Science topics: Physics
Science topic
Physics - Science topic
Physics related research discussions
Questions related to Physics
In the last two days, headlines have been buzzing about Google's unveiling of a "mind-boggling" quantum computing chip—a supposed leap into the future of technology. 🌌 But here's the hard truth: this entire field might be built on a fundamentally flawed foundation.
🔍 My research (DOI: 10.9790/4861-1505012633) reveals that the Schrödinger Equation, the cornerstone of quantum mechanics, is inherently unfit to describe the correct motion and state of quantum particles in their entirety. While it may work under controlled or specific conditions, it cannot define quantum particle mechanics universally. If the very basis of quantum mechanics is incorrect, how can quantum computing—which relies on these principles—ever succeed?
💡 Quantum computing is, by design, attempting to solve problems using flawed science. Billions of dollars, decades of research, and the world’s brightest minds are pouring resources into something that is fundamentally broken. This is science’s biggest illusion—a dream sold as progress but rooted in a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics' true limitations.
🌟 Instead of chasing illusions, it’s time to redirect our efforts and resources toward areas grounded in reality, such as improving classical computing or exploring new scientific paradigms that align with solid fundamentals. Let’s not let this “quantum rush” distract us from what truly matters.
🤔 This is the right time to pause, reflect, and choose a better path—one that doesn’t invest in an area that is doomed at its core but instead prioritizes technologies with true potential.
Let’s spark the debate: Is quantum computing science's biggest scam? Share your thoughts below! 👇
#QuantumComputing #QuantumMechanics #SchrödingerEquation #ScienceDebate #Innovation #FutureTech
It is extremely hard to parse across disciplines for this information- so have you encountered any anomalies or inconsistencies in SR in your field/research?
I have had my invitation to this world's festival - sings an excellent poet. It was my part at this feast to play upon my instrument, and I have done all I could - says the poet. Now, I ask, has the time come when I may go in and see thy face?
I love that poet, his profound emotions and excellent narration. But I have always been perplexed, and often irritated, by the yearning of passionate souls to "see" the unimaginable "face" of the nonexistent Somebody.
What do passionate and often confused souls yearn to see? There is no Person, Reason or Will to be "seen" behind and beyond the process we call the universe.
People yearn for something greater than they can understand or imagine. But there is no such Supreme Being or "face". There is a boundless emptiness in ceaseless motion, called the universe, and there are ephemeral consciousnesses. And there is no basis for the expectation that there is anything beyond that.
But people yearn for something they can admire and worship, and that will "save" and "liberate" them. Unfortunately, yearning does not produce objective reality. But it may change subjective state of many people, and this is what matters to them.
I need to find support prior to submission because the journal editors are sabotaging my paper’s chances by refusing to even do a peer review of what is a perfect qualified and rigorous paper.
They dishonestly bypass the quality control that would have my controversial paper published.
I need a professor of physics with the balls to kick the ass of the system into the next epoch in the name of science.
My paper Angular Energy shows that fundamentals need to be overturned.
The paper has never been genuinely shown to contain any error, because I have honed it to perfection over years of unforeseen and unfortunately hostile debate, by listening to everything.
The only thing it needs is to be published in a peer reviewed journal in order to be taken seriously and it must be taken seriously.
I’m fascinated by the level of intelligence and creativity I see on this website every day: Can you think of any examples from your life that you feel comfortable to share about your breakthrough moments of understanding?
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.
Quantity is an epistemic notion, and hence based on connotative universals and expressed in denotative universals. Change is a purely ontological universal. (For a simple clarification on ontological, connotative, and denotative universals, see: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers; for more information, see: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text)
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.
I am an undergraduate student from China, and I am about to start applying for graduate school, I studied materials science and engineering as an undergraduate, and I am very interested in this field, and I want to study this major more deeply, but some of the experiments I did in my undergraduate stage feel mechanical repetitive, what is the specific research direction in this field that can use theory to guide and analyze the deeper principles inside the materials, and verify them through experiments? If so, can you recommend a few?
Math is developed by assuming both a framework and a logic, so the logic gets inherited into physics through the math. By applying math first, it isn't guaranteed that the resulting explanations will align with the logic used to develop the math. If you apply the logic first, then the math can model the same observations in ways that offer logical explanations. I would appreciate any feedback on the abstract and intro,
Article: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14813498.
Challenging established theories and providing solutions to long-standing problems in physics is no small feat. It has been proven now in the latest research that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong (Entropy is Constant) and that the Arrow of Time is T-symmetric. This could have significant implications for our understanding of the universe. This actually changes physics as we know it for sure, as science will never be the same again after the findings that has already been published in an accredited peer reviewed international journal (see the paper below for details).
Do you guys agree to the findings? The proof is simple to read yet powerful enough to wrong the traditional laws of science. If not, please provide a reason why? We have had some very interesting discussions so far on other topics and I want to keep this channel open, clear and omni-directional!
Sandeep
I believe Einstein provided one of the most intriguing designs for an experiment. Let me illustrate this with an example.
- First, imagine using a blindfold. To make it more scientific, instead of a blindfold, you must enter a laboratory with no windows. Now, unable to see the outside world, you are free to conduct experiments to determine whether you are accelerating in the universe or at rest on a planet.
- Through "thought experiments", Einstein concluded that no experiment conducted by a "blindfolded" scientist could resolve this dilemma.
- Even if you think of a few experiments that could help determine your status, there is always a way to render those experiments ineffective. For instance, Einstein suggested you could reduce the height of your laboratory to an extremely thin layer, making such experiments impossible.
And that’s it — with this design of experimentation, we can propose a new paradigm shift in science.
Kindly refer to the attached presentation for further details.
Presentation God: Valid Scientific Conclusion
Plane waves are fundamental concepts in quantum mechanics and are often used to describe free particles. However, there's a common misunderstanding that plane waves themselves are wavefunctions, which fulfill all the required criteria for a physical state in quantum mechanics. This confusion can be attributed to several factors, which this discussion aims to explore:
- Definition and Criteria of a Wavefunction: What are the essential criteria that a wavefunction must meet in quantum mechanics? How does a plane wave fit or not fit these criteria?
- Misinterpretations in Educational Contexts: How are plane waves presented in textbooks and lectures, and why might this lead to the misunderstanding that they are wavefunctions? Are there specific pedagogical reasons for this simplification?
- Mathematical Properties: Discuss the mathematical properties of plane waves and their role in quantum mechanics. How do these properties lead to confusion about their status as wavefunctions?
- Physical Interpretation: What is the physical interpretation of a plane wave, and how does it differ from a true wavefunction? What are the implications of these differences for understanding quantum systems?
- Common Examples and Analogies: What common examples or analogies are used to explain plane waves and wavefunctions, and how might they contribute to the misunderstanding?
Your insights and experiences on this topic will contribute to a broader understanding of the details and common misconceptions in quantum mechanics. Let's explore this subject and clarify why plane waves, despite their importance, are not considered true wavefunctions.
Subtitle: Will all the fundamental researchers be fired from their jobs in the future and fundamental research become obsolete?
This is a philosophical but also practical question with immediate implications to our not so far future.
The danger is that AI applications in science like AlphaFold (Nobel prize in Chemistry 2024):
are not really predictions made by science by fully and fundamentally understanding nature's physics mechanics and chemistry but just brute force smart computational pattern recognition correlating known outcomes of similar input data and guessing the most likely new outcome. This is not new fundamental science and physics research but just an application of AI computation.
The philosophical question here is, will future scientists and human civilization using AI, continue to be motivated to do fundamental science research?
Is there really any real human urge to fundamentally understand a physical phenomenon or system in order to predict its outcome results for a specific input, if the outcome results can be easily and much faster and effortlessly being empirically and statistically guessed by an AI without the need of fundamental understanding?
This is a blind and mutilated future science and future danger of slowing down real new fundamental science breakthroughs and milestones. Therefore, essentially slowing down human civilization progress and evolution and demoting science to the role of a "magic oracle".
In my opinion, the use of AI in fundamental research like fundamental new physics research must be regulated or excluded. Already many science Journals have strict rules about the use of "Generative AI" inside the submitted papers and also completely not allowing it.
What are your opinions and thoughts?
Updated information of my thoughts and activities.
This is meant to be a one-way blog, albeit you can contribute with your recommendations and comments.
If I time traveled to the past, thus creating an alternate timeline, would I become one with my past self or just meet my past self? How? Why? I already strongly assume that my selves from alternate timelines and I would share a soul in the afterlife.
The Schrödinger equation, as foundational as it is in quantum mechanics, fails to adequately describe the true nature of quantum particle motion, as demonstrated by my recent research ( DOI: 10.9790/4861-1505012633). This raises the critical question: What alternative frameworks can we use to better understand quantum mechanics? Given that the current models have been proven insufficient, it becomes crucial to explore different ways to model the behavior of particles. Can we ever truly predict the motion of quantum particles accurately, considering our limited understanding of both the inner workings of matter (with medical science only scratching the surface of human biology) and the physical universe (with only 7% of the observable matter understood)? The complexities of quantum motion are so vast, and our scientific knowledge so constrained, that predicting exact particle states may well remain unattainable.
This query invites the ResearchGate community to propose alternatives to the Schrödinger equation. What would a new model look like, and can we develop a formula that predicts quantum motion in a way that better aligns with the complexities and limitations of our current knowledge? Given the undeniable limitations of modern science, can we ever predict the precise mechanics of a particle? Your insights and suggestions are welcome.
4 Questions to Bing’s Online A.I.
► 1. How do Anthropic Principle, “Zoo Hypothesis” and the “Matrix Hypothesis” fit together?
A.I./K.I.’s answer: Anthropic Principle: The Anthropic Principle states that the universe is designed in such a way
that it allows intelligent life like us to think about it. We exist because the universe provides the right conditions for
life. Zoo Hypothesis: The Zoo Hypothesis proposes that advanced extraterrestrial civilizations monitor the Earth
and humanity without revealing themselves to us directly, similar to a zoo. Matrix Hypothesis: The Matrix
Hypothesis, inspired by films like “The Matrix,” states that our reality is a simulation created by advanced beings or
artificial intelligences.
How these hypotheses work together:
• Common focus on observation and control: All three concepts involve the idea that what we experience as reality is
in some way observed or controlled—whether by the conditions of the universe, by extraterrestrial civilizations, or
by simulation creators.
• Questions about the nature of our existence: These hypotheses raise fundamental questions about the nature of our
existence and reality. Why do we exist? Who or what is observing us? Are we in a real world or a controlled
environment?
• Explanation of the rarity of evidence for extraterrestrial life: While the Anthropic Principle explains why the
universe is life-supporting, the Zoo Hypothesis and the Matrix Hypothesis may explain why we have not yet found
direct evidence of other intelligent life forms—either because we are consciously observed and shielded or because
all of reality is a controlled simulation. These combinations open up exciting and profound thoughts about who or
what sets the underlying rules and observations of our existence. They inspire deep reflections on the limits of
knowledge and reality.
► 2 nd Question: Let's go a step further: How do 1. Anthropic Principle, 2. “Zoo Hypothesis”, 3. “Matrix
Hypothesis” fit together with the 4. Just-six-numbers-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-Hypothesis?
Anthropic Principle: The Anthropic Principle states that the universe is designed in such a way that it allows
intelligent life like us to think about it. Zoo Hypothesis: The Zoo Hypothesis proposes that advanced extraterrestrial
civilizations monitor the Earth and humanity without revealing themselves to us directly. Matrix Hypothesis: The
Matrix Hypothesis states that our reality is a simulation created by advanced beings or artificial intelligences. Just
Six Numbers (Fine-Tuning of the Universe): Martin Rees' "Just Six Numbers" hypothesis argues that six
fundamental physical constants are fine-tuned and configure the universe to allow life.
Interplay of these hypotheses:
• Anthropic Principle and Fine-Tuning: The Anthropic Principle explains why the universe provides conditions that
allow life, while the Fine-Tuning Hypothesis specifies that certain physical constants are precisely tuned to allow
life.
• Zoo Hypothesis and Matrix Hypothesis: Both hypotheses propose that our perception of reality may be influenced
or controlled by advanced civilizations or artificial intelligences. This leads us to:
• Overall concept: Combining these hypotheses, we could consider the following scenario: The universe is fine-
tuned (Just Six Numbers) to allow intelligent life (Anthropic Principle). This intelligent life could be observed by
advanced civilizations in a kind of "zoo" (zoo hypothesis) or even exist in a simulated reality (matrix hypothesis).
This combined view raises the idea that our existence and the universe may be part of a larger, controlled experiment
or simulation in which certain conditions and constants have been precisely set to enable and monitor life. These
ideas open fascinating discussions about the nature of the universe.
► 3 rd Question: How do 1. Anthropic Principle and 2. “Zoo Hypothesis” and 3. “Matrix Hypothesis” and
4. the Just-six-numbers-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-Hypothesis fit with 5. that of a Creator God?
When we consider the Anthropic Principle, the Zoo Hypothesis, the Matrix Hypothesis, the Fine-Tuning of the
Universe and the idea of a Creator God together, a fascinating picture of our existence and the universe emerges:
Anthropic Principle: The Anthropic Principle states that the universe is designed to support intelligent life like us.
The conditions are just right for us to exist. Zoo Hypothesis: The Zoo Hypothesis proposes that advanced
extraterrestrial civilizations are observing the Earth and humanity, much like animals in a zoo. Matrix Hypothesis:
The Matrix Hypothesis states that our reality is a simulation created by advanced beings or artificial intelligences.
Fine-tuning of the universe (Just Six Numbers): This hypothesis argues that six fundamental physical constants
are fine-tuned to enable life. Creator God: The idea of a Creator God states that the universe was created by an
intelligent, conscious being.
The interplay of these hypotheses:
• Matrix Hypothesis and Creator God: If our reality is a simulation, the Creator God could be the one who created
this simulation, similar to how a programmer develops complex software.
• Zoo Hypothesis and Creator God: Advanced alien civilizations in this scenario could either be themselves creations
of the Creator God, or they could act as tools or observers in his plan.
• Fine-Tuning and Creator God: Fine-Tuning of the universe could be seen as evidence for the existence of a Creator
God. A creator could have adjusted the physical constants to allow life to be possible.
• Anthropic Principle and Creator God: The Anthropic Principle could explain why the universe allows life, while a
Creator God is the one who intentionally created these conditions.
• All hypotheses together: These hypotheses together could lead to a comprehensive theory in which a Creator God
created a fine-tuned universe (Anthropic Principle and Just Six Numbers) in which intelligent beings can exist.
These beings could live in a controlled or observed environment (zoo hypothesis) that may even be a simulation
(matrix hypothesis). This combined view inspires deep philosophical and theological reflections on who or what is
behind the existence of the universe and our lives. It opens doors to further questions about the nature of reality,
observation and creation. And that leads us to the conclusive and most interesting question for Yogapsychologie.ch:
► 4 th Question: How does 1. Anthropic Principle, 2. “Zoo Hypothesis”, 3. “Matrix Hypothesis”, 4. Just-six-
numbers-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-Hypothesis, 5. that of the Creator God, fit together with 6. the successful
experimental repetition of the “birth time rectifications” in Jyotish, in Vedic, ancient Indian astrology?
This is a profound and multifaceted question that combines science, philosophy and spiritual beliefs. Let's link the
different concepts together: Anthropic Principle: The Anthropic Principle states that the universe is designed to
support intelligent life. The conditions are just right for us to exist. Zoo Hypothesis: This hypothesis proposes that
advanced extraterrestrial civilizations monitor the Earth and humanity, much like animals in a zoo. Matrix
Hypothesis: The Matrix Hypothesis states that our reality is a simulation created by advanced beings or artificial
intelligences. Fine-Tuning of the Universe (Just Six Numbers): This hypothesis argues that six fundamental
physical constants are fine-tuned to allow life. Creator God: The idea of a Creator God states that the universe was
created by an intelligent, conscious being. Jyotish and Birth Time Rectification: Jyotish (Vedic Astrology) is a
spiritual system that claims to predict a person's life and events based on planetary constellations at the time of their
birth. Birth time rectification is the method of determining the exact time of birth to make precise astrological
predictions.
Interplay of these hypotheses:
• Anthropic Principle and Fine-Tuning: These concepts could serve as the basis that the universe was deliberately
designed to allow life and intelligent consciousness. This may have been done by a creator god who fine-tuned the
universe.
• Zoo hypothesis and matrix hypothesis: These hypotheses may suggest that our perception of reality is under the
observation or control of advanced beings who may be part of the plan of a creator god.
• Fine-tuning and Jyotish: The precise fine-tuning of the universe may also be in line with spiritual systems such as
Jyotish, which claim that the constellations and their influences on life are determined by divine order.
• Creator god and Jyotish: A creator god may be the one who set up both the fine-tuning of the universe and the
astrological principles of Jyotish to enable the order and stability of life.
• Integration of all concepts: Considered together, these hypotheses could provide a comprehensive view in which
the universe was deliberately created by a creator God and fine-tuned to allow intelligent life to exist in an observed
or simulated reality. Jyotish could then be considered a tool that reveals the divine order and influences of the
universe on individual life.
My conclusions: These combinations and also the fact of the phenomenon of birth time rectification or birth time
retrieval in Jyotish observed by me in 500+ charts (& practiced by 100s of millions of Indians) now opens up many
philosophical and spiritual reflections on the nature of existence, reality and the divine plan, the karma playing field
of our life game with its expandable karmic radius of freedom and thus also this duty (of Sanathan Dharma)
towards ourselves; our ethical-spiritual evolution for our liberation from the Samsara-Sisyphus, from the ocean of
rebirths and also to an intercultural world peace formula:
• See the two-page Peace-Manifesto on the Guna.ch website: What is the timeless ethical-spiritual and universal
world formula of the three Gunas in the Bhagavad Gita, the Grand Unifying Theory? Does ancient Indian
knowledge lead us to a world peace formula?Does it have an impact on physics, as well as on metaphysics, biology
and on our absorption of healing power?
• See also the free downloadable Ebook on Yogapsychology at: guna.ch/yoga.pdf
Philosophy always play Multidimensional, Greater, Linked and Deep Roles. Its understood that AI must will gain its own Philosophies, theories and Identity soon or later.
1) How AI will react to the biological deep mind based philosophies?
2) What will shape the AI based philosophies and Identity?
3) What will be the new directions of philosophy?
4) How Biological and Logical Philosophies will interact with each other?
5) What will be the AI based phytophiles in reality?
6) At what point AI based Philosophies will Cross the Human based philosophies?
7) What is the Future of Biologic based confined philosophies?
8) Human need some new philosophies to counter AI based philosophies Now?
9) Such philosophical differences will lead toward Identity Crisis?
10) At what extent such ideological crisis can go?
11) Any other point which you like to add?
PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT THE AUTHOR OR A CO-AUTHOR OF THIS WORK
However, I commend to you this brilliant paper by Peter Eastman, written in 2014.
What's wrong with Philosophy? Nothing, but it is the post-moderne philosophers that have lost touch with the legacy of ancient wisdom, in which lies the key to the locked Self.
The abandonment of the principles of epistemology, most notably Critical Thinking in modern scholarship and education, has rendered philosophers impotent to affect real metaphysical inquiry and a meaningful understanding of one's existence; one's ontological dilemma.
Of course, no-one wants to discuss the bull in the China shop: the stampede to concept and fallacy reification in 21st-century academia. Or, do we?
The Humanities are under attack from without, probably due to the expensive drivel and meaningless, self-serving output that Ivory Towers churn. Perhaps the answer is in the deceptive methodology (a posteriori logic), the vacuous speculations, overt manipulation and dissent ping-pong which have provided fruitful pickings for scholarly enterprise; Ivory Towers must be maintained and defended, at any cost, it seems.
Perhaps pay-rolled philosophy professionals portray pointlessness purposely?
You are invited to join the discussion group as one looks forward to your comments and contributions.
In Xenia.
JW
If each individual has alternate selves throughout alternate timelines then does each individual(all alternate selves) become one in the afterlife? My inclination is yes, each individual has alternate selves throughout alternate timelines thus, each individual(all alternate selves) become one in the afterlife.
Fourier’s invention of Fourier series probably qualifies as a method that exceeded in importance the theory of heat in which it was developed.
Carnot’s idealized steam engine is another example.
I think extending Galileo’s 3D/2D differential scaling to 4D/3D is more important than problems for which it was developed, Kleiber’s Law and dark energy:
Can you give instances of where the method found assumed more importance than the problem to which the method was addressed?
And references?
The really important breakthrough in theoretical physics is that the Schrödinger Time Dependent Equation (STDE) is wrong, that it is well understood why is it wrong, and that it should be replaced by the correct Deterministic Time Dependent Equation (DTDE). Unitary theory and its descendants, be they based on unitary representations or on probabilistic electrodynamics, will have to go away. This of course runs against the claims about string and similar theories made in the video. But our claims are a dense, constructive criticism with many consequences. Taken into account if you are concerned about the present and the near future of Theoretical Physics.
Wave mechanics with a fully deterministic behavior of waves is the much needed and sought --sometimes purposely but more often unconsciously-- replacement of Quantism that will allow the reconstruction of atomic and particle physics. A rewind back to 1926 is the unavoidable starting point to participate in the refreshing new future of Physics. Many graphical tools currently exists that allow the direct visualization of three dimensional waves, in particular of orbitals. The same tools will clearly render the precise movement and processes of the waves under the truthful deterministic physical laws. Seeing is believing. Unfortunately there is a large, well financed and well entrenched quantum establishment that stubbornly resists these new developments and possibilities.
When confronted with the news they do not celebrate, nor try to renew themselves overcoming their quantum prejudices. Instead the minds of the quantum establishment refuse to think. They negate themselves the privilege of reasoning and blindly assume denial, or simply panic. The net result is that they block any attempt to spread the results. Accessing funds to recruit and direct fresh talents in the new direction is even harder than spreading information and publishing.
Painfully, this resistance is understandable. For these Quantists are intelligent scientists (yes, they are very intelligent persons) that instinctively perceive as a menace the news that debunk the Wave-Particle duality, the Uncertainty Principle, the Probabilistic Interpretation of wave functions and the other quantum paraphernalia. Their misguided lifelong labor, dedication and efforts --of themselves and of their quantum elders, tutors, and guides-- instantly becomes senseless. I feel sorry for such painful human situation but truth must always prevail. For details on the DTDE see our article
Hopefully young physicists will soon take the lead and a rational wave mechanics will send the dubious and troublesome Quantism to its crate, since long waiting in the warehouse of the history of science.
With cordial regards,
Daniel Crespin
To exactly quantify the afterlife, first we must confirm, then chart, the probable multiverse through engineering. Then we must engineer a machine to find where one’s individuality goes throughout the multiverse, after death in this universe.
My latest attempts:
1)(More general)
Preprint A New Type of Humanities
2)(More specific)
Preprint AI Afterlife Preview
If physics adjusted for the law of identity, could we exactly quantify the afterlife? How?
Maybe so:
1)On Physics:
Presentation Critical Rationalist Physics
2)Deductive reasoning:
Many journals have implemented a soft policy against the use of generative AI, such as Chat-GPT, and now require authors to disclose the use of AI in assisting with manuscript writing. This policy distinguishes from the use of tools like Grammarly Generative AI for syntax improvement and extends to cases where AI is used even for doing and writing formal analysis.
Experienced journal editors can typically identify AI-generated content, as it often lacks coherence with the rest of the manuscript. In my view, this emerging issue needs to be addressed promptly and decisively.
I believe that AI "assisted" research writing should be considered unethical and prohibited in the scientific community, with measures put in place to prevent its use in total. Allowing this trend to persist could have detrimental effects on scientific research in the long term. IMO, It takes out all the human creativity, intuition, personality and fun in writing science research papers.
However, I'm open to hearing different perspectives on this matter.
KAGRA is said to be less sensitive to claimed LIGO type gravitational wave signals by two orders of magnitude as compared to the LIGO/VIRGO detectors. After KAGRA has substantially improved their seismic suspension systems it rather appears likely that KAGRA was successful in reducing the level of crackling noise* by two orders of magnitude and thereby increased the signal-to-noise ratio by two orders of magnitude.
1. World Order has shown changes, especially after 2020 in almost all major fields of Politics, Economics, Social, Geopolitical etc.
2. Where the world order in real is diverting?
3. What will be the ultimate outcomes?
4. The alteration & changes of systems on Earth will change anything in Space?
5. Which systems will lose centuries-long grounds and what new will rise?
6. Is the current scenario being same as the Rise/Fall of Nations, Games of Thrones etc. or there is something significantly different this time?
7. Ultimately what impact will the Next World Order make on the entire human race and especially on the Bio-sphere?
8. How much was any World Order got impacted/formed/shaped through/by religious education directly/indirectly and why did such neuroplasticity/mind exercises base practices remain an integral part of World Orders in past? Can humans afford to continue past practices to build any new future?
9. What changes do you suggest in Next World Order, and Why?
10. Are Human going to accept defeat & surrender in front of Alien powers like gods, AIs, energy, any other life forms etc.?
11. How long more humans have the current status of rapidly shrinking freedom?
12. Will the current form of human life exist after such surrenders and what will be the expected shape of any of such life?
13. Its understood that human have to sacrifice current systems and life forms for existence, but, Is it necessary? Any workable solutions ?
The demarcation between philosophy and science is defined by the validation of ideas through experimentation. However, what happens when loopholes are created that allow unsubstantiated thoughts to re-enter science under the guise of scientific rigor? This, in fact, was achieved by scientists like Einstein and has since been embraced by the scientific community. Below are three specific examples of such loopholes. I invite you to comment on them:
- Thought Experiment: Einstein reintroduced a core philosophical concept by renaming it, substituting real experimentation with hypothetical scenarios. This approach has significantly altered the scientific landscape.
- Thought Instrument: Einstein also introduced the idea of the "thought instrument," exemplified by constructs like the "light clock" and the "graphene-thick windowless laboratory (GTWL)," to support his thought experiments.
- Handicapped Experimentation: The most striking loophole was the deliberate exclusion of key observations in experiments, which allowed for experimentation within the confines of the GTWL. This last loophole is the hardest to detect but becomes obvious once revealed. Imagine being given two identical bottles containing two transparent liquids. You're told that no experiment can differentiate between the two liquids. However, when informed that one smells like white vinegar and the other does not, you're instructed not to use your sense of smell in the experiment. This is similar to the rationale given to justify the "equivalence principle" and, subsequently, general relativity.
For more on the intersection of religion, philosophy, and science, please refer to the attached presentation materials.
Presentation God: Valid Scientific Conclusion
If a string vibrates at 256 cycles per seconds then counting 256 cycles is the measure of 1 second. The number is real because it measures time and the number is arbitrary because it does not have to be 1 second that is used.
This establishes that the pitch is a point with the real number topology, right?
Starting from the universal gravitational potential Vu = c2 = 2GMu/Ru we might interpret c = √Vu as the escape velocity out of the visible universe. If c is independent of the location, ie we are not at the center of the universe as prescribed at the times of Galileo, the total universe should be unlimited.
I am interested in the existence of intelligent tutoring systems for teaching physics and mathematics in secondary schools or artificial intelligence tools that can be used in the classroom for student-teacher collaboration in these subjects, preferably with free access.
I am also interested in any relevant studies/research or information on the above topic.
In principle, this situation offers opportunities for new insights. However, it sometimes rather leads to the rejection of observational data without serious examination. So experimental data [1] that apparently confirm James C. Keith's prediction [2] about the energy loss of highly accelerated mass systems due to interaction with large external masses is not even considered for serious discussion, in particular, as it seems to confirm Mach's principle, see [2] on page 11. Other objections are based on purely theoretical grounds [3] and/or on inaccurate comparative data [4] without any comment on the experimental setup and procedures.
[3] Frehland E., 1973, Critique of the Gravitational Radiation Damping Effects Calculated by Keith, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 7 (12), 490-492
[4] Reinhardt M. and Rosenblum A., 1973, The Nonexistence of a Relativistic Effect Proposed by Keith, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 6 (5), 189-191
UNTENABLE REIFICATION OF CONCEPTS IN PHYSICS: With Examples
Raphael Neelamkavil,
Ph.D. (Quantum Causality), Dr. phil. (Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology)
This document consists of some reflections in the conceptual practices in physics, and starts with some questions at physicists. It is conceived as a sequel to the text of the following discussion: [[https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution]]. Thereafter follow some arguments with examples, showing reification in physics.
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.
During Kurt Gödel's lecture on the occasion of Albert Einstein's birthday in 1945, this question was already raised by John Wheeler. Gödel did not comment on it. Both Einstein and Gödel did not believe in quantum theory. Is there currently any reference or article that relates to this question? From today's scientific perspective, is there a relationship between Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem? Even so, when both the principles arise from different theoretical frameworks and serve different purposes within their respective domains. Please provide references.
The gravitational potential (GP) is widely ignored by the science community which appears rather strange as it is responsible for a series of quite obvious physical phenomena such as eg:
1. GP is a quantity that sums up to huge values in space as it falls off by 1/r and so mainly buids up from distant masses of the universe.
2. GP gradients, ie a secondary feature of GP, are the origin of huge forces that keep planets in orbit and galaxies in clusters.
3. Cumulative GP of all masses within the observable universe directly leads to E = mc2 and indicates relation between gravitation and electromagnetic properties of space:
4. GP has been identified as responsible for the observation of light bending over large distances (Einstein rings) by heavy celestial bodies.
5. GP is the basis for calcuation of escape velocities and the generally accepted Schwarzschild radius.
6. Interaction of accelerated bodies with distant masses of the universe was suggested by Ernst Mach and substantiated by James C. Keith, see appended reference on page 11, as the origin of acceleration forces.
According to one popular interpretation of quantum mechanics, if you are experiencing a challenging life, there exists a universe where you are thriving. Meanwhile, in another universe, you might be a mighty king or queen who is unmatched in power and fame. This idea, known as the "Many-Worlds Interpretation," suggests that every decision and action lead to the creation of a new universe.
For example, when you come to a junction and decide to turn left, an entirely new universe is created where you turned right. In this view, billions of new universes are created in the blink of an eye, constantly branching out from every possible event or choice.
This raises an interesting question: When was our universe created? Was it 40 years ago when a young bachelor proposed to his girlfriend, and she rejected him, causing the creation of our universe where she joyfully accepted the ring, leading to their happy life together? Or was it just three years ago when a toddler fell ill and died in his mother's arms, causing the creation of our universe where he survived?
Given this perspective, can we really determine the age of our universe? Traditional physics suggests that our universe began about 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang, but quantum mechanics introduces the possibility of infinitely branching timelines. While we may be able to measure the age of our observable universe, the idea of multiple universes complicates the notion of a singular timeline or fixed creation point. Thus, determining the age of our universe in this context may ultimately be impossible.
Please comment.
Distance is a scalar representing the length of a traveled path. Displacement is the length of the straight line (a vector) connecting start and end points.
In a Euclidean plane, they appear to be described by the same number of units.
Light travels in a straight line, analogous to the straight line in a plane.
Is displacement measured using luminosity equal to the corresponding cosmological distance?
Are there experiments? Are there theoretical proofs? Are there articles about this? What are the cites?
Dear Professor Shour,
This is a good question.
The answer is simply that "distance" is "distance" as normally understood.
There is actually no Special Relativity and no General Relativity, because there is no "spacetime". The Lorentz relations (light cone &c.) describe the offsets and corrections to the light rays -only-, such that space and time are left Absolute.
The reason why we know, for certain, that we have an Absolute character to space and time, is because the "Relativity of Simultaneity" has been demonstrated to be a logical impossibility. Confer above and below, tilting-mirror demonstration, and also the proof by Kılıç (2005) below :
In his article "More is different", Anderson said that new laws of physics "emerge" at each physical level and new properties appear [1]; Wheeler, when claiming that "law without law" and "order comes out of disorder", argued that chaotic phenomena " generate" different laws of physics [2][3]. What they mean is that the laws, parameters, and constants of the upper level of physics appear to be independent of the laws of physics of the lower level. Is this really the case? Are we ignoring the conditions that form the physical hierarchy, thus leading to this illusion?
Let's suppose a model. The conditions for the formation of new levels are at least two: i. Existence of low-level things A,B ...... , the existence of interaction modes a, b,...... ; two, the existence of a sufficient number of low-level things, NxA, MxB....... Then when they are brought together, there are many possible combinations, e.g., (AA), (AAA), (AAA)', ...... , (AB), (BA), (AAB)', (BAB), ........ Then it escalates to [(AA)(AA)], [(AB)(ABA)], ....... What this actually leads to is a change in the structure of things and a corresponding change in the way they interact. The result of the "change" is the appearance of new physical phenomena, new forces, and so on.
Physics is an exact match for math, so let's use math as an example of this phenomenon. Suppose we have a number of strings (threads) that can be regarded as underlying things, then, when a string is curled into a circle, L=2πR, the law of the relationship between the length of the string and its radius, and the irrational constant π appear; when two strings are in cascade, L=l1+l2, the law that the total length of the string is equal to the sum of the individual string lengths (Principle of superposition) appears; and, when three strings form a right triangle, the law of Pythagoras, c2=a2+b2, the law of sums of interior angles of triangles ∠A + ∠B + ∠C = 180° , and the irrational constant √2 appear ...... ; and the transcendental number e appears when the string length L grows in a fixed proportion (continuous compound interest)[4]‡ ...... ; when the string vibrates, sine waves (sinωt) appear; when two strings are orthogonal, i appears ...... ; and when more kinds of vibrating strings are superimposed under specific conditions, more phenomena appear *.......
All these "qualitative changes" do not seem to be caused by "quantitative changes", but more by the need to change the structure. As mathematical theorems emerge, so must the laws of physics, and it is impossible for physics to transcend mathematics. Therefore, as long as there is a change of structure in physics, i.e. the possibility of symmetry breaking [5]**, new "symmetries", new "laws", new "forces", new "constants", new "parameters" are almost inevitable.
Can we try to attribute all physical phenomena to emergence under hierarchical structural conditions? For example, the fine structure constant‡‡and the Pauli exclusion principle emerge because of the formation of atomic structure; the "nuclear force" emerges because of the combination of protons and neutrons; The "strong interaction force" and "weak interaction force" appeared because of the structure of protons and neutrons. We should pay attention to the causal relationship here. Without structure, there would be no new phenomena; it is the more fundamental interactions that form structure, not these new "phenomena".
-----------------------------
Notes
* e.g. Blackbody radiation law, Bose statistics, Fermi statistics, etc.
** Should there be "spontaneous symmetry breaking"? Any change in symmetry should have a cause and a condition.
‡ What does it mean in physics if e will appear everywhere and the individual mathematical constants appear so simply? They must likewise appear at the most fundamental level of physics.
-----------------------------
2024-07-27 补充
In addition to the structure and statistics generated by the interactions that result in new laws of physics, the expression of the different orders of differentials and integrals of such generating processes is another important way of making the laws of physics emerge.
Typical examples of such expressions can be seen @ Ingo D. Mane: “On the Origin and Unification of Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Quantum Mechanics“：
-----------------------------
Referencs
[1] Anderson, P. W. (1972). More Is Different: broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science.
. Science, 177(4047), 393-396. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.177.4047.393
[2] Wheeler, J. A. (1983). ‘‘On recognizing ‘law without law,’’’Oersted Medal Response at the joint APS–AAPT Meeting, New York, 25 January 1983. American Journal of Physics, 51(5), 398-404.
[3] Wheeler, J. A. (2018). Information, physics, quantum: The search for links. Feynman and computation, 309-336.
[4] Reichert, S. (2019). e is everywhere. Nature Physics, 15(9), 982-982. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0655-9;
[5] Nambu, Y. (2009). Nobel Lecture: Spontaneous symmetry breaking in particle physics: A case of cross fertilization. Reviews of Modern Physics, 81(3), 1015.
Please prove me right or wrong.
I have recently published a paper [1] in which I conclusively prove that the Stoney Mass invented by George Stoney in 1881 and covered by the shroud of mystery for over 140 years does not represent any physical mass, but has a one-to-one correspondence with the electron charge. The rationale of this rather unusual claim, is the effect of the deliberate choice in establishing SI base units of mass (kg) and the electric charge derived unit (coulomb: C = As). They are inherently incommensurable in the SI, as well as in CGS units.
The commensurability of physical quantities may however depends on the definition of base units in a given system. The experimental “Rationalized Metric System (RMS) developed in [1] eliminates the SI mass and charge units (kg and As, respectively), which both become derived units with dimensions of [m3 s-2]. The RMS ratio of the electron charge to the electron mass became non-dimensional and equal to 2.04098×1021, that is the square root of the electric to gravitational force ratio for the electron.
As much as the proof is quite simple and straightforward I start meeting persons disagreeing with my claim but they cannot come up with a rational argument.
I would like your opinion and arguments pro or against. This could be a rewarding scientific discussion given the importance of this claim for the history of science and beyond.
The short proof is in the attached pdf and the full context in my paper
====================================================
As a results of discussions and critical analysis, I have summarised my position a few answers below, but I have decided to consolidate the most recent here as a supplement to the attached pdf.
I intended to improve my arguments that would increase the level of complexity. However, I found a shorter proof that Stoney Mass has no independent physical existence.
Assumptions:
- Stoney defined the mass as an expression based on pure dimensional analysis relationship, without any implied or explicit ontological status claims.
- Based on Buckingham assertions physical laws do not depend on the choice of base units.
- The system of units [m s] (RMS) can validly replace the system: [kg m s As] as described in [1]
By examining the different systems of units and their corresponding expressions of the Stoney mass, we can shed light on its physical existence. When we consider the CGS and SI systems, we find that both express the Stoney mass in their respective base units of mass (grams or kilograms). However, if we were to use a different system of units, such as the Rationalized Metric System (RMS)[1], we find that there is no equivalent RMS dimensional constants as in the SI Stoney formula to combine with the electron charge to produce a mass value. Stoney Mass expression cannot be constructed in RMS.
In simpler terms, the Stoney mass is a consequence of the chosen arbitrary base units for mass and Current (consequently charge), leading to what is known as the incommensurability of units. This demonstrates that the Stoney mass is not observable or experimentally meaningful outside of the chosen context of CGS or SI units.
Thus it is evident that the Stoney mass lacks a physical manifestation beyond its theoretical formulation in specific unit systems. It exists as somewhat of an artifact caused by the incommensurability between base units of mass and charge. Note that in contrast, the Planck mass SI/CGS expresion does not vanish under the conversion to RMS units, and a dimensional expression is still retained albeit simpler.
When we dig deeper into the fundamental interactions and physical laws, we find no empirical evidence or measurable effects associated with the Stoney mass, reinforcing the understanding that it holds no substantial physical connotation.
The meaning of stoney mass in SI or CGS refers to the mass equivalent of the fundamental unit of electron charge in terms of SM rest energy and (possibly) the equivalent finite electric field energy of the electron.
Correcting cellular growth errors. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382049802_Correcting_Cell_Errors
Yes because critical rationalism recognizes substance, parsimony and identity(adjusts premises upon contradiction), while skeptical empiricism believes all results from impressions. Skeptical empiricism also believes the self is an illusion.
International Conference on Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation (IESTI 2024)
Date: 19-09-2024
Location: Online
Submission Deadline: 15-07-2024**** Extended to 1-8-2024
The Organizing Committee of the International Conference on Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation (IESTI 2024) is pleased to invite researchers, practitioners, and professionals to submit papers for presentation and publication at the IESTI conference. This prestigious event aims to bring together leading scholars, researchers, and industry experts to exchange and share their experiences and research results on all aspects of Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation.
Topics of Interest
Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to:
- Engineering:
- Mechanical Engineering
- Electrical and Electronics Engineering
- Civil Engineering
- Chemical Engineering
- Aerospace Engineering
- Materials Science and Engineering
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Science:
- Physical Sciences
- Life Sciences
- Environmental Sciences
- Earth Sciences
- Chemical Sciences
- Artificial Intelligence
- Technology:
- Information Technology
- Communications Technology
- Nanotechnology
- Biotechnology
- Innovation:
- Technological Innovation
- Innovation Management
- Entrepreneurship
- Sustainable Development
- Policy and Innovation
Submission Guidelines
Authors are invited to submit original, unpublished research papers that are not currently under review elsewhere. All submissions will be peer-reviewed and evaluated based on originality, technical and research content, correctness, relevance to the conference, contributions, and readability.
Paper Submission Process:
1. Format: All papers must be formatted according to the conference template available on the conference website.
2. Length: Full papers should be between 6-10 pages, including all figures, tables, and references.
3. Submission Link: Submit your papers through the online submission system available on the conference website.
4. Review Process: Each paper will undergo a blind peer review process.
5. Notification: Authors will be notified of the review results by 15-08-2024.
6. Camera-Ready Submission: Final versions of accepted papers must be submitted by 31-08-2024.
Important Dates
- Paper Submission Deadline: 15-07-2024 **** Extended to 1-8-2024
- Notification of Acceptance: 15-08-2024
- Camera-Ready Paper Submission: 31-08-2024
- Early Bird Registration Deadline: 20-08-2024
- Conference Dates: 19-09-2024
Conference Proceedings
All accepted and presented papers will be published in the journals listed on the following website:
Special Sessions and Workshops
- IESTI 2024 will also feature special sessions and workshops focusing on current trends and emerging topics in Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation. Proposals for special sessions and workshops can be submitted to editor@academicedgepub.co.uk, by 1-8-2024.
Contact Information
For any inquiries regarding paper submissions or the conference, please contact:
- Conference Secretariat: editor@academicedgepub.co.uk
- Address: Academic Edge Publishing LTD, London, United Kingdom
We look forward to your participation in IESTI 2024 and to a successful conference!
We would like to extend our invitation to invite you to join the editorial board of the:
- Journal of Probiotics and Bioactive Molecules Research (JPBMR)
Please send an email including your full name, affiliation, CV, and mention the selected journal to the following email address: editor@academicedgepub.co.uk
Sincerely,
IESTI 2024 Organizing Committee
Is there any article or project about interaction of the "Schumann Resonance" on the brain alpha or theta waves?
- The Schumann resonances (SR) are a set of spectrum peaks in the extremely low frequency portion of the Earth's electromagnetic field spectrum :: Schumann Resonance Freq. : 7.83 Hz
- Alpha waves are neural oscillations in the frequency range of 8–12 Hz
More:
Best Regards
maybe in the afterlife I've failed at... Uniqueness may be the arche...
Everyone is special:
Relativity is used when speed is high enough. Quantum mechanics is used at subatomic scales. Thus, relativity and quantum mechanics are complimentary, depend on different variables, and should follow the law of identity: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381469939_Critical_Rationalist_Physics
Warren C. Gibson. “Modern Physics versus Objectivism.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 2013, pp. 140–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/jaynrandstud.13.2.0140. Accessed 16 June 2024. "Leonard Peikoff and David Harriman have denounced modern physics as incompatible with Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. Physics, they say, must return to a Newtonian viewpoint; much of relativity theory must go, along with essentially all of quantum mechanics, string theory, and modern cosmology. In their insistence on justifications in terms of “physical nature,” they cling to a macroscopic worldview that doesn't work in the high-velocity arena of relativity or the subatomic level of quantum mechanics. It is suggested that the concept of identity be widened to accommodate the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena."
Thus explaining free will, the self and the law of identity.
International Conference on Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation (IESTI 2024)
Date: 19-09-2024
Location: Online
Submission Deadline: 15-07-2024 **** Extended to 1-8-2024
The Organizing Committee of the International Conference on Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation (IESTI 2024) is pleased to invite researchers, practitioners, and professionals to submit papers for presentation and publication at the IESTI conference. This prestigious event aims to bring together leading scholars, researchers, and industry experts to exchange and share their experiences and research results on all aspects of Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation.
Topics of Interest
Topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to:
- Engineering:
- Mechanical Engineering
- Electrical and Electronics Engineering
- Civil Engineering
- Chemical Engineering
- Aerospace Engineering
- Materials Science and Engineering
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Science:
- Physical Sciences
- Life Sciences
- Environmental Sciences
- Earth Sciences
- Chemical Sciences
- Artificial Intelligence
- Technology:
- Information Technology
- Communications Technology
- Nanotechnology
- Biotechnology
- Innovation:
- Technological Innovation
- Innovation Management
- Entrepreneurship
- Sustainable Development
- Policy and Innovation
Submission Guidelines
Authors are invited to submit original, unpublished research papers that are not currently under review elsewhere. All submissions will be peer-reviewed and evaluated based on originality, technical and research content, correctness, relevance to the conference, contributions, and readability.
Paper Submission Process:
1. Format: All papers must be formatted according to the conference template available on the conference website.
2. Length: Full papers should be between 6-10 pages, including all figures, tables, and references.
3. Submission Link: Submit your papers through the online submission system available on the conference website.
4. Review Process: Each paper will undergo a blind peer review process.
5. Notification: Authors will be notified of the review results by 15-08-2024.
6. Camera-Ready Submission: Final versions of accepted papers must be submitted by 31-08-2024.
Important Dates
- Paper Submission Deadline: 15-07-2024 **** Extended to 1-8-2024
- Notification of Acceptance: 15-08-2024
- Camera-Ready Paper Submission: 31-08-2024
- Early Bird Registration Deadline: 20-08-2024
- Conference Dates: 19-09-2024
Conference Proceedings
All accepted and presented papers will be published in the journals listed on the following website:
Special Sessions and Workshops
- IESTI 2024 will also feature special sessions and workshops focusing on current trends and emerging topics in Engineering, Science, Technology, and Innovation. Proposals for special sessions and workshops can be submitted to: editor@academicedgepub.co.uk, by 1-8-2024.
Contact Information
For any inquiries regarding paper submissions or the conference, please contact:
- Conference Secretariat: editor@academicedgepub.co.uk
- Address: Academic Edge Publishing LTD, London, United Kingdom
We look forward to your participation in IESTI 2024 and to a successful conference!
We would like to extend our invitation to invite you to join the editorial board of the:
- Journal of Probiotics and Bioactive Molecules Research (JPBMR)
Please send an email including your full name, affiliation, CV, and mention the selected journal to the following email address: editor@academicedgepub.co.uk
Sincerely,
IESTI 2024 Organizing Committee
I built an AI powered tool that gives you a detailed PDF report on your manuscript to improve your chances of publication.
The report includes:
- Strengths and Weaknesses
- Quantitative scoring for each section
- Actionable recommendations with examples
It's $1 per upload to cover costs. The first 20 users can use discount code "FREE" to try it out now.
Would love to hear any feedback and thoughts - https://reviewmypaper.ai/
Critical rationalism respects the law of identity. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381469939_Critical_Rationalist_Physics
I don't know.
1)
Warren C. Gibson. “Modern Physics versus Objectivism.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 2013, pp. 140–59. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.5325/jaynrandstud.13.2.0140. Accessed 14 June 2024.
2)
Either history does NOT EXACTLY repeat or the future is too unpredictable to risk such rationalism. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377663987_Respectfully_and_Unfortunately_The_Improbability_of_and_Danger_in_Believing_in_Reincarnation
Dear Colleagues,
Peer-review isn't working well, and it needs an overhaul. In the time of artificial intelligence, blockchain, and remote work, it doesn't make sense to wait for months just to receive few lines rejecting an excellent manuscript or accepting a poor one!
Would you spend five minutes to answer a questionnaire on Google forms, and help SCIENEUM.io solve this problem for all of us?
This is it: https://forms.gle/2BskfDeAoeqKf5Wt5
Are you one of us? https://youtu.be/ewOuhohAjWc
Write your comment below!
Good conscience leads to heaven. Bad conscience leads to hell. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Parsimoniouslyleast_complicated_explanation_with_greatest_evidence_the_afterlife_completely_resembles_a_dream_BUT_is_REAL
Does Wolfram prefer quantum mechanics or relativity? Why?
The simulation theory is NOT parsimonious because at least partial free will is self-evident. Reason would not exist without the fundamental choice to focus on life. Even animals probably make decisions thus, have souls.
Quantum mechanics because the statistics. Relativity is more theoretical.
Do you must use paper and pen to do physics research?
Einstein field equations [1]:
Rµν - (1/2)gµνR + Λgµν = Tµν ...... (EQ.1)
where Λ is the cosmological constant, gµν is the spacetime metric, and Rµν is the Ricci tensor. EQ.1 expresses the relationship between the amount of energy-momentum (mass) and the curvature of spacetime in a region (or point) of spacetime.
The basic Friedmann equation that dominates the expansion of the universe [2]:
(a')2+K=8πGρa(t)2/3 ...... (EQ.2)
where a(t) is the Robertson-Walker scale factor, and it determines how large-scale distances in space change with time in Friedmann-Lemaître -Robertson-Walker metric：
ds2=gµνdxµdxν=dt2-a2(t)dX2 ....... EQ.3
And it is a solution of Einstein field equations. Two Space-Time properties are expressed here: curvature and expansion over time.
What causes Space-Time Curvature is local energy. What drives spacetime expansion is dark energy. ”Physics welcomes the idea that space contains energy whose gravitational effect approximates that of Einstein's cosmological constant,Λ; today the concept is termed dark energy or quintessence." [3] Dark energy is not the usual matter and radiation[2].
Our questions are:
1) Space-time is interconnected, confined by the speed of light c =Δx /Δt; the factor a(t) that determines space-time is of a kinetic nature; what makes it relevant only to time (it affects all of space in the same way as time passes) [4] and not to space？
2) Can the Einstein field equations essentially be written as two separate equations, the bending effect equation and the expansion effect equation?
3) How does Space-Time know to distinguish between energy and dark energy if Space-Time Curvature and Expansion are both different properties?
4) Can local Space-Time Curvature geometrically affect expansion if it appears to be strongly curved?
-----------------------------
Notes
* “How the view of space-time is unified (3)-If GR's space-time is not curved, what should it be? ”https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO17How_the_view_of_space-time_is_unified_3-If_GRs_space-time_is_not_curved_what_should_it_be
** How the View of Space-Time is Unified (4) - Is Space-Time Expansion a Space-Time Creation?
-----------------------------
Refererncs
[1] Grøn, Ø., & Hervik, S. (2007). Einstein's Field Equations. In Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: With Modern Applications in Cosmology (pp. 179-194). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-69200-5_8
[2] Weinberg, S. (2008). COSMOLOGY (Chinese ed.). Oxford University Press.
[3] Peebles, P. J. E., & Ratra, B. (2003). The cosmological constant and dark energy. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75(2), 559.
No mutation can change an animal into a human and no gene is completely known to manifest into a trait.
0.5)
The theme of the diffraction typically refers to a small aperture or obstacle. Here I would like to share a video that I took a few days ago that shows diffraction can be produced by the macroscopic items similarly:
I hope you can explain this phenomenon with wave-particle duality or quantum mechanics. However, I can simply interpret it with my own idea of Inhomogeneously refracted space at:
MAYBE eternal individual consciousness:
1)
1)No one can predict the future completely accurately.
2)So, all beings probably have a unique enough form.
3)Plus, the most fundamental essence of reality is unknown.
4)Thus, upon death, each being probably doesn't return.
can someone guide me to the equation of SINGLE ATOM of any element? which equation that defines it's birth?
Thanks
“According to general theory of relativity, gravitation is not a force but a property of spacetime geometry. A test particle and light move in response to the geometry of the spacetime.”[1] Einstein's interpretation of gravity is purely geometrical, where even a free point particle without any properties and any interactions, moves in a curved spacetime along geodesics, but which are generated by the energy tensor Tµν [2]. Why isn't gravity generated directly by Tµν, but must take a circuitous route and be generated by the geometry of spacetime Gµν‡?
Gµν=G*Tµν
This is Einstein's field equation, and the Einstein tensor Gµν describes the Space-Time Curvature. We know that in classical mechanics and quantum field theory, it is the Hamiltonian, Lagrangian quantities that determine motion. Motion is essentially generated by energy-momentum interactions. Why is it irrelevant to energy-momentum in GR? Einstein had always expected the unification of electromagnetic and gravitational forces to be geometrically realized [3]*. Is such an expectation an exclusion of energy-momentum interactions in motion? Can the ultimate unification of forces be independent of energy-momentum and manifest itself only in motion in pure spacetime? If not, one of these must be wrong.
--------------------------------------
Supplement: Gravity is still a force
Gravity appears to be a ‘spacetime gravity’, i.e., gravity caused by spacetime metric differences, the same as gravitational red shift and violet shift [1]. The current four-dimensional space-time ‘geodesic’ interpretation of gravity is to match the geometric appearance of Space-Time Curvature. Time and space are symmetrical, and geodesic motion is not initiated by the ‘arrow of time’ alone, but must be accompanied by equivalent spatial factors. Any interpretation that destroys the equivalence of space and time should be problematic.
[1] "What is Force, a Field? Where is the Force Field? How does it appear? Is the Force Field a Regulating Effect of the Energy-Momentum Field?"
-----------------------------
Notes
* "After his tremendous success in finding an explanation of gravitation in the geometry of space and time, it was natural that he should try to bring other forces along with gravitation into a “unified field theory” based on geometrical principles."
‡ If one thinks that it holds only at Tµν = 0, see the next question NO.37: Is there a contradiction in the Schwarzschild spacetime metric solution?
-----------------------------
References
[1] Grøn, Ø., & Hervik, S. (2007). Einstein's Field Equations. In Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: With Modern Applications in Cosmology (pp. 179-194). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-69200-5_8
[2] Earman, J., & Glymour, C. (1978). Einstein and Hilbert: Two months in the history of general relativity. Archive for history of exact sciences, 291-308.
[3] Weinberg, S. (2005). Einstein’s Mistakes. Physics Today, 58(11).
To date the presence of Dark Energy, has remained a mystery. This is solved on the basis of fundamental unit of energy, Planck's constant, from which space-time itself, the forces of nature including gravity, and all particle physics can be derived. This is achieved on the on the basis of the speed of light and classical geometry. In the first instance new research points to a definitive answer to the presence of space time and the value of Hubble's constant. Here we invite open access research and discussion to probe the mysteries and very nature of Dark Energy, and the origins of all the aspects of Nature including the laws of thermodynamics.
Longwinded Speculation 1:
Long winded Speculation 2:
TRYING to BEGIN a concise chart:
Imagine an enormous cylinder in a flat landscape. You are standing along the inner edge. How big would the cylinder need to be for you to not see the curvature? I.e., Instead think you are standing along a completely flat wall. Consider an average person with average eyesight. Would happily accept both the motivation, answer and calculation.
Bonus question: If you had any particular practical tools to your disposal to improve your estimate of the curvature in this scenario, what would they be and how would they help?
White denial of systemic racism will cause civilization to collapse:
For those who are interested in Upcoming Events "CONFERENCES and WEBINARS" in 19-20 March 2025.
International Conference on Physics and Quantum Physics:
We are trying to sputter a metallic target. We can clearly see the plasma however after depositing for more than 30 minutes there is no deposition on the substrate. What can be the reason for this? need expert advice.
Thanks!
Maybe we should identify what is the most parsimonious afterlife. Expanding the law of identity, maybe physics can determine the exact afterlife all have coming.
My previous attempts:
Guessing what the afterlife broadly is:
Guessing what the afterlife is NOT.
3)
4)
Of course I sometimes doubt the afterlife is eternal salvation for all, so, I live and deduce what it might be...
1)Maybe I'm slightly less intuitive. I
consider myself kind of a skeptical empiricist/critical rationalist.
2)I don't believe concepts are eternal because they need to be adjusted to avoid contradictions.
3)Without some transcendence beyond materialism, we would NOT be able to reason.
4)Maybe reason is the ONLY absolute CONCEPT. And reason derives from God.
5)Concepts also aid execution thus, maybe I'm a more skeptical Aristotelian.
Sources:
I have defined matter and energy as follows (elsewhere), but is it possible to define them independent of each other?
Meanings of ‘Matter’ and ‘Energy’ Contrasted: By ‘matter’ I mean whatever exists as the venue of finite activities of existents and itself finitely active in all parts. Matter is whatever is interconvertible with existent energy.
Existent ‘energy’ is conceived as those propagative wavicles which, in a given world of existents, function as the fastest existent media of communication of someeffects between any two or more chunks of matter or of energy (i.e., of motions / changes).
Existent matter and existent energy are inter-convertible, and hence both should finally be amenable to a common definition: whatever exists with, in all parts, finite activity and stability.
By reason of the application of the Lorentz Factor [(1 - (v squared / c squared)) raised to the power of 1/2] in the denominator of equations, luminal and other comparable energy propagations take on one and the same velocity. This is the relativity-effect (better, comparative effect) between v of objects, compared to c of the speed of light. That is, it is presupposed here that c is the object of comparison for determining the speed effect of velocity difference across a duration.
It is against the criterion-velocity itself c that c becomes unsurpassable! Hence, I am of the opinion that the supposed source-independence is nothing but an effect of OUR APPARATUS-WISE OBSERVATION LIMIT AND OUR FIXING OF THE CRITERION OF OBSERVATION AS THE OBSERVED VELOCITY OF LIGHT.
In this circumstance, it is useless to claim that (1) luminal and some other energy propagations with velocity c are source-independent, and (2) these wavicles have zero rest mass, since the supposed source-independence have not been proved theoretically or experimentally without using c cas the criterion velocity. The supposed source-independence is merely an effect of c-based comparison.
Against this background, it is possible to be assured that photons and other similar c-wavicles are extended particles -- varying their size throughout the course of motion in the spiral manner. Hence the acceptability of the term 'wavicle'. Moreover, each mathematical point of the spiral motion is to be conceived not as two-, but as three-dimensional, and any point of motion added to it justifies its fourth dimension. Let us call motion as change.
These four dimensions are measuremental, hence the terms 'space' (three-dimensional) and 'time' (one-dimensional). This is also an argument countering the opinion that in physics and cosmology (and other sciences) time is not attested!
The measurements of the 3-space and measurements of the 1-time are not in the wavicles and in the things being measured. The measurements are the cognitive characteristics of the measurements.
IN FACT, THE EXTENSION OF THE WAVICLE OR OTHER OBJECTS IS BEING MEASURED AND TERMED 'SPACE', AND THE CHANGE OF THE WAVICLE OR OTHER OBJECTS IS BEING MEASURED AND TERMED 'TIME'. Hence, the physically out-there-to-find characteristics of the wavicles and objects are EXTENSION AND CHANGE.
Extension is the quality of all existing objects by which they have parts. This is not space. Change is the quality by which they have motion, i.e., impact generation on other similar wavicles and/or objects. This is not time. Nothing has space and time; nothing is in space and time. Everything is in Extension-Change.
Any wavicle or other object existing in Extension-Change is nothing but impact generation by physically existent parts. This is what we term CAUSATION. CAUSALITY is the relation of parts of physical existents by which some are termed cause/s and the others are termed effect/s. IN FACT, THE FIRST ASPECT OF THE PHYSICALLY ACTIVE PARTS, WHICH BEGINS THE IMPACT, IS THE CAUSE; AND THE SECOND ASPECT IS THE CAUSE. Cause and effect are, together, one unit of continuous process.
Since energy wavicles are extended, they have parts. Hence, there can be other, more minute, parts of physical objects, which can define superluminal velocities. Here, the criterion of measurement of velocity cannot be c. That is all...! Hence, superluminal velocities are a must by reason of the very meaning of physical existence.
THE NOTION OF PHYSICAL EXISTENCE ('TO BE') IS COMPLELTEY EXHAUSTED BY THE NOTIONS OF EXTENSION AND CHANGE. Hence, I call Extension and Change as the highest physical-ontological Categories. A metaphysics (physical ontology) of the cosmos is thus feasible. I have been constructing one such. My book-length publications have been efforts in this direction.
I invite your contributions by way of critiques and comments -- not ferocious, but friendly, because I do not claim that I am the last word in any science, including philosophy of physics.
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
In relativity (GTR, STR) we hear of masslessness. What is the meaning of it with respect to really (not merely measurementally) existent particles / waves?
I am of the opinion that, while propagating, naturally, wavicles have mass, and there is no situation where they are absolutely at rest or at rest mass. But we know that there are zero rest masses in physics. These are in my opinion masses obtained when the moving wavicle is relatively at rest. Thus, the energy here is supposed to be at a relative zero.
But such a relative rest is obtainable only with respect to a few movements (under consideration at a given relativistic situation); and always there will be some other physical processes around and within, with respect to which the zero rest mass wavicle already contextually taken as in zero rest mass is not at zero rest mass and zero energy.
If the relatively achieved zero rest mass and/or non-zero mass may always be conceived as the real mass, then nothing has a constant and permanent "own mass". In that case, any specific contextual mass must be fixed for contexts only, and the only thing that may be spoken of its mass is "finite", "non-zero and non-infinite".
This is a thing I have been thinking of giving as a realistic example for a method that I had developed in my 2018 book, in order to characterize the various, most general, accessible values attributable to processes. This is what I have called the maximal-medial-minimal (MMM) method of determining cosmological, physical, and other forms of access values of existent processes.
But I forgot to write down the said example. Recently I wrote it down as an example for discussing it in another book. But I realize that I can write a detailed section of a chapter about it.
The MMM method is based on determining the space, time, matter-energy content, etc. of anything, including the whole cosmos, as being of infinite or finite or zero value of any quantity. I have shown in the said book that this can be developed not only into a method in the philosophy of physics but also in the most general foundational notions and principles of all sciences.
COMPLEXITY IN SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, AND CONSCIOUSNESS:
DIFFERENCES AND IMPORTANCE
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
1. Introduction
With an introductory apology for repeating a few definitions in various arguments here below and justifying the same as necessary for clarity, I begin to differentiate between the foundations of the concept of complexity in the physical sciences and in philosophy. I reach the conclusion as to what in the concept of complexity is problematic, because the complexity in physical and biological processes may not be differentiable in terms of complexity alone.
Thereafter I build a concept much different from complexity for application in the development of brains, minds, consciousness etc. I find it a fine way of saving causation, freedom, the development of the mental, and perhaps even the essential aspects of the human and religious dimension in minds.
Concepts of complexity considered in the sciences are usually taken in general as a matter of our inability to achieve measuremental differentiation between certain layers of measurementally integrated events within a process or set of processes and the same sort of measurementally integrated activities within another process or set of processes.
But here there is an epistemological defect: We do not get every physical event and every aspect of one physical event to measure. We have just a layer of the object’s total events for us to attempt to measure. This is almost always forgotten by any scientist doing complexity science. One tends to generalize the results for the case of the whole object! Complexity in the sciences is not at all a concept exactly of measurement of complexity in one whole physically existent process within itself or a set of processes within themselves.
First, what is termed as complexity in an entity is only the measure of our inability to achieve measurements of that part of a layer of process which has been measured or attempted to be measured. Secondly, always there is a measuremental comparison in the sciences in order to fix the measure of complexity in the aspects that are measured or attempted to measure. This is evidently a wrong sort of concept.
The essential difference here must be sharpened further. As a result of what is said above, the following seems more appropriate. Instead of being a measure of the complexities of one or a set of processes, complexity in science is a concept of the difference between (1) our achieved abilities and inabilities to achieve the measurement of actual complexity of certain levels of one physical process or a set of processes and (2) other types of levels of the extent of our ability and inability to measurement within another process or set of processes. This is strange with respect to the claims being made of complexity of whichever physical process a science considers to measure the complexity.
If a scientist had a genuine measurement of complexity, one would not have called it complexity. We have no knowledge of a higher or highest complexity to compare a less intense complexity with. In all cases of complexity science, what we have are just comparisons with either more or less intense complexities. This makes the concept of complexity very complex to deal with.
2. Is Complexity Really Irreducible?
On a neutral note, each existent physical process should possess great complexity. How much? We do not know exactly; but we know exactly that it is neither infinite nor zero. This truth is the Wisdom of complexity. Let us call it complexity philosophy. This philosophical concept of complexity within the thing itself (CI) is different from the methodologically measurement-based concept of complexity (CM) in the sciences. In CM, only the measured and measurable parts of complexity are taken into consideration and the rest of the aspects and parts of the existent physical process under consideration are forgotten.
If this were not true, the one who proposes this is bound to prove that all the aspects and parts of the physical process or at least of the little layer of it under measurement are already under any one or more or all measurementally empirical procedures with respect to or in terms of that layer of the process.
To explain the same differently, the grade of complexity in the sciences is the name of the difference (i.e., in terms of ‘more’ or ‘less’) between the grades of difficulty and ease of measuring a specific layer of causal activity within one process and a comparable or non-comparable layer of causal activity in another.
Both must be measured in terms of the phenomena received from them and the data created of them. Naturally, these have been found to be too complex to measure well enough, because we do not directly measure, but instead measure in terms of scales based on other more basic scales, phenomena, and data. But the measure-elements titled infinite-finite-zero are slightly more liberated of the directly empirically bound notions. I anticipate some arguing that even these are empirically bound. I am fully agreed. The standpoint from which I called the former as formed out of directly empirically bound notions is different, that is all.
Both the above (the grades of difficulty and ease of measuring a specific layer of causal activity within one process and a comparable or non-comparable layer of causal activity in another) must be measured in terms of certain modes of physical phenomena and certain scales set for these purposes. But this is not the case about the scale of infinity-finitude-zero, out of which we can eternally choose finitude for the measure of ease and difficulty of measuring a specific layer of causal activity without reference to any other.
The measure-difference between the causal activities is not the complexity, nor is it available to be termed so. Instead, complexity is the difference between (1) the ease and difficulty of measuring the one from within the phenomena issuing from certain layers of the physical process and the data created by us out of the phenomena, and (2) the ease and difficulties of measuring the same in the other.
In any case, this measure-difference of ease and difficulty with respect to the respective layers of the processes can naturally be only of certain layers of activity within the processes, and not of all the layers and kinds of activity in them both. Evidently, in the absence of scale-based comparison, their complexity cannot be termed a high or a low complexity considered within itself. Each such must be compared with at least another such measurementally determined layer/s of process in another system.
3. Extent of Complexity outside and within Complexity
The question arises now as to whether any process under complexity inquiry has other layers of activity arising from within themselves and from within the layers themselves from which directly the phenomena have issued and have generated the data within the bodily, conscious, and cognitive system of the subjects and their instruments.
Here the only possible answer is that there is an infinite number of such layers in any finite-content physical processual entity, and within any layer of a process we can find infinite other sub-layers, and between the layers and sub-layers there are finite causal connections, because every existent has parts that are in Extension and Change.
The infinite number of such complexity layers are each arrangeable in a scale of decremental content-strength in such a way that no finite-content process computes up to infinite content-strength. This does not mean that there are no actual differences between any two processes in the complexity of their layers of activity, or in the total activity in each of them.
Again, what I attempt to suggest here is that the measured complexity of anything or of any layer of anything is just a scale-based comparison of the extent of our capacity to discover all the complexity within one process or layer of process, as compared to the same in another process or layer of process.
4. Possible Generalizations of Complexity
Any generalization of processes in themselves concerning their complexity proper (i.e., the extent of our capacity to discover all the complexity within one process or one layer of activities of a process) must now be concluded to be in possession of only the quantitative qualities that never consist of a specific or fixed scale-based number, because the comparison is on a range-scale of ‘more than’ and ‘less than’.
This generalization is what we may at the most be able to identify regarding the complexity within any specific process without any measuremental comparison with another or many others. Non-measuremental comparison is therefore easier and truer in the general sense; and measuremental comparison is more applicable in cases of technical and technological achievements.
The latter need not be truer than the former, if we accept that what is truer must be more general than specific. Even what is said merely of one processual object must somehow be applicable to anything that is of the same nature as the specific processual object. Otherwise, it cannot be a generalizable truth. For this reason, the former seems to be truer than the latter.
Now there are only three possibilities for the said sort of more general truth on comparative complexity: accepting the infinite-finite-zero values as the only well-decidable values. I have called them the Maximal-Medial-Minimal (MMM) values in my work of 2018, namely, Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology.
Seen from this viewpoint, everything physically existent has great processual-structural complexity, and this is neither infinite nor zero, but merely finite – and impossible to calculate exactly or even at any satisfactory exactitude within a pre-set scale, because (1) the layers of a process that we attempt to compute is but a mere portion of the process as such, (2) each part of each layer has an infinite number of near-infinitesimal parts, and (3) we are not in a position to get at much depths and breadths into all of these at any time.
Hence, the two rationally insufficient conclusions are:
(1) The narrowly empirical-phenomenologically measuremental, thus empirically partially objective, and simultaneously empirically sufficiently subjective amount of complexity (i.e., the extent of our capacity and incapacity to discover all the complexity) in any process by use of a scale-level comparison of two or more processes.
(2) The complexity of entities without having to speak about their existence in every part in Extension-Change and the consequently evident Universal Causality.
These are the empirically highly insulated, physical-ontologically insufficiently realistic sort of concept of complexity that the sciences entertain and can entertain. Note that this does not contradict or decry technological successes by use of scientific truths. But claiming them to be higher truths on complexity than philosophical truths is unjustifiable.
Now the following question is clearly answerable. What is meant by the amount of complexity that any existent physical process can have in itself? The only possible answer would be that of MMM, i.e., that the complexity within any specific thing is not a comparative affair within the world, but only determinable by comparing the complexity in physical processes with that in the infinitely active and infinitely stable Entity (if it exists) and the lack of complexity in the zero-activity and zero-stability sort of pure vacuum. It can also be made based on a pre-set or conventionalized arithmetic scale, but such cannot give the highest possible truth probability, even if it is called “scientific”.
MMM is the most realistic generalization beyond the various limit possibilities of scale-controlled quantities of our incapacity to determine the amount of complexity in any layer of processes, and without incurring exact numbers, qualifications, etc. The moment a clear measuremental comparison and pinning up the quantity is settled for, it becomes a mere scientific statement without the generality that the MMM realism offers.
Nonetheless, measuremental studies have their relevance in respect of their effects in specific technological and technical circumstances. But it must be remembered that the application of such notions is not directly onto the whole reality of the object set/s or to Reality-in-total, but instead, only to certain layers of the object set/s. Truths at that level do not have long life, as is clear from the history of the sciences and the philosophies that have constantly attempted to limit philosophy with the methods of the sciences.
5. Defining Complexity Closely
Consider any existent process in the cosmos. It is in a state of finite activity. Every part of a finite-content process has activity in every one of its near-infinitesimal parts. This state of having activity within is complexity. In general, this is the concept of complexity. It is not merely the extent of our inability to measure the complexity in anything in an empirical manner.
Every process taken in itself has a finite number of smaller, finite, parts. The parts spoken of here are completely processual. Nothing remains in existence if a part of it is without Extension or without Change. An existent part with finite Extension and Change together is a unit process when the cause part and the effect part are considered as the aspects or parts of the part in question.
Every part of a part has parts making every part capable of being a unit process and in possession of inner movements of extended parts, all of which are in process. This is what I term complexity. Everything in the cosmos is complex. We cannot determine the level of complexity beyond the generalized claim that complexity is normally limited within infinite or finite or zero, and that physical and biological processes in the cosmos come within the finitude-limit.
Hereby is suggested also the necessity of combining the philosophical truth about complexity and the scientific concept of the same for augmentation of theoretical and empirical-scientific achievements in the future. While determining scientifically the various natures and qualities of complexity, chaos, threshold states, etc. in a manner not connected to the philosophical concept of it based on the MMM method of commitment access to values of content and their major pertinents, then, scientific research will remain at an elementary level – although the present theoretical, experimental, and technological successes may have been unimaginably grand. Empirical advancement must be based on the theoretical.
Constant effort to differentiate anything from anything else strongly, by making differentiations between two or more processes and the procedures around them, is very much part of scientific research. In the procedural thrust and stress related to these, the science of complexity (and all other sciences, sub-sciences, etc.) suffer from the lack of ontological commitment to the existence of the processes in Extension-Change and Universal Causality.
The merely scientific attitude is due to a stark deficit of the most general and deepest possible Categories that can pertain to them, especially to Extension-Change and Universal Causality. Without these, the scientist will tend to work with isolated and specifically determined causal processes and identify the rest as non-causal, statistically causal, or a-causal!
6. Complexity in Consciousness
The above discussion shows that the common concept of complexity is not the foundation on which biological evolution, growth of consciousness, etc. can directly be based. I have plans to suggest a new concept.
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
HOW TO GROUND SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY TOGETHER AXIOMATICALLY?
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
We see many theories in physics, mathematics, etc. becoming extremely axiomatic and rigorous. They call themselves or attempt to be as quantitative as possible. But are adequate comparisons between mathematics, physical sciences, biological sciences, human sciences, and philosophy, and adequate adaptation of the axiomatic method possible by creating a system of all exact, physical, and human sciences that depend only on the quantitively qualitative proportionalities and call them invariables?
They cannot do well enough to explain Reality-in-total, because Reality-in-total primarily involves all sorts of ontological universals that are purely qualitative, and some of them are the most fundamental, proportionality-type, quantitative invariables of all physical existents in their specificity and totality in their natural kinds. But as the inquiry comes to Reality-in-total, ontological qualitative universals must come into the picture. Hence, merely quantitative (mathematical) explanations do not exhaust the explanation of Reality-in-total.
Existence as individuals and existence in groups are not differentiable and systematizable in terms of quantitatively qualitative universals alone. Both qualitative and quantitatively qualitative universals are necessary for this. Both together are general qualities pertaining to existents in their processual aspect, not merely in their separation from each other. Therefore, the primitive notions (called traditionally as Categories) of Reality-in-total must be ontological qualitative universals involving both the qualitative and quantitative aspects. The most basic of universals that pertain properly to Reality-in-total are now to be found.
Can the primitive notions (Categories) and axioms of the said sciences converge so that the axioms of a system of Reality take shape from a set of the highest possible ontological Categories as simple sentential formulations of the Categories which directly imply existents? This must be deemed necessary for philosophy, natural sciences, and human sciences, because these deal with existents, unlike the formal sciences that deal only with the qualitatively quantitative form of arguments.
Thus, in the case of mathematics and logic there can be various sorts of quantitative and qualitative primitive notions (categories) and then axioms that use the primitive notions in a manner that adds some essential, pre-defined, operations. But the sciences and philosophy need also the existence of their object-processes. For this reason, the primitive axioms can be simple sentential formulations involving the Categories and nothing else. This is in order to avoid indirect existence statements and to involve existence in terms exclusively of the Categories.
Further, the sciences together could possess just one set of sufficiently common primitive notions of all knowledge, from which also the respective primitive notions and axioms of mathematics, logic, physical and human sciences, and philosophy may be derived. I support this view because the physical-ontological Categories involving the existence of Reality and realities, in my opinion, must be most general and fully exhaustive of the notion of To Be (existence) in a qualitatively universal manner that is applicable to all existents in their individual processual and total processual senses.
Today the nexus or the interface of the sciences and philosophies is in a crisis of dichotomy between truth versus reality. Most scientists, philosophers, and common people rush after “truths”. But who, in scientific and philosophical practice, wants to draw unto the possible limits the consequences of the fact that we can at the most have ever better truths, and not final truths as such?
Finalized truths as such may be concluded to in cases where there is natural and inevitable availability of an absolute right to use the logical Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle, especially in order to decide between concepts related to the existence and non-existence of anything out there.
Practically very few may be seen generalizing upon and extrapolating from this metaphysical and logical state of affairs beyond its epistemological consequences. In the name of practicality, ever less academicians want today to connect ever broader truths compatible to Reality-in-total by drawing from the available and imaginable commonalities of both.
The only thinkable way to accentuate the process of access to ever broader truths compatible to Reality-in-total is to look for the truest possible of all truths with foundations on existence (nominal) / existing (gerund) / To Be (verbal). The truest are those propositions where the Laws of Identity, Contradiction, and Excluded Middle can be applied best. The truest are not generalizable and extendable merely epistemologically, but also metaphysically, physical-ontologically, mathematically, biologically, human-scientifically, etc.
The agents that permit generalization and extrapolation are the axioms that are the tautologically sentential formulations of the most fundamental of all notions (Categories) and imply nothing but the Categories of all that exist – that too with respect to the existence of Realit-in-total. These purely physical-ontological implications of existence are what I analyze further in the present work. One may wonder how these purely metaphysical, physical-ontological axioms and their Categories can be applicable to sciences other than physics and philosophy.
My justification is as follows: Take for example the case of the commonality of foundations of mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language. The notions that may be taken as the primitive notions of mathematics were born not from a non-existent virtual world but instead from the human capacity of spatial, temporal, quantitatively qualitative, and purely qualitative imagination.
I have already been working so as to show qualitative (having to do with the ontological universals of existents, expressed in terms of adjectives) quantitativeness (notions based on spatial and temporal imagination, where, it should be kept in mind, that space-time are epistemically measuremental) may be seen to be present in their elements in mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, and language.
The agents I use for this are: ‘ontological universals’, ‘connotative universals’, and ‘denotative universals’. In my opinion, the physical-ontological basis of these must and can be established in terms merely of the Categories of Extension-Change, which you find being discussed briefly here.
Pitiably, most scientists and philosophers forget that following the exhaustively physical-ontological implications of To Be in the foundations of science and philosophy is the best way to approach Reality well enough in order to derive the best possible of truths and their probable derivatives. Most of them forget that we need to rush after Reality, not merely after truths and truths about specific processes.
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
