Ultimately, in Physics the Rational shall become Reasonable! by Terry Padden

Terry Padden

Don

Thanks for your comments. I am pleased that you liked my essay. I like your summary - very apt.

[deleted]

Terry,

You seem to think my view is outside mainstream science. A quick review of every juried journal in the physical sciences informs one that all published science is nothing more than theory supported by (observed and/or mathematical) results.

That is how science is practiced, independent of what one thinks science is, or should be. It is an entirely rationalist enterprise.

There are not (which in fact would contradict Aristotle's logical premise of noncontradiction) two "nows" demarcating experiment (result) and theory. Even though language and its meaning are independent, these converge in time.

I am sorry that I did not adequately communicate the definition of "mathematically complete." I don't think I can do any better with it.

Your desire for more effective mathematics is in the process of being satisfied every day, by researchers developing new methods to handle more imaginative questions. Einstein's widely misunderstood comment, "Imagination is more important than knowledge," in fact addresses this very point. We do not get more science and more mathematics by imagining limits (contrary to the topic of this contest).

The questions do not have to be reasonable.

Tom

Terry Padden

Tom

As i suggested last time round we are probably going in circles - a normal sign of a basic disagreement.

1. You wrote "You seem to think my view is outside mainstream science."

This suggest you have not read, or misunderstood my essay. I don't think that. I submitted my essay on the basis that, regrettably, you are correct ! In my essay I wrote "Is to be rational to be reasonable ? ... snip ... For any reasonable person the answer is "yes". Just check the usage; yours or anyone else's - except mine. For I choose to answer the question rationally."

The fact is science, and society, even the OED as I pointed out, have not yet made this distinction. I have. It is a small correction I am initiating to a problem that plagues all discourse including science. It is a small contribution from me to resolving the problem - part of a new paradigm, if you will excuse the hyperbole.

I am not surprised that you, and no doubt many others, should take the mainstream position. We disagree. That I may be plowing a lone furrow was foreshadowed in the quotes at the end of my essay.

2. RE Mathematically complete: I doubt there was anything unclear about what you wrote. For me it was irrelevant. I don't have time to consider what it means fundamentally, and whether I (would) find that meaning acceptable.

3. You write "Your desire for more effective mathematics is in the process of being satisfied every day,"

Again, this suggests you have not read or have misunderstood my essay. Again we agree. In my essay, and in my posts on several essays here, I fully acknowledge this - but call it the "Progressive" approach to fundamental problems = More of the Same. I express the view that this cannot work - Ultimately - for fundamental problems.

In my essay I wrote "Continuing down the established paths to the future exacerbates the problem. Perhaps the way forward is regressive, not progressive. Of course progressives cannot accept that premise. Given that the progressives are all eminently credentialed, perhaps I should respect their judgment and await their likely success. I can't. So I won't."

Your response is the one I predicted in my essay. My essay outlines what i mean by a "Regressive" approach.

4. I am not sure what you mean by "imagining limits" - who, what, where, when, these limits ?

[deleted]

Terry,

The root of our disagreement is your interpretation of rationalism. No, it is not rational to be reasonable. Reason based on experience is contrary to rationalism in which theory is primary to the interpretation of experience. I.e., scientific results are not interpreted by experience but by theory. To suggest that it should be otherwise is to abandon the quest for objective knowledge. We would sacrifice reach, for that which is within easy grasp.

Tom

[deleted]

Chers H T Ray,

J'ai lu ce fil parce que j'aime les idées de M. Klingman. Ainsi, j'ai lu threads wih beaucoup d'intérêt.

Dans votre dernier post vous dire

"Non, ce n'est pas rationnel d'être raisonnable»

Je ne comprends pas votre point de vue sur l'objectivité. En fait, tous doivent être raisonnables et dans correlagtion avec notre conscience universelle.

Les expériences, les théories, les extrapolations, les résultats doivent toujours être corrélée à cette loi universelle.

Le rationalisme et l'universalisme sont les mêmes cher TH Ray, l'objectivité sera toujours l'objectivité de l'.

Ee quête de la vérité dans cette ligne de raisonnement est donc le meilleur parce qu'il est universel.

There are two kinds of maths ,reals or imaginaries .There is one kind of physic ,real and objective .All is there ,the reasonable thus is to be in the physicality and its laws without imaginaries .There the subjectivity is less than the objectivity .

The physics need rationalism indeed and it is well like that in fact ,simply .

Best Regards

Steve

Terry Padden

Cher Steve

Parce que mon francais est tres mauvais je ne suis pas certainement si vous et moi sont en accord, mais merci beaucoup votre pensees tres bon.

Bon chance avec votre campaignements

[deleted]

Tom

I have no problem with your first sentence. I confirmed that in my essay and in my previous response. It is one of the reasons I wrote my essay. So it is a bit superfluous. However it does endorse my view, as

1. A Rational view of a disagreement is that they are two sided. Best expressed in the phrase "We disagree about whatever."

2. A Reasonable view is that if you are party to a disagreement then you are right and your antagonist is wrong.

3. It is politics not science to rely on majority opinion to determine which, if either or both, is correct.

NB See Point No. 1 of my essay about the Relativity of Motion for confirmation that it is normal standard authoritative science to use subjective = relative assumptions, such as "This particle is the Stationary one". This is Reasonable but irrational. You seem to want to call this subjective not relative. Be my guest, but I am now repeating what i wrote in the essay.

The confusion of objectivity with absolute and subjectivity with relative is common throughout science at all levels - I can provide references. You seem to share this. It is one of my targets.

The authentication and exegesis of the sayings of Einstein is too demanding a study for me of the lazy mind; but i am capable of misunderstanding myself, never mind anyone else.

Reason based on (scientifically validated) experience is NOT NECESSARILY contrary to (our current best scientfic) Rational Theory - but when it is the task of the scientist is to fix the misalignment.

Fixing it can happen in one of two ways (or a mixture).

A. Using existing foundations = Progressive; i.e. Either the data is changed by better experiements; or the Theory is changed for a better theory.

B. Change the Foundations - whatever they are ? = Regressive, possibly.

Last time round the loop ?

[deleted]

Dear Terry,

Sorry for this confusion ,I don't understand what I have made in fact with this post .Sorry .There it is serious ,it's the firtst time with this kind of confusion with French and english .Furthermore a confusion about the first name ,oh my god .

Here is the post in english only hihiih .

Dear T H Ray,

In your last post you say

No, it is not rational to be reasonable.

I don't understand your point of vue about the objectivity.

In fact ,all must be reasonable and in correlation with our universal consciousness.

The experiments ,the theories,the extrapolations,the results must always be correlated to this universal law .

The rationalism and the universalism are the same dear T H Ray,thus the objectivity will be always the objectivity ,and the reason is objectively objective.

The quest of the truth in this line of reasoning is thus the best because that is universal simply and pragmatically .

There are two kinds of maths ,reals or imaginaries .

There is one kind of physic ,real and objective .All is there ,the reasonable thus is to be in the physicality and its laws without imaginaries .There the subjectivity is less than the objectivity .

The physics need rationalism indeed and it is well like that in fact ,simply .

Best Regards

Steve

Edwin Klingman

Dear Terry Padden,

I believe that your essay is valuable. It was certainly entertaining. As I remarked, it lays the path and emphazises both the need for fields and for consciousness in physics. I do not agree that the problem lies in math, but in the concepts of the fields that we currently employ.

Your previous response to me indicated that you did not appreciate my essay, and of course there's no obligation to do so.

I have responded on my page to a comment from Narendra Nath. It is an extended comment and one that you may find interesting. I continue to believe that your essay is suggestive of the solutions outlined in my essay.

Thank you for your comments and exchanges in this forum. I have enjoyed all of them immensely.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Terry Padden

Edwin

I am not sure what you mean by stating that I "did not appreciate your essay". I read all the essays once. I only read yours once because of lack of time. Which also meant that i do not have time to read tidied up versions or supporting papers for any essay.

A few, about 4, I read twice because of responses to my posts on their sites. These few were ones that have some resonance with my own. As an essay I thought yours quite good; but it was too adventurous for me. As you can gather from my essay I do not think we have the tools yet to treat consciousness scientifically. You do. So we are on different wavelengths.

We need to be on the same wavelength In order to properly appreciate anything. Which means, I suppose, that I am not really the right audience to fully appreciate your essay. I wish you all the best and whatever encouragement I can spare.

Edwin Klingman

Dear Terry,

That was an assessment, not a criticism, and probably should have been left unstated. I merely had hoped, with the points stated in your essay that you would find more to appreciate in mine. Not a big deal. I have not yet read all of the essays but still find yours very enjoyable and on target.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Terry Padden

Final Comments:

1. Thanks to all who posted comments on my essay, especially Tom for a spirited discussion.

2. My modal rating was "1". Yet all posts were very positive.

3. My essay contained 10 specific points. Not one has been refuted here. Absent are genuine critical comments or refutations from those providing the "1" rating - which for me is the most disappointing part of the process.

4. Thanks to FQXI for the opportunity to participate and air some prejudices; and to the support staff, especially Brendan, for tolerating and responding positively to my questions.

As this is an essay contest I take leave of it with a postscript to my essay, which will be included in subsequent versions, from Sir Roger Penrose,

""In my view the conscious brain does not act according to classical physics. It doesn't even act according to conventional quantum mechanics. It acts according to a theory we don't yet have. This is being a bit big-headed, but I think it's a little bit like William Harvey's discovery of the circulation of blood. He worked out that it had to circulate, but the veins and arteries just peter out, so how could the blood get through from one to the other? And he said, "Well, it must be tiny little tubes there, and we can't see them, but they must be there." Nobody believed it for some time. So I"m still hoping to find something like that - some structure that preserves coherence, because I believe it ought to be there."

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penrose-says-physics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics/article_view?b_start:int=0&C=

That's all for now folks.

« Previous Page