date:20120509

Re: A crazy thoughts about structure of Electron.

2012-05-09 Thread socra...@bezeqint.net

Electron’s fine structure constant.
=.
It is interesting to understand the Sommerfeld formula:
a= e^2 / h*c, where {a} is fine structure constant: 1/137
Feynman expressed (a ) quantity as
‘ by the god given damnation to all physicists ‘.
But the fine structure constant is not independent quantity,
it is only part of formula of an electron: e^2=h*ca .
The constant {a} is only one of three constants which
belong to the formula of electron: e^2=h*ca.
(a), (c), (h*) are three constants which created the electron.
And if we don’t know (a) then we don’t know what electron is.
Therefore in the internet is possible to find 100 different models
of electron. For example.
The book What is the Electron?
Volodimir Simulik
Montreal, Canada. 2005. /
In this book:
‘ More than ten different models of the electron are presented here.
(!!!)
More than twenty models are discussed briefly. (!!!)
Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical
thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron.’

ftp://210.45.114.81/physics/%CA%E9%BC%AE/What%20Is%20the%20Electron%20by%20Volodimir%20Simulik%20.pdf

All of these models 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.
And somebody wrote:
If I well remember Einstein once said about particle physics:
why do we study some many particles?
Understand really what is an electron would be enough.
. . .
‘ Finding the structure of the electron will be the key
to finding the origin of the natural laws.’
=.
By my peasant logic at first it is better to understand
the closest and simplest particle photon /electron and
then to study the far away spaces and another particles.
=.
Best withes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus

==.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

2012-05-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 08 May 2012, at 20:09, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 07.05.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/7/2012 12:09 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 07.05.2012 19:52 John Clark said the following:
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:

To me the logic of trinity is perverse in the same extent as
quantum

mechanics.

Perverse it may be but it's not my business to judge what quantum
mechanics
does in private when nobody is looking, that's up to quantum
mechanics and
the electron, but the point is that love it or hate it the logic of
quantum
mechanics works, it makes correct predictions on how the world
works

and if
you don't like it complain to the universe not me. But the logic
of the

trinity does nothing and is just brain dead dumb.

John K Clark

You are wrong. With the trinity logic you can find for example an
answer why human language allows us to describe events that has
happened long before the life has been created.

A remarkable discovery. The ancient Egyptians and Babylonians (and
the
present day Muslims) were unable to describe events before life on
Earth

(but maybe there was life elsewhere?). Or maybe you just refer to ex
falso quodlibet, so by logic 1=3 implies anything at all.

Brent

For the development of science, it is necessary to have a believe
that equations discovered by a human mind could be used for the
whole history of Universe. At that time, this belief came from
trinity.

The logic of trinity is more complex, it concerns that words can
explain Nature. I will report on this more, when I will work out
Collingwood's An Essay on Metaphysics. Roughly speaking In the
Beginning was the Word. The trinity, by the way, is not the
invention of Christianity, it comes from ancient times.

Yes. It is common to basically all Greek theologies, and is prominent
in Plotinus. But it appears also in India, and in very old mythologies
(babylonian? Egyptians, Sumerians, ... I should do research on this).

And it appears quickly when a Löbian machine looks inward, under the
form of the discovery of the different logic for truth (the outer
god), provability (the intellect, the third person) and true
provability (the first person, the inner god, the universal soul).

Now, to say 1 = 3, can only be a poetical metaphor. It is not a
counter-example to the arithmetical laws. I hope this is obvious for
everybody. 0 would have to successors.

Bruno

You have mentioned that you have another explanation why neuron nets
not only obey the physical laws but they also can comprehend the
physical laws. Could you please sketch it?

Evgenii

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

2012-05-09 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 08 May 2012, at 20:17, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:

On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net  wrote:


...



Sure science grew out of Christianity, out of the decay and  
fragmentation of Christianity.
When Christianity was strong and in control is what we call The  
Dark Ages. Now that it
is no longer in control and the Western world relies on the  
technology of science,

Christian apologists are writing revisionist histories.


I agree, organized religion has been a catastrophe for the world, and
it still is, but that doesn't change the historical emergence of
science from spiritual contemplation.


I would suggest you to consider Soviet Union under Stalin when  
military atheists took the power over. I guess that the absolute  
number of victims was even more.


Just one examples. Nikolai Vavilov - a famous biologist working in  
genetics (compare his fate with that of Copernicus and Galileo)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vavilov

Late 1930s - Lysenko, who has conceived a hatred for genetics is put  
in charge of all of Soviet agriculture
1940 - arrested for allegedly wrecking Soviet agriculture; delivered  
more than a hundred hours of lectures on science while in prison
1943 - died imprisoned and suffering from dystrophia (faulty  
nutrition of muscles, leading to paralysis), in the Saratov prison.


But this confirms that, once institutionalized, religion creates lies  
and suffering. Materialism is no exception. For a platonist, or  
neoplatonist, or neoeneoplatonist, atheism is a tiny variant of  
christianism. Both are tiny variant of Aristotelianism.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: The Brain Minds Whether We Believe in Free Will or Not

2012-05-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 08 May 2012, at 21:41, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/8/2012 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On May 8, 2:17 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:

On 07.05.2012 22:21 Craig Weinberg said the following:

On May 7, 3:37 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote:

...

Sure science grew out of Christianity, out of the decay and
fragmentation of Christianity.
When Christianity was strong and in control is what we call The
Dark Ages. Now that it
is no longer in control and the Western world relies on the
technology of science,

Christian apologists are writing revisionist histories.
I agree, organized religion has been a catastrophe for the world,
and

it still is, but that doesn't change the historical emergence of
science from spiritual contemplation.
I would suggest you to consider Soviet Union under Stalin when
military

atheists took the power over. I guess that the absolute number of
victims was even more.

Just one examples. Nikolai Vavilov - a famous biologist working in
genetics (compare his fate with that of Copernicus and Galileo)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vavilov

Late 1930s - Lysenko, who has conceived a hatred for genetics is
put in

charge of all of Soviet agriculture
1940 - arrested for allegedly wrecking Soviet agriculture; delivered
more than a hundred hours of lectures on science while in prison
1943 - died imprisoned and suffering from dystrophia (faulty
nutrition

of muscles, leading to paralysis), in the Saratov prison.

I don't think we can say that was caused by atheism though. Soviet
communism was still atheistic after Stalin, wasn't it? There are
secular authorities in power in other countries where there has not
been any genocidal consequences. It seems like there have been and
continue to be bloody crusades and inquisitions in the name of
religion specifically that we haven't really seen associated with
movements for the sake of atheism.

Craig

Any world view that attracts 'true believers' and promises 'a better
world' can be co-opted for political power. Humans are social
animals and like to belong to greater organizations. This is
useful, but like most useful things, also dangerous. Science tends
to avoid this because it institutionalizes skeptical testing.

I don't think so. You cannot institutionalize skeptical testing, or
you will kill skepticism. I know examples. You can encourage it by
practice, but once institutionalized, it stop working.

Bruno

Brent
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a
heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation.
It is the opium of the people.

--- Karl Marx

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

2012-05-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 08 May 2012, at 21:46, John Mikes wrote:

Ricardo:
good text! I may add to it:
Who created Nothing? - of course: Nobody. (The ancient joke of
Odysseus towards Polyphemos: 'Nobody' has hurt me).

Just one thing: if it contains (includes) EMPTY SPACE, it includes
space, it is not nothing. And please, do not forget about my adage
in the previous post that limits (borders) are similarly not
includable into nothing, so it must be an infinite - well - nothing.
It still may contain things we have no knowledge about and in such
case it is NOT nothing. We just are ignorant.

Also, I can make a critic to 'nothing' or 'everything' similar to my
critics of how Stephen use the term existence. It is a word, and it
can belong to a theory only if there is an axiomatic for it, or a semi-
axiomatic. You have to be able to give some sense of some thing to
define or point on no-thing. At the metalevel, nothing and
everything are coextensive.

Bruno

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 1:06 PM, R AM ramra...@gmail.com wrote:
Some thoughts about nothing:

- If nothing has no properties, and a limitation is considered a
property, then nothing cannot have any limitations, including the
limitation of generating something. Therefore, something may
come from nothing.

- Given that something exists, it is possible that something exists
(obviously). The later would be true even if nothing was the case.
Therefore, we should envision the state of nothing co-existing
with the possibility of something existing, which is rather bizarre.

- Why should nothing be the default state? I think this is based
on the intuition that nothing would require no explanation,
whereas something requires an explanation. However, given that the
possibility of something existing is necessarily true, an
explanation would be required for why there is nothing instead of
something.

- There are many ways something can exist, but just one of nothing
existing. Therefore, nothing is less likely :-)

- I think the intuition that nothing requires less explanation
than the universe we observe is based on a generalization of the
idea of classical empty space. However, this intuition is based on
what we know about *this* universe (i.e. empty space is simpler than
things existing in it). But why this intuition about *our* reality
should be extrapolated to metaphysics?

- I think that the important question is why this universe instead
of any other universe? (including nothing).

Ricardo.

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 6:24 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Sat, May 5, 2012 John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

Is it so hard to understand a word?

Yes, the word nothing keeps evolving. Until about a hundred years
ago nothing just meant a vacuum, space empty of any matter; then a
few years later the meaning was expanded to include lacking any
energy too, then still later it meant also not having space, and
then it meant not even having time. Something that is lacking matter
energy time and space may not be the purest form of nothing but it
is, you must admit, a pretty pitiful thing, and if science can
explain (and someday it very well may be able to) how our world with
all it's beautiful complexity came to be from such modest beginnings
then that would not be a bad days work, and to call such activities
incredibly shallow as some on this list have is just idiotic.

N O T H I N G - is not a set of anything, no potential

Then the question can something come from nothing? has a obvious
and extremely dull answer.

I wrote once a little silly 'ode' about ontology. I started:
In the beginning there was Nothingness.
And when Nothingness realised it's nothingness
It turned into Somethingness

Then your version of nothing had something, the potential to produce
something. I also note the use of the word when, thus time, which
is something, existed in your nothing universe as well as potential.

John K Clark

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

2012-05-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 09 May 2012, at 02:25, Pierz wrote:

There is an interesting point here, although probably not what you
intended. What you say is true, you cannot trace it all the way
back to absolute nothing, because there is no reverse physical
process that transforms something into nothing (at least, not
into absolute nothing). Or equivalently, there is no physical
process that transforms absolute nothing into something. But if
that is the case, why are you so sure that nothing must have come
before?

You must have misread me. I am anything but sure nothing must have
come before. Indeed, my whole point is that something from nothing -
genuine nothing - is a nonsense. You can't bridge the hgap between
existence and non existence by any causal process. I think that's
obvious, and we must accept that the universe simply 'is'.

We must accept that we have to assume something exist. Not necessarily
a (physical) universe. With comp there is no physical universe, but we
can explain why we believe in it from numbers. But we have to assume
numbers, which are not nothing.
In all case, we need to assume some basic theory, and it starts from
some basic bet on a reality.

As for the remark about nothingness having only one way of being
and there being a lot more ways of existing, it's cute, but it's
sophistry. Non-being is not a countable way of being. It's the
absence of being - obviously - so can't be presented as one among
a myriad of possible configurations of the universe.

I agree nothing is not a configuration of things, but I think it
could be considered as one element belonging to an abstract space.
Let's consider this universe and the abstract operation of
removing things. We can remove the Sun, Andromeda, etc. Nothing
is what is left after removing all things (including space,
time, ...). It's one among many. It's not that different from 0
being a natural number or the empty set being a set.

An empty set is not the absence of a set. But to take another angle
on it: consider what you mean by removing these objects. It's merely
something you're imagining, it does not correspond to any real
process. In reality, energy and matter transform, they are not
created or destroyed. You can't simply imagine subtracting one
universe from the universe and getting nothing then say, See, I can
get nothing from a universe by subtracting it from itself, so I can
get a universe from nothing by adding it back in! You're just
creating some imagined bridge between non-existence and existence
when that is in fact the whole point of the dilemma. You say
existence is more likely than nonexistence based on this imaginary
subtraction/addition, but think about the meaning of likely. What
is the set you're sampling from? All possible states of existence
including the absence of anything - the empty set. So you've already
'created' the universe of universes as it were. Why is there a set
to sample from to allow there to be any likelihood of one or the
other state of being? That is the crux of the issue.

There are different way to generate every sets from the empty set,
like taking its unary intersection in classical logic, or by using the
reflexion schema. In all case, the nothing is in the mind of some
observer' or 'thinker'. Oh, surely God can create some thing from
nothing, but then you need a God, which can hardly be 'nothing', in
that case.

Bruno

Ricardo.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/UNEgdFCZD-UJ
.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

2012-05-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 09 May 2012, at 02:36, Pierz wrote:

The problem is that physicists have not yet succeed in marrying QM
and GR, which is needed to get a quantum theory of space-time. You
can bet on strings or on loop gravity though, or on the Dewitt-
Wheeler equation, which, actually make physical time vanishing
completely from the big picture. It is an internal parameter only.

Yes, none of which I pretend to understand any more than any guy who
reads all the popular expositions of such theories. But it seems
highly dubious to me for Krauss to even present a theory that
pretends to explain something as fundamental as something from
nothing given the absence of a QM-GR unification. After all, as good
as QM and GR are at predicting stuff in their domains, we know that
neither is right! It's an overreach.

It is different for the UD. Its existence is a theorem in any theory
of everything, like this one:

classical logic +
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) - x = y
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

or in this one:

Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

Yeah OK fine, so maybe I'm one turtle too high! Let's just say
arithemetic then. Why does it exist? Because.

In this case, we can explain and prove that we cannot explain them
from less. You provably need some understanding of the numbers to get
them. Some people thought we can explain or derive natural numbers
from logic, but this has failed, and eventually we can use logic to
explain that no theory which does not assume the numbers (or something
equivalent) can derive the numbers.

To be sure, you can derive the numlbers from Kxy = x and Sxyz =
xz(yz), like you can derive the axiom of arithmetic (0≠s(x), ...)
from Kxy = x and Sxyz = xz(yz). They are equivalent (at some
ontological level).

This makes arithmetic (or Turing equivalent) a nice starting place. In
that case you can derive at least all dreams, and without them, you
can derive none of them.

So in that case, you are provably right. Why does number exists?
because ... if they don't exist you would not been able to ask that
question. And why do you ask?

Numbers are truly mysterious. Provably mysterious.

This is not entirely obvious. At first sight, it looks like numbers
are logical, but that intuition is false.

Bruno

PS. You might try to make better quotes.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

2012-05-09 Thread R AM

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:


 You must have misread me. I am anything but sure nothing must have come
 before.


Yes, probably I did.


 Indeed, my whole point is that something from nothing - genuine nothing -
 is a nonsense. You can't bridge the hgap between existence and non
 existence by any causal process. I think that's obvious, and we must accept
 that the universe simply 'is'.


I agree.


 An empty set is not the absence of a set.


A set is a collection of elements and the empty set is the absence of
elements (nothing).


 But to take another angle on it: consider what you mean by removing these
 objects. It's merely something you're imagining, it does not correspond to
 any real process. In reality, energy and matter transform, they are not
 created or destroyed.


I agree, it is not a physical process. But I am not proposing this
combinatorics as a way to create something from nothing, but just to show
that there are more ways of being than of non-being. In fact, it is not
that different of saying that the laws of this universe are unlikely
(given that many more are possible). But it is all combinatorics.


 You say existence is more likely than nonexistence based on this
 imaginary subtraction/addition, but think about the meaning of likely.
 What is the set you're sampling from? All possible states of existence
 including the absence of anything - the empty set. So you've already
 'created' the universe of universes as it were. Why is there a set to
 sample from to allow there to be any likelihood of one or the other state
 of being? That is the crux of the issue.


Well, I have not really created this set of possibilities, have I? The
possibilities are out there, so to speak. I cannot even imagine how to make
them go away, so to speak. I mean, I can imagine my home does not exist,
but I cannot imagine the absence of the possibility of my home.

OK, let's try another angle. People in this list have infinite universes
for breakfast. To me, the most important problem of multiverses is that
most universes in them are random (white rabbits). But it is not usually
appreciated that very vew of them correspond to Newtonian empty space. In
fact, the multiverse already explains why there is something rather than
empty space (at the cost of white rabbits). I agree that Newtonian empty
space is not nothing, but the argument that I have used is very similar,
and classic empty space is what most people mean by nothing anyway.

Ricardo.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

2012-05-09 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 09 May 2012, at 12:36, R AM wrote:

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:

You must have misread me. I am anything but sure nothing must have
come before.

Yes, probably I did.

Indeed, my whole point is that something from nothing - genuine
nothing - is a nonsense. You can't bridge the hgap between existence
and non existence by any causal process. I think that's obvious, and
we must accept that the universe simply 'is'.

I agree.

An empty set is not the absence of a set.

A set is a collection of elements and the empty set is the absence
of elements (nothing).

The empty set is the absence of elements (nothing) in that set. It is
the set { }.
The empty set is not nothing. For example, the set is { { } } is not
empty. It contains as element the empty set.

Just to be precise.

But to take another angle on it: consider what you mean by removing
these objects. It's merely something you're imagining, it does not
correspond to any real process. In reality, energy and matter
transform, they are not created or destroyed.

I agree, it is not a physical process. But I am not proposing this
combinatorics as a way to create something from nothing, but just to
show that there are more ways of being than of non-being. In fact,
it is not that different of saying that the laws of this universe
are unlikely (given that many more are possible). But it is all
combinatorics.

You say existence is more likely than nonexistence based on this
imaginary subtraction/addition, but think about the meaning of
likely. What is the set you're sampling from? All possible states
of existence including the absence of anything - the empty set. So
you've already 'created' the universe of universes as it were. Why
is there a set to sample from to allow there to be any likelihood of
one or the other state of being? That is the crux of the issue.

Well, I have not really created this set of possibilities, have I?
The possibilities are out there, so to speak. I cannot even imagine
how to make them go away, so to speak. I mean, I can imagine my home
does not exist, but I cannot imagine the absence of the possibility
of my home.

OK, let's try another angle. People in this list have infinite
universes for breakfast. To me, the most important problem of
multiverses is that most universes in them are random (white
rabbits). But it is not usually appreciated that very vew of them
correspond to Newtonian empty space. In fact, the multiverse already
explains why there is something rather than empty space (at the cost
of white rabbits). I agree that Newtonian empty space is not
nothing, but the argument that I have used is very similar, and
classic empty space is what most people mean by nothing anyway.

Ricardo.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing?

2012-05-09 Thread R AM

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

 The empty set is the absence of elements (nothing) in that set. It is the
 set { }.
 The empty set is not nothing. For example, the set is { { } } is not
 empty. It contains as element the empty set.
 Just to be precise.


Well, I guess that the empty set is more like an empty box.

Ricardo.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

36 matches

Mail list logo