Sorry,

I wrote the link just on one line and just once. Somehow it was truncated and doubled. At Clark University, I didn't find Joyce anymore.

The last link did not work either.

Since I am very impressed by your article I take me the freedom of asking a very difficult question:

Was it correct of Euclid to define Parallelism by a point that does not exist?

Best regards from ________________ John-Erik

Dear Eckard (if I may),

thank you for a well-argued essay, there is so much food for thought here!

It seems we have so many ideas in common, at least regarding the different uses of mathematical languages in physics. I would be thankful if you could take a moment to have a look at my essay, where I argue, among other things, that one could envision an indeterministic physics by rejecting the infinite precision of real numbers (a program of research that I carry out with Nicolas Gisin).

More of a small historical precisation, the beginning of your essay states the common attribution of "shut up and calculate to Feynman", which however, seems not to be the case. David mermin has an eccellent story on this: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1768652

Anyways, good job, very high rate from my side!

Best wishes,

Flavio

    Dear Flavio,

    I am not amused by David Merlin's joke:

    "Theoretical physics is done by physicists who lack the necessary skills to do real experiments; mathematical physics is done by mathematicians who lack the necessary skills to do real mathematics"

    It reminds me of similar ones:

    Extraordinary professors are unable to do something ordinary: Ordinary professors are unable to do something extraordinary.

    Your rejection of the infinite precision of real numbers seems also to be an old hut. Already Gauss criticized striving for numerical exactness.

    What about your essay, I confess being a fan of Popper's opinion too: The future is open, and I also agree with Shannon: The past is closed. I will read your essay and comment on it.

    Did you already comment on Alan Kadin's prediction that quantum computing will for two reasons not work as envisioned? I would like to appreciate his courage. Perhaps, his essay "Just too many people" is at least as unwelcome as obviously also is Euclid's definition of a point to John-Erik Persson and to followers of Cantor's, Hilbert's, and Hausdorff's finitism.

    Good luck,

    Eckard

    This link did not work either.

    Since I am impressed by your article I ask you a difficult question:

    Was it correct of Euclid to base the definition of parallelism on a point that does not exist?

    Best _________________ John-Erik

    Dear John-Erik,

    Do you really need my link to Joyce (who provided access to Euclid's Elements) ?

    Then you may also use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements .

    If I understood the Notes to Author correctly, I may re-upload a corrected version of my essay (factio.. should read fictio...).

    Before I would like to reply to your repeatedly uttered essential question:

    "Is it correct to define parallelism by a point that does not exist?"

    "Was it correct of Euclid to define Parallelism by a point that does not exist?"

    "Was it correct of Euclid to base the definition of parallelism on a point that does not exist?"

    I am of course aware of discussions among mathematicians which led to non-Euclidean predominantly hyperbolic geometry and GRT.

    My essay tries to strictly distinguish between absolute (merely based on logics) abstract notions like point, line, endless, and non-causal laws and more concrete counterparts including Leibniz relative infinity, Hausdorff dots, etc. Point-set theory should be understood as a dot-set theory. Don't declare me insane if I consider the non-causal use of the laws of nature, sinusoidal functions, harmonic oscillators etc. as unphysical.

    Bluntly said: There are strictly speaking no singular points, point-charges, no line-currents, no closed loops, etc. in reality. Nonetheless I go on suggesting calculatate as if ... but be careful. If the reality was identical with the map then anything was predetermed and in principle predictable.

    Eckard

    Eckard Blumschein re-uploaded the file Blumschein_As_if.pdf for the essay entitled "Calculate "as if "... but be careful" on 2020-03-24 03:57:51 UTC.

    Dear Eckard,

    Wonderful job! You excelled yourself this year Eckard, not only in your message and argument but in arrangement and English language clarity.

    I rarely read essays twice but did yours (I often first diagonally 'speed read') as in many ways it's as pertinent and concentrated as mine. I did find and agree your added word! I also learned a few new viewpoints, i.e. Weyl's quote on 'quantum laws'; "no acceptable solution is in sight".

    Agreeing a thesis helps of course, and ours are very close, but you also did well in all scoring criteria. A few specific comments and questions;

    1. We fully agree on the excluded middle (which I greatly expand on).

    2. I like Leibniz' 'Metaphysical lower level' & symmetry with what I discuss.

    3. Do not asymmetric twin and elliptical spiral or helical paths better model reality so provide greater 'appeal'?

    4. I like your bravery challenging Fourier, but validly. However consider a helix with a central axis 'line'. Viewed from any side we have a sine curve with the axis as 0 and +1 top and -1 the bottom. A twin helix is the Dirac equations sine/cos curve. Is not the result of simply rotating the observer 90 degrees also interesting?!

    5. I agree Feynmanns flawed mantra was 'Shut up...' but in researching their works indeed found it first written by Mermin. (Feynman adopted it & wrote complimenting a Mermin paper).

    6. Your p.8 QM comments seem fair, but resolved if corrected by replacing 'quantum spin' with Maxwell/Poincare's SECOND momentum case on rotating spheres (inversely changing linear equatorial and polar rotation). Surely just reproducing QM data classically must be adequate to show QM's illogicality 'wrong'!? It the problem not just overcoming 'beliefs'?

    Anyway, very well done. I think you'll like mine too. (but also may need to read it a slower 2nd time!)

    Very best

    Peter

      Dear Peter,

      I used my chance to replace my submitted essay as to correct the typo "fact..." instead of "fict..." and to delete the link to David Joyce's excellent but unfortunately outdated address. My hint to Euclid's Elements should be sufficient.

      Of course, Euclid's definition of a point as something that has no parts is unwelcome to modern mathematics which has pragmatically arranged not just with Leibniz' relative (strictly speaking finite, not transfinite) notion of infinity but also with belonging modern axioms including ZFC.

      No parts means beyond endless divisibility. Preference to operating with numbers fundamentally contradicts to the Greek logics up to Salviati.

      Thank you for correcting me: David Mermin confessed it was he, not Feynman who coined the advice "shut up and calculate".

      This does not change my suggestion: Calculate as if modern math was logically consistent and did matter but be careful: Already Spinoza meant: "It is not less nonsensical to claim that ... the body is composed of areas, areas of lines, and lines of points". While I understand point set theory as dot set theory, I am still looking for a word that distinguishes the ideal line from the infinitesimal thin one.

      Do you too agree with Bee on her rejection of impossibility-laws as fundamentals even if the topic asked for that?

      How do you judge Alan Kadin's prediction?

      Very best,

      Eckard

      Having found in my dictionary the translation of the German word Kondensstreifen: condensation trail, I hope this may dispel Peter's distrust.

      I consider the distinction between past and future and the distinction between reality and ideal model essential but not a reason not to calculate as if Cantor, Feynman and Mermin were correct.

      More later at Peter's thread.

      Eckard

      Eckard, I agree ref Cantor etc. Also ref planes condensation or 'con trail' as a good example of how motion forms shear planes form vortices of condensed matter (water vapour in this case) from a condensate. I simply invoke a smaller gauge of the same process to condense fermion pairs ("matter") from the "Higgs Condensate" as Kalusa-K etc. all higher order 'dimensions' and dark energy. That simple 'phase transition' model shows massive (lol) resolving power.

      As nature (as a opposed to geometry) is entirely non-linear I'm not so concerned about 'line' semantics. In free media I'm familiar with 'direction', 'boundary', 'heading' and 'bearing' but all relate to some datum.

      No, I don't agree Bee's dismissal, though she was also uncertain! But they all fall on the 'metaphysics' side of the divide so nature may ignore them! i.e. a cyclic universe is consistent and also won't 'halt'.

      I agree with most all in Alan Kadins essay, but see my comments there. I think far better understanding is perfectly possible but we're still to dimwitted and reliant on embedded old nonsense beliefs! My 2010-11 essay "2020 Vision" anticipated intellectual evolution may escape that by now. Hmmm. But I'm always the optimist!

      I look forward to your thoughts on mine.

      Very best Peter

      Dear Peter,

      I introduced the condensation trail metaphor as to illustate that past and future must not be seen like more or less hair color within a claimed as scientific model based on sinusoidal functions extending from minus infinity to plus infinity.

      They are obviously fundamentally different.

      My point is the TND: Even if there may be transition zones, there is in general nothing between past and future measured data. I don't doubt that your interpretations are at least largely correct. However, I consider my suggestion truly metaphysical in the sense that I am challenging the claimed as scientific arbitrary choice of t=0. I am sure: In reality, time cannot be shifted.

      Incidentally, Brouwer's moot point in the fundamental crisis was not the TND but the question whether it is only valid for finite (i.e. rational) numbers. Metaphysics demands real numbers.

      More later.Very best,

      Eckard

      Dear Sir,

      Feynman's advice: "you cannot at all understand quantum mechanics" is correct to a limited extent because of the limitations to our capabilities. But it ignores the fact that if everything is made up of the same fundamental particles, they must follow the same set of physics. This was in the back of his mind, when he added: "shut up and calculate!" This is not because "there was nothing to worry about", but because there was no other alternative than to observe the macro (mathematics is related to numbers and I have shown in my essay that numbers are related to confined objects only) to find the laws for the micro.

      The concept of "as if" is nothing new. You have given an example of ratios like a/b with a2 =2b2. Thousands of years of BC, mathematical treatises called Shulba Sootra in India (I have four of them), have described practical applications of such irrational numbers as "Asannamoola", which literally means approaching a limit. They were trying to find solutions to a practical problem: how to draw squares, circles and semi-circles of equal area. They formulated recursive mathematics including the famous Meru Prastara, (later known as Pascal's triangles) and Chakravala, which are foundations of calculus. Boudhayana mentions what is now known as Pythagorus Theorem, thousands of years before him. This tradition was continued till the 17th Century, after which, the Mogul invasion destroyed the whole thing.

      Weyl's warning quoted by you: "We are less certain than ever about the ultimate foundations of mathematics", has come true. As you say: "Weyl did not exclude that some correct basics were just not yet found". The problem of the proton and the electron is discussed in connection with the symmetry properties of the quantum laws with respect to the interchange of right and left, past and future, and positive and negative electricity. But are these really symmetric? Symmetry is a feature of a system that is preserved or remains unchanged under some continuous or discrete transformation. Are protons and electrons or past and future or positive and negative charges symmetric?

      Protons are always at the center or in nucleus, whereas electrons are at the outer edges or in orbits. If they change position, it becomes neutron, which is different from both. So there is no symmetry. Both past and future are not present at here-now. Whereas you can clearly remember past, you have no clear idea about future. You can only predict future based on causality. But that makes past the cause for future, which is the effect. You can manipulate something in future to resemble something in the past. But that will be limited and not all encompassing like the past events. It will be duplicate - not original. Hence, here also there is no symmetry. Coulomb's Law cannot explain the interaction between a charged body and a charge neutral object, which we come across frequently. The positive charge always radiates out from the nucleus towards periphery and negative charge always confines a positive charge. It is the same even in positron. Hence there is no symmetry here either.

      The statement: "Infinite totalities do not exist in any sense of the world (i.e. either really or ideally). More precisely, any mention or purported mention of infinite totalities is literally meaningless", confuses infinity with a very big number. For a very big n, there is always n+1, which is greater than n. But (infinity) 雞･ +1 = 雞･ (infinity). It is because, all numbers must be discrete, whereas infinity is not. There are only four infinities in the universe that coexist: space, time, coordinates and information. But often we mistake while using these. For example, decay is not a function of space or mass, but is a function of energy in cyclic time.

      Reality as not the "logical negation of merely abstract ideas". Reality is whatever exists (is subject to measurement), is knowable and is describable in any language. A street has properties similar to a line, but a street is not a line. You cannot draw a street on paper - you can draw only a picture of it, which cannot be used for walking.

      All mathematical operations are done at here-now. Zero is not a number as it is not present at here-now. Division of a number by zero is not infinity, as I have shown in my essay. Similarly, x2 + 1 = 0 does not lead to the imaginary number i, for which reason, it has uses in some fields.

      Overall, you have tried to introduce a new perspective to the often beaten path. I enjoyed reading your essay.

      basudeba

        Eckard,

        I agree entirely on 'time'. Many have attributed it with 'physical' type qualities it doesn't have. I'd never infer the same! My recent round the world and other flights with a rubidium oscillator showed the stupidity of most current views, also supporting a 'state of origin' solution to the reason why such oscillators speed up or slow down depending on whether they're moving east or west.

        The transition zones introduced by Maxwell for Near/Far field transitions were a logical necessity even without a physical analog, but radio & TV antenna engineers know EXACTLY where they are for each wavelength, and a coherent interpretation of astronomical investigations identifies their 2-fluid plasma structure at shear planes physically between ALL co-moving systems (i.e. comet coma and bow shocks).

        You have some of your own! At the refractive plane of the lenses of your eyes if in motion through the medium, and also in the fluid torque converter of your cars automatic gearbox! Pair production is found each side, and Stokes-Navier turbulence applies across the centre with 'annihilation' over the Debye length. You may recall Nixeys essay a few years ago showed the cross section data through Earths Bow shock TZ, still a mystery to those using old theory!

        Very best

        Peter

        6 days later

        Dear Basudeba Mishra,

        I was not aware that a Mogul (not a mogul) was a Muslim ruler in India in the sixteenth to eighteens centuries. It is a pity that very old Indian wisdom didn't get known in Europe, e.g.: "You can't take one part of a fowl and cook it, yet expect the other part to lay eggs."

        You criticized my idea of reality as the "logical negation of merely abstract ideas" while you consider it "knowable and describable in any language". Of course we agree: A street is not a line, however, I am not a seeker for truth but merely a seeker for mistakes. Isn't it possible that you may realize that calculating with imaginary numbers is a very successful reality?

        Respectfully,

        Eckard Blumschein

        Peter,

        Please don't distract from the mistakes I claim having revealed. Are transition zones and other examples you jumping to really relevant to my current essay? If I recall correctly, it was me who made you aware of transition zones between near field and far field.

        The mistake I referred to when I suggested calculate as if there was no causality is perhaps not obvious enough. In mathematical terms, an endless to both sides line without natural reference point is arbitrarily shift-able. Elapsed time refers to the natural border between causes in the past and effects in the future and can be imagined like a ray with origin and direction. The same applies for future time.

        Very best,

        Eckard

        Eckard. Excellent essay. I learned a lot that I can apply to my work. Also, this may be of interest to you. I recently put in an "adjustment to my original essay in which I emphasized the introduction of a new fundamental level. The new fundamentals apply to physics (all sciences), math, philosophy and religion. The new level leads to the origination of a new creation process that produces "all of the order in existence" So math, physics, etc. are all results of the same creation process. What I have found is that when you go back to this lower fundamental level, you eliminate some of the humanly imposed "foundational problems" of the math, physics, philosophy, etc.. You also unify them in one theory. In the unification, you can keep the components in each discipline that work and use the new processing/results in problem areas, hard to calculate areas and areas where you are trying to unify different disciplines. Kind of like adding relativity theories to classical physics. I would appreciate your comments. John D Crowell. Note: I believe the C*s to SSCU transformation described in the appendix to my essay can be regarded as the "excluded middle" between zero and one AND between yes and no. In Successful Self Creation it is the distance between success and failure.

          John,

          Did you carefully read my essay? I don't try to unify quantum mechanics and Relativity, and I didn't even mention creation. I carefully selected references although my main messages should be easily understandable to everybody:

          - I am strictly distinguishing between the fictitious world of ideal mental constructs (including mathematical models) and the conjectured tangible world that we are calling reality.

          - While not just Einstein denied the causally called distinction between past causes and future effects, I trust in the exclusion of an extended middle state (present) between them in reality.

          - I showed that complex Fourier transformation must strictly speaking not be thought to be correctly based for description of real past and real future at a time. Time shift according to FT is only possible in the fictitious world of mental constructs.

          Any support of these messages is welcome.

          Eckard

          14 days later

          Dear Eckard,

          Not sure that I answered you but I absolutely agree with Alan about quantum computing, and have believed such for years. I never bring it up since people get upset when you smash their dreams and fantasies and I did not see how that would advance what ever point I was trying to make. I'm quite certain that quantum computing will go exactly nowhere, nevertheless lots of papers will be published and lots of money will be paid.

          New information from Wolfram became available 14 April, and I have updated my essay (last 3 pages) to reflect on its significance for comments that I had made to others on 9, 12, 13 April.

          I think you may find it interesting; I hope so. It deals with "the fictitious world of ideal mental constructs" and potential knowledge of ontology ('reality'). Another commenter claimed it is hubris to claim any knowledge of ontology. John Schultz's essay suggests that non-algorithmic patterns do not impose the limitations on knowledge that algorithmic patterns profess to provide. I think that is relevant to the model I describe.

          Hope you are well and stay well.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman