On The Move
Registered: Jan 2005
That certainly brings up the relevant 'point;' you can only point to it, or idealize it by imagining it despite it's lack of qualities, place, shape, or duration. Points aren't real, except perhaps as an unresolved, referrable system, and skepticism must reign for any model requiring them in their 'infinitely small' form.
The 'out there' to which you refer is also such an idealization. No one has ever been 'out there.' The patterns we experience from 'out there' are real, and in some sense, are all that can be known. JSMill's conceptualization recognizes that distinction; perception is an experience, not an idealization.
Though we can formulate ideas about any object, the 'object' in question might be an experience of perception based on reinforced sensory feelings, or it might be an experience of imagination alone. Points are the latter, so it's a priori problematic how they can be used to explain our experiences. Descartes' 'vortices' are still around.
"The Objective Universe" - akin to 'God' - is a wholly untestable, hence unscientific hypothesis. Our only possible evidence for or against, is more experience, begging the question. All of your experience happens inside your own skull. There is no 'blue' except where your brain paints it for various solid angles in your visual cortex, to register frequencies ~3700 Angstroms.
Fortunately, that useless hypothesis doesn't screw up our study of those patterns...but it can screw up our study of our internal patterns. And it appears to me that Process Physics may represent a large step...in our inward, not outward, understanding. But how do you tell the difference? How does Process Physics address that distinction, in the step from 'node' to 'quanta'? If 'experience' is 'a laying down of records,' then how do we know Process Physics is talking about the 'most real' layer of existence; the substances supposably causing our experiences, rather then the stuff which *is* our experience?
Additionally, Universe is not a system, let alone a visualizable one, because it doesn't have an outside. Speaking of which, I'm not 100% certain, being rather a newbie in this realm, but it appears that Process Physics is incompatible with a non-simultaneous Universe...which ours has repeatedly proven to be.
Am I overlooking something when I recognize a contradiction in terms between absolute frames and non-simultaniety? If not, that's a severe show-stopper for the whole notion.
As it turns out, 'Universe' can be defined as 'the sum of experience,' and all of physics survives intact. Hence, we know the 'objective universe' concept is redundant.
Process Physics, as just one example, appears to include, a priori, that 'ubiquitous experientiability' in the 'stuff' by which the Universe is made. A modelling of JSMill's concept as transfers of information, if I'm getting it. If I'm not, please update me, but it looks like the plan was to model a phenomenological universe - a view from 'inside' us - but someone switched which 'substance' they were modelling.
Process Physics starts by modelling micro-Universe as an 'experienced and experiencing information array,' leading in due course to 'topological defects,' aka 'knots' aka, 'self-interfering pattern integrities.'
Wouldn't it be easier to work the other direction? Start with experience as fundamental, proving this-or-that 'objective' structure real; patterns, frequencies, angles, records and rules?
That's what it does? But how do we know if Process Physics is talking about physical out-there underpinnings, not neural in-here visualization underpinnings?
The Scientific Method sticks us with experience as primary, anyway, so why not ditch the unnecesary idealizations which can only obscure comprehension of the patterns and structures in question?
Yes, nature is discrete. Hence the necessity of using 'frequency' rather than size or duration as the only proper dimensional metric. Frequency, after all, is an experience, not an idealization. It simultaneously encapsulates both Mach's Relativity and the lack of 'absolute size' which dimensions based on length and time require.
Universe has a frequency; there is one.
A physical point is an absurdity. The smallest possible wavelength in this Universe is that associated with a particle continaing all energy and mass. For f = total energy of the known universe/h, the wavelength still exists. It's not 'zero,' proving points can't exist, according to the rules demonstrated by that set of experiences we call 'physics' to be operating.
How would you explain your lack of delay in your sensory responses? Many of them take as much as 1/2 second to register in your cortex. Why don't you notice a lag?
Why do you trust your visualization of 'out there' when it's demonstrably 100% imaginative speculation? You see what, one octave out of eight, on the EM spectrum?
Any philosophy which doesn't face up to and account for the distinction between idealization and experience faces dismissal on alchemical grounds; A mystical object is neither the proper basis, nor goal, of a real science.
Real science squeaks by on 'repeatable,' 'falsifiable' and, rarely mentioned in the 4-step introduction, 'communication.'
I suggest that idealizations like points are optional...there's just a hell of a lot of work to iron out all the details.
Process Physics went back to Heraclitus, but kept the Latin geometrical formulations.
Does anyone know why?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged