Questioning Pre-Mathematical Intuitions by Eckard Blumschein

Hello Steve,

Nice to see you again. Perhaps you managed reading a lot of essays. I am mainly interested in what I consider reasonable outsiders like Janzen, Kadin, Kerr, Perez, Reiter, and Merryman whose essay I will look at next.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Georgina,

My mistake is obvious: When you wrote "word choice" you meant choice of words. In German we would write in this case wordchoice or word-choice. I mistook "word choice" as the word "choice".

My essay tries to show that similar mistakes in science are still to be found. I will read your essay because I consider the meaning of the notion reality utterly important. Einstein referred to the perspective of an observer. This might be a key mistake.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Jayakar Johnson Joseph,

Admittedly, I am facing difficulties when I am trying to understand your sentence. English is not my mother language. I have no idea what "Thus" refers to. I would write either "the" or "a" coherently-cyclic universe. Perhaps you meant "a" in the sense you are suggesting it. Well, such assumption is clearly speculative. What did you mean with "ascribe ... in"? I only know "ascribe" in connection with "to". If I ascribe a cycle of a cyclic universe to infinity, shouldn't this infinity then be actually infinite? In my humble understanding a genuine cycle is actually endless. The spiral of (nearly) identical cycles you seem to imagine is potentially infinite. Please accept that I am not interested in such perhaps futile speculations.

Regards,

Eckard

Hi Israel,

I do not share your positive attitude toward intuition to which your comment of Aug. 9, 5:30 GMT refers. Reality might differ from intuitively interpreted abstraction. Devlin is certainly correct when he reveals that while epsilontics is rigorous, the interpretation as continuity is intuitive, in other words a questionable petitio principii.

What about S. Gift, may I ask you to briefly explain in what and why he is wrong? Admittedly, I did not yet deal with his claimed measurement. Teaching at the Westindies he seems to be an outsider. However, I only judge on the basis of factual arguments. The reason for me to quote Bruhn [29] was to show how those who used to prejudge simply ignore experimental results and infer from their generalizing intuition that Einstein was a genius who was always correct that anything else must be wrong.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I admire your brilliant ability to emphatically comment even on mutually contradicting essays, and I feel your comment on mine more fair than I could expect after I quoted Kadin who plausibly at least to me explains why he does not consider photons particles. You might blame my lacking qualification for my failure to immediately grasp your slightly different concept.

While I do not deny that intuition can provide the basis for questioning certain assumptions, my essay tries to show to what extent science has been based on rather shaky intuition.

Well, on the first glance my essay seems to just reiterate well known deficits. My lists of enigma, suspected basic flaws and confessions coincides by chance and only in part with my criticism of arbitrary decisions made from a more or less intuitive background.

I am the nobody to whom even a Norman Cook is a nobody. I recall Jont Allen admitting something similar more briefly: No model (of cochlea) fits all data.

Dear Edwin,

I intend learning from you to regard concerns of others at least as important as my own. Therefore I will try and first tell you what might be of interest with respect to your C-field. You know that I do not understand anything in this area. Kadin wrote: "This transformation from a real wave F(x,t) to a complex wave psi = exp(imc2t/h_bar)F contributed to the widespread belief that the matter wave was an abstract mathematical representation rather than a true physical wave in real space." Then he dealt with the earlier established evidence for Wave-Particle Duality for several quantum entities. His Table 1 is convincing to me. The evidence for photons to be particles is just a weak one. I understand the spin of electromagnetic waves as their polarization. And why should wave not have energy? Strong evidence for being a particle is the property of atoms and the like to be arranged in lattices with certain distances from each other. I am also declined to take seriously the arguments by Dieter Zeh and Eric Reiter. Moreover, you pointed me to Michael Goodband. See Tom's reply to my belonging questions to Michael. That's already all I can possibly do as to support you.

Let me once again stress my intention to show that intuitive attitudes are not just to be found if young people are having problems to swallow formalized so called counterintuitive theories but the other way round, at least some of such allegedly rigorously founded theories are actually based on hidden possibly questionable pre-mathematical intuitions. Accordingly I decided to choose the title of my essay QUESTIONING PRE-MATHEMATICAL INTUITIONS and not questioning theories by means of intuition.

I apologize for sending my last reply unintentionally unsigned.

Regards,

Eckard

Steve,

Doesn't determinism imply monism, the block universe, and denial of free will?

I consider determinism the belief in the possibility to calculate the future. Therefore I do not see myself on a deterministic road.

Yuri suggested to somehow unite Permanides and Heraklitos. I do not see any factual justification for that. Of course, mandatory idolizing in particular of set theory and of SR led to many desperate maneuvers by those who are a bit coward and maybe even ready to be a bit less honest. Yes, your innocence is my best friend.

Which essay do you consider relevant with respect to the issue I mentioned above? In other words, which are the most hurting ones?

Regards,

Eckard

With Yuri I did not mean Yuri Rylov.

Dear John,

Your judgment Is seemingly the opposite from other reactions. I copy what Yuri Danoyon wrote to me:

-- Dear Eckard, My correspondence with other Nobel laureate G.Hooft about Blumschein essay

Yuri:"What is your attitude to essay Eckard Blumschein?

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/833 I think that it raises for discussion a very important issue for the revision of the foundations of modern physics"

His answer:"I found this essay too long and too boring to read. My superficial search for anything touching upon the foundations of physics led to negative results." --

Frank Wilczek preferred not to answer at all. Meanwhile I got aware that he had advocated for a preferred frame of reference.

Thank you very much for providing the link to cosmologystatement.org So far I did not manage opening it. However, this might be my fault.

Best,

Eckard

John,

I looked at Gibbs and Loeb and agree with you. The important things first: You forgot the k of link, and I forgot to ask you for confirmation that the link to cosmologystatement.org still works.

Philip Gibbs wrote to James Putnam on Aug. 11, 2012, 18:05 GMT: "I think more people would agree with you than me but that is because I am ahead of my time :)"! Maybe, he envisions viXra ahead. While I appreciate the possibility to publish anything, I did not yet find any good viXra paper.

P. G. revealed to me why 't Hooft understood that my reasoning contradicts to "the holographic principle of Susskind and 't Hooft [6]. Understanding of this deep idea came in a number of steps each of which sought consistency through hypothetical thought experiments."

My understanding is different: I see unitarity reversible because it belongs to the level of abstracted from reality notions. It is elusive if understood as an attribute of reality. Only abstracted probabilities can add up to one. Ontological causality also belongs to the level of abstract notions. I maintain what I wrote about causality and elapsed time.

Best,

Eckard

Dear Yuri,

Since John blamed me for a no prisoners essay, I would like to beg the more for your further support. I highly appreciate a lot of hints you gave me including Winterberg, to whom I referred to at [1], Popper on Parmenides, and the Pauli issue to be found in perhaps the first interesting to me viXra paper. Your new hints might be more appealing for those like Lawrence Crowell and Michael Goodband than for those who follow Popper's view like me.

In my reply to Steven I stressed that I consider determinism related to models, not to the open in the sense of reasonably taken for potentially infinite reality. I reiterate what I wrote in my essay 1364: "While reality and causality are, of course, also assumptions, we need them as logical alternatives to unacceptable mere imagination and mysticism, respectively."

By the way, didn't give Lawrence Crowell an intriguing straightforward answer to the question what might be wrong: unitarity, locality, and spacetime geometry?

Best,

Eckard