But maybe that's just ...me (HAR) On Thursday, March 7, 2013 10:42:49 AM UTC-5, nominal9 wrote: > > Re Putnam.... > I'm agnostic when it comes to matters of "religion", Gods or (as a > nominalist) much of anything actually Universal, especially in the > intellectual or intelligence plane.... > But "agnostic" means.... I don't know...... > I have been known to wager on catching striper bass.... and known to > anticipate asteroid strikes.... (HAR) > > On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:57:33 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: >> >> James A Putnam (who sounds a bit like Craig) has written: >> "Our ability, or even an insect's ability, to analyze hoards of always >> changing, almost random data coming to us at the speed of light is >> demonstration that something magnificent is occurring within our >> minds. What this means is our conscious mind is in communication with >> a subconscious mind that already knows what to do. It also means the >> universe is in communication with our subconscious minds. The universe >> sends us information for which we must already know the meaning. Our >> intelligence contains the meaning of the universe. Universal >> intelligence is our intelligence."[6] >> "Judging from the universality of phenomena, the nature of such >> phenomena, and the logical necessity of an adequate cause therefor, it >> is assumed that there is a Universal Intelligence which is the >> governing power of nature. Everything which exists is, in its degree, >> a manifestation of an Intelligence which is superior to the >> individual's comprehension. This Intelligent Power is not found alone >> in the great crises such as the first appearance of life and the >> dawning of consciousness or mind, but in the whole continuous, >> purposeful process."[7] >> "There is more to intelligence than human intelligence. Intelligence >> is a property of the universe and of all that is in it. Universal >> Intelligence is the intrinsic tendency for things to self-organize and >> co-evolve into ever more complex, intricately interwoven and mutually >> compatible forms. Our human intelligence is but one manifestation of >> that universal dynamic. The more we are conscious of universal >> intelligence and connect ourselves to it, the more intelligence (and >> wisdom) we will have to work with. One might also describe Universal >> Intelligence as the mind or will of God or Spirit."[8] >> >> His work on physics can be found here - >> http://newphysicstheory.com/COMPLETE_THEORY.pdf >> >> The perplexing thing is whether there is insight here or complete >> bollox. I don't have enough physics to know. For that matter, >> visiting a local allotment and listening to an old Asian guy who does >> grow better vegetables than me, I don't make the right sense of >> gardening books either! >> >> On 6 Mar, 23:40, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Most gardening books in England are fairly hopeless for someone on the >> > Northwest - here the environment is mostly rain and questions on how >> > to keep most of it off one's crop are rarely addressed - one finds a >> > flood of recommendations on water preservation. Even the photon >> > leaving a particle leaves us with questions on how it 'achieves' light >> > speed in what we mistakenly regard as nothing. Physics enters a form >> > of relableism here, collating evidence of the very small with that >> > from the cosmos. >> > >> > On Mar 6, 10:59 am, sadovnik socratus <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > About ‘tropical fish’ >> > > One can study tropical fish in a restaurant and have >> > > his a culinary philosophical doctrine . >> > > Other can study tropical fish in their own surrounding natural >> > > environment. His philosophy is absolutely different. >> > > The problem is that physicists study electron without know >> > > its own surrounding natural environment - vacuum. >> > > Therefore we have ‘a culinary philosophical doctrine’. >> > > ==. >> > >> > > On Mar 6, 10:22 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > Electron is now three quasi-particles - spinon, holon and orbiton. >> > > > Physics is less about what an electron is than that it helps us use >> > > > them - "sending them down wires so our computers work" and so on. >> We >> > > > don't know what a particle is. >> > >> > > > My take on Socratus is he may ask (rightly) too much of science. >> > >> > > > My take on science is this: >> > > > ‘… scientific realism[is defined] as the common sense (or common >> > > > science) conception that, subject to a recognition that scientific >> > > > methods are fallible and that most scientific knowledge is >> > > > approximate, we are justified in accepting the most secure findings >> of >> > > > scientists "at face value." What requires explanation is why this >> is a >> > > > philosophical position rather than just a common sense one. >> Consider, >> > > > for example, tropical fish realism -- the doctrine that there >> really >> > > > are tropical fish; that the little books you buy about them at pet >> > > > stores tend to get it approximately right about their appearance, >> > > > behavior, food and temperature requirements, etc.; and that the >> fish >> > > > have these properties largely independently of our theories about >> > > > them. That's a pretty clear doctrine, but it's so commonsensical >> that >> > > > it doesn't seem to have any particular philosophical import. Why is >> > > > the analogous doctrine about science a philosophical doctrine? >> > > > The answer is that -- setting aside skepticism about the external >> > > > world -- there are no philosophical arguments against tropical fish >> > > > realism, whereas important philosophical challenges have been >> raised >> > > > against scientific realism.’ (Boyd 2002:1 [] mine) >> > >> > > > The philosophical issues are intractable if we start with the idea >> > > > they can be bottomed-out. With a comfortable sinecure I might >> spend >> > > > the rest of my life trying, say, to reconcile what the Ancient >> Greeks >> > > > knew about argument and complex set theory in the programmes of >> > > > Scheibe, Ludwig and Sneed (see Balzer and Moulines 1996; Ludwig & >> > > > Thurber 1996 and Scheibe 2001). The later work is German and may >> give >> > > > us some pointers by describing the complexity of theory formation >> in >> > > > physics. Ludwig’s main points are: >> > > > • Physical observations are first translated into sentences of >> an >> > > > auxiliary mathematical theory containing only finite sets, and, in >> a >> > > > second step, approximately embedded into an idealized theory. By >> this >> > > > manoeuver the authors accentuate the contrast between finite >> physical >> > > > operations and mathematical assumptions involving infinite sets. >> > > > • Inaccuracy sets and unsharp measurements are always >> considered right >> > > > from the start – the role of approximation is held key in theory >> > > > formation. >> > > > • The ‘basic domain’ of a theory is now that part of the >> ‘application >> > > > domain’ where the theory is successfully applied, up to a certain >> > > > degree of inaccuracy. >> > > > • The complicated terminology concerning various kinds of >> hypotheses >> > > > in Ludwig is radically reduced to a small number of cases including >> > > > fuzzy hypotheses. >> > > > • The problem of unsharp indirect measurements is reformulated >> in an >> > > > elegant way which yet should be scrutinized by means of case >> studies. >> > >> > > > I'm not good at this stuff as it 'butters no parsnips' in my life - >> > > > just interested. Issues of science and technology as ideology are >> > > > well articulated in Critical Theory (esp. Habermas) and I take them >> to >> > > > be right if construing 'use' (as in the vampire squid of >> neo-classical >> > > > economics and corrupt politics). >> > >> > > > We don't work in the certainty of faith in science and >> approximation >> > > > plays a key role. I think this gets lost and to some extent Nom I >> > > > think your nominalism plays a role in ironing some of this out. >> David >> > > > Deutsche recently said: >> > >> > > > Constructors appear under various names in physics and other >> fields. >> > > > For instance, >> > > > in thermodynamics, a heat engine is a constructor because of the >> > > > condition that it be >> > > > capable of ‘operating in a cycle’. But they do not currently appear >> in >> > > > laws of physics. >> > > > Indeed, there is no possible role for them in what I shall call the >> > > > prevailing conception >> > > > of fundamental physics, which is roughly as follows: everything >> > > > physical is composed of elementary constituents such as particles, >> > > > fields and spacetime; there is >> > > > an initial state of those constituents; and laws of motion >> determine >> > > > how the state >> > > > evolves continuously thereafter. In contrast, a construction is >> > > > characterised only >> > > > by its inputs and outputs, and involves subsystems (the constructor >> > > > and the >> > > > substrate), playing different roles, and most constructors are >> > > > themselves composite >> > > > objects. So, in the prevailing conception, no law of physics could >> > > > possibly mention >> > > > them: the whole continuous process of interaction between >> constructor >> > > > and substrate >> > > > is already determined by the universal laws governing their >> > > > constituents. >> > > > However, the constructor theory that I shall propose in this paper >> is >> > > > not primarily >> > > > the theory of constructions or constructors, as the prevailing >> > > > conception would >> > > > require it to be. It is the theory of which transformations >> > > > input state of substrates → output state of substrates >> > > > can be caused and which cannot, and why. As I shall explain, the >> idea >> > > > is that the >> > > > fundamental questions of physics can all be expressed in terms of >> > > > those issues, and >> > > > that the answers do not depend on what the constructor is, so it >> can >> > > > be abstracted >> > > > away, leaving transformations as the basic subject matter of the >> > > > theory. I shall >> > > > argue that we should expect such a theory to constitute a >> fundamental >> > > > branch of >> > > > physics with new, universal laws, and to provide a powerful new >> > > > language for >> > > > expressing other theories. >> > >> > > > We are not perplexed alone! >> > >> > > > On Mar 5, 6:42 pm, sadovnik socratus <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > > > > Are you "Physics" perplexed, like me? Options >> > > > > ==. >> > > > > 1 >> > > > > *ATOMS* - have electrons. . . . . . . . . >> > > > > 2 >> > > > > *ELECTRONS* Negatively charged particles that constitute >> electricity. >> > > > > 3 >> > > > > *ELECTRON VOLT* . . . . >> > > > > 4 >> > > > > *FERMIONS* . . have leptons . . . . . . . >> > > > > 5 >> > > > > *LEPTONS* . . . .Lightweight particles like the electrons that >> > > > > constitute electrical current and . . . . . >> > > > > 6 >> > > > > *NEUTRINOS* Extremely light, almost massless, invisible particles >> > > > > produced >> > > > > in radioactive decays, they are part of the lepton family . . . >> . >> > > > > 7. >> > > > > PHOTONS* Particles that transmit electromagnetic forces, or >> light. >> > > > > 8 >> > > > > *STANDARD MODEL* A set of equations that describes forces of >> nature >> > > > > in >> > > > > terms of elementary particles, known as fermions, . . . . . >> > > > > 9 >> > > > > There are three forces of nature in the Standard Model: >> > > > > light, or electromagnetism . . . . >> > > > > ===. >> > > > > Half of your perplexed points tied with electron / photon. >> > > > > Nobody knows what electron is. >> > > > > If we solve that problem - the perplex will be disappeared >> > > > > ==========================.. >> > > > > The Electron’s puzzle. >> > > > > ===. >> > > > > 1900, 1905 >> > > > > Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f. >> > > > > 1916 >> > > > > Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c, >> > > > > 1928 >> > > > > Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy: >> > > > > +E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2. >> > > > > According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s >> > > > > energy is infinite: E= ∞ >> > > > > Questions. >> > > > > Why does the simplest particle - electron have five ( 5 ) >> formulas ? >> > > > > What is connection between them ? >> > > > > Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ? >> > > > > a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass >> > > > > b) Maxwell’s equations >> > > > > c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law >> > > > > d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law >> > > > > e) Fermi-Dirac statistics >> > > > > What is connection between them ? >> > > > > # >> > > > > What is an electron ? >> > > > > Nobody knows. >> > > > > In the internet we can read hundreds theories about electron >> > > > > All of them are problematical >> > > > > We can read hundreds books about philosophy of physics. >> > > > > But how can we trust them if we don’t know what electron is ? >> > > > > ==. >> > > > > Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations: >> > >> > > > > "One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae >> > > > > have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, >> > > > > that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their >> discoverers, >> > > > > that we get more out of them than was originally put into them." >> > > > > =. >> > >> > ... >> > >> > read more » >> >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
