Reification of Concepts in Quantum Physics:
The best of physicists and philosophers of physics even today do not seem to be decided on any concrete but all-encompassing solution by reason of the rational strength of arguments given in favour of the one or another solution. The questions not answered here are these:
(1) Why do physicists not think of the epistemic processes of identification of energy propagations as a geometrical wave, a geometrical particle, or as their alternation, or even as their superposition, and what are the reasons for such misplaced identification of concreteness of the mathematical entities as if they both existed physically out there?
(2) And then, when they feel confronted in themselves as to the paradoxes involved in their own creation, why do they tend to declare that all these (a) are just virtual, or (b) need to be causal in the world merely by reason of a statistical causality (and not by reason of the statistics upon the experimental history of measurements and of identification of causes), or (c) should be paradoxically the external reality because the mathematics says so?
(3) Are these not also modes of reification of what is made out in concepts, of which the basis is the continued tendency to hold the substance metaphysics and/or to oppose such a metaphysics absolutely, as if in the cosmos there were no existents at all behind the phenomena and the data that are being spoken of in physics?
(4) When we, for example, say that the wave function collapses in the physical calculations, do we not, in physics, tend to insist that the existent carrier of energy propagation outside is just collapsing into nothing or into something else that is either existent or mysteriously absolutely virtual? Does this sort of answers solve anything explanatorily?
(5) Are these not the results of the reification of our concept of collapse so as to naming it as an external physical process in exact existential correspondence with our imaginative and mathematically driven conceptualization?
(6) Why do some physicists not have enough ability (a) to recognize the need to establish that the physical calculations must be proved to have an existent process out there, and (b) not to identify the collapse in the equations with its supposed correspondent in the external world (as we do when we say that the pen exists)?
(7) Can they not at least imagine that the epistemic identification via logic and mathematics does not ipso facto produce a correspondence? In the absence of this ability in many physicists, is not fundamental quantum physics again becoming prey to the same age-old correspondence theory of truth that they denounce and accuse many philosophers of the past as having already been prey to?
(8) A typical manner of countering these arguments is to accuse these same arguments as originating from classical physics and notions. But such classical origin of reification of notions is exactly what I attempt to demonstrate in quantum physics and other related sciences – using notions of concept formation, of their foundation in existent physical processes, and of the ultimate and undeniable Categories of all existence.
Arguments Supported by Evident Examples: I add here a few clarifications to what I said above, based on examples from physics.
(1) Take the case of potential energy. It is an energy termed after a certain difference of states. We do discover it quantitatively everywhere. But the discovery is as that of a difference of calculated or calculable energy values, not directly as of an energy carrier so identified.
The same is not the case with photons, neutrinos, etc. These wavicles are identifiable as the very carriers of whatever quantitative energy they carry. What I mean is that whatever energy they contain, and not merely and exactly what we tend to calculate them to contain. As an absolute truth about these quantities, we can only determine whether they are zero, finite, or infinite.
Any measurement beyond these is an ontological commitment to be borne out via experimental verification and augmentation of theoretical and experimental results by use of future theories and experimental advances. The present work shall show that Extension and Change are the foundational criteria upon which such measurements and the proofs of existence of both observable and unobservable energies and matter should be based.
In the case of potential energy, the verification is of the difference, and not of the necessary correspondence with a wavicle as the carrier of potential energy. The latter should have been seen as a must for us to suppose that potential energy does not exist as an energy carrier propagation.
One thing becomes clear here: Energy propagations are theoretically to be posited as energy carriers. Of course, the energy as such is not a thing, but is the quantity of some finite capacity of any so-identifiable “energy carrier” to cause an amount of work, of movement. The quantity of some work / action is not the same as the difference between two states of quantity of work / action, which we call potential energy. The energy carrier has the Category of Change as its internal quality. That is, movement is within it not merely as an additional capacity but as the very quality. Every part of an energy-carrier is in Change.
(2) If we speak of electron as the same sort of energy carrier, there is a conceptual difficulty. An electron is at the most a carrier of carriers of energy, but it is not a relatively well finalizable carrier wavicle of energy of the type that photons are, with respect to the phase of the universe or parts of it or groups of universes wherein photons are relatively more unified as energy carriers than perhaps in other phases or other worlds. Electrons are matter-wavicles containing many smaller quanta of photon energy.
There is nothing wrong in saying this, even if these energy-carrying quanta are resident in electrons not in the very form in which they produce the sort of work or as when free of the higher condensation in electrons in the electromagnetic phenomenon. Hence, essentially, electrons are matter particles moving generally in wave form. If we tend to term an electron as energy carrier conceptually on par with photons, we may have to term also a stone as a set of energy wavicles. That would miss the mark set as the purpose of scientific activity and thought in general, but this is a fact.
The wave function collapse cannot be identified as an existent process out there in a manner similar to that in which we can adduce quanta of energy to any existent energy-carrier wavicle in propagation. This is because the wave function collapse is most probably not a collapse of some waves and/or particles (i.e., wavicles) out there, but the collapse of a certain quantitative symmetry, a certain expected behaviour of the quantities yielded by theory, etc.
But this is not the same as what happens when we create a notion to correspond to a process and we identify the latter with a supposed external correspondent of the notion. Hence, I hold that a wave function collapse is not to have an exactly corresponding change definable as what the word ‘collapse’ can mean, in any existent energy-quanta carrier wavicle. We witness many physicists taking for granted, or omitting to differentiate between, the technical and the ordinary meaning of ‘collapse’; and thus, their audience gets convinced into believing in their new physics under the same mistake.
Is it not necessary to condone such matters in the sciences on the count that human cognition has limits? True. But if this is admitted to be the case, it must also be admitted at the theoretically notional sources of any system of thought, science, and must especially so be infused at the experimental methods and interpretation of experimental and theoretical results of the system of thought and science at question. This is not being done enough in any one of these cases.
(3) This is exactly like special relativity tacitly defining in the Lorentz factor that, since all our physical observations come to be based upon the speed of electromagnetic propagations, the said system of theory “proves” the velocity of light as ultimate and that this does not permit superluminal velocities. This is nothing but begging the question. For more than a century, practically none questioned this self-defeating assumption. Almost everyone is blissful about the technical tool this stipulation offers for science and technology. Under a similar attitude are also the AI specialists who do not inquire what the stuff of information is, but can manipulate it for much technological success!
Conclusions about the Successes of Quantum Physics: To conclude, the successes of quantum physics consist in that at least many of the measurementally determined mathematical explanations of phenomena (phenomenon: the showing-themselves of existent processes from some layers of the processes within) are such that, within the system of mathematically discussing these explanations, (1) further calculations and approximations fall in place, and (2) further theoretical constructions are made possible.
This demonstrates a certain extent of consistency in the theoretical apparatus wherein the initial mathematical definitions and experimentally approximate quantifications permit the acceptance of many further results as true to the foundations of the theoretical apparatuses. But if evident paradoxes arise, then evidently its source lies most probably in the foundational notions of the system, their definitional specificities, etc.
As a conclusion, I suggest that fundamental quantum physics has many unclarified notions that play into its interpretations as miraculous mystifications of physical events, which may directly be attributed to the custom of misplaced identification of concreteness in quantum physics. Hence, the successes do not justify accepting in a literal manner all that is intended by the “even-now substance-philosophically” dominated or “radically virtual-philosophically” dominated minds of many physicists. Cosmology is no exception to what is said above.
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
That's a very interesting and complex question. I'm afraid I don't have a definitive answer, but I can try to give some pointers to relevant sources and perspectives.
One of the main challenges in quantum physics is to understand the nature and meaning of the mathematical formalism that describes physical phenomena at the microscopic level. Quantum physics is often said to be counterintuitive, paradoxical, or even mysterious, because it seems to defy our classical notions of reality, causality, and locality. Some of these difficulties arise from the fact that quantum physics uses abstract concepts and symbols that are not directly observable or measurable, such as wave functions, operators, matrices, vectors, and Hilbert spaces. These concepts are useful tools for making predictions and calculations, but they are not necessarily physical entities or processes that exist in the external world.
One way to approach this problem is to ask whether these concepts are merely convenient representations of our knowledge and ignorance about the physical system, or whether they have some ontological status that reflects the intrinsic nature of reality. This is related to the question of how to interpret quantum mechanics, which has been debated by physicists and philosophers for almost a century. There are many different interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, the many-worlds interpretation, the Bohmian interpretation, the relational interpretation, and the quantum Bayesian interpretation, among others. Each interpretation has its own advantages and disadvantages, and none of them has been universally accepted or empirically confirmed.
Another way to approach this problem is to ask whether these concepts are unique to quantum physics, or whether they can be generalized or applied to other domains of physics or science. For example, some physicists have tried to extend the principles of quantum mechanics to classical systems, such as fluids, chaos, thermodynamics, and information theory. Others have tried to apply quantum concepts and methods to fields such as biology, chemistry, cosmology, and gravity. These attempts aim to explore the connections and similarities between different physical phenomena and theories, and to uncover new insights and applications.
A third way to approach this problem is to ask whether these concepts are fundamental or emergent. That is, whether they are irreducible features of nature that cannot be explained by any simpler or more basic theory, or whether they are effective descriptions that arise from some underlying structure or mechanism that is yet to be discovered. For example, some physicists have proposed that quantum mechanics is not a fundamental theory of nature, but rather an emergent phenomenon that results from some deeper level of reality. Such a level could be described by a theory of quantum gravity, which would unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. Alternatively, some physicists have suggested that quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory of nature, but that it is incomplete or approximate. Such a theory could be modified or extended by adding new elements or principles, such as hidden variables, nonlocality, contextuality, or retrocausality.
The search for quantum reality has not always the intension to understand the nature of reality at the smallest scale size. The intension is dominated by the necessity to understand the “tangible” reality that underlies the formalism of quantum mechanics (and its successor: quantum field theory). Because the formalism is successful to predict the outcome of experiments.
Most in QM is about the quanta of energy (e.g. electromagnetic waves), particles like electrons and probability. That means that all the interactions are limited to the electric - and corresponding magnetic field. The decrease of local scalars of the Higgs field is not part of the formalism of QM.
In other words, to solve the questions about the “tangible” reality of QM we must know the properties of the universal electric field and the properties of the corresponding magnetic field. That is all we need to know to solve these problems.
But science (physics) is dominated by ego, competition and the force of habit. Thus we try to solve all those “text book” problems that seem to be impossible for other theorists to solve. That is honour, grants for further research and hopefully a better job too. To say it in a more sophisticated way: science is dominated by the science culture.
However, this is a one-sided point of view. The scientific education of theoretical physicists is focussed on research with the help of the scientific method. Philosophy of physics and the foundations of mathematics are not part of the education. So maybe we have to acknowledge that our expectations are not realistic because of the limited education.
But again, this is also a limited point of view. Because philosophers and mathematicians don’t solve these theoretical problems either. Although there are many philosophers and mathematicians who publish papers about (the meaning of) QM. Mostly researchers who have also a PhD physics...
In other words, the best way to solve the problems is to do the research yourself and hopefully you are successful.
With kind regards, Sydney
Lyudmil Antonov, thanks for the thought-provoking reflection.
I have followed the pattern of asking whether the foundations of QM are foundational enough from the viewpoint of an attempt to generalize and base every possible science and thought on some physical-ontological notions, here Extension and Change. (Kindly take a look at it in: https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irrefutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position, and https://www.researchgate.net/post/Mathematics_and_Causality_A_Systemic_Reconciliation#view=64663f82c448f731d800e98f/4)
After the questions on the foundations come all else, in my opinion, because the fundamental ones are the foundations for all further questions!
You obviously loose a lot of comon sense by moving from CM into QM.
You loose concrete vision, determinism, measurement capability without involving the observer, some say objectivity itself.
So what remains is something like a brutal semi axiomatic prescription
which admits the restrictions. Belief or not is just an individual problem.
You do get some answers there, better than nothing at all.
Of course countless persons atempt to make this better...Little success.
It doesn’t make sense to complain that other people don’t understand something, or aren’t doing something. Anyone claiming that should do it him or herself. This doesn’t ensure instant fame and recognition, of course.
However the claims made are, unfortunately, the result of misunderstanding what quantum mechanics is about, which is the equilibrium properties of a physical system with a bath of fluctuations. So the end result of any calculation is a probability distribution. The only difference with thermal fluctuations is that the degrees of freedom that resolve the thermal fluctuations are known-they’re atoms and molecules, that move according to the laws of classical physics, whereas the degrees of freedom that can resolve the quantum fluctuations aren’t known.
Sydney Ernest Grimm, I have great respect when you write. I find many important points there, which are gained by experience. Thanks.
You said: "In other words, the best way to solve the problems is to do the research yourself and hopefully you are successful."
I shall narrate an experience of mine before almost a few years ago. I was trying to get into a doctorate and later a postdoc at a university. But the prof and his assistant did not want me -- neither for a doctorate nor, later, for a postdoc. I do not get into why. One thing is sure: I do not fight with anyone. If something is not mine, I empty my place and move. Later, this doctoral position was awarded to a junior person who do not have enough background or ideas on the question. This young man too is a good friend of mine. I was happy he got it. But both I and he could have worked there for a doctorate! He has got a solid financing, but I was ready to do the PhD without financing!
I fend for my own existence and do my studies. This, as you said, is the best way. I have left a good teaching position and entered further studies and research. Hope to bring results....
Juan Weisz, I do not share your view. There are thousands of eminent scientists in every nation, working on the applied and laboratory-based research on all these themes. I humbly attempt to find solutions for some foundational problems there. Of course, I will lost a lot. But I will gain something too. That will do for the time. Later, if I get a good opportunity, I will do what you have suggested too.
Hence, I do not accept the accusations like. "You obviously loose a lot of comon sense by moving from CM into QM."
Stam Nicolis, I agree that "the end result of any calculation is a probability distribution." What I propose is that we need to have conditions to decide on the "existence or not" of "probabilistic causes" outside of the mathematics. There exist only causes. Do non-causes or random causes exist as anything other than causes?
This is the greatest defect of many quantum concepts. At least one complete book and many chapters dealing with this problem, have been published by me. Let me continue this trail. I am a human being with some limitations. Of course, there may be misunderstandings in my concepts too. Kindly point them out.
Raphael Neelamkavil, probability isn’t (yet) mathematics, although mathematicians have studied probability and have described probability relations. Mathematicians have tried to construct the mathematical foundation of probability but till today not successful.
Probability theory originates from macroscopic experiments, throwing dices. Thus a probability distribution in QM is a “tangible” description of an energy distribution in Euclidean space (no matter if the proposed conditions are described with the help of Hilbert space). A probability distribution is always deterministic. Random causes and non-causes don’t exist because our universe is non-local (Noble prize physics 2022).
I don’t suggest that QM isn’t complicated and “fuzzy” for humans. But if energy is quantized and energy changes are limited to the speed of light under conservation of energy and momentum, there is no “room” for indeterminism in our universe.
With kind regards, Sydney
I have added a substantial amount of material to the basic text of this discussion. Please see above.
Raphael Neelamkavil, potential energy is a relict from classic physics. It doesn’t exist as a basic concept in quantum physics. Because everything in the universe is changing (transforming) continuously, even matter. At the scale size of the smallest particles (10-15 meter) the “rate of change” within the structure of the electromagnetic field – known as vacuum fluctuations– is about 1026 quanta during one second. Besides that, our solar system moves with a velocity of about 368 km/s in relation to the structure of the electromagnetic field (CMBR dipole).
A propagation of 1 quantum of energy means that a surplus of energy of 1 quantum – in relation to the amount of energy around – passes on to another position. The “carrier” is not the energy, the “carrier” is the geometrical structure of the electromagnetic field (QFT). The “energy” is the transfer of a variable property within the structure of the electromagnetic field. Thus a particle is a local concentration of an amount of the variable property "energy", in line with E = m c2.
Unfortunately, a detected change describes a static situation at a certain moment. These changes must have some kind of a causation: an amount of “power” to change on and on and on. Thus energy is not only the “observable” change, it is also the origin of the change. But change in every possible direction doesn’t exist in our universe. Thus every change has – theoretically – a certain “freedom of direction”. Actually, it is about the “power” to change in every direction.
I agree that all the grand theories are approximations and unfortunately not even close approximations. So it is really nice that the observations with the James Webb Space Telescope have proved that the Standard Cosmological model is not trustworthy.
With kind regards, Sydney
Sydney Ernest Grimm,
I have potential energy as an example in general, not as from QM.
You can define the "carrier" in terms of some math. But if the math alone is the carrier, and nothing exists there to carry the energy, it is bizarre!
This is a general problem in physics and cosmology, whereas Chemistry and Biology may not go thus far.....! And why?
"Energy is not only the “observable” change, it is also the origin of the change" -- not merely mathematically. But the presupposition behind physics must be that the stuff with which it has to do is at least existent!
Raphael Neelamkavil,
Indeed, you are right. The presupposition behind physics is that “the stuff” (the basic quantum fields) is real. Actually, “the stuff” is the volume of our universe.
At the moment the pioneer satellite is on its way in outer space. It is still measuring the properties of vacuum space around and one of these measured properties is the local magnetic magnitude. That is why we know that the solar system “moves” through large size magnetic variances. We measure the properties of a field thus it is not an imaginary (mathematical) construct. Fields represent “tangible” phenomena, comparable with tangible objects. Although the large scale magnetic variances in outer space are build up by ultra fast local electromagnetic changes (about 1026 local changes during 1 second).
Actually, in QFT particles are supposed to be created from the properties of the structure of the distinct quantum fields. Therefore, a particle is a local concentration of energy and the energy is generated by the structure of the electromagnetic field. Even if it is a rest mass carrying particle because the decreased scalar(s) of the Higgs field permits a further increase of the concentration of energy by the electromagnetic field. An amount of energy (surplus) that is termed “rest mass”.
Unfortunately, science is business too. Not only for the scientific industry but also for the media. So there is an enormous pile of articles that are really confusing. Not at least because the media try to attract our attention with the help of extravagance.
With kind regards, Sydney
If I understood correctly, translated from philosophical language into normal, you wanted to say that the concept of quantum physics has no philosophical (metaphysical, but materialized) basis. I agree, but this applies equally to the concept of classical physics. I believe that in this case, the concept of moving matter may be useful
Research Proposal MATHEMATICAL NOTES ON THE NATURE OF THINGS
Igor Bayak, exactly! Am working gradually on such stuff. But the background required is enormous. Am working towards more grip on those areas, philosophically, physically, and mathematically.
Raphael Neelamkavil
If you set certain goals in terms of clarifying the metaphysical content of physics, then it may be interesting for you to look at the peaks that have already been achieved. Take a closer look, for example, at the derivation of the generalized Schrodinger equation with an evolving complex mass
Preprint Chaotic dynamics of an electron
No Detriment to the Sciences, but Only Enhancement: By the above claim no one in the sciences needs to get threatened or feel being robbed of their own powers. Philosophy is not an attack on the sciences. It is at the very least a wake-up call for the sciences to grow in their foundations, methods, theoretical breadth and depth, and experimental connection with the broadest possible causal horizons behind theory. The fact is that any conversation about the above aspects of science automatically becomes philosophy of science. They can happily forget all other functions of philosophy.
Raphael Neelamkavil
I like the way you try to bring clarity to quantum mechanics. I have had this same interest for many years.
I agree with many of your conclusions. However, there are added levels of subtleties in the physics that I think you might be missing.
I took a very different path than you did to arrive at my own conclusions. I needed to start with what is the true foundation for everything we know. I realized that it is not science or objective observation that is the foundation. It is our experiences and our ability to learn from experience. This is the true foundation for science as well as philosophy.
However, I ran across someone who followed a similar path to yours. Her name is Ruth Kastner. She started out as a philosopher. She now specializes in the foundations of quantum mechanics and has offered an interpretation: Relativistic Transactional Interpretation (RTI) of QM. She has also raised many of the same points you did, however, she also has taken it much further into the subtleties of the physics itself.
For example, she shows the common mistakes made by physicists and philosophers over quantum mechanics, and offers clear explanations for solutions in this paper that I think you might enjoy:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.00502.pdf
And she zeroes in on the problems with interpretations of QM and offers solutions in this paper:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.10649.pdf
For example, you say above: "Thus energy is not only the “observable” change, it is also the origin of the change."
There are subtle reasons to say that energy is not the origin. Potential energy is. Yes, potential energy does have a real place in quantum mechanics. There are quantum exchanges that lead to attraction and repulsion between particles that create "potential energy," such as when virtual photons are exchanged between charged particles. This is not real energy, but it does exist as a force without energy that has a real influence on what happens.
This force with no energy then leads to interactions between particles where real energy is carried between one particle to another, such as when a real photon is emitted and then absorbed. The real photon literally is created when it is emitted and is annihilated when it is absorbed.
Photons only exist to carry energy, as if they are delivery messengers. Therefore, they are bound to the relationship between the emitter and the absorber. Matter-based particles, such as electrons and quarks, however, are bound to particle fields that are tied to spacetime.
Doug Marman, thanks. I am aware of the works of Ruth E. Kastner. The difference in the approaches is that she remains in the tradition and tries to solve the problems by interpreting the foundations and conclusions.
What I do is to take not only QM but also the whole of physics and cosmology, and possibly also other physical sciences AS A BACKGROUND, for which I attempt to find Categorial foundations, by using which I try to reinterpret some results in the physical sciences.
These are not clear in the present discussion, of course. My book-length publications have been trying to do such work. So far in 4 books, and the fifth is forthcoming in a few months. Doing the final revision of the English and Italian versions. (Causality in Physics, Mind, Language, and AI: Process Metaphysics of Space-Time, Unobservables, Universals, and Virtual Possible Worlds)
YET ANOTHER QUESTION: YOU SAID: "For example, you say above: "Thus energy is not only the “observable” change, it is also the origin of the change.""
I do not know if I said this.
Moreover, I cited the case of potential energy as a case where a virtual unobservable is created to theoretical profit out of it for explanatory purposes. But explanations in terms of existent carriers of energy about potential energy in classical and quantum physics, thermodynamics, cosmology, etc. do not seem to exist. This is why I try to define the most foundational Categories as the very exhaustive meanings of To Be. I use these to interpret everything.
I have not spoken of these notions much in the present discussion. But in some of the others you will find them being introduced in detail.
Raphael
I have revised the basic text of the following discussion substantially:
Criteria to Differentiate between Virtuals and Existents in Scientific Theories
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Criteria_to_Differentiate_between_Virtuals_and_Existents_in_Scientific_Theories
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?
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.
Source of Major Flaws in Cosmological Theories: Mathematics-to-Physics Application Discrepency
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Source_of_Major_Flaws_in_Cosmological_Theories_Mathematics-to-Physics_Application_Discrepency
Quantum computers and quantum cryptography are potentially the first commercial applications of quantum physics. Unfortunately, quantum mechanics in its existing formulation is a no-work-around obstacle to bring these potential applications into reality. The theory needs to be reformulated in adequate logical and mathematical formalism. A lot of continuing confusion comes from the lack of precision in using terms like “state”, “observable”, “measurement of observable in a state”, etc. This terminology creates ambiguity because the meaning of the words differs between prevailing quantum mechanics and what is logically and naturally assumed by the human mind in scientific researches and generally used in areas of physics other than conventional quantum mechanics. We see no successful, reliable results yet in creating quantum computers due to working with bad, inappropriate tools.
Theory should speak not about complementarity but about perfect splitting of measurement process into the operator (“state” in confusing conventional terminology, though “wave function is a little better) and the operand (observable) components.
See Article Two Shaky Pillars of Quantum Computing
and references therein.
Alexander Soiguine, thanks for the very good comment. I have been discussing such terms and their lack of proper definitions in most of physics and philosophy of physics.
Let me give another common example. "Determinism, Determined". Is it conceptual / epistemic determination, or determination by physically existent objects? Most physicists use this term interchangeably. That is, at certain occasions as mental determination and at other causation! Merely because physicists use it so, most philosophers of physics follow them....
I appreciate the sort of response that you have graced us with. Thanks.
In this context, kindly read this article that appeared in my mobile just now:
Physicists Conduct The Most Massive Test Ever of The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox
https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-conduct-the-most-massive-test-ever-of-the-einstein-podolsky-rosen-paradox
In this context, kindly read this article that appeared in my mobile just now and give your opinions:
Physicists Conduct The Most Massive Test Ever of The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox
https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-conduct-the-most-massive-test-ever-of-the-einstein-podolsky-rosen-paradox
Do Electromagnetic and Gravitational Quanta (EM Quanta and Gravitons) Gravitate from Within?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_Electromagnetic_and_Gravitational_Quanta_EM_Quanta_and_Gravitons_Gravitate_from_Within
Do electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles exist? Before using them in physics, it must be determined whether they exist, for them to exert causally real physical effects. Existents cannot be vacua, and hence, they must exist, and hence they are
(1) in Extension (each having a finite number of finite-content parts), because if not extended, EM quanta would be non-existent, and
(2) in Change (existents, which are always with parts, possessing parts which always exert finite impacts on a finite number of others, inclusive of exertion of finite impacts on some parts within), because anything that has no change is not in existence.
An existent without own parts and own exertion of impacts will be imaginable as existent. Anything that is not in Extension-Change is non-existent – a physical-ontological fact at the foundations of physics, which most physicists (and other scientists) forget while performing their statistical and other related miracles!
This much for an introduction. Now, what are the implications of such existence in the case of EM wavicles and gravitons?
ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA
If electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles are EXISTENT, then they possess also EXTENSION and CHANGE. They are not absolutely geometric particles, instead, they are elongated at various dimensions.
Let us assume the following as a general principle in physics: Anything physical issues gravitons, which are the basic attractive forces within physical existents.
If an existent energy wavicle is thus a matter wavicle with extension, it must also issue gravitons! In that case, the only stuff in the cosmos that cannot themselves issue further gravitons from within are gravitons themselves. What can this work to in physics and cosmology? I believe that we need a revolution from this viewpoint. This is a proposal that waits being tested by future physics and astrophysics.
Gravitons too are extended and changing wavicles. But they are themselves the wavicles possessing also their parts that attract each other, and are long-range in nature. If they issue sub-gravitons, they will naturally be kept attracted within the issuing sources, because the parts from which they are supposed to be issued are themselves attractive by nature and other matter and energy particles attract each other basically by means of issuing gravitons.
But naturally, gravitons too must be existent, and hence possess parts. What would be the sort of parts that gravitons can possess? Repulsons or Gravitons? Sub-repulsons or sub-gravitons? I think that they cannot themselves be repulsons and sub-repulsons, because repulsons and sub-repulsons without coherence will not stick together as parts of gravitons. Gravitons cannot issue gravitons themselves, since this is self-creation. But they can possess sub-gravitons as parts, but these need not be of the same power as their totality that each graviton is.
In any case, one thing should be accepted: BOTH ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA MUST ISSUE THEIR OWN WAVICLES OF ATTRACTION. IN THE CASE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC QUANTA, THE ISSE IS THAT OF GRAVITONS (and whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to). IN THE CASE OF GRAVITONS, THE PARTS WILL HAVE TO BE SUB-GRAVITONS (plus whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to).
Let me show another aspect. In any given world or part of the world there must be a highest velocity. I think this will be determined by the matter-energy density achieved at the broadest (all-inclusive) condensation phase available in that part of the cosmos. Let's call it a world. In this world, it is possible to measure all motion in terms of the highest c of that world. In a broader world that includes this world, or in another world, we should a c-2, elsewere c-3, etc. Thus we have a spectrum of STRs and GTRs. Then the problem of measurement will be more complex.
I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. It is an attempt to correct some basic attitudes in physics. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall upload the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:
FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE
1. INTRODUCTION
I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist, but are to be treated or expressed as waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist. Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not physically existent fields of energy propagations from bodies.
This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that gravitation and other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles.
Even in the 21stcentury, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity and its various versions have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields.
A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics and in the philosophy of physics.
Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questioning_the_Foundations_of_Physical_Constants_Properties_and_Qualities
How to Ground Science and Philosophy Together Axiomatically?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_Ground_Science_and_Philosophy_Together_Axiomatically
Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. The Difference between Cause and Reason
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Symmetry_A_Subset_of_Universal_Causality_The_Difference_between_Cause_and_Reason
This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.
The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.
The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fallacies_of_Space_Time_and_Spacetime_in_Physics
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
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.
Watch this video (streamed today, 23 July 2023) from after the 9th minute: A suggestion that the constant velocity of light, Planck’s constant, and Gravitational constant may be found to have covariance when the whole cosmos is considered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPCoqJqSbGY
Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Essential_Reason_in_Physicists_Use_of_Logic_And_in_Other_Sciences_Too
Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO
I think the game that many physicists and other scientists, and of course some philosophers, are playing concerning time is with respect to the concept of 'reality'. Some take 'reality' as existent reality, and some do not consider it so. My suggestion to understand the scenario better is the following:
Reality consists of existent reality and realities that pertain to existent realities in their groups. Existent realities are clear enough to understand. Realities pertinent to existent realities are never to be taken as belonging to just one existent reality. They are always those generalities that belong to many existent realities in their respective natural kind. These generalities are what I call ontological universals.
But the most important matter here is this: there are some ontological universals which belong to all existent realities. (1) Thus, every existent is in extension. If not in extension, nothing can exist. That is, vacuous existence is no existence. But to be in Extension means to have parts. This is the first ontologically universal characteristic of all existents. (2) The second is that existents have to act. Some movement will be there in every part of extended existents. In physical existents this movement is finite. By movement, every extended existent causes a finite impact in themselves and in a finite number of others. This characteristic of all existents is termed Change.
But Extension-Change-wise existence is Causation! Hence, every existent must be causal. Moreover, in terms of the concept of Universal Causality, Extension and Change are absolutely and inseparably connected to each other.
NOW WE COME TO THE QUESTION OF TIME: The conventionally scale-based measure of Change is time. With respect to any existent, time is the measure of movement of Change. In some cases this is very fast, where time is considered to be more intense (not that a generally considered time is fast with respect to this Change), and if the Change is little, the time is considered to be less intense (not that a generally considered time is slow).
That is, time as the epistemic measure of Change, does not exist, it is not even an ontological universal. It is an epistemic universal.
Similarly, space is the measure of Extension.
If you like this sort of explanation, kindly let others read this and discuss in their circles.
As for me, this viewpoint is so strong that I am writing books by using just these notions. The time and space of physicists and other scientists must go.
Here I was trying to give my way of explanation. Others will surely have other explanations. Very good, and that is how humanity will grow. Am open to listen.
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...
Preprint THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS: CRITIQUE OF TRADITIONAL PHYSICA...
A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS: Beyond the Two Millennia
https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_SIMPLE_GAME-CHANGER_CAUSALITY_FOR_PHYSICS_Beyond_the_Two_Millennia
https://www.researchgate.net/post/DEFINITION_OF_THE_ONTOLOGY_BEHIND_PHYSICS_5_Paragraphs
DEFINITION OF THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs)
THE ANOMALY IN MATHEMATICAL / THEORETICAL PHYSICS (Short Text)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_ANOMALY_IN_MATHEMATICAL_THEORETICAL_PHYSICS_Short_Text
Here a serious and somewhat complex matter to discuss:
NON-FOUNDATIONS OF ‘WAVICLES’ IN EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN PARADOX: Bases for Quantum Physics to Evolve (Maybe a physical-ontological Breakthrough)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/NON-FOUNDATIONS_OF_WAVICLES_IN_EINSTEIN-PODOLSKY-ROSEN_PARADOX_Bases_for_Quantum_Physics_to_Evolve_Maybe_a_physical-ontological_Breakthrough
AGAINST COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION, etc.: A Critique of Identity, Simultaneity, Cosmic Repetition / Recycling, etc.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/AGAINST_COSMIC_ISOTROPY_CONFORMAL_CYCLIC_COSMOS_ETERNAL_INFLATION_etc_A_Critique_of_Identity_Simultaneity_Cosmic_Repetition_Recycling_etc
Preprint A SIMPLE GAME-CHANGER CAUSALITY FOR PHYSICS Beyond the Two Millennia
Preprint ESSENTIAL LOGIC, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS, ...
WHAT IS THE MYSTERIOUS STUFF OF INFORMATION? A Short but Clear Definition
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_THE_MYSTERIOUS_STUFF_OF_INFORMATION_A_Short_but_Clear_Definition
Preprint COSMIC ISOTROPY, CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOS, ETERNAL INFLATION:...
THE PLANCK ERA / QUANTUM ERA and “DISAPPEARANCE” OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY: “OMNIPOTENCE” OF MATHEMATICS
https://www.researchgate.net/post/THE_PLANCK_ERA_QUANTUM_ERA_and_DISAPPEARANCE_OF_PHYSICAL_CAUSALITY_OMNIPOTENCE_OF_MATHEMATICS
Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...
Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...
Thanks. A question at the possible directions of solutions: Would further researches based on the foundational assumptions of QM be the way to solving the problems? Or, would the foundations -- whatever they are -- have to be rethought?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion
https://www.researchgate.net/post/LINGUISTIC_HERESY_BEHIND_SELF-ORGANIZATION_SELF-REFERENCE_INTENTIONALITY_PHYSICAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_SELF-INTERACTION_etc
I think some of QM can influence math.
Mostly it has gone the other way so far.
For example the question commutability =
Simultaneous existance as sharply defined
terms.
Would you please explain "Simultaneous existEnce as sharply defined
terms"?
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/ONTOLOGICAL_DIFFERENCES_OF_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_ARTIFICIAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_INTELLIGENCE_ALGORITHMS_AND_PROCEDURES_Against_Exaggerations
If you look at the main structures in math
The R and C, they are all commutative.
QM illustrates the constructive difficulties in
Non commutative systems.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution
https://www.researchgate.net/post/UNTENABLE_REIFICATION_OF_CONCEPTS_IN_PHYSICS_With_Examples
Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically
https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy
Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...
Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...
Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME
Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)
Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...
Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY
Preprint INEVITABILITY OF COSMOLOGICAL, ONTOLOGICAL, AND EPISTEMOLOGI...
Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY
- Badges
- Science topic