Raphael Neelamkavil

Mathematics is built on logic and is therefore an exact science, internally. However, in physics we always can have hidden variables. So, we must use mathematics as approximation of reality.

John-Erik

John-Erik Persson, thanks. On one thing I agree. math is an approximation of reality. Ultimately, all these are because the ideality we need to give to math and logic is only at the time of progressing in the arguments and making conclusions. But the very systems of math and logic are not ideal, since the concepts and universals being used there are all qualitative in a more or less manner.

Leonard Hall,

On irrational numbers I shall respond here. Questions related to "Math & Causality" will be given in a revision of the basic text of this discussion session. I shall give an intimation here in the opinions space, after I have done the revision.

IRRATIONAL NUMBERS. I accept your intervention on it above, paragraph 3. I contest the exactness of irrational numbers as a demonstration, because the very notion of number is not that of an absolutely selfsame quantity but as a quality that is taken as a quantity. Similarly, the concept of shape based on that of point, line, etc., is primitively -- say, in the case of a cat jumping past a ditch -- based on here, there, before, behind, above, etc., as is biologically sensed as belonging to the physical, and not as thought or cognitively ideational.

Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil,

First the thread overlap: I think my treatment of separating counting numbers from real numbers as essentially different is sound. Any effort to make them the same will fail, like mating mice and elephants, and it is not necessary. As in so many cases the problem lies in overlapping use of symbols, like "can" meaning "to dismiss" or "to prepare preserves," or "a metal container." 1 and 1.0 are just as different as mice and elephants. (The 1.0 is a valuable afterthought, I think.)

To be repeated on the other thread.

I do not agree that: "If notions like ‘one’, ‘two’, ‘point’, ‘line’, etc. are defined to be so exact, then it is not by virtue of the exactness of these substantive notions, but instead, due to their being adjectival: ‘being a unity’, ‘being two unities’, ‘being a non-extended shape’, etc." 1.0 in the set of Real numbers is abstracted from substance or quality (the Aristotelian words?) by the formality of Mathematics [note capital M]. Mathematics is astoundingly rigorous within itself, and to invert Spiros Konstantogiannis' comment: mathematics "has nothing to do with – or better, it is independent of – physics." That assertion is valid in my world, where Mathematics is independent of any worldly "reality." In that world view, your "notions" apply to counting numbers but have no connection with Real numbers and complication fades.

Perhaps part of the difficulty here is the association of pure Mathematics

with the concept of a science. I know that such an association is old and meant to be a compliment - Queen of the Sciences - but I do not like it anymore. Mathematics is about abstraction, while Science is about "actual." Ahh, an important comment on theories - I wonder about that.

[Whoa! I shouldn't get started, sigh. This came after what follows outside [] brackets. To be meaningful, the content of a science must be "about actual" or it is no better than fiction as entertainment. Now, fiction in literature may be quite beneficial to understanding our world, but can there be value in "abstract science?" Science Fiction as such is different, and as my brother noted, sometimes it opens doors because the reader/viewer didn't know it was fiction and makes "it" work. Solon said the same think to Thespis, that people will imitate plays. Thespis scoffed, but Solon was right. The abstraction of "actual" to establish its essence seems okay, but then as Raphael Neelamkavil has presented so strongly, that abstraction contains misleading implications. No soap bubble, however perfect, will ever be more than connected molecules that do not form an abstract spherical shape, and pi does not apply to the bubble's circumference/diameter ratio. Enough. I'm already way off-thread again, sorry.] Mathematics has escaped "actual" as completely as possible. Hmmm. It is emphasized somewhere that we must not be misled by drawings in geometry, because Geometry is abstract, while the drawings are not. Why diminish Mathematics by including it with Physics, or Biology, or . . .? Well, it's a thought.

Happy Trails, Len

P. S. Of course, ghosts of Mathematics like bookkeeping and surveying are useful if one runs out of fingers for addition, etc., but mathematics = Mathematics is misleading. lfh

Leonard Hall, a quick reply (not complete enough) early in the morning, before leaving for other things.

When you write, many things are not clear to me, e.g., as to who said what, whether I really said so or you interpolate, whether you mean by some of my words what Aristotle meant, whether you understand that I do not speak from a purely (exclusively) mathematical and physical manner but instead from the viewpoint of the common epistemological and metaphysical foundations of math and the sciences, etc.

You seem (to me) to be writing in a conversational style, without attention to formulating the sentences clearly. I am not blaming you for this, but pointing out my difficulty to connect parts of your sentences clearly. Your style is good enough, but my difficulty is in grasping what you mean by the various parts of the sentences, especially when you allude to other (especially ancient) authors or aspects from ancient literature.

Thanks.

Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil,

Well observed! I understand the difficulty you describe. I note elsewhere: "P.S. You're right! Most people do not think this way, and everyone I know is happy few others do! lfh" I appreciate your patience, thank you.

What you read appears from an effort to communicate what I mean, and it has evolved spontaneously from responses of persons who think they know what I mean on the basis of that others would mean after a cursory glance. I take more time than that. I cannot get past confident error in so many cases, and the playing field of my thoughts is so large and varied, that "how I write it" ends up needing to be read carefully. I do not think it is as difficult as I read about Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce, however, which requires an encyclopedia of world mythology at ones elbow to discover what he means.

What I wrote in my last post was happening at the time. It came from a change in what "rings true" to me about Mathematics and Science. "Mathematics is about abstraction, while Science is about 'actual.'" revealed a changing of the wave pattern that is my mind and during that transformation phrases that formerly were comfortable changed to the new ones you find there. That change had started with "Perhaps part of the difficulty here is the association of pure Mathematics with the concept of a science." What I wrote is like a report from the front, or an eyewitness report of a train wreck - a sketch without polish. I expect someone will benefit from the process of insight, aHa!, that the paragraph expresses.

Actually, when not in the heat of discovery and involved in an effort to get details recorded before they disappear, I am careful to note that the bit about Solon and Thespis is in Plutarch's "Solon" in his "The Lives of the Nobel Grecians and Romans" which is at my elbow and online.

Sorry about the difficulties, and I do not claim to be worth the bother to read, but I have had it with being read as someone else and dismissed as redundant. You have not done that, and for my part by the time I click Add the words are nearly worn out with review and revision, so what you read is what I intended to write that way: conversational, distorted, unclear - rigorous.

Thank you for your kind reaction to being unsure about my post. I'm afraid mystifying phrases will not go away since they are natural to the source.

Happy Trails, Len

P. S. I shall work up a better expression of "Mathematics is not a Science" for my profile here and perhaps post it as a question when I like it. Soon I hope. lfh

Howdy Raphael Neelamkavil,

I get so focused on details, like ensuring that the two threads linked by my earlier post on mathematics were courteously treated, that I didn't look up to see that my "Mathematics is not a Science" intrusion was in fact on the right thread. A parallel note recounts a young rhinoceros hiding from his mother by climbing a hill - she never looked up!

I offer additional comments here for the [] section in my earlier post and the full story is in ResearchGate Q&A Blossoms II back on my site. This is not proof, just exposition that might be less confusing. It will read better after reviewing my post starting First the thread overlap: above.

To clarify the development we define four words. Roughly in accord with Immanuel Kant we define Pure and Practical, then in accord with existence we define abstract and actual. “Actual” is chosen to avoid many other words of which readers will be so confident they know the proper meaning that what I mean will be missed.

Pure exists only in thought, in Pure Mathematics, for instance. Practical exists in practices like using Practical Mathematics to add objects after sorting them. Abstract identifies things as only of-the-mind. Actual identifies things that can be experienced. If you abstract kicking a brick you feel no pain. Kick an actual brick and you do feel pain. A simple assertion, Pure Mathematics is what Mathematicians do, may be the best available. The simple companion assertion, Practical Mathematics is the use of mathematics, also may be the best available. A sorting method for Pure vs. Practical mathematics is the test: Is the token, symbol, digit, etc., associated with units? I’ll leave the definitions here and in context later and avoid the libraries of words that can be written to be more definite to no useful end.

Science treats actual. Abstractions in Science have the purpose of rendering a theory about actual possible to conceive and calculate. Are they still science? Yes. Are they Mathematics, either Pure or Practical? No. Why? Because the rigorous body of abstract thought in Pure Mathematics has no limits that would be created by units like potato! “1 potato” tells us how many (counting numbers) but not “how much” (magnitudes) and 1 potato plus 1 potato equals ? has many answers in magnitude. Are either the actual or the abstractions of actual in science Practical Mathematics? I say not, any more than a carpenter’s hammer is part of a house it was used to construct. What about Practical Mathematics used during surveying? I have read and do agree that a tool may be discarded after the project is completed without loss. The example of a rock being used by an Egyptian Vulture to break into Ostrich eggs was used in contrast to a Robin’s nest. The Vulture walks away from the rock like a carpenter could discard a hammer but the twigs of a nest remain in it like the studs in a house. The surveyor drives a location stake, or identifies an elevation marker that have been placed using mathematics: where is that mathematics when he walks away? Further, Pure and Practical Mathematics are human creations, and rivers negotiated waterfalls long before any human came along to calculate that activity even approximately.

So, why bother with this topic? Well, firstly because accuracy is of value in thought and if mathematics is not a science then numerous investigations of “science is a subset of mathematics” and “mathematics is a subset of science” will go away. Secondly, if you explore the works of Raphael Neelamkavil, including RG Q&A posts and associated documents you will find very strong answers to that question expressed. I expect others share his thoughts. The point is that misleading impressions from too strong an influence of mathematics on scientific research interfere with a more valid course of scientific progress. For instance, mathematical continuity is not actual, nor is discrete character of actual things and expecting them is misleading. Whether mathematics is a science will not change that except for the influence of a stain on its halo.

Happy Trails, Len

What is based on so many abstractions cannot be by nature fully "Exact" ..........

Reza Sanaye,

We need not call them abstractions. Of course, abstract thought is active behind it. But that is the case also in physics and especially in math, and still we use math in physics, obtaining great exactitude!

The claim in the discussion session is only that mathematical notions are from beyond abstraction. That is, they are natural notions, but later made more abstract and sharpened for clarity by further abstractions.

I have revised the lead text (Mathematics and Causality: A Systemic Reconciliation). Now it has become 8 pages in A-4. See the link below.

I believe your questions may be answered here in my humble manner. Further questions and suggestions are most welcome. Thanks.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematics_and_Causality_A_Systemic_Reconciliation

Kurt Gödel proved Math is not that exact ,,,,,,,,,,,

Reza Sanaye, true. Gödel's contribution is unique. I have absorbed the epistemological aspects of Gödel's work in my published books. Here in the current discussion, in fact, I forgot about Gödel...! Foolish of me. Ok, but since I was doing only a small piece of opinion in the form of this discussion, it may be acceptable that I forgot about Gödel.

How to philosophize? How to philosophize in the sciences?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_philosophize_How_to_philosophize_in_the_sciences

Is the tendency to reification of our concepts about processes outside of us a matter of conceptualization or pre-conceptual?

If the tendency is pre-conceptual, how to theorize of it?

We do not have "Pre-conceptuals" . My hunch is that this idea has arrived into some of exact sciences as a result of after-shocks of German Idealism . Everything is first conceived [ as perceived , as perception ] . If there are no perceptions ,there shall be no conceptions . Nonetheless , at a higher level of transcendence , conceptions might be "looked back at" from the Noetik (( rather than the Noematik )) facet , , , ,,AND : as a result , more abstractive art , more complicated numbers [like imaginaries ,complexes ,quaternions ] , more involved topological lemmas [ like the one which says that there is no corresponding theorem for dimensions above 2 ].......generally : more non-tangible Entities arise ;;;;;;;

PS : Article Examples of singular normal complex spaces which are topolog...

The more such non-tangible mathematical entities, the more is it sure that their foundations are in the definitions of number (unities and their parts) and shape (distances in accordance with number).

In the sense of the evolution of the concept of these, I would suggest and pre-conditional "conceptuals" 'here' and 'there'. I need to develop this very much. I have so far done only two long chapters on these aspects in a book to be published in the future. So, I must be cautious in making such claims as the latter. As of now, this is my concept, and that is all on this topic.

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.

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.

Even in the 21st century, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity with its various versions and especially its merely mathematical interpretations 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. The mathematics did not need existence, and hence gravitation did not exist! But the same persons did not create a theory whereby the mathematics does not need the existence of the material world and hence the material world does not exist!!

Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questioning_the_Foundations_of_Physical_Constants_Properties_and_Qualities

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

“There are as many squares as there are numbers because they are just as

numerous as their roots.” — Galileo Galilei, 1632

Consider the set of natural numbers Ν = {1, 2, 3, 4, …} and the set of perfect

squares (i.e. the squares of the naturals) S = {1, 4, 9, 16, 25, …}. After careful

thought, Galileo produced the following contradictory statements regarding

these two sets:

1 – While some natural numbers are perfect squares, some are clearly not.

Hence the set N must be more numerous than the set S, or |N|>|S|.

2 – Since for every perfect square there is exactly one natural that is its

square root, and for every natural there is exactly one perfect square, it

follows that S and N are equinumerous, or |N|=|S|

{{ Galileo’s Paradox of Equinumerosity }}

REZA

Kindly tell us what you would like to communicate regarding the exact nature of math, or anything related to it or different from it.

That Math is not "exactly " an exact science .............

Exactly! Thanks.

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

Spacetime Curvatures, Gravitational Waves, Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons: Do They All Exist?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spacetime_Curvatures_Gravitational_Waves_Gravitons_and_Anti-Gravitons_Do_They_All_Exist

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

If anyone wants to read about a fantastic concept of the existence of consciousness and non-existence of the cosmos, see the comments till today here, by L Kurt Engelhart.......!!! Here you can learn the meaning of solipsism.... and similar to mathematical platonism creating ideas / notions into objects.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_philosophize_How_to_philosophize_in_the_sciences

Can what are termed "mathematically consistent" natural laws necessarily be physically consistent? If they can be, then mathematics becomes physics (and for that matter it becomes 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 constantly to choose the most suitable math. This help can come from the same science/s only in a partially realizable 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 improving 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

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

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

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 IS THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT SACROSANCT?

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...

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...