Science - Science topic

Courses in logic, philosophy of science, etc. begin always with a detailed study of induction and deduction. Most courses tell us that these are typically different kinds of reasoning. But are they?

If they are mutually connected, what is the framework upon which they may be connected? Will such a framework of connecting induction and deduction be a mere perspective or something fundamental?

I would happily obtain your arguments for or against the so-called mutual exclusiveness of induction and deduction.

I believe that relativising induction and deduction and connecting them with one another under some very general framework of thought will be a grand starting point to revolutionize the foundations of the whole of philosophy and science, and of logic and linguistic analytic philosophy in particular.

When the question is asked: Can we unify all sciences?, the reply tends to be negative. But when we pose the question: Can we systematize all sciences under common Categories?, the reply tends to be at least in a partial positive.

Why does such a difference arise in answer to the two questions?

Raphael Neelamkavil

I begin my cosmologically metaphysical critique of the foundations of Heidegger’s work, with a statement of concern. Anyone who attempts to read this work without first reading my arguments in the text of the whole book, Physics without Metaphysics?, in favour of a new science-compatible metaphysics and concept of To Be, and without a critical attitude to Heidegger, is liable to misunderstand my arguments here as misinformed, denigrative, or even trivial. But I do this critique in search of means of constructing a metaphysics capable of realising constant guidance to and enhancing scientific practice.

Today mathematics, physics, cosmology, biology, and human sciences have undergone so much growth that we cannot think philosophically without admitting the existence of the cosmos and its parts as “something-s” processually out there, however far-fetched our concepts of the various parts of or of the whole cosmos are. “Existence (termed “To Be”) of the totality (Reality-in-total) as the whole something whatever” and “particular existence in the minimally acceptable state of being something-s whatever” are absolutely trans-subjective and thus objectual presuppositions behind all thought.

Today we do not have to theoretically moot non-existence of the cosmos and its parts as whatever they are. That is, basing philosophical thinking – of the very nature of the existence-wise metaphysical presuppositions of all that are subjective and objective – upon the allegedly subjective origin of thought processes and concepts should be universally unacceptable.

Therefore, I think we should get behind Heidegger’s seemingly metaphysical words by chipping his prohibitively poetical and mystifying language off its rhetorically adumbrating shades, in order to get at the senses and implications of his Fundamental Ontology and Being-historical Thinking.

It is not a necessity for philosophy that the Humean-Kantian stress on the subject-aspect of thought must be carried forward to such an extent that whatever is thought has metaphysically Ideal presuppositions all of which too somehow tend to be taken to possess the subjective character. There are of course presuppositions with some conceptual character. But to the extent some of them are absolute, they are to be taken as absolutely non-subjective. These presuppositions are applicable without exception to all that is, e.g. To Be and all Categories that may be attributed to all that exist. This fact should be borne out while doing philosophy, without which no philosophy and science are possible. The weight of the subject-aspect continues to be true of thought insofar as we go to non-absolute details of metaphysical presuppositions and empirical details, and not when we think only of the metaphysical Ideals of all existents in themselves.

True, there is no complete chipping off of the Heideggerian theory, nor is there an analysis without already interpreting anything. Such a hermeneutic is basic to all understanding. This should not necessarily mean (1) that we cannot base thought fully on the Metaphysical Ideals of “To Be” and “the state of existents as somethings”, and (2) that we cannot get sufficiently deep into the fundamental implications of his work by side-lining the purely subjective concepts of the fundamental metaphysical concepts. This claim is most true of the concept of To Be.

To Be is the simultaneously processual-verbal and nomic-nominal aspect of Reality-in-total, and not merely that of any specific being, phenomenon, or concept. For Heidegger, To Be (Being) is somehow a private property of Dasein, the Being-thinking being. To Be which is the most proper subject matter of Einaic Ontology (metaphysics based completely on the trans-thought fact of the Einai, “To Be” of Reality-in-total) is not the Being that Dasein thinks or the Being that is given in Dasein, because To Be belongs to Reality-in-total together and in all its parts.

Even in Heidegger’s later phase highlighted best by his Contributions to Philosophy: From Enowning, his concept of To Be as belonging to the Dasein which is the authentically Being-thinking human being has not changed substantially. Even here he continues to project positively the history of Being-thinking human being as the authentic Being-historical process and as the essence of the history of all that can be thought of.

Against the above metaphysical backdrop of essentially anthropocentric definitions, I write this critique based on cosmological-metaphysical necessities in philosophy, and indirectly evaluate what I consider as the major ontological imperfection in Heidegger’s thought from the viewpoint of the Categorial demands of the history of metaphysics, various provincial ontologies and scientific ontology, and of the way in which I conceive the jolts and peaks in such history.

Along with the purely meta-metaphysical To Be, (1) I present the metaphysical abstract notions of Extension (= compositeness: i.e., having parts) and Change (= impacts by composites: i.e., part-to-part projection of impact elements) as the irreducibly metaphysical Categories of all existents and (2) argue that Extension-Change existence in their non-abstract togetherness as existents is nothing but Universal Causation (= everything is Existence-Change-wise existent, i.e. if not universally causal, existence is vacuous).

These are metaphysical principles that Heidegger and most philosophers till today have not recognized the primordiality of. Most of them tend to fix to existence universal or partial or absolutely no causality. In short, Universal Causation, even in some allegedly non-causal aspects of cosmology, quantum physics, philosophy of mind, and human sciences, is to be the taken as a priori as and co-implied by existence (To Be), because anything existent is extended and changing...! No more should sciences or philosophy doubt Universal Causality. Herein consists the merit of Einaic Ontology as a universally acceptable metaphysics behind all sciences – not merely of human sciences.

To Be is the highest Transcendental Ideal; Reality-in-total is the highest Transcendent Ideal; and Reality-in-general is the highest Transcendental-Transcendent Ideal of generalized theoretical concatenation of ontological universals in consciousness. These are meta-metaphysical in shape. They are not at all classificational (categorizing) of anything in this world or in thought.

Although Heidegger has not given a Categorial scheme of all existents or Categorial Ideals for all metaphysics and thinking, he is one of the few twentieth century thinkers of ontological consequence, after Aristotle (in favour of an abstract concept of Being) and Kant (against treating the concept of Being as an attribute), to have dealt extensively with a very special concept of Being and our already interpretive ability to get at To Be.

I present here in gist the difference between the Dasein-Interpreted concept of Being and the ontologically most widely committed, Einaic Ontological, nomic-nominal, and processual-verbal concept of To Be, which should be metaphysically the highest out-there presupposition of all thought and existence. This is the relevance of metaphysics as a trans-science.

Experimentally, observationally, and observational-theoretically, some of the generalizations of any physical ontology of cosmology may, strictly speaking, be non-verifiable and non-falsifiable.

But the empirical method of the sciences is continuous with the theoretical. Both, together, form part of "reason". Note also this: Reason is not equivalent to logic. There are many sorts of logic. Reason is the general set, and the various logics are sub-sets or members.

From this viewpoint, would you admit that there seems to be the possibility of obtaining SOME REASON from the suggestion that a PHYSICAL ONTOLOGY OF THE REASON WITHIN THE COSMOS be constructed? I CALL THIS REASON UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY.

I have developed an MMM (maximal-medial-minimal) method, where the approachable values are zero, finite, and infinite -- all others being strictly of the realm of the positive sciences. Zero, finitude, and infinity may be available in the positive sciences. But in the case of zero and infinity, the attitude is that of limiting values.

Finitude is a general term. In the positive sciences there must be specific values, not generally finite values!

Of course, we do not know of infinite values in the strictest sense of the term. But on the same count we do not also know zero value except as the absence of WHAT WE CONSIDER at a given instance.

I feel that a sort of "axiomatization" is perhaps possible -- at least as a physical ontology of the cosmos, PROVIDED UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY IS DERIVABLE DIRECTLY FROM THE CONCEPT OF EXISTENCE (TO BE).

SEE:

Which are the (or, Are there) what may be termed the most reliable principles or ways of selecting a range of phenomena and data within the experimental sciences? Are there ways (methods) of empirically dealing with them? Or, can there be the involvement of theoretical principles completely devoid of experiment (or primarily based on reason alone), which are inevitable in experimental sciences?

How to select phenomena and data in a satisfying manner?

Raphael Neelamkavil

(science event 2023-2027)

Saturday, June 3 · 3:00 – 4:00pm

Time zone: UTC

Google Meet joining info

Video call link: https://meet.google.com/jdr-qwby-ggu

sonu sagar

whatsapp

mo- 9608190616

You can write a manuscript using ChatGPT, which barely be identified by humans or other software. These may mislead scientists and science, especially the research field.

It is not impossible that people trust ChatGPT than research findings.

What precautions should the scientific community take?

Journal of Studies in Science and Engineering (JOSSE) has been publishing for less than two years and has already made significant strides in science and morality journey. The most recent accomplishment of JOSSE is DOAJ indexing. I'd want to take this opportunity to thank the editorial board and all of the authors for their dedication, support, and hard work in helping JOSSE reach this point. It is also a fantastic accomplishment for writers whose papers were published in JOSSE because all of them are now indexed in DOAJ.

The next stage for JOSSE is to enter to Scopus and Web of Science, which Scopus has already rated as being 100% ready for when JOSSE turns 2 years old in September 2023.

To maintain the quality and the advancement at this stage, JOSSE requests qualified Editors, Reviewers, and quality papers.

Hello Dear colleagues!

I'm interested in the political economy of human capital.

Please can someone help me with a database containing data by country on school and academic orientation by field (social sciences, technical sciences)?

Thanks in advance

Psychology People :

I have a hard time believing that , in effect, few (if anyone) believes there might be a bit of "conditioning" to see a new perspective and approach. (Reflect on the fact that Buddha needed to use much repetition (and that in several different contexts) for people to "see" what he was talking about -- that is a fact.) See my next post (Discussion) for more.

Because it is difficult to define SUSTAINABILITY in scientific sense. I believe it is an art that when practised and fine tuned more will give better results. E.g. Art of singing when practised to perfection will lead to a sustainable singer.

Ongoing technological progress is increasing the technical possibilities of both conducting research, collecting and assembling large amounts of research data and their multi-criteria processing using ICT information technologies and Industry 4.0. Before the development of ICT information technologies, IT tools, personal computers, etc. in the second half of the 20th century as part of the 3rd technological revolution, computerised, semi-automated processing of large data sets was very difficult or impossible. As a result, the building of multi-criteria, multi-article, big data and information models of complex macro-process structures, simulation models, forecasting models was limited or practically impossible. However, the technological advances made in the current fourth technological revolution and the development of Industry 4.0 technology have changed a lot in this regard. The current fourth technological revolution is, among other things, a revolution in the improvement of multi-criteria, computerised analytical techniques based on large data sets. Industry 4.0 technologies, including Big Data Analytics technology, are used in multi-criteria processing, analysing large data sets. Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be useful in terms of scaling up the automation of research processes and multi-faceted processing of big data obtained from research.

The technological advances taking place are contributing to the improvement of computerised analytical techniques conducted on increasingly large data sets. The application of the technologies of the fourth technological revolution, including ICT information technologies and Industry 4.0 in the process of conducting multi-criteria analyses and simulation and forecasting models conducted on large sets of information and data increases the efficiency of research and analytical processes. Increasingly, in research conducted within different scientific disciplines and different fields of knowledge, analytical processes are carried out, among others, using computerised analytical tools including Big Data Analytics in conjunction with other Industry 4.0 technologies.

When these analytical tools are augmented with Internet of Things technology, cloud computing and satellite-implemented sensing and monitoring techniques, opportunities arise for real-time, multi-criteria analytics of large areas, e.g. nature, climate and others, conducted using satellite technology. When machine learning technology, deep learning, artificial intelligence, multi-criteria simulation models, digital twins are added to these analytical and research techniques, opportunities arise for creating predictive simulations for multi-factor, complex macro processes realised in real time. Complex, multi-faceted macro processes, the study of which is facilitated by the application of new ICT information technologies and Industry 4.0, include, on the one hand, multi-factorial natural, climatic, ecological, etc. processes and those concerning changes in the state of the environment, environmental pollution, changes in the state of ecosystems, biodiversity, changes in the state of soils in agricultural fields, changes in the state of moisture in forested areas, environmental monitoring, deforestation of areas, etc. caused by civilisation factors. On the other hand, complex, multifaceted macroprocesses whose research processes are improved by the application of new technologies include economic, social, financial, etc. processes in the context of the functioning of entire economies, economic regions, continents or in global terms.

Year on year, due to technological advances in ICT, including the use of new generations of microprocessors characterised by ever-increasing computing power, the possibilities for increasingly efficient, multi-criteria processing of large collections of data and information are growing. Artificial intelligence can be particularly useful for the selective and precise retrieval of specific, defined types of information and data extracted from many selected types of websites and the real-time transfer and processing of this data in database systems organised in cloud computing on Big Data Analytics platforms, which would be accessed by a system managing a built and updated model of a specific macro-process using digital twin technology. In addition, the use of supercomputers, including quantum computers characterised by particularly large computational capacities for processing very large data sets, can significantly increase the scale of data and information processed within the framework of multi-criteria analyses of natural, climatic, geological, social, economic, etc. macroprocesses taking place and the creation of simulation models concerning them.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Warm regards,

The above text is entirely my own work written by me on the basis of my research.

I have not used other sources or automatic text generation systems such as ChatGPT in writing this text.

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Dear researchers,

Recently I and my colleagues had a discussion regarding the quality of PhD research works in UK and Australia. We had different opinions regarding the statements, and I would like to leave this discussion into researchgate, because it would help me to advice my undergraduate students regarding the best possible country for undertaking thier PhD in Civil and Environmental Engineering, among UK and Australia.

Your opinions are welcomed.

Dear researchers, I have been working on exact solution methods of partial differential equations for more than 10 years. I noticed that the researchers working in this field are always people from a certain geography, such as Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, India, etc. Why a German, English, or Japanese researchers do not study these topics? Do you think that our work really contributes to science and humanity? I am looking forward to your valuable comments.

Many technology experts hail AI and find it incredibly beneficial for human civilization; however, others fear the deleterious impact of AI. I personally find AI helpful when writing a research article. For example, AI can easily correct grammatical errors in English languages.

Do you find AI helpful? Share your experiences.

Sharing information and knowing what science has reached in this field.

The Nobel Prize Summit 2023: Truth, Trust and Hope has started today, 24 May 2023. The summit encourages participation. Thus, I have sent an open letter and eagerly anticipate their response. Please comment if the points I have made is adequate enough.

Open Letter to The Nobel Committee for Physics

Is There a Nobel Prize for Metaphysics?

Dear Nobel Committee for Physics,

Among the differences between an established religion, such as Roman Catholicism, and science, is the presence of a hierarchical organization in the former for defending its creed and conducting its affairs. The head of the religious institution ultimately bears responsibility for the veracity of its claims and strategic policies. This accountability was evident in historical figures like John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and Martin Luther, who held the papacy responsible for wrong doctrines, such as the indulgence scandal during the late Middle Ages. In that context, challenging such doctrines, albeit with the anticipated risk of being burned at the stake, involved posting opposing theses on the doors of churches.

In contrast, the scientific endeavour lacks a tangible temple, and no definitive organization exists to be held accountable for possible misconducts. Science is a collective effort by scientists and scientific institutes to discover new facts within and beyond our current understanding. While scientists may occasionally flirt with science fiction, they ultimately make significant leaps in understanding the universe. However, problems arise when a branch of science is held and defended as a sacred dogma, disregarding principles such as falsifiability. This mentality can lead to a rule of pseudo-scientific oppression, similar to historical instances like the Galileo or Lysenko affairs. Within this realm, there is little chance of liberating science from science fiction. Any criticism is met with ridicule, damnation, and exclusion, reminiscent of the attitudes displayed by arrogant religious establishments during the medieval period. Unfortunately, it seems that the scientific establishment has not learned from these lessons and has failed to provide a process for dealing with these unfortunate and embarrassing scenarios. On the contrary, it is preoccupied with praising and celebrating its achievements while stubbornly closing its ears to sincere critical voices.

Allow me to illustrate my concerns through the lens of relativistic physics, a subject that has captured my interest. Initially, I was filled with excitement, recognizing the great challenges and intellectual richness that lay before me. However, as I delved deeper, I encountered several perplexing issues with no satisfactory answers provided by physicists. While the majority accepts relativity as it stands, what if one does not accept the various inherent paradoxes and seeks a deeper insight?

Gradually, I discovered that certain scientific steps are not taken correctly in this branch of science. For example, we place our trust in scientists to conduct proper analyses of experiments. Yet, I stumbled upon evidence suggesting that this trust may have been misplaced in the case of a renowned experiment that played a pivotal role in heralding relativistic physics. If this claim is indeed valid, it represents a grave concern and a significant scandal for the scientific community. To clarify my points, I wrote reports and raised my concerns. Fortunately, there are still venues outside established institutions where critical perspectives are not yet suppressed. However, the reactions I received ranged from silence to condescending remarks infused with irritation. I was met with statements like "everything has been proven many times over, what are you talking about?" or "go and find your mistake yourself." Instead of responding to my pointed questions and concerns, a professor even suggested that I should broaden my knowledge by studying various other subjects.

While we may excuse the inability of poor, uneducated peasants in the Middle Ages to scrutinize the veracity of the Church's doctrine against the Latin Bible, there is no excuse for professors of physics and mathematics to be unwilling to revaluate the analysis of an experiment and either refute the criticism or acknowledge an error. It raises suspicions about the reliability of science itself if, for over 125 years, the famous Michelson-Morley experiment has not been subjected to rigorous and accurate analysis.

Furthermore, I am deeply concerned that the problem has been exacerbated by certain physicists rediscovering the power and benefits of metaphysics. They have proudly replaced real experiments with thought experiments conducted with thought-equipment. Consequently, theoretical physicists find themselves compelled to shut the door on genuine scientific criticism of their enigmatic activities. Simply put, the acceptance of experiment-free science has been the root cause of all these wrongdoings.

To demonstrate the consequences of this damaging trend, I will briefly mention two more complications among many others:

1. Scientists commonly represent time with the letter 't', assuming it has dimension T, and confidently perform mathematical calculations based on this assumption. However, when it comes to relativistic physics, time is represented as 'ct' with dimension L, and any brave individual questioning this inconsistency is shunned from scientific circles and excluded from canonical publications.

2. Even after approximately 120 years, eminent physicist and Nobel Prize laureate Richard Feynman, along with various professors in highly regarded physics departments, have failed to mathematically prove what Einstein claimed in his 1905 paper. They merely copy from one another, seemingly engaged in a damage limitation exercise, producing so-called approximate results. I invite you to refer to the linked document for a detailed explanation:

I am now submitting this letter to the Nobel Committee for Physics, confident that the committee, having awarded Nobel Prizes related to relativistic physics, possesses convincing scientific answers to the specific dilemmas mentioned herein.

Yours sincerely,

Ziaedin Shafiei

a) are there some possible hard and fast rules for review deadlines (yes or no?), and b) is there some obligation from an Editorial Board side to be giving the first answer to authors about the internal number of an article, if the article is submitting via email id (yes or no?).

Thanks for the input. https://clarivate.com/contact-us/

Why are numbers and shapes so exact? ‘One’, ‘two’, ‘point’, ‘line’, etc. are all exact. But irrational numbers are not so. The operations on these notions are also intended to be exact. If notions like ‘one’, ‘two’, ‘point’, ‘line’, etc. are defined to be so exact, then it is not by virtue of the exactness of these substantive notions, but instead, due to their being adjectival: ‘being a unity’, ‘being two unities’, ‘being a non-extended shape’, etc. A quality cannot be exact, but may be defined to be exact. It is in terms of the exactness attributed to these notions by definition that the adjectives ‘one’, ‘two’, ‘point’, ‘line’, etc. are exact. This is why the impossibility of fixing these (and other) substantive notions as exact miss our attention. If in fact these are inexact, then there is justification for the inexactness of irrational numbers too. If numbers and shapes are in fact inexact, then not only irrational numbers but all mathematical structures should remain inexact except for their having been defined as exact. Thus, mathematical structures, in all their detail, are a species of qualities, namely, quantitative qualities.

The development of artificial intelligence applications today is almost limitless. Artificial intelligence technologies have been developed for many years, but it is in the last few years that this development has significantly accelerated. On the other hand, thanks to the artificial intelligence system made available on the Internet, which is the ChatGPT language model, the topic of artificial intelligence has, since the end of 2022, become one of the main topics of discussion in various fields of knowledge and in the context of different scientific disciplines, business applications, etc. ChatGPT has also become one of the most popular online platforms rapidly gaining new users at a rate comparable to the most popular and fastest growing social media sites. However, the currently developing applications of ChatGPT's intelligent language model have also started to generate negative effects and have overtaken the process of adapting systemic solutions and regulations to the situation. There has emerged a serious risk of the rapid development of disinformation in online social media, with images, videos and texts generated by various artificial intelligence solutions that present what can be described as 'fictitious facts', which present something that is difficult to distinguish from real facts, real events taking place and to diagnose who or rather what created them. There is a serious risk of non-compliance with copyright in the creation of certain types of 'works' created by artificial intelligence. This also raises the question of the ethics of the creation of new works, works in which a reliably realised creativity is or should be included. Newly created works, such as photographs, films, textual studies, literary works, paintings, graphics, sculptures, architectural designs, technical and other innovations, computer programmes, patents, etc., contain the element of new solutions, concepts, innovation, etc., which are the result of human creativity. However, in the context of thousands of years of evolution of human abilities and creativity, it is only relatively recently that man has begun to assist himself in the processes of creative creation of something new, innovative solutions, new concepts, artistic works, etc., assisted by advanced technology that does this in principle for man, but according to assumptions and rules that man determines. In recent years, the aforementioned processes of using artificial intelligence in the creation of a kind of "works" created with the application of more and more data and information and within the framework of processes that are becoming more and more automated have been taking place at an increasingly rapid pace. The development of the ChatGPT intelligent language model technology, which is available on the Internet, shows how dynamically the use of new technology is taking place in order to, as it were, cede creative work that requires multi-criteria processing of large amounts of data and in increasingly automated processes. Since, for example, ChatGPT-created texts often lack full descriptions of data sources, source publications, bibliographic descriptions and lack information on the extent of possible plagiarism, the scale of possibilities for copyright infringement is large. Therefore, in the context of thesis texts written by students, essays for course credit at university, the use of a tool such as ChatGPT for this purpose generates serious risks of unreliability of writing this type of work. Therefore, it is necessary to create a system of digital marking of various types of "works" created by various artificial intelligence solutions, i.e. in addition to texts created by artificial intelligence, also the creation of photographs, films, innovations, patents, computer software, new drugs, technical projects, artistic works, etc. Such a system of digital marking of various types of "works" created by various artificial intelligence solutions will be helpful in the matter of distinguishing the effects of human work from the increasingly highly substitutable effects of advanced data processing carried out by artificial intelligence. In addition to this, computerised anti-plagiarism platforms and programmes should be improved in such a way that they diagnose the borrowing of text fragments, sentences, paragraphs, phrases from other texts, publications, articles, books, etc., and unattributed sources of data, information, formulas, formulas, models, definitions of new concepts, new concepts, projects, innovative solutions, etc., unattributed bibliographies. Therefore, the currently developed artificial intelligence solutions, such as ChatGPT and similar solutions, should be improved both from the technical and procedural side, as well as from the formal and legal side, thanks to which the scale of improper use of such tools, generating negative effects, will be significantly reduced, including, among others, the scale of unreliable writing of texts of journal and other articles, theses, descriptions of conducted research, results of conducted analyses, etc. In this way, by significantly reducing the scale of negative effects of the developed artificial intelligence applications, the possibilities of practical application of artificial intelligence in the scope of improving the performance of research, analytical and development works, research and development works, as well as the results of conducted analyses, etc., will be limited. In this way, significantly reducing the scale of negative effects of developed applications of artificial intelligence, also developed in universities, the possibilities of practical applications of artificial intelligence in improving the implementation of research, analytical, research and development work, descriptions of results of conducted research will be able to be developed in the future. In this way, effectively, artificial intelligence technologies can be used in universities so that the development of artificial intelligence technologies, of which ChatGPT is an example, does not pose a threat to universities, but rather that it is an increase in opportunities for the development of universities, the development of scientific research, including the improvement of the efficiency of conducted research and analytical processes with the use of large amounts of data processed multi-criteria on computerised Big Data Analytics platforms.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

How effectively can artificial intelligence technologies be used in universities so that the development of artificial intelligence technologies as exemplified by ChatGPT does not pose a threat to universities but rather that it is an increase in the possibilities for the development of universities, the development of scientific research, including the improvement of the efficiency of the conducted research, analytical, teaching, scientific processes using large amounts of data processed multi-criteria on computerised Big Data Analytics platforms?

And what is your opinion on this?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

what is difference between living and non living ?life and death?#molecular concept

The development of artificial intelligence technologies has accelerated in recent years. New applications of specific information systems, various ICT information technology solutions combined with technologies typical of the current fourth technological revolution, technologies categorised as Industry 4.0, including machine learning, deep learning, artificial intelligence and analytics performed on large data and information sets, on Big Data Analytics platforms, are emerging. Particularly in the field of ongoing research work, where large sets of both qualitative information and large sets of quantitative data are produced, the aforementioned technologies are particularly useful in facilitating analytics, processing, elaboration of research results and their preparation for presentation at scientific conferences and in scientific publications. In the analytics of large quantitative data sets, analytical platforms built using integrated information systems, computers characterised by high performance computing power, equipped with servers, high-capacity memory disks, on which Big Data Analytics platforms are built, are used. On the other hand, artificial intelligence technology can also be useful for aggregating, multi-criteria processing and elaboration of large sets of qualitative information. In addition to this, certain IT applications, including statistical and business intelligence applications, are also useful for processing the results of studies carried out, presenting them in scientific publications, statistically processing large data sets, generating descriptions and drawing graphs based on them. As part of the digital representation of researched, complex, multi-faceted processes, digital twin technology can be useful. Within the framework of improving online data transfer, remote communication conducted between researchers and scientists, for example, Blockchain technology and new cyber security solutions may be helpful.

Probably many researchers and scientists would like to have state-of-the-art ICT information technologies and Industry 4.0. including Big Data Analytics, artificial intelligence, deep learning, digital twins, Business Intelligence, Blockchain, etc. Many researchers would probably like to improve the processes of the research and analytical work carried out, the processing of the results of the research carried out, through the use of artificial intelligence in combination with certain technologies typical of the current fourth technological revolution, technologies categorised as Industry 4.0, including the use of artificial intelligence and analytics carried out on large sets of data and information, on Big Data Analytics platforms.

The construction of modern laboratories, research and development centres in schools, colleges, universities, equipped with the above-mentioned new ICT information technologies and Industry 4.0 is therefore probably an important factor for the development of scientific and research and development activities of a particular scientific institution. However, it is usually limited by the financial resources that schools, colleges, universities are able to allocate for these purposes. However, should these financial resources appear, the questions formulated above would probably be valid. In such a situation, as part of a systemic approach to the issue, the construction of modern laboratories, research and development centres in schools, colleges and universities, equipped with the above-mentioned new information technologies, ICT and Industry 4.0, would also be determined by determining the priority directions of research work, the specific nature of the research carried out in relation to the directions of the teaching process, the mission adopted by the scientific institution in the context of its research, scientific work, the achievement of specific social objectives, etc.

In view of the above, I would like to address the following questions to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Counting on your opinions, on getting to know your personal opinion, on an honest approach to the discussion in scientific issues and not the ready-made answers generated in ChatGPT, I deliberately used the phrase "in your opinion" in the question.

The above text is entirely my own work written by me on the basis of my research.

I have not used other sources or automatic text generation systems such as ChatGPT in writing this text.

Copyright by Dariusz Prokopowicz

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Artificial intelligence are spread over several fiels of science. E.g. social sciences. What are these fields of science where are uncommon apply the artificial intelligence?

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.

Publishing under a subscription with a high impact factor (3.0 and above) and Web of Science indexed (SCI/E) journal or Publishing in an open access and Web of Science indexed journal (SCI/E) with a low impact factor (below 3.0). If you were given these two options to choose from, which one will you opt for as an experienced researcher?

On 4 May 2023, the World Health Organisation lifted the state of global epidemiological emergency associated with Covid-19. The WHO declared that Covid-19 no longer posed a public health, human health threat on a global scale. The WHO introduced the state on 30 January 2020, and after more than three years, the state was lifted. But the key point is that it was lifted as an epidemiological risk 'only' on a global scale and not as a direct recommendation for individual countries. Well, in individual countries, the levels of infection and mortality, although significantly lower than in 2020, are still occurring as part of local, successive, seasonal increases in infection with specific types of relentlessly emerging successive virus strains, and are significantly different in terms of the comparative analyses carried out. Globally, almost 7 million people have died according to Covid-19 death statistics and in more than 90 per cent of cases in combination with the presence of various co-morbidities. In Poland, these deaths were 120 000 with 5.5 million diagnosed infections and more than 250 000 excess deaths. In Poland, the Covid-19 epidemiological emergency is due to be lifted at the end of June 2023. In relation to this, is there still research being conducted by the WHO on the secondary effects of the Covid-19 pandemic? The 2018 Spanish flu was an avian flu that passed to humans. This was not the only such case in which a virus that causes disease in specific animal species started to infect and cause specific diseases in humans as well. It may have been similar with the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus, because before it started infecting humans it had previously developed in certain bat species, among others. It is likely that this virus acquired new features after the modification of its genome applied in laboratories, its effect was enhanced, it escaped from the laboratory and also started infecting humans. According to mathematical models of forecasting, which take into account population growth, increased population density in urban areas, low levels of sanitation in many parts of the world, low levels of availability of clean water in many economically poorer countries, the rate of creation of new strains of influenza viruses, coronaviruses, RSV, etc., which attack humans and certain animal species, the progressive process of global warming, climate change on different continents, increased environmental pollution and the impact of toxic waste pollution on human health, etc., it is likely that the virus will become more widespread in the future.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

This is one of the concepts came across while reviewing the literature on the perspective of motivational science on human learning.

On the other hand, over a much longer period of time, what could the continuation of the evolution of the homo sapiens species look like over the next thousands and millions of years on colonised exoplanets millions of light years away?

In your opinion, how could the evolution of homo sapiens continue over the next thousands and millions of years if the Earth's civilisation survived for at least another 100 years and man succeeded in colonising exoplanets? What do you think the evolution of homo sapiens would have looked like over the next thousands and millions of years if Earth's civilisation had survived for at least another 100 years and man had managed to build spaceships that would have enabled the colonisation of many exoplanets similar to Planet Earth, millions of light years away?

For example, if man succeeded in building spaceships which would allow the colonisation of many exoplanets similar to the Earth, distant by millions of light years, and after colonising at least several hundred exoplanets, after a period of at least several thousand years man would survive on some of these exoplanets and build certain civilisations which would be significantly different from the one we know. After a period of at least several thousand years, it would turn out that only on every hundredth or every thousandth exoplanet would a new civilisation be built and a new human race already evolved, which would survive specific natural cataclysms and/or climatic and other catastrophes resulting from human activity. A large number of colonised exoplanets similar to the Earth, but nevertheless significantly different from each other, e.g. in terms of the composition of elements on the equivalent Mendeleyev tables, the structure of key organic compounds, the composition of the biosphere, the climate, etc., would correspond, for example, to different islands on the planet Earth, on which different species of flora and fauna arose in a process of Darwinian evolution lasting millions of years. In the context of such considerations, the following question arises: What qualities could a human being have, whose civilisation would survive for many thousands of years to come on a small number of colonised exoplanets similar to the planet Earth, distant by millions of light years? What qualities could a human being have, whose civilisation would survive many thousands of consecutive years, i.e. would develop in a fully balanced way with the surrounding nature functioning on a specific exoplanet similar to the planet Earth and would avoid the negative scenario that awaits the planet Earth in the 21st century, namely would avoid degradation of the biosphere occurring on the exoplanet, would avoid global warming and climate catastrophe? In my opinion, it would probably have been human beings who would have built a civilisation on the basis of sustainability with the surrounding nature, and intelligent people, as a result of the evolutionary process operating in a slightly different than earthly environment on distant exoplanets, would not have developed negative characteristics such as e.g. Greed, egoism, thoughtless exploitation of the planet's resources within the framework of a selfish robbery economy, ignorance of the relationship between man and the natural environment surrounding man, ignorance of the negative development of civilisation causing great damage to the surrounding biosphere and climate, i.e. features which have decided that the development of civilisation and the technological progress which has taken place on planet Earth in the 21st century has not protected man, the biosphere and the planet's climate from destruction.

For example, if man succeeded in building spaceships which would allow the colonisation of many exoplanets similar to the Earth, distant by millions of light years, and after colonising at least several hundred exoplanets, after a period of at least several thousand years man would survive on some of these exoplanets and build certain civilisations which would be significantly different from the one we know. After a period of at least several thousand years, it would turn out that only on every hundredth or every thousandth exoplanet would a new civilisation be built and a new human race already evolved, which would survive specific natural cataclysms and/or climatic and other catastrophes resulting from human activity. A large number of colonised exoplanets similar to the Earth, but nevertheless significantly different from each other, e.g. in terms of the composition of elements on the equivalent Mendeleyev tables, the structure of key organic compounds, the composition of the biosphere, the climate, etc., would correspond, for example, to different islands on the planet Earth, on which different species of flora and fauna arose in a process of Darwinian evolution lasting millions of years. In the context of such considerations, the following question arises: What qualities could a human being have, whose civilisation would survive for many thousands of years to come on a small number of colonised exoplanets similar to the planet Earth, distant by millions of light years? What qualities could a human being have, whose civilisation would survive many thousands of consecutive years, i.e. would develop in a fully balanced way with the surrounding nature functioning on a specific exoplanet similar to the planet Earth and would avoid the negative scenario that awaits the planet Earth in the 21st century, namely would avoid degradation of the biosphere occurring on the exoplanet, would avoid global warming and climate catastrophe? In my opinion, it would probably have been human beings who would have built a civilisation on the basis of sustainability with the surrounding nature, and intelligent people, as a result of the evolutionary process operating in a slightly different than earthly environment on distant exoplanets, would not have developed negative characteristics such as e.g. Greed, egoism, thoughtless exploitation of the planet's resources within the framework of a selfish robbery economy, ignorance of the relationship between man and the natural environment surrounding man, ignorance of the negative development of civilisation causing great damage to the surrounding biosphere and climate, i.e. features which have decided that the development of civilisation and the technological progress which has taken place on planet Earth in the 21st century has not protected man, the biosphere and the planet's climate from destruction. Of course, in this issue, considerations around the following further question arise: On these other, distant but also similar to the planet Earth, would man develop civilisation in a similar way as it has done on the planet Earth and also a process of global warming and climate catastrophe would occur, i.e. on these other exoplanets the appearance of man could be compared to the appearance of a virus in a certain balanced environment, which would seriously disrupt this state of sustainability and lead to a catastrophe of the exoplanet's biosphere? Such comparisons have been used more than once in popular science literature and in films of the science fiction genre, including, for example, part 1 of the 'Matrix' trilogy directed by the Wachowski brothers. However, we are not able to answer the latter question fully unequivocally, because we do not know the geological, climatic, natural environments, the biochemical composition and organic compounds forming the biosphere of the exoplanet, the composition and structure of the elements forming the dominant minerals on the planet, etc. of those other many hundreds, thousands or perhaps more exoplanets similar to the planet Earth. Thus, we do not know these presumably different in many respects biotic and abiotic environments of exoplanets and therefore do not know how these other environments would have shaped the development of other civilisations that may have been man-made on distant exoplanets. Alternatively, we can describe a hypothetical situation that could exist on some human-colonised exoplanets by defining the aforementioned conditions existing on an exoplanet of other animate and inanimate nature that could determine the development of human civilisation taking place in harmony with the surrounding nature and climate, i.e. within the framework of full sustainability, i.e. also in a way that we currently define on planet Earth as fully pursuing the goals of sustainable development and conducted within the framework of a sustainable, pro-environmental, green circular economy. Until we know more about these other abiotic and biotic environments found on many exoplanets and whether other, different forms of life exist on many other exoplanets, the answer to the above questions can only end at the stage of conjecture and theoretical considerations.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What do you think?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Counting on your opinions, on getting to know your personal opinion, on an honest approach to the discussion of scientific issues and not the ready-made answers generated in ChatGPT, I deliberately used the phrase "in your opinion" in the question.

The above text is entirely my own work written by me on the basis of my research.

I have not used other sources or automatic text generation systems such as ChatGPT in writing this text.

Copyright by Dariusz Prokopowicz

Warm regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

As the computing power of processors and the ability to process large and increasingly large data sets and information grows rapidly year on year thanks to technological advances, so also the sets of data and information, so also the possibilities for multi-criteria, automated analysis of large data sets on Big Data Analytics platforms, including the use of Industry 4.0 technologies, including machine learning, deep learning and artificial intelligence are also growing rapidly. Therefore, through the use of the aforementioned technologies, including artificial intelligence and Big Data Analytics, it is also possible to improve the processes of analysing the sentiment of large collections of publications and conducting semi-automated bibliometric research on large collections of publications, including scientific publications collected in online indexing databases of scientific publications. In view of the above, the application of new Industry 4.0 technologies, including new generations of artificial intelligence and computerised analytical Big Data Analytics platforms, may increase the scale of automation of the processes of conducting sentiment analysis on large sets of data and information contained in publications included in online indexing databases of scientific and/or professional publications and in the framework of bibliometric research carried out. The key determinants limiting the possibility of conducting multi-criteria analyses, including sentiment analyses of the content of multiple online publications, professional and/or scientific journals, in addition to technological limitations, include the issue of IT compatibility of Big Data Analytics platforms and the structural and technical conditions of online journal portals and online indexing databases of specific publications, including scientific publications.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What is your opinion on this topic?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Warm regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

My school does not have access to this site and I cannot read most of the articles, what should I do?

Что скажет об этом Комиссия по борьбе с коррупцией?

"The name of E.A. Rogozhin is associated with a whole era of fundamental scientific research on the tectonic nature of seismicity and geological structures of different scales associated with its catastrophic manifestations. He actively participated in the organization and conduct of field work in the source areas of the strongest earthquakes on the territory of our country and abroad ...."

One of his most important cases: A positive conclusion on the results of tests of a short-term earthquake prediction hides from the people the leadership of the IPE RAS and RAS.

1. Consultant of the Department for work with

appeals of citizens and organizations of the Secretariat of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Egorova Lyudmila Vladimirovna 8499-237-69-64

2. Head of the Secretariat of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences N.K. Egorov.

We will have to ask the President of Russia: Who is the boss in the house?

В ИФЗ РАН вышла книга о проф. Е.А. Рогожине.

"С именем Е.А. Рогожина связана целая эпоха фундаментальных научных исследований тектонической природы сейсмичности и разномасштабных геологических структур, связанных с её катастрофическими проявлениями. Он активно участвовал в организации и проведении полевых работ в очаговых областях сильнейших землетрясений на территории нашей страны и за её пределами...."

Одно из важнейших его дел: Положительное заключение по результатам испытаний краткосрочного прогноза землетрясений скрывает от народа руководство ИФЗ РАН и РАН.

1. Консультант Отдела по работе с

обращениями граждан и организаций Секретариата президиума РАН

Егорова Людмила Владимировна 8499-237-69-64

2. начальник секретариата Президиума РАН Н.К.Егоров.

Придется запросить Президента России: Кто в доме хозяин?

Functional requirements are the primary way customers communicate their requirements to the project team (First). Applicable (functional) requirements help to keep the project team going in the right direction (Second). Unclear requirements lead to a poorly defined scope that creates many challenges from the beginning of the project (Third).

In requirements engineering (Fourth), requirements elicitation is the practice of researching and discovering the requirements of a system from users, customers, and other stakeholders (First). The procedure is also sometimes referred to as "requirement gathering." (Will be discussed in the current Definition of Functional Requirements and Solicitation Process following questions.)

Reference: Requirements Engineering A good practice guide, Ramos Rowel and Kurts Alfeche, John Wiley and Sons, 1997

(1) "A customer communicates their requirements to the project team" Based on my experience and research for more than 40+ years as a practitioner, academic, and a leading authority in SWE worldwide.

(a) Users, Customers, Stakeholders, System Engineers, and Project teams of any software system DO NOT KNOW anything about the functional requirements of any software system.

(b) Users, Customers, Stakeholders, System Engineers, and Project teams are solution-oriented mental models by experience and practice.

(c) We need to distinguish the difference between System and Software. A unique system exists in domain knowledge, but the SW is the accurate engine in all designs and domain knowledge.

(d) Unfortunately:

(1) SWE Gangs where each gang pushes its agenda in different areas of SWE, creating confusion, pointless debates, poor research, and inadequate teaching and training programs among the SWE universities and communities.

+ In Parnas, David L. (1998), "Software Engineering Programs are not Computer Science Programs." Annals of Software Engineering 6:19-37, Page 19. Parnas said that software engineering is a form of engineering.

+ The Gang of Four Summarize SWE in "Design Patterns," Analysis Patterns," "Process Patterns," and others. Most of them are programmers and from different fields of knowledge.

+ I studied most SWE university programs and found tremendous in various aspects of SWE, and many instructors are (Lecturers) Programmers.

+ "A well-known: All the existing SWE Books have nothing to do with true SWE. Concerning all the authors of any book on SWE areas, they are identical in many ways, even in their major pitfalls and problems.

+ SWE Standards collecting dust has no value.

+ SWE is not a social science or social media.

and

(2) The majority of different disciplines, professional and academia, trivialize SWE:

+ In Knuth, Donald (1974), "Computer Programming is an Art." The Communications of ACM 17 (12) Transcript of 1974, Tuning Award Lecture, where Knuth needed to separate Art and Science in his lecture.

+ In Dijkstra, Edsger W. (1998 "On the Cruelty of really teaching computer science,'" EWD1036, Austin, December 1998.

He also said that SWE should be known as "The Doomed Discipline." He indicated why he used the term "Doomed" because it cannot even approach its goal of science, and its purpose is self-contradictory. Unfortunately, all the non-SWE professionals in Computer Science and Engineering adopt the same point of view.

+ In Edsger W. Dijkstra's (2004) "There is still a war going on," Transcript, Austin (December 1993).

Dijkstra rejected the idea of "SWE" until he died in 2002, arguing that those terms were poor analogies for the radical novelty of computer science. He also indicated that SWE is Miserable Science."

(3) "Requirements elicitation is the practice of researching and discovering the requirements of a system."

There are three bizarre notions in this statement:

a) "The Practice of Research and Discovery" – Wow

Practice: The existing solicitation or gathering requirements failed to Gather the valid SWE Requirements.

Research: The current solicitation doesn't have anything to do with research.

Discovery:?

b) "Requirements of a system" must change to Requirements of Software or Software Requirements

Second: "Applicable (functional) requirements help to keep the project team going in the right direction." True. The reality is that the functional requirements do not exist. Therefore all the software project teams need to go in a different direction.

Third: "Unclear functional requirements lead to a poorly defined scope that creates many challenges from the beginning of the project." True. Why?

+ The cancelations of many systems,

+ Maintenance nightmare,

+ Disappearance of Software

+ Short life spans of much existing software,

+ Failure of 98% of startups, and

+ Legacy systems (Billions of $s)

Fourth: "In requirements engineering."

+ There are no functional requirements and the avoidance of problem space.

+ There is nothing to engineer. I will address many questions related to Requirements engineering."

Hi. As the title said, I realized that some people don't prefer using Google Scholar as a database in the systematic literature review. They prefer using Web of Science, Scopus, or other specified database in their fields.

Thank you!

Physics is presented as a complete science, fully consistent and bullet proof with no issues, rarely they admit of scientific problems that need brainstorming or new horizons to be explored.

In reality physics is full of issues and new horizons (quantum gravity, origin of universe, even classical mechanics fullest formulation).

The only allibi is that most issues are highly technical but still the complain is invalid.

Would the knowledge of other forms of life on distant exoplanets make it easier to answer the question of the possible purposefulness or randomness of the origin/emergence of life in the Universe and its development in evolutionary processes lasting millions or billions of years?

Man has been searching for years for a clear answer to the questions concerning the nature and possible purposefulness or randomness of the origin/emergence of life in the Universe and its development in evolutionary processes lasting millions or billions of years. On the other hand, one of the highly debatable issues is the possibility of the existence of other life forms, including other intelligent life forms on exoplanets many millions of light years distant, located in other planetary systems, other constellations, other stellar constellations, in other galaxies. At present, the most perfect instrument for photographing cosmic objects millions or even billions of light years away that man has built so far is the James Webb Space Telescope. Perhaps with the help of this telescope it will be possible to take photographs of distant exoplanets similar to our planet Earth, which exist in other planetary systems at distances from suns that allow life to originate and develop in the form of evolution on them. If man ever manages in this way to unambiguously confirm the existence of other forms of life on distant exoplanets, then, taking into account the number of galaxies in the known Universe numbering in the billions, the potential number of exoplanets with other forms of life on them can then also be estimated in relatively large numbers. If this is the case, then the question of resolving the possible intentionality or randomness of the emergence, or in fact the multiple and independent emergence of life on many exoplanets many millions of light years distant from each other in the known Universe will also significantly change its interpretative character. In view of the above, an affirmative and unambiguous answer to the question regarding the possible intentionality or randomness of the multiple and independent from each other origin of life on various exoplanets that are many millions of light years distant from each other, i.e. in a situation of unambiguous confirmation of the existence of other forms of life on distant exoplanets, the question of the possible expediency or randomness of the multiple emergence of life in the Universe and its development in processes of evolution of various forms of life lasting millions or billions of years repeatedly, and perhaps also the independent, multiple emergence of intelligent forms of life and of the more or less technologically advanced civilisations built by these various intelligent forms of life should be greatly facilitated. Perhaps with the finest telescope yet built, i.e. the James Webb Space Telescope, it will be possible to photograph exoplanets millions of light years away and obtain evidence of the existence of other life forms on these distant exoplanets similar to our planet Earth. And when this has been achieved, then perhaps the answer to the other questions above will already be facilitated.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What is your opinion on the subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Warm regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Has it occurred to any of you AI/AGI people, that if my writings are of a science of truly empirical psychology , even if just an outline with just clear or clear-types needed for such ... !!!!!

... If you make that input central whenever it is (would be) relevant, that would be good material for a Generalized Artificial machine.

Also see my Answer (to this same Question) below for more stimulation of insight ! (Click the Question's title to see it and my answer. )

I am a Year 12 student at St Edward’s College, East Gosford. I am studying a subject called 'Extension Science' where my research is looking at the use of CRISPR on the treatment of Coeliac Disease. I would greatly appreciate any information, research data, research papers or any further information you may be willing to share with me. This is an area I would potentially like to study further at university and am hoping this project assists my future endeavours in this career path.

I also have a survey to collect data from credible sources, such as those with expertise in the field, about the topic of CRISPR on the treatment of Coeliac disease. There is some information I have collected at the beginning of the survey regarding what Coeliac disease is.

Here is the survey link:

Thank you in advance for your time and assistance. I hope to hear from you soon.

Warm regards,

Calan Tucker

Year 12 Student

I came across this new book by @Yiorgos Apidianakis titled "Disentangling Humans". It is a book that every biologist should read. It finds a midpoint between Mendelian genetics and non-Mendelian genetics in a language that the layman can read. As common with such brilliant splices, it raises more questions than answers that science can provide as of today. If you have seen or read the book, it will be nice to discuss some talking points.

You can obtain the book on Amazon using the following link:

Not so simple.

First, extraordinary claims attract extraordinary skepticism and scrutiny. The least oversight can sink theory.

Second, for all the reasons set out in Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Text books, courses and curricula, including introductory courses might require revision. Proposed theories of dark energy that are superseded would impair the field of research of many experts.

Third, billions of dollars of current and future research has been allocated to dark energy, if you include proposed space missions. Jobs and careers would be impaired by a valid theory.

Or not.

What do you think? What other factors would influence rejection or acceptance?

Leonard Hall added a reply (20 April 2023, in my discussion: “Can any experimental or theoretical proof be for ‘the’ existence of ether?) (With Leonard Hall's written permission in RG.)

Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil,

This question just appeared on an RG sidebar so I read through the set of replies. It's quite a trip, and of course I have my own theory, but I enjoy the discussions your questions raise.

I believe "catalyst" is the term I want here. My best tuned muffler design emerged in the aftermath of a terrible idea that was otherwise quite useless! Aristotle's introduction of the "aether" as the quintessence filling the universe beyond the sublunary sphere was quite useful to him in description. Young's double-slit experiment proved the wave nature of light, for a while, and the aether concept supported extensive learning which eventually produced more complete understanding, and many remaining questions about it. Why worry whether aether is "actual" with or without proof when it is so useful? Granted, it may mislead, but that is my point with the tuned muffler incident. We are still so ignorant we must have mavericks that explore, while the majority marches on incrementing what works.

The Philosophy of Science must be opportunity that aids discovery, not rules that protect all those doing philosophy from error. Proof about aether will come in it's time. In the meantime, what should be done about the fact that there are 11,552 replies to the RG question "What are the major and most effective refutations of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity?"

Factually, I do not understand "If ether is of infinite activity, it cannot interact with anything in the world, and hence also with matter, EM and Gravitation." If aether exists, activity associated with it will be local and its "infinite activity" seems to me irrelevant. Oh,well, great discussion!

Happy Trails, Len

Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply (21 April 2023)

Leonard Hall, thanks. You asked: "Why worry whether aether is "actual" with or without proof when it is so useful?" To my mind, this must increasingly be taken as an unacceptable attitude in science and of course in philosophy, because this is the attitude that stalls the progress of both (and also of human institutions), by creating discrete "epochs and revolutions" in their way ahead.

For me, the question as to the existence of ether, and if it does exist its manner of action and influence on the world, are important enough. Not because the answer will come soon. But there is always some more light into the eventual near-perfect but imperfect solutions when we keep reasoning about its possible existence and non-existence, influence and non-influence, extent of influence and non-influence, etc.

For some scientists, only a direct proof will count. "Mere reasoning" is useless for them. But very few have produced almost direct proofs for anything -- and if they insist on science having produced direct proofs, we will and shall attempt to show them that, theoretically, they are not even able to prove the existence of the physical world directly.

Hence, indirect reasoning too has its value -- even if science, philosophy, etc. will transpire only in terms of epochs and revolutions. I for my part have used the MMM (Maximal-Medial-Minimal) Method for this purpose.

About the RG question "What are the major and most effective refutations of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity?". If you notice the going-ons therein, you will realize also the attitudes and motives behind many of the warring factions therein.

Sorry, if not the motives, then at least the attitudes that come to the fore through the words being used. I do not say this about all of them. Some of them use their words in such a manner as for others to feel that the ones who express themselves so will surely have missed parental love in childhood.

The research shows that the development of artificial intelligence technology and its new applications, including the technology of the ChatGPT intelligent language model made available on the Internet, is currently proceeding at a much faster pace in terms of adapting legal norms to the new situation of rapidly developing new applications of this technology. In addition, the developing new applications of the artificial intelligence solutions available to Internet users generate not only positive aspects. For example, there are already numerous situations of disinformation on social media using photos, texts and videos generated by certain artificial intelligence solutions available on the Internet. In addition to this, the possibility of generating the texts of articles and essays using the ChatGPT language model available on the Internet, which does not show data sources, source publications or bibliography footnotes, generates a serious problem of violation of basic copyright issues. In addition, the ChatGPT-generated texts do not contain information indicating whether they are entirely the product of artificial intelligence creativity or whether they are, however, texts produced by 'assembling' them by combining paragraphs and assignments borrowed from other Internet-accessible publications, articles, book texts, etc., which were added to the database used by ChatGPT in 2021 after being downloaded from the Internet. This problem could also apply to the many other artificial intelligence solutions available on the Internet capable of generating images, videos, innovations, patents, computer software, new drugs, technical designs, artistic works, etc. It is therefore also necessary to build a digital labelling system for the various "works" created by artificial intelligence in order to distinguish them from what is directly created by humans. In addition to this, the improvement of such creative artificial intelligence systems should also address the issue of the automatic display of data sources, reference publications, annotated bibliographies and the elimination of the possibility of plagiarism in this way. It is also necessary to adapt the legal norms in the field of copyright law and, for example, also tax law relating to the issue of taxation of work carried out by artificial intelligence replacing humans in certain positions in companies and enterprises. In addition, other issues that require adaptation of legal norms to the current situation of different applications of artificial intelligence are how to solve the issue of authorship and gratification for "works" created by a robot or other machine equipped with an artificial intelligence system, when an intelligent robot has been produced by one company and another company has purchased it, and it is within the latter company that the AI-equipped robot has created certain "works" such as photographs, films, innovations, patents, computer software, new medicines, technical designs, artistic works, etc., which have been created by the robot. In view of the above, it is obvious that the development of artificial intelligence should develop in such a way that it does not get out of hand. This means, for example, that ChatGPT technology should be improved and legal norms regarding copyright should be amended so that the continued development of various solutions, generations, etc. of artificial intelligence technology and its new applications is not a problem for the development of science, scientific research, describing and publishing research results, etc., but only supports the development of science.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Warm regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

This discussion is about the TV program "The Dark Side of the Universe" (Australian Broadcasting Corporation - 25/4/2023, 9 pm) https://iview.abc.net.au/show/dark-side-of-the-universe/video/SC2204H001S00

“The Dark Side of the Universe” tells us how mysterious the universe actually is. Attempting to resolve the mysteries by looking for new particles – as in Stawell, Victoria or in northern Italy – seems unlikely to be successful. This is because those particles are part of the mere 5% of the universe which the program says is observable to us. That means searching for WIMPs or whatever might only give us a 5% chance of success. A 95% chance of success sounds better to me. This could be achieved with a paradigm-shifting approach in which we abandon the classically mechanistic reductionism, randomness and chance which has served science so well (like the song “Turn, Turn, Turn” points out, there’s a time for everything). We could use a quantum mechanical approach that is wholistic ie a new quantum mechanics that’s related to Chaos theory in which hidden order is contained in apparent disorder. The quantum world would then be, in reality, one of exactness and precision. Combined with General Relativity to complete the wholistic approach, this Quantum Gravity would use ideas like the recent discipline of Information Physics, MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark’s MUH (Mathematical Universe Hypothesis), a variation of redshift I call readshift (which explains the understandable error of an accelerating cosmic expansion), the Riemann hypothesis, Wick rotation, quaternions, and vector-tensor-scalar geometry. The attached article – short title: Riemann Hypothesis and Space-time - is a suggested approach to discovering the nature of the Dark Side.

Hi there,

I am seeking a reliable data source or database that can provide current and past affiliations for authors of scientific publications.

While I am familiar with platforms such as Scopus and Web of Science, I am unable to use them due to the requirement of an institutional subscription or the need to search for authors individually. Ideally, I am looking for a database where I can extract information on all authors affiliated with a specific institution.

My research is focused on computer science, so a data source that specializes in this field would be perfect, but I'm open to any suggestions you might have. Thanks!

Can ChatGPT create research questions or hypotheses? Is the role of the human mind waning in science?

Can you recommend a networking site that is most useful to scientists?

I'm curious about your views on this. / Bu konudaki görüşlerinizi merak ediyorum.

How do you address diverse learning needs in science education?

I do find it the idea of "peer review" problematic In Physics for several reasons. I understand the need to avoid from accepting non-sense and therefore recruiting those people to stand guard and to "examine carefully" . Here are the problems in ones view.

1. Suppose one is the "elite" in a given field it does not make sense to send his/her work by reviewers who are not "elite" . Similar to how an Olympic Medalist performance would not be evaluated by teenagers.

2. Suppose one is the "elite" in a given field it does not make sense to send his/her work to not "elite" reviewers, as the they might be Jealous and therefore prevent him/her from recognition and reject it on a false cause/with no cause at all.

3. Suppose one is "elite" in a given field it does not make sense to send his/her work to not "elite" reviewers, as the they might not be able to understand it.

4. Those "scientific body-guards" Prevent the complete freedom of expression, by the overwhelming power they get to decide and to censor. Science can only move forward when the freedom of expression is complete. "Peer review" is not allowing it.

5. In Physics, the guy who sent the paper that unified physics with no doubt, got his work rejected by moderators of ArXiv and of Physics letters A due to formatting issues. It just show you how terrible the system is.

Please only replay if you are in physics.

I am happy to answer your question received from no-reply@researchgatemail.net (which does not respond to sending a response) dated April 17, 2023 at 18 hours 58 minutes with the attachment of links where the article ”TU-237. Recurrence of COVID-19 infection with meningitis without pulmonary”

Thanks for the question. It was nice to get an award for that.

Thank you very much.

It's a pleasure to cooperate with you.

ORDER IN CHAOS vs CHAOS IN ORDER !?

For millennia the questions of CAUSALITY and FREEDOM have been conceived as opposites in both sciences and philosophies. If they can be unified (possibly, freedom brought under the other's explanation), is it possible to bring the physical, natural, and social sciences together under one set of basic notions?

I know the latter is a far-fetched suggestion. But not the former. I have a unique manner of argument in the direction of a solution for the reconciliation of causality and freedom.

In need of your opinions

The construction industry is a major contributor to global carbon emissions and environmental degradation. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in adopting sustainable practices in the built environment. Based on recent research studies, what are some of the most promising sustainable practices being implemented in the construction industry?

Dear aspiring young researchers, Tech Science Press recognizes the important role that you play in shaping the future of science and technology worldwide. As such, we are looking to recruit early career editorial board members to enhance the quality and increase the international reputation of our journals. Our goal is to create a diverse and talented pool of professionals for the editorial board of each journal, providing a platform for open, free, and equal communication among young researchers. We firmly believe that by working together, we can achieve mutual success and growth. If you are passionate about your field and want to be part of a professional community that is dedicated to advancing scientific knowledge, we welcome your application. As an early career editorial board member, you will have the opportunity to polish your skills, edit high-quality research papers, provide guidance to fellow researchers, and forward important discoveries to the broader scientific community. Join us at Tech Science Press and let us work together towards a brighter future for science and technology. Sincerely, Tech Science Press

recently I have been working with American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences. Now I have finished all the processes and left only with uploading the pdf version ready for publication.

Physics Masters degreesnot teach concepts and skills without relating them to recent utilization of those concepts by leading literature proposal, leaving basic meaning pedagogical aspects behind, in contrast to other master degree, which i have attended.

For example in classical mechanics, the action is not related to Hawking's no boundary conditions so that students see the power of concepts in crafting new science and constructive apreciate the meaning of those theoritical construct in leading edge science and research.

Physics Masters graduated, due to the mentioned conservative teaching structure which is math and algorithmic procedures centric and not research centric, are partially illiterate to the great issues of physics because they are not exposed to them and as a result consider research as vain and problematic, if they do not proceed to a Ph. D and even so, they have a arrow appreciation of leading research and its feats.

The teachibg's approach should change. It will not sabotage the math education embeded in tjoshigh level since it is ibtefral part of research and new results. They just have to make teaching more informed with latest research and less with k 12 style home work Calculations in specific situations.

How should an automated system for verifying the authorship of texts and other works be structured and made openly available on the Internet in order to verify whether phrases, fragments of text, phrases, wording, etc. are present in a specific text submitted to the editors of journals or publishers of books and other text-based publications? If so, to what extent and from which source texts did the artificial intelligence extract specific phrases, fragments of text, thus giving a detailed description of the source texts, providing footnotes to sources, bibliographic descriptions of sources, etc., i.e. also as is done by efficient and effective computerised anti-plagiarism systems?

The recent appeal by the creators of ChatGPT-type artificial intelligence technology, the appeal by businessmen and founders and co-founders of start-ups developing artificial intelligence technology about the need to halt the development of this type of technology for at least six months confirms the thesis that something was not thought of when OpenAI made ChatGPT openly available on the Internet, that something was forgotten, that something was missing from the openly available ChatGPT-type artificial intelligence system on the Internet. I have already written about the issue of the potential massive generation of disinformation in my earlier posts and comments on previously formulated questions about ChatGPT technology and posted on my discussion profile of this Research Gate portal. On the other hand, to the issue of information security, the potential development of disinformation in the public space of the Internet, we should also add the issue of the lack of a structured system for the digital marking of "works" created by artificial intelligence, including texts, publications, photographs, films, innovative solutions, patents, artistic works, etc., in order to ensure the security of information. In this regard, it is also necessary to improve the systems for verifying the authorship of texts sent to journal editors, so as to verify that the text has been written in full compliance with copyright law, intellectual property law, the rules of ethics and good journalistic practice, the rules for writing texts as works of intellectual value, the rules for writing and publishing professional, popular science, scientific and other articles. It is necessary to improve the processes of verifying the authorship of texts sent to the editorial offices of magazines and publishing houses of various text publications, including the improvement of the system of text verification by editors and reviewers working in the editorial offices of popular-scientific, trade, scientific, daily and monthly magazines, etc., by creating for their needs anti-plagiarism systems equipped with text analysis algorithms in order to identify which fragments of text, phrases, paragraphs were created not by a human but by an artificial intelligence of the ChatGPT type, and whose authorship these fragments are. An improved anti-plagiarism system of this kind should also include tools for the precise identification of text fragments, phrases, statements, theses, etc. of other authors, i.e. providing full information in the form of bibliographic descriptions of source publications, providing footnotes to sources. An anti-plagiarism system improved in this way should, like ChatGPT, be made available to Internet users in an open access format. In addition, it remains to be seen whether it is also necessary to legally oblige editors of journals and publishers of various types of textual and other publications to use this kind of anti-plagiarism system in verifying the authorship of texts. Arguably, the editors of journals and publishers of books and other types of textual publications will be interested in doing so in order to apply this kind of automated verification system for the resulting publication works. At the very least, those editors of journals and publishers of books and other types of textual publications that recognise themselves and are recognised as reputable will be interested in using this kind of improved system to verify the authorship of texts sent to the editors. Another issue is the identification of technological determinants, including the type of technologies with which it will be possible to appropriately improve the automated verification system for the aforementioned issue of text authorship. Paradoxically, here again, the technology of artificial intelligence comes into play, which can and should prove to be of great help in the aforementioned issue of verification of the aforementioned question of authorship of texts and other works.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

The reviewing of scientific articles by scientists specialised in a particular field of knowledge, conducted in the editorial process, is essential for maintaining a high level of scientific publications and for the development of scientific journals. However, there are times when it can be problematic and cumbersome for scientists who work in narrow, specific specialisations, fields, scientific disciplines.

On the one hand, it is widely accepted that the evaluation of a scientific paper during the peer review process should take into account and usually does take into account at least a dozen factors concerning both substantive issues, research, reference to the literature, timeliness of research results, correctness of inference, editorial quality, effects on the development of science, etc. The assessment of a scientific work during peer review should be carried out objectively, independently, fairly, according to a high level of assessment standards. Therefore, editorial activity, proofreading, editorial correction, scientific reviews, etc. should be carried out according to the applicable standards in order to maintain a certain level of scientific quality of published scientific work.

On the other hand, on the discussion forum of this Research Gate portal, many questions arise regarding the issue of objectivity and fairness in reviewing scientific papers. Yes, the processes of reviewing scientific texts proposed for publication is a serious issue. The issue of the level of objectivity and independence of reviewing scientific papers can influence the direction of science in narrow specialisations and scientific disciplines. The significant variation in the standards of reviewing processes, editorial processes, etc. between different editors of journals and other types of scientific publications is an important factor in considering the issue of the level of objectivity and the problems that arise in this regard. In order for the editorial and reviewing process to be fully objective and independent, among other things, institutional affiliation should not influence the editors' decision to publish a scientific paper and the assessment in the review of the text, manuscript by the reviewers. Unfortunately, however, it sometimes happens that institutional affiliation is taken into account in such situations.

An important element of maintaining a certain level of objectivity in the reviewing process of scientific papers is the application of the model of more than one review in the editorial boards of scientific journals and editorial boards of book publications and monographs, i.e. the standard of min. Two reviews written independently by other researchers and scientists operating in a given discipline of knowledge and/or who are recognised experts in a given issue. Consequently, the multi-review model is important as it should contribute to the improvement of scientific texts. The double (two reviews) review process for scientific papers raises the issue of the objectivity of the review process and is an important element of the editorial process. In some editorial boards of scientific journals and editorial boards of book publications and monographs, the model of 3 reviews is also applied, in which the third review plays an auxiliary and sometimes a decisive role in relation to the previous two reviews written, in which significantly different assessments appeared, different points of view on the given issue described in the reviewed scientific work.

In addition, there are other factors that are important for researchers and scientists, such as the length of the review process of submitted text proposals for publication and the period after which they receive a response from the editorial office. Sometimes the review and editorial processes take a long time. This is determined by various factors. During the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic, organising conferences in a traditional, desktop format and post-referral publication processes were difficult. An important issue is the communication standards in place in a given scientific publication editorial board. These standards can also vary widely, as some editorial offices write back with an e-mail response regarding the results of an evaluation, a review conducted, an editorial correction or feedback confirming receipt of a text, etc., within a period of several days or so after the text has been sent to the editorial office publishing a particular scientific text. However, there are also editors who write back with a response much later. For scientists and researchers, waiting a long time for a reply can be problematic in a situation where they are continuing their research in a particular field of knowledge, they are receiving new, new research results and the field or scientific discipline in which they are conducting research is developing rapidly.

The issues of the length of the review process, the process of editing a manuscript proposal submitted for publication, the issue of communication between the editorial office and the manuscript author may also be related to the acceptance by authors of journals that are not highly ranked in terms of recognition, reputation, Impact Factor, etc. If journals with a high Impact Factor are difficult to access due to the long review process and high publication costs, some researchers and scientists who want to publish their research results quickly publish in journals without Impact Factor. In addition, some journals without Impact Factor have other positive features, such as the inclusion of published articles in many scientific publication indexing databases and all this under the open access formula without any payment.

In the context of the issue at hand, the editorial requirements set by the editors of scientific journals for the preparation of articles and other texts for publication are also relevant. On the one hand, the standards of reviewing and editorial requirements sometimes vary widely between journals. On the other hand, meeting all editorial requirements in full may limit the issue of innovation in terms of the research conducted and its description and presentation in scientific publications. This is a complex issue that affects many scientific fields, the research conducted and the description of its results in specific types of scientific publications written according to the editorial standards of specific editors and scientific publishers.

Another issue of discussion in the context of the reviewing process of scientific texts is the progressive digitisation of documents. This process should encourage remote communication via e.g. email, and should assist in the editorial process concerning preparatory work prior to the publication of scientific texts. The issue of the progressive digitisation of documents and their increasingly automated digital processing is linked to the use of new ICT information technologies and Industry 4.0, including artificial intelligence, e.g. technology similar to ChatGPT to improve computerised applications and Internet-connected anti-plagiarism platforms used to verify texts during the process of reviewing scientific texts. I wrote about this issue in one of the previously formulated questions on my discussion forum of this Research Gate portal.

Counting on your opinions, on getting to know your personal o