History and Philosophy of Logic - Science topic

Dear Raphael Neelamkavil,

Your thoughtful and extensive response is deeply appreciated. The time and dedication you've devoted to these intricate concepts shine through, and your perspective brings a refreshing viewpoint to our discourse.

You assert that our statistical measures in physics are heavily influenced by the mathematical models we've formulated, a position that resonates with accuracy. These models, while approximated by nature, have served as the bedrock of our comprehension of quantum mechanics, enabling us to generate predictions from this understanding. However, as you astutely pointed out, this doesn't necessarily indicate that these models encapsulate the entire scope of quantum reality. Perhaps it's more accurate to state they represent our best tools available for interfacing with and comprehending the quantum world, given our current technological capabilities and conceptual understandings.

Your analogy of abstracting water droplets to points for mathematical precision provides an excellent illustration. Fundamentally, the models we employ in physics are simplifications of reality, designed to encapsulate the most pivotal aspects of the physical phenomena we investigate. But it's crucial to avoid mistaking these models for reality itself. They merely represent our best current methods of describing and predicting reality.

Your comments concerning the Lorentz factor and the speed of light are strikingly thought-provoking. Indeed, the assumption that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit in the universe is underpinned by empirical observations within our observable universe and within the framework of the theory of relativity. The concept of superluminal speeds would require us to radically revise our understanding of the universe.

Your courage and determination to challenge the established scientific framework are admirable. Authentic progress in science often originates from those brave enough to question the status quo and expand the boundaries of our understanding. I'm confident that your work will find the audience and appreciation it deserves, for the truth in science has a peculiar way of making itself known, irrespective of its immediate reception.

The possibilities you suggest, such as various relativities predicated on differing c values, are genuinely captivating. This kind of innovative thinking often ushers in paradigm shifts in scientific thought.

Your ongoing commitment to these questions is inspiring, and I anticipate with eagerness the exploration of the discussions you've linked. I hold firm in my belief that science thrives on open discourse and a diversity of perspectives. Hence, although we may not concur on all points, the value of dialogue is irrefutable.

Thank you for your participation in this intellectually stimulating conversation.

Yeah I see now there's a much simpler solution. But I wondered if I had "well done" the exercise. Actually, it seems to me it works. I found two terms, M and N, the first one reducing to an arbitrary x and the second one to an arbitrary y. Moreover, M can be obtained from N by replacing an occurrence of S with K and therefore, as soon as one admits S = K as a rule, it follows that M = N. Since M = x and N = y, by transitivity one should get x = y for every x and y.

Actually, M and N, as I built them, contain other terms which are in the end not relevant to respective reducibility to x and y. But that's should not be a problem. It should be like to have two terms with variables (x, y, z, w), possibly with z = w, respectively reducing to x and y.

That's how I did the exercise...

PS: inconsistent in the sense that one can trivialize the equality relation.

Leibniz was the master of symbol creation!  He created symbols that packaged meaning,  helped cognition, stimulated generalization, and eased manipulation.  He thought about them with care before committing to their use.  William Oughtred invented hundreds of new symbols, but hardly any of them are still in use.  Goes to show that willy-nilly made symbols don't have a good survival rate, for good reasons.

I'm not very familiar with neo-hegelian british idealism. I have read some Coleridge and know of his influences from the German parts of the world. Coleridge also tried to translate Goethe's Faust and went on trips to Germany with his fellow lake poet Wordsworth. Romanticism has at it's root an authentic form of freedom that is driven by an authentic commitment of some type of play. We never are so authentically ourselves at when at play Schiller believed. We gain this "play drive" when we are able to synthesize the formal and sensuous drives together. As we realize ourselves we are able to de-individuate ourselves and see a world that can be in harmony with ourselves. This is when our subjective self is married to the objective world. This is when one is more harmonized with the "absolute" and when one has is able to make "intellectual love" to god, as Spinoza put it.

Furthermore, both Spinoza and Hegel adopted a pantheist perspective. This also emphasizes another type of synthesis of the physical (formal) and the subjective (sensuous) together to form one substance. Spinoza was a pure deterministic rationalist. There is something there for everyone, and much that isn't. For him, unlike the romantics, there is no freewill and all that is good is purely rational-- which is that spark of divinity within all of us.

It's been a while since I've studied either. I hope this helps. If any of my information is wrong please let me know. :)