Re: Who am I ?
* *Dear 'Socratus': thanks for the Physics 101 class. It was timely, since I had my Ph.D. (physics as 2nd 'obligatory') in 1948 and forgetfulness is justified over such a long time. Let me insert into your reply some naive remarks in *bold italics *please. With respectful regards John On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:24 PM, socra...@bezeqint.net < socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote: > Thank you Mr. John Mikes. > > My opinion. > Quantum electrodynamics: Who am I ? > =. > In 1904 Lorentz proved: *(It was long ago, since then much could be (dis?)qualified and I do not take "proved" as proven. Stated? Concluded? Calculated? )* > there isn’t em waves without Electron > *(I never met Ms. Electron, just "heard" about her).* > It means the source of these em waves must be an Electron > The electron and the em waves they are physical reality > *(What is Reality? - NOT TO ASK "physical") * > Can evolution of consciousness of life begin on electron’s level? > (*evolution is a questionable concept: it MAY point to a goal, with some teleology. Consciousness on the other side is a noumenon used by many over the millennia in variants just as their theory required it. My take was: "some process, based upon relations and a response to them". )* ==. Origin of life is a result of physical laws that govern Universe *(L I F E ? I hope you do not refer to that C-chemistry based churning on the surface of this planet? Even 'living state' is hard to describe. * *PHYSICAL LAWS on the other side reduce to observations in a well bordered domain and well restricted way of studies as "most of them" in the ignorance of wider possibilities - exceeding our 'physical world'.* *BTW: "laws" describe, do not 'govern' IMO. - Universe? the one we are in? I do not visualize a restriction to (qualitatively?) different others.)* ** Electron takes important part in this work. # 1900, 1905 Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f. 1916 Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c, it means: e = +ah*c and e = -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= ∞ *(All exceptionally smart practitioners of conventional sciences). * Questions. Why does the simplest particle - electron have six ( 6 ) formulas ? 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. Nobody knows. *(Thank you - and for continuing this way).* . What is an electron ? Now 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 is an electron ? . 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." . Ladies and Gentlemen ! Friends ! The banal Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe, he is wiser than we are. =. Once again: Brain and Electron. Human brain works on two levels: consciousness and subconsciousness. The neurons of brain create these two levels. So, that it means consciousness and subconsciousness from physical point of view ( interaction between billions and billions neurons and electron). It can only mean that the state of neurons in these two situations is different. How can we understand these different states of neurons? How does the brain generate consciousness? *(Sorry for barging in: what would you call "brain"? the figment of the body-tissue (we think) constitutes part of the content of our skull? AND: who said "it(?)" generates consciousness?)* We can understand this situation only on the quantum level, only using Quantum theory. But there isn’t QT without Quantum of Light and Electron. So, what is interaction between Quantum of Light, Electron and brain ? Nobody knows. *(I think Dirac said: who states to understand Q-science does not know Q-science - straight from the Tao). * Therefore I say: we must understand not only the brain but electron too. And when we understand the Electron we will know the Ultimate Nature of Reality. *(Compare our "understanding" levels 1000, 3000, etc. years ago with today's: why would we assume omniscience by now? (I could have said 50 years ago as well). We "learn' new aspects, additions, forms and facets continually and all these change our earlier understanding in unimaginable ways. We are 'agnostic' even about ideas of tomorrow. My question: Are we capable to understand the world? What I mean: that infinite complexity of Everything from which we extract piecemeal
Re: Who am I ?
Thank you Mr. John Mikes. My opinion. Quantum electrodynamics: Who am I ? =. In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t em waves without Electron It means the source of these em waves must be an Electron The electron and the em waves they are physical reality Can evolution of consciousness of life begin on electron’s level? ==. Origin of life is a result of physical laws that govern Universe Electron takes important part in this work. # 1900, 1905 Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f. 1916 Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c, it means: e = +ah*c and e = -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 six ( 6 ) formulas ? 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. Nobody knows. . What is an electron ? Now 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 is an electron ? . 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." . Ladies and Gentlemen ! Friends ! The banal Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe, he is wiser than we are. =. Once again: Brain and Electron. Human brain works on two levels: consciousness and subconsciousness. The neurons of brain create these two levels. So, that it means consciousness and subconsciousness from physical point of view ( interaction between billions and billions neurons and electron). It can only mean that the state of neurons in these two situations is different. How can we understand these different states of neurons? How does the brain generate consciousness? We can understand this situation only on the quantum level, only using Quantum theory. But there isn’t QT without Quantum of Light and Electron. So, what is interaction between Quantum of Light, Electron and brain ? Nobody knows. Therefore I say: we must understand not only the brain but electron too. And when we understand the Electron we will know the Ultimate Nature of Reality. =. Socratus ==. On Apr 25, 12:09 am, John Mikes wrote: > Socratus, and discussion friends: > are we so simpletons, indeed? does a flat EM (field?) plus the 'variety' of > cells constitute a 'person'? does it justify our psychological mistakes? (I > mention deliberately those, not the regularities, to divert from 'rules we > know'). > I think (?) a sort of "pattern" functionality (or rather: relations) may be > needed and as I read in these discussions: nobody feels knowledgeable > enough to go into that. This is the 'part' we did not (yet???) learn and I > call it the complexity of a person within the wider complexity of > everything. > It is just NOT *THIS AND THAT*.* * > Would you reduce us into - let us say - a million varieties of cells (OK, > make it a billion) plus the one and only EM field - even if in a million > variables of control in interference. I think (in the ongoing theoretical > views) even the RNA has to be directed into directing the DNA - which still > may be only one imaginary factor we speak about for a genetic (?) > ordering. > And - all this in believing in 'atoms' and a 'physical world'. (And > photons?) > As I wrote within my diatribe "Science Religion" in 2003. > > I stick to my agnosticism, smile upon my 50+ years "actively and result > fully" working as a chemist-Ph.D. and a polymer Science D.Sci. with my 38+ > patents and papers, books, and my journal published. Now, past 90 I can > afford to 'not knowing' about what I was brainwashed into in college > (1940-44). > JM > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 5:59 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net < > > > > socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote: > > Cells make copies of themselves. > > Different cells make different copies of themselves. > > Cells come in all shapes and sizes. > > Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves > > and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! ) > > and by chance ( or not by chance ) they change own > > geometrical form from zygote to a child. > > Cells come in all shapes and sizes, and then . . . they are you. > > Cells they are you ( !? ) > > This is modern biomechanical /chemical point of view. > > # > > Maybe 99% agree that ‘Cells - they are you .’ > > But this explanation is not complete. > > Cells have an energy / electrical potentia
Re: Who am I ?
Socratus, and discussion friends: are we so simpletons, indeed? does a flat EM (field?) plus the 'variety' of cells constitute a 'person'? does it justify our psychological mistakes? (I mention deliberately those, not the regularities, to divert from 'rules we know'). I think (?) a sort of "pattern" functionality (or rather: relations) may be needed and as I read in these discussions: nobody feels knowledgeable enough to go into that. This is the 'part' we did not (yet???) learn and I call it the complexity of a person within the wider complexity of everything. It is just NOT *THIS AND THAT*.* * Would you reduce us into - let us say - a million varieties of cells (OK, make it a billion) plus the one and only EM field - even if in a million variables of control in interference. I think (in the ongoing theoretical views) even the RNA has to be directed into directing the DNA - which still may be only one imaginary factor we speak about for a genetic (?) ordering. And - all this in believing in 'atoms' and a 'physical world'. (And photons?) As I wrote within my diatribe "Science Religion" in 2003. I stick to my agnosticism, smile upon my 50+ years "actively and result fully" working as a chemist-Ph.D. and a polymer Science D.Sci. with my 38+ patents and papers, books, and my journal published. Now, past 90 I can afford to 'not knowing' about what I was brainwashed into in college (1940-44). JM On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 5:59 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net < socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote: > Cells make copies of themselves. > Different cells make different copies of themselves. > Cells come in all shapes and sizes. > Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves > and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! ) > and by chance ( or not by chance ) they change own > geometrical form from zygote to a child. > Cells come in all shapes and sizes, and then . . . they are you. > Cells they are you ( !? ) > This is modern biomechanical /chemical point of view. > # > Maybe 99% agree that ‘Cells - they are you .’ > But this explanation is not complete. > Cells have an energy / electrical potential. > Cells have an electromagnetic field. > Therefore we need to say: > ‘ Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you.’ > ===. > Is this formulation correct? > Of course it is correct. > Why? > Because: > Bioelectromagnetism (sometimes equated with bioelectricity) > refers to the electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic fields > produced by living cells, tissues or organisms. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioelectromagnetism > > What does it mean? > It means there isn’t biological cell without electromagnetic fields. > It means that in the cell we have two ( 2 ) substances: > matter and electromagnetic fields. > And in 1985 Richard P. Feynman wrote book: > QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter > > The idea of book - the interaction between light > ( electromagnetic fields ) and matter is strange. > > He wrote: ‘ The theory of quantum electrodynamics > describes Nature as absurd from the point of view > of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. > So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. ‘ > / page 10. / > # > Once again: > 1. > Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you. > 2. > We cannot understand their interaction and therefore > we don’t know the answer to the question: ‘ who am I ?’ > ===. > 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. > > -- 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: Who am I ?
On 20 Apr 2012, at 17:51, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Quantum electrodynamics: Who am I ? ==. Can QED give the answer to the question: ‘ Who am I ? ’ Are you sure that physics handle such question? QED does not address the question. Computer science does. Bruno To answer to this question allow me to take one biological cell. The cell has two ( 2 ) substances: matter and electromagnetic fields. Then we need to understand : Where did the matter and electromagnetic fields come from? Question: Do we need to search for two sources or enough one source ? # Matter and electromagnetic fields are some kind of energy. But matter and energy were tied in one formula: E=Mc^2. Therefore I will unite matter, energy and electromagnetic fields in one simple question: Where does E=Mc^2 come from ? We have many sources of E=Mc^2: F. Hasenohrl, A. Einstein, P. Dirac. . 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 . 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: Who am I ?
Quantum electrodynamics: Who am I ? ==. Can QED give the answer to the question: ‘ Who am I ? ’ To answer to this question allow me to take one biological cell. The cell has two ( 2 ) substances: matter and electromagnetic fields. Then we need to understand : Where did the matter and electromagnetic fields come from? Question: Do we need to search for two sources or enough one source ? # Matter and electromagnetic fields are some kind of energy. But matter and energy were tied in one formula: E=Mc^2. Therefore I will unite matter, energy and electromagnetic fields in one simple question: Where does E=Mc^2 come from ? We have many sources of E=Mc^2: F. Hasenohrl, A. Einstein, P. Dirac. . 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: Who am I ?
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 4:59 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net < socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote: > Cells make copies of themselves. > Different cells make different copies of themselves. > Cells come in all shapes and sizes. > Somehow these different cells are tied between themselves > and during pregnancy process of 9 months gradually ( ! ) > and by chance ( or not by chance ) they change own > geometrical form from zygote to a child. > Cells come in all shapes and sizes, and then . . . they are you. > Cells they are you ( !? ) > This is modern biomechanical /chemical point of view. > # > Maybe 99% agree that ‘Cells - they are you .’ > But this explanation is not complete. > Cells have an energy / electrical potential. > Cells have an electromagnetic field. > Therefore we need to say: > ‘ Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you.’ > ===. > Is this formulation correct? > Of course it is correct. > Why? > Because: > Bioelectromagnetism (sometimes equated with bioelectricity) > refers to the electrical, magnetic or electromagnetic fields > produced by living cells, tissues or organisms. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioelectromagnetism > > What does it mean? > It means there isn’t biological cell without electromagnetic fields. > It means that in the cell we have two ( 2 ) substances: > matter and electromagnetic fields. > And in 1985 Richard P. Feynman wrote book: > QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter > > The idea of book - the interaction between light > ( electromagnetic fields ) and matter is strange. > > He wrote: ‘ The theory of quantum electrodynamics > describes Nature as absurd from the point of view > of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. > So I hope you accept Nature as She is — absurd. ‘ > / page 10. / > # > Once again: > 1. > Cells and electromagnetic field - they are you. > 2. > We cannot understand their interaction and therefore > we don’t know the answer to the question: ‘ who am I ?’ > ===. > Socratus. > > Socratus, I don't think it is proper to say we are atoms, or we are cells. Matter gets replaced, cells get replaced, what survives is our pattern. Computational theories of mind reinforce and formalize this idea further: material is inconsequential, as any universal computer regardless of its substrate, can reproduce the patterns of any other. I like this Feynman quote on identity: "This is what it means when one discovers how long it takes for the atoms of the brain to be replaced by other atoms, to note that the thing which I call my individuality is only a pattern or dance. The atoms come into my brain, dance a dance, then go out; always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday. " While quantum effects are strange, they can make sense under theories of mind that define identity as a certain pattern of computation or information. In Russell Stansish's book *Theory of Nothing* (in chapter 7 available here: http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html ) he actually derives the postulates of quantum mechanics from his theory of observation in an infinite ensemble. Jason -- 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.
