Friday, May 18, 2012

Is it Logical to Impose on Reasoning Science Truth as the Sanity of The Physical

Is it Logical to Impose on Reasoning Science Truth as the Sanity of The Physical

L. Edgar Otto       18 March 2012

Lubos has a fine post on his stance as a philosophy of science (this suggests to me that he does have the capacity to see the issues clearly and intelligently as an overview despite the imposing of this philosophy globally for example.)  Anyway if we ignore the magic of synchronicity from such a reductionist and isolated rigid viewpoint I had some ideas to allow readers to make better sense of the source of my last post as a poem of which these focused in their jagged continuity of  deeply connected thoughts on the same theme as his.

* * * * *

If from our study of physics, especially this century of mathematical physics, we conclude that in matters of observation we cannot ground things ourselves to change or sustain the world, and in the traditional challenges to such philosophic or religious certainties offered, that a God cannot sustain and ground the world as a general observer if not intervene Himself as to what can change,  then what sustains the world or our beliefs as to what does?

From the abstract sisters as lesser sciences of that hidden such as the observed processes of the subconscious or the general theory usually from the ground up of an evolutionist view, we find that something is grounded as it exists with ideas such as some ultimate world or discrete randomness or chaos, or actual and default determinism, and more advanced the nature of mass as a ground for primacy of laws as materialism.  This certainly seems logical, complete, and a sane grounding to which we can then with these hidden assumptions of physics and reasoning declare many people (yes, it could be a matter of the devil in the details, Lubos) are on the road to at least a direction that leads to a truth full of errors of thinking should they undertake the journey, well, the same errors are also those who as theorists choose to do so.

Morally,  in a world with uncertain grounding of its model and rules if it can have one we strive for the reality of conquest and cling to our sense of the bottom of things and no further to some zero that in effect corresponds to our standing on the dust  or at worst walking on the sand as is our natural adaptation still coming up from the sea.  This model appeals to us as something that sustains the world, but what is the deep grounding for our assumptions to which we get by in the main by the abstract compromise of ideas and logic systems?  This was the meaning of the poems freely explored as if on  a sandy beach of metaphor under some distant sun.

Don Lincoln in my former life of debates or conversation on the sciencechatforum  com and that of the philosophychatforum  these descended from the more serious chat room channels on IRC I see very clearly he understands science as these principles of grounding as far as it goes that we can on things like the effects of say relativity even in the motions of a local familiar scale.  In fact the occasion of this theme topic today was a note on Plato's blogspot where he explains antimatter and matter- his demonstration of the amount of energy released, the square of c, if two such paper clips collided made of matter and anti matter.  Our theories seem to have a dramatic and wide reach as if to lift the earth despite its subject difficult and boring for most of the time and most of humanity.  We seem hypnotized by such extreme and high number drama.

So, what is the underlying and general assumption that grounds or sustains the world I feel the mainstream physicists are on the higher new levels of which things like supersymmetry promise something more in the quest if we tie ourselves to the mast and get past the narrow channel of ideas and not turn to stone or go blind as we hear and behold this magic of myth that may contain the real?

I see the problem in the abstract count of objects and their intelligible mathematics, the assumption that in a pattern all is seen and nothing else comes below the zero and the positive ultimately.  Coming close to an idea by me or many others as an alternative theory or question results in our being band from the debate and this I see as evidence that the threat is not just from the confused but against their system so grounded- in this sense the core attacked is not merely a career or theory but what grounds and sustains the physicists themselves.  Have we not learned the error of closed totalities and wide open questions unreachable in theory for our proofs that take infinite steps?  Is there no limit to imposing systems in a totality as if to organize the whole as one truth and the correct theory of everything?

Now, as in the computation of probabilities we can have a hierarchy of values and likewise in the concepts of light speed invariance we can do more than suggests the concepts of energy (if indeed it makes sense to suggest we could have equal amounts of matter and antimatter to so maximize the energetic release in this series to some thermodynamic limit let alone explain this as if some initial or final event of cosmology), clearly while these are concerns of the string and loop theorists it is also natural for the various alternative physicists to suggest such hierarchies as a general grounding pattern.  The problem remains difficult in the abstract or in the concept of what mass (energy) is as an assumption of a lattice of repeated quasic objects.

It should not be a difficult task to modify the existing mathematics of centered theories in both cases of the two physics if we consider not simply the square of c for example or the geometry at the supposed ground level of manifolds limited to some local tangles of h or any real zero or positive distance.  Where we say c squared conceptually, and perhaps in higher physical realms not limited by the conceived error lattice, it should be a series of the powers of 2- this is part of the quasic or brane unification as laws of a plane.

So we have thirteen stars in the illustration with an influence of borders and the idea of doubling the center or vaguely some half infinity of the shadows in the edges that sum to 25 objects beyond the concrete 16 to which these lattice points in the symmetry could be regarded as if the grounding  or limits of the physically concrete.  A series then, as in the viriality of dimensions of 2 and 4 and 1 or their inverses in the count.  The lattice points in the abstract plane corners where things merges as branes in cells in the span of the lattice is one fourth on which we show Pythagorean and flatness in this conception.

As far as political excesses go in our systems, materialism one of a few logical enquiring systems, in the current politics of this state today we have the issue of which party has the right to keep and bare arms as in the bill of rights- this was design to protect us not just as a militia against invaders in our home patch and patchwork, nor to harm our neighbors (would the banning of weapons- as if we crudely need these spears and symbolic firecrackers more than their firepower- be that we are safe as a society and self-reliant) but it is for the protection against the excesses of those who would apply as executive the police power.  When Lincoln wears his stove pipe hat it is a symbol making tall tales even taller, even if we abandon hats all together, some bolo, some Fedora, that modifies the theories as if false vacuum pressure.  Do we in the state of ideas not have the right to keep and bare ray guns?

* * * *

No comments:

Post a Comment