Watchlords

Falstaff wrote: ... existons ... willing for some other geek to do the maths.

Done! I give you the equation that reveals all the deep mysteries of the existon: 5 = 4

Falstaff wrote:

but to a lesser extent by all other existons might be an atom of carbon. In Y space, however, governed (of necessity) by a different set of local conditions, that same arrangement of existons might well be an atom of tungsten or a giraffe. So your posited anti-existon and their virtual twins are simply different arrangements of existons behaving as local conditions dictate.

Does this mean the new constitutional amendment defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman, might; in another local—say five feet to the left, might actually be defined as a relationship between a fire hydrant and a giraffe?

Precisely - although the distance would be a little more than 5' - quite a bit more, in fact. - but not really that much different than the ability of water to become a solid, liquid or gas depending on local conditions.

Your equation is a little short on completion - let me help; 5 = every other number under certain circumstances.

Falstaff wrote:
Your equation is a little short on completion - let me help; 5 = every other number under certain circumstances.

Actually I was thinking in terms of evaluation. The expression 5 = 4 evaluates to false ... or a compiler error if in code. I'm sure you will agree either evaluation deepens one's understanding and appreciation of of the existon, if not existence itself.

If I'm not absolutely crazy, it appears that Falstaff is actually serious. The concept of the Existron is not all that different from the original Greek concept of the Atom. That term now means the smallest division of elemental material that maintains the elements properties.

Falstaff's concept of a locality is consistent with Leonard Susskind's concepts of multiple resources, each having their own local laws of physics and physical constants.

http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/leonard-susskind

mosc wrote:
If I'm not absolutely crazy, it appears that Falstaff is actually serious. The concept of the Existron is not all that different from the original Greek concept of the Atom. That term now means the smallest division of elemental material that maintains the elements properties.

Falstaff's concept of a locality is consistent with Leonard Susskind's concepts of multiple resources, each having their own local laws of physics and physical constants.

http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/leonard-susskind

The problem is giving a definition to the process of division that is both unambiguous and consistent. That is, there must be one unambiguous definition of division that fits every level of division without ad hoc redefinitions of the process of division. Otherwise the notion of repeated division seems semantically empty.

Falstaff wrote:The Existon is simplicity itself. It's result of the "divide this object in half again and again and again and again" scenario - no matter how many times it is divided in half, 2 halves remain to be divided in half again. There is nothing that can be done to cause them to cease to exist, the pieces simply get smaller.

Can any meaning be attached to the notion of dividing a photon? And if none, is a photon an existon?





And thanks for the link. I'm still mulling over the meaning of being consistent with Susskind's landscapes.

Dead serious.

Probability enters into the process as well. The more something happens, the more it tends to happen. This accounts for local consistency. However, improbable events happen all the time and by happening, go virtually unnoticed. After all, every car coming the other way has potentially hit you head on. When it doesn't happen, we think it unremarkable, if we think of it at all.

Split photons? Remember, the sole property of an existon is that it exists. The smallest bit of "somethingness" possible. Needless to say, there is no possibility whatsoever of observing an existon in insolation, since it is affected by every other existon.

"Big Bang" works like a champ with existons.

"The more something happens, the more it tends to happen. "


That implies a causal relationship that does not exist.

""Big Bang" works like a champ with existons."

That's what I said, 5 = 4. I think we're on the same frequency here.

No, an event or construct having once happened increases the probability of it happening again. It has provided a framework or template for recurrence. Not all events or constructs are suited to their locality, but probability says that once constructed, they are likely to be constructed again. Randomness tempered by familiarity.

Falstaff wrote:No, an event or construct having once happened increases the probability of it happening again. It has provided a framework or template for recurrence. Not all events or constructs are suited to their locality, but probability says that once constructed, they are likely to be constructed again. Randomness tempered by familiarity.

I have to say that I've never read the above in any mathematical text and probability is part of mathematics and no part of philosophy. I am no mathematician but what I know of mathematics impels me to ask for at least one proper reference to a source for the mathematical expression of "Randomness tempered by familiarity".

I have to say that it sounds like the purest invented poppycock, but if it isn't, I surely need to know of this and will thank you for that knowledge.

I always thought familiarity bred contempt

Surprisingly, and happily for us married old farts, not always.

Undoubtedly the purest invented poppycock. It flies in the face of convention and requires leaps of pure faith and the sheer arrogance of simplicity. "The eye could not behold the sun etc. etc. etc". The veriest drivel. Not proper, verifiable, qualifiable nor quantifiable by any standard model whatsoever. You pays your money and you takes your chance.

I'm not a mathematician. Words will have to do. A thought experiment, if you will. By the way, who is to say that probability is not a part of philosophy? The quest or grail of Philosophy is the same as that of any Science, to wit: Explaining How It All Works. As I said, I'm just a voice crying in the wilderness - let someone else do the math. Or not.

Simple observation tells the tale. Water puts out fire (with certain exceptions, white phosphorous being one) consistently, Diamonds don't - and good thing too. Everything would have burned down long ago. There are very few loving relationships between fire hydrants and giraffes - in this location. Drop an apple, it falls to earth - here. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny - as above, so below - until of course, due to conditions in other localities - it doesn't, and another set of possible constructs (hydrants married to giraffes, for instance) prevails. The law there? Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

As I said earlier, much of what passes for current quantum physics and its tedious plethora of particles does no more than cloud the larger picture. The philosophical one. But I realize that it is science's job, by definition, to plod from step to tiny step to qualify, quantify and "prove" by repeatability of result. It won't be too long, though, before science will be compelled to realize by verifiable results that things are very different elsewhere - especially in the realm of causality. Sooner or later they'll get there. And I'll be waiting for them.

Bigjimzlll wrote:I always thought familiarity bred contempt

Boy George said "Popularity breeds contempt" A surprisingly clever remark from the Boy.

um, uh, sorry I must be in the wrong classroom.....how about those celtics?

As I said earlier, much of what passes for current quantum physics and its tedious plethora of particles does no more than cloud the larger picture. The philosophical one. But I realize that it is science's job, by definition, to plod from step to tiny step to qualify, quantify and "prove" by repeatability of result. It won't be too long, though, before science will be compelled to realize by verifiable results that things are very different elsewhere - especially in the realm of causality. Sooner or later they'll get there. And I'll be waiting for them.

Seems to me that in the last 40 years I've seen physics do a fair job of eating philosophies lunch. Personally I think they, the philosophers, are paying the sin of Aristotle’s disdain of empiricism. He thought it was beneath a thinker to get his hands dirty. But I digress.




Fact: Quantum mechanics divides into two parts

….1. Equations derived directly from measurements taken in the real world.

….2. A set of competing interpretations that each use the same set of equations in 1 to describe the “real” world.




The stuff that makes most people think QM is liberal craziness is limited to the second part. As for the equations, they are transforming the world before our eyes. A discussion of the interpretations is beyond … well just beyond.



“An interpretation of quantum mechanics is a set of statements which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics informs our understanding of nature. Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and thorough experimental testing, many of these experiments are open to different interpretations. There exist a number of contending schools of thought, differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and other matters.

This question is of special interest to philosophers of physics, as physicists continue to show a strong interest in the subject. They usually consider an interpretation of quantum mechanics as an interpretation of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, specifying the physical meaning of the mathematical entities of the theory.”

I would also note that string theory tidies up the zoo of subatomic particles. Still the crux of the problem is the assumption that the larger picture will be painted in the language of philosophy rather than the language of mathematical models. Here each can have their own guess, but no more.

I ain't no Boy George....but


<<<<<< I once said Expectations result in resentments

<<<< and...If you meet more than three assholes in one day...it usually isn't them.

How do you guys "feel" about the double-slit experiment.

Bigjimzlll wrote:How do you guys "feel" about the double-slit experiment.

I got so excited I wet my pants when I saw the interfearence pattern. How 'bout you?

timc. wrote:um, uh, sorry I must be in the wrong classroom.....how about those celtics?

Aww, come on in and pull up a chair. And what are celtics anyway?

EntropicTimer wrote:

Bigjimzlll wrote:How do you guys "feel" about the double-slit experiment.

I got so excited I wet my pants when I saw the interfearence pattern. How 'bout you?

The possible implications has had my spinning from when I first "seen it".(seen it...hehe)

Bigjimzlll wrote:

EntropicTimer wrote:

Bigjimzlll wrote:How do you guys "feel" about the double-slit experiment.

I got so excited I wet my pants when I saw the interfearence pattern. How 'bout you?

The possible implications has had my spinning from when I first "seen it".(seen it...hehe)

I can remember my own experiment with the above - found out I needed a bigger particle detector - or a second one.

Celtics? One of the great barbarian tribes of all time. Their outfielders always exhibit brilliant mallet work in a 4th and goal situation, although a silly mid on sometimes prevents the shuttlecock from landing in the fairway resulting in a shoot-out. They've been plagued this season, though, with broken racquets, 7-10 splits and double dribble penalties. Nonetheless, one can always count on the Celtics for a rousing chukkar.

EntropicTimer wrote:

As I said earlier, much of what passes for current quantum physics and its tedious plethora of particles does no more than cloud the larger picture. The philosophical one. But I realize that it is science's job, by definition, to plod from step to tiny step to qualify, quantify and "prove" by repeatability of result. It won't be too long, though, before science will be compelled to realize by verifiable results that things are very different elsewhere - especially in the realm of causality. Sooner or later they'll get there. And I'll be waiting for them.

Seems to me that in the last 40 years I've seen physics do a fair job of eating philosophies lunch. Personally I think they, the philosophers, are paying the sin of Aristotle’s disdain of empiricism. He thought it was beneath a thinker to get his hands dirty. But I digress.




Fact: Quantum mechanics divides into two parts

….1. Equations derived directly from measurements taken in the real world.

….2. A set of competing interpretations that each use the same set of equations in 1 to describe the “real” world.




The stuff that makes most people think QM is liberal craziness is limited to the second part. As for the equations, they are transforming the world before our eyes. A discussion of the interpretations is beyond … well just beyond.



“An interpretation of quantum mechanics is a set of statements which attempt to explain how quantum mechanics informs our understanding of nature. Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and thorough experimental testing, many of these experiments are open to different interpretations. There exist a number of contending schools of thought, differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and other matters.

This question is of special interest to philosophers of physics, as physicists continue to show a strong interest in the subject. They usually consider an interpretation of quantum mechanics as an interpretation of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, specifying the physical meaning of the mathematical entities of the theory.”

I would also note that string theory tidies up the zoo of subatomic particles. Still the crux of the problem is the assumption that the larger picture will be painted in the language of philosophy rather than the language of mathematical models. Here each can have their own guess, but no more.

I feel as though you misunderstand. I'm not attempting to convince you, much less prove my hypothesis. As I've said (tediously) before, I'll leave that to the physicists and mathematicians - or not, as they see fit; although I am grateful for your lucid explanation of scientific method and how physicists interpret quantum mechanics. Philosophy and Physics are simply the two ends of the same stick. It will be found that the stick cannot be explained by only one of its ends. While I won't permit you to eat my lunch, I am happy enough to share it with you.

My universe (or multiverse, if you wish) has 3 simple parts: existons, gravity and proximity. 1 primary part and 2 secondary parts that are the necessary byproduct of the first. An object, a mover and a causer. All possible events or constructs are derived from these. Simplicity itself - and elegant. I can't prove it - but you can't refute it.

Clearly my starting point is the ultimate end point of physics - the other end of the rainbow, if you will. I'm working backwards. To attempt to explain this viewpoint empirically with the tools currently available to physics is, of course, ludicrous. Those tools don't exist yet (well, they do, but nobody's recognized 'em as yet - too many trees, too much "static" generated by too many side trips, red herrings and dead ends. Can't blame 'em for following each one though, after all, one has to make a career of something - and at least dead ends, red herrings et al are eventually found to be just that.

Much of what has been discovered as of today would appear to be the sheerest fantasy to Newton or Leibniz - bullshit cut from whole cloth.

If I could find it or was inclined to post pictures, I'd post that picture of the bunny with a pancake on its head (sans snarky caption) as a perfect illustration of my viewpoint.

The cat remains in the box, unobserved. The train passes the watch wearing patent office clerk. Pocket watch, I'd guess - an Albert chain, you think? Fob or no fob?