The Collapse of Mathematical and Experimental Artifacts
In a unified intelligible reality no theory necessarily stands alone. This applies to experiments of verification as well as far as the utility of discovered or invented information in divided realities that seem to be a totality that can stand alone. This question of evidence direct or indirect for physics phenomena is not just a question of scientific method, especially of the intelligibly measurable, but of the utility and independence of science or philosophy itself.
The issue in the debate over uncertainty and locality of what space is and its dimensions as far as hidden variables as programmed code entanglement of action at a distance may not be resolved without the design assumptions that prove to be no more than artifacts of the absolutely similar and absolutely random if the general philosophy of science as design does not balance freedom and that determined of the possible and impossible ends of the probable that naturally occur.
Our ideas of what space, what vacuum is, as well as what we imagine matter to be, are deeper than we now understand. In matters of the finite and infinite and the limits in how we compute and reach them may not always and fundamentally resolve the equations of physics symmetrically. Indirect evidence as a measure of ignorance intelligibly fits such reasoning.
Few concepts are deeper than this reasoning applied to thermodynamics. What resolves the twin paradox of special relativity save we ground the local in a reference frame that the one not aging is he undergoing acceleration? What is the source we think we can resolve on the issues of the asymmetry of electron number and monopoles added as are many things including ad hoc constant values such as that of light speed and the cosmological constant in the existing formalism of calculus in Maxwell's symmetrical with exceptions electromagnetic equations?
The Bell thought experiment and its verification while its suggests an intelligible measure of useful energy and information - a very useful principle in terms of levels of systems of "decoherence" (which came first the protien or the DNA?)as founded on artifacts of our mathematics which in the main are treated as separate approaches that only co-exist or intelligibly touch, may not resolve the ultimate nature of space as quantum uncertainty and flux.
Three objects, quite aside from the chasing of Zeno's tortoise of deeper approximations and the non-linearity of three body problems and quite aside from
the counting structure of positive only probability thus a given over the reasonable useful information assumed to prove, that the results are 50-50 for a vague locality of the assumed design as one of probability mathematics. The code of the information useful in itself as three-ness interpreted recursively and fractally is a 50-50 determined orbital of three variables for the measured uncertainty. At four, reducible to two intersecting binary dimensions do we begin to find measures of predictability and certainty.
If there is not a concept of clear locality how is it we assume any space of extended or limited greater dimensions that warp around as if a field some string as the core or seed of parts and these moreover in constant quantum spin? At three natural dimensions and not more or less do we find on all scales of experience we can form topological knots which in a sense can be thought to define material physicality.
In three space of quantum logical values we exclude the non useful values of a surface configuration but a new one in the volume is added, 26-2=24 and 26+1=27 in the triple cubed space (excluding four linearly and four cubes circularly). Such addition over the dimension and added of the positive roots of unity not equal to one and presumably reaching to nine space in the transcendental continuum at any point considered in linear space the higher transfinite has no particular predecessor. Is this not enough to allow for the theoretical and experimental reality of non locality? Such intuitive ideas as this is the source in our healthy skepticism of the doubting of the significance of our reasoning, existence and the source of our need for self-deceptive certainty.
Merely thinking about problems this way, consciousness influencing some outcome or not locally or far away, is an artifact of such intelligible possibilities. Not taking the side of Einstein or Heisenberg et al in the questionable balance of the truth of their arguments rising or falling in advantage and favor, even in an empty sky if we are honest and are not swayed with or by the pendulum, for all practical purposes then we can say (as once you were not and may not be) that "sometimes" the moon does not exist if we are not watching it.
Pesla,
ReplyDeleteIn retrospect, to fix Whitehead's "the mental is within everything metaphysics" we have to go back to Leibniz - as we have have discussed before.
In Leibniz the mental/monad is within all substance but not as it is in Whitehead.
In Whitehead all substance has a "phenomenal" aspect, in that we perceive its physical properties as something in itself whereas Whitehead claims them to be artifacts of the habituation of the mental.
Whitehead is pursuing a "mental monism" whereas Leibniz sees different domains and a relationship between these mental and physical primitives.
To follow Whitehead leaves us searching for a homogeneous "extensive continuum" derived from the mental pixelation of the world" which is almost as off the mark as trying to evolve the "mental" from sciences fundamental physical particles.
We must, however, follow Leibniz’ more difficult metaphysical path which has two distinctly different "primitives". Unfortunately this harder path is the only path that can lead to whole truths instead of just half truths. In that sense, following the simpler paths is just shear self delusion that makes us think a simpler mathematics will suffice when it won't.
A galaxy is not just some physically or mentally reducible entity. Galaxies are primarily the “physics” of physical particles harboring a “mental” aspect that cannot be reduced completely by a macro physical reduction. There needs to be a “macro physics” like we have but there also needs to be a different “micro physics” that governs the tightly bound environment within which “monads” exist. This micro physics associated with monads is a physical holdover from before the BB.
The only possible interactions between these two macro and micro physics are through the technology of the micro monadic particles sentient inhabitants. The monads harbored within a different micro physical world connect to the macro world by generating electrodynamics at will to do work in biochemistry. This, of course, makes biologists think that macro molecules are capable somehow of “goal directed” behavior when, in fact, it is the “will” of the micro mental aspect acting on the macro physical with its electrodynamic technology to achieve control over its macro physical environment.
There could be no simple mathematical scheme to unite the micro physical housing the monads with the macro physical primitives because there is “will” driving the physical relationship that the micro has with the macro world. That is, there are no standing forces emanating from the micro physical that can just be evaluated as known causes of macro molecular behavior. The “will” of the monads can turn these forces off and on to achieve things.
This has happened, or come about, because sentience could not carry what they treasured in the world before the BB into this world without preserving the physical essence of their immediate environment in spite of the collapse of their cosmos.
There is no mathematics of mental or physical particles that can breach this divide with a mechanistic paradigm uniting the micro with the macro.
galatomic