Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Fw: dark matter]--J.Collier
Message from John Collier Original Message Subject:Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Fw: dark matter]--J.Brenner Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:12:54 +0200 From: John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za To: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es Dear folks, I agree that there is nothing of special interest to information about dark matter insofar as we understand it so far. When we know more about it there might be much more of interest, e.g., what exactly are the constraints that keep it from interacting more strongly with normal matter. I have some comments below, as it seems to me that this discussion has got out of hand and needs to be tied back to the historical roots of the concept of dark matter. *From:* Joseph Brenner mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch *To:* Stanley N Salthe mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu ; fis mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 6:22 PM *Subject:* Re: [Fis] dark matter Dear Stan, Gordana, John, Bruno, Bob U., Yuri and All, I think we have all been dancing around the obvious: Stan described the situation we are in as a remnant continuing expansion, but this implies an expansion /relative/ to something or /against/ something, some constraint. The model of the universe would be cyclical, but this is accepted by some leading cosmologists. In any case it isn't. Dark matter of our own galaxy is the same as for others. There is no consistent spatial or temporal variation. Without going into a lot of detail, I will say that indeed varying G has been investigated, and there is so far no evidence against it. The issue is still open, as we also have no theoretical reason to think that G is constant. G is not held constant by fiat. Even if G were variable, it wouldn't explain dark matter. Galaxies at all distances show the same effects of dark matter, so it can't be due to G varying with either time or distance. That was my point. If that were not the case, I am sure that I would know about it. As Newton says, for the same effects, we should assume the same causes. Note that dark matter was first postulated in 1932. It isn't like it is a new fangled idea that hasn't been examined. There have been several attempts to modify gravitational theory to account for observations, but all have failed so far to fit the evidence or have empirical support. None of them is remotely like your idea, which is a non-starter. For me therefore, we should not only be talking about what dark matter /is /or dark energy /is/ but see them as inherent relational properties which appear (already) to be in some sort of dynamic reciprocal relation, in which one form of energy is primarily potential and the other actual. This is compatible with Leibniz, Mach's and perhaps Einstein's view of matter in general. If there is a general field theory ever invented, then everything would have this nature. We argue for this in /Every Thing Must Go/. There is nothing special here about either dark energy or dark matter as far as I can see. With obligatory respect to information, informational closure would require that both dark matter (it definitely exists) and dark energy (not so clear) act as sources and/or sinks of information for normal matter and energy. One source is the influence of dark matter in holding galaxies together: they would fly apart if just the gravity of normal matter mattered. This means it imposes a constraint, and as Shannon said, a constraint is a kind of information. (if you are careful enough you can represent all information as constraint and vice versa, but that can be misleading.) Of course there might be much more going on, but the necessity of dark matter has been known since Jan Oort proposed it in 1932 to explain the dynamics of galaxies (again, irrespective of their distance). Cheers, John This is where Yuri and Bob U. come in: they both have some pretty sophisticated mathematical tools which I hope might be applied not to the theoretical entities but to the (equally theoretical, of course, for the time being) relations between them. Happy Western New Year! Joseph ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis Professor John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 http http://web.ncf.ca/collier ://web.ncf.ca/collier http://web.ncf.ca/collier -- ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Step Seven
Step Seven of *Essay On Order* (formerly: Learn to Count in *Twelve Easy Steps*) What has happened previously: Step Six: During a reordering, elements change place. In most reorderings, the procedure involves more than one or two elements; these stay resp. exchange places directly. Usually, the mechanics of the reordering creates convoys of 3 and more elements that have to move together. The idea is that of a chain or of goods in transit. This is the Zusammenhang as predicted by Wittgenstein. *Step Seven* *Running Battle* Whichever alphabeta we declare to be relevant – that is, to define what is the case; to be included in the subscripts alfa,beta of sentences - , there is a contrast-background to it, what is not the case. Relative to one specific sequencing of the elements, there will be 19 other sequencings that are in deviation to this specific one, which is relevant in the moment. The concept of an overall quasi-constant of system stability describing the total amount of displacement resp. disallocation may be helpful. In all cases of having selected a sorting order, an overall coefficient of misplacement is calculable. There is a quite stable proportion of what is the case to what is not the case. *Political Solution* The compromise solution between the requirements of alphabeta “On p1, a1 should stay” and of gammadelta “On p1, a2 should stay” (and of their pairs: ”a1’s place is p1” etc.) is accessible to the human brain by its ability to look into the future and predict what will happen. Human culture is based on our ability to learn: that is to have a memory and to have inner pictures predicting what will happen. The cultural inventions of the past and of the future are well established in our thinking. One may then point to a piece of logic and say: this I call Future. There is a cultural solution to dealing with contradicting claims regarding places and amounts: a diplomatic compromise by pushing unresolved issues off into the future. Maybe they will cease to be relevant; the conflict may somehow solve itself, and anyway, maybe that kind of future [where this contradiction will become critical for the stability of the system] will not happen at all, so what worry. *Multitude of Arrival Times* The Table as it stands (in 4.num) is a frozen moment in time. The spectator moves as he chooses any alphabeta and says: this is now relevant; it is relative to this that I calculate the deviations; this is the case now. Using the chains we can say in how many steps of how many strings the reordering into gammadelta will be achieved. The chains having differing lengths, one has to ascribe the elements that already have arrived at their correct destination a quietistic attitude, staying put; or assume that the shorter chains run slower, maybe more often; or one waits for the smallest common product, e.g.. *Standardising* During the transmission of the genetic information, Nature works by using triplets-based units. It is the sequence of the triplets that translates a one-dimensional realization of the order (the sequence of the triplets of the DNA) into a 3 and more dimensional object (that is the living organism). Table T contains variants of reorderings where the series of place changes happen in three elements changing place (see 7.num). The standard chain connects 3 amounts with 3 places within a standard reorder; the standard reorder consists of 45 standard chains, the remaining logical statement is *6+11=17, *this being the, unique, central element, also the average of every standard chain. *Grammatical Rules* We expand the scope of the investigations of the Tractatus by allowing sentences of the form “*Z* can be the case” and “*Y* will be the case” to be valid. We propose to call that place of a standard chain which is closest to the central element its x-corner, the second closest to be called the y-corner and the farthest the z-corner of a triangle drawn on a plane of which the axes are S_alfabeta and S_gammadelta, the prefix S_ meaning that the orders come from among the standard reorders. In other words: we allow for the past and the future to be in such a way connected with the present within the moment as are the places among the elements of a standard chain connected. We know what can be the case because we have encountered it before – or have imagined it up by using rules that have been proven to be valid rules of grammar, that is, relying on experience. Of that what can be the case we do not know whether it will be the case again; presently, we know it to be different to that what will be the case. Common to the past and the future is that they are not the case; they are distinct by our ability to describe the difference between what we are sure about and what we know. The grammar of the logical language thus allows compromises among statements relating to where is what. Against the gain of flexibility stand some local costs within the tautology of the language: roughly
