First Things First: The Physics of Causality

Dear Eckard,

Recently published humanly contrived information concerning invisible cause and effect has absolutely nothing to do with naturally provided VISIBLE reality.

Joe Fisher, Natural Realist

Dear Joe,

Imagine a sponge with six visible surfaces each of 1 x 1 cm^2. Its inner surface is much larger than 1 cm^3. For several reasons, visibility is definitely not the only criterion of reality. Material things tend also to be audible, tangible, etc. real

Even a plan may come true as a real cause of a real effect.I mentioned Morgenthau's one as a horrible example. Conjectured existence of something we are calling reality is just the most reasonable logical opposite of a perhaps wrong attribution, in particular a belief or another premature explanation.

We both might hopefully agree on that it is often premature to accept a theory and its putative consequences as facts for good. Some physicists imagine a deterministic world ruled by generalized laws that are symmetrical in time. This is obviously unreal because these laws do certainly not completely correspond to the conjectured reality.

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Eckard,

VISIBLE reality am not a theory. NATURAL VISIBLE REALITY am the only fact.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi Eckard,Joe,

Well Joe you continue in telling us the same ironical conclusion. Please explain your conclusion because we understand Nothing. With your visible surface and am and this and that.What is the origin of your concclusion,philosophical,mathematical,physical.Please stop your non sense and explain because it's Simply stupid there ,really.It's for you that I say this me,you are odd Joe really and Don't answer,steve visible reality am the only fact,explain....

LOL imagine Joe is I repeat Always am sphere an infinite spherical am reality ? you Don't find this odd you? am sphere visible spherical reality the only fact insn't it? lol me I want well but it's irritating and frustrating there

Joe,

The Latin word facere means "do". Factum est means something has been done. As in the case of "nature" the early thinking of people had the same roots as had religions: guesswork based on generalization of how they experienced their life. Of course, they concluded it was someone (God) who did make reality and nature.

Perhaps we may accept an accurate historical description of past events as facts. However, there is definitely no corresponding history of future facts. Future family trees are obviously not yet real, not even for putative "realists" like you.

Eckard Blumschein

Hi Joe,

Thanks,you develop a little bit,it's better but you can still make better in inserting physics and maths.

Regards

Joe, There are many Joes but perhaps only one Touba city where people live who are similar to you in that they are fanatic believers. I tried to humbly apply my admittedly very limited knowledge of Latin as to understand pre-ancient thoughts. Of course, nature is also a prestigeous scientific journal. However the primary meaning is easily very understandable to everybody who is open minded. I already also mentioned the word fact. Agency goes back to agere, etc. All such roots in various old languages indicate naive attributions and generalizations. Look at the German word TATsache (=fact). While Thursday refers to the God father Thor, Donnerstag refers to the man (God) Donar who was believed to cause loud thunder (Donner) with a hammer.

Eckard Blumschein

Joe,

Academia right now made me aware of "Cantor on Infinity in Nature, Number, and the Divine Mind" 3,003 Views, Paper Rank 2.1, by Anne Newstead (University of Oxford Alumnus). Her favorite philosophers are Aristotle and Spinoza who is known for his utterance "Deus sive natura". Could you please reveal to us what you do understand by finite, infinite, eternal, etc.?

Incidentally, In Sean Caroll's excellent speech, I stumbled about "a part of infinity".

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Steve and Eckard,

When the finite word "infinity" was entered into the Google Search Engine, it elicited: "About 818,000,000 results (0.74 seconds)" NATURE must have provided only ONE reality. The only true fact every physicist who has ever lived has been able to conclusively prove about the real physical universe was that the real planet Earth (and all matter) had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years BEFORE men ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing 818,000,000 finite results for the finite word "infinity." There has only ever been, and there will only ever continue to be ONE unified INFINITE VISIBLE surface ETERNALLY occurring in ONE INFINITE dimension that am always mostly illuminated by One form of non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi Steve,

While I appreciate to some degree discussions about superfinitism by mathematicians like Katz, cf.

https://cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2017-November/020691.html ,

and I hesitated to completely swallow the superfinitist view of Mückenheim who argues against the infinitum absolutum, I got aware of confusion due to two quite different meanings: being infinite as a property, and Leibniz' relative infinity. With respect to physics, I rather perfer Salviati (Galileo).

Regards,

Rckard

Dear Eckard,

Thank you for agreeing with me wholeheartedly.

Joe Fisher, Successful Realist

Hello Eckard,Joe,

Eckard,thanks for sharing your points of vue about the finite systems,the infinities and infinity.I didn't know Muckenheim. I like so much Galilei,one of my favoritsS with Planck,Newton,Einstein,Fermi,Dirac,Feynmann mainly.They were so relevant generally speaking.The finite systems are built too with these infinities,and constants.What I find relevant is to correlate with this infinity outside this physicality,finite.Philosophically speaking I beleive in all humility that it's very important like main cause of our reality.Regards

My position is only a bit different from militant atheism by Richard Dawkins who even suggested anti-Templetonism.

Admittedly, as a boy I was not very interested in a dissertation by a relative of mine, Oskar Blumschein "Leibniz und Ludwig Feuerbach : die Persönlichkeiten und ihre ethischen Lehren", Erlangen, 1919.

Incidentally, when I mentioned Salviati (Galileo G.) I referred to his opinion that the relations smaller than, equal to, and larger than are invalid in case of infinite quantities. They only belong to finite ones.

To me today, the belief in a "main cause of our reality" is mere religion, no science.

Dr. Eckard Blumschein

I respect your point of vue.But never you shall ponder general équations,or theories if you Don't insert this infinite Eternal consciousness,this maincause of our reality.It's odd for a doctor to not encircle this.For your information Einstein said that God dindn't play at dices.We can have faith and in the same time respect our pure determinism.For your information stil,all these past thinkers like Tesla,Newton,Galilei,Dirac,Einstein,Planck,Maxwell,Lie,Feynmann and so more had considered this main cause.Don't confound religions which are Simply human inventions,it's totally different,I am not religious.I just consider an infinite Eternal consciousness creating the codes to imply this physicality.For me Eckard,it's odd for a doctor to not understand this main cause.On facebook,many freinds from USA,India....,philodoctorates understand what I tell,and them too consider this main cause,for your information,even Witten and his strings,branes consider a 1D main field creating the matters.Don't confound religions please which are human inventions,not rational.Even Poincarré,Cantor,Euler,Riemann,Lie....Don't be offensed but instead learn better the works of these general thinkers ,you shall understand better these finite series,the infinities,and the INFINITY.If not you shall just ponder details but vever generalities.Sorry but it's the Truth Eckard,don't forget,God doesn't play at dices,but with sphères in motions,rotations,oscillations.Don't forget too,don't confound the religions with a deterministic faith in God.Regards

Eckard,really it's very odd,do you know that Cantor considered this too?he identified the Absolute Infinite with God,and he considered his work on transfinite numbers to have been directly communicated to him by God, who had chosen Cantor to reveal them to the world.Lol so you speak about infinities,infinity,finite systems without really understand their real meanings.Don't be vanitious but learn more generally speaking.I can understand it's not easy to change a line of reasoning,but I am persuaded that you can do it,you seems smart,so please go farer,deeper in your analyses about Numbers,matters,energies,infinities,infinity,finite systems,constants.Friendly

Dear Dr. Merali,

You saw fit to remove my comments because you deemed them inappropriate for this thread. Why then are you allowing Steve and Eckard to parrot unnatural codswallop that has nothing to do with supposedly finite causality?

Joe Fisher, Realist

How to explain at Akademia the remarkable 3,003 Views and Paper Rank 2.1 for "Cantor on Infinity in Nature, Number, and the Divine Mind"? If I recall correctly, the paper by Anne Newstead was printed in a Catholic Journal.

To those who intend learning about confusion in fundamentals of mathematics, I recommend reading at least key papers by Katz and by Mückenheim, beginning with "Die Geschichte des Unendlichen", firth edition Augsburg 2004.

What about ethics by Leibniz, Feuerbach, and maybe Oskar B. too, I would like to vote for a completed ethics that includes the obligation to birth control as a part of reasonable limitation to destruction of the globe. Richard Dawkins and Greta Th. were cowards when they shied back from this consequence.

Eckard Blumschein