Anything exists non-vacuously as in Extension (having parts, each of which again is extended) and in Change (extended existents impacting some other extended existents). Anything without these two characteristics cannot exist. THESE ARE THE TWO, EXHAUSTIVE, IMPLICATIONS OF "TO BE" AND "EXISTENTS".
If not in Change, how can something exist in Extension (= in the state of Extension) alone? And if not in Extension, how can something exist in the state of Change alone? These are impossible. ((The traditional interpretations of Parmenides and Heraclitus as emphasizing merely one of these is unacceptable.)) Hence, Extension-Change are two fundamentally physical-ontological Categories of all existence.
But Extension-Change-wise existence is what we understand as Causality: extended existents and their parts exert impacts on other extended existents. Every part of existents does it. This is not the meaning of Change alone, but in Extension-Change! That is, if everything exists, everything is in Causation. This is the principle of Universal Causality...! All counterfactual imaginations need not yield really existent worlds of this kind.
Even the allegedly “non-causal” quantum-mechanical constituent processes are mathematically and statistically circumscribed, measuremental, concepts from the results of experiments upon Extended-Changing existents; and ipso facto the realities behind these statistical measurements are in Extension-Change if they are physically existent.
Space is the measured shape of Extension; time is that of Change. Therefore, space and time are merely epistemic categories. How then can statistical causality be causality at all? Bayesians should now re-interpret their results in terms of Universal Causality, as mere measuremental extent of our determination of the exact causes of some events.
No part of an existent is non-extended and non-changing. One unit of cause and effect may be called a process. Every existent and its parts are fully processual -- in the sense that every part of it is further constituted by sub-processes. None of these sub-processes is infinitesimal. Each is near-infinitesimal in Extension and Change.
Thus, Extension and Change are the very exhaustive meanings of To Be, and hence I call them the highest Categories of metaphysics, physical ontology, the sciences, etc. Science and philosophy must obey these two Categories if they deal with existent processes, and not merely of imaginary counterfactual worlds.
In short, everything existent is causal. Hence, Universal Causality as the highest pre-scientific Law, second only to Existence / To Be. To Be is not a law; it is the very reason for existence of anything...!
Natural laws are merely derivative from Universal Causality. If any natural law disobeys Universal Causality, it is not a scientific law. Since Extension-Change-wise existence is the same as Universal Causality, scientific laws are derived from Universal Causality, and not vice versa.
Today sciences attempt to derive causality from the various scientific laws! This is merely because millennia long we have been getting fooled about such a fundamental meaning of Causality. We were told that causality can be proved only empirically. The folly here has been that what is specific is universalized: The Fallacy of Conceptual / Theoretical Wholes and Parts. Search for the causes of a few events has been misinterpreted as capable of defining the search for the causal nature or non-causal nature of all...! IS THIS NOT ENOUGH PROOF FOR THE INFANCY IN WHICH THE FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES FIND THEMSELVES IN?
The relevance of metaphysics / physical ontology for the sciences is clear from the above. Lack of such a metaphysical foundation has marred the effectivity of the sciences and of course of philosophy as such. RECOLLECT THE ERA IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY WHEN CAUSALITY WAS CONVERTED TO CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS.........
Existents have some Activity and Stability. This is a fully physical fact. These two categories may be shown to be subservient to Extension-Change. Pure vacuum (non-existence) is the absence of Activity and Stability. Thus, entities are irreducibly active-stable processes in Extension-Change. Physical entities / processes possess finite Activity and Stability. Activity and Stability together belong to Extension; and Activity and Stability together belong to Change too.
That is, Stability is not merely about space; and Activity is not merely about time. But the traditions (in both the sciences and philosophy) still seem to hold so. We consider Activity and Stability as sub-categories, because they are based on Extension-Change, which together add up to Universal Causality; and each unit of cause and effect is a process.
These are not Categories belonging to merely imaginary counterfactual situations. The Categories of Extension-Change and their sub-formulations are all about existents. There can be counterfactuals that signify cases that appertain existent processes. But separating these cases from useless logical talk is near to impossible in linguistic-analytically and denotatively active definitions of reference in logic, philosophy, philosophy of science, and the sciences. THE FAD NATURE OF THE PHILOSOPHIES OF FREGE, WITTGENSTEIN, THE VIENNA CIRCLE, AND THEIR FOLLOWERS TODAY FOLLOWS FROM THIS.
Today physics and the various sciences do something like this in that they indulge in particularistically defined terms and procedures, blindly thinking that these can directly denotatively represent the physical processes under inquiry.
Concerning mathematical applications too this is the majority attitude among scientists. Hence, without a very general physical ontology of Categories that are applicable to all existent processes, all sciences are in gross handicap. THIS IS A GENERAL INDICATION FOR THE DIRECTION OF QUALITATIVE GROWTH IN THE SCIENCES AND PHILOSOPHY.
The best examples are mathematical continuity and discreteness being attributed to physical processes IN THE MATHEMATICALLY INSTRUMENTALIZED SCIENCES. Mathematical continuity and discreteness are to be anathema in the sciences. Existent processes are continuous and discrete only in their Causality.
This is nothing but Extension-Change-wise discrete causal continuity. At any time, causality is present in anything, hence there is causal continuity. But this is different from mathematical continuity and discreteness.
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.
Grazie mille, Prof. Daniele Sasso....
You may like the new discussion session: GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX. It is the kernel of an idea on which I have reflected more than 35 years by now, have presented arguments to some cosmologists, and have got support.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitational_Coalescence_Paradox_GCP
https://philpapers.org/archive/TEREC.pdf
https://philpapers.org/archive/TERECV.pdf
Universal causality (1) and existential being (2) as dynamic interplay, with extra-temporal causality as a priori assumption; our statistical observations can only catch temporal conditionalities as a posteriori phenomena, in terms of creating scientific models of reality, which may work and serve us somehow, to cope with reality. JvNeumann opined that our scientific models cannot explain reality; this explanation gap remains the domain of philosophy (theology included here), where time-tested wisdom rules over the tradable commodities of data, information and knowledge.
Shallow men believe in luck or in circumstance. Strong men believe in cause and effect. R.W. Emerson
Stephen I. Ternyik, thanks. I will read one of these two suggested papers. It is in English....
All impact transfers within and between entities are extended-changing. Impact transfer is nothing but the activity called Causation. Existents are in extended-changing causal process. The relation of one impact transfer process towards the constitution of another is Causality. Hence, everything is in causal process. If anything non-causal exists, it must lose contact with causal processes and cannot be connected with anything else so to result from causal processes or non-causal processes.
That is, Causality is a derivative Category pertaining to all existents. It is derived from putting together Extension and Change. Causality (the relation) and causation (the action / activity) are act-based. In general, without direct reference to the causal aspect, and with direct reference to the entity-aspect, one can say denotatively: everything is an extended-changing process. (“Everything is in process” means adjectivally: “Everything is processual”) In fact, Causation and Processuality are interchangeable; the manner of definition alone differs. But a unit process is a set of cause and effect.
Raphael,
Would you please clarify a few things?
When you say 'non-vacuous' are you meaning matter as opposed to space?
When you talk about Space/Extension and Time/Change, I think of physical reality as opposed to foundational/metaphysical reality. In metaphysical reality, I don't believe these concepts have an innate meaning. Your last sentence mentions 'relevance of metaphysics'. To me your argument seems at a higher level.
You ask how statistical causality can be causality at all. A complicated underlying causality can seem statistical at a higher level due to the many contributing factors. This is how statistical causality can be seen as causality.
Best wishes,
Richard
Richard Marker, welcome!
By non-vacuous I mean whatever that is not non-existent. That s, anything existent will be non-vacuously existent. Herewith I avoid purely non-existent "possible worlds" with nothing existent. The concept of space comes later. Space is not a vacuum. Pure (PURE, PURE) vacuum is non-existence.
I know that now all will start attacking me saying, 'Even in vacuum there is at least one quantum'. My reply: I mean by vacuum that total absence of existence of anything, where we conceptually remove even the quanta. Now the traditional reply would be: 'Oh no, if there is at least one quantum there, it is not vacuum'. My reply: I did not ask you to remove that quantum with your hands or mechanically. You yourself spoke of pure vacuum where there is at least one quantum. That is what I called 'the absence of anything'. And I did not insist upon your evacuating that quantum from there!
Further:
You seem to have a very bad idea (PLEASE DO NOT FEEL BAD ABOUT THIS. WE ARE FRIENDS.) of the metaphysical as opposed to the physical. There is no thing or process that is metaphysical. There are only embodied processes. By metaphysical is meant "belonging to those conceptual Categories and concepts that make physical thought based on physical existents possible."
Gone are the days (centuries ago) that thought that there are both the metaphysical and the physical worlds.
Now about statistical causality. It is that MATHEMATICAL CONCEPT of causality, which results about the attempts to discover causal processes behind any one process (which scientists and some philosophers mistakenly call 'phenomenon / phenomena') at issue. Now, the measure of our instrumentalized ability to discover the causal antecedents of anything is not the causality of the thing / process under research. This is the measure of our ability to discover some specific causal antecedents of some specific processes.
But UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY is that state of all existents by which everything existent is existent in Extension and Change. It does not exist separately in Extension and Change, but together in Extension-Change.
Please do not feel that I was criticizing you. I was trying to ATTACK some traditional ways of thinking.
The above are things on which I have written hundreds of pages and published. Hence, I am ready to discuss the details as and when questions arise.
Thanks for the intervention.
Raphael,
Don't worry about me taking offense. I don't.
Thank you for answering my questions. I understand my views are far from universal, but we must all follow our thoughts.
Best wishes,
Richard
Richard Marker: One more point: So far we have been speaking of the various laws of science / natural laws. Just one among them was causality. Now, if the very physical existence is Extension-Change-wise, and if Extension-Change-wise existence is itself Causality, then every existent must be causal. This is Universal Causality, and it becomes a pre-scientific Law. I call it a metaphysical / physical-ontological Law because IT IS THE LAW OF THE VERY POSSIBILITY OF BEING TAKEN AS PHYSICALLY EXISTENT. Extension and Change are the only and the exhaustive meanings of To Be. In that case, these two Categories must have a superior Categorial position in both philosophy and the sciences.
Existents have some Activity and Stability. This is a fully physical fact. These two categories may be shown to be subservient to Extension-Change. Pure vacuum (non-existence) is absence of Activity and Stability. Thus, entities, irreducibly, are active-stable processes in Extension-Change. Physical entities / processes possess finite Activity and Stability. Activity and Stability together belong to Extension; and Activity and Stability together belong to Change too. That is, Stability is not merely about space; and Activity is not merely about time. But the tradition still seems to hold so. We consider Activity and Stability as sub-categories, because they are based on Extension-Change, which together add up to Universal Causality; and each unit of cause and effect is a process.
These are not Categories that belong to merely imaginary counterfactual situations. The Categories of Extension-Change and their sub-formulations are all about existents. There can be counterfactuals that signify cases that appertain existent processes. But separating these cases from useless logical talk is near to impossible in linguistic-analytically tending logic, philosophy, and philosophy of science.
Today physics and the various sciences do something like this in that they indulge in particularistically defined terms and procedures, blindly thinking that these can directly represent the physical processes under inquiry. Concerning mathematical applications too this is the majority attitude among scientists. Hence, without a very general physical ontology of Categories that are applicable to all existent processes, all sciences are in gross handicap.
The best examples are mathematical continuity and discreteness being attributed to physical processes, which are continuous and discrete only in their Causality. This is nothing but Extension-Change-wise discrete causal continuity. At any time causality is present in anything, hence there is causal continuity. But this is different from mathematical continuity and discreteness.
I HAVE REVISED THE TEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION SESSION:
Anything exists non-vacuously as in Extension (having parts, each of which again is extended) and in Change (extended existents impacting some other extended existents). Anything without these two characteristics cannot exist. THESE ARE THE TWO, EXHAUSTIVE, IMPLICATIONS OF "TO BE" AND "EXISTENTS".
If not in Change, how can something exist in Extension (= in the state of Extension) alone? And if not in Extension, how can something exist in the state of Change alone? These are impossible. ((The traditional interpretations of Parmenides and Heraclitus as emphasizing merely one of these is unacceptable.)) Hence, Extension-Change are two fundamentally physical-ontological Categories of all existence.
But Extension-Change-wise existence is what we understand as Causality: extended existents and their parts exert impacts on other extended existents. Every part of existents does it. This is not the meaning of Change alone, but in Extension-Change! That is, if everything exists, everything is in Causation. This is the principle of Universal Causality...! All counterfactual imaginations need not yield really existent worlds of this kind.
Even the allegedly “non-causal” quantum-mechanical constituent processes are mathematically and statistically circumscribed, measuremental, concepts from the results of experiments upon Extended-Changing existents; and ipso facto the realities behind these statistical measurements are in Extension-Change if they are physically existent.
Space is the measured shape of Extension; time is that of Change. Therefore, space and time are merely epistemic categories. How then can statistical causality be causality at all? Bayesians should now re-interpret their results in terms of Universal Causality, as mere measuremental extent of our determination of the exact causes of some events.
No part of an existent is non-extended and non-changing. One unit of cause and effect may be called a process. Every existent and its parts are fully processual -- in the sense that every part of it is further constituted by sub-processes. None of these sub-processes is infinitesimal. Each is near-infinitesimal in Extension and Change.
Thus, Extension and Change are the very exhaustive meanings of To Be, and hence I call them the highest Categories of metaphysics, physical ontology, the sciences, etc. Science and philosophy must obey these two Categories if they deal with existent processes, and not merely of imaginary counterfactual worlds.
In short, everything existent is causal. Hence, Universal Causality as the highest pre-scientific Law, second only to Existence / To Be. To Be is not a law; it is the very reason for existence of anything...!
Natural laws are merely derivative from Universal Causality. If any natural law disobeys Universal Causality, it is not a scientific law. Since Extension-Change-wise existence is the same as Universal Causality, scientific laws are derived from Universal Causality, and not vice versa.
Today sciences attempt to derive causality from the various scientific laws! This is merely because millennia long we have been getting fooled about such a fundamental meaning of Causality. We were told that causality can be proved only empirically. The folly here has been that what is specific is universalized: The Fallacy of Conceptual / Theoretical Wholes and Parts. Search for the causes of a few events has been misinterpreted as capable of defining the search for the causal nature or non-causal nature of all...! IS THIS NOT ENOUGH PROOF FOR THE INFANCY IN WHICH THE FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES FIND THEMSELVES IN?
The relevance of metaphysics / physical ontology for the sciences is clear from the above. Lack of such a metaphysical foundation has marred the effectivity of the sciences and of course of philosophy as such. RECOLLECT THE ERA IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY WHEN CAUSALITY WAS CONVERTED TO CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS.........
Existents have some Activity and Stability. This is a fully physical fact. These two categories may be shown to be subservient to Extension-Change. Pure vacuum (non-existence) is the absence of Activity and Stability. Thus, entities are irreducibly active-stable processes in Extension-Change. Physical entities / processes possess finite Activity and Stability. Activity and Stability together belong to Extension; and Activity and Stability together belong to Change too.
That is, Stability is not merely about space; and Activity is not merely about time. But the traditions (in both the sciences and philosophy) still seem to hold so. We consider Activity and Stability as sub-categories, because they are based on Extension-Change, which together add up to Universal Causality; and each unit of cause and effect is a process.
These are not Categories belonging to merely imaginary counterfactual situations. The Categories of Extension-Change and their sub-formulations are all about existents. There can be counterfactuals that signify cases that appertain existent processes. But separating these cases from useless logical talk is near to impossible in linguistic-analytically and denotatively active definitions of reference in logic, philosophy, philosophy of science, and the sciences. THE FAD NATURE OF THE PHILOSOPHIES OF FREGE, WITTGENSTEIN, THE VIENNA CIRCLE, AND THEIR FOLLOWERS TODAY FOLLOWS FROM THIS.
Today physics and the various sciences do something like this in that they indulge in particularistically defined terms and procedures, blindly thinking that these can directly denotatively represent the physical processes under inquiry.
Concerning mathematical applications too this is the majority attitude among scientists. Hence, without a very general physical ontology of Categories that are applicable to all existent processes, all sciences are in gross handicap. THIS IS A GENERAL INDICATION FOR THE DIRECTION OF QUALITATIVE GROWTH IN THE SCIENCES AND PHILOSOPHY.
The best examples are mathematical continuity and discreteness being attributed to physical processes IN THE MATHEMATICALLY INSTRUMENTALIZED SCIENCES. Mathematical continuity and discreteness are to be anathema in the sciences. Existent processes are continuous and discrete only in their Causality.
This is nothing but Extension-Change-wise discrete causal continuity. At any time, causality is present in anything, hence there is causal continuity. But this is different from mathematical continuity and discreteness.
Reification of Concepts in Quantum Physics?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Reification_of_Concepts_in_Quantum_Physics
A conversation between Paul Healey and me in Academia.edu (today):
paul healey 6 hrs ago
Raphael and or Peter, do either of you think a causal explanation of gravity, not for Newtonian mass is possible? Recently I have read some criticisms of Newton’s general inverse square law for it, so wondering if any other explanations have been proposed. Here’s a link that looks relevant: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.03441.pdf
Thanks for any feedback in advance.
📷Like
📷
Raphael Neelamkavil Ph.D.,Dr.phil., Cosmology + Math'l Physics; Phil. of Science + Scientific, Analytic, Process, Digital, ... Systemic Metaphysics & Epistemology < 1 min ago
I have not worked on it directly in the form of a theory. But I would suggest that anything must be causal and hence also gravitons. I said 'gravitons', not merely gravitation as a mathematically treated gross phenomenon! Why should everything be causal? I shall try to explain, very simply.
As you know, any mathematical proof for causation is not a proof at all, since math cannot touch it. Math can only see or show some of the ways in which causation works.
Let me first explain causality in a new manner; and then return to gravitation.
You do believe that whatever exists, exists. Now apply the law of contradiction. Whatever does not exist, does not. Let us name the latter as pure vacuum, non-entity, etc. If anything is not vacuous, it should have some extension, i.e., should have parts.
This is, therefore, a self-evident implication of the notion of To Be. I call it the metaphysical / physical-ontological Category of Extension, because it is one of the basic natures of all existents. Now, anything in Extension is not infinitely intense, i.e., there are not all the same extended stuff.
The additional information needed here is empirical: that there are movements in such extended stuff. If so, then it means that everything extended has some movement, which automatically should affect something else -- but not affect all else. This is impact generation. I call it the metaphysical / physical-ontological Category of Change.
If something in Extension has Change, such an existence is "already impact generation (Change) by parts (Extension)". This is what we used to call Causality. That is, the very two implications of To Be, when taken together, is nothing but THE UNIVERSAL LAW OF CAUSALITY. Everything existent must be causal.
Now, back to gravitons. If they are just a non-existent but mathematical construct, we do not have to bother about them. But if they are existent (which is the only other possibility), then they too must be causal.....!
How to philosophize? How to philosophize in the sciences?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_philosophize_How_to_philosophize_in_the_sciences
Scientific Metaphysical Categories beyond Heidegger
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Scientific_Metaphysical_Categories_beyond_Heidegger
Minimal Metaphysical Physicalism (MMP), Panpsychisms, and Monisms
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Minimal_Metaphysical_Physicalism_MMP_Panpsychisms_and_Monisms
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
I have been revising this short discussion paper of mine in RG. It is an attempt to correct some basic attitudes in physics. Just now I have written an introduction to it. Please read it here. In a few days I shall upload the whole lead-text of this discussion for your reading and comments. Here please find only the introduction:
FOUNDATIONS OF AXIOMATIC PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE
1. INTRODUCTION
I get surprised each time when some physicists tell me that either the electromagnetic (EM) or the gravitational (G) or both the forms of energy do not exist, but are to be treated or expressed as waves or particles propagated from material objects that of course exist. Some of them put in all their energies to show that both EM and G are mere mathematical fields, and not physically existent fields of energy propagations from bodies.
This is similar in effect to Newton and his followers thinking honestly and religiously that gravitation and other energies are just miraculously non-bodily actions at a distance without any propagation particles / wavicles.
Even in the 21stcentury, we must be sharply aware that from the past more than 120 years the General Theory of Relativity and its various versions have succeeded in casting and maintaining the power of a terrifying veil of mathematical miracles on the minds of many scientists – miracles such as the mere spacetime curvature being the meaning of gravitation and all other sorts of fields.
A similar veil has been installed on the minds of many physicists by quantum physics too. We do not discuss it here. Hence, I have constructed in four published books a systemic manner of understanding these problems. I do not claim perfection in any of my attempts. Hence, I keep perfecting my efforts in the course of years. The following is a very short attempt to summarize in this effort one important point in physics and in the philosophy of physics.
Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questioning_the_Foundations_of_Physical_Constants_Properties_and_Qualities
How to Ground Science and Philosophy Together Axiomatically?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_Ground_Science_and_Philosophy_Together_Axiomatically
Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. The Difference between Cause and Reason
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Symmetry_A_Subset_of_Universal_Causality_The_Difference_between_Cause_and_Reason
This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.
The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.
The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fallacies_of_Space_Time_and_Spacetime_in_Physics
Physical and Exact Sciences and Axiomatic Philosophy: Introducing Grounding (long text)
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Physical_and_Exact_Sciences_and_Axiomatic_Philosophy_Introducing_Grounding_long_text
Causality and Statistics: Their Levels of Effect and of Explanation
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Causality_and_Statistics_Their_Levels_of_Effect_and_of_Explanation
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox and Non-Locality: Is Einstein a Monist?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen_Paradox_and_Non-Locality_Is_Einstein_a_Monist
Spacetime Curvatures, Gravitational Waves, Gravitons, and Anti-Gravitons: Do They All Exist?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Spacetime_Curvatures_Gravitational_Waves_Gravitons_and_Anti-Gravitons_Do_They_All_Exist
The Fate of “Source-Independence” in Electromagnetism, Gravitation, and Monopoles
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fate_of_Source-Independence_in_Electromagnetism_Gravitation_and_Monopoles
If anyone wants to read about a fantastic concept of the existence of consciousness and non-existence of the cosmos, see the comments till today here, by L Kurt Engelhart.......!!! Here you can learn the meaning of solipsism.... and similar to mathematical platonism creating ideas / notions into objects.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_philosophize_How_to_philosophize_in_the_sciences
Can what are termed "mathematically consistent" natural laws necessarily be physically consistent? If they can be, then mathematics becomes physics (and for that matter it becomes any other mathematical science). But if math is different from all these sciences, the adequacy and applicability of math to physics and other sciences cannot be 100%. If that is the case, it is very important that physics (and other sciences) be helped constantly to choose the most suitable math. This help can come from the same science/s only in a partially realizable manner. Nor can math take up this task fully well. Hence, a generic science beyond all these including math and logic must take charge of improving the remaining portions of inadequacy and inapplicability of math to physics and the sciences. Which could that science be? I hold that this most general science need not contain all that philosophy has so far understood itself to be. But something of the philosophy of these sciences combined with the philosophy of math, logic, etc. would be an ideal option.
Essential Reason in Physicists’ Use of Logic: And in Other Sciences Too!
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Essential_Reason_in_Physicists_Use_of_Logic_And_in_Other_Sciences_Too
Preprint ESSENTIAL REASON IN PHYSICISTS' USE OF LOGIC: IN OTHER SCIENCES TOO
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...
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
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
Can electromagnetic and gravitational "quanta" form an ether-like background for the material part of the cosmos? Can there be interaction between the ether and the cosmos? If there is interaction between them, then every parts of them should interact, since the material part of the cosmos is within the so-called ether part. Then:
Are there consistent physical theories which exclude causality completely from the cosmos? Or, do they exclude causality from some portions of the cosmos and permit it in some other portions of it? In that case, how do they permit any realistic physical connection between the causal portions and non-causal portions of the cosmos?
Now, can the electromagnetic and gravitational "ether" be considered as a mere information, virtual information, etc.? Or, are these really existent energy which, of course, carry information for and from the causal formation of all that they causally affect?
Preprint PLANCK ERA or QUANTUM ERA,and ”DISAPPEARANCE” OF CAUSALITY. ...
Preprint CAUSAL HORIZONAL RESEARCH: A METHODOLOGY IN PHYSICS Raphael ...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_INFORMATION_WHAT_IS_ITS_CAUSAL_OR_NON-CAUSAL_CORE_A_Discussion
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
Preprint LINGUISTIC HERESY OF DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM: PHYSICAL-BIOLOGI...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/ONTOLOGICAL_DIFFERENCES_OF_CHARACTERISTICS_OF_ARTIFICIAL_AND_BIOLOGICAL_INTELLIGENCE_ALGORITHMS_AND_PROCEDURES_Against_Exaggerations
https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHY_EXACTLY_THE_WAVE-PARTICLE_DUALITY_Phenomenal_Ontological_Commitment_POC_as_the_Solution
https://www.researchgate.net/post/UNTENABLE_REIFICATION_OF_CONCEPTS_IN_PHYSICS_With_Examples
Preprint WHY EXACTLY WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY? Phenomenal Ontological Co...
https://www.researchgate.net/post/DO_PHYSICAL_QUANTA_EXIST_Why_Should_CONSCIOUSNESS_Be_Treated_Quantum-Biologically
https://www.researchgate.net/post/HEIDEGGER_How_a_Philosopher_Destroys_His_Own_Thoughts_Coherence_and_Adequacy
Preprint UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND THE PHYSICAL-ONTOLOGICAL DEFECT OF N...
Preprint DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTS OF CAUSALITY IN METAPHYSICS AND ...
Preprint BEYOND CAUSAL ITERATION QUANTIFIABILITY IN LINGUISTIC SPACE-TIME
Preprint BEYOND THE CAUSAL ITERATION METHOD. Short Text (Beyond Judea Pearl)
Preprint REFERENCE, APPLICABILITY, AND ADEQUACY OF UNIVERSALS, INFORM...
Preprint DENOTATIVE ABSOLUTISM. A 20TH CENTURY LOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC HERESY
Preprint INEVITABILITY OF COSMOLOGICAL, ONTOLOGICAL, AND EPISTEMOLOGI...
Preprint Introducing GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE PARADOX: COSMOGENETIC CAUSALITY
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Counseling Psychology
- Confusion