Could anyone define and explain the concept 'virtual' in Quantum Physics, Cosmology, Metaphysics, and Artificial Intelligence? Or, do such definitions exist?
At least in the AI and internet worlds there is the discussion of virtual reality, virtual world, etc. Are these virtuals existent or just without existence? If existent, how and why? If not existent, how to clarify them in terms of the existent world?
Robert Schaefer, thanks. The problem we encounter here is this: If virtuals do not exist, why speak of them? Hence, we need to differentiate between them and also connect them in a manner that the virtual are interpreted in terms of the existent. My attempt has been to do this. But clarity in this is yet to be achieved!
I invite further opinions.
Raphael
I agree on this: not only that imagination is important. Emotions are more important. Reasoning is just a variant of emotions!
Now now that we are speaking of knowing, can we not continue to speak of knowing and certain knowledges? Just to use imagination and emotions for knowledges is one method or consists of many methods. Argeed. And the presupposition in what I said is that we are speaking of a certain knowledge of VIRTUALS.
Exactly this is the problem with knowledge of virtuals. Hence, I believe it is good also to think of virtual concepts in terms of existent processes, the carriers of information, namely energy wavicles that carry the so-called information, etc.
I try in some way to make some ideas out of quantum cosmological, artificial "intelligence", and biological intelligence perspectives. There is nothing like trying! Let me try. Maybe that I would be able to pour a little light into the muddle. I have nothing against imaginations about all these things. Let it go on. It is in fact wonderful. We all do some or other kind of imagination....
Isn't the quantum world what virtual is in the real world. Or ist the quantum world only the different potentials of reality. But is the virtual (in any world) not only thought (an that collapses the quantum world potentials) like Imagination or is the virtual non-defined not potential. I don't believe that the ladder is possible. If we talk about virtual we do think about something that could be defined.
What if the real world is just an holographic mirror of a real real world like new theories posulate. Are we than not virtual an the quantum world is than the indefined potential of the real real world, which (there) decided brings us (here) to a collapse.
If we think about something we construct structure. All thoughts (mostly all except perhaps emotions) are verbal an show a definite structure. A virtual world is the same, it is a strucure. Waht is a structure in a quantum world? Leiniz defined a Kontiguum as the middle between Diskretum and Kontinuum. Which means if there is the possibility to split something in A an B there must be a gab between A and B and this leads to an infinite regress (Demokrit) but if we postulate structure as a layover on the Kontinuum we avoid the regress (The Kontiguum).
Or in totally other words (only meant metaphoric) If Buddha disolves in the nirwana (so he is gone) how can he still decide to be reborn (who decides if he is gone)? But if the Idea of Buddha (or the Structure) is still there is so to say applicable to the nirwana (layed over) the Structure is able to initiate the return of buddha. Is Buddha in the nirwana virtual or potential or is he just the structure which mediates between Kontinuum an Diskretum (the Kontiggum).
Roman Stöppler,
mir war Ihre Antwort und die Fragen nicht klar (in Englisch). Könntest du auf Deutsch schreiben? Entweder hier oder auch per Email ([email protected]). Wie du willst. Bitte, wir werden uns duzen, obwohl ich viel älter bin.... Bin ein life-long Forscher in der Philosophie der Physik, der Kosmologie, usw.
Bin nicht nur promoviert in der Philosophie der Physik (2 mal) sondern auch ein Lehrer in der buddhistischen Meditation (seit 2000 auf Englisch und seit 2014 auch auf Deutsch -- ganz kurze Kurse von 1 Tag bis auf 20 Tage, intensiv, quasi-intensiv, und super-intensiv, mit oder ohne theoretische Inputs und Diskussionen). Daher habe ich Interesse. Aber sicherlich bin ich nicht für Wiedergeburt und solche quasi-theoretische Sachen.
WHAT ARE VIRTUALS? I try an answer here:
An object set is represented by denotative terms, either
(1) as a few existent processes (including the biologically mental) connected (all science and philosophy operate in search of connections) to the question at inquiry, or
(2) as not connected (clearly ending in falsities, these “not connected” being extremely difficult to differentiate from the former) to the question at inquiry but nevertheless are existent with properties different from the ones at consideration, or
(3) (a) inapplicably to anything existent, and as a few supposed but non-existent object sets categorizable as virtual objects / processes, (b) in many cases, yielding at the most the expected great intellectual satisfaction, technological successes, the status of existents from the viewpoint of some scientific epochs, and/or aesthetic pleasure for a long time even after proofs emerge of their theoretical failure or non-existence, and (c) in some cases partially inapplicably to anything existent, and hence must always be reduced to action by and from existent object sets for the collective effect of the actions to have a separate meaning and relevance.
Chances of error or false theory are present in all of the above, but are more present in the latter two. The defensible extents of varieties of realism and non-realism must be defined based on these. We know these matters are not simple. Structures of these theoretical states of affairs and procedures of recognition of each part of the structures need to be worked out in detail – a project not envisaged in the present work, but, maybe, in a revised edition of the same.
Universals and their theoretically concatenated connotative and denotative constructs can be taken as objects or entities in a sense much different from that of existent processual object sets, e.g., in sciences like:
(1) mathematics (numbers, points, etc.), computer science (digital objects, operations, grouping receptacles, etc.),
(2) logic (truth, falsity, sentence, theory, operations, etc.),
(3) physics (qualities of denotables like matter, energy, etc., [whereof special kinds of matter, energy, etc. are denoted by denotatives and involve many other ontological, connotative, and denotative universals / qualities and the properties of matter and energy in their individuation]),
(4) literature (concept, imagery, poetic meter, etc.), etc., and,
(5) of course, constructs of ordinary language, sign language, etc.
Universals are not existent object sets but object sets consisting of generalities: generalities concatenated in mind and in languages of various types, conglomerated generalities of existent object sets, etc., all of them pertaining to existent object sets. These are the theoretical necessities (generalities concatenated in mind and in languages of various types) in a given system, which (the necessities) are based both in existent processes (via ontological universals) and in their reflections in thought and language (connotative and denotative universals).
The latter is not a sufficient reason to define philosophy or science as unable to access the universals of Reality-in-total or reality-in-particular or to call ontological universals as merely a matter of language.
From among virtuals, mere virtuals are clearly non-existent. They exist neither as processes nor are they pure theoretical “pertinents” of existent processes. Pure / mere virtuals are theoretically substantive denotative substitutes for the lack of recognition of or an explanation as to
(1) what causes (the causal process at the start of a larger process’s unity) a certain effect (a causal process taken as the end-unity of a longer process begun in the past),
(2) what effect follows from the specific larger process or sets of processes at consideration, and/or
(3) what sub-processes take place from the start to the end of a certain processual object.
Virtuals / virtual worlds (in general, unobservables – with the exception of existent unobservables) are at least explanatorily presented denotative assemblage-substantives, which only perhaps represent some existents. Hence, they are made up at least of denotatives.
If an assemblage of substantives denotes a denotable process, however spatially rarefied, through the connotatives, then the denotable is an existent, for example, the assemblages / conglomerations of existent carriers of communication behind the virtual worlds of internet, AI, informatics, etc. The assemblage represents the real physical processes behind the network of symbols being communicated, and they are not mere symbols in vacuum.
Penrose on AI to BI Convergence: In Shadows of the Mind, Roger Penrose says:
If the computer-guided robots turn out to be our superiors […] will they not find that they can run the world better without the need for us at all? Humanity itself will then have become obsolete. Perhaps, if we are lucky, they might keep us as pets, as Edward Fredkin once said; or if we are clever, we might be able to transfer the ‘patterns of information’ that are ‘ourselves’ into robot form, as Hans Moravec (1988) has insisted; or perhaps we will not be that lucky and will just not be that clever […]. [Penrose 1994: 11]
But note that this is Penrose’s early opinion, and he seems to have changed it slightly later – but the essential foundations of his thought on information remain the same.
The unconscious attempt in Penrose to equate the ‘patterns of information’ that are in ourselves with the same in AI (of course, involving an advanced understanding of the current level of wave-function collapse, quantum superposition, etc., where Penrose attempts to find the real internal constitutions of these mathematical aspects in the physical existents), is nothing but adherence to mere patterns of information as intelligence.
He does nothing to dispel this philosophical mistake. No pattern can exist without the existent processes where the patterns are and/or are discovered. These patterns are nothing but concatenations of some sort of universals within the brain, of the really ontological universals that are in the groups of processes out there.
Some details of the book I author now:
CAUSALITY IN ARTIFICIAL AND BIOLOGICAL INTELLIGENCE
PHYSICS AND ANALYTIC-PROCESSUAL-PHENOMENOLOGICAL METAPHYSICS OF SPACE-TIME, UNOBSERVABLES, INFORMATION, VIRTUAL QUANTUM POSSIBLE WORLDS, AND CONSCIOUSNESS
CONTENTS
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
PART 1.
CAUSAL AMBIGUITY IN ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE AND VIRTUAL WORLDS
1. Problem of Virtual Worlds of BI, Informatics,
AI, and Internet
2. Clarifications of Physical and Metaphysical Concepts
and Methodology
3. Mechanized and “Live” Algorithms: Evolutionary
Convergence?
4. Horses Think Almost Like Humans!
Ergo: Invest Money on Research on IT!
5. Philosophy of Mechanical Construction
of Human Intelligence
6. Philosophically Unsolved Causal Stake in Internet,
AI, and Informatics
7. Consequences of Equivocation of AI
and Human Intelligent Algorithms
PART 2.
CAUSAL METAPHYSICS OF REALITY
AND VIRTUALITY
8. ‘General’ in Terms of ‘Ontological’, ‘Connotative’,
‘Denotative’, ‘Property’
9. Virtual Constructs, Unobservables, and Types of Universals
10. Ontological, Connotative, and Denotative Universals
of Reality and Realities
11. Extension-Change = Universal Causality; Process,
Space-Time, etc.
12. Applicability, Depth, and Adequacy of Connotative
Universals and Theories
PART 3.
CAUSAL METAPHYSICS OF VIRTUALITY AND CONSCIOUSNESS
13. Generic Biological Algorithms vs.
Generic Digital Algorithms
14. Metaphysical and Epistemological Contours
of Science and AI
15. Analytic Metaphysics’ Inability to Capture
Coding Worlds
16. Non-dogmatic Metaphysics beyond Hermeneutics
for Coding Worlds
17. Physically Causal Foundations of Consciousness
and AI Virtual Worlds
18. Physical and Cosmological Difference between Stochastic
and Universal Causality, and Counterfactual
and Quantum Possible Worlds
FINAL DEFINITIONS, SUMMARY, AND CONTEXT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX
What is meant by "virtual" in physics, AI, and the philosophical explanations of these?
Could anyone tell me how you distinguish between (1) existent virtuals or virtual worlds and (2) non-existent, purely imaginary, virtuals or virtual worlds? I encounter this confusion as prevalent everywhere in quantum physics, internet science, artificial intelligence, etc.
Purely empirically oriented substance philosophies have been the basis of the sciences for centuries and very much even today. This has been due to the absence of the recognition that (1) truth and fact are posterior to existence in both Reality and in theory, (2) every almost infinitesimal part of physical existents is finitely active / dynamic, and (3) this kind of simultaneous and complete existence is in Extension-Change (and neither in space-time, nor in mind, nor in language) and is as such Universal Causality. Hence, linguistic idealism and their likes are fads and cannot characterize the matter-energy that supports the so-called information and virtual worlds.
Thus, for the sciences and for most science-enhancing philosophies today – including pragmatic and analytic philosophies and philosophies of sciences –, physical actions have remained the characteristic behaviour of forces on material things. For these philosophies, things exist and, behaviour, including causation, is therefore just an additional action on existent physical processes. This, in my opinion, is why a notion of Universal Causality applicable to the whole of Reality-in-total has been absent until now; and this is why so far AI information, virtual worlds, mind, etc. have been taken as containing something inexplicably mysterious.
IN ORDER TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN VIRTUAL AND CAUSALLY EXISTENT WORLDS OR UNOBSERVABLES, Let me clarify here THE MEANING OF CAUSALITY by citing as such what I replied in Academia to a comment by Jean-Louis Boucon:
Let me begin with the comments you made about levels of the microscopic. First of all, I do not understand how it would lead to a theological Highest level and Lowest level, if we are speaking of the existence of physical levels?
As far as I able to think, there must most probably be further inner structures within anything we call micro, nano, or whatever smaller. This is what physical existence implies, I believe. Let me explain this:
If anything is existent, it is non-vacuous, i.e., it is not nothing. (I think it is mostly at this and similar levels of discussion that we can best apply the fundamental principles of logic and feel almost sure that what we say must be true.)
If an existent is not nothing, it means it is extended in existence, and thus, has parts. Thus, a photon, if existent, must have parts, each of them should have further parts, etc. This is what I call THE CATEGORY OF EXTENSION. This is what I meant by levels of the ever smaller. Do you think this is acceptable? Would you doubt that any highest or lowest level would come into the picture here and block us with theological stuff?
Similar to EXTENSION, we have yet another characteristic of all existents. Every existent has some motion. By motion, each existent must cause impact in others. Not in infinite number of others, but on a finite number of them at any stipulated duration. This is what I call THE CATEGORY OF CHANGE.
Would this incur anything theological? I believe, not. IT IS AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF SUCH A MANNER OF THINKING THAT POSIT CAUSALITY. A condition: this is possible only if we can admit that Extension and Change are the ultimate Categories of all that exist.
Now, think of anything existent. It is finitely extended, and constantly makes a finite number of impacts. If it has no extension, it cannot make any impact. Hence, Extension-Change-wise existence is nothing but what we call CAUSALITY!!
In this sense, if Extension and Change are acceptable absolutely well as the exhaustive Categories of all existents, CAUSATION IS UNIVERSAL!! We have presupposed only the notion of existence and non-existence here.
So long as I am not able to explain these and the derivative concepts infinitely well, I do not have infinitely clear truths here too. And I have only a finite time to explain the meaning of any of these, and hence, they are not absolute truths yet.
But we can have intersubjective agreement that these (or any other such) statements seem to be absolute truths. Only this much is possible for humans. I WRITE THIS WITH THE HOPE THAT PETER JACKSON TOO READS THIS. Now to a part of your first suggestions above: I must explain what is existence. I am unable. I do not think anyone else is able.
Karl Sipfle, let me first answer the 4 questions you asked (in my discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_the_cosmos_is_1_finite-content_or_2_infinite-content_Is_there_finite_or_infinite_creation/1). I put it up also here, because it will be useful for other readers.
And on another day I will speak of a fifth, more important, question, which you did not ask me. I have written down as my thoughts proceeded. I did not take a second look at these paragraphs I wrote. Merely due to lack of time.
YOU:
My FIRST question is this:
CAN WE ASK THE PERENNIAL QUESTION OF THE ORIGIN OF THE COSMOS?
=== As long as we first ask whether there needs to be an origin. The question contains an assumption, leading the witness.
MY REPLY:
Why should there be anything wrong in asking the perennial question? The assumption could be conceived slightly differently too: If the inner-universe processes are all in Extension and Change and if such an existence of all existents may straightaway be termed Universal Causality, then we may ask whether the whole universe has (I) only finite content or (II) infinite content.
Then, in each case, the following inductions (not presuppositions) could be placed as queries.
Under (I), whether the finite-content universe is created or existent from eternity.
Under case (II), the following would be the sub-cases: the universe could have been (1) existent eternally from the past, (2) created wholly at one go, (3) been created partly at any given time with respect to the time of the universes that neighbour the one being created, (4) been created as matter or energy or matter-energy everywhere but finitely at every finite spacetime region, and so on.
SECONDLY, another question is imaginable:
If there is no creative Source in both the above cases of finite and infinite content, WHAT WOULD MEAN BY ETERNAL EXISTENCE?
=== No such thing in that case. And it would cease to exist to a spawned cosmos once the latter left the nest.
MY REPLY:
I do not understand what you mean by “a spawned cosmos” and “once the latter left the nest”. These are strange for me.
In case the finite-content universe or the infinite-content cosmos were existent from eternity, they would simply continue to exist! This is the apparent conclusion. But if further questions are asked?
For example, in any case, merely because we have formulated a few laws of thermodynamics on earth, the finite-content universe need not obey the second law by bring back all that energy at the outermost fringes of such a universe. What has been propagated is propagated and goes farther away.
If a later intensification of gravitation at the centre of the universe could have brought all those gravitational and non-gravitational propagations back into the body of the universe, it would be a miracle.
That is, most probably the energy at the fringes is lost forever. IF THIS IS TRUE, there is energy loss from the universe. If the universe had been uncreated, then the (by assumption above) finite-content universe would have exteriorized all its content in a finite time, and this is not the case as we know. In this scenario, in my opinion, a sole, finite-content, universe should have had a one-time creation. (I do not elaborate on this because of space crunch. If sensible questions from the readers appear further, I can try answering.)
NOW, A REQUEST TO THE READERS: (not only to Karl Sipfle; but I know Karl respects me enough as a human person who cannot answer everything in the world) PLEASE DO NOT ACCUSE ME OF HOLDING ANTIQUATED IDEAS. BEFORE ACCUSING, PLEASE READ MY BOOK OF 2018.
In place here one more suggestion to all the readers here: Just reading something there and making all sorts of claims and criticisms is not acceptable, because that work is the result of more than 30 years of study and reflection. (It is a new theory, for which I have undergone inexplicable sorts of misunderstanding from hundreds of friends, and as a result, I had to decide to do such a work as a doctoral work, and suffer poverty and penury for more than a decade, in Europe, i.e., away from my motherland. I hope, time will show the worth of that work.)
THIRDLY:
Can this question be avoided permanently by claiming that TIME AND ETERNITY EXIST ONLY WITH THE COSMOS, as if time were a thing that exists, or were an ontological predicate of the cosmos?
=== Arising quickly is recognizing other possibility spheres, a set of interrelated consents no with relationships to other spheres. Time appears to be local to and exist within one or more of these.
MY REPLY:
This question has been in vogue in philosophy at least from the time of Augustine. Of course, before Augustine too. But his refutation of the question by saying time did not exist before creation was motivated also by his concept of a timeless God which in turn was motivated by Platonic concepts of Ideas existing as timeless out there and most probably in the human mind, and hence permitting the conclusion that the human soul too is immortally existent…!
First of all, the ontological predicate / Category of time is Change. Time is only the measuremental, i.e., epistemic and cognitive category based on measurements. But Change is there as one of the most important two physical-ontological attributes of all existents. Extension is yet another. Without some extension and change, nothing can be. That is, without being causal, nothing can exist. Time is not a thing in which the universe exists. It is not even a physical-ontological attribute. It is merely epistemic. Similarly also space: it is the measuremental, epistemic, cognitive category of the physical-ontological Category, Extension.
Hence, TO CLAIM THAT PHYSICALLY AND MATHEMATICALLY THERE ARE ONLY SPACETIME CURVATURES AND NOT EXISTENT PHYSICAL PROCESSES IS A NONSENSE PERPETUATED BY EINSTEIN AND CO. BY THEIR QUICK-FIX ATTEMPTS TO MAKE THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CONVINCED OF THE VALUE OF RIEMANNIAN GEOMETRY.
Time is local only measurementally. Change is local and universal in all physical-ontological senses.
NOW, YOU HAVE LEFT OUT ANOTHER CASE: IF THE UNIVERSE IS A VAST INFINITE OCEAN OF AN INFINITE NUMBER OF FINITE-CONTENT UNIVERSES? You did not ask this question. But my lead question includes that. Hence, I will treat of it later, after dealing with your next question.
FOURTHLY:
Suppose there is a Source. What would be the modalities by which such a Being could be thought to exist?
=== The simplest two options are a peer universe from which one under discussion was born, or a common background birthing all and wisper than any of them.
MY REPLY:
The simplest answer does not seem to be a peer universe creating ours. It will muddle the whole thought in paradoxes. Universes have only finite activity, and finite stability in the state of its finite activity. They cannot, in my opinion, create another or others from themselves and render them of as much or less or more matter-energy content than itself. And if this were possible each universe has already created an infinite number of such, which is creation out of nothing by the same finite-content and finite-activity-and-stability universes. This is at least rationally unacceptable.
If anyone wants to go on with this belief, it is like the faith in a god who just created once and is sitting idle “watching” the fun. It is against such a god that greats like Russell, Wittgenstein, Hawking, Dawkins, etc. have been ranting. Take any of their writings and you will find the background knowledge of such a god in them.
When I ask whether any particle at zero rest mass has been detected experimentally, the answer is No, and they give theoretical / mathematical reasons for the EXISTENCE OF REST MASS. Let this be so.
But most physicists start being on the side of directly experimental results when one speaks of supposing the various cases of content of the cosmos: (1) finite and (2) infinite!
And using merely mathematical applications a physicist and cosmologist can create many virtual worlds. But should they all exist?
Invite comments on a new book's Contents:
CAUSALITY IN PHYSICS, LANGUAGE, AI, AND MIND:
PROCESS METAPHYSICS OF SPACE-TIME, UNOBSERVABLES, UNIVERSALS, AND VIRTUAL POSSIBLE WORLDS
CONTENTS
Contents
Preface
Introduction
Part 1. Causal Ambiguity in AI and Virtual Worlds
1. Virtual Worlds of AI, Informatics, and BI
2. Physically Metaphysical Concepts and Method
3. Evolutionary Convergence: Mechanized-Live Algorithms?
4. Horses Think Almost Like Humans: Ergo, Invest on IT!
5. Mechanical Construction of Human Intelligence
6. Unsolved Causal Stake in AI and Informatics
7. Equivocation of AI and Human Algorithms ((Put 6 n 7 together))
Part 2. Causality in Reality and AI Virtual Worlds
8. Ontological, Connotative, Denotative Universals vs. Property
9. Virtual Constructs, Unobservables, Types of Universals
10. Ontological, Connotative, Denotative Universals vs. Reality
11. Extension-Change, Universal Causality, Process, Space-Time
12. Applicability, Depth, and Adequacy of Connotatives
Part 3. Causality in Consciousness and AI Virtual Worlds
13. Causality in Biological and Digital Algorithms
14. Physics and AI: Metaphysical, Epistemological Contours
15. Can Analytic Metaphysics Explain Coding Worlds?
16. Linguistic-Psychological Idealism vs. Informatic Worlds
17. Non-dogmatic Hermeneutics of Coding Worlds
18. Physical Foundations of Consciousness and AI Worlds
19. Counterfactual Quantum Stochastics vs. Causality
20. Definitions, Summary, and Context
Bibliography
Index
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
To help obtain some more clarity on what we discuss here, I think the following discussion will be of use -- especially the question by Richard Marker and my reply:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Irrefutable_Argument_for_Universal_Causality_Any_Opposing_Position
WHAT ARE VIRTUALS IN SCIENTIFIC THEORIES?
CRITERIA TO DIFFERENTIATE THEM?
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph. D., Dr. phil.
Existents in Extension and Change are physical, not virtual. Space and time are just the epistemic notions of the physical-ontological Extension and Change respectively.
A DENOTABLE has reference to something that either (1) has physical body (physically existent processes), or (2) is inherent in bodily processes but are not themselves a physical body (e.g., potential energy), or (3) is non-real, non-existent and just a mere notion (say, a non-physical possible world with wings, or one with all characteristics absolutely different from the existent physical world).
(1) belong to existents. They are existent Realities. They are matter-energy in content. (2) belong to non-existent but theoretically necessary Realities. (3) are nothing, vacuous!
DIFFERENCE between non-existent, real virtual, and existent denotables:
Non-existents have no real properties, and generate no ontological commitment. Real virtuals have the properties that theoretically belong to the denotables that are lacunae in theory, but need not have Categorial characteristics. Existent denotables have Categories (characteristics) and properties. These are Extension and Change.
Hence, virtuals are versions of reality different from actual existents. They are called unobservables. Some of them are non-existent. When they are proved to exist, they become observables and are removed from membership in virtuals.
Theories yield unobservables (elctrons, neutrinos, gravitons, Higgs boson, vacuum energy, spinors, strings, superstrings …). They may be proved to exist, involving detectable properties.
Note: properties are not physical-ontological (metaphysical) characteristics (Categories). Instead, they are concatenations of Ontological Universals.
Virtual unobservables fill the lacunae in theoretical explanations.
As is clear now, the tool to discover new unobservables is not physical properties, but the physical-ontological Categories of Extension and Change. Virtuals are non-existent as such, but are taken as solutions to lacunae in rational imagination.
Discussion in ResearchGate:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_Are_Virtuals_in_Scientific_Theories_Criteria_to_Differentiate_them
Epistemic Virtual Worlds in Space-Time: Digital and AI virtual worlds are not as such phenomena (the showing-themselves of parts or layers of existent physical processes through radiation and other transfers) but epistemic symbols concatenated, and hence these virtual worlds cannot be existent as such and separately from processes and as processes. This is because phenomena in our case are some processual impacts from objects in just the form convertible into data, convertible into the algorithmically combined form, and convertible into the form of representations of the existent showings from some layers of the realities / objects at inquiry.
But the internet-based, digital, and AI-based virtual worlds are some of the results of some of the above physical effects in some existing physical processes, and therefore are based on physical phenomena, but they are not phenomena (“showings”) individualized or grouped. In their capacity of not being exactly the same as existents, these virtuals are primarily based on somethings existent that are in Extension-Change.
We always formulate Extension-Change epistemically and symbolically, using their measuremental space and time; but the virtuals do not have Extension-Change. Hence, virtual worlds are in the epistemic space-time of measurements, but not metaphysically in Extension-Change. Their carrier energies are physical-ontologically in Extension-Change.
Only if the phenomena (“showings”) from some layers of Reality or of specific processes are accepted via direct or indirect sense data into brain-level consciousness do they become data. Data are the conceptually characterized version of the phenomena from some layers of the object set. Phenomena are elements of processes prior to their epistemic impingement in bodies and minds. In AI the data and their concatenations are in machines, that is all.
A solid discussion is taking place here:
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
Take a look at the detailed discussions taking place1 here:
Are information and artificial and biological intelligence non-causal, not based on energy?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_information_and_artificial_and_biological_intelligence_non-causal_not_based_on_energy
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
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
What about this conversation?
Wolfgang Konle added a reply
22 minutes ago
Raphael Neelamkavil "Gravitational waves are..."
Gravitational waves are oscillations of a cosmic medium of gravitational nature. This medium overcompensates the negative energy density E of gravitiational fields. (E= -g²/(8πG)). It is omnipresent with a pressure, which equals E and a mass density which equals E/c². According to wave theory this medium supports compressional waves with a propagation velocity c.
Recommend
Share
📷
Raphael Neelamkavil added a reply
4 minutes ago
The negative energy you speak of in theory is not an energy that has a negative effect on matter-energy. It is negative due to the math involved. The notion of omnipresence should now be clarified and the reason for gravitation being an omnipresent God should be given. If not so omnipresent, but here less and there more, then the reason should not be just a theoretical need, but instead, a real existence of gravitation (as gravitons) here less and there more!
I feel that you are trying to cover up the non-commitment to gravitation's extra-theoretical and existence. Covering it up perhaps in the theoretical necessities in the form of a negative substitute for some missing form of energy?
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.
I BELIEVE THAT THE TRADITION OF LAPPING UP WHATEVER THEY SAY BASED ON THEIR MANNER OF USING MATHEMATICS SHOULD STOP FOREVER. PHYSICISTS ARE NOT TO BEHAVE LIKE MAGICIANS, AND THEIR READERS SHOULD NOT PRACTICE RELIGIOUS FAITHFULNESS TO THEM.
Questioning the Foundations of Physical Constants, Properties, and Qualities
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Questioning_the_Foundations_of_Physical_Constants_Properties_and_Qualities
Symmetry: A Subset of Universal Causality. The Difference between Cause and Reason
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Symmetry_A_Subset_of_Universal_Causality_The_Difference_between_Cause_and_Reason
This discussion-text is just 2.5 pages, but intense. Meant for those who are interested in a clear presentation of what symmetry and symmetry breaking are, and of how physicists and mathematicians tend to misunderstand and/or misuse these concepts.
The Universally Causal context of the concept of symmetry is explained in terms of a solidly founded system of differentiation between cause and reason.
The Fallacies of Space, Time, and Spacetime in Physics
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_Fallacies_of_Space_Time_and_Spacetime_in_Physics
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
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
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
"Evidence" for another universe! But some may continue to hold that beyond these other universes no other universe exists! Should we be so conservative as to deny an infinite-content multiverse / cosmos?
Watch the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcrHdOwPTi0
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
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 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
In view of clarifying the need of causality in "singularities" and thus reducing them from mathematical singularities to physically thick existents, I propose the following questions:
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?
That is, a mere infinitely dense stuff in the name of a black hole is a mathematical fiction. If this situation can be normalized in physics and cosmology, we have a normal universe wherein the Universal Law of Causality is applicable everywhere!
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