NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve
(Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough in EPR)
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUNDATIONS AGAIN (3 paragraphs)
In the first few short paragraphs we occupy ourselves with something already discussed before. If anything must exist, it must be something non-vacuous. Think of energy waves, termed variously as particles, waves, and their mixture namely wavicles. I use the theoretically more comprehensive ‘wavicles’. Are they only a pure mathematical stuff without any physical stuff within? I hope No!
In that case, even energy wavicles possess (1) some non-vacuity, i.e., Extension, which means possessing parts, and (2) some ability to cause impact, i.e., Change, from within their non-vacuous extended nature. Non-vacuity, it partially indicates existence, is not anything that mathematics can directly represent in the wavicles – for this, it needs primarily the notions of space (and time) and measurement. Nor can mathematics directly represent impact-formation as the only other universal nature of existents – for this, it needs the notion of time (and space) and measurement. Space and time are the quantity (measure) of Extension and Change respectively.
We can understand Extension as a direct ontological notion derivative from existence, but why Change, and not motion? Why is motion only derivative from Change? Section 2 responds to this question, and then Section 3 applies the result from Section 2 in the case of the EPR paradox.
2. SPECIFIC MOTION AND INNER MOTIONS IN ENTANGLED EPR WAVICLES? Let us keep the mind open!
A unit Change consists of the transition within a unit Process from the antecedent existent and the consequent existent. So, a unit Change is not merely a certain kind of motion. A transition is not merely a motion. Again, a unit Change is not a unit Process but consists of the transition within a unit Process, in which the antecedent part (cause) causes an effect on the consequent part (effect). A unit Process already involves many types and units of motion.
Causality consists in the relation between the cause and the effect. A unit causation is the minimum act of realization of a unit Process. That is, a causal unit is both the cause and effect together. The involvement of a transition, not merely of a motion, is why it is difficult to quantify a unit of Causal Process using mathematics. This will be clearer towards the end of this section.
Space is the epistemic aspect of Extension. Motion is the quantitative aspect of physical existents that is representable and, in each case, processed as the measure of a certain sort of motion, by using mathematics epistemically in terms of a certain spatially tripartite kind of displacement at the level of the kind of motion considered. All other, projected, more than three, superstring dimensions should be taken as curled in within the three, because the extra dimensions are all certain manipulation results of the original three. Time is not being multiplied in this manner, and it is just the unique epistemic, quantitative, aspect of Change.
The motion of any specific kind is merely an aspect of Change. Change involves transitions, using which we cannot mathematically manipulate existent wavicles in their constant inner happenings. The inner happenings too are motions, but are not representable as such within a given treatment of motion. One may use momentum, mass, etc., but these too do not represent the unit transition that a unit Causal Process yields.
We cannot generalize and say that everything is motion. This does not serve physics, because in physics all sorts of inner motions of a moving wavicle cannot mathematically be considered simultaneously. Moreover, a unit of Change is not equal to a unit motion of any kind, but instead, a causal unit Process involving an ontologically defined state transition. Change alone does not define a unit Process. Extension-Change together define a unit Process as a Causal unit. This is to be noted well here.
That is, in the case of quasi-unobservable but proved-to-be existent wavicles (termed unobservables in order to distinguish them from direct observables), Change involves existent wavicles with some motion and the ability to cause some motion, each of which has further parts, these parts too are in motion, and they too possess the ability to cause motion, etc. ad libitum.
[But if any physicist now prefers to take a wavicle (say, a photon, a neutrino, a graviton) as indivisible, or merely as energy quantity without physical extension, or as a vacuous stuff, I shall keep a distance from him/her, because I should fear being heckled! Moreover, I do not prefer to entertain questions like: Why to bother so much with conceptual complications, man? Do you not know that doing physics does not mean this sort of “philosophical” talk?]
The difference between motion and Change is as follows. One (kind of) motion is just one instance of motion irrespective of the fact that its inner parts also undergo and at the same time effect other motions outwards. But Change is that state of existents in which every existent involves not merely one sort of motion but ever more minute (inner and inwards) or broader (from outside and outwards) sort of motions with respect to any one existent with whatever overall size, motion, mass, momentum, energy, etc., and involves a transition in each unit Change.
Size, motion, mass, momentum, energy, etc. are all bound by conventional scales and comparison with other similar quantities from within a physical context, engendering an epistemic context which too is based on an epistemic context of physical processes which in turn are based on these same quantities. Hence, these quantities cannot involve the whole transition of an entity that the concept of Change can represent. Hence, Change, as one of the two highest implications of To Be and hence as one of the physical-ontological Categories along with Extension, cannot be substituted by the concept of motion or any other quantity.
Now the following question may be addressed and answered with sufficient rational justification: If the above is the inevitable case with respect to existents, why should energy-transmitting wavicles like photons, neutrinos, and gravitons yield (1) an infinity of mass at any specific state of motion as in the case of the velocity of any emission, when this velocity is compared in its motion with the velocity of light as the former approaches the latter in value, (2) any kind of comparative lack of motion as in the case of relative inertia, which is based on a quantitative comparison determined by imperfect and contextual measurements, or (3) create non-locality of influence (or lack of influence) in the EPR experiment, when two previously entangled wavicles with energy-content are made to move from each other at a comparative mutual total of the velocity of light or more, in such a way that the luminal-velocity-based reasoning shatters mutual causal influence and creates absolute miracles everywhere in the cosmos?
It is known that such infinities (and the connected zeros) at comparisons of two motions are not actual cases, because any existent has inner motions ad libitum and outer motions ad libitum, and none of these yields an infinity or zero because the infinite number of motions within any given unit Process or within parts thereof can only have the involvement of the infinite number of ever smaller, near-infinitesimal, transitions available in Change. These can never reach infinity but a finitude in total value. I think this explanation should justify the fact that we do not find any infinite or zero velocity, mass, energy, etc. in any existent observable or unobservable.
To explain further, the most important matter to be kept in mind here is that the inner motions of any wavicle, resulting from within and from outside, are not infinite in cumulative measure at any given time – but we should insist here that the sort of addition to be considered is not that of “infinite times finite quantities” as wrongly thought in the case of Zeno’s paradox, but instead, a finite totality of “infinite number of ever smaller near-infinitesimal quantities”. This is what characterizes physical existents and their parts in the cosmos, both of those that are termed matter and of those that are called energy.
In that case, there should be in physics a different manner of comparing motion, absolute inertia, and relative inertia of two bodies with each other, wherever physics uses a specific criterial velocity in order to compare itself with a smaller velocity under inquiry / under experiment. This is where physics could de-absolute the velocity of light with respect to its applicability to all the parts of the cosmos (which may even be an infinite-content ordering of infinite number of finite-content universes).
There are all the possibilities of infinities and zeros only in the mutual comparison of motion / velocities, and not when physical processes are considered in themselves. Hence, a spectrum of values of criterial velocities may be mooted for the various parts of the cosmos, where the velocities being compared with the criterial velocity can still be less than the criterial velocity used for comparison. This is all that physics can at the most possess in order to broaden the concept of quantity in physics and make it better adapted to deal with the physical-ontological concept of Change. In themselves physical existents have Change, which inevitably involves the totality of the many inner, inward, and outward motions.
A naive question in this context: Is anything in itself in motion, relative inertia, or absolute inertia? Naturally, anything is in finite motion of some kind within itself and at comparison with others. It is in a specific relative motion or inertia only in comparison with another motion or other motions. But there is no absolute inertia.
Any specific measurable or measured motion is not the exact (or only) thing that happens in an existent being. It has Change, i.e., all its parts are completely in motion – but in finite motion – which, as I said earlier, does not add up to an infinity of motion. Firstly, no instrument can measure anything exactly as it is, because at any given moment there are so many inner causal influences of causation within each entity and hence the exactness of the quantity does not have any justification with respect to any fixed point of time however minute. Secondly, by the time a measurement is performed, other minute influences have altered the quantity. Hence, no measured quantity can be exact.
Change is not any specific motion, but instead, a transition of many minute motions, and hence cannot be used in and by physics measurementally. It is a physical-ontological quality of all existents. This is why physics has been ignoring the physical-ontological status of Change. Change is in fact the ontological fact of all existents in that each element of existents has an infinite number of ever more minute causal influences acting upon it from within and without. This is the transitioning that Change is.
Motion and inertia are only two measurementally integral aspects of Change, wherein motion is a notion that needs mensuration and measurability, and hence can only be considered at one quantity of motion at a time. For this, the epistemic notions of space and time are necessary in physics. But this does not mean that this suffices for physics, because physics studies existent material beings in their motion; and existence, material, energy, etc. are not strictly and primarily physical but physical-ontological notions. Integrally taken, Change is whatever in fact happens in existents in all their parts, including in energy particles / wavicles.
Now one may attempt (1) to substitute Change with the notion of transition, i.e., motions within motions within… or (2) to substitute it with notions like momentum, mass, etc. The first is possible, but it is better to use the term ‘Change’ rather than an involving stretch of words. But none of the notions in (2) can substitute Change, because, as you may observe, they can augment the understanding of each other, and only augment the understanding of the concepts of motion, Change, etc., and not substitute the notion of Change.
The self-evident reason for this claim is that even momentum, mass, etc. are just quantitative notions composed of many (i.e., conglomerations of) quantitatively qualitative universals. Change is not a quantity, but a pure, qualitative, ontological universal not directly meaning epistemically determined quantities. I purposely call notions mentioned above, other than Change, as measuremental. This is in order to avoid the sense that quantity is some sort of a substitute for existent physical processes.
Quantity is an epistemic notion, and hence based on connotative universals and expressed in denotative universals. Change is a purely ontological universal. (For a simple clarification on ontological, connotative, and denotative universals, see: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers; for more information, see: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text)
Mathematical objects as quantitative qualities too are connotatively epistemic objects represented by denotative universals, and do not exist in terms of the belongingness of ontological universals to existents. (For more clarity on this, see the following discussions: (1) https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source_of_Major_Flaws_in_Cosmological_Theories_Mathematics-to-Physics_Application_Discrepency, (2) https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematics_and_Causality_A_Systemic_Reconciliation, and (3) https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_Are_Numbers_and_Shapes_and_Their_Structures_Considered_by_Many_as_Exact)
If motion is a matter of spatial and temporal measurements, then it can be treated in terms of epistemic procedures in physics. Space-time measurements are the only way for this. But Change, as the concept of motions within motions within motions…, is the precondition behind all motion. These are not generalizable again under the notion of motion-in-general, because this would only be represented mathematically by one type of motion at a time, and not a conglomeration of motions within motions within….
Change does not remain alone. Change is always co-implied by Extension, and of the latter too we have only epistemic measurements in physics, not ontological “quantities”. Clearly, Change is not motion; instead, it denotes an extended object, all the parts of which are in motion by way of impact-formation. Hence, Extension and Change are the fundamental, physical-ontological, universals of all physical existents.
This, in my opinion, is a better way to make the cosmos and eventually Reality-in-total dynamic – rather than creating directly a holistic philosophy for the sake of the attractiveness of holism, where notions like dynamism, interdependence, relationality, coherence, etc. are brought up without the necessary foundational justification.
Let us, therefore, agree that Change is the inevitable ontological precondition behind all motion and that Extension and Change are the fundamental, mutually requiring, physical-ontological, universals of all existents in Reality-in-total and is exhaustive of the notion of the To Be of Reality-in-total.
Think of the various neo-Vedāntic, neo-Buddhistic, and nature-religion type, new age religions and their philosophies like those of Rudolf Steiner, Osho, Dalai Lama, etc. For neo-Vedānta, quantum physics is close to their heart because it “proves” Vedāntic non-dualism! Their meditation practices and their wisdom are wonderful, but not their physico-philosophical holisms, because they are oriented to good feelings, metaphysical or anti-metaphysical conclusions based on good feelings, and are not based on equally physically and cosmologically acceptable philosophical detail.
On the other hand, we have philosophers and philosopher-scientists like Henri Bergson (and the many neo-Nietzschean thinkers), Fritjof Kapra (and his kind of physicists turning quantum physics into a quick-fix-solutions philosophy), etc., who generate a good-feeling integralism without metaphysical tenability with respect to Reality-in-total.
3. WHAT DEBILITATES THEORY IN THE EPR PARADOX? How can quantum physics change?
I do not discuss here the details of the EPR problem. I shall take for granted in the reader some previous knowledge of it. For a state-of-the-art discussion and details of critical points, see: (https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Was_Einstein_a_Monist_long_text)
The EPR problem points to a paradox (locality and non-locality) and consequent sub-paradoxes (say, of stuck-up concepts of symmetry, standstill in the universality of causality, closure of the causal cone, luminal velocity-based artificial limits to physical research, etc.). All these are based only on the procedures in physics as to how the Changes in the processes are being functionalized only with respect to a certain sort of motion with its settled velocity (i.e., c). The velocity of light has been determined from our world, and Relativity takes it up as the ultimate criterion of measurement for the whole cosmos without considering the status of origin of the notion. Hence, the EPR thought experiment and its experimental realizations have tended to create the said paradoxes.
Finally, the technical aspects of non-locality have been instrumentalized by technology-oriented physicists. John Clauser, Alain Aspect, and Anton Zeilinger won the 2022 Nobel Prize for physics. Now many think that, due to the instrumentation success of quantum optics, the cosmos should obey non-locality. But then, should the successes of Newtonian engineering-physics in the instrumentation of astrophysical experiments prove such physics to be the physics of the cosmos?
This state of affairs continues in quantum physics while the physicists do not consider the basic physical-ontological qualities / universals of all existent observables and unobservables together for legitimacy in concepts, hypotheses, truth-claims, laws, theories, etc.: namely, (1) the first most general nature of every existent, i.e., Extension (compositeness), and (2) the only other most general nature of every non-vacuous existent, i.e., Change (impaction / mode of actualization of compositeness).
The second point above demonstrates that even for the energy wavicles concerned, say, the electromagnetic or gravitational emission units, there are inner motions within themselves and influences of motions from beyond themselves into the inner constitution and motions, both the types of which sub-determine every one of such emissions throughout the past, present, and future.
This realization in quantum physicists, astrophysicists, and cosmologists should be coupled with the need to posit a spectrum of criterial velocities for use at various regions of the cosmos. Out of the spectrum of criterial velocities’ values, some should be valid in ever greater conglomerations of universes within the cosmos. This could give impetus to the evolution of modes of conceiving the fundamental principles of aspects of physics in a cosmology-compatible manner. (For further deepening on this issue: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology_GCC, and https://www.researchgate.net/post/Infinite-Eternal_Multiverse_Implications_to_Physics_and_Cosmology)
We know that there is no real absolute inertia as Newton thought. If not in absolute inertia, then both observables and unobservables may be considered only in the state of comparative inertia. But what is ontologically more real and irreducible, they are in themselves in Change – i.e., sub-motions within and external sub-influences upon the motion at issue of the wavicle. Hence, wavicles in the cosmos possess not merely a finite amount of motion (and are not in absolute inertia). They possess also constant continuity in finite Change, namely, motions within motions within … ad libitum.
Friends, I am aware that some of you may say that this lead-text is difficult. But I think this time not only the EPR problem but also the physical-ontological foundations of the concept of motion are at discussion. This is an important matter, I feel.
I have had no better manner of expressing my ideas on it. Hope to get you all to read and write your opinions.
Dear Raphael Neelamkavil
I think that I could grasp the notion of change you expose in the discussion. Also with help of the definitions I've found in your books. It is a highly interesting topic.
I would like to ask you, what is your point of view about the Zeno's arrow paradox. As you know, one of the tropos Zeno proposed is the one that states that considering an arrow in flight, for motion to occur, the arrow must change the position which it occupies, but for every such position we see no motion, thus motion does not exist, he concludes. In other words, the arrow is at rest at every point of the traveling path, therefore it is always at rest.
How do you approach this problem?
Best regards.
Salvador
Thanks, Salvador Daniel Escobedo.
About Zeno's Arrow Paradox. Like all the Eleatics, he was under the impression that "the points of time", considered as "infinitesimal" and hence "indivisible", were the "durations" through which the arrow moved. Geometrically, a duration is full of an infinite number of points of time. If the arrow had moved, it would need to cover an infinite number of points of time, which should need (for him) passing an infinite number of points in space, which should take an infinite length of time.
But this is due to a confusion between finite distances or duration with infinitesimal points or durations.
To traverse an infinite number of points in space, the arrow would not need to traverse an infinite number of durations. The Eleatics were either confused or were just playing a game as if they wanted to demonstrated that they had solved the questions of change, motion, space, and time.
Now, from my viewpoint, space and time are epistemic-cognitive notions because they are measuremental quantities. Without measurement and mensurability presupposed, space and time do not work. Hence they are cognitive categories.
We speak in physics and all the other sciences, and of course in philosophy, about existent beings that are in process. Existents are non-vacuous (hence in Extension) and impacting (in Change) in all their parts. At any cognitively fixed time (not a point but a duration), any part of an existent is not an infinitesimal. Hence, any part is not in an infinitesimalized action. To be non-vacuous means to be non-infinitesimal.
An action is a unit process, which defines the shortest possible expense of Extended existence in impact / Change. This is a unit Process. Every unit Process can have further parts, and none of them is an infinitesimal, although the mensurability yields also infinitesimals within them. But this is an equivalent of vacuity, and hence, at any cognitively / epistemically stipulated infinitesimal point of time, there is no duration that is required for an action to spend the shortest possible energy.
If a unit Process is defined by the shortest possible expense of energy, it defines also a unit of Causation. Causation, as a relation, defines an antecedent (the cause-part) and a consequent (th effect-part). None of them is an infinitesimal. Due to the non-vacuity of existents and the consequent epistemic mensurability (a possibility), an entity (a causal unit of many units / a processual unit of many units) can only be of a measurable duration, and not of an infinitesimal point of time.
Interestingly, the cosmos is composed of Causal units of Process, all of which spend only the shortest possible of energy. Hence, in my opinion, such an action may be termed a process, which is a Causal unit. Everything existent is such. Hence the reality of Universal Causality as the highest pre-scientific Law. Physicists term them ONE scientific law. But it was already a pre-scientific Law, and from it should be made to derive all other scientific laws.
This Law is not considered to be active in paradoxes like those of Zeno.
Hope to get your response.
Raphael
To inform the readers: The concept of the ontology behind physics has been defined in the following discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/DEFINING_THE_ONTOLOGY_BEHIND_PHYSICS_5_Paragraphs
NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve
(Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough in EPR)
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
Dear Raphael Neelankavil, I made a first reading withs notes in your text. They are not critic but only attempt to understand. I agree with the importance of Change, but by my conception… (I send to you my comment.)
I link th EPR paradox with the problem to know if several changes are indices of a unique entity or not. The criterion (answer) must be fund on this level of construction. In this context, the answer (criterion) may be paradox but without contradictions and the answer can be construct before the other notions as mass, energy. If ma these is acceptable, she is very simple.
I am writing a comment on the book of Mioara Mugur-Schächter (ResearchGate), but this need time. If you are interesting, I can try to sketch my construction.
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE FOUNDATIONS AGAIN (3 paragraphs)
In the first few short paragraphs we occupy ourselves with something already discussed before. If anything must exist, it must be something non-vacuous. (This assertion is on reality itself. What difference between ‘to exist’ and ‘to be non-vacuous’?) Think of energy waves, termed variously as particles, waves, and their mixture namely wavicles. I use the theoretically more comprehensive ‘wavicles’. Are they only a pure mathematical stuff without any physical stuff within? I hope No!
In that case, even energy wavicles possess (1) some non-vacuity, i.e., Extension, which means possessing parts, and (2) some ability to cause impact, i.e., (to be non-vacuous = posses Extension, parts, ability to cause impact, i.e. Change) Change, from within their non-vacuous extended nature. Non-vacuity, it partially indicates existence, is not anything that mathematics can directly represent in the wavicles – for this, it needs primarily the notions of space (and time) and measurement. Nor can mathematics directly represent impact-formation as the only other universal nature of existents – for this, it needs the notion of time (and space) and measurement. Space and time are the quantity (measure) of Extension and Change respectively.
We can understand Extension as a direct ontological notion derivative from existence, but why Change, and not motion? Why is motion only derivative from Change? Section 2 responds to this question, and then Section 3 applies the result from Section 2 in the case of the EPR paradox.
2. SPECIFIC MOTION AND INNER MOTIONS IN ENTANGLED EPR WAVICLES? Let us keep the mind open!
A unit Change consists of the transition within a unit Process from the antecedent existent and the consequent existent. So, a unit Change is not merely a certain kind of motion. A transition is not merely a motion. Again, a unit Change is not a unit Process but consists of the transition within a unit Process, in which the antecedent part (cause) causes an effect on the consequent part (effect). A unit Process already involves many types and units of motion.
Causality consists in the relation between the cause and the effect. (This description of causality isn’t enough for me.) A unit causation is the minimum act of realization of a unit Process. That is, a causal unit is both the cause and effect together. The involvement of a transition, not merely of a motion, is why it is difficult to quantify a unit of Causal Process using mathematics. (‘…using mathematics.’ For me, mathematic is not something à part. Mathematics is not something, can be applied to the reality. There are two types of construction, the first considering de change (this means time and finally the subsumption on predicate ‘…is real’.) the second without time and change. The two constructions are entangled, and both are rational. For me mathematics is synonymous of formal. The main difference between the two construction is: formal construction never exacts the change for their continuation, the second is constructed on change, with the same rules as for formal construction. Then each construction must be rational.) This will be clearer towards the end of this section.
Space is the epistemic aspect of Extension. (The distinction between epistemic and quantitative is suspect for me.) Motion is the quantitative aspect of physical existents that is representable and, in each case, processed as the measure of a certain sort of motion, by using mathematics (As already said, I don’t use mathematic describing something but their description must be done with the same rules as for the formal construction, but on changes) epistemically in terms of a certain spatially tripartite kind of displacement at the level of the kind of motion considered. All other, projected, more than three, superstring dimensions should be taken as curled in within the three, because the extra dimensions are all certain manipulation results of the original three. Time is not being multiplied in this manner, and it is just the unique epistemic, quantitative, aspect of Change. (Aristotelian definition of time: measure of change according to before and after.)
The motion of any specific kind is merely an aspect of Change. Change involves transitions, using which we cannot mathematically manipulate existent wavicles in their constant inner happenings. (How can we know the inner happenings?) The inner happenings too are motions, but are not representable as such within a given treatment of motion. One may use momentum, mass, etc., but these too do not represent the unit transition that a unit Causal Process yields.
We cannot generalize and say that everything is motion. This does not serve physics, because in physics all sorts of inner motions of a moving wavicle cannot mathematically be considered simultaneously. (Each construction on change can become formal, substituting a parameter (e.g. the real numbers) to the time. Then change is no more real but only hypothetical. But the real construction, with time and change, is rational and mathematics isn’t needed. She is already constructed with the same rules.) Moreover, a unit of Change is not equal to a unit motion of any kind, but instead, a causal unit Process involving an ontologically defined state transition. Change alone does not define a unit Process. Extension-Change together define a unit Process as a Causal unit. This is to be noted well here.
That is, in the case of quasi-unobservable but proved-to-be existent wavicles (termed unobservables in order to distinguish them from direct observables), Change involves existent wavicles with some motion and the ability to cause some motion, each of which has further parts, these parts too are in motion, and they too possess the ability to cause motion, etc. ad libitum.
[But if any physicist now prefers to take a wavicle (say, a photon, a neutrino, a graviton) as indivisible, or merely as energy quantity without physical extension, or as a vacuous stuff, I shall keep a distance from him/her, because I should fear being heckled! Moreover, I do not prefer to entertain questions like: Why to bother so much with conceptual complications, man? Do you not know that doing physics does not mean this sort of “philosophical” talk?]
The difference between motion and Change is as follows. One (kind of) motion is just one instance of motion irrespective of the fact that its inner parts also undergo and at the same time effect other motions outwards. But Change is that state of existents in which every existent involves not merely one sort of motion but ever more minute (inner and inwards) or broader (from outside and outwards) sort of motions with respect to any one existent with whatever overall size, motion, mass, momentum, energy, etc., and involves a transition in each unit Change. (Doesn’t it be easier to say motion is a change with involves special displacement? (Aristote.))
Size, motion, mass, (It possible to construct the notion of mass and force on acceleration and then the classical dynamics (physics)) momentum, energy, etc. are all bound by conventional scales and comparison with other similar quantities from within a physical context, engendering an epistemic context which too is based on an epistemic context of physical processes which in turn are based on these same quantities. Hence, these quantities cannot involve the whole transition of an entity that the concept of Change can represent. Hence, Change, as one of the two highest implications of To Be and hence as one of the physical-ontological Categories along with Extension, cannot be substituted by the concept of motion or any other quantity. [‘change …cannot be substituted by…’ I total agree. Change is the phenomenon (apparition) of the reality. It is the only one phenomenon of reality. It cannot be deduced of substitute., It can be known only as evidence (comme une donnée)].
Now the following question may be addressed and answered with sufficient rational justification: If the above is the inevitable case with respect to existents, why should energy-transmitting wavicles like photons, neutrinos, and gravitons yield (1) an infinity of mass at any specific state of motion as in the case of the velocity of any emission, when this velocity is compared in its motion with the velocity of light as the former approaches the latter in value, (2) any kind of comparative lack of motion as in the case of relative inertia, which is based on a quantitative comparison determined by imperfect and contextual measurements, or (3) create non-locality of influence (or lack of influence) in the EPR experiment, when two previously entangled wavicles with energy-content are made to move from each other at a comparative mutual total of the velocity of light or more, in such a way that the luminal-velocity-based reasoning shatters mutual causal influence and creates absolute miracles everywhere in the cosmos?
It is known that such infinities (and the connected zeros) at comparisons of two motions are not actual cases, because any existent has inner motions ad libitum and outer motions ad libitum, and none of these yields an infinity or zero because the infinite number of motions within any given unit Process or within parts thereof can only have the involvement of the infinite number of ever smaller, near-infinitesimal, transitions available in Change. These can never reach infinity but a finitude in total value. I think this explanation should justify the fact that we do not find any infinite or zero velocity, mass, energy, etc. in any existent observable or unobservable.
To explain further, the most important matter to be kept in mind here is that the inner motions of any wavicle, resulting from within and from outside, are not infinite in cumulative measure at any given time – but we should insist here that the sort of addition to be considered is not that of “infinite times finite quantities” as wrongly thought in the case of Zeno’s paradox, but instead, a finite totality of “infinite number of ever smaller near-infinitesimal quantities”. This is what characterizes physical existents and their parts in the cosmos, both of those that are termed matter and of those that are called energy.
In that case, there should be in physics a different manner of comparing motion, absolute inertia, and relative inertia of two bodies with each other, wherever physics uses a specific criterial velocity in order to compare itself with a smaller velocity under inquiry / under experiment. This is where physics could de-absolute the velocity of light with respect to its applicability to all the parts of the cosmos (which may even be an infinite-content ordering of infinite number of finite-content universes).
There are all the possibilities of infinities and zeros only in the mutual comparison of motion / velocities, and not when physical processes are considered in themselves. Hence, a spectrum of values of criterial velocities may be mooted for the various parts of the cosmos, where the velocities being compared with the criterial velocity can still be less than the criterial velocity used for comparison. This is all that physics can at the most possess in order to broaden the concept of quantity in physics and make it better adapted to deal with the physical-ontological concept of Change. In themselves physical existents have Change, which inevitably involves the totality of the many inner, inward, and outward motions.
A naive question in this context: Is anything in itself in motion, relative inertia, or absolute inertia? Naturally, anything is in finite motion of some kind within itself and at comparison with others. It is in a specific relative motion or inertia only in comparison with another motion or other motions. But there is no absolute inertia.
Any specific measurable or measured motion is not the exact (or only) thing that happens in an existent being. It has Change, i.e., all its parts are completely in motion – but in finite motion – which, as I said earlier, does not add up to an infinity of motion. Firstly, no instrument can measure anything exactly as it is, because at any given moment there are so many inner causal influences of causation within each entity and hence the exactness of the quantity does not have any justification with respect to any fixed point of time however minute. Secondly, by the time a measurement is performed, other minute influences have altered the quantity. Hence, no measured quantity can be exact.
Change is not any specific motion, but instead, a transition of many minute motions, and hence cannot be used in and by physics measurementally. It is a physical-ontological quality of all existents. This is why physics has been ignoring the physical-ontological status of Change. Change is in fact the ontological fact of all existents in that each element of existents has an infinite number of ever more minute causal influences acting upon it from within and without. This is the transitioning that Change is.
(I fear I don’t understand well the foregoing passage. (1) I don’t develop (until now) my reconstruction of special relativity until the notion of energy. (2) the assertion no measured quantity can be exact is problematic for me… She seams supposing the notion of the reality as exactly in itself.)
Motion and inertia are only two measurementally integral aspects of Change, wherein motion is a notion that needs mensuration and measurability, and hence can only be considered at one quantity of motion at a time. For this, the epistemic notions of space and time are necessary in physics. But this does not mean that this suffices for physics, because physics studies existent material beings in their motion; and existence, material, energy, etc. are not strictly and primarily physical but physical-ontological notions. Integrally taken, Change is whatever in fact happens in existents in all their parts, including in energy particles / wavicles.
(‘… physics studies existent material beings in their motion…’ This expression can be linked with the conception reality can be know as she is itself. For me, all they notions must be Inserted in a construction on changes.)
Now one may attempt (1) to substitute Change with the notion of transition, i.e., motions within motions within… or (2) to substitute it with notions like momentum, mass, etc. The first is possible, but it is better to use the term ‘Change’ rather than an involving stretch of words. But none of the notions in (2) can substitute Change, because, as you may observe, they can augment the understanding of each other, and only augment the understanding of the concepts of motion, Change, etc., and not substitute the notion of Change.
The self-evident reason for this claim is that even momentum, mass, etc. are just quantitative notions composed of many (i.e., conglomerations of) quantitatively qualitative universals. Change is not a quantity, but a pure, qualitative, ontological universal not directly meaning epistemically determined quantities. I purposely call notions mentioned above, other than Change, as measuremental. This is in order to avoid the sense that quantity is some sort of a substitute for existent physical processes.
Quantity is an epistemic notion, and hence based on connotative universals and expressed in denotative universals. Change is a purely ontological universal. (For a simple clarification on ontological, connotative, and denotative universals, see: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical-Processual_Representation_of_Irrational_Numbers; for more information, see: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text)
Mathematical objects as quantitative qualities too are connotatively epistemic objects represented by denotative universals, and do not exist in terms of the belongingness of ontological universals to existents. (For more clarity on this, see the following discussions: (1) https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source_of_Major_Flaws_in_Cosmological_Theories_Mathematics-to-Physics_Application_Discrepency, (2) https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematics_and_Causality_A_Systemic_Reconciliation, and (3) https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_Are_Numbers_and_Shapes_and_Their_Structures_Considered_by_Many_as_Exact)
If motion is a matter of spatial and temporal measurements, then it can be treated in terms of epistemic procedures in physics. Space-time measurements are the only way for this. But Change, as the concept of motions within motions within motions…, is the precondition behind all motion. These are not generalizable again under the notion of motion-in-general, because this would only be represented mathematically by one type of motion at a time, and not a conglomeration of motions within motions within….
Change does not remain alone. Change is always co-implied by Extension, and of the latter too we have only epistemic measurements in physics, not ontological “quantities”. Clearly, Change is not motion; instead, it denotes an extended object, all the parts of which are in motion by way of impact-formation. Hence, Extension and Change are the fundamental, physical-ontological, universals of all physical existents.
This, in my opinion, is a better way to make the cosmos and eventually Reality-in-total dynamic – rather than creating directly a holistic philosophy for the sake of the attractiveness of holism, where notions like dynamism, interdependence, relationality, coherence, etc. are brought up without the necessary foundational justification.
Let us, therefore, agree that Change is the inevitable ontological precondition behind all motion and that Extension and Change are the fundamental, mutually requiring, physical-ontological, universals of all existents in Reality-in-total and is exhaustive of the notion of the To Be of Reality-in-total.
(For me change doesn’t imply Extension. My be, you links change and extension via the notions of parts. If there are parts, there is Extension? And causality between parts? ... )
Think of the various neo-Vedāntic, neo-Buddhistic, and nature-religion type, new age religions and their philosophies like those of Rudolf Steiner, Osho, Dalai Lama, etc. Their meditation practices and their wisdom are wonderful, but not their physico-philosophical holisms, because they are oriented to good feelings, metaphysical or anti-metaphysical conclusions based on good feelings, and are not based on equally physically and cosmologically acceptable philosophical detail.
(I would like to speak religion with you!)
On the other hand, we have philosophers and philosopher-scientists like Henri Bergson (and the many neo-Nietzschean thinkers), Fritjof Kapra (and his kind of physicists turning quantum physics into a quick-fix-solutions philosophy), etc., who generate a good-feeling integralism without metaphysical tenability with respect to Reality-in-total.
3. WHAT DEBILITATES THEORY IN THE EPR PARADOX? How can quantum physics change?
I do not discuss here the details of the EPR problem. I shall take for granted in the reader some previous knowledge of it. For a state-of-the-art discussion and details of critical points, see: (https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Was_Einstein_a_Monist_long_text)
The EPR problem points to a paradox (locality and non-locality) and consequent sub-paradoxes (say, of stuck-up concepts of symmetry, standstill in the universality of causality, closure of the causal cone, luminal velocity-based artificial limits to physical research, etc.). All these are based only on the procedures in physics as to how the Changes in the processes are being functionalized only with respect to a certain sort of motion with its settled velocity (i.e., c). The velocity of light has been determined from our world, and Relativity takes it up as the ultimate criterion of measurement for the whole cosmos without considering the status of origin of the notion. Hence, the EPR thought experiment and its experimental realizations have tended to create the said paradoxes.
Finally, the technical aspects of non-locality have been instrumentalized by technology-oriented physicists. John Clauser, Alain Aspect, and Anton Zeilinger won the 2022 Nobel Prize for physics. Now many think that, due to the instrumentation success of quantum optics, the cosmos should obey non-locality. But then, should the successes of Newtonian engineering-physics in the instrumentation of astrophysical experiments prove such physics to be the physics of the cosmos?
This state of affairs continues in quantum physics while the physicists do not consider the basic physical-ontological qualities / universals of all existent observables and unobservables together for legitimacy in concepts, hypotheses, truth-claims, laws, theories, etc.: namely, (1) the first most general nature of every existent, i.e., Extension (compositeness), and (2) the only other most general nature of every non-vacuous existent, i.e., Change (impaction / mode of actualization of compositeness).
The second point above demonstrates that even for the energy wavicles concerned, say, the electromagnetic or gravitational emission units, there are inner motions within themselves and influences of motions from beyond themselves into the inner constitution and motions, both the types of which sub-determine every one of such emissions throughout the past, present, and future.
(The notion of inner motions is very problematic for me….)
This realization in quantum physicists, astrophysicists, and cosmologists should be coupled with the need to posit a spectrum of criterial velocities for use at various regions of the cosmos. Out of the spectrum of criterial velocities’ values, some should be valid in ever greater conglomerations of universes within the cosmos. This could give impetus to the evolution of modes of conceiving the fundamental principles of aspects of physics in a cosmology-compatible manner. (For further deepening on this issue: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP_Introduction_to_Gravitational_Coalescence_Cosmology_GCC, and https://www.researchgate.net/post/Infinite-Eternal_Multiverse_Implications_to_Physics_and_Cosmology)
We know that there is no real absolute inertia as Newton thought. If not in absolute inertia, then both observables and unobservables may be considered only in the state of comparative inertia. But what is ontologically more real and irreducible, they are in themselves in Change – i.e., sub-motions within and external sub-influences upon the motion at issue of the wavicle. Hence, wavicles in the cosmos possess not merely a finite amount of motion (and are not in absolute inertia). They possess also constant continuity in finite Change, namely, motions within motions within … ad libitum.
(To understand, I must read ‘Gravitational Coalescence …’, but develop ma conception too. I develop first my conception. … )
Dear Raphael Neelamkavil
Thanks for your answer, it is very clarifying.
The concept of a unit Process as the origin of extension and duration is very interesting and profound.
In the case of space measurements, the notion of an existent not being an infinitesimal point of extension seem fear to me. However in the case of duration I would have some questions. As far I understand, the unit action can only be a measurable duration because the shortest expense of energy present in the causation. The points of the time measurement are of epistemological nature.
However the notion of duration within the existent would imply that parts of such existent have an anterior-to-posterior relation (i. e. not all parts of it are simultaneous, in the same sense that for extension not all parts are in the same place).
How do you conceive simultaneity? Do you regard it as an epistemic notion, or, if so, what would be it's ontological foundation?
Salvador
Salvador Daniel Escobedo
Thanks. When I write here, please do not feel that I am making ex-cathedra statements. Probabilistic and humble formulations of sentences are cumbersome, and so I make assertive statements, that is all.
Let me first clarify an important matter. Extension and Change are the direct and exhaustive implications of To Be. I have not yet found in any thinker this manner of drawing these two Categories as the exhaustive implications of To Be.
I would say that Extension-Change-wise existence is Causality. One causal action is one unit of Process. (Nothing wrong in calling it one unit Causation.) Causality is the relation between the anterior and posterior parts of a unit Process. Since every existent is non-vacuous, every existent must be in Extension-Change. This is the meaning of Universal Causality. This is made clear in the lead-text of this discussion, under Section 1.
I presuppose that in your paragraph 2 you meant 'clear', not 'fear'.
A unit action (I would also put it as a unit Causation or unit Process) is measurable in the actualizable and distantly possible and even merely ideally possible manners. But all of them are possibilities of measurement.
ABOUT SIMULTANEITY:
In pp. 217, 221, and esp. 390 of my "Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology" (which you have), I have discussed it. The first two in the EPR context, I believe. Pp. 390-393 are specific about absolute identity and absolute simultaneity. In this context, I think that Leibnitz's, Russell's, and many others' concepts of identity of indiscernibles come to this. Perhaps the systematic contexts in which they discussed the principle is not directly acceptable to us today.
Let me say a few statements here in gist about it:
Extension-Change-wise existence is in each case so unique that it is not repeatable anywhere else. Maybe, one would claim that the same matter-energy is being used for another entity elsewhere. But this happens never. Some difference will always be in each of them, however small the difference. Hence the impossibility of absolute identity.
Since time is the measure of Change of an entity, and since there is no absolute identity between any two processual entities, the measurable or measured epistemic times of each is different.
Piergiorgio Quadranti
Thanks for the detailed reading and comments. You have given me a good job. Let me try. I start replying to your comments in brackets under sections starting from 1.
Section 1.
'To exist' is the same as 'to be non-vacuous'. You can notice here that I have used Excluded Middle, Identity, and Non-Contradiction here. The manner in which they are used together is such that the context of use is inevitable, because the context is purely ontological, there are no other options, there is no possibility of higher or lower probability of truth here, etc. But what suffer truth-probabilities here would be the adequacy of my formulations, definitons, etc. This will remain so forever in the case of all.
Since 'to exist' necessarily implies its non-non-contradiction (vacuity / nullity), we could safely claim: 'To exist' is the same as 'to be non-vacuous'.
On your interventions under Section 2 I shall write later.
Since Salvador's comment followed yours, I had not seen your comment. Hence the delay to start replying your queries.
Salvador Daniel Escobedo
Let me take the simple example of a balloon in order to discuss the cosmological aspect of identity of parts, simultaneity, etc.
A balloon may be inflated with air at a measurably very stable and constant rate. But between any two points of it there must be some difference of rate of expansion. If not, all the points in it would naturally have to be made of the SAME thing, which is impossible.
Similarly, all our measurements and the predictions of isotropy and related equalities of potentially measurable spacetime, however good in theory, should not be as equal as we may conclude from the theories. Merely because of the minute but naturally true difference between their existence in terms of the different potentially measurable spacetimes, it should naturally be concludable that there is no absolute identity of physical existence, structure, evolution, etc. between any two parts in the cosmos.
This pre-physically true fact shows something interesting: Concluding CONSTANCY OR EQUALITY OF RATE OF EVOLUTION from the values concluded “at present”, “a few times”, that seem to be “constant" CAN AUTOMATICALLY BECOME A SELF-GOAL IN PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY.
Hence, in my opinion, any sufficiently big portion of the cosmos, under expansion or contraction, should at some time experience some sort of contraction or expansion as the opposite evolutionary case. This evolutionary case is not a recurrence of everything as such, but a forward process!
This must be the case also in the infinite number of parts of the cosmos, if the cosmos is of infinite matter-energy content.
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
Piergiorgio Quadranti
ON YOUR COMMENTS UNDER SECTION 2:
Now let us speak of the comments you wrote under section 2 in your intervention above.
You wrote in brackets after this first sentence: Causality consists in the relation between the cause and the effect. (This description of causality isn’t enough for me.)……!!!
But I have already said in some of my discussions, some of which you have already read: that causality is in fact the very Extended and Changing sort of existence. I put it in other words: Without Extension and Change, nothing exists. If anything non-vacuous (i.e., in Extension) creates impact-formation (i.e., in Change) in others and in itself, this process is called Causation. Hence, we do not need much to argue to accept Extension-Change-wise existence as Causation. The relationship within that process is Causality. I thought this has already been read by you from at least two of my other discussions.
You say:
(‘…using mathematics.’ For me, mathematic is not something à part. Mathematics is not something, can be applied to the reality. There are two types of construction, the first considering de change (this means time and finally the subsumption on predicate ‘…is real’.) the second without time and change. The two constructions are entangled, and both are rational. For me mathematics is synonymous of formal. The main difference between the two construction is: formal construction never exacts the change for their continuation, the second is constructed on change, with the same rules as for formal construction. Then each construction must be rational.)
Why is math so? It “is not something”, you say. But then how to explain it? Instead, you go into the same discussion on “construction”. Does that solve the question about math? What do you mean by construction “without time and change”? Just using ‘formal’ does not solve, too. (Now, please do not think that I hold that math is non-formal!!) What is happening when we mathematize? Note also that even math can formalize time. Is this so-called time something existing? If yes, how? If not, then what is time if not an epistemic category, a notion? And in existent things, is an ontological aspect of time active? I term this ontological aspect as Change, because time is conceivable as the measure of Change, not merely of motion. (About the difference between Change and time, in my response a few days ago to Salvador, under the following discussion. It is elaborate enough: 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)
Further, in brackets you said some things that we have already discussed or should have been clear to you: Space is the epistemic aspect of Extension. (The distinction between epistemic and quantitative is suspect for me.) Motion is the quantitative aspect of physical existents that is representable and, in each case, processed as the measure of a certain sort of motion, by using mathematics (As already said, I don’t use mathematic describing something but their description must be done with the same rules as for the formal construction, but on changes) epistemically in terms of a certain spatially tripartite kind of displacement at the level of the kind of motion considered.
But when you quantify, however meagrely, it is math in use! This is quantity. Math is not merely about quantity – but this is a different matter. The act or quantifying is epistemic.
And again: Time is not being multiplied in this manner, and it is just the unique epistemic, quantitative, aspect of Change. (Aristotelian definition of time: measure of change according to before and after.)
Here you already say what Aristotle said, and thereafter you say that you do not understand this thing about Change. You speak of time as the measure of motion.
In my reply to Salvador Daniel Escobedo I have already discussed this in detail.
Further: The motion of any specific kind is merely an aspect of Change. Change involves transitions, using which we cannot mathematically manipulate existent wavicles in their constant inner happenings. (How can we know the inner happenings?)
I did not detail the contours of inner happenings there. Instead, I prespposed that there are happenings (causal, of course), within and without. I did not claim that we can know all these in their details. But if the inner and outer happenings do not happen at all, then nothing happens in the world!!
Yet another: The comments in brackets hereunder are mostly matters that I have already discussed above:
(Doesn’t it be easier [better: Is it not easier] to say motion is a change with involves special displacement? (Aristote.))
Change involves Extended-Changing (i.e., causal) beings. Extension is of Extended-Changing (i.e., causal) beings. Change is not a special displacement. Motion is. Motion is the concept of Change by involving only a specific or a specific set of aspects of Change.
Again: Size, motion, mass, (It possible to construct the notion of mass and force on acceleration and then the classical dynamics (physics)) momentum, energy, etc.
But I did not mean this: [‘change …cannot be substituted by…’ I total agree. Change is the phenomenon (apparition) of the reality. It is the only one phenomenon of reality. It cannot be deduced of substitute., It can be known only as evidence (comme une donnée)].
A phenomenon is not a term to be attributed to Change. Vide: Kant, Husserl, and all the recent analytic thinkers.
As I have said, note: Change is not any specific motion, but instead, a transition of many minute motions, and hence cannot be used in and by physics measurementally. It is a physical-ontological quality of all existents. This is why physics has been ignoring the physical-ontological status of Change. Change is in fact the ontological fact of all existents in that each element of existents has an infinite number of ever more minute causal influences acting upon it from within and without. This is the transitioning that Change is.
(I fear I don’t understand well the foregoing passage. (1) I don’t [did not] develop (until now) my reconstruction of special relativity until the notion of energy. (2) the assertion no measured quantity can be exact is problematic for me… She seams supposing the notion of the reality as exactly in itself.)
Why is this assertion problematic for you? Kindly show me any measured quantity as being exactly of anything in nature! Measurement is of natural things / processes!
Another: (‘… physics studies existent material beings in their motion…’ This expression can be linked with the conception reality can be know as she is itself. For me, all they notions must be Inserted in a construction on changes.)
This expression cannot be the same as or linked with “reality can be know as she is itself”. Reality cannot be known as it is. That is all.
And you say: (For me change doesn’t imply Extension. My be, you links change and extension via the notions of parts. If there are parts, there is Extension? And causality between parts? ... )
I did not say that Change implies Extension. They co-necessitate each other. I do not link Change and Extension via notions of parts. Extension is “having parts”. Change is their impact-formation tendency.
Where I said the following, you said you want to discuss religion with me. For the time, I do not like to discuss religion here, because it is a vast area, and even the points under discussion here above need to be discussed through!: Think of the various neo-Vedāntic, neo-Buddhistic, and nature-religion type, new age religions and their philosophies like those of Rudolf Steiner, Osho, Dalai Lama, etc. Their meditation practices and their wisdom are wonderful, but not their physico-philosophical holisms, because they are oriented to good feelings, metaphysical or anti-metaphysical conclusions based on good feelings, and are not based on equally physically and cosmologically acceptable philosophical detail.
(I would like to speak religion with you!)
I believe I have exhausted your comments under Section 2. You did not respond to my replies to your comments on Section 1. I suggest that we finish the points under Sections 1 and 2. Then we shall take up Section 3. What do you think?
Dear Raphael Neelamkavil, I feel we are at the crucial point where the fundamental notions have not the same meaning. To reach a mutual understanding, I must present the meaning the notions ‘epistemic (epistemology), ontology, existent, real, change, time, space, causality, …’ have for me. Fundamentally, I thinks you seek an ontological ground, I seek how we can construction the notions we can consider as describing an ontological ground, and the criteria to choose such a ground. My philosophical posture is neither analytical nor phenomenological. I feel we have much in common but what? Perhaps, I present the frame of my philosophy. Do you agree or ben I presumptuous?
Exactly, this is what I would like to read first. Thanks. Waiting for it.
Piergiorgio Quadranti,
I shall tell you of my background. My first encounters with philosophy have been in the context of religion, naturally. I was 13, and I went on reading. During all my student days I was most of the time in the library, and even as started teaching, I was connected with the library.
I kept reading for decades and formulating my own reflections. I ever tried and try to go to the most truth-probable grounds as possible. That is, statements that I can make with the most universal acceptability as possible. There may be very few who agree with me. This is natural, since very few want the most fundamental of thoughts.
Now I do not discuss religion in terms of the humanities, but of cosmology and the philosophy of the cosmos. This is why I showed reluctance to get into religion now. Of course, possible but adequate future forms of religion too are interesting for me. But let us please dwell on the metaphysical, epistemological, and related aspects of the physics and cosmology that we discuss.
I await your reply on the previous request. Thanks.
I discuss religion in terms of epistemology. The two approaches are compatible.
I am deeply interested in both the metaphysical and epistemological discussions of religion. But what I thought is that it is difficult to do all of it within the context of what we have already been discussing. Will be too broad a sprectrum of themes!
Salvador Daniel Escobedo, Piergiorgio Quadranti,
To add to our discussions one more matter.
There are physicists and philosophers who think that time is not as fundamental as space. They think that space is absolutely connected to physical existence, and time for them is just a few block times that vary with respect to every block of the universe or with every universe. E.g., Hugh Price to a great extent, and to some extent also Julian Barber who wrote "The End of Time", Thomas Hertog, David Albert, Jeff Tollefson (non-local time!), etc.
I think that this is a very misguided manner of thinking. When we take Extension and Change as the only and exhaustive physical-ontological implications of existence, space and time become equally and fully epistemic categories. What remain at the physical-ontological realm are the Extended and Changing natures of all existents.
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
Yordan Epitropov,
Thanks. Sorry for the delay. I was busy with some other things.
About more than 4 dimensions: So far the extra dimensions have always been conceived as contained in and explicated in terms of the 3 spatial dimensions. In that case, fundamentally we need only to have the 4 dimensions!
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...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically
https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy
Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...
Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...
Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME
Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)
Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...
Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY
Preprint INEVITABILITY OF COSMOLOGICAL, ONTOLOGICAL, AND EPISTEMOLOGI...
Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy