On the Intelligible Unintelligible as Physics

On the Intelligible Unintelligible as Physics

Again Lubos of the reference frame has a relevant article to my thoughts today (He must forgive me for being a lifelong fan of New Scientist magazine). But I see no fault in either his or the position of the article in the magazine. The same may be said about the theories of Einstein (indeed, from a religious viewpoint and from the right of fundamentalist Christian creationism his theories are attacked or denied or at least their emphasized position in physics as physics- the term "Jew Science" perhaps in an age where the philosophy of science is culturally based or racially based. In any case the arguments are not deep nor up to date. Yet the universal truth of Einstein's ideas standing the test of time and depth of technology does not claim it has the total picture any more than the universal truth of quantum laws. The philosophy to be analyzed here is deeper than judgments, beyond the a priori or our experimental compass.

The question of what the universe is and how it works, and why it is not nothing as it seems rather something, should be the main concern of those of us caught up in the pursuit of theory. I cannot imagine going through life not concerned with this but I can imagine some of faith totally concerned with their vague issues of their souls. Darwin does not forgive our stupidity of love but his ground is neutral. Science can show that Intelligence is sexy. (I am not sure I speak for woman here as they are very often the unintelligible intelligible. As is said in the prisons where people form schools or groups "God forgives, brothers don't"

In the quasi-paradox (or perhaps vaguely resolved quasi-contradiction)like many others of that discernible in the indiscernible, indistinguishable distinguishable, the NP hard or not problems, Not to say some vague dialectical reasoning here beyond where it applies to charge and spin of particles and motion,
The Prime Motion to be analyzed (in a sense Zeno proved more than he thought when he showed the arrow in flight did not move)is the intelligibility of prime numbers in mathematical and meta-mathematical systems, that is of the quasi-intelligibility of mathematics mirroring the physical world.


If we think we understand the quantum world we do not- but if we do it certainly makes sense to feel a vague higher theory that seems intelligible at a distance. One should sort out these prime notions and be aware of them philosophically so that one can take a more intelligent decision as to the intelligible design of the cosmos.
In the meantime we have a century of wasted careers as once the great religious wars wasted time and lives.


* * *

Actually, I found the newscientist.com article and its links rather interesting just now... The two ways they presented the three principles so as to possibly ground quantum theory on some first principles. But a lot is to be desired in the use of qubits for example- it is not clear to me at all that there is a minimum bit of information that is the reduction of physics- that such a reduction is more intelligible than say no information at all or even some infinity of information. While the spirit of this effort of notions is worthy the depth of grounding of such notions while acknowledging the philosophy of it all does not seem to get to the depth and span of the physics of it all. In matters of information the source or the message itself is such an ultimate question as to what can be known and authenticated in a world of quasi-uncertainty. Non-locality of course can have a classical origin and reason to be. Let us not forget that quasicity is a theory of information and it too is as intelligible everywhere. But I do applaud the desire to find the foundations of the foundations.

* * *

Next day on facebook:


L. Edgar Otto I haven't decided why these shapes are so special other than it takes 5 instead of the tetrahedral 10 to come back to the same direction, that and if we stretch things loosely two of them make the 11 point 18 faced missing deltahedron.

L. Edgar Otto
If there is talk of relativity sound but not deep enough to explain the world- and that quantum theory is also sound but on a shaky foundation- then what can be said of quantum gravity? Eddington had in right in 1929 with his quantum relativity.