Dear Wilhelmus,

Too often when we speak of God we are understood through the misconceptions of others. As these are attributed to us. I try to avoid such discussions all together. I am perfectly comfortable with the notion that God exists or God does not exist! Or even God may in the future exist. Or had existed at one time.

But I am convinced (and have good reasons to be convinced as per my essay) any description of 'what is' the Universe is metaphysical. Whether mathematical or not! And any such metaphysical description will ultimately fail. Just as it has in the past. And it will fail because the Metaphysics stretches the limits of the sensible. And so it is no longer believed. I believe we are near that point now with Modern Physics.

But in my essay I also argue Physics can be based on mathematical 'truisms' applied to measurements. Though we cannot know 'what is', we certainly know our measurements of 'what is'. And though there is no logical basis that the Universe follows mathematical 'models', there is logical certainty applying mathematical 'truisms' to measurements.

Thank you for your good wishes ...

Constantinos

    John you write,

    " I'm more and more of the opinion that it is all truisms and there is no ... universal law".

    I completely agree with that! Sorry this was obscured in my essay.

    Constantinos

    Hello Constantinos,

    I couldn't resist reading, and found myself at the end before stopping. A masterful exposition of how deeply entrenched Physics is in Metaphysics, yet in denial about this fact. I might go even further. I find a lot to agree with, as you would know from my own essay on "Cherished Assumptions and the Progress of Physics," but I find also myself living outside of the box you have so cleverly designed.

    I think a lot of lies can get told with Math, because it is a language and people forget Korzybski's dictum "The word is not the thing, and the map is not the territory." I point out in my essay from 2 yrs. ago that we should add "The equation is not the Physics it represents." And I elaborate on the problems of applying linear Math models in a largely non-linear world, this year.

    A lot of people forget that the Math is meant to model Physics, and is often imperfect in that role, acting as though the Math is creating the Physics instead - and this is usually false. However; there is a need to acknowledge that sometimes the rule we observe through physical measurement actually does arise from mathematical or geometrical rules at work, that dictate the relationship between physical objects and forces.

    That is; it is not so clear cut, and it works both ways. I have 25 years of accumulated evidence I would need ignore, to feel otherwise. Sometimes, things believed to be objects of pure Math exert an inexorable pull on reality. I'll comment more later, and make some mention too of objections to the concept of the unknowable - as though it was an absolute. It is not.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

      • [deleted]

      • Post #16

      I can understand why you need to lay considerable groundwork for that. Even many who do think physics is off on the wrong track are not willing to go that far, for rather deep reasons. Not too many people want to face the void. Personally it just gives me vertigo when I try, so I just hold onto the daily life business and don't push it any further than necessary. Of course, the mess the world is in, is making facing up to a lot of things necessary.

      Hi Constantinos,

      You said, "The failing of physics is in not providing us with a physical view that makes sense".

      I couldn't agree more!

        Dear Constantinos,

        A measurement is an "observation", and as I wrote in "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" the result of an obsevation is the origin of "awareness", which in fact is the CAUSE, our consciousness "creates" these outcomes in the for us causal beings not yet existing future.(by the collapse of the alpha-probability to a historical fact in the bète time line, which is an entanglement of the alpha-probability).

        So aren't we influencing ALL of our experiments,

        and indeed all our "isms" as you point it out.

        the extraterrestial

        Wilhelmus

        John,

        In my essay I tried to strip away all the arguments often presented to draw distinctions between Physics and Metaphysics. And to argue any modeling of 'what is' is metaphysical. Whether it is mathematical or not. Among the layers of defenses physicists put up against this recognition are: 1) the use of math in Physics to draw logical deductions. 2) the use of experiments to falsify hypotheses 3) the predictability their calculations allow for their experimental outcomes. I had another in that list which I had to cut out because of length restrictions. 4) the great advances mankind made through science.

        I hope my arguments are clear and convincing on the first three in the essay. As to the fourth, all I can say briefly is that technology and engineering and experimentalists and entrepreneurs should likely take the greatest credit for that advancement. Interestingly, these are the very people that have voiced the same concerns on Modern Physics as we have been debating in these blogs for years.

        Why is such striping away of the knee-jerk defenses physicists put up necessary? Because this is their greatest obstacle in 'making sense' of what they know! They are so intelligent and intellectually gifted. But often intelligent people are the most difficult to convince. Try arguing with an intelligent spouse!

        Constantinos

        Dear Constantinos,

        You´ve written

        ''Our understading of the universe is deeply rooted in the views we have.

        If we believe in atoms, our explanations of what happened will be in terms of atoms (...) In all cases, our explanation will only be a description of 'what happened'. Using words and ideas drawn from our beliefs.''

        This is something often overlooked by professional physicists. The ''words drawn from our beliefs'' are something created at the very start of physical theories, and physics deals much more with the manipulation of these words then with questioning their appropriateness. For instance, dynamics is about the motion of objects in space and time, but the concepts of object, space and time themselves are rarely questioned. But different ''first conceptions'' (which are different metaphysical positions), for instance about space, motion and time, may lead to different and testable physics. In this point I agree with you that physics is not immune to metaphysics. I develop this thought in my essay Absolute or Relative Motion...Or Something Else? which you might find interesting, and show how metaphysical ''first conceptions'' may lead to new physics.

        However, the metaphysical question of what the universe is seems to have no definite awnser, and I´m not even sure if it makes sense. Thousand of years of unresolved metaphysical disputes seems to confirm my hypothesis.

        I feel that all we can do is take a particular metaphysical position, develop a physical theory upon it and check it with experiments.

        Best regards, Daniel

          Dear Wihelmus,

          Our 'measurements' indeed are 'observations'. As are our 'understandings' measurements! In all such interactions the 'subject' and the 'object' are in 'local equilibrium of self-recognition'. We indeed influence our experiments. But not in a 'spooky way'. But because everything that comes to be known to us gets filtered through our minds.

          I am not at this time puzzling over Consciousness in Physics. Quite the opposite, actually. I am arguing that in order to avoid all such metaphysical questions, Physics should be based on 'measurements' and mathematical truisms (not models) applied to measurements. And this I show is possible.

          Constantinos

          Jonathan, you write

          "... there is a need to acknowledge that sometimes the rule we observe through physical measurement actually does arise from mathematical or geometrical rules at work, that dictate the relationship between physical objects and forces."

          Indeed! These underlying 'mathematical rules at work' are the mathematical 'truisms' I argue for in my essay. Such Physical Law as, for example, Newton's Laws of Motion I show to be actually mathematical truisms. As is also Planck's Formula for blackbody radiation. Which has long been considered could only be derived as a 'physical law' based on the existence of 'energy quanta'. NOT SO! It is a very simple mathematical truism. No 'energy quanta' need apply!

          Thanks for all you do ... I appreciate all your comments.

          Constantinos

          Hello Jason and thanks for your comment!

          I am glad we agree on this and other points. Feels like 'old times' again ... look forward to more discussions.

          Constantinos

          Dear Daniel,

          There are many fundamental assumptions physicists overlook. Their natural aversion to metaphysics is keeping them from realizing this. This is what I mean when I argue, "Ignoring 'The Metaphysics of Physics' may be physicists biggest mistake". And each of us have something very relevant to contribute. As you write, "metaphysical ''first conceptions'' may lead to new physics." Indeed. But why not seek to free Physics from all Metaphysics? I argue in my essay this is possible. I am arguing for a move away from 'physical law' and away from models of 'what is'. Which are metaphysical and we cannot know. But use mathematical truisms which we know are always true and 'measurements of what is' which we do know because we make them.

          Thanks for the heads up regarding your essay.

          Constantinos

          • [deleted]

          • Post #25

          "I feel that all we can do is take a particular metaphysical position, develop a physical theory upon it and check it with experiments."

          Well written. Without checking assumptions via experiments, we arrive again and again at metaphysics. The experiment is the key of science, consistency is the key to metaphysics and maths - but not sufficient for physics.

          Dear Michael,

          Certainly checking our hypotheses through experiments is fundamentally important. I agree. But you seem to think that is all we need to do not to "arrive again and again at metaphysics". A central argument in my essay is that the very asking and answering the question 'what is the Universe' is metaphysical in essence! Thus, all mathematical models that seek to describe 'what is the Universe' are metaphysical and doomed to ultimately fail. Knowing 'what is the Universe' is no more possible than knowing truly another person.

          As I argue in my essay, we may have reached a stage in our technology and our manipulation of Nature where we are now able to create 'outcomes' we design into our instruments. The Reality some of our instruments reveal may be of our own making!

          Constantinos

          • [deleted]

          • Post #27

          Constantinos,

          When you consider some of the ideas and patches put up in recent decades, the spouse is not only intelligent but stark raving crazy.

          John, good point!

          We wrongfully associate intelligence with wisdom and truth. To the contrary. Too often, the more intelligent and knowledgeable someone is the more theoretic chimeras they are able to create and throw in the path to truth. Then 'ordinary people' are needed to bring us back to our senses!

          Constantinos

          • [deleted]

          • Post #29

          Hi Constantinos,

          can you give some explicit examples concerning QM and Special Relativity that "The Reality some of our instruments reveal may be of our own making!"?

          Thank you,

          Michael

            • [deleted]

            • Post #30

            Constantinos,

            I think physics boils down to a cycle of expanding energy and contracting mass and that the intellectual process is a reflection of this. Like flowers in the spring, ideas explode out of possibilities, than a few become centers of attraction, to which others gravitate. Then it quickly becomes a popularity contest and the favorites can do no wrong and become ever less subject to objective scrutiny, as believers circle and add their weight, while skeptics, being of negative attraction, radiate to other interests. Eventually though, they implode and blow off most of the energy, leaving just a dense cinder, like a bankrupt company reduced to its hard assets. Even epicycles produced much that was conceptually useful.

            John,

            You could just as easily be describing the life cycle of metaphysical movements! It's the reason why truth can be revealed through anyone. Furthermore, we can never know before hand who that may be or what that truth is! Yet, physicists in judging do so with a fixed view in mind. The great disadvantage being in the box! When it comes to Modern Physics, physicists are at a disadvantage! Contrary to popular belief.

            Hello Michael,

            I do in my essay! Check the Kate Becker quote in it and my comments to it. Also, I raise the same question in relation to the recent Higgs boson announcement. One final important point. You rightfully quoted me as saying "may be of our own making!". The "may" makes this statement a hypothetical. Important and relevant to be seriously considered, however. But don't expect more than that from me! I am not a physicist. And so my knowledge and expertise is limited. But just because I am not a physicist, I may be bringing into consideration a larger perspective. Clear and not cluttered by the numbing technical and theoretical detail.

            But what really convinces me I MAY be right are the very many paradoxes and unrealities Physics itself is presenting as how "reality is". And how these can be explained by my simple hypothetical observation and the abuse of math in Physics (see my essay). It certainly explains Kate Becker's dilemma that (paraphrasing) "somehow light knows what kind of experiment it enters in and adjusts its behavior to it".

            Constantinos