Measuring Existence

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Measuring Existence

Post by Obvious Leo » Sun Feb 21, 2016 10:06 pm

JSS wrote: A wave of affect crosses another wave of affect.
How? What is the medium in which this wave exists and how is it propagated? What is the wave made of? Since the wave is unobservable except retrospectively as an effect why does reality not create the effect that the observer defines as a wave?
JSS wrote: You can't validly quantize time, even if you could quantize gravity (although you can't do that either).
The relationship between time and gravity has been known for a century. They bear a precise mathematical relationship to each other which is inversely logarithmic in its nature and this relationship must obtain all the way down to the most fundamental scale of physical reality. Irrespective of which arbitrary units we use as a metric for these when we specify one we automatically specify the other so they must be regarded as two different ways of expressing the same thing, which is obviously the rate of change in a physical process. Because they are simply two different ways of expressing the rate of change they can be quantised equivalently in a single entity which is very easily defined. The smallest possible "bit" of physical reality is the smallest possible interval of time in which we can meaningfully say that something has actually happened and since the speed of light is finite so too must be this time interval.
JSS wrote:What would it really take for you or uwot to change your mind about anything on this forum?
Too easy in my case. The gold standard for any scientific theory intended to replace current theory is that it yields a prediction which differs from that of current theory and that this prediction can be tested in a repeatable experiment. If you want to replace the spacetime model then you'll have to first empirically falsify it. That's the only thing which will get the attention of the geeks and that's as it should be. The gravity/time continuum yields such a prediction because it unambiguously falsifies SR, on which the entire spacetime house of cards is founded. Without SR they're got nuthin'.
JSS wrote:I seriously doubt that it can be done.
People of good will can always exchange meaningful ideas without necessarily convincing others of their validity. I'm not trying to persuade anybody about anything but merely trying to explain the conclusions which I've arrived at and how I arrived at them. Mine is not a physical theory but a different way to think the world which explains why the epistemic models of physics actually work even though they don't describe a physically real world. The problem of physics was always all about the observer and everybody knows it. Until the geeks can be dragged back into the fold to understand that an observation is an act of cognition then they'll remain trapped in their conceptual cul-de-sac indefinitely.
uwot wrote:Energy is not 'stuff', it does not exist in its own right, stick a zero where the m is and E=0.
This is an unworthy comment since it was me who was refuting the notion of "stuff" in the first place. "Stuff" is just an emergent form of energy. Furthermore zero is an unrealisable abstraction which has no analogue in the physical world, as is infinity. I don't care whether you call a photon "stuff" or not but since a photon can be a causal agent of change it is undoubtedly physical. When an electron either emits or absorbs a photon it effects a change of state in the atom which means that an atom changes state at the speed of light. Since the rate of change of the atom is also gravity-dependent this means that the speed of light can be quantised equivalently with it. This should not be at all difficult to grasp.
uwot wrote:Like I said, it is my hypothesis that matter and energy are distortions in big bang stuff; they emerge from it, if you like.
I've never disputed this idea because this is essentially what I'm saying when I equate energy and information. The "hot big bang" is simply the universe in a highly disordered informational state which in conventional physics is defined as a high energy state. In a quest for a unification model it's not a good idea to make semantic distinctions between equivalent constructs and to say that a subatomic particle is simply "made up of" discrete packets of energy is an easy enough idea to grasp. That these particles can be made to collide with each other and release these packets of energy across a broad spectrum of wavelengths has been satisfactorily demonstrated so to suggest that they are in any sense fundamental is clearly bollocks. What is fundamental are the discrete informational quanta which define them as what they are but this specification is NOT a function of what these quanta ARE but rather a function of what these quanta ARE DOING. Reality is a PROCESS, or more precisely, a non-linear COMPUTATION.
uwot wrote: Those that believe that spacetime dimensions are 'real' will struggle,
Yes. A dimension is a mathematical object only and my gravity/time continuum is no different. To say that the universe exists only in a fractal time dimension is just as much a metaphorical and epistemic statement as it is to say that it exists in a 4D Cartesian manifold. Like Wheeler I rather prefer the Poincarean idea of an n-dimensional universe where n represents the large but finite number of informational quanta which encode for physical reality. However, whichever way we choose to think this through, the important thing about any dimension is that it is merely a mathematical heuristic used to codify the dynamic relationship between matter and energy. Reality is that which is continuously BECOMING but the reality we observe is a reality which exists no longer and it is this no-longer-existent reality which we codify in terms of dimensions, or for the benefit of JSS, as an affectance "wave".
uwot wrote: Which of Einstein's words should I read closely where he specifically refers to a "geometric aether"?
I never make notes and couldn't refer you to a precise quote or quotes but he often refers to spacetime as a mathematical representation of a physical model rather than a physical model itself. Einstein had a lot to say over the course of his long career and he often contradicted himself in the process but there can be no doubt that he never intended the spacetime paradigm to be regarded as a physically real model of the universe.

"Space and time are modes in which we think, not conditions in which we exist" ....Albert Einstein.
uwot wrote:More physicists believe the many worlds interpretation than Copenhagen,
True. In fact Schrodinger told the cat story as a joke at his own expense. It was only ever intended as a piss-take to illustrate the point that QM was not a physical model and should not be considered as such. Everett's bollocks is not a physical model either but a desperate attempt to salvage a theory by appealing to the invisible hand of the supernatural. Shoving your explanations beyond scientific enquiry is a neat trick but it's not fucking science. It was all Minkowski's fault, of course, because he's the bloke who spatialised time and gravity out of physics.
uwot wrote: By big bang stuff I mean the stuff that properties emerge from.
That's what I mean too, so I'm agreeing with you. But if the big bang was hot then what else could this stuff be but quanta of energy, which I prefer to call informational "bits" for the sake of Occam economy. Don't think of a matter particle as a bit of "stuff" but think of it as a physical process being maintained in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium by the "bits" which are encoding for it. Think of an electron as being ALIVE, if you like, and then you can answer Hawking's arresting question. "What is it that breathes fire into these equations and brings forth a universe for us to observe?"

It all boils down to a single question which I've posed several times before.

Is the speed of light a constant or is the speed of light proportional to the speed of the clock on which this speed is being measured?

MINKOWSKI GOT THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WRONG

JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: Measuring Existence

Post by JSS » Mon Feb 22, 2016 1:34 am

Obvious Leo wrote:
JSS wrote: A wave of affect crosses another wave of affect.
How? What is the medium in which this wave exists and how is it propagated? What is the wave made of?
I have explained that several times. Much like your issue of there being "no space", affectance has no medium in which it propagates. Although more properly, it is it's own medium, "affect upon affect" .. within affectance. Affecting is a process only, a process upon a process of increasing or decreasing the ability of the process to process.

An affect propagates because it is affecting the ability to affect anything of the next point to it which then affects the next point, then the next and next. There is nothing to stop it, so it doesn't stop. The PtA, "Potential-to-Affect" is actualizing by affecting and also being affected and thus changing.

The PtA originally stems from the fact that homogeneity of potential-to-affect cannot ever exist. And that means that each point has either greater or lesser potential-to-affect than the points beside it. If the greater PtA is beside a lesser opposing PtA, guess what. The greater affects the lesser. And in doing so, reduces/expires, itself as it increases the PtA next to it and reduces itself, which then does the same to the next point, causing a propagating effect.

And all of that is going on chaotically in three dimensions creating what we call "space", an ocean of affectance motion, totally fluid down to the most infinitesimal level.

Image
Image

Obvious Leo wrote: Since the wave is unobservable except retrospectively as an effect why does reality not create the effect that the observer defines as a wave?
Why does reality not create waves in reality?? Huh? Image
It is.
Obvious Leo wrote:The relationship between time and gravity has been known for a century. They bear a precise mathematical relationship to each other which is inversely logarithmic in its nature and this relationship must obtain all the way down to the most fundamental scale of physical reality.
Well, you are extrapolating. That is the rather constant presumption that has caused nearly all of the errors in physics in the past. Merely because you measure a relationship on a macroscopic scale, doesn't mean that in the ultra-microscopic or ultra-macroscopic, the same relationship exists.

And i can tell you that gravitation becomes quite different as two mass particles actually touch. Einstein erred when he extrapolated. Plank erred when he extrapolated. Just about everyone who extrapolate concerning physical reality, errs. Physical existence is NOT mathematics.
Obvious Leo wrote: Irrespective of which arbitrary units we use as a metric for these when we specify one we automatically specify the other so they must be regarded as two different ways of expressing the same thing, which is obviously the rate of change in a physical process.
They are two different concept that are related. Gravity is no the measure of relative change. Gravitation is caused by relative changing down on an ultra-minuscule scale (Affectance). And even then, gravitation will not occur unless the field of affectance has an nonuniform, gradient density.
Obvious Leo wrote:The smallest possible "bit" of physical reality is the smallest possible interval of time in which we can meaningfully say that something has actually happened and since the speed of light is finite so too must be this time interval.
Since there is no "smallest bit of reality", it doesn't really matter .. in the smallest bit.
Obvious Leo wrote:
JSS wrote:What would it really take for you or uwot to change your mind about anything on this forum?
Too easy in my case. The gold standard for any scientific theory intended to replace current theory is that it yields a prediction which differs from that of current theory and that this prediction can be tested in a repeatable experiment.
So what experiment do you suggest that I do in order for me to find out that your theory is right?

You are proposing to stretch the limit of Science - the fact that some things cannot be experimentally falsified and certainly not be the general populous.

Equally, what experiment could I propose to you that would convince you that I am right? I can't imagine one other than a programming effort. Are you a proficient programmer? And even if you were, would you really take all the time required to develop the program that convinced you? Not likely. You would have to study. And you are not here to study.

Can you replicate this program?:
Image

That program demonstrates the necessary end results of the theory and forms particles of charge and mass that behave exactly as science has noted that physical particles behave. There are far too many variables involved to take that as any kind of coincidence.

All we really have to work with is LOGIC. But how proficient are people at logic when it really comes down to it .. not very (else we wouldn't be having this conversation).

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Measuring Existence

Post by Obvious Leo » Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:13 pm

JSS wrote:I have explained that several times. Much like your issue of there being "no space", affectance has no medium in which it propagates. Although more properly, it is it's own medium, "affect upon affect" .. within affectance. Affecting is a process only, a process upon a process of increasing or decreasing the ability of the process to process.
This is why there is a lot to like about what you're saying, although I disagree with some of your reasoning. You're defining physical reality as a process without a background space on which to operate and this is a clear refutation of the spacetime paradigm, which assumes an independent background space for SR and QM and a dependent background for GR. Most theorists can see clearly enough that this is the reason why these models are incompatible with each other but none seem to be willing to reject the notion of a background space altogether, as you and I have done. My contention is a fairly straightforward one because in the case of all these models I clearly define these background spaces as constructs of the cognition of the observer in which he spatialises time. On its own this immediately makes every single paradox, weirdness and metaphysical absurdity in these models disappear, which is no trivial argument in support of my claim. In a spaceless universe the current models of physics actually make perfect sense because all the objects of physics are doing their thing ONLY in a time dimension and at the most fundamental scale, this being within the subatomic particle, they are doing their thing at the speed of light because the quanta which encode for these particles are massless.

Reality is therefore a computation being enacted at the speed of light and it is this claim which constitutes the ontological underpinning for the epistemology of physics. It quite literally explains EVERYTHING in a way which any reasonably well-informed layman would be able to understand, but most particularly it explains the "mysterious" phenomenon of "quantum" entanglement which was what kept Albert Einstein awake at night for decades. The EPR paradox was directly derived from the spacetime paradigm and yet Einstein was instinctively able to see that it was a refutation of both of his own models because it made the notion of "locality" meaningless.
JSS wrote:An affect propagates because it is affecting the ability to affect anything of the next point to it which then affects the next point, then the next and next. There is nothing to stop it, so it doesn't stop. The PtA, "Potential-to-Affect" is actualizing by affecting and also being affected and thus changing.
I love it but surely you can see that a process is only a meaningful construct when considered as a sequence of events occurring in time. The observer observes these temporal phenomena as a collection of objects moving in space but because the speed of light is finite by the time he observes them he is actually observing events which no longer exist. It is his consciousness which is applying the spatial extension to these observed phenomena because the longer ago they occurred the "further away" from him they appear to be. His background "space" is nothing more than a holographic representation of the past as seen from his own referential frame and this space must necessarily be different for every observer in the universe. THIS IS WHAT RELATIVITY MEANS.
JSS wrote:And that means that each point has either greater or lesser potential-to-affect than the points beside it.
I thought you said that there's no such thing as a "point". I ask again. If physical reality is infinitely divisible what is that which is being affected and how is this effect being propagated through time. I have no issue with your idea but I see no mechanism here. A quantum of energy/information which is no further divisible can be affected by other quanta of energy/information through a simple mechanism of particle exchange whereby the information content of any given quantum can either increase or decrease but I simply can't see a mechanism for information exchange in a reality which is infinitely divisible. Infinity is not a concept to fuck around with in a physically real world and in this respect I certainly agree with the geeks. Once infinity turns up in an equation it means you've got something WRONG and if the only way to get rid of it is by inventing a mathematical constant it means you've fucking CHEATED in order to salvage your theory.
JSS wrote:Why does reality not create waves in reality?? Huh?
Because this conflates the real with the observed. What the observer perceives as a wave is an aggregate effect of the behaviour of particles, no different from a wave on the ocean which makes your boat bob up and down. The "wave-ness" of the wave is an emergent feature of the behaviour of the water molecules but it has no ontological status of its own.
JSS wrote: Well, you are extrapolating. That is the rather constant presumption that has caused nearly all of the errors in physics in the past. Merely because you measure a relationship on a macroscopic scale, doesn't mean that in the ultra-microscopic or ultra-macroscopic, the same relationship exists.
This proposition is logically unsustainable when it comes to the relationship between gravity and time. This is a precise inversely logarithmic mathematical relationship and there is no valid theory which suggests some arbitrary scale at which this does not apply. With the latest caesium clocks it has been shown to hold true for two clocks separated by as little as 1cm. That the clock on the carpet ticks faster than the clock on the bare floorboards beside it has been demonstrated and that the clock on the electron therefore ticks faster than the clock on the nucleus it orbits is a straightforward proposition of logic. The fact that this perfectly logical conclusion cannot be measured is irrelevant but the fact that the Standard Model of Particle Physics completely ignores it is no trivial oversight because this is quantum gravity.
JSS wrote:So what experiment do you suggest that I do in order for me to find out that your theory is right?
You'll have to read the entire synopsis to understand how I arrived at my prediction but the experiment itself is a very simple one which would fall comfortably within the budget and expertise of any university physics department. Plenty of people have claimed that my prediction is bullshit and will not be validated in this experiment but nobody has denied that if it is validated then the spacetime paradigm is as dead as a dodo. Any scientific theory is only as good as the questions which are asked of it and the gravity/time fractal continuum hypothesis which I'm advancing yields a different empirical answer to a very precise question about relativistic motion from the answer offered by current theory . Read it and weep.

https://austintorney.wordpress.com/2015 ... n-de-jong/
JSS wrote:You are proposing to stretch the limit of Science
No I'm not. This is exactly what I'm not doing. I'm not refuting ANY of the empirical knowledge which modern physics has given us. Physics is specifically designed only to describe HOW matter and energy behaves and what I'm presenting is an explanation as to WHY matter and energy behaves in the way that it does. Ultimately the question which I'm answering was never a question of physics at all but a question of metaphysics, the study of the nature of Being. Furthermore nothing of what I'm saying is in the least bit original because the nature of Being has been known to philosophy for thousands of years. All I've done is update it a bit in the light of the new knowledge gained from the 20th century advances in physics.
JSS wrote:- the fact that some things cannot be experimentally falsified
A hypothesis which cannot be falsified is not a scientific hypothesis. String theory and the multiverse are a couple of rather obvious examples.
JSS wrote:Equally, what experiment could I propose to you that would convince you that I am right?
That's your problem, mate. I had my theory pretty much worked out twenty years ago and I was beginning to despair of ever figuring out a way in which it could be tested. I knew bloody well that an untestable theory was about as useful as tits on a bull and I had no intention of exposing myself to possible ridicule on such perfectly justifiable grounds. In the end it turned out to be blindingly obvious but it certainly wasn't until the penny finally dropped that the GR "wormhole" and quantum entanglement were one and the same phenomenon. Interestingly Maldacena and Susskind have recently arrived at exactly this conclusion from a totally different direction.

What you'll have to do if you want your theory to be taken seriously is figure out what it predicts which differs from current theory and then devise an experiment by which this prediction can be tested. I genuinely and sincerely wish you luck in this endeavour because I know fucking well how hard it is to do this but that's the way that science is done and that's the only way that science should be done.
JSS wrote: All we really have to work with is LOGIC. But how proficient are people at logic when it really comes down to it .. not very (else we wouldn't be having this conversation).
You're on the right track, mate, so don't give up. The problem with physics is indeed a logic problem which relates solely to the way in which we think the world. The universe is not a place. It is an EVENT.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Measuring Existence

Post by Obvious Leo » Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:26 pm

JSS. You have a lively mind and show a willingness to exercise it beyond the constraints of the physics orthodoxy so use it on the problem which sent shivers down Albert Einstein's spine. What the hell is going on when a photon strikes a semi-silvered mirror and then splits into two different photons, each with half the energy content of the original? How is it possible that information can pass between these daughter photons at a speed apparently faster than the speed of light? You don't need a single equation to figure this out but you do need to have a good grasp of LOGIC.

JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: Measuring Existence

Post by JSS » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:39 am

Obvious Leo wrote:I thought you said that there's no such thing as a "point".
Where did I say that? A "point" is a location where a process is occurring differently than at another location, another point. A point is not an object, merely a difference in the affectance. That is why "space" seems to compress when the affectance is dense. From an outside observer, there are more differences within a dense affectance field (a mass or gravity field). Distance is the measure of how many changes or differences in affect there are between locations of interest.
Obvious Leo wrote: I ask again. If physical reality is infinitely divisible what is that which is being affected and how is this effect being propagated through time.
Well, I have already explained that too many times now. You are going to have to narrow down your question and relate it to what I have already explained several times regarding propagation.
Obvious Leo wrote: I have no issue with your idea but I see no mechanism here.
It depends on what you call a "mechanism". Many people think of a mechanism as cogs and wheels, bits and pieces. Affectance has no such bits because if you look deeper into any bit, your will find of what that bit is made. Your theory is saying that the smallest bits of the universe are made of nothing. What can you make from nothing? .. nothing. Affectance is a totally FLUID mechanism.

You are conveniently presuming some kind of bit so as to cognitize reality into a cognitive mechanism, quantifying an UN-quantifiable thing. You are the one "CHEATING". You are creating something, a bit, from NOTHING.
Obvious Leo wrote:I simply can't see a mechanism for information exchange in a reality which is infinitely divisible. Infinity is not a concept to fuck around with in a physically real world and in this respect I certainly agree with the geeks. Once infinity turns up in an equation it means you've got something WRONG and if the only way to get rid of it is by inventing a mathematical constant it means you've fucking CHEATED in order to salvage your theory.
A lot of people have trouble with the idea of infinity, but a great many very bright people do not, including Einstein and most of that crew. Mathematics seems to be able to deal with it (although could use a little improvement).

So a question to you is why do you believe that a line extending straight (no curves) off to the right must end? Why can't it go on infinitely?

Obvious Leo wrote:The "wave-ness" of the wave is an emergent feature of the behaviour of the water molecules but it has no ontological status of its own.
And the "wave-ness" of the wave within affectance is an emergent feature of the behavior of the affecting process. And an ontology is merely a chosen set of concepts. It contains whatever you put into it.

And in your ontology, where does charge and magnetism come from? How do they come about?

In RM:AO they emerge by specific "fluid mechanisms" from the affectance field (as do mass particles] without any added ontological elements.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Measuring Existence

Post by Obvious Leo » Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:43 am

JSS wrote:Where did I say that? A "point" is a location where a process is occurring differently than at another location, another point.
Does the "location" exist prior to and subsequent to the occurrence of the affectance event or does the "location" only have a meaning for the duration of the affectance itself?

What is the form of the information which is exchanged in the affectance event?
JSS wrote: You are conveniently presuming some kind of bit so as to cognitize reality into a cognitive mechanism, quantifying an UN-quantifiable thing. You are the one "CHEATING". You are creating something, a bit, from NOTHING.


Not so. I have clearly defined the no-further-divisible fundamental unit of physical reality as a time interval with only two physical properties, these being its information content and the duration of its existence in this state. Both of these properties are continuously being determined at the speed of light by the behaviour of all the other "bits" in the fractal continuum. This is not really any different from your affectance "wave" but without your notion of a "location", which I regard as a confusing embellishment.
JSS wrote: A lot of people have trouble with the idea of infinity, but a great many very bright people do not, including Einstein and most of that crew. Mathematics seems to be able to deal with it (although could use a little improvement).
There aren't many theorists in physics who don't understand that the word infinity is synonymous with "mistake". It's purely a mathematical construct with no analogue in a physically real world.
JSS wrote: So a question to you is why do you believe that a line extending straight (no curves) off to the right must end? Why can't it go on infinitely?

It can. But a line is not a physical thing. It is only a mathematical representation of a physical thing not a physical representation of it. In fact there's no such thing as a straight line in nature.
JSS wrote:And an ontology is merely a chosen set of concepts.
No it isn't. Your misuse of the commonly accepted terms in philosophy is not helpful to your explanations. Ontology refers to the underlying nature of reality and not to the chosen set of concepts we devise to describe it. You're making the same mistake as the geeks by mistaking your map for your territory.
JSS wrote: And in your ontology, where does charge and magnetism come from? How do they come about?
Subatomic particles are currently described in terms of three different properties, these being mass, charge and spin. Although this procedure of thought is completely arbitrary it seems to be working OK for the time being and I can think of no good reason to change it. However this doesn't mean that these observer-defined properties have any ontological status because they will almost certainly be discarded at some future date to be replaced by a better idea. That's the way science works.

JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: Measuring Existence

Post by JSS » Tue Feb 23, 2016 6:22 am

Obvious Leo wrote:Does the "location" exist prior to and subsequent to the occurrence of the affectance event or does the "location" only have a meaning for the duration of the affectance itself?
That is the difference in euclidean and relativity ontologies. Pick one.

Using the euclidean location system, (or "Cartesian" is you prefer), all locations are to be a fixed standard distance apart. And the number of affectance peaks between the locations dictates the affectance density. In that ontology, space does not contract, although time is still another issue.

Using a relativity location system, the peaks of affectance determine the "points" or locations forming the space and is dependent upon the density of the affectance instead of the other way around. Thus in relativity, space "bends" or "warps" as the affectance remains uniform in density (by declaration). And time is still a separate issue.
Obvious Leo wrote:What is the form of the information which is exchanged in the affectance event?
That would be the change in PtA, dP/dt (plus all of the higher order derivatives).
Obvious Leo wrote:I have clearly defined the no-further-divisible fundamental unit of physical reality as a time interval with only two physical properties, these being its information content and the duration of its existence in this state.
The problem is that you have no excuse for the existence of a "no-further-divisible" anything. You are claiming that the smallest bit of physical stuff is made of nothingness. That doesn't make sense. How can something be made of pure nothingness? How can it have "information content" or "duration"?

What is holding these little bits of nothing in shape or "in-form"? What is their encasing?
Obvious Leo wrote:This is not really any different from your affectance "wave" but without your notion of a "location", which I regard as a confusing embellishment.
The location issue is independent of this issue, as explained above.

You seem to forget that these are merely chosen ontologies wherein we can pick and choose how we describe reality as long as our description remains coherent and aligned with reality.
Obvious Leo wrote:There aren't many theorists in physics who don't understand that the word infinity is synonymous with "mistake". It's purely a mathematical construct with no analogue in a physically real world.
That's bullshit. I know too many otherwise.
Obvious Leo wrote:
JSS wrote: So a question to you is why do you believe that a line extending straight (no curves) off to the right must end? Why can't it go on infinitely?
It can. But a line is not a physical thing.
I am talking about a physical thing, make it a straight rod if you prefer.
Obvious Leo wrote:
JSS wrote:And an ontology is merely a chosen set of concepts.
No it isn't.
It most certainly is.
Obvious Leo wrote:Ontology refers to the underlying nature of reality and not to the chosen set of concepts we devise to describe it. You're making the same mistake as the geeks by mistaking your map for your territory.
An ontology is the DESCRIPTION of the nature of reality. It is NOT the reality itself as you are proclaiming (else you would need no separate word for it), YOU are conflating the map with the terrain.

Differing ontologies are merely different languages with which to describe reality.
Obvious Leo wrote:Subatomic particles are currently described in terms of three different properties, these being mass, charge and spin. Although this procedure of thought is completely arbitrary it seems to be working OK for the time being and I can think of no good reason to change it. However this doesn't mean that these observer-defined properties have any ontological status because they will almost certainly be discarded at some future date to be replaced by a better idea. That's the way science works.
So you have no explanation as to how charge and magnetism come about?

This is one area where RM:AO advances understanding. RM:AO has a complete and very detailed explanation of why those properties exist in nature, from where the emerge.

JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: Measuring Existence

Post by JSS » Thu Feb 25, 2016 10:52 am

Well, I know that you didn't just give up.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Measuring Existence

Post by Dalek Prime » Thu Feb 25, 2016 5:48 pm

JSS wrote:
Harbal wrote:So if a link in the chain breaks I cease to exist?
To me at the time, yes. And if you don't affect anything at all and nothing affects you at all, then yes, you do not exist at all.
What's unconciousness then? Temporary lack of existence? Oh yeah, you blocked me lol!

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Measuring Existence

Post by Obvious Leo » Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:31 pm

JSS wrote:Well, I know that you didn't just give up.
I haven't given up but I have no interest in repeating myself. Most of the points you raise are adequately addressed in the synopsis of my philosophy, for which I provided a link. I'll be happy to address any questions which might arise from this essay but obviously you would need to read it first, which you clearly haven't done.

JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: Measuring Existence

Post by JSS » Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:42 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:
JSS wrote:Well, I know that you didn't just give up.
I haven't given up but I have no interest in repeating myself. Most of the points you raise are adequately addressed in the synopsis of my philosophy, for which I provided a link. I'll be happy to address any questions which might arise from this essay but obviously you would need to read it first, which you clearly haven't done.
Actually I did read most of it (it is entirely too long .. needs more category notations). And your posts tell of any questions that I would have. You believe certain things. That seems to be the end of the story, so okay. No prob.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Measuring Existence

Post by Obvious Leo » Thu Feb 25, 2016 10:11 pm

JSS wrote:You believe certain things.
I believe NOTHING. Belief does not form any part whatsoever of my conceptual make-up.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Measuring Existence

Post by Dalek Prime » Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:43 am

Obvious Leo wrote:
JSS wrote:You believe certain things.
I believe NOTHING. Belief does not form any part whatsoever of my conceptual make-up.
You believe your own conclusions are approximately correct, no? :shock:

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Measuring Existence

Post by Obvious Leo » Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:35 am

Belief is the wrong word to use in this context. On the basis of my life's work in the philosophy of science I have formed certain conclusions about the ontological status of the spacetime paradigm which is currently being used in modern physics. My work has drawn me to the conclusion that in fact this spacetime narrative has no ontological status whatsoever and that this paradigm is merely modelling an ontological sub-structure which lies beneath it, which is a fractal continuum of time and gravity. This is my hypothesis and I have explained how I arrived at it. However it is always completely impossible to prove any scientific hypothesis true, so the convention in science is that for any new hypothesis to be accepted as a valid one it must be able to falsify the hypothesis which it seeks to replace by yielding a testable prediction would differs from the one which the current theory predicts. This is what I have done. The gravity/time continuum model yields a prediction which, if confirmed, would unambiguously differ from that offered by Special Relativity, which is the central theoretical plank of the entire spacetime story. Without SR there is no spacetime. The experimental scenario in which my prediction could be tested is a very simple one which would fall comfortably within the budget and expertise of any university physics department and probably even a well-resourced high school.

Therefore it is not correct to say that I believe my theory to be true. What I'm claiming to be able to show is that it's a better theory than the one which is currently being used because it shows the current theory to be false. It's a far better fit for the evidence because at the stroke of a pen it removes all of the various paradoxes and metaphysical absurdities which are implicit in the current theory and makes the universe comprehensible to any person of modest educational attainment. Furthermore it is completely compatible with all of the major schools of philosophical thought which have emerged throughout human history, which the current theory is most emphatically NOT. It can't be wrong, Dalek, but do I believe it? No. Not until it's been tested and even then only provisionally. The history of science tells us that all theories have only a finite lifespan and that eventually some bastard will turn up with a better one.

So it goes.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests