Wednesday, November 3, 2010
BalloonDroggle L. Edgar Otto 11-03-10
... First a reply from Lubos and a further comment to him: On his article the nature of the supernatural.
Dear ThePeSla, thanks. First, concerning Kepler: I wanted to make a specific point about physics that was needed in the line of arguments - not to launch a serious of ad hominem appraisals of a particular physicist, namely Kepler. Could you please focus on the content instead of these distractions? Kepler has done important things - that he couldn't have done without Tycho Brahe, by the way - and he has also believed lots of nonsense. His life was not topic of the article, or the paragraph in the article, for that matter.
Second, I kind of misunderstand your analogy between God and neutralinos. Wink
Lubos, my apologies,
In history there are many cases where philosophers have missed each other's points. I was not suggesting you were rude to the memory of Kepler not was I defending or promoting him and I certainly did not mean to interfere with your excellent presentations. I am honored that you would even reply.
In fact this post of your inspired some rather deep reevaluations of some concepts and maybe one that was lost along the way, overlooked. Namely, that we should generalize this idea of holograms (you have an article on who lead to that theory in praise of his contribution) such that it considers things between dimensions.
My mentor, HSM Coxerter of Toronto has said that there is nothing mysterious about the fourth dimension. But many see even that low dimension as supernatural. With so many dimensions involved in group and string theories how can we feel at home with such thoughts when they may be used to support any other idea or theory among the unknown?
Why is there a lawful space even when if there is a lawless one? What is a Higgs that it cannot be seen on some level of acceleration? Why is its influence not totally silence if it exists?
Experiment and mathematics may be a good start to explain things but it just does not feel enough or we have enough of them. Is there hidden things that is our subconscious, but that is an old idea we so full of inhibitions- anyway something psychological more than physiological? In any case thank you again if for nothing else for insights inspiring my sober looks into what is perhaps still philosophy.
* * *
The first problem of Copenhagen interpretation is the wrong view about the relationship between subjective time and the geometric time. Also the view about what happens in quantum measurement based on hand waving with Uncertainty Principle is nonsense: the presence of macroscopic entanglement and its reduction in measurement with all its consequences must be accepted. Taking quantum theory as a mere collection of calculational rules means giving up just at the verge of revolution in the understanding of Nature.
The delayed choice experiment is consistent with the view that quantum states are superpositions of deterministic histories at the level of space-time geometry and topology (this means a direct connection with quantum gravitation among other things). State function reduction replaces this superposition with a new one. The non-determinism of quantum jump is not at the level of time evolution of Schroedinger equation because the entire time evolution is replaced with a new one. In this framework there is no need to give up the notion of objective reality: one only allows quantum superpositions of objective realities and the replacement of these with new ones in quantum jumps. Combined with what I call zero energy ontology (consistent with crossing symmetry), one ends up with rather fascinating vision: consider only technologies for editing of the geometric past.
Quantum biology and quantum consciousness provide especially interesting applications for the new view about quantum measurement. Libet's findings in neuroscience suggesting that the neural activity precedes conscious decision by a fraction of second, suggest that our intentional actions indeed involve the editing of geometric past at least in this time scale. But before all this is possible we must liberate us from the jail built by the names of past.
Yesterday, 11:45:03 PM
Matti, thanks for having provided us with an explicit example what I mean by the statement that "non-orthodox quantum mechanics" is almost always just "crackpot mechanics". Holy cow, so much total nonsense.
* * *
Matti- Again I ask if any sort of geometrical theory such as yours just because it may involve some area of interpretative consciousness as almost always crackpot mechanics? Then again the uncertainty principle if understood deeply and on all levels is certainly not nonsense. But geometric past does not seem to me an explicit concept! In fact Lubos shows by Feymann ideas on it more explicitly. OK guys play nice (if I wanted to see which PhD was to be called crackpot I would beg to go back to the sciencechatforum com. But come to think of it in what sense would something based on total uncertainty be a mechanics? Anyway my post today I am still considering as I type this is a sort of "non-orthodox teleology."
* * *
A further remark on the idea of the last posting- the mechanism suggested for the applied game of butter is a generalization of the idea of surface and volume differences in the holographic idea only between the various diffuse multi-dimensions. In that a word is a universe, in this sense between words or the logical space of words we have a multiverse- but I cannot assert that the universe is a word like this in a quasic space and that all things as one universe.
In my old terminology a troublesome continuum concept was the Celestic or Celestial continuum Cscm for those who may have followed my forum posts if they still exist. But with this mutterbutter space I roughly identify, by use of a movable null for some actual or abstract structure, the space of all simplexes abstractly in relation to the space of all orthogons (and antiorthogons and so on). For this seems to me explicitly where the difference of application of symmetry and symmetrai applies to various evolving (conceivably or abstractly devolving in direction at least) word and geometric structures. This may be too simple and idea for physics even if a good one for our linguistic and mind/brain evolution.
* * *
The metaphor for the Balloondroggle , a realm hopefully beyond "he said-she said" of some religious issue as words transcendent in a way I do not simply mean nor endorse the Worf-Safir hypothesis, is slowly rising balloons of which these words made from the quasic and other models of evolving language are rising and we swing from the strings of them as we at our core understand the evolving system of notions and words- the science and symbols of things. Despite changes in the totality or environs we can have an unfolding of transcendent ideas within even more transcending ideas (a sort of reversal of the three things Lubos mensions as that supernatural or super-physis... for Greek science is such analyses and awakening of bringing out what is hidden.
But is this grand project a cost override and waste of our time "boondoggle"? We sometimes get that feeling looking backward or progressively- and for those who cannot transcend as if in light flight what they can see appears mere droggle and the myth of supernatural only for those on the lower levels not "in the know".
The Gull in the dead zone stops awhile by the shore and his teleology, his purpose is his own feedback, he the great scavenger even in rest seems calmly yet spacious alive...