[On Truth and Reality - Philosophy Physics Metaphysics] - A New Kind of Science: The NKS ForumA New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum
Pages:1
On Truth and Reality - Philosophy Physics Metaphysics
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Geoff Haselhurst
Bill - I would greatly appreciate if you could forward this letter on to
your other groups. Not being a member I assume I can't, but I think they
will find it interesting. Thanks, Geoff Haselhurst, WSM
Hi Bill, (members of other groups interested in physics / reality),
I have been meaning to reply in detail to your comments on philosophy and
metaphysics, they are important. For now I just wish to make the following
points (though it ended up being slightly longer than I first planned!).
You write: To reiterate, Philosophy is the study of everything, and is
generally broken into the first two broad categories of things observed
or perceived under 'physics' or 'science' and things conceived under
'meta-physics' or 'other-worldly matters' which embraces the concept of
'meta' aka 'beyond' from the Greek. Thus, metaphysics is 'all' not
explainable by the senses, including such esoteric stuff as 'ideas' and
'God' and 'astrology' and 'telepathy' and the like.
I largely agree.
As I see it science, and physics, are founded on two sources of truth;
i) Logic from principles. i.e. Theories
ii) Empirical knowledge from our senses. i.e. observation and experiment.
The aim is to unite these two things with the most simple principles.
I include a few quotes from Einstein here as I think they are important;
"Physics constitutes a logical system of thought which is in a state of
evolution, whose basis cannot be distilled, as it were, from experience by
an inductive method, but can only be arrived at by free invention."
"We must always be ready to change these notions - that is to say, the
axiomatic basis of physics - in order to do justice to perceived facts in
the most perfect way logically."
"It is the grand object of all theory to make these irreducible elements
(principles) as simple and as few in number as possible, without
having to renounce the adequate representation of any empirical content
whatever."
"The skeptic will say: "It may well be true that this system of equations is
reasonable from a logical standpoint. But this does not prove that it
corresponds to nature." You are right, dear skeptic. Experience alone can
decide on truth."
"Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world:
all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it."
"If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot
be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope
to find the right way?"
"I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and
that we are capable of finding it."
"I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients
dreamed." (Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, 1954)
The problem for science / physics is that our mind represents our senses,
that the world we see and taste and touch is different (naive real) to the
real world which causes our senses. Thus Science is inclined to be misled
because one of its truths is founded on the 'illusion' of our senses.
Metaphysics aims to overcome this problem by using reason to try and
understand what the real world is, which causes our senses (and ourselves).
And for two and a half thousand years
the great philosophers / metaphysicists have known that for matter to be
interconnected throughout the universe, then there must be one thing that
connects the many things (matter) together. That a complete description of
reality must be founded on one thing / substance.
Leibniz writes this most simply; (though I have many fine quotes on this.)
"Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the
interconnection of all things with one another." (Leibniz, 1670)
Thus metaphysics is beyond our senses because it realises that though we
don't see an obvious connection between matter, reason tells us their is
(e.g. earth orbiting sun, that we can see stars across the universe).
Further, since the time of Kant, it has become increasingly clear that we
cannot describe reality correctly (i.e. from one metaphysical foundation),
while we have theories founded on separate / discrete things. Thus Space and
Time cannot both exist, nor can particles and forces (the current paradigm).
This explains why we now live in a post-modern relative culture of no
absolute truths, because our theories are founded on many things, thus at
the end of the day these are merely human constructions, ideas approximating
reality, but not absolutely true.
So how do we overcome this?
By rejecting particles, forces and time, and explaining / connecting these
many things from One thing Space. As Aristotle wrote in his Metaphysics;
"Metaphysics is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary
substance. ... And here we will have the science to study that which is just
as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a
thing that
is, it has. ....That among entities there must be some cause which moves and
combines things. ... There must then be a principle of
such a kind that its substance is activity." (Aristotle, Metaphysics 340BC)
The Wave Structure of Matter assumes that one thing Space exists as a
substance with the Properties of a wave medium.
Matter is formed from spherical standing waves in this space.
This then solves the fundamental problem of metaphysics and philosophy, the
problem of the one and the many, by connecting matter, time and forces back
to the spherical wave motions of space. Matter is large not small, but we
only 'see' the Wave-Center of the spherical waves and have been deluded into
the belief of particles. Thus we can now understand how Matter interacts
with
other matter due to interactions of the spherical in-waves which ultimately
determine the future location of the wave-center (what we now call forces
and action-at-a-distance). I know that you understand
a lot of this Bill, I hope others will also find it interesting.
You can read more on this at the links you so
kindly displayed below.
In ending, I invite people to join the WSM group and ask us questions (it is
easy to leave if you don't like our answers!)
You will find an interesting mix of people who can explain how the WSM
solves a lot of problems caused by the current particle-force conception of
matter in
space-time.
Cosmos,
Geoff Haselhurst
Moderator, Wave Structure of Matter Group
Bill writes;
> John, and others, interested in these arcane matters, join the
> following group, and see for yourself:
>
> Wave-Structure-Matter@yahoogroups.com
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wave-Structure-Matter/
>
> We encourage people to join this group and see for themselves how the
> WSM explains and solves many things very simply.
> Sincerely,
> Geoff Haselhurst
> Moderator - Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) February, 2004
> www.SpaceandMotion.com
Posted by: Gunnar Tomasson
Briefly, re. the following:
Metaphysics aims to overcome this problem by using reason to try and understand what the real world is, which causes our senses (and ourselves). And for two and a half thousand years
the great philosophers / metaphysicists have known that for matter to be interconnected throughout the universe, then there must be one thing that connects the many things (matter) together. That a complete description of reality must be founded on one thing / substance.
Leibniz writes this most simply; (though I have many fine quotes on this.) "Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another." (Leibniz, 1670)
Comment:
As I understand it, Leibniz' view implies that Einstein was wrong in supposing that physical reality in its entirety can in principle be reduced to/represented by an axiomatic structure of thought.
For the Monad has Zero Dimension in Space and Time whereas ALL our experience of physical reality is spatio-temporal.
Gunnar
Posted by: Geoff Haselhurst
Gunnar - As I understand it, Leibniz' view implies that Einstein was wrong in supposing that physical reality in its entirety can in principle be reduced to/represented by an axiomatic structure of thought.
For the Monad has Zero Dimension in Space and Time whereas ALL our experience of physical reality is spatio-temporal.
Geoff Haselhurst - Well said, your comments on Leibniz are correct. It is true, that if we are to describe reality then it must be founded on One Thing as Leibniz and many other philosophers / metaphysicists have known. It is worth repeating his quote;
"Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another." (Leibniz, 1670)
Thus Reality can not be described by a Metaphysics of Space and Time as you suggest (thus part of the reason for Einstein's failure - as he tried to represent matter as spherical force fields in Space-Time).
How do we solve this problem and unite Leibniz and Einstein?
In fact there is only one way to do this if you are to abide by these rules of Science. To explain this it is good to start with a brief Summary of the Metaphysics of Physics.
Currently physics is founded on four separate things, i.e. matter 'particles' which generate 'forces' that act on other particles in Space and Time. This causes many problems for Physics because we do not understand how these separate things are interconnected. The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) solves these problems by describing reality founded on One Thing / Substance (Space) and its Properties as a Wave-Medium for Spherical Standing Waves that form matter. Thus we can explain Matter, Time and Forces by connecting them back to One Thing, Space with the following reasoning;
www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Atom-Atoms-Particle.htm
Matter (Atom / Particle) - The Wave-Center of the Spherical Standing Waves causes the discrete 'particle' effect of Matter.
www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Time.htm
Time - The Spherical Standing Wave Motion of Space causes matter's activity and the phenomena of Time. This confirms Aristotle and Spinoza's connection of Motion and Time, and most significantly connects these two things back to one thing Space.
'Movement, then, is also continuous in the way in which time is - indeed time is either identical to movement or is some affection of it.' (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Real...ght-Gravity.htm
Forces (Light, Gravity) - Forces are caused by a change in velocity of the spherical In-Waves (from one direction, as they interact with other matter / waves) which causes a change in location of where these spherical (ellipsoidal) In-Waves finally meet at their Wave-Center, and which we 'see' as a 'force accelerating a particle'.
Thus we unite / connect Matter, Time and Forces back to One thing Space, existing as a Wave-Medium. From this foundation (and unity) we can then unite (and explain and solve many of the problems of) Einstein's Relativity, Quantum Theory and Cosmology.
www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albe...-Relativity.htm
Albert Einstein: Special & General Relativity - The Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Absolute Space explains and solves many of the problems of Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Briefly summarised, if there is no change in velocity of the In-Waves (velocity of light c) then there is no change in the location of the Wave-Center and thus no 'acceleration of the particle' (Einstein's Special Relativity). Any change in velocity of the spherical In-Waves (from one direction, as they flow in through other matter) changes the future location of the Wave-Center ('force accelerating a particle') and also changes the ellipsoidal shape of the waves. This explains why Einstein could relate the changing geometry of a sphere / ellipsoid to the 'acceleration of a particle', and thus a Gravitational Field. (i.e. Einstein's General Relativity, Acceleration and Gravity). Likewise this explains the Lorentz Transformations, Albert Einstein's spherical force field theory of matter and the 'curvature' of the 'four dimensional spacetime continuum' as being Caused by the changing Ellipsoidal shape of the In-Waves that form Matter.
www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Quan...y-Mechanics.htm
Quantum Theory / Mechanics - Historical Analysis and Solutions to Problems of Quantum Theory (Quantum Mechanics).On Planck, Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Born, Feynman, Wolff.
'Experiments on interference made with particle rays have given brilliant proof that the wave character of the phenomena of motion as assumed by Quantum Theory do, really, correspond to the facts.' (Albert Einstein, 1940)
www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Part...ity-Paradox.htm
Quantum Theory: Particle Wave Duality - The particle-wave duality of Matter is obviously explained by the WSM. Spherical Standing Waves (Scalar Quantum Waves not Electromagnetic Vector Waves) cause the Particle effect at their Wave-Center.
www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Ligh...ton-Photons.htm
Quantum Theory: Light Quanta (Photons) - Likewise the particle-wave duality of Light is also explained by the WSM. Light is a wave phenomena, but Standing Wave Interactions (Resonant Coupling) only occur at discrete frequencies which explains Schrodinger's wave equations and the discrete energy exchanges of Light Quanta (Photons).
www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm - Cosmology
'The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built by pure deduction.' (Albert Einstein, 1954).
The Wolff-Haselhurst Cosmology explains a Perpetual Finite Spherical Universe within an Infinite Eternal Space. The Spherical Standing waves determines the size of our finite spherical universe within an infinite Space (Matter is large not small, we only 'see' the Wave-Center / 'particle' effect which has greatly confused physics). Huygens' Principle explains how other matter's out waves combine to form our matter's spherical In-Waves, which then deduces both Mach's Principle and the redshift with distance (without assuming Doppler effect due to an expanding universe / Big Bang). This also explains how matter interacts with all other matter in the universe (why we can see stars) as matter is the size of the universe, but we only 'see' the high wave amplitude wave-centers / 'particles'.
www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Meta...T-Cosmology.htm
Physics and Metaphysics - The Metaphysics of Space and Motion Sensibly Unites Albert Einstein's Relativity, Quantum Theory, and Cosmology. This 40 page Treatise (written over five years) will be published in 'What is the Electron' (Apeiron, 2004).
In ending, we must not forget Leibniz, who was very close to the truth.
www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-G...Philosopher.htm
Leibniz, Gottfried - The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter explains Leibniz's Monads (Monad = One) and how Matter and Universe are One Interconnected Whole.
A few relevant Quotes from Leibniz (see website);
Leibniz is correct,
'I do not conceive of any reality at all as without genuine unity. '(Leibniz, 1670)
Thus his Monadology (Monas is a Greek word which signifies unity or that which is one) is largely correct, matter and universe are One. But we can now better understand his Monad as a Spherical Wave Motion of Space that determines the size of our finite spherical universe within an infinite Space, and thus interacts with ALL other matter within our universe.
'It follows from what we have just said, that the natural changes of monads come from an internal principle, and that change is continual in each one. … Now this connection of all created things with each, and of each with all the rest, means that each simple substance has relations which express all the others, each created monad represents the whole universe.' (Leibniz, 1670)
Einstein took the path of Leibniz and described reality in terms of relative motion of matter to other matter (Many Things) rather than relative to Absolute Space (One Thing). This error causes us many problems.
'(Describing motion relative to all other matter in the universe) overcomes a deficiency in the foundations of mechanics which had already been noticed by Newton and was criticised by Leibniz and, two centuries later, by Mach: inertia resists acceleration, but acceleration relative to what? Within the frame of classical mechanics the only answer is: inertia resists acceleration relative to space. This is a physical property of space - space acts on objects, but objects do not act on space. Such is probably the deeper meaning of Newton's assertion spatium est absolutum (space is absolute). But the idea disturbed some, in particular Leibniz, who did not ascribe an independent existence to space but considered it merely a property of 'things' (objects).' (Albert Einstein, 1954)
Newton was correct with Absolute Space, his error was to also assume Absolute Time, Matter as discrete 'particles' and 'Forces' acting instantly at-a-distance.
As above, the solution is to unite these great philosophers with the work of Christiaan Huygens, to realise that Space has the Properties of a Wave-Medium - that Matter, Time and Forces are caused by Spherical (Ellipsoidal) Standing Waves in Space.
Your thoughts?
Geoff Haselhurst
www.SpaceandMotion.com
Discussion Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wave-Structure-Matter/
Posted by: Gunnar Tomasson
Geoff:
I apologize for my delayed response.
Briefly, re. the following:
'The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built by pure deduction.' (Albert Einstein, 1954).
The Wolff-Haselhurst Cosmology explains a Perpetual Finite Spherical Universe within an Infinite Eternal Space. The Spherical Standing waves determines the size of our finite spherical universe within an infinite Space (Matter is large not small, we only 'see' the Wave-Center / 'particle' effect which has greatly confused physics). Huygens' Principle explains how other matter's out waves combine to form our matter's spherical In-Waves, which then deduces both Mach's Principle and the redshift with distance (without assuming Doppler effect due to an expanding universe / Big Bang). This also explains how matter interacts with all other matter in the universe (why we can see stars) as matter is the size of the universe, but we only 'see' the high wave amplitude wave-centers / 'particles'.
Comment:
I have not digested all aspects of your Spherical Standing Waves concept but, as far as I can tell, it is predicated on the admissibility in theoretical physics of the Continuity Axiom of which Einstein wrote to Michele Besso on August 10, 1954 as follows:
"I concede, however, that it is quite possible that physics cannot be founded on the concept of field - that is to say, on continuous elements. But then, out of my whole castle in the air - including the theory of gravitation, but also most of current physics - there would remain almost nothing." (In 'Einstein - A Centenary Volume', ed. by. A. P. French, Harvard University Press, 1979, p. 269.)
The following considerations suggest - nay, imply - that the Continuity Axiom is NOT admissible as a foundational concept in cosmology.
1. Let a "straight line" be defined as, and/or exemplified by, a photon's path of propagation along a line drawn from the center of the sun through (a) the point of the photon's emission on the sun's surface, and (b) a point on the solar system's outer-most boundary.
2. Consider now that Stellar Aberration is associated with photons propagating in the opposite direction, that is, from a stellar source outside the solar system towards a point of observation within it.
3. Thus, while the path of propagation of incoming photons is a straight line as defined in 1. above, there is a break or discontinuity in that line at the point of entry (b).
4. The Axiom of Continuity is predicated on the non-existence of any such break or discontinuity.
5. Stellar Aberration is empirical proof that such break or discontinuity exists.
6. Hence, the Axiom of Continuity is FALSIFIED.
Gunnar
Posted by: Sylvia Demetra Hobbs
Geoff ,
Within a collection of essay's edited by Christopher Norris entitled, "Quantum Theory and the Flight from Realism: Philosophical Responses to Quantum Mechanics," PLEASE SEE essay on "Quantum Theory and the Logic of Anti-Realism" and a second discussion which points to issues Hilary Putnam raised concerning evidence in how the limitations of mathematical models influenced the logic of "empirical" discoveries in science.
Posted by: Michael Schreiber
G. Haselhurst quoted:
>>"Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the
interconnection of all things with one another." (Leibniz, 1670)<<
G. Tomassen suggested an interpretation:
>>Comment:
As I understand it, Leibniz' view implies that Einstein was wrong in supposing that physical reality in its entirety can in principle be reduced to/represented by an axiomatic structure of thought.
For the Monad has Zero Dimension in Space and Time whereas ALL our experience of physical reality is spatio-temporal.<<
I do not know the "Philosophical Investigations" as well as G. Haselhurst but I can offer a quote from his later text "Monadology" which disagrees with the interpretation proposed by G. Tomassen.
" 22. And as every present state of a simple substance is naturally
a consequence of its preceding state, in such a way that its present
is big with its future; (Theod. 350.)"
[The original 1714 untitled text in French was first published by J.E. Erdmann under the title "La Monadologie" available online in translation by R. Latta, point 22.).
http://eserver.org/philosophy/leibniz-monadology.txt
The first 1720 publication was a translation into German by H. Koehler who used a long title including the word "Monadologie", then there was a Latin version by an unknown translator in Acta eruditorum 1721, another German edition by C.J. Huth appeared in 1740 (compare introduction by H. Glockner in Reclam edition 1954, 1979, 1986, pp.7-9).]
The quoted translation permits the following interpretation of G.W. Leibniz:
Monads are at least one-dimensional.
If we could agree on this interpretation it would be possible to discuss this topic in the context of simple NKS rules in general, and in particular by using pure formal functions of distinction like the Spencer-Brown Form (which needs no argument but can handle one or many arguments [see G. Spencer-Brown, Laws of Form, 1969-1997; compare G.W. Leibniz, 1714, 1898, point 8.]).
Posted by: MikeHelland
Michael,
Interpreting Leibniz as saying a monad has dimension hugely misses the purpose of the monad concept.
The idea is that everything in nature is an effect; that matter, space, and time are all effects.
The monads, and the space and time that exists with them, are 100% unknown to our experiences in nature. They are the cause of the effects.
That said, they might have "dimension" in the mathematical sense. It would seem as if the monad and its spacetime are described by string theory, being 6 or 20 dimensions, but true to string theory these dimensions still do not exist in our experiences.
If we observe zero of their dimensions they are still zero-dimensional.
Posted by: Gunnar Tomasson
Michael:
You write:
I do not know the "Philosophical Investigations" as well as G. Haselhurst but I can offer a quote from his later text "Monadology" which disagrees with the interpretation proposed by G. Tomassen.
" 22. And as every present state of a simple substance is naturally
a consequence of its preceding state, in such a way that its present
is big with its future; (Theod. 350.)"
Comment:
As I read it, Leibniz' comment concerns the issue of determinism, with Leibniz coming down on Einstein's side in his long-running debate with Bohr on the question whether God plays dice with the Cosmos.
Gunnar
Posted by: Michael Schreiber
Mike Helland stated that:
"The monads, and the space and time that exists with them, are 100% unknown to our experiences in nature. They are the cause of the effects."
but accepted:
"That said, they might have "dimension" in the mathematical sense."
and concluded after an excursion into string theory:
"If we observe zero of their dimensions they are still zero-dimensional."
This provides the fulcrum of agreement needed to leverage our discussion about truth and reality by formal arguments which may include functions and rules in general and NKS in particular.
The comment posted by Gunnar Tomasson avoids to consider dimension explicitly in relation to paragraph 22.:
"As I read it, Leibniz' comment concerns the issue of determinism, with Leibniz coming down on Einstein's side in his long-running debate with Bohr on the question whether God plays dice with the Cosmos."
While I can agree to interpreting "Monadology" as being about determinism I propose to discuss options which do not follow Leibniz beyond point 28.
From an NKS point of view this means to look for purely formal ways to construct numerous rules as well as their objects and subjects from one irreducible operation which is simple and free of arbitrary connotations.
While conventional thinking might expect, that this must lead into determinism, this is not necessarily true considering (a) rule 30 which generates an acceptable model of randomness, and (b) a function like the Spencer-Brown Form which postulates only a power to draw a distinction to emulate rule 30 as well as all other binary rules.
Thus returning to "Form distinction as function of no, one or many arguments around or in itself" we might want to ask whether physical reality, metaphysical entities and NKS rules might indeed share a common root with all objects and subjects of inquiry, namely:
Explicit or implicit identification with a power to identify with inner and outer instances of the same phenomenon of distinction in action.
Posted by: MikeHelland
Just wondering, but are you suggesting that rule 30 is indeterminate?
It looks that way, but that can't be right. Rule 30 with the same initial conditions runs the same way everytime.
An indeterminate program would compute arbitrarily, not by any ascertainable rules, and rule 30 does not fit this critieria.
It turns out to be nearly impossible to write an indeterminately evolving program.
The way I've been able to do it is by cheating flat out. What I do is this:
Take a set of evolving information. Make that information produce a second set of information, except it is generalized and somewhat incomplete. For example have every 9 results of information in the first set be grouped into a single result in the second set, and this result should not be able to tell us definitively what the 9 pieces of information from the first were.
Using this type of model we say the following "You are allowed to observe the second set of information, but not the first" and by doing so we provide an indeterminate set of information to an observer.
Kindof cheesy, but thats probably the best way you'll do it.
Consider that if the universe worked like this, and nature, the observable universe, consisted merely of set 2, then you and I would exist in set 2 and we would only be able to observe set 2. Our nature would be indeterminate to us inside of nature.
Take a look at the "100 Quantum years" thread in the Pure NKS section for another figurative explanation of this, and you might find that I have devised a somehow intuitive interpretation of quantum phenomena.
Posted by: Michael Schreiber
Implementation of rule 30 as a form expression is no deterministic pseudo random limit of how a Form might change itself for unknowns.
Metaphysical Form boots void.
DiscreteDelta is a model in Mathematica.
The main difference with the deterministic solution proposed by Leibniz is that the Form is not holy but extremely simple and neither good nor bad - but always just in the middle of drawing a distinction which surprises itself.
Form (1) emulates arbitrary degree n Boolean functions and (2) Form reentry adds infinite signals Some Mathematica demonstrations are in my NKS 2004 talk.
Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research
© 2004-2009 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. |
Disclaimer
vB Easy Archive Final - Created by Xenon and modified/released by SkuZZy from the Job Openings