ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS’ USE OF LOGIC:
IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO!
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
1. The Logic of PhysicsPhysics students begin with meso-world experiments and theories. Naturally, at the young age, they get convinced that the logic they follow at that level is identical with the ideal of scientific method. Convictions on scientific temper may further confirm them in this. This has far-reaching consequences in the concept of science and of the logic of science.
But, unquestionably, the logic behind such an application of the scientific method is only one manner of realizing (1) the ideal of scientific method, namely, observe, hypothesize, verify, theorize, attempt to falsify for experimental and theoretical advancements, etc., and (2) the more general ideal of reason.
But does any teacher or professor of physics (or of other sciences) instruct their students on the advantages of thinking and experimenting in accordance with the above-mentioned fundamental fact of all scientific practice in mind, or make them capable of realizing the significance of this in the course of time? I think, no.
This is why physicists (and for that matter all scientists) fail at empowering their students and themselves in favour of the growth of science, thought, and life. The logic being followed in the above-said mode of practice of scientific method, naturally, becomes for the students the genuine form of logic, instead of being an instantiation of the ideal of logic as reason. This seems to be the case in most of the practices and instruction of all sciences till today. A change of the origin, justification, and significance of the use of logic in physics from the very start of instruction in the sciences is the solution for this problem. The change must be in the foundations.
All humans equate (1) this sort of logic of each science, and even logic as such, with (2) reason as such. Reason as such, in fact, is more generic of all kinds of logic. Practically none of the professors (of physics as well as of other sciences) terms the version of logic of their science as an instantiation of reason, which may be accessed ever better as the science eventually grows into something more elaborate and complex. Physicist gets more and more skilled at reasoning only as and when she/he wants to grow continuously into a genuine physicist.
As the same students enter the study of recent developments in physics like quantum physics, relativity, nano-physics (Greek nanos, “dwarf”; but in physics, @ 10-9), atto-physics (@ 10-18), etc., they forget to make place for the strong mathematical effects that are due by reason of the conceptual and processual paradoxes due to epistemological and physical-ontological difference between the object-sizes and the sizes of ourselves / our instruments. The best examples are the Uncertainty Principle, the Statistical Interpretation of QM, Quantum Cosmology, etc.
They tend to believe that some of these and similar physics may defy our (meso-physical) logic – but by this mistakenly intending that all forms of reasoning would have to fail if such instances of advanced physics are accepted in all of physics. As a result, again, their logic tends to continue to be of the same level as has been taken while they did elementary levels of physics.
Does this not mean that the ad hoc make-believe interpretations of the logic of the foundations of QM, Quantum Cosmology, etc. are the culprits that naturally make the logic of traditional physics inadequate as the best representative of the logic of nature? In short, in order to find a common platform, the logic of traditional and recent branches of physics must improve so to adequate itself to nature’s logic.
Why do I not suggest that the hitherto logic of physics be substituted by quantum logic, relativity logic, thermodynamic logic, nano-logic, atto-logic, or whatever other logic of any recent branch of physics that may be imagined? One would substitute logic in this manner only if one is overwhelmed by what purportedly is the logic of the new branches of physics. But, in the first place, I wonder why logic should be equated directly with reason. The attempt should always be to bring the logic of physics in as much correspondence with the logic of nature, so that reason in general can get closer to the latter. This must be the case not merely with physicists, but also with scientists from other disciplines and even from philosophy, mathematics, and logic itself.
Therefore, my questions are: What is the foundational reason that physicists should follow and should not lose at any occasion? Does this, how does this, and should this get transformed into forms of logic founded on a more general sort of physical reason? Wherein does such reason consist and where does it exist? Can there be a form of logic in which the logical laws depend not merely on the size of objects or the epistemological level available at the given object sizes, but instead, on the universal characteristics of all that exist? Or, should various logics be used at various occasions, like in the case of the suggested quantum logic, counterfactual logic, etc.?
Just like logic is not to be taken as a bad guide by citing the examples of the many logicians, scientists, and “logical” human beings doing logic non-ideally, I believe that there is a kernel of reason behind physics, justified solely on the most basic and universal characteristics of physical existents. These universals cannot belong solely to physics, but instead, to all the sciences, because they belong to all existents.
This kernel of reason in physics is to be insisted upon at every act of physics, even if many physicists (and other scientists and philosophers) may not ensure that kernel in their work. I shall discuss these possibly highest universals and connect them to logic meant as reason, when I elaborate on: 3. The Ontology of Physics (in a forthcoming discussion in RG)
The matter on which physicists do logical work is existent matter-energy in its fundamental implications and the derivative implications from the fundamental ones. This is to be kept in mind while doing any logically acceptable work physics, because existent matter-energy corpora in processuality delineate all possible forms of use of logic in physics, which logic is properly to be termed nature’s reason.
Moreover, conclusions are not drawn up by one subject (person) in physics for use by the same subject alone. Hence, we have the following two points to note in the use of logic in physics and the sciences: (1) the intersubjectively awaited necessity of human reason in its delineation in logical methods should be upheld at least by a well-informed community, and (2) the need for such reason behind approved physics should then be spread universally with an open mind that permits and requires further scientific advancements.
These will make future generations further question the genuineness of such logic / specific realization of reason, and constantly encourage attempts to falsify theories or their parts so that physics can bring up more genuine instantiations of human reason. But is such human reason based on the reason active in nature?
Although the above arguments and the following definition of logic in physics might look queer or at least new and unclear for many physicists, for many other scientists, for many mathematicians, and even for many logicians, I define here logic for use in physics as the fundamental aspect of reason that physics should uphold constantly in every argument and conclusion due from it:
Logic in physics is (1) the methodological science (2) of approaching the best intersubjectively rational and structural consequences (3) in what may be termed thought (not in emotions) (4) in clear terms of ever higher truth-probability achievable in statements and conclusions (5) in languages of all kinds (ordinary language, mathematics, computer algorithms, etc.) (6) based on the probabilistically methodological use, (7) namely, of the rules of all sensible logics that exemplify the Laws of Identity, Non-contradiction, and Excluded Middle, (8) which in turn must pertain to the direct and exhaustive physical implications of “to exist”.
Here I have not defined logic in physics very simply as “the discipline of the rules of thought”, “the discipline of the methodological approach to truths”, etc., for obvious reasons clarified by the history of the various definitions of logic.
But here comes up another question: Is the reason pertaining to physical nature the same as the most ideal form of human reason? From within the business of physics, how to connect the reason of physical nature with that of humans? I may suggest some answers from the epistemological and ontological aspects. But I would appreciate your responses in this regard too.
2. The Epistemology of Physics (in a forthcoming discussion in RG)
3. The Ontology of Physics (in a forthcoming discussion in RG)
This is a short discussion on how logic is being used by physicists and how a basic improvement of their hitherto common kind of use of the logic of physics could be introduced from the very beginning of instruction in physics.
The essential reason for physicists' use of logic, and likewise for other sciences, lies in the nature of scientific inquiry itself. Logic is the fundamental tool that helps scientists analyze, interpret, and draw conclusions from experimental observations and theoretical models. Here are some key aspects of why logic is crucial in scientific endeavors:
Rationality and Objectivity: Logic provides a systematic and rational approach to understanding the natural world. It enables scientists to reason objectively and minimize the influence of personal biases or subjective interpretations when analyzing data or formulating theories.
Formulating Hypotheses: In the scientific method, researchers formulate hypotheses to explain observed phenomena. Logic helps in constructing coherent and testable hypotheses based on existing knowledge and experimental evidence.
Predictions and Explanations: Scientists use logical reasoning to make predictions based on their theories and models. These predictions can then be tested through experiments, and the results provide valuable insights into the validity of the underlying logic.
Identifying Fallacies and Errors: Logical thinking helps scientists identify and avoid fallacies, errors, or inconsistencies in their reasoning. This ensures that the conclusions drawn from data are sound and reliable.
Building Theoretical Frameworks: Theoretical physics, in particular, relies heavily on logical deductions to build mathematical models that describe the behavior of physical systems. These models must be internally consistent and logically coherent to provide meaningful insights into the workings of the universe.
Data Analysis: In all sciences, logical methods are used to analyze and interpret experimental data. This involves identifying patterns, correlations, and cause-and-effect relationships to draw meaningful conclusions.
Deductive and Inductive Reasoning: Both deductive (drawing specific conclusions from general principles) and inductive (drawing general principles from specific observations) reasoning are essential in scientific investigations. Logic provides a structured approach to both forms of reasoning.
Peer Review and Communication: The scientific community relies on logic to critically evaluate research conducted by others. Peer review is a crucial aspect of the scientific process, and logical reasoning is used to assess the validity and coherence of research findings.
Progression of Knowledge: By following logical principles, scientists can build upon existing knowledge, refining and expanding theories over time. This leads to a cumulative growth of scientific understanding.
Problem Solving: Scientists often encounter complex problems and challenges in their research. Logic enables them to break down these problems into manageable parts, explore possible solutions, and systematically test hypotheses until a satisfactory answer is reached.
In summary, logic forms the backbone of scientific inquiry, facilitating the development of robust theories, the evaluation of evidence, and the communication of knowledge. Its systematic and objective nature ensures that scientific discoveries are based on sound reasoning and can be validated and built upon by the broader scientific community.
What is called `logic' is a method of thought that has been demonstrated to work. That is, for humanity's survival, as well in other species, predicting the future helps survival. The method that has evolved is called logic. The system of logic and the ``scientific method'' sounds sensible, but what is practically used include social acceptance. And social acceptance has nothing to do with actual observational support.
I do not contest logic as the method of thought. Fully acceptable to all. The social aspect is what I termed "intersubjective" in the lead-text of the discussion.
As we come to logic, there are numerous versions of it in contemporary logic. Logic as "the method of thought" is extremely vague, if you like to take a look into the definitions and redeepening that the vast number of branches of logic find themselves in.
Hence, speaking (while doing physics) in general about logic as the method of thought would be too elementary. This is why I even mentioned this simple definition in the lead-text and argued that this is not what the physicist needs.
Now, please do not take this as an attempt to insult you. I continued with what I said in the text. If you take a look at the curriculum of an MA or MSc in logic, you will know the meaning of what I said. This I say NOT TO TELL YOU that you know nothing of logic...! I am just presenting my argument in a clear manner, that is all.
The key problem is one of ontology, not logic.
Science gave up on ‘observation’ a longtime ago. It records, conceptualises and extrapolates on the basis of what ‘is captured’ or, conducts a ‘thought experiment’ where all the parameters are actually set by the same set of assumptions.
Don’t get me wrong, its bloody useful up to a point. However, to crash the artificial ceiling we have unwittingly created its necessary to go back, right back to the beginning, right back to ‘observation’ precisely because we don’t understand the relationship we as complex bio-systems form with the real and especially or specifically, the phenomenon of vision.
Our relationship with what electromagnetic radiation, light, whatever, is NOT limited to that which we have engineered into our instrumentation. Art work clearly articulates the differential.
Hence, there is a ‘limit’ to the ‘meaning’ of records taken that don’t measure up to experiential reality. This is not subjectivity! This is observation, the foundation of objectivity.
Our devices are not interfacing with the physically real as fully as we do. Our instrumentation is not embedded in the universe as we are. Records taken are short of all the relevant information, hence our conceptualisations based on them are not the whole deal.
Plato’s cave?
Art work shows us flashes of the perceptual structure we have evolved to meaningfully infer what’s around us. Its how we interact with our environment and others in the way that we do. We need to be modelling visual awareness on a multidisciplinary basis and taking very seriously what emerges because its NOT appearing in our records and until we develop instrumentation that accords with the dynamics of our experiential interface, it won’t. Stuff will remain dark.
Yazen Alawaideh, sorry that I did not reply earlier. After replying the person who wrote after you, I forgot to reply to you.
You have given a good general survey of the concept of scientific method with its functions. Thanks. I have been trying to show a point that lies behind all the meanings, functions, etc. of scientific method and the logic behind all these.
I have revised the lead-text a few minutes ago. Now, I believe, you will get at what I meant in the text.
John Jupe, thanks. As the first son of a very gifted sculptor cum teacher dad and a literature teacher mom, I get your point very well. I and my two brothers (one a prof in Buddhist Art History and Epigraphy, and the other a doctor and prof in Radiology) would be in a position to grasp what you say.
Although I too have the artistic and literary abilities, I have not been practising these abilities beyond my early twenties. Instead, I dedicate my time for intellectual work in the philosophy of the cosmos and of physics and math.
I have one suggestion: Even the sciences and philosophy may be practiced like the fine arts, literature, etc. This aspect of enjoyment dawned in my life from the end of my first year BA, because we had access to the stack hall of the library, and I lived most of my free time there. Although I have not got deep into philosophies like that of Nietzsche and Heidegger, I have been able to enjoy such philosophers too, just like I did the works of philosophers of physics and math, and the various metaphysicians and epistemologists of science.
I think thought experiments are the mother of experiments.
John Jupe,
One more point. You said: "The key problem is one of ontology, not logic." I am coming exactly to it. In the present document I have spoken mainly of logic, in one of the next few I will get into the physical ontology and epistemology of the same problem. It is beautiful that you perceive the matter. In my present document, if you read carefully, you will find the ontological aspect formulated indirectly and presupposed behind the logical aspect.
Raphael Neelamkavil
I have been tardy in reading your material as I have been busy moving house and all that. In have now got set to some extent so I can try to understand more of your trajectory.
A logical process applied to a paradigm will proceed along the lines permitted by that paradigm. The same logic applied within another paradigm will take your somewhere else, related of course, but new.
Logic will not define a paradigm or move one to another one. It is a tool that WE developed and apply. Likewise the frame of reference is a tool that we have developed, it's not physical. Using the frame of reference without recognising the implicit conditioning involved will ultimately deliver us back to ourselves who created the useful artifice.
The measurement paradigm may become aware, by default, what it fails to interface with. This is where science is at present? There is nothing wrong about being in this state - it's entirely honest and predictable etc.
Vision-Space is a new form of illusionary space that models visual awareness and takes account of perceptual structure. It is a paradigm shift for all forms of information display and the way that we interact with it (TRIZ analysis of patents).
It clearly suggests that we are taking something other than what can be delivered by optical projection from environmentally conditioned light. There is a fundamental 'oversight' with respect to our understanding about our relationship with the physically real. This constitutes a paradigm shift with respect to our notion of the INFORMATION light brings us as well as subsequent display and comprehension issues.
We need to apply logic to this new paradigm which involves leaving the former.
Just think of the Lorentz factor being used in STR and in most branches of physics. Root of (1 - v squared / c squared). This shows that we measure all velocities in terms of the velocity of light, and then we conclude that, if v is equal to c, it becomes impossible, and if it exceeds c, v enters into of imaginary realm!
That is, c is being pre-assigned as the criterion and then we insist that c should be the criterial velocity merely because we use it as the criterion! This is equal to citing the Bible in order to prove the Bible!!
Raphael Neelamkavil
Son of a sculptor eh! I am the son of a medical doctor, but he was more of a carpenter in reality. Violins and a 30ft wooden sailing boat!
Based on my academic results (such as they were) I was put down for physics, biology and chemistry, but only art afforded time for free engagement. So, I attended Art, History and English classes and then a fine art BA. I now try to talk to physicists and biologists about it all and just why this is relevant.
The point is that the separation between art and physics and math (art science divide) is artificial and was (paradoxically perhaps) one of the outcomes of the last renaissance. A period where art and science were essentially the same thing. It's time to put that divide to bed as it creates a blockage.
We need to call time on 't' time!
Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO
I have seen a lot of physics and mathematics students mistaking the logical ways in which they experiment and theorize as the conceptual foundations of physics and mathematics. They even think of these ways as the possession of scientists. Imaginably, in this pride, they are encouraged by their scientific temper. More evidently, there were and there are physicists holding that their use of logic, epistemology, ontology, etc. is final and that all other details being done by other sciences, especially by philosophers, are a mere waste of time. (If you want me to cite, I suggest to get into some of the YouTube interviews with Stephen Hawking.) The same sort of claim is to be seen being made by many mathematicians: that logic is a by-product of mathematics.
How Does Physics Know? The Epistemology Presupposed by Physics and Other Sciences
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Does_Physics_Know_The_Epistemology_Presupposed_by_Physics_and_Other_Sciences
Preprint MATHEMATICAL SOURCE OF FLAWS IN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES: MATHE...
Preprint THE EPISTEMOLOGY PRESUPPOSED BY PHYSICS AND OTHER SCIENCES R...
PHYSICAL-PROCESSUAL REPRESENTATION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers
Raphael Neelamkavil "Just think of the Lorentz factor being used in STR and in most branches of physics. Root of (1 - v squared / c squared). This shows that we measure all velocities in terms of the velocity of light, and then we conclude that, if v is equal to c, it becomes impossible, and if it exceeds c, v enters into of imaginary realm!
That is, c is being pre-assigned as the criterion and then we insist that c should be the criterial velocity merely because we use it as the criterion! This is equal to citing the Bible in order to prove the Bible!!"
This is blatant nonsense and only shows that you have no idea what physics is about. The special role of the velocity of light has been verified by uncountable many experiments.
U said: "The special role of the velocity of light has been verified by uncountable many experiments." Did I say anything against that?
But the experimental proofs do not determine the velocity of light for the whole cosmos IF THE COSMOS CONTAINS AN INFINITE NUMBER OF FINITE-CONTENT UNIVERSES. (Now, please do not bring the argument about the difference or lack of difference of meaning between the two words: 'cosmos' and 'universe')-
But you did not tell me how my argument about the use of the Lorentz factor is a blatant nonsense! Calling it so is easy.
Let me give you a suggestion. Why to use words like 'blatant nonsense'? Of course, you will say that it was a blatant nonsense and so you tried to be truthful. Wonderful..........!
But please tell me whether the experimental proofs of the velocity c in a world will prove that it applies to an infinite number of universes if they exist.
OF COURSE, I KNOW NOTHING OF PHYSICS. Thanks for this remark.
Raphael Neelamkavil "But you did not tell me how my argument about the use of the Lorentz factor is a blatant nonsense!"
No, comparing the special role of the speed of light with citing from the bible is the blatant nonsense.
Within the visible cosmos we are able to verify by spectroscopy, that the speed of light everwhere is the same.
Did I cite the Bible there? You seem to be very good! Thanks a lot for the genuine reasoning and scientific temper!
THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS
3.1. Traditional Physical Categories
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Ontology_behind_Physics
Raphael Neelamkavil "Did I cite the Bible there?"
Your words have been:"This is equal to citing the Bible in order to prove the Bible!!"
My words are:
"No, comparing the special role of the speed of light with citing from the bible is the blatant nonsense."
You try to compromise the critics instead of reacting on it. This is discrediting of panel members.
Ok, but I did not compare the "special role" of the speed of light with citing from the bible! Please read the original in the discussion lead-text.
I know you will again find other such arguments to criticize. But what I would be thankful to you for would be to give your expert opinions on the important matters in the discussion. ONLY IF YOU READ THE ARGUMENTS IN THE TEXT. Whether I liken anything to "citing from the Bible in order to prove the Bible correct" is not a grave matter!
Please, let us do physics.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Grounded_Physical-Ontological_Categories_behind_Physics
Grounded (New) Physical-Ontological Categories behind Physics
Raphael Neelamkavil "Whether I liken anything to "citing from the Bible in order to prove the Bible correct" is not a grave matter!"
You cannot determine if others consider something to be grave or not. The relevant point is the personal attitude behind the whole bunch of information you are presenting. Is it respectful or not? Your allegedly not grave statement however clearly demonstrates a severe lack of respect.
Uninhibited flooding of people with a huge bunch of personal opinions also shows profanity. In view of the extremely large quantity of your permanent output all others better avoid getting buried by this debris avalanche.
This is exactly what I have wanted to tell u about yourself, as I read your constantly irritating comments on some other scientists' discussions. But I never tried to say, because you are a senior person.
Please do not bother about me. Please stop your irritation at everyone's opinions and your indirect demand that all should accept you as the only correct physicist.
I never wanted to say this to you, respecting your seniority. But you compelled me to. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE MY DISCUSSION SESSIONS, PLEASE STOP COMMENTING AND GO YOUR WAY.... WHY DO U BOTHER SO MUCH TO TELL ALL THESE? WHY DO YOU WASTE YOUR PRECIOUS TIME? I am a useless man. But just move on, forget me!!!
Raphael Neelamkavil "Please stop your irritation at everyone's opinions and your indirect demand that all should accept you as the only correct physicist."
Please stop flooding RG with irrelevant, provoking and even sometimes hostile posts. Please also stop allegations about other RG members and mind your language, which tends to become more and more aggressive.
It is obvious that you do not want to tolerate another opinion as your's. But to smother everybody with the sheer quantity of your posts will not work.
I do not write discussions for you. Hereafter, if you write anything in my discussions, I shall not respond.
Preprint THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS: CRITIQUE OF TRADITIONAL PHYSICA...
A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS: Beyond the Two Millennia
https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_SIMPLE_GAME-CHANGER_CAUSALITY_FOR_PHYSICS_Beyond_the_Two_Millennia
https://www.researchgate.net/post/DEFINITION_OF_THE_ONTOLOGY_BEHIND_PHYSICS_5_Paragraphs
DEFINITION OF THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs)
THE ANOMALY IN MATHEMATICAL / THEORETICAL PHYSICS (Short Text)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_ANOMALY_IN_MATHEMATICAL_THEORETICAL_PHYSICS_Short_Text
Normally in all scientific and philosophical literature we find the explicit or implicit claim that logic is reason, and nature is written in the language of logic. As mathematics can be considered as a branch of logic IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, can we say that nature is written in the language of logic and mathematics? Of course, nature is not written in our ordinary language. Any normal person would accept this. And are logic and math closer to nature than language is?
This is a serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:
NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/NON-FOUNDATIONS_OF_WAVICLES_IN_EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN_PARADOX_Bases_for_Quantum_Physics_to_Evolve_Maybe_a_physical-ontological_Breakthrough
AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/AGAINST_COSMIC_ISOTROPY_CONFORMAL_CYCLIC_COSMOS_ETERNAL_INFLATION_etc_A_Critique_of_Identity_Simultaneity_Cosmic_Repetition_Recycling_etc
Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia
Preprint ESSENTIAL LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS, ...
WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_THE_MYSTERIOUS_STUFF_OF_INFORMATION_A_Short_but_Clear_Definition
Preprint COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION:...
THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS
https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_PLANCK_ERA_QUANTUM_ERA_and_DISAPPEARANCE_OF_PHYSICAL_CAUSALITY_OMNIPOTENCE_OF_MATHEMATICS
Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...
Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...
Yordan Epitropov, This is a comment you have written earlier too. If possible, please elaborate and give details of the argument given!
https://www.researchgate.net/post/ONTOLOGICAL_DIFFERENCES_OF_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_ARTIFICIAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_INTELLIGENCE_ALGORITHMS_AND_PROCEDURES_Against_Exaggerations
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution
https://www.researchgate.net/post/UNTENABLE_REIFICATION_OF_CONCEPTS_IN_PHYSICS_With_Examples
Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically
https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy
Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...
Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...
Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME
Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)
Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...
Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY
Preprint INEVITABILITY OF COSMOLOGICAL, ONTOLOGICAL, AND EPISTEMOLOGI...
Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Molecular Biology
- Biomolecules
- Nucleic Acids
- RNA