If and when politics fails, which ideally is to never happen yet maintain a constant fail/not-fail basis given its dualistic two-party system nature, and yet there if politics is considered bigger than physics as per its sci-tech scripting and narrative, is then not the fate of physics and thence technology a likewise fail/not-fail scripting and narrative? Is this how science and thence tech has evolved in the modern era?
Could is/is-not be holding physics and thence technology back?
For instance, most of modern physics was developed during our most highly politicized events in history, namely WW1-WW2.
Can an understanding of physics go beyond politics, beyond the idea of fail/not-fail, to for instance reach if not accept a type of pure dimensional logic that does not look at fail/not-fail as its basis, does not consider is/is-not (Boolean logic it would seem), yet something more profound for dimensionality?
Are we forever stuck in is/is-not with politics and IT, with thence science, and if so what are the implications of that in review of our development as a species descending from the trees, or rising from the ground, or swimming from the ocean, whatever science considers having been the case via is/is-not, and whatever the idea of is/is-not does not consider of course?
Should the idea of is and is-not be confined to a zero-dimensional realm to then yield the greatest result for physics? Here's a paper that proposes such:
Preprint Zero Quantum Gravity: scaling and surveying keys
Stephen Jarvis the issue is logic. We are required to invent the equivalent of 1 and 0 to form a model. We are not aware of our subconcious forming models. Reality is not a model. It is not formed from 1 and 0. Logic can be used to deduce this, and to arrive at 3R (complete-relativity). Politics and warfare will continue until people properly understand what logic has to say about the non-binary, relativistic nature of reality. We can use 3R to understand and quantify the incompleteness and uncertainty of logical models.
Event is part of a logical model. It is a discrete snapshot of nature. Nature is not composed of discrete snapshots. 3R explains.
Ed Darnell Science is purely event-based, which is why quantum mechanics is in trouble in being a thing that tries to explain other things fundamentally as itself.
The only true way around that is a zero-dimensional number theory and thence logic basis.
Ed Darnell GR (general relativity) is also in trouble trying to explain everything based on itself, namely as curved spacetime, is it not?
This was explained here, namely the mass/motion-based number theory genesis as the objective reference for explaining both QFT (quantum field theory) and GR (general relativity):
Preprint Zero Quantum Gravity
The finding there is concordant with the idea that the only true description as a connection of all things as a development of equations (and thus using numbers) is from a zero-dimensional "all things" basis.
Yet of course one should be interested in what the supporters of is/is-not dimensional logic as their basis have to present....
Are we confined? Is not an upheld thought experiment the basis of confinement?
Usually, thought experiments that become manifest have conditions in this waking world, as expressed here:
Preprint Zero Quantum Gravity: scaling and surveying keys
The aim here is not to interject, yet the thinking is to define the question appropriately first off, and then see what becomes of that, like maybe the biggest question is too much for anyone to consider,.. or not?
The early results suggest contemporary science despite being very refined is nonetheless lost overall as evident by the apparent fact we are in its apparent universe as per science's judging its sciences on mass and thence momentum alone.
Stephen Jarvis yes, GR is close but it is general not complete relativity (3R). I need to do the maths to show how QM and GR can be seen as different 3R perspectives of something which is non-binary (so real not abstract). We must remove all edges from logic so must curve all three dimensions time-distance-force not just time-distance. This does not produce a perfect model it simply produces models which are clear on their own uncertainty. Models are never the thing they model.
Our approaches are different but I think also quite similar and I suspect we can figure out what is really going on between us. We must recognise that 0,1 and ∞ are abstract inventions, they are not real. It is not that binary cannot count far enough in many ways it can count too far (even 52! is so large it is almost meaningless). When 3R removes edges from logic it is also required to introduce logical uncertainty. How we do this is important.
Ed Darnell "different" is not "similar". That's logic. Anything in between is very fuzzy is it not?
"non verbis, sed unitatibus et nullitatibus" is my new motto. I have figured it out so will publish in the next few weeks.
It is my understanding growing. I will publish my improved understanding (unless something stops me) so more a commitment than a prophecy.
Ed Darnell in RG, are you sincerely interested in beheading yourself to someone else's work, or do you consider anything explained about nature is too vast for any one entity to describe properly?
Nature is nature. How nature is explained surely requires a deep respect for all the data available we have. Why now does it seem there is a great quest to define everything? Because we think we have all the data, or because we have all the hubris, or both, or none of such?
My work here with the description of physical phenomena started before social media, before wifi phones. It started even before the Berlin wall fell.
Ed Darnell , not with words, yet 0's and 1's?
Ed Darnell Are you trying to understand 0's and 1's beyond Boolean logic?
Once I explain you may decide to re-evaluate your own work in light of what I explain. If you do so and feel it is worth linking I am happy to add links. My work will not replace other works - it only sets them within a "non verbis, sed unitatibus et nullitatibus" logical framework.
Stephen Jarvis I am not trying - "non verbis, sed unitatibus et nullitatibus" is how I think. The neural development of my pre-frontal cortex was abnormal.
Ed Darnell , understanding 0 and 1 beyond Boolean logic should not only not be a crime, yet at least be a hello for some.
I am neuro diverse and do not use the pre-frontal cortex for its evolved purpose. I also teach others - particularly children - to misuse their pre-frontal cortex and become neuro diverse. I teach computing and non-axiomatic (pre-Cantorian) mathematics. While 99.99% play politics 0.01% of us have found a more interesting game which unlocks the mysteries of the universe.
Ed Darnell , have you asked why you do what you do? Do you have anyone you trust to go through any answers there?
yep - I trust computer circuits and get them to check my working. It is what us neuro diverse folk call testing. We sometimes even design the tests before we write the code but that is serious neuro diversity (test-driven agile development).
okay - the hardware, os and libraries sometimes have bugs but it is generally my code which needs testing. I generally assume I am wrong until I can prove otherwise. I tend to avoid buggy middle-ware and dogmatic architectures. The big IT vendors like to suck you into their axiomatic money making schemes.
Ed Darnell , so, have you asked this chat-IT stuff about things like Temporal Mechanics? What's the global go there currently?
Yep - I generally get it to read stuff for me as I am lazy. It is however a language model not a logic model but quite good at summarising language.
Binary is the language of logic but all uses of binary not simplistic use as integers.
Why for instance is language so easily abused as compared to numbers, or is that the point of abusing numbers with language in using secondary utilities such as commerce?
... because language has no base word and no requirement for consistency between words. Axiomatic language is us trying to describe the neural model of reality our subconcious presents to us without understanding it is a model. Axiomatic language pre-dates working out how to form consistent non-ambiguous language out of 0 and 1. We only figured out how to do that with the birth of computing.
Ed Darnell , of course everyone has a bid on what something is or is not according to a description if not price, yet does not the functionality of something really come down to "how it works"? There can be a myriad of ways of how something works, of course, yet the question then comes down to what is the most efficient and apt description of something's utility, right? Like, as an analogy, what horse wins that race?
Correctly identifying and utilizing time's moment always wins that race, and so a theory based on time's moment can only be the winner.
With physics, everything in the modern era is based on the method of proof for the atom via the electron shell's phenomena, namely quantum jumps. That's how Einstein started from Bohr's work and proposals. Yet is that the most efficient basis, despite Einstein moving to GR from SR?
The work of Temporal Mechanics began in paper 1 in identifying a sub-code to the electron shell, and so it was considered a worthwhile venture to pursue that code further, hence the following 59 papers. The whole point is to take quantum mechanics a more efficient and mathematical step back to a more fundamental origin code for time and space. Has it worked? It fits, yet as physics has a lot of data, the proof is long.
Quantum jumps are a feature of logic not of reality. We can refine the logical models to recognise this.
Ed Darnell , you said, "Quantum jumps are a feature of logic not of reality. We can refine the logical models to recognise this.".
Ed, to find a code deeper than quantum jumps is to recognize an ecosystem of equations that emerge quantum jumps.
Despite overlooking such, are you suggesting quantum jumps feature logic better than reality features itself?
Yes - my answer was "Boolean rather than Binary". I will explain properly in my paper hopefully also with the non-axiomatic maths to unite GR and QM (I have not done the maths beyond deriving a proton yet, but can see how to do it).
Note - uniting GR and QM through 3R is simply restoring logical consistency to physics (so provides a logically consistent framework for modelling reality). It does not replace general science, it just provides a solid non-axiomatic foundation for general science.
- Badges
- Science topic