Studying the various philosophers, even the contemporary thinkers, is a matter of study and analysis. Whatever our stage of development is, such study and analysis can only be educating ourselves in the strict sense. Thinking for ourselves is also part of the process, which should have greater weightage as the educative phase is had long enough.
Now what about forgetting for some time the contributions of the many philosophers of our time or of the past, especially the kind whom we all mention habitually, and then theorizing philosophically for ourselves without constant references to their works and notions, as doctoral students do?
Why do I suggest this? Such dependence on the works of the stalwarts and of the specialists on them may veil our abilities to see many things for ourselves. Thus, we can avoid becoming philosophical technicians and even the slightly better case of becoming philosophical technologists or philosophical experts.
I believe that synthesizing upon some good insights from the many thinkers and from the many disciplines would require also the inevitable conceptual foundations that we would be able to discover beyond these notions.
Suppose each of us looks for such foundations, and then share them on a platform. If the discussion is on these new foundations, something may emerge in each of us as what we could term genuine foundations. These need not remain forever, because philosophy and science show grow out of whatever we and others have done. But, as a result of the effort, we will have effected a better synthesis through such personal efforts than when without seeking foundations.
I think the conceptual foundations on which the concept of synthetic philosophy works may thus gain a lot. I for one consider the whole history of analytic and linguistic philosophy as lacking such rigour. You all may differ from what each one of us suggests. That is the manner in which deeper foundations can be sought. I am on such a journey.
I believe that in the journey to find deeper and more general foundations than those available, we will already have created a manner of doing philosophy independently, and if done in conjunction with the sciences, we will have a new manner of doing the philosophy of science. Fell trees from their roots, and we have the place to plant a new tree.
Let me suggest a question. All these 2.5 millennia of western philosophy, we have not found the question of the implications of existence (to exist, To Be) being discussed. Plato and Aristotle have tried it, and thereafter we do not see much on the implications of To Be. Now if some implications of To Be are found, these could be a strong foundation for philosophy of any kind. I hope we cannot find such implications of Non-existence for doing philosophy or science. The definitions of the implications of To Be will change in the course of time, but some core might continue to remain, if we do something validly deep and general enough.
Let me suggest an interesting manner in which many philosophers evaluate their peers. (This may also be applicable in all other fields.) This is here brought to a historical context, not merely theoretical. This I do in order to make the example very clear.
Suppose you (say, A) speak of space, time, entities, matter-energy, etc. in a special context. The peer (say, B) gets hold of the text and starts criticizing A’s notion of space, time, entities, matter-energy, etc. B starts from the concepts of space and time. He says, Kant and thereafter almost all thinkers have placed space and time merely as epistemic categories. This has been done in the context of phenomena. If you (A) hold the epistemic variety of notions of space and time, then they are phenomenal. In that case, you should have studied in the text what phenomena meant in Kant and analyze the scientific and philosophical consequences of those concepts.
B continues. If you wanted to make space and time metaphysical concepts, then you are speaking of the noumena. For Kant these are unknowables. Hence, you need to first show that the noumena are knowables. In that case you are rightful in suggesting epistemic / epistemological concepts of space and time. If not, you need to take recourse to other relevant philosophers or scientific disciplines to demonstrate the metaphysical meaning of space and time that you have introduced. And so on.
Absolute dependence upon the traditions and unpreparedness to think differently from the past or present thinkers is what is exhibited here. Not that B is not intelligent enough. B is. But the preparedness to think for years and decades differently comes not merely from the desire to think differently, but from the desire to SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS OF THE WORLD TOGETHER. We know we are being overambitious. If we demonstrate such an attitudes in our behaviour to others, then it is due to an intellectual sense of preponderance. But if we remain receptive to all new inputs from all others and all sciences, we will continue to be enabled to persevere in methodological obverambitiousness.
The peer had already decided how the author should write. It seems that the author should have written on all sub-themes within the title a separate book or part in the book....! Or, should he have cited from all sorts of authors on all possible sub-themes in his book in order to be approved by the peer?
Yet another systematically dominative and other-debilitating manner of peers is this: Say, I submit to you the publisher a book. The publisher sends it to the peer/s. Without even taking time for a good reading of the text, the peer suggests some opinions to the publishers, which the publisher relates to the author in a day or two: Your work may be very good, but its title is too broad. An author cannot do justice to the whole breadth of the subject matter!
Have you heard or read psychologists, neuroscientists, medical doctors, etc. discussing some symptoms and their causes? A book in psychology says: ‘According to the bio-psycho-social approach in psychopathology, one mental disturbance CAN have many causes.’ But a person trained and enthusiastic about philosophy (also of the philosophy of the sciences) would wonder why there should not be many causes, at least some of which one could seek to find...! Discovering ‘only the immediate, exact, and unique cause’ is not their work because any reason can tell us that nothing in this world has an exact cause.
This directs our attention to a basic nature of philosophy: Not that a philosopher should only generalize. But a philosopher should study any specific thing only in terms of the most generalizable notions. Here ‘generality’ does not directly indicate only abstraction. It demonstrates the viewpoint that philosophy always takes. Hence, speaking only of the linguistic formulation of notions and arguments, formulating arguments only of life-related events in order to prove general principles that belong to the whole of Reality, etc. are not philosophical. The philosophically trained reader can recognize which recent trends in philosophy I have in mind here.
I may be talking strange things here, especially for those trained mainly in analytic philosophy and the philosophy of science in a narrow manner. If you do not find such suggestions interesting, just ignore this intervention. I continue to work on this. I do have some success. Each of us has our own manner of approaching the problems.
I am aware that I may be laughed at. Since I have left the profession of teaching, I do not lose much. Moreover, getting great publishers is out of reach for me, but that too does not compound to much consequence if eventually one succeeds to do something solid.
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
At the beginning of his monumental work 'Über die Wahrheit' ('On Truth') :
Karl Jaspers talks about the methodical problem of the foundation and the
beginning of every philosophical-systematic Methodology of thought . Such
undertakings, must indicate the preconditions from which it develops.; On the contrary, it is conceivably related to the philosophy of science in this respect. And yet I feel indebted to this philosopher for the for the testified sincerity of his approach,
and, moreover, for the intellectual assistance he has given on an important point for the
important point for the project undertaken here. I want to note in an explicitly positive way that he, unlike many of his philosophical contemporaries, for example, in the environment of the Vienna Circle
and their intellectual descendants, he has no reservations about metaphysical questions when thinking about science .
In this, his attitude is a model for me.
For in spite of all closeness to the natural-scientific-positive way of thinking ,
a model like the one presented by Bertrand Russell cannot do without at least a methodical reference to authors who have also ventured far into metaphysical terrain.
In this respect, too, a whole series of authors of the past century would naturally come into consideration, above all Martin Heidegger. However, Heidegger's extremely subject-centered style of thinking does not fit at all to the developed models of exact sciences .
Reza Sanaye, I appreciate your thought here. I am not much interested in Jaspers because that is how my prof taught us Jaspers. Just a few hours.
But your conclusion about Heidegger is really good. I too am of that opinion. In fact, I have critiqued Heidegger's earlier and later phases in a detailed Appendix in my book, PHYSICS WITHOUT METAPHYSICS?
As far as I know, it is available for free download in the usual sites where they seek free book download. But a caution: Today my way of writing is slightly different from that in the said book, published in 2015.
Just now I have started a discussion on the said theme on Heidegger:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scientific_Metaphysical_Categories_beyond_Heidegger
“A new scientific truth does triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
– Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers, London: Williams and Norgate Ltd., 1950, pp. 33-34.
But rather than of a new scientific “truth”, it may be true of a new scientific-systemic “revolution”. This true also of philosophy and the philosophies of various sciences.
Examples are what some scientists, technologically oriented philosophers of science, and linguistic analysts have done in a century or more to the contributions of Alfred North Whitehead and Edmund Husserl – all in the name of the triumphalist purity of science and self-sufficiency of language analysis – and of Plato and Aristotle in the name of interpretations. These sciences and their philosophies must be reborn through new theoretical re-examinations of the concepts of space, time, causality, matter, energy, etc.
No "advances" will be made in science until the primacy of consciousness is fully recognized and the ramifications understood. This is a matter of pioneering, not study of history and argument. Each person has the ability to understand this on their own, if sufficiently observant and intelligent.
I agree with you, fully. Scientific advancements do not seem to be so, from the viewpoint of many scientists. We do not know when this attitude would change.
Now, I would suggest this for a minimum: Knowledge (1) of the manner of conceptualization, theorization, etc., the (2) of means and methods of scientific knowledge, and (3) of the significance of both these. At least this much is a precondition for a good grasp of what one does as a scientist. I say this because it is not possible for them all to do brain science, neuroscience, etc. But a bit of these is very good, too. This is why I have currently been doing such a study. Just 2 semesters.
I want to tell you about the situation in which the hero of the fairy tale got into. This hero was an ordinary person. In the fairy tale, he found himself in the center of a dispute between two groups of philosophers. Philosophers argued about the beginning and the end of a wooden stick. The first group of respected philosophers argued that the beginning of the stick is on the right, and the end is on the left. The second group of respected philosophers turned the stick over. This coup allowed them to claim that the beginning of the stick is on the left, and the end is on the right. As a result of philosophical disputes, philosophers agreed that a stick is an object that has no beginning and no end. Our hero intervened in a dispute between representatives of two philosophical schools. He said that in this case, you should look at the location of the knots on the stick. The knots on the stick will indicate how this stick grew on the tree. Where it grew from will determine the beginning of the stick. Where she grew up will determine the end of the stick.
Pay attention. In this situation, four philosophical conclusions about the stick were made. At the same time, three conclusions are based on a subjective context. And one conclusion on the objective context. Therefore, the presence of philosophical schools, famous philosophers, beautiful conclusions is not a condition of truth. The context that philosophers use is important. I propose to look for and use an objective context in ordinary and scientific philosophizing. Do you agree?
Thanks for the fabulous caricature of philosophers. There have been such philosophers. But there have been many more famous (and of course other) scientists who pretended to or wanted to discover the ends of the stick and reached only the knots. Do you agree? The best examples are today's cosmologists, quantum cosmologists, superstrings physicists, etc. Their efforts are paiseworthy, but under a false pretext of objectivity and realism.
Also such philosophizing exists even today. In fact, most of them are such. Please do not take me to be merely blaming all philosophers and scientists. I am saying that this is human tendency. I and you too are preys of this tendency.
But this is why I suggested to try differently. Not to somehow reach "the ultimate truth". The problem with most great scientists is that they find themselves close to "the ultimate truth". But in philosophy there is more openness to admit that there is no ultimate definition of truth or truths. What do you think?
Now about what you suggest at the end: "I propose to look for and use an objective context in ordinary and scientific philosophizing. Do you agree?" I do not agree, because this very tendency to look for the "objective" is what spoils everything. Here, in my opinion, the concept of the 'objective' is a mere definitional self-deception, if you have really followed our famous scientists and philosophers alike in their major works.
Hence, we need to learn to do flexible but ever-better well-founded systems, where alone we may find contextually or epoch-wise ever-better "enough" of objectivity. The objectivity that the quick-fix solutions of the sciences suggest for general questions of the cosmos do not seem to be sufficiently (achievably) objective if made outside of such a system.
Why are they merely quick-fix solutions? Because most scientists (and even logicians and mathematicians) use in their theoretical foundations directly denotative terms to represent physical processes (in math, just the basic notions). This is in genuine blindness of the fact that denotation is a mere deception of the physical processes and cognitive procedures under which such definitions take place!
Thesis Wholeness and the Rational Structure of Inquiring Systems: A...
Dear Raphael,
Being impressed by your reasoning, I remembered another fairy tale. In this fairy tale, the hero wanted to eat grapes. But the bunches of grapes were high above the ground. The hero tried to jump to the grapes, but he did not succeed. Instead of finding a way to get the grapes, the hero began to tell people who were watching what was happening that the grapes were not ripe and it was not worth trying to get to them.
If we put you in the place of this hero, it is important to understand why you do not want to know "the ultimate truth"? Because the ultimate truth is not ripe grapes? Or because you couldn't jump to this grape? Maybe we should answer the question – is the knowledge of "the ultimate truth" curiosity, philosophical sophistication or a vital necessity? Three contexts again…
In any case, I do not have any knowledge of ultimate truths. I, of course, do tend to think of certain truths as possibly ultimate. This is a human tendency. But I find that all my ultimate truths have contexts of formulation, and hence ....
Now, whether you mock me or not with the stories does not bother me. This has been my practice for decades, because this does not offend me psychologically. While teaching classes in philosophy or any other topic, some students smile jeeringly. I just watch them and, if possible, permit them to express their thoughts, even in a mocking manner. I have enjoyed it as a part of teaching. And here it is not teaching, but listening to your expressions of wisdom from your experiences in life. I have pleasure in it!
After all, I am not in possession of all truths, or of the ultimate definitions or expressions of ultimate truths. I am a pilgrim. I try to keep this attitude. Hence, I do not need to have the certainties of possessing ultimate truths.
L Kurt Engelhart,
I have been taking a look at the dissertation that you sent me. Thanks.
Vladimir Mokiy, even astrophysics has advanced so much as to get even into many details of exoplanets. This is not the kind of truths I speak of. Do you consider technologically achievable truths as ultimate? I am sure, no. And in that case, what could be ultimate truths?
Dear Raphael,
The RESEARCHGATE platform is not a place for bullying colleagues. Therefore, I suggest that you do not look for insults, but treat my stories positively and constructively.
My third story says: if a blind man leads a blind man, then they will inevitably fall into a pit and die there. To eliminate intellectual blindness, people use a worldview (a view of the world). Today there are four views of the world, four worldviews: myth, philosophy, religion and science. Truth is the designation of the order that supports the existence of the world in a certain worldview picture. Consequently, the stability of each worldview determines its own truth. Probably, this circumstance formed the basis of the statement that there is no ultimate truth, but there are many truths. We can agree with this statement and become pilgrims. But I suggest a different way. We need to pay attention to the fact that the four pictures of the world are a description of the one and only world. Consequently, the basic (generic) concept of truth is the order that determines the existence of one and only world. The specific concepts of truth are derived from this generic concept.
The difference between generic and specific concepts of truth is fundamental. The generic concept of truth begins from the first absolutely simple beginning. The role of such a beginning is played by absolute nothingness (absence of existence). The specific concepts of truth begin from the middle (the egg – in myth, the noumenal and material worlds – in philosophy, God – in religion, the Big Bang – in science). Even an unprepared person will agree that the egg, the worlds, God and the big bang are not the first absolutely simple beginnings. They are super-complex initial conditions of worldview pictures of the world. However, if we do not know the essence of the first absolutely simple beginning, then we misinterpret the essence of the super-complex initial conditions of the worldview pictures of the world. This is the engine of our desire to know "the ultimate truth".
The technology of cognition of the first absolutely simple beginning was proposed 1500 years ago by the ancient philosopher Plotinus. It was a special thought process. Today, technologies have emerged that are more understandable and accessible to a modern person. These are the technologies of systemic transdisciplinary modeling of the universal order, which manifests itself in space, time and information of any object and process.
Vladimir Mokiy, thanks.
Let me suggest a basic difference in the concept of truth.
The Sanskṛt word satya signifies “truth”. But the original root of it, sat-, has primarily a metaphysical significance: “real”. This means reality. Reality, as whatever it is, is being perceived in various ways and converted into truths. Truths are formulations. Except in formulations, we have no truths. There exists only whatever is really there as existent. The attributions to existents in terms of formulations are real in the sense of pertinents to the existents – not in their individuality but in groups, and finally in their totality, namely, Reality-in-total.
Are these my claims about Reality true? As formulations they are truths. But the extent of truth probability in them is varied in each case.
To my mind, the concepts of generic and specific truths are very good. I have tried to put them differently here, that is all. But the explanation that you gave of the two sorts of truth creates some confusion: "The generic concept of truth begins from the first absolutely simple beginning. The role of such a beginning is played by absolute nothingness (absence of existence). The specific concepts of truth begin from the middle...."
The problem is about the notion of the absolutely simple beginning. Is it physically, metaphysically, or epistemologically meant?
In this connection, I suggest the following directly relevant discussion of mine. I have started them just a few days ago:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scientific_Metaphysical_Categories_beyond_Heidegger
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_What_How_and_Thusness_of_Reality_Divine_Existence_via_Science_Philosophy
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Criteria_to_Differentiate_between_Virtuals_and_Existents_in_Scientific_Theories
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Reification_of_Concepts_in_Quantum_Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Epistemology_of_Pushing_the_Systemic_Axioms_Ever_Backwards
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irrefutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position
Some other discussions, started earlier, are related to the sciences. There are three on linguistic analytic philosophy which, if you like, I can suggest. But these are not directly related to our discussion here.
L Kurt Engelhart, I have gone through some important parts of the dissertation. Interesting. You have attempted to clarify the concept of wholism in the context of the human sciences. Thanks.
I try to do one for both the sciences and philosophy. This is an attempt involving many decades and many publications. I hope I will do something. That is all.
L Kurt Engelhart, today I finished the work towards the English (200 pp.) and the Italian (220 pp.) versions of a book, exactly in this direction:
COSMIC CAUSALITY CODE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE:
ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS, MIND, AND VIRTUAL WORLDS
and
IL CODICE DI CAUSALITÀ COSMICA E L’INTELLIGENZA ARTIFICIALE:
FILOSOFIA ANALITICA DI FISICA, MENTE, E MONDI VIRTUALI.
Now I must begin searching for a publisher....
NEW GENERATION SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY: HOW?
I believe that relativising induction and deduction and connecting them with one another under some very general framework of thought will be a grand starting point to revolutionize the foundations of the whole of philosophy and science, and of logic and linguistic analytic philosophy in particular.
Induction or Deduction: Mutually Exclusive in Logic, Science, Mathematics, and Philosophy of Science?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Induction_or_Deduction_Mutually_Exclusive_in_Logic_Science_Mathematics_and_Philosophy_of_Science
Perception is from objects, through a few layers of these objects (not of the whole object in whatever it is), which transpires through some layers of radiations or other transfers of energy from the few layers of the object, of which only a few are captured by our body, out of which only a few are received into brain-level conceptual operations, and of which only a few get transformed into data, of which a few become concepts.
Can we systematize these facts in the epistemology and metaphysics of the process of knowing?
Minimal Metaphysical Physicalism (MMP), Panpsychisms, and Monisms
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Minimal_Metaphysical_Physicalism_MMP_Panpsychisms_and_Monisms
Rapheal,
unfortunately, you will only either, after long debate, reinvent what has long been known, or slide down uninformed alleyways of conspiracy and wish fulfilment.
i don’t know how to respond to your extraordinary anti-knowledge perspective: i may disagree with the giants of the past, but I engage with them first, and everything is a triangulation of their great ideas.
How stupid will you feel when it is revealed that any positive thesis you propose has been discussed, and dismissed, by generations of thInkers?
I know that the process of learning feels new to the uninformed, and you want to feel like the next Einstein, but this is not a basis for a research project.
"I don’t know how to respond to your extraordinary anti-knowledge perspective." How come you do not know? With the following remarks you have already proved that you know a lot!
You said: "You want to feel like the next Einstein." Thanks.
"How stupid will you feel when it is revealed that any positive thesis you propose has been discussed, and dismissed, by generations of thInkers?" Thanks.
"Unfortunately, you will only either, after long debate, reinvent what has long been known, or slide down uninformed alleyways of conspiracy and wish fulfilment." That means, you know all these! Thanks.
"I know that the process of learning feels new to the uninformed..." Thanks for this knowledge that you have acquired.
I adore your knowledge.......
Robert Farrell, I know that you are a highly experienced mathematics and philosophy teacher. This may be why you want to defend knowledge against my attacks. Now I understand.
But I never attacked you. How come that you get so irritated by my posts and become a defender of knowledge against my posts? Wonderful.... This is the real spirit that a scholar should have! But I do not attack you back at all. I SIMPLY SMILE AT YOU.
As you know well, I do not know much. Should I beg pardon of you for all my posts? If you feel it is a requirement, please let me know. I shall not delete these posts, because some others and I myself learn something out of these. But I SHALL BEG PARDON OF YOU... IF YOU WANT, EVERYDAY!!! IF YOU CAN BE APPEASED BY IT, I AM WILLING......
If you think that i was attacking you, then I smile. I was merely trying to inform, and guide you. But if you feel that this is too much, then I can only say good luck to you; I hope that you find your way.
Please feel free to express yourself!
Kindly read your own post and come to conclusions. I am not offended at you. I used to invite not only my students but senior scholars also, to critique my ideas or arguments with vehemence, e.g., when I present a paper. And I used always to enjoy engaging in discussions with them.
But their critiques have been some new arguments. Did you present any new argument against my posts? Hence, I smiled at you.
You even said: "You want to feel like the next Einstein." What an argument, my friend! Do you imagine what the value epistemology behind this statement could be?
All right, I leave it at that. If you now continue only to advise, I don't want to reply. I never advise anyone as to how to do philosophy. The arguments that I present in my books or posts are a way of learning, not teaching and advising.
Now forget about all these. Wish you good scholarly work and success. That will only give me happiness. Bye.
Friends,
Kindly read the following chain-conversation between an earnest scholar with insight into philosophy, the physical sciences, and logic::::
Alessandro Rizzo added a reply
2 days ago
Logic, as we commonly understand it, is a system of thought based on the reasoning capabilities of the human mind. It allows us to take premises, apply rules, and arrive at conclusions. We view these principles as universal due to their applicability to the wide range of situations we encounter in our daily lives.
However, when we push beyond the confines of human experience and begin to probe the complexities of the universe, we find instances where these principles appear to falter. Traditional logic isn't always equipped to handle the strange, often counterintuitive phenomena observed in realms such as quantum physics.
Particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously in a quantum superposition, an assertion that seems to defy the Law of Non-Contradiction. Entangled particles influence each other instantaneously over vast distances, which challenges our logical understanding of cause and effect.
These instances do not necessarily mean our logical principles are incorrect, but they highlight that our traditional logical framework may be incomplete. It's like trying to comprehend a three-dimensional object with two-dimensional understanding—our perspective is inherently limited.
While the principles of logic remain powerful tools for navigating the world as we perceive it, we must remain cognizant of their limitations. They represent one dimension of a multifaceted reality, and unlocking a more comprehensive understanding of the universe may require us to augment, or even transcend, our conventional logic.
Recommend
Share
📷
Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply
2 days ago
Alessandro Rizzo,
This is a very good realization: "However, when we push beyond the confines of human experience and begin to probe the complexities of the universe, we find instances where these principles appear to falter." Mostly it is so. The whole of analytic logic is developed for just for normal life-situations, technically scientific applications, and today for direct computer applications. Of course, this need not be the case with math. Math has a wider set of background considerations today. Ordinary logic is always based on direct needs.
But the following is difficult from the viewpoint of the realistic necessities behind the formulation of the foundations of any sort of logic. "Particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously in a quantum superposition, an assertion that seems to defy the Law of Non-Contradiction. Entangled particles influence each other instantaneously over vast distances, which challenges our logical understanding of cause and effect."
Either it is because such physics is extremely fragile; otherwise it is because any sort of logic cannot really apply to such physics. Even counterintuitive forms of logic falter there!
Hence, I have been following a different course of thought in order to conceptualize what basically would be problematic in quantum, statistical, and other sorts of counterintuitive physics. You can see some such works of mine in very short summary forms in some of my discussion questions (suggested at the end of this intervention).
I recognize that you are an informatics person. An information for you: Just today I have finished the work of a 200 pp. book in English and Italian:
COSMIC CAUSALITY CODE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS, MIND, AND VIRTUAL WORLDS
and
IL CODICE DI CAUSALITÀ COSMICA E L’INTELLIGENZA ARTIFICIALE: FILOSOFIA ANALITICA DI FISICA, MENTE, E MONDI VIRTUALI.
Now I must begin searching for a publisher....
Here are the said suggestions to some of my discussions in RG:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irrefutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Criteria_to_Differentiate_between_Virtuals_and_Existents_in_Scientific_Theories
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Reification_of_Concepts_in_Quantum_Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematics_and_Causality_A_Systemic_Reconciliation
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Linguistic_Philosophys_Inconsistencies
Share
📷
Alessandro Rizzo added a reply
2 days ago
Dear Raphael Neelamkavil,
Your exploration of the philosophical underpinnings of quantum physics is both thought-provoking and challenging. As someone who has grappled with the mysteries of the quantum world, I appreciate your efforts to question and redefine our understanding of these complex concepts.
You rightly point out the limitations of conventional logic when applied to quantum phenomena. Indeed, the quantum world often seems to defy our everyday understanding of reality. Quantum superposition and entanglement, for instance, challenge our intuitive grasp of cause and effect, as well as the principle of non-contradiction. However, I would argue that this does not necessarily mean that these principles falter, but rather that they take on new meanings in the quantum realm.
Your concept of Universal Causality is intriguing. The notion that everything that exists is in causation, even quantum-mechanical processes, is a bold one. I would argue, however, that causality in the quantum realm may not be as straightforward as in the macroscopic world. Quantum mechanics often deals with probabilities rather than certainties, which adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of causality.
Your criteria for differentiating between "virtuals" and "existents" is an interesting approach to understanding scientific theories. The idea that anything not in Extension-Change is non-existent is a compelling one. However, I would caution against too rigid a definition of existence. The quantum world has shown us that reality can be far stranger than we might imagine.
Your discussion of reification in quantum physics raises important questions about the nature of mathematical entities like wave functions. It's true that we must be careful not to confuse our mathematical models with the physical reality they represent. However, these models have proven to be remarkably successful in predicting the behavior of quantum systems, which suggests that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality.
Finally, your analysis of potential energy and the wave function collapse is insightful. These concepts are indeed more complex than they might appear at first glance. However, I would argue that they are useful tools for understanding and predicting the behavior of physical systems, even if they do not correspond exactly to physical entities or processes.
Your exploration of these topics is a valuable contribution to the ongoing dialogue about the nature of quantum reality. However, there are a few points to discuss.
1. **Universal Causality**: While your concept of Universal Causality is intriguing, I believe that causality in the quantum realm may not be as straightforward as in the macroscopic world. Quantum mechanics often deals with probabilities rather than certainties, which adds a layer of complexity to our understanding of causality. It's not that causality doesn't apply, but rather that it may manifest in ways that are not immediately intuitive.
2. **Existence and Non-Existence**: Your criteria for differentiating between "virtuals" and "existents" is an interesting approach. However, I would caution against too rigid a definition of existence. The quantum world has shown us that reality can be far stranger than we might imagine, and phenomena that don't fit neatly into our conventional understanding of existence may still have significant physical implications.
3. **Reification in Quantum Physics**: Your discussion raises important questions about the nature of mathematical entities like wave functions. However, while we must indeed be careful not to confuse our mathematical models with the physical reality they represent, these models have proven to be remarkably successful in predicting the behavior of quantum systems. This suggests that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality, even if they don't correspond exactly to physical entities or processes.
4. **Potential Energy and Wave Function Collapse**: Your analysis of these concepts is insightful. However, I would argue that they are useful tools for understanding and predicting the behavior of physical systems, even if they do not correspond exactly to physical entities or processes. The wave function collapse, for instance, may not be a physical process in the conventional sense, but it is a crucial concept in the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
I appreciate your efforts to challenge conventional wisdom and push the boundaries of our understanding. Even though we may not agree on all points, such dialogue is essential for the advancement of science.
Recommend
Share
📷
Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply
2 days ago
Alessandro Rizzo, thanks a lot for the fine formulations. Very wise and thoughtful. Congrats. At the end of this intervention I give 2 of my discussions, which are on the QM and Statistical notions that are involved in physics. Let me express just a few thoughts hereunder, with an introductory statement: I have been into this field of publication at least for more than 2 decades; but by way of reading and reflection, I have been in it for more than 3 decades.
Our statistical measures, e.g., of the position of an electron at a given time, does not depend on the model of statistical interpretation that we give, but instead, they depend on the very statistically managed measurements and their proportions of certainty of discovery, prediction, determination, or definition thus achieved. Hence, the varied successes of QM and statistical physics at this level in predicting the related phenomena are all due to the application of the mathematical apparatus, and the model thus achieved, to physical instruments.
That is a sort of algorithm-driven instrumentalization, in a general sense. This, e.g., is exactly why quantum informatics and the various quantum technologies can have success stories.
Let me illustrate this sort of success with a simple example. There are two leaves on a tree at a distance of one meter, but one over the other. Drops of water fall onto the first, and get flown onto the second. We create a signaling system as the drops fall on the first and the second leaves. The nature of light signals take care of the technology behind the signaling. We do not have to bother why light signaling is the way it is!
Here we know that the drops are not exactly spherical / globular. But, for the purpose of mathematical applications, we consider them as spherical drops and reduce them even into the shape of points for the sake of "mathematical precisioning" within the context of the mathematics available -- but which does not harm the signaling. We know clearly that theoretically these are not absolute truths or models...!
The signaling system is related directly to the temporal and spatial approximations of the falling of the drops on the two leaves. As the signals fall on another electronic device (at a distance), and the signals trigger a certain motion on the device. Using this system, let us suppose that we can instrumentalize some other physical process. Whatever the actual physical process and the shapes involved in fact are, the system works and produces the expected results!
We may later give a detailed physical explanation of the approximations involved in the implementation of the theory of, say, "Water Drop Signaling". These are not merely interpretations, but also closer approximations to what is happening in the reality externally to our interpretation. Note clearly: the theoretical model and approximations used in it are all just approximations of what really is the case in nature. We are not able to delve into all the processual layers of the object set and unearth all possible explanations of the processes and all their layers.
In order to apply our theory of the specific and precisioned processes with all their complexity in physics, we need to create instruments that work in accordance with this new theory and other related these physical and other theories which work only at a certain level of instrumentation in the given case. What works at the electronic level need not work at the nano level of physical activity.
We cannot also finalize our theory by stating that whatever works at the nano level is final and that there are no deeper layers within the object set. Even as we discover deeper layers and begin to formulate methods of instrumentation at that level, the instruments can continue to work without any hindrance. The only thing is that the instruments can further be made more precisioned and more effective. This does not work as an argument against the existence of the deeper layers beyond the nano structures!
That is, this means that the first set of interpretations and their instruments can go on to work and produce technological successes. They will continue to yield successes. This is why even now Newtonian physics yields many successes, especially at the engineering level!
Similarly, the successes of QM need not suggest that they capture some essential aspect of quantum reality in a very exact manner. Of course, this is the case to a certain extent (say, statistically), but this certainly at a certain narrowly real interpretational level.
The statistics here is a model, and therefore, is based on the measures of our ability to capture the causes and the processes within a given circumstance and sample. Statistics is thus the admission of the extent of reach into the exact correspondence of the truth projected by our measurements with respect to what is actually happening in the object process!
But this fact of lack of absolute truth in our models and theories does not affect the successes at the level of application of the possible experimental results of the theory! Now you see clearly that what quantum physicists call as the statistical truths of quantum physics are not truths but models, using which there are certain instruments and their theory of apparatus-wise obedience of quantum physics.
This is also the case with respect to Relativity. Just take the case of the Lorentz factor: Root of [(1 - (v-squared) divided by (c-squared)]. What does it in fact mean? That I am willing to measure the movement process (v) of a particle only in terms of the experimentally rather well determined / fixed luminal and luminally comparable energy propagations c.
But this means also (and exactly) that, since I use luminal velocity as the criterial velocity (merely because I have natural vision and instrumentational vision at the level of c at this epoch of the history of advancements in science), my calculation forbids v from exceeding the luminal velocity limit c!!!
Does this mean that there should not be superluminal velocities?
If there are real-valued (not complex-valued) superluminal velocities, whereby the superluminal velocity in question is C1, C2, etc., which can replace the c, and c can be placed at the place of v in the nominator, in the Lorentz factor. Thus, we have a real solution for the EPR problem, too!
After all, the c is not fixed or fixable as an absolute constant except by a convention that has proved it to be so in our region of the universe, and not for all the possibly existing worlds! Using this convention, we can continue to make our Water Drops Signaling work. But this success in measuring the lack of temporal lag in the working of the instrument need not mean that c is a universal constant for all the regions of the cosmos.
The cosmos may have a finite number of local universes or even an infinite number of them. In both the cases -- and in the latter case surely -- c may be replaced with C1, C2, etc. in other regional universes. That is, the highest possible velocity within a big bang local universe anywhere in the infinite-content cosmos can only be determined by the maximum density achieved at any one big bang of the given local universe, in a series of its oscillations between bangs and crunches. (I have treated this in my book of 2018 and in some discussions in RG, which will be given at the end of this reply.)
Nevertheless, miraculously clear and working precision is to be had in many scientific theories and experiments, both on earth and in the outer space, using this special theory of relativity! Even QM uses the Lorentz factor freely!
Should these successes mean that the Lorentz factor should be an eternally fixed proof for the so-called criterial limit-nature of c?
Now I believe we can think of a possible solution for the EPR problem! I have suggested one such in 3 of my works. I think, therefore, that what we need is a range of differently-valued c and the many relativity theories in terms of them.
I have discussed such questions in detail, including a detailed theoretical solution to the EPR problem, in three of my printed books (2014, 2015, and 2018).
I should salute you for your openness and genuineness of scientific spirit, which permit you to see many important points in the notion of theory formation in science and philosophy. Not merely of my ideas, but also of others ideas.
I am a mad man. I have dedicated my life to some such projects in the form of books. To avoid peer reviewers' ire is not easy. Hence, I may not get the most renowned publishers to publish my books. I should also forget about publishing articles in reputed peer-reviewed journals! This is my fate, and also my pleasure. I think some future acceptance (at least after a few years or decades of my death) is forthcoming.
And kindly take a look at the following discussion sessions. I think you will enjoy them. And thereafter I give a SET 2 of discussion links, which give the discussions on the cosmological problems suggested above.
SET 1:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_basic_insecurities_of_physics_especially_of_statistical_physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Causality_Necessary_in_Physics_Philosophy_and_Other_Sciences_in_Place_of_Statistical_Bayesian_and_Other_Theories_of_Causality
SET 2:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_the_cosmic_or_local_black_hole_singularity_be_of_infinite_density_and_zero_size
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source-Independent_Velocity_of_Pure_Energy_vs_Causality_vs_Superluminal_Velocities
https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_the_cosmos_is_1_finite-content_or_2_infinite-content_Is_there_finite_or_infinite_creation
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology
Share
- 1 Recommendation
📷
Alessandro Rizzo added a reply
1 day ago
Dear Raphael Neelamkavil,
Your thoughtful and extensive response is deeply appreciated. The time and dedication you've devoted to these intricate concepts shine through, and your perspective brings a refreshing viewpoint to our discourse.
You assert that our statistical measures in physics are heavily influenced by the mathematical models we've formulated, a position that resonates with accuracy. These models, while approximated by nature, have served as the bedrock of our comprehension of quantum mechanics, enabling us to generate predictions from this understanding. However, as you astutely pointed out, this doesn't necessarily indicate that these models encapsulate the entire scope of quantum reality. Perhaps it's more accurate to state they represent our best tools available for interfacing with and comprehending the quantum world, given our current technological capabilities and conceptual understandings.
Your analogy of abstracting water droplets to points for mathematical precision provides an excellent illustration. Fundamentally, the models we employ in physics are simplifications of reality, designed to encapsulate the most pivotal aspects of the physical phenomena we investigate. But it's crucial to avoid mistaking these models for reality itself. They merely represent our best current methods of describing and predicting reality.
Your comments concerning the Lorentz factor and the speed of light are strikingly thought-provoking. Indeed, the assumption that the speed of light is the ultimate speed limit in the universe is underpinned by empirical observations within our observable universe and within the framework of the theory of relativity. The concept of superluminal speeds would require us to radically revise our understanding of the universe.
Your courage and determination to challenge the established scientific framework are admirable. Authentic progress in science often originates from those brave enough to question the status quo and expand the boundaries of our understanding. I'm confident that your work will find the audience and appreciation it deserves, for the truth in science has a peculiar way of making itself known, irrespective of its immediate reception.
The possibilities you suggest, such as various relativities predicated on differing c values, are genuinely captivating. This kind of innovative thinking often ushers in paradigm shifts in scientific thought.
Your ongoing commitment to these questions is inspiring, and I anticipate with eagerness the exploration of the discussions you've linked. I hold firm in my belief that science thrives on open discourse and a diversity of perspectives. Hence, although we may not concur on all points, the value of dialogue is irrefutable.
Thank you for your participation in this intellectually stimulating conversation.
Recommended
Share
- 1 Recommendation
📷
Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply
19 hours ago
Alessandro Rizzo, I have revised my previous reply and detailed it further, also extending its cosmological implications. In fact, I had written the earlier version of the response in a hurry, in about 15 to 20 minutes. Hence the revision of the same.
Please see also the SET 2 list of RG discussions, given at the end of the revised response. These are the cosmological ones. Thanks.
Share
📷
Alessandro Rizzo added a reply
15 hours ago
Dear Raphael,
Embracing your insights, the light cast by statistical measures in our understanding of quantum mechanics is impressive. They serve as a beacon in the labyrinth of quantum phenomena, born from the marriage of algorithms and instrumentalization.
The water drop signaling system, as you've painted, is a vivid illustration of mathematical approximations at work. Science walks a tightrope between reality and approximation, juggling precision with pragmatic simplicity. The certainty of mathematics may not always mirror the uncertainties of reality, and vice versa.
The discussion of various levels of physical activity and the evolution of our tools to meet these levels holds significant weight. As we continue to broaden our understanding, we must also adapt and refine our toolkit. A set of tools apt for one scenario might not apply to another.
In addressing the interpretations of quantum reality, you are pushing the envelope, provoking us to reevaluate our grasp of the universe. Though we navigate the quantum realm with the compass of statistics and models, we must stay mindful that these are but the footprints of reality - giving us direction, but also concealing a sea of unknowns.
Your exploration of the Lorentz factor and the hypothesis of superluminal velocities are mind-stretching. The cosmos, in its vast expanse, may hide surprises that challenge our ingrained theories.
Your proposition of different relativities based on maximum velocities is intriguing, urging us to step outside our comfort zone. Your suggestion hints at the reality that the map we hold is not the territory, and our comprehension of this territory is in a state of perpetual evolution.
Closing my response, I am reminded of the sentiment that the tranquility between our scientific theories and the universe's phenomena is born from understanding. Our quest is to deepen this understanding, and your insightful contributions are a cornerstone of this journey.
Eager to continue this enlightening exchange,
Alessandro
Recommend
Share
📷
Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply
15 hours ago
Thanks, Alessandro. Giusto adesso ho visto che sei italiano! Just 2 days ago I finished a work in English and in Italian: Cosmic Causality Code and Artificial Intelligence: Analytic Philosophy of Physics, Mind, and Virtual Worlds, circa 200 pp., and its self-made Italian version (corrected by native speakers): Il Codice di Causalità Cosmica e l’Intelligenza Artificiale: Filosofia Analitica di Fisica, Mente, e Mondi Virtuali, circa 220 pp.
Robert Farrell
Raphael Neelamkavil
"I may disagree with the giants of the past, but I engage with them first"
Pioneering in philosophy is a matter of engaging the real world, and not just those who have commented on it in the past. Perspectives change and the world changes.
L Kurt Engelhart, Thanks. Very good intervention. My proposal too is the same. Studying the stalwarts is very important, but always with a critical viewpoint and seeking truth in the best imaginable manner, even if it may turn out to be unapproachable.
Attempting to fell system trees from their roots by finding the inadequacy of the roots seems to be a good manner of inquiry. Of course, many other modes and varieties may be added to it.
Raphael, your intellectual activity is amazing! However, philosophy is the love of wisdom. Many people want to be wise. Therefore, we are surrounded by many philosophers. How to determine that our wisdom is the wisest?
Anyone who calls himself a philosopher should be aware of the paradox of K. Gauss' law of normal distribution. In accordance with this law, most of the statements will accumulate around two (central) statements. The paradox is that the statements of other philosophers will inevitably approach or move away from the meanings of these central statements. For example, when you talk about quantum physics, you should understand that its phenomena partially refute the laws of classical physics, and not the laws of philosophy. In physics, there is a disciplinary picture of the world. Moreover, two pictures are used in physics: the picture of the object and the quantum world. To explain the phenomena in such worlds, two disciplinary philosophies are required – the object world and the quantum world.
The laws of logic, as a branch of classical philosophy, remain unchanged in physics, chemistry, biology, and sociology. Because these laws concern the picture of all disciplinary worlds. Classical philosophy answers the question – what kind of world? The answer to this question becomes a test context for all disciplinary and non-disciplinary pictures of the world.
It should be said that the area of the central statement of philosophy consists of two pictures: a picture of the Whole world and a picture of a One and Only world. The difference between these paintings is significant. The whole world is not the only world. The integrity of each world can be determined by a set of unique rules and laws. The One world is the Only world. The unity of the world determines the universal law. Consequently, the paradoxes of quantum phenomena can exist only in the picture of the Whole world. In the picture of a One and Only world, there are different levels of reality that must obey the logic of General law.
Therefore, depending on the context of the philosophical picture of the world, we will continue to enjoy uncertainty, and look for a black cat in a black room. Anyhow, we will shed light into a dark room and make sure that the role of the black cat was played by the General order reigning in this room.
As a result, we will understand that the state of each particle at a certain point in time cannot be arbitrary. At each moment of time, this state should correspond to the horizontal perspective of the picture of a certain level of reality and the vertical perspective of the picture of a One and Only world. In this logic, the transition of a particle into a wave and vice versa is the same process as the transition of a person from the state of birth to the state of death.
However, physicists are not philosophers. They observe quantum transitions, they observe the transition of a particle into a wave and the return of the particle state. But they don't ask the fundamental question – is it the same particle or is it already another particle? Philosophy should not ignore such questions. It's time to generalize the worldview of physics and philosophy. Perhaps this generalization will help us understand how we become other people, consisting of other particles supplied to us by the quantum reality factory.
Agglomeration of statements quoted and aggrandizing of propositions directly said all around a mere couple of statements is the flux-and-ebb of discursive reason as standing for the logic(s) behind most of humankind's philosophizing. This is while the term 'proposition' has a broad use in contemporary philosophy. It is used to refer to some or all of the following: the primary bearers of truth-value, the objects of belief and other “propositional attitudes” (i.e., what is believed, doubted, etc.), the referents of that-clauses, and the meanings of sentences. Quite recently, authors have taken up the work of Pico and have begun to chart the historical dimensions of the imagination, expanding Pico‟s work from a compilation and thematic coherence of only the Medieval period, but have begun to include the echoes of imagination in Plato, the references Aristotle makes to the topic, the place of imagination in the cognitive hierarchies of the Medieval period, the role and possible transformation of imagination in the modern period, and even the suggestion of a post-modern imagination.
Vladimir Mokiy, it is a pleasure to read your reflections. Always there are many insights in your reflections. Thanks.
As for my stand on claims is this: In any case, we need to make assertive statements. Introducing a majority of statements with 'I feel', 'I think', 'It is my opinion that', etc. is difficult. Hence, My claims may look assertive. But behind all these there is a philosophy of flexibility, which capacitates the system to constantly accept improvements and overthrowing by others and the same by oneself. This is why earnest but challenging contributions from others is a matter of joy for me. While reading them, my thought goes to the nature of thought process of that person, with a lot of appreciation.
I accept the viewpoints that you have presented on QM. I try for good solutions. That is all we can do. Always without any feeling of grandiosity in my attitudes.
r
I have made an important change in the lead-text of this discussion in the form of an example, after the middle of the text. Detailed...! Kindly read it and comment.
I think what I suggest there is the gist of an other-debilitating attitude in our peers.
Have you heard or read psychologists, neuroscientists, medical doctors, etc. discussing some symptoms and their causes? A book in psychology says: 'According to the bio-psycho-social approach in psychopathology, one mental disturbance CAN have many causes.' But a person trained and enthusiastic about philosophy (also of the philosophy of the sciences) would wonder why there should not be many causes, at least some of which one could seek to find....! Finding out "only the immediate, exact and unique cause" is not their work because any reason can tell us that nothing in this world has an exact cause.
This directs our attention to a basic nature of philosophy: Not that a philosopher should only generalize. But a philosopher should study any specific thing only in terms of the most generalizable notions. Here 'generality' does not directly indicate only abstraction. It demonstrates the viewpoint that philosophy always takes. Hence, speaking only of the linguistic formulation of notions and arguments, formulating arguments only of life-related events in order to prove general principles that belong to the whole of Reality, etc. are not philosophical. The philosophically trained reader can recognize which recent trends in philosophy I have in mind here.
Vladimir Mokiy
"a picture of a One and Only world"
If only this were possible. Each one of us lives in a world that we can only hope to share with a small group of others.
L Kurt Engelhart, I think Vladimir Mokiy has used this term in a loose sense. Not that we can have only one picture of the One and Only World. The projection is that this is one of the possibilities, and in this case, we attempt to make intellectual pictures of such a world.
For further discussion, I am sure Vladimir Mokiy will reply.
I happened to speak with a publisher a year ago. The insider-requirement that I was told is that any publishable book should discuss as many contemporary authors as possible. Even if the new ideas and arguments within the book, not belonging to other books and articles, are many and of very high standard, publishers would look for a long list of recent works in the bibliography, because this is for them the only way to assure quality.....!
True, the peer reviewers need not be ready to evaluate new theoretical inputs, mostly because they have their own policy of self-promotion by way of promotion of their own school/s of thinking.
I think this is one of the biggest problems of publisher lag in scientific and philosophical publishing.
I tell you, I have guided dissertations in various fields within philosophy (especially philosophy of science from various viewpoints like pure physics, cosmology, metaphysics, epistemology, value epistemology, ethics, philosophy of religion, and even philosophical anthropology), psychology, sociology, Indian history (just a few, but religious, especially Buddhist and Hindu history), and Indian philosophy. BUT I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO SEE DIVERT THE DISSERTATION IN THE DIRECTION OF MY OWN PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, METAPHYSICS, EPISTEMOLOGY, etc.
My question: If there exists the kind of publisher lag that I have suggested here, what would be the space and the ways of original thinking, developing own theories, etc. and yet getting them published? Certainly there will be resistance. But would there be enough space for hope for radical originality?
Dear colleagues, I agree with you.
Everyone has the right to have their own philosophy and to form their own picture of the world. However, in this case we should divide all philosophers into four groups:
- everyday philosophers (all our friends, colleagues and close people);
- philosophers "due to circumstances" (philosophers of disciplinary branches of science);
- intellectual philosophers (philosophers who are attracted by the possibility of constructing intellectual hypotheses of amazing beauty);
- and professional philosophers (compilers of general contexts of cognition of the world).
The answer to the question: what does the world really look like? – fundamentally interesting only to a small group of professional philosophers (compilers of general contexts of cognition of the world). I am sure that a person cannot ask a question that he cannot answer. Therefore, in the question: what is the world? – its uniqueness is already being pointed out. However, there may be many interpretations from other groups of philosophers. For example, some philosophers-physicists assume the existence of a plurality of worlds. A beautiful worldview picture! But this picture does not negate the question of what a single world looks like, within which many worlds are located. Probably, Plato's statement that a professional philosopher should lead the state should be considered in this context. Probably, only a philosopher can organize the governance of the state by bringing the philosophical statements of four groups of philosophers (members of society) to a universal law that determines the unity of the world. Therefore, we can look at the world, admire its objects and processes, as well as our thoughts about the world. But we must definitely see a one and only world (objects, processes and our thoughts about them, through the prism of systems transdisciplinary models of universal order, which encode each object, process and our thoughts).
In conclusion, it is important to say about the increased responsibility of a professional philosopher. The area of responsibility of a professional philosopher should not be limited only to the formation of a picture of the world. This area should extend to the following chain of actions: description of the picture of the world; creation of an appropriate concept (basic judgments and axioms); creation of methodology (models of cognition of the world and rethinking its high–threshold problems); description of technological ideas (ways to solve high-threshold problems of nature and society); creation of a method of risk analysis from the implementation of the proposed concepts, methodology, technological ideas (security of the world and society). Simply put, during the changing scenarios of the world order and socio-economic crises, professional philosophers, not professional military, should speak.
You can read about the picture of the unified world and the ways of its cognition in these articles:
Mokiy, V.S., Lukyanova, T.A. (2022). Manifesto for systems transdisciplinarity (2023-2030). Universum: Social sciences, 9(88). https://7universum.com/ru/social/archive/item/14313
Mokiy V.S, Lukyanova T.A. (2022). Prospects of integrating transdisciplinarity and systems thinking in the historical framework of various socio-cultural contexts. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering and Science, 13. pp. 143-158. https://doi.org/10.22545/2022/00184
Mokiy, V. S., & Lukyanova, T. A. (2022). Modern transdisciplinarity: Results of the development of the prime cause and initial ideas. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 19, pp. 97-120. https://doi.org/10.28945/4951
Mokiy, V.S., & Lukyanova, T.A. (2022). Sustainable development of nature and society in the context of a systems transdisciplinary paradigm. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 13, Special Issue on Complex Resilience and Sustainability. Transdisciplinary Perspectives, In G. del Cerro Santamaría (Ed.), 15-35. https://doi.org/10.22545/2022/00192
the relationship between theoretical equivalence and convention would be that : After reviewing the idea that when we disagree over a (mere) convention, we are advocating theoretically equivalent descriptions, we are necessitated to consider the possibility of conventions about equivalence – i.e., conventions as to what standard of theoretical equivalence should be adopted.
I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. It is an attempt to correct some basic attitudes in physics. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall upload the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:
FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE
1. INTRODUCTION
I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist, but are to be treated or expressed as waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist. Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not physically existent fields of energy propagations from bodies.
This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that gravitation and other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles.
Even in the 21stcentury, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity and its various versions have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields.
A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics and in the philosophy of physics.
Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questioning_the_Foundations_of_Physical_Constants_Properties_and_Qualities
How to Ground Science and Philosophy Together Axiomatically?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_Ground_Science_and_Philosophy_Together_Axiomatically
Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. The Difference between Cause and Reason
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Symmetry_A_Subset_of_Universal_Causality_The_Difference_between_Cause_and_Reason
This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.
The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.
The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fallacies_of_Space_Time_and_Spacetime_in_Physics
Physical and Exact Sciences and Axiomatic Philosophy: Introducing Grounding (long text)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text
Causality and Statistics: Their Levels of Effect and of Explanation
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Causality_and_Statistics_Their_Levels_of_Effect_and_of_Explanation
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Non-Locality: Is Einstein a Monist?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Is_Einstein_a_Monist
I am an unpopular monist, believing that a consciousness is an organic whole comprising all aspects of reality. This view is contrasted with the popular monist, or materialist, and distinguished from the solipsist who denies any other consciousness.
Consciousness is surely an organic whole. But should it comprise all aspects of reality that is outside of it? Is it not enough to hold that consciousness has all its aspects integrally, including its connections to the world? Otherwise, the whole world should become consciousness. Kindly see also:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Minimal_Metaphysical_Physicalism_MMP_vs_Panpsychisms_and_Monisms_Beyond_Mind-Body_Dualism
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Complexity_in_Science_Philosophy_and_Consciousness_Differences_and_Importance
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Infinite-Eternal_Multiverse_Implications_to_Physics_and_Cosmology
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_What_How_and_Thusness_of_Reality_Science_Philosophy_and_Creative_Source
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Reconciliation_of_Causation_and_Freedom_Unifying_and_Axiomatizing_the_Sciences
https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_the_cosmos_is_1_finite-content_or_2_infinite-content_Is_there_finite_or_infinite_creation
https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_Trans-Pragmatic_Truth_Paradigm_for_Science_Technology_and_Philosophy
The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles
"But should it comprise all aspects of reality that is outside of it?"
None of reality is outside someone's consciousness. That's what makes it real!
That is, by your understanding, is 'reality' equal to something existent called consciousness, or only what happens inside the consciousness? And does consciousness exist as something? Is consciousness in a body or not? If yes, is body in a world not?
And does consciousness exist as something? Is consciousness in a body or not? If yes, is body existent, is it existent in a world?
You did not reply the question. Are consciousness, our body, and the world existent? The rest follow thereafter.
Consciousness is the only aspect of realty that exists for each of us individually. All other features are debatable. And whether others are conscious is debatable. This is the nature of reality.
Hence, for you individually, only consciousness exists! A wonderful idea. Is there any similarity or only difference between the ontological commitment behind the existence of consciousness and that of the physical cosmos? Or, there is all ontological commitment behind the notion of existence of consciousness and there is no ontological commitment at all behind the notion of the existence of the cosmos?
But if such ontological commitment is possible, is it (1) behind the existence of consciousness and/or the cosmos, or (2) behind the notion of existence of consciousness and/or the cosmos?
Can what are termed "mathematically consistent" natural laws necessarily be physically consistent? If they can, then mathematics becomes physics (and for that matter any other mathematical science). But if math is different from all these sciences, the adequacy and applicability of math to physics and other sciences cannot be 100%. If that is the case, it is very important that physics (and other sciences) be helped to choose the most suitable math. This help can come from the same science/s only in a partially realized manner. Nor can math take up this task fully well. Hence, a generic science beyond all these including math and logic must take charge of the remaining portions of inadequacy and inapplicability of math to physics and the sciences. Which could that science be? I hold that this most general science need not contain all that philosophy has so far understood itself to be. But something of the philosophy of these sciences combined with the philosophy of math, logic, etc. would be an ideal option.
Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Essential_Reason_in_Physicists_Use_of_Logic_And_in_Other_Sciences_Too
Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO
I think the game that many physicists and other scientists, and of course some philosophers, are playing concerning time is with respect to the concept of 'reality'. Some take 'reality' as existent reality, and some do not consider it so. My suggestion to understand the scenario better is the following:
Reality consists of existent reality and realities that pertain to existent realities in their groups. Existent realities are clear enough to understand. Realities pertinent to existent realities are never to be taken as belonging to just one existent reality. They are always those generalities that belong to many existent realities in their respective natural kind. These generalities are what I call ontological universals.
But the most important matter here is this: there are some ontological universals which belong to all existent realities. (1) Thus, every existent is in extension. If not in extension, nothing can exist. That is, vacuous existence is no existence. But to be in Extension means to have parts. This is the first ontologically universal characteristic of all existents. (2) The second is that existents have to act. Some movement will be there in every part of extended existents. In physical existents this movement is finite. By movement, every extended existent causes a finite impact in themselves and in a finite number of others. This characteristic of all existents is termed Change.
But Extension-Change-wise existence is Causation! Hence, every existent must be causal. Moreover, in terms of the concept of Universal Causality, Extension and Change are absolutely and inseparably connected to each other.
NOW WE COME TO THE QUESTION OF TIME: The conventionally scale-based measure of Change is time. With respect to any existent, time is the measure of movement of Change. In some cases this is very fast, where time is considered to be more intense (not that a generally considered time is fast with respect to this Change), and if the Change is little, the time is considered to be less intense (not that a generally considered time is slow).
That is, time as the epistemic measure of Change, does not exist, it is not even an ontological universal. It is an epistemic universal.
Similarly, space is the measure of Extension.
If you like this sort of explanation, kindly let others read this and discuss in their circles.
As for me, this viewpoint is so strong that I am writing books by using just these notions. The time and space of physicists and other scientists must go.
Here I was trying to give my way of explanation. Others will surely have other explanations. Very good, and that is how humanity will grow. Am open to listen.
Ian Miller added a reply
26 minutes ago
Actually, logic is derived from set theory
Recommend
Share
📷
Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply
21 seconds ago
In my opinion, this is difficult to accept. Set theory began existing a few hundred years ago. Logic as a formulated method of thought existed at least from the time of Aristotle. But as argumentation theory logic existed at least from the time of Socrates. I am now speaking of logic, and not set theorz. But you may argue that even set theory existed in this manner. True. But the basic principles of logic have been used in such elementary set theory too. Not vice versa. In that case, which is more primary? Basic set theory or basic logic?
Now, if you derive mathematical logic from mathematical set theory without using logical principles, I would like to know how.
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
THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS
3.1. Traditional Physical Categories
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Ontology_behind_Physics
Henry Margenau in his article “Einstein’s Conception of Reality” in Paul Schilpp’s collection Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (1970) suggests the relationship between physicists and philosophers: “Every discoverer of a new physical principle makes an important contribution to philosophy, even though he may not discuss it in philosophical terms.” (Margenau 1970: 246)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Grounded_Physical-Ontological_Categories_behind_Physics
Grounded (New) Physical-Ontological Categories behind Physics
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
Here 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
https://www.researchgate.net/post/LINGUISTIC_HERESY_BEHIND_SELF-ORGANIZATION_SELF-REFERENCE_INTENTIONALITY_PHYSICAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_SELF-INTERACTION_etc
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/ONTOLOGICAL_DIFFERENCES_OF_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_ARTIFICIAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_INTELLIGENCE_ALGORITHMS_AND_PROCEDURES_Against_Exaggerations
“If perception is input from the world to the mind and action is output from the mind to the world, then the mind as distinct from the world is what the input is to and what the output is from. So, despite the web of causal relations between organisms and environments, we suppose the mind must be in a separate place, within some boundary that sets it apart from the world.” [Susan L. Hurley, Consciousness in Action, 1998: 2]
And can consciousness / mind be of the same status as information? I doubt.
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
Raphael Neelamkavil
My explanation of consciousness as the container for reality is hardly ever given respect because it is too abstract for most people. Most people want too deeply for absolute reality to even consider it.
L Kurt Engelhart, I did not get it clearly what you mean by "container of reality". Possible to explain it?
Raphael Neelamkavil
Exactly! But you have to put away beliefs of the absolute nature of reality.
I have studied such interpretations during my BA. Thereafter I have read some highly sophisticated theories of this kind. But today I am not interested in such.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/DOES_CONSCIOUSNESS_EXIST_OR_IS_IT_LIKE_INFORMATION_A_Very_Short_Text_for_Discussion
"But today I am not interested in such."
I have heard the "sophomore" argument many times. You have been coopted by the dominant paradigm (a word you probably call obsolete). The problem with your conclusion is that my "speculation" is based in evidence.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Physiology
- Physiological Processes
- Stress