First Things First: The Physics of Causality

Joe it is wonderful this,so you are going to have a nobel prize in philosophy and physics.I have questions ,so please answer me. Do you consider God? if yes tell me the link between the infinity and the finite systems and the infinities utilised inside this physicality.Second question why a surface ,we have a pure 3D to contemplate and we have extradimensions due to geometrical algebras,so explain me.Third question,what is for you the essence of particles,strings? points? surfaces coded?

Personally Joe me I see like that ,imagine that this infinite eternal consciousness Before this physicality has decided to create an evolutive system ,this infinity is without time,space,matter,it is only pure infinite energy.Why this eternity,infinite has decided to create this world?maybe simply it was alone and has wanted to share a Project in evolution.We create it maybe this paradise.It is an assumption of course but I see like that.Now if this is true,this infinity needs a central sphere BH for me sending the main coded imformations implying this gravitational aether and implying the space time and matters energy transformations.So a beginning is essential,the end that said does not exist because the potential is infinite.

Robert,

While Carroll and Rovelli are looking for an explanation of causality, I only intend explaining non-causalities. I agree with you that Fourier/Heaviside analysis lacks restrictions. Those who intend explaining causality may be motivated by the hope for something irrational. I am aware of being unwelcome as I also am when supporting Kadin's view on unlimited population growth.

By the way, are you interested in historical details concerning Fourier and FT?

Eckard Blumschein

Eckard,

I do have an interest in the history, but not as much as I used to: I cannot change history, but I can at least try to change the future. So now, I have become more interested in trying to get people to understand that there is more than one way to "interpret" Fourier analysis and Quantum Physics, and that a "superposition", is the least appropriate interpretation as applied to physics, because it is inherently acausal, such as when one must integrate over a future, which does not yet exist (unless it can be perfectly predicted - which is why it actually does work in some cases, like an idealized, harmonic oscillator). However, if one thinks of it as a filter-bank, and employs filters of finite-length, that delay the output, then there is no integration over non-existent futures and no problem with acausality.

I also believe that over-population is the biggest problem in the world today. The world would be much better off, if the population was 10% of its present size. So, I've done my part - I don't have any children. If more people could say the same, the world would be in better shape than it presently is.

Rob McEachern

Joe Fischer, Sorry I don't recall any interesting essay of you. Pretending to be a realist while endlessly pointing to teleology, Wigner's intelligent design argument, marvels that makes you feel great surprise or admiration, Paul Davies, Sean Carroll, etc. seem not to interest anybody, not even as maneuvers that intend distraction from relevant taboo questions.

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Eckard,

Could you please use a more understandable English language translator app? Or make your comment in your native language.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe Fisher,

I don't recall having read a valuable essay you contributed to a FQXi contest.

Please prove me wrong. All essays are still available.

I see you a pretender who just claims to be a realist,

because you are effectively just pointing to work by others who altogether more or less belong to a creationist i.e. monist view.

This includes but is not restricted to teleology, Wigner's "intelligen design argument", other marvels that make you feel great surprise or admiration, Paul Davies, Sean Carroll, etc.

These links you are giving seem not to be of interest to anybody. Even Parmenidians will perhaps not appreciate your maneuvers as mere distraction from tabooed but truly foundational in the sense of relevant for humanity questions.

Eckard Blumschein

Hi Eckard,Joe,

Dear Joe ,Eckard is right,now it becomes totally crazy and irritating ,like says Eckard are you a creationist? because I have had on Facebook creationists and frankly they are odd and don t encircle nothing about our universal deterministic laws.They are even dangerous if they teach this to Children and innocent persons lacking of education,We can have faith but with determinism and in detailing the sciences with this objectivity and realism that our universe shows us.It is odd there Joe,you repeat a total nonsense without detailing nothing,are you crazy or have you a psychological problem,you are not relevant be sure,it becomes very irritating.If you explained some details in maths,physics or philosophy we could understand but no ,nothing Always these stupid Words,the same all Days.Stop please for the respect of this platform.Thanks for your understanding.

Dear Eckard,

My essay, REALITY AM NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, which explains Natural VISIBLE Reality more comprehensively was published by FQXi.org on January 10, 2018. It can be read by visiting url: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2992

Dear Steve,

I am sorry that you find the truth crazy and irritating. Only one infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light will ever exist. Infinity CANNOT be finitely detailed.

Joe Fisher, Natural Realist

Joe are you crazy? are you conscious of your stupidity ? if not please take meds because it is totaly irritating now.

Nobody needs Clinton's Monika and Fisher's "are" as to understand non-causalities. I noticed that Rob used the German expression acausal instead non-causal.

By the way, professionals know that while there is only the one ideal property of "being infinite", mathematics operates with differently constructed infinities.

A measure "infinite surface" may be rejected as self-contradictory as also is an infinite measure of length. I dislike Weierstrass's "two infinite numbers".

Eckard Blumschein

Robert,

From the perspective of humanity, two or less children per woman are best. I regerett that insightful people like you have on average less kids while stupid ones tend to have much too many. While I see Alan Kadin correct, the "Nobel" price was recently awarded to someone else also of Harvard. The necessary amended ethics is still far away.

Eckard Blumschein

Eckard,

Personally, I believe that the "stupid ones" are mostly the result of "poor nurture" rather than "poor nature"; thus, physicists have been taught to believe in stupid concepts (indoctrinated, may be a better word to describe what occurred), like the supposed weirdness of quantum reality. They were not born with such stupid ideas; stupid ideas evolve, like life itself. But it is time to drive both "quantum weirdness" and human over-population into extinction. I hope to have a greater impact on the former, than I will ever be able to have on the latter.

Rob McEachern

Robert,

In nature, trees don't grow endlessly. The absolutely sure dead of any individual is perhaps a most important precondition of ongoing life. What you called indoctrinaton is based on tenets that were causally solid and reasonable for groups of humans. Meanwhile, the unreasonable humanism of humans endangers humanity as a whole.

If there was a responsible common God for all people, he was obliged for the sake of the entity of his creatures to remind all people together of their deliberately ignored responsibility: Do partially abandon in the sense of fundamentally modify the traditional ethics that leads to endless economical/physical/material growth, needless over-population, and destruction of nature.

Eckard Blumschein

Eckard,

The faulty tenet in quantum theory, was never "causally solid". The tenet that identical particles are perfectly identical, has no basis in reality at all. It was simply an idealistic fantasy, pulled out of thin air, that has now been so long forgotten, that physicists have even forgotten that it was just a naive assumption, and not an established fact.

I do not believe that there is any entity, god or human, taking responsibility for all people. That is precisely the problem; each group/tribe/nation is mostly just interested in taking care of itself at the expense of everything else; consolidating all the benefits, while dispersing all the costs. So, when the winds carry one group's pollution across a border, it becomes some other group's problem. But that only works while the other groups remain so few in number and so far away, that they seldom disrupt each other - a condition which no longer exists.

Rob McEachern

Robert,

I will tell you later the surprizing key result of my effort to find out the decisive cause for acausalities with Fourier transformation.

What about consequences for the infamóus "shut up and calculate", you might judge yourself. I am not an expert in quantum theory and also not in set theory. Nonetheless, I am convinced having strong arguments, and I feel supported by those with similar professional background as you.

As already Lessing did not, I too don't believe in a God who is common and responsible to all people. I merely see the increasing necessity for humans altogether getting aware of their common responsibility. Kadin doesn't deserve to be ignored. I contempt an Ajatollah and a Groefaz who demanded woman to have at least four children. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights will prove useless if we altogether cannot balance it by adding decisive obligations and restrictions. In other words, Strict easoning compels me to question some very basics of traditional ethics.

Nutrition produced by means of cyanobacteria cannot solve the problem of a not yet adult menkind.

Eckard Blumschein

Really Joe you are totally crazy you know ,take your meds please,you tell nothing of relevant and you repeat like you had found an important thing,it is not the case and it is irritating now,I ask me if you are conscious of your ignorance and your stupidity ,if not,really go see your doctor medecine because it is serious,you don t develop nothing and your Words are pure nonsense.

:( stop now please ,it is irritating.You don t respect the people or what ? you have a problem really you know Joe,you are what? a creationist? your Words are relevant for nobody ,nor on Facebook,nor here,nor everywhere,nor for the Dr Khun,nor for dr,nor for the Phd or others,so stop ,are you crazy or what???

Dear Steve,

You do not have to read my comments. There are dozens of topics at this website.

Joe Fisher