist into the future), then either (1) each should have had a totality of infinite amounts of individually finite (even if not individualized by our minds) causal effects (however finite their actual remainders in the entity are) from an infinite number of other cosmic parts in the past, or (2) each should have had only a finite amount of individually finite causal effects from a finite number and amount of other cosmic parts in the past.
Case (1) above contradicts itself, since an infinite amount of individually causal effects (however meagre and hence finite in their totality) upon any one finite-content part of the cosmos implies past causal contacts already had in the past from infinite distances (and works against any solution to the Gravitational Coalescence Paradox of GCC type, which see in my [2018]), because this sort of causal influence from an infinite distance is totally untenable. It is untenable because, any causal influence from the causal past proper of any entity (even of a whole universe in an infinite-content cosmos) is in fact from a finitely measurable distance. Secondly, case (2) reduces the finite parts of the cosmos into something of finite-past origin. These two together necessitate a finite past behind every finite-content part of the cosmos.
For the reasons in the above two paragraphs, God cannot include or be merely parallel in existence to the cosmos. God can only create it continuously, infinitely, and eternally, and be connected infinitely with Itself and the cosmos; but the cosmos can only connect itself finitely with God, which process can at the most grow and never make it form part of God. This is the essence of IP.
DO PHYSICAL QUANTA EXIST? Why Should CONSCIOUSNESS Be Treated Quantum-Biologically?
Discussion
54 replies
  • Raphael NeelamkavilRaphael Neelamkavil
If the quanta spoken of in the physical sciences are physically existent, they cannot be mere vacua acting on other vacua. Merely saying that they are statistically full of vacua-type quanta does not solve anything. If they are non-existent, they cannot act at all. Hence, there is no question even of the correlation between two sorts of processes and then if we somehow insert into it all the quantum-mechanical articulations in terms of statistical measurements (1) of existent causes or non-causes, (2) mere articulations of our statistical recognition of some BEHAVIOUR, etc.
In all of these, how can we now speak of the existence of things -- however minute, near-infinitesimal, even in the case of the quanta of energy? If they are physically existent -- and not merely capable of being spoken of --, then quantum-physical definitions of statistical causality, the notorious consciousness-dependence of the existent quantum world, etc. can be avoided by some new ways of re-interpreting statistical causality.
Something weird for some physicists would be this: If the photons are not merely a statistical or merely mathematically existent affair in STR, GTR, QFT, quantum cosmology, etc., they must be existing non-vacuously. How can a non-vacuous and non-infinitesimal photon be made to travel (1) in some experiments merely as a wave and (2) in some other experiments merely as particle?
Some seem to suggest that consciousness-level brain activities are to be subject to a quantum biology. But if photons and any other sort of quanta (say, of neutrinos) are not vacuous and hence Extended, they too should have parts, these parts too should have some sort of Change, etc., ad libitum. Why then should we limit consciousness-level brain activity to the current level of quantum physics?
Let us conclude by formulating a generally acceptable kernel of what in the very least is meant when we say that something exists. My use of the word ‘electron’ need not mean that any of the models of electron as an existent must as such be the case out-there. This is because the word ‘electron’ is a denotative word constructed linguistically. It denotes a denotable, which exists as whatever it is, without our having to take it to be exactly this way or that way. But there can be at least some physical-ontological guidelines as to how an electron cannot be. For example, it is not a pure vacuum. Let alone the discourse that only quantum vacua exist. This is exactly what I mean, too: a pure vacuum does not contain any existent, not even one quantum of energy. A quantum of energy should be carried by something existent, and not by something vacuous. This quality that it is not a pure vacuum is what I call Extension. Every existent must be in Extension. If extended, it has parts, which are in some Change, too. In short, it is impossible to say that anything termed electron can exist without internal Change, which may be caused externally and/or internally.
Extension and Change are the ways without which nothing can exist. If anything is in Extension-Change-wise existence, this is causal existence: some finite amount of causation happens there. An antecedent changes within itself due to the impact that its parts make and are made to take. It is continuous in the sense that it is continuously the manner of existence of anything, but this is not infinite causation. If anything existent should be such, this shows that all existents are in Causality. This is the pre-scientific Universal Law of Causality. Now clearly, quantum wavicles too should be in causation, if we are speaking of existents, and not of pure vacua.
I suggest that only those who are sure of the existence of the world, in it some biological existents, in them some developed or less developed brains, etc. need to attempt their thoughts here. Others are all blissfully convinced that there are no photons, there are no electrons, there exists only consciousness, etc. They need only to repeat "I am That". We can only envy their spiritual attainments.
DOES CONSCIOUSNESS EXIST, OR IS IT LIKE INFORMATION? A Very Short Text for Discussion
Discussion
705 replies
  • Raphael NeelamkavilRaphael Neelamkavil
DOES CONSCIOUSNESS EXIST, OR IS IT LIKE INFORMATION? A Very Short Text for Discussion
Raphael Neelamkavil,
Ph. D. (Quantum Causality), Dr. phil. (Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology)
Non-causally Non-existent Consciousness?: (1) If consciousness is the totality of whatever happens mostly within the brain and thus causes impacts within and outward the brain, and if any part of consciousness is considered as non-causal, that part must be non-physical and non-existent for Categorial reasons based on the exhaustive implications of To Be (Extension and Change). If this “part” has some impact on other parts, then it must further be shown to be capable of causal and/or non-causal action on causally physical existents. This is what turns theories of non-causality in mind / consciousness into a fiction or false reasoning. The brain receives energy-inputs from phenomena, and has also energy-type activities and energy-type outputs. The totality of such energy-activities happens in the brain. It is not the same as the brain. Why not term the totality of such activites as consciousness? This is not the same as the specific “consciousness-of” being referred to when I refer to something to which my awareness tends. Any specific awareness or the totality of awarenesses is not consciousness, because awareness is awareness-of (consciousness-of), and consciousness as such is a totality of activities in the brain. It is not merely cognitive; it includes many other activities. Nor is consciousness merely a cognitive affair. Many other activities are contained in it; and all these activities together are not the brain. The brain has parts which do not belong to the consciousness per se.
Now, if one insists that consciousness is the same as information and that both are mutually interchangeable or one is part of the other, the following questions arise: (1) If they are the same, would one say that information is in fact in consciousness? (2) When AI transmits information, when we have various sorts of information other than that by way of AI, etc., are we in any manner receiving consciousness in place of information? If one says only that they are at least of the same nature and are not the same, then they have to be differentiated and at the same time connected to each other. But it is accepted by all that information is also in consciousness, and not vice versa. How then is this possible, if they are of the same nature and status?
UNTENABLE REIFICATION OF CONCEPTS IN PHYSICS: With Examples
Discussion
41 replies
  • Raphael NeelamkavilRaphael Neelamkavil
UNTENABLE REIFICATION OF CONCEPTS IN PHYSICS: With Examples
Raphael Neelamkavil,
Ph.D. (Quantum Causality), Dr. phil. (Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology)
Questions on Reification of Concepts in Physics: The best of physicists and philosophers of physics even today do not seem to be decided on any concrete but all-encompassing solution by reason of the rational strength of arguments given in favour of the one or another solution here below. The questions not answered here are these:
(1) Why do physicists not let their reification of mathematical concepts rest for some time, think from the side of POC, and question the epistemic processes of identification of energy propagations as a geometrical wave at some occasions, as a geometrical particle at other occasions, at times paradoxically even as their alternation, or even as their superposition as if this would solve the problem? What are the reasons for such misplaced identification of concreteness of the mathematical entities as if they both existed physically out there?
(2) Then, when they feel confronted from outside or in themselves as to the gravity of paradoxes involved in their own ad hoc explanatory creation, why do they tend to declare that all these solutions rationally and realistically (doubtlessly by way of reification of the mathematical objects used, but, as they seem to suggest, mathematically), (a) demonstrate that quantum reality is just virtual, or (b) need to be accepted merely by reason of a statistical causality in the existent world – and not by reason of the statistical measurements of causal events upon the experimental history of extent of access of causal events via measurements and identification of causes, or (c) show that these reified mathematical objects (waves and particles separately, alternately, or superpositionally) should be paradoxically the external reality because the mathematics says so?
(3) Are these traditional quantum solutions not also the modes of reification of what is made out in concepts in our brains, of which the only possible basis is the continued tendency to indirectly hold on to substance metaphysics and/or to oppose such a metaphysics absolutely, as if it were unnecessary to accept that in the cosmos there would be existents at all, behind the phenomena and the data that are being spoken of in fundamental physics.
(4) When one, for example, says that the wavefunction collapses in the physical calculations, does one, in quantum physics, tend to insist that the existent carrier of propagative energy is just collapsing into nothing or into something else that is either existent or mysteriously absolutely virtual? Does any of this sort of solutions solve anything explanatorily and realistically? Or, does it mean only and merely that the wave function collapses in the written paper, because thefunction exists in the mathematical expression, and not in the wavicles out there? In the name of the collapse of the wavefunction, are not quantum physicists reifying the mathematical entity into something existent?
(5) Are all these not the results of the reification of our concept of collapse of a mathematical function so as to naming it as an external physical process, wrongly suggesting that the function has an exact existential correspondence with our imaginative and mathematically driven conceptualization? One might argue that it is not the function but the functioning that collapses. But can the functioning be represented by a mathematical function in such a manner that the collapsing of the functioning of the physically existent wavicle would then mean a dysfunction of some sort? Would such dysfunction mean that the wavicle disappears into nothingness or becomes transformed? If it disappears into nothingness, physical matter-energy would not be conserved; and if there is only a transformation, it is not a collapse of the mathematical function. If the mathematical function alone has the collapse at observation, then the superposition causes reduction to classical concepts.
(6) In the above scenario, why do some physicists not have enough ability to recognize the need to further establish that the physical equations must first be proved to have an existent process out there at least somewhat as mentioned in the equations, in order for them to equate the mathematical function and the existent process out-there? But why are they unable to spell out the ontological and epistemological reasons for the human inability to identify the collapse in the equations in a better-than statistical manner, with its supposed correspondent event in the external world identified (as we do when we say that the pen exists)?
(7) Can they not rationally imagine at least that any epistemic identification via any version of logic and mathematics does not ipso facto produce a correspondence between the notion and the physical reality or events outside? In case of absence of sufficiency in this ability in physicists, is not fundamental quantum physics again becoming prey to the same age-old correspondence theory of truth that they tendentially denounce and accuse many philosophers of the past as having already been prey to?
A typical manner of countering the above arguments is to allege these same arguments as originating from classical physics and notions. But such a counter-allegation is feasible only if the epistemology of concept formation that I have presented can be shown to be reifying in any manner. My viewpoint may be summarized as follows: Except that whatever exists, exists in processuality of every near-infinitesimal part, I have not suggested an ontology that holds either (1) that every existent is in infinite flux, or (2) that everything existent is existent as such without flux. The epistemology of concept formation in the system I have suggested consists in (1) the connotative and denotative abstractions and concatenations of the ontological universals and the respective conglomerations that pertain to finitely fluent processual existents. Finite fluency of every near-infinitesimal part of existents is physical process; and hence finitely existent finitely fluent consciousnesses can never obtain any static manner of conceptualization of any existent process.
The classical origin of some reified notions is exactly what I attempt to demonstrate as present in quantum physics and other related sciences – using notions of concept formation, of their foundation in existent physical processes, and of the ultimate and undeniable Categories of all existence – because quantum physics is still at the realm of believing that what the physicist “sees” are mathematical waves and points. That is, more than the physical existents, they find mathematical entities as existent in physical entities, for which they give statistical and other mathematical reasons of correspondence of the two mathematical objects with the experimentally perceived reality.
Arguments with Examples, Showing Reification: I add here a few clarifications to what I said above, based on some examples from physics, beginning from a traditional concept and ending with some recent ones. There exists in physics reification of notions and quantities beyond limits permissible. By reification is meant here not merely the crude ideational substitution of a concept with a denotable thing or process. Even a quantity, when used beyond its permissible realms of application, can be taken as a reification of the significance or applicability of the quantity in a different context or in the form of a generalization. Especially (2) and (3) below are of consequence to the present work.
(1) Take the case of potential energy. It is a form of energy termed after a certain difference of states, positions, or arrangements of parts. It arises due to the difference created by the storing of any kind of energy, which will be active at release of the state or arrangement by a suitable action. This energy is not carried by any one sort of wavicle. It is the difference of states of any sort of energy expressed in any one sort of action. Thus, gravitation is one sort of potential energy; and potential energy is not gravitation. Just because of this, the sub-types of potential energy must each be carried by a specific sort of wavicle. The difference between any two stages of such special propagations is termed potential energy from the viewpoint of the earlier stage. After release to the next stage, it is spent and is no more the potential energy within those two stages exhibiting a difference. We may discover its effects quantitatively everywhere. But the discovery is as the energy obtained due to a difference of calculated or calculable energy values, not directly as of an energy carrier so identified or identifiable as in the case of photons.
But the case with photons, neutrinos, gravitons, etc. is different. These wavicles are experimentally identifiable as the carriers of one kind of energy, whatever quantity of energy they may carry, and the carrier is an existent with the basic Extension-Change Categorial characteristics (ontological universals). The energy carried is measured in terms inevitably of criteria dependent on conventions. Whatever energy they contain is of a finite amount, of course not necessarily the exact amount of energy that we tend to calculate them to contain at any time and context. Science must insist on its exactness. For the purpose of generalized discussions on such quantities, it suffices to use what pertains to it from the Maximal-Medial-Minimal (infinite, finite, zero) values. The finite quantity of energy is carried by energy wavicles, and hence the energy wavicles are identifiable with the energy carried. This is not the case with potential energy.
No specific measurement result can be exact, also in the case of values concerning photons, neutrinos, gravitons, etc., because humans cannot get at absolute accuracy. As an absolutizable general truth about these quantities, it is tenable that we can only determine whether they are zero or finite in quantity as long as the measurements are of existents. This is clear enough from the fact that within a finite quantity a sudden evolutionary or other sort of annihilation of the energy into zero and augmentation into infinity are only mathematically imaginable, but physically these are unimaginable. Zero and infinity can only work here as limiting but unrealizable evolutionary values of some existent finite-content energy or matter. Any quantity of measurement of matter-energy beyond finitude is merely by mathematics.
Absolute ontological commitment in mathematical conclusions in physical theory is impossible, and cannot be borne out via experimental verification and augmentation of theoretical and experimental results by use of any future theories and experimental expansions, even if it happens in the future that humanity can experiment with universes or phases of a universe in their totality. Here too the main reason is that here too there cannot exist a phenomenal ontological commitment (POC) to the effect of evolution of the finite into non-entity or infinitude. Hence, it is clear that finite Extension and Change are the foundational criteria upon which such measurements and the proofs of existence of both observable and unobservable energy and matter should be based. This fact becomes sacrosanct also in the case of the merely mathematically possible infinite density in black holes.
Thus, the speculations of existence of an infinite number of finite universes merely topologically from the “infinite volume in the null and negative curvature” case of the Friedman-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker cosmological models and their large-scale homogeneity and isotropy of the distribution of matter-energy: e.g., speculations like “the existence of an infinite number of models, which are based on these same metrics, but have compact, finite volume, multiply connected spatial sections” [Fagundes 2012], are physical nonsenses. Similar is the truth-value of the popping up of infinite number of universes from the quantum vacua within a universe or between its expansion and contraction phases can only be nonsensical and an eyewash dependent only on the mathematics. The constant experience of finite phenomenal ontological commitment (POC) behind true statements and theories permits us to pronounce a corollary: No POC is possible concerning any evolutionary disappearance of matter-energy into zero or augmentation into infinite content at any point or stage of evolution of any universe or parts thereof.
In the case of potential energy, the verification is of the difference, and not of the necessary correspondence with a wavicle as the carrier of potential energy. The latter should have been seen as a must for us to suppose that potential energy does not exist as an energy carrier propagation. Here exists no chance of obtaining POC of anything existent in a finite quantity termed potential energy, because there is no existent energy carrier here. One thing becomes clear here: Genuine (existent) energy propagations are theoretically to be posited as energy carriers. Of course, the energy as such is not a thing. Instead, it is the quantity of some finite capacity of any so-identifiable “energy carrier” to cause an amount of work, always involving movement.
As a result of such movement, some Change takes place in the stuff of the energy carrier, however minute the Change is. This Change is not the same as motion, but instead, it is the ontological aspect of motion anywhere. Moreover, the Change is in stuff in Extension. The stuff of the energy carrier is not in the epistemic space that the millennia have spoken of. The quantity of some work / action being transferred by an energy carrier is not the same as the difference between two states of quantity of work / action, the difference being what we call potential energy. The energy carrier has the Categories of Extension and Change as its internal ultimate qualities. That is, the movement is within it not merely as an additional capacity but as the very quality. Every part of an energy-carrier is in Extension-Change. But potential energy is not in Extension-Change. Thus, it is clear that the concept of potential energy has been reified by a couple of centuries of practice in physics.
(2) If the electron is taken as the same sort of energy carrier as photons, gravitons, etc., there is a conceptual difficulty. At least from today’s perspective in physics, an electron is a matter wave, i.e., at the most a carrier of many energy carriers. It is not a relatively well finalizable carrier wavicle of energy of the type that photons are, with respect to the phase of the universe or parts of it or groups of universes wherein photons are relatively more unified as energy carriers than perhaps in other phases of this world or in other worlds. Electrons are matter-wavicles containing many smaller quanta of photon energy.
There is nothing wrong in saying this, even if these energy-carrying quanta are processually resident in electrons i.e., under some constant processual transformation, but not in the very form in which they produce the sort of work or as when they are freed of the higher condensation of electromagnetic wavicles in electrons and are transmitted at the luminal speed or transformed processually into something else. Hence, electrons are essentially matter particles moving in the wave form. If an electron is termed as energy carrier and conceptualized on par with photons and other electromagnetic energy, we may have to term also a stone as energy wavicles themselves, and not as a set of energy wavicles in condensation. That would miss the mark set as the purpose in general of scientific activity and thought. But this is a fact.
As already discussed, wavefunction collapse cannot be identified as an existent process out there in a manner similar to that in which we can adduce quanta of energy to any pure wave or pure point particle. Wavefunction collapse is a collapse of measurements into one of the states. The states are purely mathematical cases, surmised by reason of some statistical values. The existent energy-carrier wavicle in propagation alone is the real case. This is because the wavefunction collapse is not a collapse of some existent waves and/or existent particles out-there, but the collapse of a certain quantitative symmetry between the mathematically fixed states, a certain expected behaviour of the quantities yielded by theory, implied within the relationship between the mathematical wave and mathematical point-particle.
This is not the same as what happens when we create a notion to correspond to a process and identify the latter with a supposed external correspondent of the notion. Hence, a wave function collapse is not to have an exactly corresponding change definable as what the word ‘collapse’ can mean, in any existent energy-quanta carrier wavicle. We witness many physicists taking for granted, or omitting to differentiate between, the technical and the ordinary meanings of ‘collapse’; and thus, their audience gets convinced into believing in their new physics under the same lack of clarity and belief in the superiority of quantum mathematics.
Is it not necessary to condone such matters in the sciences on the count that human cognition has limits? True. But if this is admitted, the same limitedness must be admitted also at the theoretically notional sources of any system of thought and science. It must especially be infused at the experimental methods and interpretations of experimental and theoretical results of the system of thought and science at question. This aggravates the need to avoid reification of purely mathematical concepts of waves and points in microphysics.
To conclude, the successes of quantum physics consist in that at least many of the measurementally determined mathematical explanations of phenomena (phenomenon: the showing-themselves of existent processes from some layers of the processes) are such that, within the system of mathematically discussing these explanations, (1) further calculations and approximations fall in place, and (2) further theoretical constructions are made possible.
This demonstrates a certain extent of consistency in the theoretical apparatus wherein the initial mathematical definitions and experimentally approximate quantifications permit the acceptance of many further results as true to the foundations of the theoretical apparatuses. But if very evident paradoxes arise, then evidently their source most probably should bee seen to lie in the foundational notions of the system, their definitional specificities, etc.
Fundamental quantum physics has many unclarified notions that play into its interpretations as miraculous mystifications of physical events, which may directly be attributed to the custom of misplaced identification of concreteness in quantum physics. The test case will be that of entanglement. Even on a day when the instrumentation evolves to high capability to observe or calculate what is behind the statistical causalities in quantum physics, teleportation via entanglement may be developed as a technological advancement as whatever teleportation is in reality, even when the concept of entanglement may be found to continue to be true beyond the maximal level of the speed of light.
This is similar to when water continuously – presumed here ad hoc – falls on two adjacent leaves of a tree, where the leaves send an algorithmic signal as and when they come into contact with a drop of water stipulated as heavy enough for the signal during the flow of water over the leaves. The water that continuously flows does not make the leaves to send signals so continuously. Heavier drops within the flow send signals. This is an intermittent process and can be used to formulate an algorithm. In the EPR experiment a mesoscopic device is made to work on some selective micro-, nano-, or more minute effects without asking about the apriority or not of the causal/non-causal continuity of the totality of micro-effects on the discrete quanta of any level existent thereby. [Neelamkavil 2018: 195-196]
The processes in the objects of inquiry create some processes and their phenomena in the apparatuses. The apparatus-related phenomena and data behind the experiments related to the existent object processes within the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen thought experiment, which is meant to bring out a theory of the physical processes behind two wavicles in prior entanglement, can continue to be the same even after our explanation of the EPR goes clearer than today and the explanation clarifies that the processes in both the wavicles are fully caused by each other – in this case, superluminally-locally. [Neelamkavil 2018: 191 ff; 2014: Chapters 9 and 10]
These phenomena and data can be utilized further to create technological devices. This is like using the continuous falling of drops on two leaves can be used to give algorithmic signals, which may be used to create a system of harnessing the phenomena and data for service to humanity. Even today Newtonain phenomena and data are being used in engineering, medical, and other sciences profitably. But these do not mean that these successes render these branches of physics as representing reality best. The technological successes do not justify accepting in a literal manner all that is intended by the “even-now substance-philosophically” dominated or “radically virtual-philosophically” dominated minds of many physicists. Quantum cosmology is no exception to what is said above. [Neelamkavil 2018: Chapter 6]
(3) Another example is the case of reification of a quantity in the special theory of relativity. It defines in a scientistically tacit manner in the velocity-dependent Lorentz factor (γ = 1 / √(1 – [v2/c2])) that, since all our physical observations are based on the speed of electromagnetic propagations, the said system of theory “proves” the velocity of light as ultimate and, even more mysteriously, that this fact does not permit superluminal velocities. This is nothing but begging the question. For more than a century, practically none questioned this assumption that does a self-defeating of the foundations of all reason and physical ontology. Almost everyone today is blissful about the technical tool this stipulation offers for science and technology: if sonar velocity is taken as the speed limit in nature, and if all other velocities are measured in terms of this value, all higher velocities will involve zeros and infinities. Even at the level of sonar velocity as the highest limit, much technological success is thinkable, and that does not preclude higher velocities. This is an example for reification of experimental quantities. Under a similar attitude are also many AI specialists who do not inquire what the stuff of information is, but can manipulate it for much technological success, even to create BI. This will be discussed much later I detail.
A GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS: Beyond the Two Millennia
Discussion
58 replies
  • Raphael NeelamkavilRaphael Neelamkavil
A GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS
Beyond the Two Millennia
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph. D., Dr. phil.
IS CAUSALITY A SCIENTIFIC OR PRE-SCIENTIFIC LAW?
§§-- Without beings in existence (To Be), there is no science “on them”. Existence is not vacuous. Non-vacuous existents are in Extension (Existence-Category 1), i.e., they have parts, they are composed.
§§-- Both parts and wholes can interact. They cause impacts on a finite number of other existents and on themselves: Change (Existence-Category 2). Change involves motion, but is not motion. Parallel to these two physical-ontological Categories, no other characteristic is thinkable. Hence, Extension and Change ꞊ Exhaustive implications of To Be of Reality-in-total the highest natural kind.
§§-- If Extended+Changing (with parts and with impact formation) entities exist, this is causal existence. Every existent is such. Hence: Universal Causality...! Extension, Change, and Causality are pre-scientific Laws. Now, no Quantum Physicist can tell us that some (observable) processes are causal and the others (partial observables [unobservables] and non-observables) are merely statistically causal or non-causal…!
§§-- Smaller natural kinds (ordered and/or organized parts of Reality-in-total) also have characteristics. These are ontological universals (modes of being of processes). They are primarily in the natural kinds, and only thus in the token enities in the natural kind.
§§-- Space ꞊ measure of extension. Time ꞊ measure of change. These are epistemic concepts. Epistemic space-time cannot curve as physicists make us believe. Extension-Change-wise existent matter-energy conglomerations curve.
Centuries of violent and extremist discussions have taken place as to a Yes or No or Yes-and-No to causality in existent beings, namely, Reality-in-total. In the fray have been mainly philosophy, and only then physics. This state has changed after the genesis of quantum physics. In the above, I have “proved” in a very simple manner that Universal Causality is a pre-scientific Law.
The purely epistemic version of causality can only be a sort of concept and not be that of what happens in the world. It gets formulated due to the sense-related, conceptual, and logical conclusion towards a correlation of some sort between two or more events, but without recourse to the events’ existence.
Any further justification of the epistemological conclusion of causality without involving the purely physical-ontological aspect of existence of the event at question in total and its antecedent and consequent part-events may even be taken as an explanation of the experience of correlation. Historical examples abound, and Hume’s is the most famous example.
But this is not the case if the purely physical-ontological aspect of existence of the event at question in total and its antecedent and consequent part-events may be accepted as the conditio sine qua non of the sensation, conceptualization, and logical argument. Hence the fully physical-ontological status of causality.
Traditionally, causality is the relation between the antecedent and the consequent part-events of the one event at issue. And causation is the act of a cause-event in effecting an effect-event. This is the age-old manner of conceiving the ontology of causality. The former, the epistemic and the explanatory, have been the trend during most of the 20thcentury history of philosophical and physical-philosophical inquiry on causality.
But what I have proposed in the various parts of my five published books is a whole new manner of theorizing Universal Causality. I hope to finally suggest that this is also a game-changer in the history of the concept of causality.
NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)
Discussion
51 replies
  • Raphael NeelamkavilRaphael Neelamkavil
NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve
(Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough in EPR)
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUNDATIONS AGAIN (3 paragraphs)
In the first few short paragraphs we occupy ourselves with something already discussed before. If anything must exist, it must be something non-vacuous. Think of energy waves, termed variously as particles, waves, and their mixture namely wavicles. I use the theoretically more comprehensive ‘wavicles’. Are they only a pure mathematical stuff without any physical stuff within? I hope No!
In that case, even energy wavicles possess (1) some non-vacuity, i.e., Extension, which means possessing parts, and (2) some ability to cause impact, i.e., Change, from within their non-vacuous extended nature. Non-vacuity, it partially indicates existence, is not anything that mathematics can directly represent in the wavicles – for this, it needs primarily the notions of space (and time) and measurement. Nor can mathematics directly represent impact-formation as the only other universal nature of existents – for this, it needs the notion of time (and space) and measurement. Space and time are the quantity (measure) of Extension and Change respectively.
We can understand Extension as a direct ontological notion derivative from existence, but why Change, and not motion? Why is motion only derivative from Change? Section 2 responds to this question, and then Section 3 applies the result from Section 2 in the case of the EPR paradox.
2. SPECIFIC MOTION AND INNER MOTIONS IN ENTANGLED EPR WAVICLES? Let us keep the mind open!
A unit Change consists of the transition within a unit Process from the antecedent existent and the consequent existent. So, a unit Change is not merely a certain kind of motion. A transition is not merely a motion. Again, a unit Change is not a unit Process but consists of the transition within a unit Process, in which the antecedent part (cause) causes an effect on the consequent part (effect). A unit Process already involves many types and units of motion.
Causality consists in the relation between the cause and the effect. A unit causation is the minimum act of realization of a unit Process. That is, a causal unit is both the cause and effect together. The involvement of a transition, not merely of a motion, is why it is difficult to quantify a unit of Causal Process using mathematics. This will be clearer towards the end of this section.
Space is the epistemic aspect of Extension. Motion is the quantitative aspect of physical existents that is representable and, in each case, processed as the measure of a certain sort of motion, by using mathematics epistemically in terms of a certain spatially tripartite kind of displacement at the level of the kind of motion considered. All other, projected, more than three, superstring dimensions should be taken as curled in within the three, because the extra dimensions are all certain manipulation results of the original three. Time is not being multiplied in this manner, and it is just the unique epistemic, quantitative, aspect of Change.
The motion of any specific kind is merely an aspect of Change. Change involves transitions, using which we cannot mathematically manipulate existent wavicles in their constant inner happenings. The inner happenings too are motions, but are not representable as such within a given treatment of motion. One may use momentum, mass, etc., but these too do not represent the unit transition that a unit Causal Process yields.
We cannot generalize and say that everything is motion. This does not serve physics, because in physics all sorts of inner motions of a moving wavicle cannot mathematically be considered simultaneously. Moreover, a unit of Change is not equal to a unit motion of any kind, but instead, a causal unit Process involving an ontologically defined state transition. Change alone does not define a unit Process. Extension-Change together define a unit Process as a Causal unit. This is to be noted well here.
That is, in the case of quasi-unobservable but proved-to-be existent wavicles (termed unobservables in order to distinguish them from direct observables), Change involves existent wavicles with some motion and the ability to cause some motion, each of which has further parts, these parts too are in motion, and they too possess the ability to cause motion, etc. ad libitum.
[But if any physicist now prefers to take a wavicle (say, a photon, a neutrino, a graviton) as indivisible, or merely as energy quantity without physical extension, or as a vacuous stuff, I shall keep a distance from him/her, because I should fear being heckled! Moreover, I do not prefer to entertain questions like: Why to bother so much with conceptual complications, man? Do you not know that doing physics does not mean this sort of “philosophical” talk?]
The difference between motion and Change is as follows. One (kind of) motion is just one instance of motion irrespective of the fact that its inner parts also undergo and at the same time effect other motions outwards. But Change is that state of existents in which every existent involves not merely one sort of motion but ever more minute (inner and inwards) or broader (from outside and outwards) sort of motions with respect to any one existent with whatever overall size, motion, mass, momentum, energy, etc., and involves a transition in each unit Change.
Size, motion, mass, momentum, energy, etc. are all bound by conventional scales and comparison with other similar quantities from within a physical context, engendering an epistemic context which too is based on an epistemic context of physical processes which in turn are based on these same quantities. Hence, these quantities cannot involve the whole transition of an entity that the concept of Change can represent. Hence, Change, as one of the two highest implications of To Be and hence as one of the physical-ontological Categories along with Extension, cannot be substituted by the concept of motion or any other quantity.
Now the following question may be addressed and answered with sufficient rational justification: If the above is the inevitable case with respect to existents, why should energy-transmitting wavicles like photons, neutrinos, and gravitons yield (1) an infinity of mass at any specific state of motion as in the case of the velocity of any emission, when this velocity is compared in its motion with the velocity of light as the former approaches the latter in value, (2) any kind of comparative lack of motion as in the case of relative inertia, which is based on a quantitative comparison determined by imperfect and contextual measurements, or (3) create non-locality of influence (or lack of influence) in the EPR experiment, when two previously entangled wavicles with energy-content are made to move from each other at a comparative mutual total of the velocity of light or more, in such a way that the luminal-velocity-based reasoning shatters mutual causal influence and creates absolute miracles everywhere in the cosmos?
It is known that such infinities (and the connected zeros) at comparisons of two motions are not actual cases, because any existent has inner motions ad libitum and outer motions ad libitum, and none of these yields an infinity or zero because the infinite number of motions within any given unit Process or within parts thereof can only have the involvement of the infinite number of ever smaller, near-infinitesimal, transitions available in Change. These can never reach infinity but a finitude in total value. I think this explanation should justify the fact that we do not find any infinite or zero velocity, mass, energy, etc. in any existent observable or unobservable.
To explain further, the most important matter to be kept in mind here is that the inner motions of any wavicle, resulting from within and from outside, are not infinite in cumulative measure at any given time – but we should insist here that the sort of addition to be considered is not that of “infinite times finite quantities” as wrongly thought in the case of Zeno’s paradox, but instead, a finite totality of “infinite number of ever smaller near-infinitesimal quantities”. This is what characterizes physical existents and their parts in the cosmos, both of those that are termed matter and of those that are called energy.
In that case, there should be in physics a different manner of comparing motion, absolute inertia, and relative inertia of two bodies with each other, wherever physics uses a specific criterial velocity in order to compare itself with a smaller velocity under inquiry / under experiment. This is where physics could de-absolute the velocity of light with respect to its applicability to all the parts of the cosmos (which may even be an infinite-content ordering of infinite number of finite-content universes).
There are all the possibilities of infinities and zeros only in the mutual comparison of motion / velocities, and not when physical processes are considered in themselves. Hence, a spectrum of values of criterial velocities may be mooted for the various parts of the cosmos, where the velocities being compared with the criterial velocity can still be less than the criterial velocity used for comparison. This is all that physics can at the most possess in order to broaden the concept of quantity in physics and make it better adapted to deal with the physical-ontological concept of Change. In themselves physical existents have Change, which inevitably involves the totality of the many inner, inward, and outward motions.
A naive question in this context: Is anything in itself in motion, relative inertia, or absolute inertia? Naturally, anything is in finite motion of some kind within itself and at comparison with others. It is in a specific relative motion or inertia only in comparison with another motion or other motions. But there is no absolute inertia.
Any specific measurable or measured motion is not the exact (or only) thing that happens in an existent being. It has Change, i.e., all its parts are completely in motion – but in finite motion – which, as I said earlier, does not add up to an infinity of motion. Firstly, no instrument can measure anything exactly as it is, because at any given moment there are so many inner causal influences of causation within each entity and hence the exactness of the quantity does not have any justification with respect to any fixed point of time however minute. Secondly, by the time a measurement is performed, other minute influences have altered the quantity. Hence, no measured quantity can be exact.
Change is not any specific motion, but instead, a transition of many minute motions, and hence cannot be used in and by physics measurementally. It is a physical-ontological quality of all existents. This is why physics has been ignoring the physical-ontological status of Change. Change is in fact the ontological fact of all existents in that each element of existents has an infinite number of ever more minute causal influences acting upon it from within and without. This is the transitioning that Change is.
Motion and inertia are only two measurementally integral aspects of Change, wherein motion is a notion that needs mensuration and measurability, and hence can only be considered at one quantity of motion at a time. For this, the epistemic notions of space and time are necessary in physics. But this does not mean that this suffices for physics, because physics studies existent material beings in their motion; and existence, material, energy, etc. are not strictly and primarily physical but physical-ontological notions. Integrally taken, Change is whatever in fact happens in existents in all their parts, including in energy particles / wavicles.
Now one may attempt (1) to substitute Change with the notion of transition, i.e., motions within motions within… or (2) to substitute it with notions like momentum, mass, etc. The first is possible, but it is better to use the term ‘Change’ rather than an involving stretch of words. But none of the notions in (2) can substitute Change, because, as you may observe, they can augment the understanding of each other, and only augment the understanding of the concepts of motion, Change, etc., and not substitute the notion of Change.
The self-evident reason for this claim is that even momentum, mass, etc. are just quantitative notions composed of many (i.e., conglomerations of) quantitatively qualitative universals. Change is not a quantity, but a pure, qualitative, ontological universal not directly meaning epistemically determined quantities. I purposely call notions mentioned above, other than Change, as measuremental. This is in order to avoid the sense that quantity is some sort of a substitute for existent physical processes.
Mathematical objects as quantitative qualities too are connotatively epistemic objects represented by denotative universals, and do not exist in terms of the belongingness of ontological universals to existents. (For more clarity on this, see the following discussions: (1) https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source_of_Major_Flaws_in_Cosmological_Theories_Mathematics-to-Physics_Application_Discrepency, (2) https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematics_and_Causality_A_Systemic_Reconciliation, and (3) https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_Are_Numbers_and_Shapes_and_Their_Structures_Considered_by_Many_as_Exact)
If motion is a matter of spatial and temporal measurements, then it can be treated in terms of epistemic procedures in physics. Space-time measurements are the only way for this. But Change, as the concept of motions within motions within motions…, is the precondition behind all motion. These are not generalizable again under the notion of motion-in-general, because this would only be represented mathematically by one type of motion at a time, and not a conglomeration of motions within motions within….
Change does not remain alone. Change is always co-implied by Extension, and of the latter too we have only epistemic measurements in physics, not ontological “quantities”. Clearly, Change is not motion; instead, it denotes an extended object, all the parts of which are in motion by way of impact-formation. Hence, Extension and Change are the fundamental, physical-ontological, universals of all physical existents.
This, in my opinion, is a better way to make the cosmos and eventually Reality-in-total dynamic – rather than creating directly a holistic philosophy for the sake of the attractiveness of holism, where notions like dynamism, interdependence, relationality, coherence, etc. are brought up without the necessary foundational justification.
Let us, therefore, agree that Change is the inevitable ontological precondition behind all motion and that Extension and Change are the fundamental, mutually requiring, physical-ontological, universals of all existents in Reality-in-total and is exhaustive of the notion of the To Be of Reality-in-total.
Think of the various neo-Vedāntic, neo-Buddhistic, and nature-religion type, new age religions and their philosophies like those of Rudolf Steiner, Osho, Dalai Lama, etc. For neo-Vedānta, quantum physics is close to their heart because it “proves” Vedāntic non-dualism! Their meditation practices and their wisdom are wonderful, but not their physico-philosophical holisms, because they are oriented to good feelings, metaphysical or anti-metaphysical conclusions based on good feelings, and are not based on equally physically and cosmologically acceptable philosophical detail.
On the other hand, we have philosophers and philosopher-scientists like Henri Bergson (and the many neo-Nietzschean thinkers), Fritjof Kapra (and his kind of physicists turning quantum physics into a quick-fix-solutions philosophy), etc., who generate a good-feeling integralism without metaphysical tenability with respect to Reality-in-total.
3. WHAT DEBILITATES THEORY IN THE EPR PARADOX? How can quantum physics change?
I do not discuss here the details of the EPR problem. I shall take for granted in the reader some previous knowledge of it. For a state-of-the-art discussion and details of critical points, see: (https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Was_Einstein_a_Monist_long_text)
The EPR problem points to a paradox (locality and non-locality) and consequent sub-paradoxes (say, of stuck-up concepts of symmetry, standstill in the universality of causality, closure of the causal cone, luminal velocity-based artificial limits to physical research, etc.). All these are based only on the procedures in physics as to how the Changes in the processes are being functionalized only with respect to a certain sort of motion with its settled velocity (i.e., c). The velocity of light has been determined from our world, and Relativity takes it up as the ultimate criterion of measurement for the whole cosmos without considering the status of origin of the notion. Hence, the EPR thought experiment and its experimental realizations have tended to create the said paradoxes.
Finally, the technical aspects of non-locality have been instrumentalized by technology-oriented physicists. John Clauser, Alain Aspect, and Anton Zeilinger won the 2022 Nobel Prize for physics. Now many think that, due to the instrumentation success of quantum optics, the cosmos should obey non-locality. But then, should the successes of Newtonian engineering-physics in the instrumentation of astrophysical experiments prove such physics to be the physics of the cosmos?
This state of affairs continues in quantum physics while the physicists do not consider the basic physical-ontological qualities / universals of all existent observables and unobservables together for legitimacy in concepts, hypotheses, truth-claims, laws, theories, etc.: namely, (1) the first most general nature of every existent, i.e., Extension (compositeness), and (2) the only other most general nature of every non-vacuous existent, i.e., Change (impaction / mode of actualization of compositeness).
The second point above demonstrates that even for the energy wavicles concerned, say, the electromagnetic or gravitational emission units, there are inner motions within themselves and influences of motions from beyond themselves into the inner constitution and motions, both the types of which sub-determine every one of such emissions throughout the past, present, and future.
This realization in quantum physicists, astrophysicists, and cosmologists should be coupled with the need to posit a spectrum of criterial velocities for use at various regions of the cosmos. Out of the spectrum of criterial velocities’ values, some should be valid in ever greater conglomerations of universes within the cosmos. This could give impetus to the evolution of modes of conceiving the fundamental principles of aspects of physics in a cosmology-compatible manner. (For further deepening on this issue: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology_GCC, and https://www.researchgate.net/post/Infinite-Eternal_Multiverse_Implications_to_Physics_and_Cosmology)
We know that there is no real absolute inertia as Newton thought. If not in absolute inertia, then both observables and unobservables may be considered only in the state of comparative inertia. But what is ontologically more real and irreducible, they are in themselves in Change – i.e., sub-motions within and external sub-influences upon the motion at issue of the wavicle. Hence, wavicles in the cosmos possess not merely a finite amount of motion (and are not in absolute inertia). They possess also constant continuity in finite Change, namely, motions within motions within … ad libitum.
If time does not "exist" as things, measurement is by convention-scales, and no constant of proportionality exists, can light be of constant velocity?
Question
134 answers
  • Raphael NeelamkavilRaphael Neelamkavil
We know that time is not an existent entity. It is a measuremental concept behind all experiences of existent physical processes. But measurement is always by conventional scales. Can we then measure photonal velocity as a constant like the constants of proportionality in physics? Can light be of constant velocity if no constant of proportionality exists that makes it constant?
I know that you will now ask what the meaning of such a question would be! The constancy of the velocity of light is bound to experiments within this universe, that too in this phase of the universe.
If the amount of matter-energy in the big bang (or even at the bang of a certain amount of matter-energy within a region of the universe) is, let us say, A, then the highest transportation speed would be fixed by the first propagations that arise from the big bang at issue.
That region of the universe or our big bang universe as such has produced a maximal velocity at the start of its phase of expansion, and this limit cannot be overcome by any other propagation within that region or universe. This is a very pragmatic fact, and not a theoretical limit of all propagations in the universe!
There can be another region of our big bang universe or another phase (say, another phase of expansion, or its contraction phase), where the amount of matter-energy directly available for work is less.
The amount of energy here is, say, B -- for causal reasons determined by the amount of matter-energy available for work, due to its exteriorizing some energy during the previous phases of evolution. This will naturally result in the causal determination of the maximal photonal (or any other) velocity being limited to another amount. This is simply because of the difference of density due to the difference in the amount of matter-energy.
If not, we may admit at least that there will be speed values A, B, C, etc. in a finite number of times, and then there will be another level, determined by, say, speed values F, G, H, etc., where the propagation velocity would be lower or higher.
This is for me a solid argument to keep our minds open to accept that (1) the speed of light need not be a constant for all regions of the universe or for all universes, (2) in this case some universes may have superluminal velocities, (3) these propagations will surely enter some universes other than the one/s in which they were produced, and (4) it is extremely difficult to detect them in our universe. But this need not mean in-existence of superluminal velocities.
Can we now say that there will be a general constant of proportionality between possible forms of source-independent (source-independent with respect to objects in their own universes) propagations? If this is imaginable, it can really be called a constant. How can the this-worldly luminal velocity be a constant beyond our universe or our cluster of universes, where its velocity of propagation was determined causally by the available amount of matter-energy at the bang?
I have discussed this in two of my books (2014, 2018), the latter being more general than the earlier. I have also questioned the universality of the Lorentz Factor in the Special Theory of Relativity. The background of reasoning behind these arguments is that of reading various books on the velocity of light during my school days.
I would be pleased to get open-minded reactions on this question.
Raphael Neelamkavil

Related Publications

Preprint
Full-text available
Currently, natural philosophy (Physics) lacks the most fundamental model and a complete set of self-consistent explanations. This article attempts to discuss several issues related to this lack. Starting from the most basic philosophical paradoxes, I deduce a physical model (the natural philosophical outlook) to describe the laws governing the oper...
Article
Full-text available
Currently, natural philosophy (Physics) lacks the most fundamental model and a complete set of self-consistent explanations. This article attempts to discuss several issues related to this lack. Starting from the most basic philosophical paradoxes, I deduce a physical model (the natural philosophical outlook) to describe the laws governing the oper...
Article
Full-text available
The statement of teaching philosophy reflects on teachers’ growth and dedication to achieve the goal and values. Concerning philosophy, physics is the most fundamental science discipline which has profound philosophical implications. This article aims to discuss the importance of the teaching philosophy statement (TPS) for sustaining the teaching-l...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.