First Things First: The Physics of Causality

Zeeya Merali,

I suspect my post "on 9/18/19 at 15:39pm UTC, [I] wrote Joseph, The primary meaning of Latin word natura is birth. Reality was..." was deleted from the path "First Things First: The Physics of Causality".

I addressed Joe as Joseph after he himself signed a (deleted?) post with this name.

Maybe, my choice of examples was also unwelcome. Why not deleting just such marginal details?

I defended my idea to interpret reality as a very basic conjecture. Is it off topic or unacceptable?

Eckard Blumschein

Housewife intelligence is much more alive than the intelligence of the Ph.D. physicist. The development of science will happen by layman people. They still have a common sense which theoretical physics has lost long ago. Today science is lost in its own mental labyrinths. Today 5 years of Ph.D. is needed for things which my grandma knew it just by walking in the fields. Science has become a new religion. If you think differently, you are out, you are disbeliever, a dissident. Only alive housewife intelligence can push science forward.Attachment #1: Einsteins_Relativity_for_Housewives.pdf

While cause and effect belong to reality as I understand it, systems, choice entropy, God, and all that seem rather to be something manmade.

Is there actually at all an immediately complete reality of elementary particles? My conjecture of reality as the most reasonable open framework is emancipating from creationism.

If determinism requires the unrealistic view of the world as limited system, may we then hope for "understanding" rather than accepting elapsing time of reality?

I go on criticizing non-causalities and generalized arbitrarily chosen references.

Eckard Blumschein

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

Hi Eckard,

I am curious,what is your philosophical idea about this infinity and infinities.Do you consider a main cause to our reality,like an Eternal infinite consciousness sending,creating codes informations,to build this universe? You can explain me with maths,numbers,physics .What is in resume the origin of our physicality.Regards

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