First Things First: The Physics of Causality

By the way, the logo of XR looks perhaps by chance like the cones of past and future extending from minus infinity to plus infinity. ;)

This reminds me of a likewise funny cast in bronce logo of my Guericke university which was allegedly similar to that of the international gay association (?)and therefore, of course, removed. ;)

Hi Eckard,

Like I have explained ,we cannot stop our evolution and its correlated technologies.It is well like that.The problem,foundamental is the lack of universal consciousness in the high spheres of power.I repeat it does not lack space,matters,energies.We have no limits Eckard,the only limits that I see is due to stupidities simply.

The pollution is unfortunally due too to this unconsciousness and we can solve it too.About this human psychology we know that many people don t understand this universe and its laws,so that explains the opulence,the individualism,the Vanity,the taste of money,the materialism and others stupid comportments.

About the Towns with billions of people,we can harmonise them correctly with a real ecological equilibrium,we can create Towns and buildings in inserting this ecology and harmonical ecosystems,the walls can be gaedens and like I said all can have a job,water,food,energy,hopes,money to catalyse the actual economical global system.Not necessary to extrapolate the socialism,marxism,capitalism ...it is the balance wich is important between them.

About the countries forgotten or not stable like in africa asia or others like in Yemen,it is still due to bad governances and unconscious people,that i all,that is why the UN must act and balance.

About the religions,they are human inventions and they imply for a majority better comportments but for a minority of illuminated several problems like the killers extremists muslisms killing people,like still today in germany,they are simply crazy people ,psychologically sick.

About the Big Bang and Big Crunch,they are assumptions,we aren t sure.Personaly in my theory of spherisation,I consider a spherical expansionmcorrelated with this Dark energy seen like an anti gravitational spherical push from the central biggest cosmological sphere.The mass increqasers in logic,so we can have on this irreversible entropical Arrow of time,an acceleration,decceleration towards the maximum spherical volume,and after maybe it is an assumption a contraction in the same logic towards the points of equilibrium.

About the infinity,the infinities,the finite systems,I have explained how I saw them.I respect your philosophical analyse,I just see differently.

About the climate,we are obliged to adapt us,and specialy for several parts of this Earth.For the births,no it is not acceptable,I have explained that we have the solutions,deterministic for all Lifes.

About the hormons,the vanity,the power,it is a big global problem indeed like the lack of education,this implies,explains an ocean of stupidities and odd thoughts.

About Boko Haram and all these extremists they must be stopped simply,they are dangerous and we cannoy accept this.In Belgium we have had many problems with these extremists and their manipulations,they are stupids and unconscious.Regards Eckard.

"we cannot stop our evolution and its correlated technologies". Hm, here I rather agree with Rovelli. Shouldn't we feel responsible for our future and steer us accordingly instead of behaving like ordinary consumers/animals? Even if there are no known limits to progress in science so far, the Earth and its physically reachable surrounding are definitely finite. Causality is not mushy at all. Humanity has left the safe brutal mechanisms of self-stabilization.

Spinoza was expelled from community for repeatedly uttering "Deus sive natura" (God or nature). Of course his "or" was not meant as the exclusive "either or" but in the equating sense of mutual exchangibility.

Let me check: Is conservation of nature the same as conservation of God?

Eckard

Steve,

All science books supposedly provide myriad pieces of FINITE information. But Nature provided only one unified infinite visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by one infinite form of finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe ,still you don t develop,it becomes crazy to Always repeat the same,are you conscious of that? We have understood Joe,so now explain why philosophically speaking.Is it a joke Joe? Your Words are nor relevant ,nor interesting,really,you have found nothing in fact.

"entropy to set time's direction" ?? Isn't the 2nd law of thermodynamics only valid for closed systems? If I recall correctly, I learned this when I was freshman in Dresden.

I prefer accepting that there is first of all not entropy but causality which excludes negative elapsed time as there is no negative distance too. Maybe this view of mine is at odds with some monist philosophy by Parmenides, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Fourier, Cantor, and Einstein? While elapsed time has a natural point zero of reference, the usual scale of time requires an arbitrary choice.

Why not considering the possibility that elapsed time sets the direction of entropy change?

What is more puzzling to me is the unquestionable obseration of simultaneity between not causally related events. Here I am an agnostic.

Eckard Blumschein

Hi Eckard ,Have you understood the solutions that I have explained about the liberation of funds,the industrialisation of our solar system and the harmonisation on Earth on ecosystems and its interactions ? and this to give water,food,energy,jobs,hopes to all ? that will boost,catalyse the global economy and I repeat,ALL WINS without exception.I don t agree about your analyses about finite systems,I repeat still,it does not lack matters,space,energy.

For God and the nature they are correlated,you must understand this.

About the laws of theormodynaöics and heat,wer have an irreversible entropical Arrow of times and the finite systems aren t the problems.Riemann and Fourier d agree I beleive humbly like Cantor,not need to discourse about philosophy for that you know Eckard.

PS you can change about your agnosticism,see the truths simply.

Regards

Steve,

The one infinite visible reality that was eternally provided by Nature needed no humanly contrived FINITE development.

Joe Fisher, Real Realist

But Joe ,How is it possible that you cannot develop your ideas? we have understood yoyur words,now for the respect of this platform and the persons here please accept to tell us more.

Steve, the topic was set by Carroll and Rovelli. While I didn't realize that they were dealing with your claim:"boost,catalyse the global economy ... ,ALL WINS", I feel challenged to reveal the basics of possibly serious logical fallacies.

What about so called creatures in nature, Darwinism tells us, that there is selection and never all species did win. Menkind is in a different situation. The most effective mechanisms of stabilization were (fortunately) excluded but (unfortunately) not yet substituted by responsible birth control and restricted exploitation of the finite nature. Well, it was e.g. possible to make agriculture more effective and feed at least 10 billion people by increasingly destroying not just forests but also rather irreversible poisoning of water, soil, etc. Can you imagine all people living with the same high consumption as I and perhaps you too?

I repeat my question: How many people does the mankind need? How to cope with the growing amount of waste in millenias to come? Trees don't grow endlessly. Why should mankind and its consumption get bigger and bigger?

Being aware of apparent weakness in my argumentation, would like to give some explanations:

I used Boko in the sense of our (western) science and education and Haram as what Islamists are consindering a sin: Boko. Let's sin in this sense. I didn't refer to the group.

My strongest argument is the lack of a natural reference to our time scale.

I wonder if it is correct to overlook that Shannon's entropy is merely formally similar to Boltzmann's.

Eckard Blumschein

Hi Eckard, I have really difficulties to undertand your philosophical analyse about the finite systems and the infinity disponible.It is simple in fact,how can I convice you that we have the solutions and they are deterministic in considering that space ,matters and energy are infinite.The darwinism or the lamarckism or others aren t the problems but the global consciousness yes.The economy too is not a problem when we are governed by real universal altruists understand this universal truth.About forets,agriculture,ecology,pollution,environments,....be sure the solutions exist too,for your information,I am agronomist of formation and I know well in all humility what is the points of equilibrium for our global ecosystems,do you know the vegetal multiplication,the composting,the harmonisation of ecosystems with a correlated universal consciousness? if yes you can understand that we can solve globally speaking.Not need to discourse about a so evident truth you know Eckard.The consumption is not a problem and the irreversibility is not true for me,wer can solve them.About Boko and Shannon entropy or Boltzman,it is not a problem ,really.

Regards

Steve,

It am not my idea. I did not exist millions of years ago. Only eternal infinite visible surface has ever existed.

Joe Fisher, Extremely Patient Realist

Joe,so lol you speak to God or it has send you this information lol ? DEVELOP!!! if you cannot ,stop to repeat please it is irritating for the blogers of FQXi,really Joe.Friendly

In Darwinism/Weismannism there is no first cause, just a causal chain. Well, all we entruists may hope and fight for global social consciousness including awareness of the unavoidability for the sake of humanity to control births and restrict consumption.

You Steve and typical Americans seem to share the overly optimistic belief of trusting in God creationists that there are no problems which cannot be solved: eat the putatively sweet cake and have it though.

July 29th was the international day after which the consumption already exceeded a declared for sustainable value in 2019. While the USA is blamed to be leading with 16.2 tons annually emitted carbondioxide per person, the values 8.7 for Germany and 7.4 for China are also irresponsibly high.

Reportedly, the 10 million city of Moscow already faces serious problems to dispose its waste, and now it plans to transport it 1,200 km far away. Is this a solution for good?

Worldwide the cities are getting larger and larger. The capital of China will perhaps be the first one in excess of 100 Million inhabitats.

Eckard Blumschein

Hi Eckard,you seems persuaded by your Words and thoughts.I don t understand how it is possible,really.I must insist on this too,don t take my for a creationist please,my theory of spherisation has nothing to do with these riligious things,so please respect this and my deterministic researchs.I repeat all the pat relevant thinkers like Einstein,Tesla,Maxwell,Galilei,Planck,Lorentz,Newton,Dirac,and so more conisdered this infinite potential with DETERMINISM,are you conscious of this? you study the works of theser thinkers but you don t encircle the real meaning of their thoughts about matters energy transformations.How is it possible for a generalist? In fact you are too much focus on economy,you forget to insert these universal parameters simply showing us the truths about the real possible harmonisation and points of equilibrium.Forget your chains and insert this infinite potential Eckard you shall see these solutions so simple generally speaking,really.Forget too these economocal numbers,you know the econonomy can be harmonised too when we insert this said universal altruism for the governances.The problem I repeat is this lack of global consciousness for the high spheres of power and the responsabilities of the richest.Take care,we can discuss hours but the most important for me is to show you these truths and maybe to convice you in changing your points of vue.Friendly

Joe,do you understand that the universe is finite like our series of particles coded and that we have constants and infinities too inside this physicality like tools ,and now philosophically speaking ,above ,beyond this physicality we have an infinite eternal consciousness and this infinity created this fionite physicality in sending codes ,informations to build this universe? so all what you tell us need details simply,we don t need courses about what is this infinity,the infinities like pi or others and the finite systems coded,DEVELOP PLEASE

Steve,

Darwin contradicted to the view of Parmenides, ..., and Einstein by considering life material but "consciousness an epiphenomenon", cf.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)61884-X/fulltext

"Darwin pioneered the materialistic approach to history--like Marx".

"darwinism provides a framework in which science is done. Since no framework is infinite, by definition, no framework is complete"

Hello Eckard, thanks for sharing the link.

The philosophy is a complex topic and these thinkers were relevant.It is in fact not easy to see clear in all this puzzle about the human psychology,the determinism,the consciousness.We have so many parameters to take into account,the education,the Environments,the encodings,the psychology,the freewill,the deterministic Learnings,the consciousness,the intelligence,the minds,the genetic,the evolution,this and that...complex is a weak Word lol Darwin maybe has forgotten that consciousness evolves and so that competition considering this evolution can be harmonised towards the synergies and this foundamebtal complementarity between Lifes,so we return at this opening to our universe where we don t lack öatters,space,energy.We cannot consider only this finite sphere Earth if I can say knowing our potential.Friendly

Steve,

What was a visible surface called 25 million years ago? Oh, that's right, there was nobody around 25 million years ago to call anything.

Joe Fisher, Literate Realist

Joe, study a Little bit the evolution of this Earth,we have bones analysed with the carbon 14,we know the age of the Earth and its evolution in billions and millions years ,so please explain me what you mean because really I don t understand nothing.

Robert,

You referred to "Philosophers On a Physics Experiment that *Suggests There's No Such Thing As Objective Reality*".

Academia and Quora Digest are bombarding me with offers that are also not welcome to me.

Well, I read the paper "'Cantor on Infinity in Nature, Number, and the Divine Mind'".

However, should I also read "The influence of Spinoza's concept of infinity on Cantor's set theory", Achtner's "Perspectives on Infinity from History", "Spinoza's Metaphysics of Substancet", WITTGENSTEIN AND THE LABYRINTH OF 'ACTUAL INFINITY': THE CRITIQUE OF TRANSFINITE SET THEORY,"A Substance Consisting of an Infinity of Attributes: Spinoza on the Infinity of Attributes", a related Descartes, René paper "A Mathematical Interpretation of Spinoza's Ethics: Short preliminary remarks", "Perspectives - The Nature Of The Definiteness Of The Set-Theoretical Universe", "On Some Philosophical Aspects of the Background to Georg Cantor's theory of sets", "Review of Pauline Phemister's Leibniz and the Natural World", "Leibnizian Continuity", "Monads Facing the Labyrinth of the Continuum", etc.?

No, having thoroughly studied what I see as irrelevant ideas of monism, I don't need Wittgenstein as to feel sympathy with Georg Cantor who might have understood being wrong with his AC and therefore ended up in a mad house.

Eckard Blumschein

Steve,

As mandatory precondition of my promotion almost half a century ago, I had to learn a bit of English which proved very valuable to me and to study Marxist philosophy which made me curious. A lexicon of philosophy led me to what seems to you a huge amount of mutual contradictions. Meanwhile, I distrust in monisms, creationism, and the like. Future data are not measurable in advance, Following Descartes, Fourier still failed to restrict his analyse to integration just over the past. Heaviside introduced the trick that has been fooling us up to now.

When will physicists accept a Popperian open World?

Will humanity in time include the insight that educated people are obliged by their own reason to stop consumption and unlimited growth of population?

Objections?

Eckard Blumschein

Eckard,Like I said I respect your philosophical analyses.I agree with some points of vue about the creationism mainly. But I insist about the fact that we can have faith and be superdeterministic about these universal laws,axioms,algorythms.Marx was a relevant thinker but he was a past thinker and at this present we have others parameters to take into account.For me you know the money,arms and weapons and borders are things totally dedicated to disappear,but at this moment we are obliged to consider these parameters like the economy.About this global economical system I beleive strongly that it is this consciousness wich is important in the governances and so the capitalism and this socialism can be harmonised and can reach the points of equilibrium for the well of all considering this altruistic consciousness.Of course the superconsumption is stupid like the opulence ,the materialism or others.It is still just due to a lack of consciousness and maybe education,this universal education shows us truths about this space,these matters disponible and the energy.I don t agree with the limitation of births,it is not an universal parameter.But considering our actual global system I can understand your ideas about these problems.But we can solve Eckard,we have the solutions to do it like I have explained you.All conscious person understands that we have serious global problems and that we must take quickly our responsabilities.The real question is "but what do the high spheres of power"??? are we governed by unconscious? or is it a problem of corruption and fear? or due to a lack of skillings? ...In all case it is odd ,this planet needs to be reassured in fact and we must act generally speaking in correlation with these said universal truths.Friendly

Eckard,

One Objection. Don't blame Fourier: his original series is always integrated over an interval of finite length. Furthermore, that interval is purely mathematical and has, in and of itself, no physical significance, such as referring to either an interval of "space" or an interval of "time". The later must be introduced as a premise, in physics, not math, which in effect, declares that the math is sufficient to accurately represent, whatever the physicist has assumed that it is supposed to be representing, about the real, physical world. The difficulties that you are pointing-out, all arise when the intervals are extended to infinity, and exotic mathematical notions, such as imaginary numbers, are introduced, and the physicist (not the mathematician) is then required to also specify, by premise, exactly what such things are supposed to be representing, in the real world, as opposed to some idealistic vision of the real world.

The devil is in the details - and the premises.

Rob McEachern

Eckard,

"You referred to..."

I was referring only to my final comments (in my browser, my link goes directly to my final comments, rather than the top of the web-page) in which I stated "the Fourier analysis will simply and automatically change the model-of-reality it creates, to perfectly match the ever changing observations" and the light that statement may shed on the correct interpretation of Everett's Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM or the existence of an actual Multiverse.

Rob McEachern

Hi Rob,Eckards,

Dear Rob,it is well said all this indeed.Friendly

CAUSALITY :) I am going to create a group to convice this UN with Concrete global solutions,mainly the liberation of funds of this World Bank and the industiralisation with determinism of our solar system and a harmonisation on Earth of ecosystems and their interactions.We must give water,food,energy,jobs,hopes to the majority and our actual global system cannot reach the points of equilibrium.The persons in this team must be totally univeral and altruist and skilling in sciences without Vanity.We can do it with the good persons and the good solutions,we cannot accept this globality and for the next generations this stupid global system forgetting the universal foundamentals.

lol Joe,you are a phenomen in fact and the Word is weak.Can you please tell us more about your philosophical point of vue? please,please,PLEASE Joe my friend human of this Sphere :)

Steve,

The 300 Ph.D. Diploma holders fully understand my letters to them explaining Natural Visible Reality. Indeed, Professor Markus Mueller of the Vienna Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information did send me an email confirming that all philosophers and theoretical physicists have always guessed about the real structure of the universe, but he only made "good" guesses, not arbitrary ones.

Joe Fisher, Patient Realist

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.