Monday, September 30, 2013

Comments fb to NPR article on Adam Frank's cause and effect top down idea...

Comments fb
to NPR article on Adam Frank's cause and effect top down idea...

L. Edgar Otto   Sept. 30, 2013

This is the same old Cartesian claptrap that has been a cultural issues since the early debates of quantum mechanics interpretation.  It says nothing new, that is this sort of breakthrough has been widely discussed by philosophers and physicists, and those with alternative views....  yes, it does recognize a fundamental issue should be accentuated here...  But the truth of things is that the causative or casual flow is both ways bottom and top, at least in part... and this can directly stand out in what we mean by hierarchies as in the dark matter ideas (be they related to strings or loops for example) or that emotions balance effects of learning in more than a materialist brain. Logic aside and all its issues such as complimentary or excluded middles, re-normalization, conspiracy and contradiction, sense of what is real as a compensation...  Let us find that third physics... for there is no big freeze or crunch,  inflation or big bang either as part of one view of the picture only- no necessary mathematical induction - as perhaps popular when Kakau tries his hand at a theory of everything to inspire but half confuse the next generation of students.  We in higher spaces and operations have to rethink how the world is still pretty much a steady state where gravity can be equivalent but not identical with acceleration.

What about the recent idea life began from self organizing processes in the environs of Mars... is that not a viable theory...
Yes, once the initial flow we can bias toward a direction...  sort of like an embryo that the head or anus at first can develop either way... that explains in the issue of complexity (as well the lack of understanding about black holes, singularities and so on, the powerful but inadequate calculus, why half or so of people speak out of the wrong end..."

* * * *

Of course that is a trick statement, a magicians hint of a problem in how we see or understand things much like the question as if to ask us a choice of the npr article.... which links by the way to an article that argues a theory of everything is impossible...   I heard that before from students at CERN (Americans from Churchill college Cambs visiting my AF base in 62) when I ran against the mysticism of quantum uncertainty be it reductionist or emergent mysticism.   And like Penrose I chose the name OMNIUM for such a comprehensive theory - enough with this Theory of Everything the link says...  yes, everyone jumping on the bandwagon with a buzz word slogan.  What do they teach in the universities?  A top down or bottom up approach?  Well, shades of Andromenda strain Fred Hoyle sci fi and the Martian origin theory of life! One guy commented, welcome to integral calculus on the NPR article comments- as if we should have all we need as he seems to...   what Conway said:   "calculus is a way to torture wave after wavy of uncomprehending students... :-) "

* * *L. Edgar Otto I suppose experiments like this that considers the negative index of refraction... or what happens when a black hole or other object is spinning to the field is out of reach of the materials of the experiment... Light can go around spheres with a small layer (see Frank Lloyd Wright windows) so could be focused by mechanical means... and hotter than the light source... we could use it to destroy the information in CDs like that organic virus that dissolved them... that is if they do not accidently make a bottom down black hole in the lab that eats everything plastic... and outside of the invisible containers even.

Ulla Mattfolk The question about 'black' photons maybe get some light?

L. Edgar Otto Surely, frankly, the NPR article on top down vs bottom up emergent complexity is a sort of loop QM gravity question here that just may allow the information in such a simulated gravity theory (including dark ideas, Ulla perhaps) could make a computer that thinks for itself- unless this thought experiment in the flesh is physical proof of the impossibility. see Adam Frank article on this at Nature

Ulla Mattfolk Dark is almost black

L. Edgar Otto Ulla why would we need to create black matter? Was there nothing before the big bang? Would we be surprised if we, perhaps like a god, could not create nothingess? These are philosophy issues not science.

A Sabine post from Nature, comments with Ulla

* * * *

The science magazines today speak of hairy and bald black holes... something in my blogging I referred to as
atmopheres, auras of structure around spherical models of creative objects and particles... this is the link between the three physics; quasic, quantum, and qlassical of which the grounding of creative objects can be the understanding of mass  David C (see previous post) on google+ also posted the same sort of conclusions regarding fine distinctions of algebra and my long position the complex and even negative hierarchy of numbers can be a way to simplify things rather than interpreted as a form of physicality.  This has the logical questions of quasic and quabic (the counting of a unified model
in relation to yet higher spaces) of which we encounter in the CPT questions, and as in Rowlands the idea a fourth fundamental value may be envisioned.  I note also that David understand the question at the heart of the quasic view wherein as philosophy along the lines of Principia of Russel and all that paradox we need to define better the quasifinite "between" or other distinctions.  What does Lubos thinks he means by the gravon and gravino (how do we in physicality distinguish these terms) of which I have used them interchangeably.  So, there is a grounding in the existential that could in principle firm up the bottom up despite its apparent quantum or Higgs vibrations filling the idea of negative field even more violently as we enter the atmosphere of the quasi visible approaching naked singularity... but the vision or model of the rules of this simple counting should consider the null ideas such as negative (phantom hair) measure relativity deeper than zero to take that formalism literally.  As an atom 3or4D matter-gravity, we see the gap between 136 and 138 so as to finely adjust the fine structure constant.

* * * * *

No comments:

Post a Comment