So here are things I did not mention at the frontier of my speculation for experiments. Perhaps a simpler and more focused title would be Quasic Dynamics. It at least shows some existing speculations as ill put as a questions or absurd in what we expect of the concepts. The raw notes are terse (I was tired). But if there is something to these thoughts it would seem clear to me that there could be some very advanced technologies that could come from basic theory and answer what we think we want from things like faster than light travel, instant sub space communications, deeper lens to view and interpret things; some limited time travel in new senses; Better understand of our organic systems and what happens if we modify them; Neutrino telescope?; portals with ability to calculate by the devices (some existing ones modified and made smaller but looking for something else entirely: Controlled fusion? This ends my experiments 'not mentioned' in postings. The influence of and problems with an interacting internet would have been very confusing had I not dreamed of such a thing and held what seemed a human conversation half a century earlier. It is that elementary my dear Watson although the use and cultural understanding will take us much longer- if there is such a thing now that the ideas and links between us see all the more real.
QD II
QD Window planes that variably compute the Casmir force... 06-22-15
If in a sense mathematics is a faith that unlike other faiths can prove it is based on faith, then is it the substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen? ......... In the case where a self designing computer chip has been shown to operate without a clock and essential isolated transistors it was remarked that no human would have thought of such a thing. From a more general view this is simply not true. Well, necessarily true. This human element would have eventually come up with the circuits. In our time between the ontology and phenomenology this general question of where the quantum realm meets something a little higher (such as beyond color and theories of esp as in any isolated or insulated system) in a philosophy of non-necessity not only are the concepts of the logical but not observable issues of a more general uncertainty-certainty paradox a fatal contradiction that psychic phenomena are only intermittently reproducible but on this level we now find it true of some observations and hard experiments (let alone the theories). Science itself is not harmed but becomes a new awakening or understanding. Shannon's useful concept that information and meaning are conjugate (the more of one the less of the other) is a powerful reassurance- and yet, in the current context it is not an either or necessary truth- but one of viable alternatives. And where does the information go? The problem with skepticism of the public is that they come to know better than to trust a dogmatic stance after changing models of confusing reports. Both from a religious stance and a totality as scientific objectivity. So we have a philosophic problem to solve as well. The standard model is not the bottleneck of progress some imagine it to be, but is part of the Big Picture and is sound - as well as our ideas on time differences in general relativity. Consider exactly what the Pope said on the issue of global warming. Some things have already happened long ago and perhaps one day we have a device, a machine in front of us in a future technology which takes us long to reach if seen in real time where the design of the apparatus could say simulate all the variables and models that would say result from a more general theory of what we mean by the Casmir forces in relation to QM and within a particular local pathway and chosen scale.of things not seen? https://www.facebook.com/sabine.hossenfelder/posts/10153546794109574:70
Lubos Motl in his reference frame blogspot just does not get the more general idea that an abstract coordinate, viewed as local or not, mathematically is a non necessary concept (which can be not forbidden as an instance of necessity.) Anti-quantum zealots? I suppose one can see a higher form of uncertainty (where it may meet with certainty but not necessarily so) If our stance is to so define them strictly outside our own narrow box of concepts. Why make a false division in order to show that there is an exclusion or syntheses again? Why erect a sign saying, " take this intellectual leap which is common sense that there in the highest wisdom no such intellectual leaps."
***
No comments:
Post a Comment