First Things First: The Physics of Causality

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.