L. Edgar Otto 24 May, 2012
1. That we rigidly distinguish reversible and irreversible processes.
2. That we bundle all outside what we imagine as a positive or zero physics into realms we assume definite but vague.
3. That meaning and information cannot be viewed as a non necessary relation including that in physics some things are in the realm of certainty.
4. That nature rigidly distinguishes rest and motion.
5. That in the description of space in terms of geometric structures the connectivity depends on even or oddness of numbers.
6. That the idea of unity in its multiplicity is not a prime number that, like 2, can be distinguished from other prime like numbers.
7. That ultimately we can make a distinction so to distinguish on a foundational level what is multiverse or universe, one unique path or many worlds, globally and locally.
8. That in the exclusion of the middle we conclude that a particle is neutral, that there is no way antimatter and matter can be the same yet neutral particles at the same time.
* * * * * *
There are so many, this was first blush and not a formal or exhaustive list. Nor as simply worded did I regard it as worthy of post but I have changed my mind for in depth the ideas do seem to be a starting point for some of the assertions in my previous post that made these read clearer. Perhaps I should continue this habit of gathering things into lampions or little lights for consideration, yet from this way to organize and develop thoughts I am at a point where it could be considered a work of philosophy of science more than science that could in theory go either way by thought or by experiment. Still, with such a view and grounding we enlarge the possibilities of new effects which are not apparent in our methods or visualization otherwise save by this golden age of working on the nano level, that is experiment.
Our surprises are of this nature usually and lately, however I lean toward the idea that we know enough about what we can do that no radical surprises await us in the near future. One could of course, especially in the idea of the maths of compound interest, (self-derivatives as in brane description for example to some level of scale values) begin to apply these ideas to a more realistic management of economics or should some power for some higher reason seek to impose a system it could be done realistically and intelligibly with less risk of our tinkering at the foundations.
* * * * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment