Ask a Spiritual Physicist

Classicial science is the science of the veil.

Science at the sub-atomic level seems to be science at the web-veil boundary.

Any speculations on how the science of the web will look like, assuming it is at all possible?
 
Okay, OAT, you have me walking the plank here, but I will give it a try.

First, it must be based on the principle that "all things must be addressed" (I am winging this). That is, it must have a base in metaphysics or speculative philosophy. That enables it to address things like spirit and mind and consciousness and time and space as well as matter/energy/information. The key test here is Pragmatism... does it work?

Second, it must unify physics (like Kaku says, "one equation must give rise to everything"). There are a lot of contenders. I do not like relativity-based approaches (they deny free will and time). Nor do I like materialist quantum approaches (many-worlds is just so much like "it's turles all the way down"). Superstring could work, but I am very afraid that it will never even be theoretically testable (by that I mean I see no way to construct an experiment, now or ever, to falsify it or proove it sufficiently to my satisfaction). That leaves a quantum-based unification along the lines of Penrose's Twistor Theory or some equivalent Quantum-Loop Gravity approach.

Anyway, the point is until relativity and quantum are at least notionally unifiable a science of the web, while "do-able" is not inclusive enough (to be a true science of the web it most also do matter/energy/information).

The third thing must be an acceptance of probabilistic and possibilistic thinking. The notion of "absolute truth" must be overcome. Not replacing it with relativistic truth, but rather the knowledge that we get closer and closer to truth but may never know it. The key here is to overcome "The Problem of Induction" which haunts philosophny and science. Induction and abduction works, what else do you need to know.

So three things from the physics side: a pragmatic metaphysics, a unified science, and acceptance of probabilitstic induction.

Now we get to the fun metaphysical part. A science of the web must rise above the notions of being and becoming, substance and change. A key to this is somehow encapsulating time and matter into one thing. The only successful appraoch I know of (here I have to stipulate "Western Approach") is that of Alfred North Whitehead. His Philosophy of Organism takes an experiential unit (an actual event) as the basis of reality. That unit has mental and physical aspects and (this is very important) an undividable time duration.

There is some interesting work being done at the edges of this by a couple of well-respected physicists, Henry Stapp and David Ritz Finkelstein (both ex-teachers of mine). Henry is looking to express quantum in terms of Whitehead and DR is exploring the intersection of "Plank Unit Time" with Quantum Logic (his work can be found under "Chronon"...I think).

As an article of faith the parts of "information physics" (Zurek) and Bohmian physics that are important will be able to be expressed within this "Whiteheadean Quantum Physics".

That gives us a grounding: a metaphysical basis, a unified physics, a liogic (induction), and an experiential approach.

At that point the subjective experiences we all share could be analyzed in terms of this "science oif the web". I predict that if we agree to a "scientific method" to use it would include: inclusiveness, evolution, experimentation, and validation.

The inclusiveness would be any claim to exclusivity is rejected (no, the one way is not the one way of Pentacostals).

The evolution would mean the ways would by nature be "living ways"... like math changed from Roman numerals to Arabic numerals to the Calculus to Group Theoretics, to the point where (due to Goedel) use of any math beyond arithmetic is basically a matter of faith and belief.

The experimentation would be "Do the Blue Cliff technique 5" and this will happen, to the "Shiva Vigyama Upanishad Method 36" and this will happen.

The validation would be like teaching in the Dojo or Meeting in Quakerism. Via a group pondering, a group acceptance (this goes a long way towards inclusiveness as well).

You made me think there OAT. Do not take this as Gospel (I am, if noting else, not very consistent). However, we might use this as a basis for future discussion on this thread? Ohay with you?

Pax et amore vincunt omnia... radarmark
 
radarmark said:
The notion of "absolute truth" must be overcome. . . . but may never know it.
Click to expand...


"Sorry mate, but I just don't get your banter".

Are we seeking to predict the weather, for farmer's almanac?

Why does one think that there is no "Absolute"?

If time is relative to its own sphere ---so that it can be said that Time on earth is different from time on a far away galaxy ---where does the notion that '2+2=4' in one galaxy is absolutely true here, but may not be true in another galaxy?

Absolute Zero exists and it is pure and untainted.

Gumby & Pokey sought out new frontiers in the realm of the Salvation Army Back-room boxes of sundry "stuff".

That gives us a grounding: a metaphysical basis, a unified physics, a liogic (induction), and an experiential approach.
Click to expand...

Something is missing here ---"Persona".
 
Re: Theo? Who is Theo?

bhaktajan said:
Theo is a given name, deriving from the Greek word Theos which means god

Theoretical physics

Mathematical physics "the application of mathematics to problems in physics and the development of mathematical methods suitable for such applications and for the formulation of physical theories."

A scientific theory
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Theory as it is used in English is a technical term from Ancient Greek philosophy. It is derived from theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.
Click to expand...

Insearch of the mother of all Theories, the “Electron Theory that I thought I knew”:


http://leefrancesemery.hubpages.com/hub/The-Electron-Theory

The Electron Theory consists of the following concepts:
1. All matter is made up of tiny, invisible particles called atoms.

2. The atom is composed of negatively charged particles called electrons (-), positively charged particles called protons (+), and neutrally charged particles called neutrons.

3. Proton and neutron have the same mass and are about 1,830 times as heavy as electron.

4. Every proton carries a unit charge of positive electricity; every electron carries a unit charge of negative electricity.

5. The atom of any element contains exactly the same number of protons and electrons, thus the atom is said to be electrically neutral.

6. The dense central portion of the atom — the nucleus, is made up of all the protons and the neutrons. Thus, the positive charge of the atom is concentrated in the nucleus.

7. Electron revolves around the nucleus in one or more shells or rings at various dis­tances.
8. The entire chemical characteristics of an atom depends largely upon the number of electrons that it has and how these electrons are arranged.


At the above link there were the following old ‘comments’:

john carlo cabug 14 months ago
I think that you do not show and define electron Theory. You just explain all about it parts and all about the atomic model.
…………………

SHINIGAMI 2 months ago
this is not the electron theory... it should be Neils Bohr's Theory..."how electrons flow" w/c is also known as the electron theory........0% right.... delete this or you will teach students the wrong answer....
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I resume my search:

http://autolabscopediagnostics.com/electron.htm
The electron theory states that . . . Trying to make sense of it all may be difficult for you. It is also difficult for scientists and engineers. In fact, another theory has been developed to explain the mysteries of current flow. This theory is called the hole-flow theory and is actually based on both electron theory and the conventional theory.
Fortunately, it really doesn't matter as long as you know what current flow is and what affects it. From this understanding you will be able to figure out how the circuit basically works, how to test it. and how to repair it.
Remember that current flow is the result of the movement of electrons, regardless of the theory.​
 
"Philosophy without religion is Metal Speculation (aka, subjective guesswork);

Religion without Philosophy is sentimentality (aka, fanaticism)."
 
Is the following is a "Theory" of my own making?:

"The God is a Person Principle Theory; or,
Why Atheistic Philosophers can't deny that there is always a personality behind the scene"​

ABSTRACT:

a] "There is a always a personality behind the scene"

b] "Without the presence of the persona, all paraphernalia is without meaning nor purpose for existing"

........................................................................................

Here is my calculations:

Q. Who is the personification of the American Dollar Bill?
A. George Washington.

Q. Who is the Living Personification of the American Dollar Bill?
A. Barak Obama.

Q. Who is the personification of the State of New York'?
A. The Governor (Mr. Paterson)

Q. Who is the personification of one of the many regional Counties of New York State?
A. The County Executive.

Q. Who is the personification of one of the many Congressional Districts of New York State?
A. The Congressman/State Representative.

Q. Who is the personification of New York City?
A. The Mayor (Mr. Blumberg).

Q. Who is the personification of one of the many Districts of New York City?
A. The Councilman/Ombudsman.

Q. Who is the personification of any 'Block and Lot' tax-parcel of land?
A. The title barer (The Land owner).

Q. Who is the personification of the any Apartment building?
A. "The Landlord".

Q. Who is the personification of any apartment?
A. The tenant.

Q. Who is the personification of the room with the football and the many toy Trains?
A. One of the male children.

Q. Who is the personification of nursery room?
A. The Baby.
 
I just do not get what the rant here is about. OAT asked a question and I answered as well as I could.
"Classicial science is the science of the veil.

Science at the sub-atomic level seems to be science at the web-veil boundary.

Any speculations on how the science of the web will look like, assuming it is at all possible? "

It has nothing to do with absolute zero, or electron theory, or religion, or "personality behind the scene". But to address them one at a time:

You believe in absolute truth, I do not. We can have a discussion about that.
As far as I know there is no "electron theory" in physics (I could be wrong). There is a theory of electromangetic force and a theory of quantum mechanics and an "electro-weak" theory that unifies electro-magnetism and the weak nuclear force. If you just look up "the standard model" at wiki or Stanford's ency of Philoisophy, you may learn something. I do not see where your "Philosophy and Religion" comment comes into play. What I said is that you need a "metaphysics" which is kind-of sort-of philosophy (but has been chased from that tent since the 1930s). And religion was exactly what I was speaking of, for I consider "subjective experiences" (or "going beyond" or "enlightenmant" or "the Divine") precisely what lays at the core of religion.

Then finally, the "persona" thing. I really do not get it. I do not believe there is a divind or persoinal personna that is ever-lasting. I just do not grok it. When I look inside my consciousness, I do not see a self or a personna, all I see is a bundle of connections, a series oif experiences. I do not believe (unlike most of Western Philosophy) that ones need to construct a thing where nothing really is.

You do not have to accept the fact I do not believe in absolute truth (or at least that we can ever know it). Nor do you have to believe that self is a construct. But I do.

You still there, OAT? Radarmark
 
radarmark said:
I just do not get what the rant here is about.
Click to expand...

Are you saying "I am ranting"?

I am writting in "Plain" english about "Plain Concepts".

You believe in absolute truth, I do not.
Click to expand...

An so I provide "YOU' with the quandry:

'2+2=4' is true here on earth (an absolute Truth) and aked,

Does '2+2=4' NOT true in another galaxy?

2+2=4 is a universal absolute truth.

Then finally, the "persona" thing. I really do not get it.
Click to expand...

Without the presence of the persona, all paraphernalia is without meaning nor purpose for existing"

You know of a published theory that says otherwise?

Well then, I see the antropy. Just consider that you have been served.

When I look inside my consciousness, I do not see a self or a personna, all I see is a bundle of connections, a series oif experiences. I do not believe (unlike most of Western Philosophy) that ones need to construct a thing where nothing really is.
Click to expand...

Talk about "the un-carved block".

Your vector point in the cosmos ---cannot be inhabited by anything else.
Your vector point in the cosmos is your address of your individual indisiable being ---you are located at an X-Y-Z point in space and you cannot escape it.

It is You-the Life Force that is the self.

It is writen:
"Some look on the soul as amazing, some describe him as amazing, and some hear of him as amazing, while others, even after hearing about him, cannot understand him at all." (Bg 2.29)

I posed an elementary propsition in my Post #67:
"Without the presence of the persona, all paraphernalia is without meaning nor purpose for existing"

and you respond with:
I do not believe (unlike most of Western Philosophy) that ones need to construct a thing where nothing really is.
Click to expand...

I coming from Eastern Philosophy (unlike most of Western Philosophy).
The Western Pathos is very well to construct a thing where nothing really is; as examplified by colonial expansion and the technological means to sustain institutions borne of their inventions.

You seem to be contradicting the means of discussing "Meta"-Physics ("Higher"-Physics).
 
Fine, I accept the ding. "Rant" was poor word selection.

We have been through all of this before. Yes, there are trivial universal truths (like rhetoric, deductive logic and elementary math). However, they are tautologies which do not tell us anything about the world, merely how we think, how our logic is constructed and what our math rules are.

So let me change that to (and thank you for the correction, I do like to be precise) "you believe in non-tautological absoulte truths, I do not.

Pax?
 
they are tautologies which do not tell us anything
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insights.

PS: the question is,

If, '2+2=4' is true here on earth (an absolute Truth);

Is '2+2=4' true in every other galaxy?

Is not '2+2=4' a universal absolute truth, irregardless of what Time paradym is being observed?

Same question goes for "Left" & "Right"; and, "Up" & "down".
 
Now for something completely different:

Are the North-South Axis of All Galaxies parallel to eachother?

Is the North Star actually establish the "North" direction of the cosmos?
 
Cool. No, in the pic below (http://www.mymorninglight.org/GALAXIES!sm.jpg) if it does not come through you can see spiral galaxies in all kinds of different positions.
So, no the N-S Axis of galaxies differ from each other.

Ditto for the North Star (Polaris). It is very close to us (400ly) and way out on the edge of the Milky Way. It is the star that (for right now, not forever) is directly over Earth's north pole. It is noit aligned with the Milky Way in any unique way I know of.

Face-on map overview | Galaxy Map has a bunch of maps of the Milky Way.


Face-on map overview | Galaxy Map has a bunch of maps of the Milky Way. One is shown below. Polaris is 400ly away on the axis that says 90 degrees (a little closer to the sun than the O in Orion Spur.


hurt_rotated_small.jpg



One last shot, Polaris is about the same distance from the Sun (where the lines intersect) as the tip of the arrow pointing to "Orion Spur", but just to the south (just below) the horizontal line.

newspur.jpg
 
I recently saw a new class of space photos of distant galaxies ---that resembled brain synapsis.

Do you know what 'newest & unique' photos I saw on the web?

I could not find what I had accidently chanced upon.

I think it was in a catagory called "deep Space" photos.

It resembled a web-like gossamer similar to a diagram of brain synapses.
 
radarmark said:
First, it must be based on the principle that "all things must be addressed" (I am winging this). That is, it must have a base in metaphysics or speculative philosophy. That enables it to address things like spirit and mind and consciousness and time and space as well as matter/energy/information. The key test here is Pragmatism... does it work?
Click to expand...
Agree.

radarmark said:
Second, it must unify physics (like Kaku says, "one equation must give rise to everything"). There are a lot of contenders. I do not like relativity-based approaches (they deny free will and time). Nor do I like materialist quantum approaches (many-worlds is just so much like "it's turles all the way down"). Superstring could work, but I am very afraid that it will never even be theoretically testable (by that I mean I see no way to construct an experiment, now or ever, to falsify it or proove it sufficiently to my satisfaction). That leaves a quantum-based unification along the lines of Penrose's Twistor Theory or some equivalent Quantum-Loop Gravity approach.

Anyway, the point is until relativity and quantum are at least notionally unifiable a science of the web, while "do-able" is not inclusive enough (to be a true science of the web it most also do matter/energy/information).
Click to expand...
This must follow if we accept the principle that "all things must be addressed". So yes, I agree.

However, I am not sure if the current lines of pursuit in physics can actually achieve it. If indeed, current science of the sub-atomic level is the science at the veil-web boundary, it must follow that it is incomplete as it is a development of the physics from the veil side only.

In other words, the veil-web boundary science must address the science of both the veil and the web. This would however put physicists in a quandary. If they want to successfully come up with a theory of everything, they have to have the science of the web. But since they don't have the science of the web, the TOE is a non-starter. This is just my speculation.

radarmark said:
The third thing must be an acceptance of probabilistic and possibilistic thinking. The notion of "absolute truth" must be overcome. Not replacing it with relativistic truth, but rather the knowledge that we get closer and closer to truth but may never know it. The key here is to overcome "The Problem of Induction" which haunts philosophny and science. Induction and abduction works, what else do you need to know.
Click to expand...
I feel that future outcomes are always probabilistic, which means that any kind of clairvoyance is probabilistic. This follows if there are choices. Here, I would not equate existence of choices with existence of free-will. Choices exists because the future is probabilistic and the future is probabilistic because choices exists. In this sense, I would agree with your proposition of probabilistic thinking.

radarmark said:
Now we get to the fun metaphysical part. A science of the web must rise above the notions of being and becoming, substance and change. A key to this is somehow encapsulating time and matter into one thing. The only successful appraoch I know of (here I have to stipulate "Western Approach") is that of Alfred North Whitehead. His Philosophy of Organism takes an experiential unit (an actual event) as the basis of reality. That unit has mental and physical aspects and (this is very important) an undividable time duration.
Click to expand...
I think this would be quite consistent with my understanding of Buddhism except for the "undividable time duration". This is because in my understanding of Buddhism, in the experiential "unit', there is no division between past, present and future. But I am happy to change my mind if the concept of undividable time duration can be shown to be consistent with no division between past, present and future.
 
Okay, one point at a time. I am not saying physics can be "the science of the web" (SOTW), but only that in terms of that-which-is-in-what-we-call-the-material-universe the physics must be complete. That is on the veil side physics works. TOE is veil science SOTW focuses on the veil-web boundarty. Good catch, that is the kind of feedback I am looking for.

In Whitehead's Philosophy of Organism a single thing (an actual event) has a time duration which is indivisible. However, the actual event arises from a preceeding event and flows into a succeeding one. So it can handle your concern if one takes time as the axis across many events (then there will be no division).

Like time in relativity theory or balck-hole theory (Schwartzschild time) there are two streams, one in the event and one eternal... does that make sense?
 
radarmark said:
You believe in absolute truth, I do not.
Click to expand...

Let try this posit:

If given:
A person lived their life and died and centuries passed-by since this person's death ---Is their biographical history, of the existence of their life, and absolute truth. Forever fixed and in-alterable. Does the past known facts forever fixed and in-alterable unchanging and thus, eternally the same.

IE: The color of George Washington's White Horse was, is; and, will be eternally, and thus, absolutely white.

Is an absolute truth, after the fact, eternally true?

Albeit, such so-called absolute facts may not be known to those bereft of the facility to be cognisant of such topics ---just like a mountain can stand for eons of passing ages and no one is found that can relate to story of the mountain's birth ---yet there was a ancient time when each mountain first rose to its heights.
 
If indeed it was his horse and it was white and it had no arabian blood, then perhaps.
If it was not his, it is not true, if it was born white, then it is true (if it was his), if it was part-arabian and turned white at some numberr of years.... hmmm. See the conundrum, does "white" mean always white?

The problenm with historical knowledge is it depends on who wrote it. Like there is this controversy about Richard III. There has always been an undercurrent of "he never laid a hand on the Princes". Did he murder them or not? There is pretty good evidence on each side. All things being put aside there are three choices: he did it, he had someone kill them, or he is innocent of the charges. One of the three is "true"... but which one? we can never "know".

I am changing ("softening") my claim to "absolute knowledge"... which is probably what I originally meant anyway, I think.
 
bhaktajan said:
I recently saw a new class of space photos of distant galaxies ---that resembled brain synapsis.

Do you know what 'newest & unique' photos I saw on the web?

It resembled a web-like gossamer similar to a diagram of brain synapses.
Click to expand...

Wow I found them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know what I am looking at but it's part of the "Millennium Simulation" project.

Millennium Simulation - Google Search

seqD_037a_crop.jpg


"The Millennium Simulation is a brilliant example of the interaction between theory and experiment in astronomy as the latest observations of astronomical objects can be used to test the predictions of theoretical models of the Universe's history."

"New observational campaigns are providing us with information of unprecedented precision about the properties of galaxies, black holes and the large-scale structure of our Universe;

Our ability to predict the consequences of our theories must reach a matching level of precision if we are to use these surveys effectively to learn about the origin and nature of our world.

The Millennium Simulation is a unique tool for this. Our biggest challenge now is to make its power available to astronomers everywhere so that they can insert their own galaxy and quasar formation modelling in order to interpret their own observational surveys."
Millennium Simulation - the largest ever model of the Universe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top