Is chance dependant on intelligence for its existence?Bernard wrote:How does chance exist?
It's a serious question.
Is it dependant on intelligence for its existence?
???
===.
Sciense is a religion by itself.
Re: Sciense is a religion by itself.
???
===.
Re: Sciense is a religion by itself.
Well current bias says intelligence arrives via chance, whereas it could work the other way around given quantum considerations on the activity of energy?consciousness as foundation for events.
Re: Sciense is a religion by itself.
It is saying very nice. I like your idea.Bernard wrote:Well current bias says intelligence arrives via chance,
whereas it could work the other way around
given quantum considerations on the activity of energy ?
consciousness as foundation for events.
I only cannot interpret your idea on a peasant language.
==.
Re: Sciense is a religion by itself.
I believe . . . . .you believe
your opinion . . . my opinion . ... . .
your meaning . . . my meaning . .. . . .
The opinion of opinion . . . . .
The meaning of meaning . . . . .
And so is endless.
===.
I Believe in Order to Understand.
St. Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, said,
“I believe in order to understand” (credo ut intelligam)
and centuries later, St. Anselm of Canterbury,
echoed his statement in similar fashion:
“I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe,
but I believe in order to understand.”
These great Christian thinkers understood the proper use of reason
must be preceded by faith in the proper object.
Not faith in ourselves or science,
but faith in God, specifically in His revelation of Himself
in His Son Jesus Christ.
Their statements echo the words of the writer of Hebrews
when he said “By faith we understand that the universe
was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was
not made out of what was visible.” (Hebrews 11:3 – NIV)
http://carpediemcoramdeo.wordpress.com/ ... nderstand/
I cannot believe in such method , in such way.
I need to understand in order to believe.
To believe in God, Souls . . .metaphysics . . .. etc
I need proof, scientific proof with physical laws and formulas.
=.
Einstein said:
“ One thing I have learned in a long life:
that all our science, measured against reality,
is primitive and childlike –
and yet it is the most precious thing we have.”
Why our science ‘is primitive and childlike’ ?
Because we don’t know the basic things:
what the vacuum is,
what the quantum particle is ( they say it is math point),
what an electron is (electron has six formulas and many theories)
what is the reason of 'dualism of particle' ? . . . . etc . . . etc.
=.
After 30 years of thinking about that we call ‘philosophy of physics ‘
I wrote my ideas briefly: God is a Scientist and Atheist.
Science is a religion by itself.
Why?
Because the God can create and govern the Universe
only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
Here is the scheme of His plan.
=.
God : Ten Scientific Commandments.
1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= , p= 0, t= .
2. Particles:
C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, e^i(pi)= -1.
3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb.
... 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW :
HeII -- > HeI -- > H -- > . . .
6. Proton: (p).
7.
The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton:
a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.
8. The Physical Laws:
a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy / Mass,
b) Pauli Exclusion Law,
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law.
9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness.
10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation.
===.
I am not physicist and not philosopher.
I call myself a ‘peasant’.
And if a peasant can understand the Scheme (!) of Universe ,
then everybody, using usual human logic, can understand too.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=.
your opinion . . . my opinion . ... . .
your meaning . . . my meaning . .. . . .
The opinion of opinion . . . . .
The meaning of meaning . . . . .
And so is endless.
===.
I Believe in Order to Understand.
St. Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, said,
“I believe in order to understand” (credo ut intelligam)
and centuries later, St. Anselm of Canterbury,
echoed his statement in similar fashion:
“I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe,
but I believe in order to understand.”
These great Christian thinkers understood the proper use of reason
must be preceded by faith in the proper object.
Not faith in ourselves or science,
but faith in God, specifically in His revelation of Himself
in His Son Jesus Christ.
Their statements echo the words of the writer of Hebrews
when he said “By faith we understand that the universe
was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was
not made out of what was visible.” (Hebrews 11:3 – NIV)
http://carpediemcoramdeo.wordpress.com/ ... nderstand/
I cannot believe in such method , in such way.
I need to understand in order to believe.
To believe in God, Souls . . .metaphysics . . .. etc
I need proof, scientific proof with physical laws and formulas.
=.
Einstein said:
“ One thing I have learned in a long life:
that all our science, measured against reality,
is primitive and childlike –
and yet it is the most precious thing we have.”
Why our science ‘is primitive and childlike’ ?
Because we don’t know the basic things:
what the vacuum is,
what the quantum particle is ( they say it is math point),
what an electron is (electron has six formulas and many theories)
what is the reason of 'dualism of particle' ? . . . . etc . . . etc.
=.
After 30 years of thinking about that we call ‘philosophy of physics ‘
I wrote my ideas briefly: God is a Scientist and Atheist.
Science is a religion by itself.
Why?
Because the God can create and govern the Universe
only using physical laws, formulas, equations.
Here is the scheme of His plan.
=.
God : Ten Scientific Commandments.
1. Vacuum: T=0K, E= , p= 0, t= .
2. Particles:
C/D=pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1, e^i(pi)= -1.
3. Photon: h=1, c=1, h=E/t, h=kb.
... 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW :
HeII -- > HeI -- > H -- > . . .
6. Proton: (p).
7.
The evolution of interaction between Photon/Electron and Proton:
a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.
8. The Physical Laws:
a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy / Mass,
b) Pauli Exclusion Law,
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law.
9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness.
10. Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation.
===.
I am not physicist and not philosopher.
I call myself a ‘peasant’.
And if a peasant can understand the Scheme (!) of Universe ,
then everybody, using usual human logic, can understand too.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=.
Re: Sciense is a religion by itself.
According to Harold Morowitz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_J._Morowitz
a structure of single cell has 10^12 bit of information
But cells are not in the one and same state, they are different
then another cell has another 10^12 bit of information . . .
==.
The estimate for human cells in the human body is about 10^14.
The number of cells in the body is constantly changing,
as cells die or are destroyed and new ones are formed.
It means that bits information also constantly changing.
Can this unity between information and cells be chaotic ?
No, the process of creation living beings cannot be chaotic
or by chance.This process we are called: ‘self organizing‘.
==.
About ‘self organizing‘ .
It is amazing to me, that some can use the term "self organizing"
without shame, to describe mindless objects, in arguments that
claim that the universe lacks both mind and self.
There just appears to be these massive blank spots
in the thinking of those who wish to see this universe
as containing nothing but mindless objects, denying the existence
of self, while at the same time describing evolution as self.
It is an inversion of reality, they describe and not reality.
They would contend that the stone blocks of the pyramid,
self organized themselves into a complexity that exceeded
the complexity of the blocks themselves.
I am sorry, reality really does not work upside down
and backwards, even imagining it does, requires self-deception.
/ Comment by Da Blob /
============..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_J._Morowitz
a structure of single cell has 10^12 bit of information
But cells are not in the one and same state, they are different
then another cell has another 10^12 bit of information . . .
==.
The estimate for human cells in the human body is about 10^14.
The number of cells in the body is constantly changing,
as cells die or are destroyed and new ones are formed.
It means that bits information also constantly changing.
Can this unity between information and cells be chaotic ?
No, the process of creation living beings cannot be chaotic
or by chance.This process we are called: ‘self organizing‘.
==.
About ‘self organizing‘ .
It is amazing to me, that some can use the term "self organizing"
without shame, to describe mindless objects, in arguments that
claim that the universe lacks both mind and self.
There just appears to be these massive blank spots
in the thinking of those who wish to see this universe
as containing nothing but mindless objects, denying the existence
of self, while at the same time describing evolution as self.
It is an inversion of reality, they describe and not reality.
They would contend that the stone blocks of the pyramid,
self organized themselves into a complexity that exceeded
the complexity of the blocks themselves.
I am sorry, reality really does not work upside down
and backwards, even imagining it does, requires self-deception.
/ Comment by Da Blob /
============..
Re: Sciense is a religion by itself.
Belief . . . from history of physics.
=.
Many years Max Planck was attracted with the
absolutely black body problem.
If quantum of light moving with speed c=1 falls in the area of
absolutely black body and does not radiate back, then “ terminal
dead “ will come. In order to save the quantum of light from ‘death ‘
Planck decided that it is possible that quantum of light
will radiate back with quantum unit (h ), (h=Et )
This unit does not come on formulas or equations.
Planck introduced this unit from heaven, from ceiling.
Sorry. Sorry.
Scientists say: Planck introduced this unit intuitively.
They say: Planck introduced unit (h) phenomenologically
===..
Phenomenology.
1.
the movement founded by Husserl that concentrates on the
detailed description of conscious experience, without recourse
to explanation, metaphysical assumptions, and traditional
philosophical questions
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio ... ologically
===…
So. Planck discovered the quantum of energy / action
‘without recourse to explanation, metaphysical assumptions,
and traditional philosophical questions’.
Many years Planck tried to find rational explanation for his unit
but without success.
We can read that unit (h) is an ’inner’ impulse (spin) of particle.
But what ’inner impulse’ means? We have no answer.
==.
There are 1000 books and millions articles about
‘philosophy of science’ but how can I believe them
if they didn’t explain me ‘what quantum particle is’.
Our today’s belief in science is similar to the past belief
in religion: ‘ I believe because it is absurd.’
/ Tertullian. (ca.160 – ca.220 AD) /
( in science – big bang,
in religion - God create woman from Adam’s rib.)
==..
=.
Many years Max Planck was attracted with the
absolutely black body problem.
If quantum of light moving with speed c=1 falls in the area of
absolutely black body and does not radiate back, then “ terminal
dead “ will come. In order to save the quantum of light from ‘death ‘
Planck decided that it is possible that quantum of light
will radiate back with quantum unit (h ), (h=Et )
This unit does not come on formulas or equations.
Planck introduced this unit from heaven, from ceiling.
Sorry. Sorry.
Scientists say: Planck introduced this unit intuitively.
They say: Planck introduced unit (h) phenomenologically
===..
Phenomenology.
1.
the movement founded by Husserl that concentrates on the
detailed description of conscious experience, without recourse
to explanation, metaphysical assumptions, and traditional
philosophical questions
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio ... ologically
===…
So. Planck discovered the quantum of energy / action
‘without recourse to explanation, metaphysical assumptions,
and traditional philosophical questions’.
Many years Planck tried to find rational explanation for his unit
but without success.
We can read that unit (h) is an ’inner’ impulse (spin) of particle.
But what ’inner impulse’ means? We have no answer.
==.
There are 1000 books and millions articles about
‘philosophy of science’ but how can I believe them
if they didn’t explain me ‘what quantum particle is’.
Our today’s belief in science is similar to the past belief
in religion: ‘ I believe because it is absurd.’
/ Tertullian. (ca.160 – ca.220 AD) /
( in science – big bang,
in religion - God create woman from Adam’s rib.)
==..
Re: Sciense is a religion by itself.
Physicists Find Evidence That The Universe Is A 'Giant Brain'
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11 ... 96346.html
http://www.space.com/18630-universe-gro ... brain.html
====
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11 ... 96346.html
http://www.space.com/18630-universe-gro ... brain.html
====
Re: Sciense is a religion by itself.
Belief . . . and string theory.
==.
But your question really is "what does a physical particle look like?"
My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that
strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics..
. . .
So string theory IS my religion.
/ Richard Ruquist /
====.
I cannot believe in string theory as a religion.
Why?
Because:
1
Book ‘ The trouble with Physics’ / by Lee Smolin /
Part 8. The first superstring revolution.
Page 126 – 127.
‘. . . the growing catalog of string theories meant that
we weren’t actually studying a fundamental theory.’ . . .
‘ . . . but the many versions of string theory opened up
the possibility that it was true of essentially all the
properties of the elementary particles and forces. This would
mean that properties of the elementary particles were
environmental and could change in time. If so, it would mean
that physics would be more like biology, in that the
properties of the elementary particles would depend on the
history of our universe. ‘
#
‘ . . . at least one big idea is missing.
How do we find that missing idea?’
/ Page 308. Lee Smolin. /
2
String theory . . . . ‘ Type IIA strings as one-dimensional
objects, having only lengths but no thickness, . . . . . ‘
/ page 311. Book: The elegant Universe. By Brian Greene /
3.
We don't know what we are talking about"
/ - Nobel laureate David Gross referring
to the current state of string theory ./
4.
How did the idea of many dimensions arise?
==..
It began in 1907 when Minkowski tried to understand
SRT and invented 4-D negative spacetime continuum
Nobody knows what Minkowski 4-D really is.
#.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
said that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
Th. Kaluza agreed with Einstein and in 1921 tried
to explain SRT using 5D space.
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
"Well", said physicists and mathematicians,
" maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D, 11D or 27D spaces will explain it".
And they had done it.
But………. But there is one problem.
To create new D space, they must add a new parameter.
Because it is impossible to create new D space without
a new force, a new parameter.
And they take this parameter arbitrarily
( it fixed according to they opinion, not by objective rules).
The physicist R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
"Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…"
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
"with one more parameter the elephant will fly."
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains? Where is the logic?
#
If we don't know what 1+1 = 2
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?
And if we don't know what is negative Mincowski 4-D
how can we understand 11-D, 27-D and string theory ?
=========.
If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every physicist who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher must be awarded a medal
"To the winner over common sense" because they have
won us using the abstract ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=.
==.
But your question really is "what does a physical particle look like?"
My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that
strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics..
. . .
So string theory IS my religion.
/ Richard Ruquist /
====.
I cannot believe in string theory as a religion.
Why?
Because:
1
Book ‘ The trouble with Physics’ / by Lee Smolin /
Part 8. The first superstring revolution.
Page 126 – 127.
‘. . . the growing catalog of string theories meant that
we weren’t actually studying a fundamental theory.’ . . .
‘ . . . but the many versions of string theory opened up
the possibility that it was true of essentially all the
properties of the elementary particles and forces. This would
mean that properties of the elementary particles were
environmental and could change in time. If so, it would mean
that physics would be more like biology, in that the
properties of the elementary particles would depend on the
history of our universe. ‘
#
‘ . . . at least one big idea is missing.
How do we find that missing idea?’
/ Page 308. Lee Smolin. /
2
String theory . . . . ‘ Type IIA strings as one-dimensional
objects, having only lengths but no thickness, . . . . . ‘
/ page 311. Book: The elegant Universe. By Brian Greene /
3.
We don't know what we are talking about"
/ - Nobel laureate David Gross referring
to the current state of string theory ./
4.
How did the idea of many dimensions arise?
==..
It began in 1907 when Minkowski tried to understand
SRT and invented 4-D negative spacetime continuum
Nobody knows what Minkowski 4-D really is.
#.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
said that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
Th. Kaluza agreed with Einstein and in 1921 tried
to explain SRT using 5D space.
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
"Well", said physicists and mathematicians,
" maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D, 11D or 27D spaces will explain it".
And they had done it.
But………. But there is one problem.
To create new D space, they must add a new parameter.
Because it is impossible to create new D space without
a new force, a new parameter.
And they take this parameter arbitrarily
( it fixed according to they opinion, not by objective rules).
The physicist R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
"Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…"
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
"with one more parameter the elephant will fly."
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains? Where is the logic?
#
If we don't know what 1+1 = 2
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?
And if we don't know what is negative Mincowski 4-D
how can we understand 11-D, 27-D and string theory ?
=========.
If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every physicist who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher must be awarded a medal
"To the winner over common sense" because they have
won us using the abstract ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=.
-
Piltdownbrain
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:54 am
Re: Sciense is a religion by itself.
I read this and my head started to hurtsocratus wrote:Belief . . . and string theory.
==.
But your question really is "what does a physical particle look like?"
My answer is that they look like strings. But I have to admit that
strings are still concepts in the regime of metaphysics..
. . .
So string theory IS my religion.
/ Richard Ruquist /
====.
I cannot believe in string theory as a religion.
Why?
Because:
1
Book ‘ The trouble with Physics’ / by Lee Smolin /
Part 8. The first superstring revolution.
Page 126 – 127.
‘. . . the growing catalog of string theories meant that
we weren’t actually studying a fundamental theory.’ . . .
‘ . . . but the many versions of string theory opened up
the possibility that it was true of essentially all the
properties of the elementary particles and forces. This would
mean that properties of the elementary particles were
environmental and could change in time. If so, it would mean
that physics would be more like biology, in that the
properties of the elementary particles would depend on the
history of our universe. ‘
#
‘ . . . at least one big idea is missing.
How do we find that missing idea?’
/ Page 308. Lee Smolin. /
2
String theory . . . . ‘ Type IIA strings as one-dimensional
objects, having only lengths but no thickness, . . . . . ‘
/ page 311. Book: The elegant Universe. By Brian Greene /
3.
We don't know what we are talking about"
/ - Nobel laureate David Gross referring
to the current state of string theory ./
4.
How did the idea of many dimensions arise?
==..
It began in 1907 when Minkowski tried to understand
SRT and invented 4-D negative spacetime continuum
Nobody knows what Minkowski 4-D really is.
#.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
said that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
Th. Kaluza agreed with Einstein and in 1921 tried
to explain SRT using 5D space.
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
"Well", said physicists and mathematicians,
" maybe 6D, 7D, 8D, 9D, 11D or 27D spaces will explain it".
And they had done it.
But………. But there is one problem.
To create new D space, they must add a new parameter.
Because it is impossible to create new D space without
a new force, a new parameter.
And they take this parameter arbitrarily
( it fixed according to they opinion, not by objective rules).
The physicist R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
"Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…"
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
"with one more parameter the elephant will fly."
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains? Where is the logic?
#
If we don't know what 1+1 = 2
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 ?
And if we don't know what is negative Mincowski 4-D
how can we understand 11-D, 27-D and string theory ?
=========.
If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every physicist who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher must be awarded a medal
"To the winner over common sense" because they have
won us using the abstract ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=.
. I felt like writing this haiku--One swan plus one lake
Floating in a pool of thoughts
Equaled an eternity of ideas
Yet to be realised.
-
Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Sciense is a religion by itself.
socratus wrote:Physicists Find Evidence That The Universe Is A 'Giant Brain'
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11 ... 96346.html
http://www.space.com/18630-universe-gro ... brain.html
====
As Fredkin, Zuse, et al, say, assume its discrete and what do you get? Bibbiddy bobbiddy boo! A simulation(emulation?) running on a spherical 2-D, less than whatever's currently defined, planck-bit cellular automata. The above could be understood as a description of the boot-up process 
Its all a sim I tell you! A nice metaphysic and religion for the current age.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Sciense is a religion by itself.
One swan plus one lakePiltdownbrain wrote:One swan plus one lakesocratus wrote:
Floating in a pool of thoughts
Equaled an eternity of ideas
Yet to be realised.
Floating in a pool of thoughts
Equaled an eternity of ideas
Yet to be realised.
/ Piltdownbrain /
I like this haiku.
It shows today's situation in philosophy of science.
Thanks.
socratus
=.
Re: Sciense is a religion by itself.
What are we talking about ?
==
a) We don't know what 'virtual particles' are,
b) we don’t know what electron is,
c) we don't know what water is,
d) we don't know what entropy is,
e) we don’t know what inertia is . . . . .etc
========.
a)
The concept of virtual particles are . . . 'an approximation scheme'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
b)
why electron has six (6) formulas and many theories ?
Nobody knows.
c)
"Water is still not fully understood, although it is the basis
of our existence. I expect more surprises to be discovered
in the future."
/ SLAC scientist Anders Nilsson. /
#
"In my view, the work on water is yet another example of the
actual complexity of matter, this time within a simple liquid.
Modern X-ray work appears to be triggering a new understanding
of liquids and we may have only seen the beginning of a paradigm
shift in our understanding."
/ Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory director Jo Stöhr. /
http://phys.org/news134058290.html -- June 30, 2008
d)
Entropy.
1.
Henry Poincare named the conception of "entropy "
as a " surprising abstract ".
2.
Lev Landau (Dau) wrote:
" A question about the physical basis of the
entropy monotonous increasing law remains open ".
3.
Nobel laureate in chemistry 1909 Wilhelm Ostwald
wrote that the entropy is only a shadow of energy.
4.
The mathematician John von Neumann said to
"the father of information theory" Claude Shannon:
" Name it "entropy" then in discussions
you will receive solid advantage, because
nobody knows, what "entropy" basically is ".
e)
Inertia.
Someone wrote:
“An old professor of mine used to say
that anyone who can answer that question
what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize. “
! !
==..
What are we talking about ?
We are talking about so called 'philosophy of science'.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus
=========================. .
==
a) We don't know what 'virtual particles' are,
b) we don’t know what electron is,
c) we don't know what water is,
d) we don't know what entropy is,
e) we don’t know what inertia is . . . . .etc
========.
a)
The concept of virtual particles are . . . 'an approximation scheme'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
b)
why electron has six (6) formulas and many theories ?
Nobody knows.
c)
"Water is still not fully understood, although it is the basis
of our existence. I expect more surprises to be discovered
in the future."
/ SLAC scientist Anders Nilsson. /
#
"In my view, the work on water is yet another example of the
actual complexity of matter, this time within a simple liquid.
Modern X-ray work appears to be triggering a new understanding
of liquids and we may have only seen the beginning of a paradigm
shift in our understanding."
/ Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory director Jo Stöhr. /
http://phys.org/news134058290.html -- June 30, 2008
d)
Entropy.
1.
Henry Poincare named the conception of "entropy "
as a " surprising abstract ".
2.
Lev Landau (Dau) wrote:
" A question about the physical basis of the
entropy monotonous increasing law remains open ".
3.
Nobel laureate in chemistry 1909 Wilhelm Ostwald
wrote that the entropy is only a shadow of energy.
4.
The mathematician John von Neumann said to
"the father of information theory" Claude Shannon:
" Name it "entropy" then in discussions
you will receive solid advantage, because
nobody knows, what "entropy" basically is ".
e)
Inertia.
Someone wrote:
“An old professor of mine used to say
that anyone who can answer that question
what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize. “
! !
==..
What are we talking about ?
We are talking about so called 'philosophy of science'.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus
=========================. .
Re: Sciense is a religion by itself.
Words were tangled into a spiral of tornado.
Illusions and reality were mixed in a pool of thoughts
Take water from this pool and you have Moon in the hands.
Having such thoughts all Galaxies fly away from us after big bang .
==
Illusions and reality were mixed in a pool of thoughts
Take water from this pool and you have Moon in the hands.
Having such thoughts all Galaxies fly away from us after big bang .
==
Re: Sciense is a religion by itself.
Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit
If triangles made a God they would give him three sides
/ Charles de Montesquieu . Persian Letters, 1721 /
#
There were people who said ‘God ‘ and thought about Zeus.
There are people who say ‘God ‘ and think about Holly Cow.
If physicists made a God they would give Him concrete physical parameters.
Can God create a Universe which physicists could not understand ?
=.
If triangles made a God they would give him three sides
/ Charles de Montesquieu . Persian Letters, 1721 /
#
There were people who said ‘God ‘ and thought about Zeus.
There are people who say ‘God ‘ and think about Holly Cow.
If physicists made a God they would give Him concrete physical parameters.
Can God create a Universe which physicists could not understand ?
=.
Re: Sciense is a religion by itself.
About Infinity. / My opinion /
How could mere man comprehend infinity?
==.
Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
Why is Infinity the cause of the crisis in Physics?
Because we don’t know what infinity is.
The concept of infinite / eternal means nothing to a scientists.
Infinity is no ‘more ‘, ‘ less’, ‘equally’ or ‘similar’.
The Infinity is something that could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity cannot be considered in real processes and they
proclaimed unwritten law:
‘ If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity should be eliminated’ . . . . by the
' method of renormalization ' . . . about which Feynman wrote
' using this method we can these infinities sweep under a carpet '
and then Feynman asked:
‘ Who can confirm that the infinity conforms with reality of nature?’
/ Book: The Character of Physical Law. Lecture 7. /
===.
I will try to explain ‘infinity’ as brief and simple as is possible.
=.
There are billions and billions Galaxies in the
Universe, each of which has hundreds of billions of stars.
All these billions and billions Galaxies are divided by space,
which we call ‘ Vacuum’.
This Vacuum is an infinite and eternal continuum.
Why Vacuum is infinite ?
Because the sum of masses of all Galaxies (the cosmological
constant / the critical density ) is as small that it cannot
‘ close’ the whole Universe into sphere and therefore Universe
as whole must be ‘open’, endless, infinite.
Only in some small local parts of this infinite Vacuum continuum
some masses can gather together in an enough quantity to create
stars, planets . . .etc.
Vacuum continuum is not a simple space
Physicists say that in vacuum ‘virtual particles’ exist and they
can appear as real particles. Nobody knows what they are.
Astrophysicists say that ‘dark mass- matter’ in vacuum is hidden.
This ‘dark mass- matter’ is not ordinary matter but ‘non normal’.
They say that more than 90% of the matter in the Universe
is ‘non normal dark mass – matter’.
So, from ‘ virtual particles ‘ and ‘non normal dark matter ’ were
created all billion and billion Galaxies, including our planet Earth
and everything on it, also including you, who reads this email.
And because we don’t know what ‘ virtual particles ‘ and ‘dark matter’ are,
therefore we don’t have answer to the question: who am I ?
====..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===..
How could mere man comprehend infinity?
==.
Infinity is the cause of the crisis in Physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity
Why is Infinity the cause of the crisis in Physics?
Because we don’t know what infinity is.
The concept of infinite / eternal means nothing to a scientists.
Infinity is no ‘more ‘, ‘ less’, ‘equally’ or ‘similar’.
The Infinity is something that could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity cannot be considered in real processes and they
proclaimed unwritten law:
‘ If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity should be eliminated’ . . . . by the
' method of renormalization ' . . . about which Feynman wrote
' using this method we can these infinities sweep under a carpet '
and then Feynman asked:
‘ Who can confirm that the infinity conforms with reality of nature?’
/ Book: The Character of Physical Law. Lecture 7. /
===.
I will try to explain ‘infinity’ as brief and simple as is possible.
=.
There are billions and billions Galaxies in the
Universe, each of which has hundreds of billions of stars.
All these billions and billions Galaxies are divided by space,
which we call ‘ Vacuum’.
This Vacuum is an infinite and eternal continuum.
Why Vacuum is infinite ?
Because the sum of masses of all Galaxies (the cosmological
constant / the critical density ) is as small that it cannot
‘ close’ the whole Universe into sphere and therefore Universe
as whole must be ‘open’, endless, infinite.
Only in some small local parts of this infinite Vacuum continuum
some masses can gather together in an enough quantity to create
stars, planets . . .etc.
Vacuum continuum is not a simple space
Physicists say that in vacuum ‘virtual particles’ exist and they
can appear as real particles. Nobody knows what they are.
Astrophysicists say that ‘dark mass- matter’ in vacuum is hidden.
This ‘dark mass- matter’ is not ordinary matter but ‘non normal’.
They say that more than 90% of the matter in the Universe
is ‘non normal dark mass – matter’.
So, from ‘ virtual particles ‘ and ‘non normal dark matter ’ were
created all billion and billion Galaxies, including our planet Earth
and everything on it, also including you, who reads this email.
And because we don’t know what ‘ virtual particles ‘ and ‘dark matter’ are,
therefore we don’t have answer to the question: who am I ?
====..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
===..