Basudeba,
Hi. Your posting didn't seem mean spirited at all, so I don't mind people questioning and disagreeing with my views when they're not mean about it. Some people get downright nasty, and it is kind of hard to restrain myself with them, but usually, it's just not worth it.
Did you enter an essay in the last contest (analog versus digital)? I vaguely remember your name.
I look forward to reading your essay! Thanks!
Roger
Just a few lines before going out for a beer...
I wont swear at the present time that monads have no mass but I will want to believe that mass may be a derived attribute.
In the ordinary meaning, anytime the word 'separate' is used I cant see how space can be removed from that word no matter how little the space is. And 'not separate' means together as one unit fundamental block. It is this difficulty that made Parmenides and Zeno insist that there is only ONE and not MANY (see
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/parmenides.1b.txt, http://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno, Wikipedia
Then something occurred to me, a fundamental thing should have no parts?
If so, part of the spheres touch another sphere while another part doesnt touch any. This would negate the notion that there should be no geometric parts to the fundamental building block, i.e. here is a part touching a sphere and here is another not touching any.
I am doing more dialectic and 'reductio ad absurdum' type discussion on your blog because your sphere idea looks very natural...
Bye for now.
Akinbo,
Hi. I've thought about that idea about how can a sphere touch other spheres or be flexible if it has no parts, and I think if a sphere is compressed in shape on one side and not on the other, it's not because the sphere has multiple parts. The surface of the sphere acts as a single, whole unit, and the different areas of compression aren't happening to different parts of the sphere, they're happening to the whole unit of the sphere as a single whole. The problem I had when first thinking about this question I think relates to the idea that when visualizing a sphere in the mind's eye, it has finite size (within the mind's eye) and thus based on human experience, it seems obvious that it should be able to be subdivided. We're just not used to visualizing things that are not further divisible.
I doubt this explanation is very useful, but that's how I've thought about it.
Hope you had a good beer! They make a good beer in my hometown of Kalamazoo, Michigan in the US called Bell's beer.
See you.
Roger
Hello Roger.
This is my first contribution to this forum, in fact, any forum, and I chose your essay because it strikes a chord with some of my own thinking. I intend to enter my own essay next week; just crossing t's and dotting i's at present. What I'm struggling with in your essay, though, is how to interpret "existent state", does it mean primordial form with substance, or just primordial form? I ask this question because "Philosophical Engineering", whatever that may mean, would have you determine which came first, the form or the substance. In philosophy the term à priori refers to that which precedes, and the grand master of its use, Emmanuel Kant, associates pure à priori with form, but even he can not do away with substance. I would also like to ask you, since you mentioned faith, and indeed anyone else who may whish to answer this question, whether it is realistic to believe we can answer the essay question without treading on the toes of theology? Is it that the site does not sanction essays with implications for theology?
ZM
Dear Sir,
Our essay has been published on May 31. You are welcome to review it.
Regards,
basudeba
Roger,
What a wonderful dose of realism, right out of the top drawer. I liked your 'philosophical engineering', though I'd anticipate a few here won't! I used philosophical realism last year (and real 3D properties of state this year in fact) but reality is seen as anti mathematics so has a mixed reception. I agree entirely a real 3D existent state.
What I disagree with is a simple sphere, and I cite a lot of real modern optics to logically propose another continuously curved form, the torus, though emissions are spherical (infinitely many interacting expanding 'spherelets' in fact!) However, when toroids combine to form massive particles there would also be a spherical 'surface'. But the important think is I apply it physically to solve a bit paradox, so I hope that excites you to read it and give me your views. (I also 'split off' and shed metaphysics!).
Well done for yours, nice and easy to read. I don't care if it was a bit short, in fact I probably tried to cram too much into mine building the case so it may be more work to read! Your's deserves not to be languishing and I'll be helping when I score it. Long live physical reality!
Best of luck
Peter
Zoran,
Hi. Thanks for reading my essay and for the feedback!
The phrase "philosophical engineering" was just a catchy sounding phrase I liked that kind of summed up how I was talking about what are traditionally thought of as abstract concepts (existent states, spheres, etc.) but treating them as existent states and trying to build a model of the universe out of them.
I'm not familiar enough with Kant's philosophy to talk about "form" and "substance", but I think from what little I know, my existent states are like his "substance". I don't distinguish between abstract concepts and other, physical/concrete existent states. Abstract concepts are just existent states in the brain that are made of neuronal interconnections, molecules, etc., and traditional concrete objects are existent states outside the brain. No one has yet been able to show me where a Platonic realm is.
I agree totally that all these questions about what our existence is made of (it/bit, something/nothing, etc.) could also be answered theologically. I can't speak for whether or not the fqxi site would sanction essays related to theology, but I haven't seen any rules against it. My own views are more mechanical and materialistic, but when it comes to proof, I can't prove why there's something rather than nothing any more than any scientist or any theologian.
I look forward to your essay! Thanks!
Roger
Peter,
Hi. Thanks for reading my essay and for the nice comments!
I know what you mean about the pro-mathematical bias. Physicists and philosophers of science seem to have undergone "regulatory capture" (I heard that term on the news about how regulators are captured by pro-Wall Street or other special interest group type thinking) by mathematics. And, you're right that "philosophical engineering" has gotten a mixed reception. I just thought it was a catchy sounding phrase that kind of summed up how I was talking about what are traditionally thought of as abstract concepts (existent states, spheres, etc.) but treating them as physically real, concrete, existent states and trying to build a model of the universe out of them.
I agree that the important thing about our ideas is how we might be able to use them to solve real physics issues and make testable predictions. It sounds like you've made more progress in your thinking than me. I've got a long ways to go before I can make any predictions.
In regard to Platonic realms, no one has ever been able to point one of these out to me. If someone can, that realm would still be an existent state like any other.
I look forward to reading your essay and thinking about toroids! Thanks again!
Roger
Roger,
Thanks for your reply. I had a feeling that you were speaking of substance, and now that I know, I like your essay even more. I agree that the word "abstract" as it is used by mathematics and metaphysics has had its day. With the advent of the standard model in physics, and advanced imaging of neurons and their functionality, there is little left to play with in the metaphysics toy box. And the flights of fancy of mathematicians is all to obvious, even for the rock star variety. I look forward to rating you essay when I figure out a structured way to do so, and for that need to look at a few more first.
Many Thanks
Zoran
Hi, Roger!
Your line of thinking, I fully support. Quite timely to raise the question: «What is the fundamental building block of existence?»
I agree with your conclusion: «Based on this, I suggest that more and faster progress towards a deeper understanding of the nature of existence could be made if we argued less about whether or not to call the fundamental building block of existence an" it "or a "bit" and worked more on figuring out what the properties of a generic existent state might be and how these properties could be used to build a model of the universe. »
I would add only the dialectic - the dialectic of absolute forms of existence of matter. I invite you to see my essay. I wish you every success, Vladimir
Vladimir,
Hi. Thanks for reading my essay and the feedback! I look forward to reading your essay, too!
Roger
Roger,
Nice concise and to the point. In many ways I agree; and while I emphasized the importance of Bit in my essay (i.e. how does form 'know' how to form?), I concluded my own writing w/ a similar conclusion that says both It and Bit are necessary/fundamental. I think the arguing over which is more important is somewhat pointless; because as you seem to be driving at each one sort of loses its identity/usefulness if not seen in the context of the other.
All the best,
John
John,
Hi. Thanks for reading the essay and the feedback! I agree that it doesn't seem the most effective use of time to argue about which is more important. I would just like to see our leading academic physicists and philosopher use a bottom-up type reasoning process and move on from the it/bit, analog/digital type debates.
I look forward to reading your essay! Thanks.
Roger
Dear Roger
Yes - It from Bit or Bit from It? Maybe, It Doesn't Matter - it is important that true nature of them.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802
Hoang,
Hi. Thanks for the feedback! I appreciate it.
Roger
Hi Roger,
Nice essay. I can see that we have a similar way of thinking, keep it simple and start with a bottom-up approach.
I also started my theory with the simplest thing I could find (for me, it was a bit of two states: existence/non-existence). But if you consider this bit as a sphere and just add simple spheres around the first sphere, your world looses coherence if you suppose that all the spheres are the simplest thing (you can't apply the 4PiR2 formula anymore because your R is now 2). I have found a solution to that problem in my theory.
I think that you will understand what I mean if you read my essay. If you like my ideas then you might want to read my 3D Universe Theory.
Cheers,
Patrick
Patrick,
Hi. Thanks for the comments! I look forward to reading your essay. Because there are so many of them, it's been hard to keep up, but I'll check it out.
Good luck on your thinking and in the contest.
Roger
Hi Roger,
just to let you know I've read your essay, teeny tiny text wasn't helpful : ) Felt a bit like you had thrown the towel in by calling both information and material an existent state, before the match had really begun. You could have concluded it there, with 'don't bother about it any more'. Nevertheless read it to the end and found it an enjoyable,comprehensible, not too long read. Good luck, Georgina
Georgina,
Hi. Thank you for reading the essay. I don't agree that arguing that "it" and "bit" are basically the same thing, existent entities, is a waste of time as you apparently do.
Roger
Roger
If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.
Jim
