Real-Time Physics

Another thing to keep in mind is that as predatory species, we have both eyes in the front of the head and are thus very focused, but our heart is a pump, circulating energy around the body. Linearity is only one side of a cycle.

"I seem to like breaking up my own ideas, as much as creating them."

Have given any thought to fully creating before you start destroying? I expext that even Shiva has that much restraint.

Tom,

You can't create something from nothing, so either one builds on what comes before, or one breaks it down in order to build something else. What I do professionally is to train horses. The initial stage of this is in fact called, 'breaking.' Although given we are talking an animal with up to about ten thousand years of domestication, it is far more productive to build on and guide their instincts, then try actually breaking them. Which is to say I view creation as an ongoing process and the only stage where something is complete, you move onto something else. Now there are a fair number of animals which are quite difficult to gain their attention and cooperation. Usually boys. For the ones without particular value as breeding stock, there is a minor surgery that cures much of that. There are some others I have done some damage too, but then there are other careers than racing.

At 53, my basic tools are instinct and common sense.

Regards,

John M

"You can't create something from nothing ..."

Prove it.

Tom,

The discussion is what can we, specifically me, create and, unfortunately, I'm not God. I've yet to create ex nihilo.

Regards,

John M

Any discussion of the fundamental nature of time and space must now involve the following:

WHY EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF GRAVITY IS INCOMPLETE, LACKING, OR NOT TRULY FUNDAMENTAL:

A falling man feels no gravity. The Universe is either contracting OR expanding.

CLEARLY, the problem with Einstein's theory of gravity is as follows.

Einstein never could explain gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing. The modern physicists, in fact, admit that none of them can quite explain it. T...hat is a fact that is admitted to.

Einstein could never unite gravity and electromagnetism. Einstein never truly, basically, and fundamentally incorporated or explained instantaneity in his ideas either.

Ultimately, position and position relative to distance in/of space have to BOTH be accounted for. Visible and invisible space must be in fundamental and ultimate equilibrium and balance.

Regarding outer space, it is black; there is weightlessness; and we are not touching anything. Think about it. Outer space precludes and destroys our being, experience, and vision. In fact, we do not and CANNOT fully, directly, and truly/really/actually EXPERIENCE OUTER SPACE AS IT IS (including seen, felt, AND touched).

Now, the falling man doesn't involve space as it is seen, felt, AND touched in conjunction with balanced and stabilized distance in/of space either.

Physics and physical experience is fully and truly understood as it is seen, felt, AND touched. Indeed, we always begin with typical, shared, necessary, foundational/fundamental, ACTUAL/REAL, and ordinary experience(s) in establishing physical fundamentals and truths.

The fundamental equivalency and balancing of gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism fundamentally and certainly involves us. This ALSO involves instantaneity in conjunction with half inertia and half gravity, stabilized and balanced distance in/of space, invisible and visible space in FUNDAMENTAL equilibrium and balance, and the MIDDLE distance in/of space. It all makes perfect sense.

The above paragraph perfectly (and consistently) desribes the fundamental, theoretical, and ultimate requirements of unification of physics and physical experience. In fact, I have thoroughly and clearly proven that this fundamental, linked, natural, necessary, ultimate, and theoretical unification of physics (including actual physical experience) takes place in/as dream experience.

Dream experience grows and increases, and dream experience is seen, felt, AND touched. Importantly, there is no outsmarting the genius of dreams.

In dreams, we are conscious and alive in conjunction with the linked, separate, fundamental, and necessary experience of our growth and becoming other than we are. This necessarily and clearly involves a fundamental balance of being and experience in conjunction with the essential mastery of physics and physical experience.

Importantly, dream experience IS possible/potential AND actual.

Moreover, dreams fundamentally involve (and balance) the super important relation of something and nothing.

What I have proven is NOT a theory. It is truth. It is the ultimate, fundamental, natural, extensive, balanced, actual, AND theoretical unification of physics and physical experience.

Do any of you think that any of the mainstream, modern, academic physicists can contradict or disprove what I have written here? Not hardly. Can they show that it is inconsistent or incomplete? Can they contradict it with something that is truly, fundamentally, and extensively its equal? No, they can't; and they never will be able to.

Blush Tom and stop adding stupid and pointless posts to this longish thread.

Eckard

Eckard,

I was hoping to get the usual assertion that physics is non intuitive and my naive instincts and common sense are useless for understanding it. My reply was to be the real problem is with assumptions and that for those of us actually living on that boundary between past and future and not just observing it through the thick lens of others interpretations, the primary given of common sense is to expect the unexpected, because assumptions are only contingent on what has happened, not what might happen and the second most important rule is to understand the signs of when one is approaching, or on shaky ground/thin ice/bubble territory/delusional thinking and to weigh the risks/rewards appropriately. Those who only view this reality through others thinking must rely on assumptions and so their instincts are dependent on those assumptions.

Sometimes it is also called 'horse sense.' As in what you need, working around large and opinionated animals.

Regards,

John M

"The discussion is what can we, specifically me, create ..."

Sorry, I thought we were talking about physics.

" ... the primary given of common sense is to expect the unexpected, because assumptions are only contingent on what has happened ..."

Assumptions aren't contingent on anything, John. That was the point of my asking for proof that something can't come of nothing (it's a very old philosophical saw: "ex nihilo, nihilo fit.")

Best,

Tom

Tom,

So assumptions are 'ex nihilo?'

Regards,

John M

John, they sure are. An assumption or set of assumptions cannot be shown faulty until or unless the deduction(s) from them are proven to conflict with deductions of other premises shown to be true.

For example, the assumption of quantum mechanics that the world is fundamentally probabilistic is "ex nihilo" since there is no rational precedent for it. All the evidence of probability is empirical. An assumption of determinism, which is also empirical, is rationally correspondent to regular motion of large scale objects. The assumption that the world is rational, however, is also ex nihilo.

Tom,

Are you confusing 'cause' and 'assumption?' The precedent for the assumption QM is probabilistic would seem to be drawn from the field of non-linear statistics. In other words, we use the concept of probability to apply to quantum mechanics, in order to make sense of its seeming lack of determinism. It would seem 'cause,' is detached from effect, leaving cause as ex nihilo.

The assumption the world is rational logically arises from its appearance of rationality. That this cannot be proven, means that it may be an incorrect assumption. Whether or not they are faulty doesn't mean they are not assumptions. Assumptions exist in that middle ground of having been drawn from partial evidence, but not being conclusively proven, that makes them assumptions.

Regards,

John M

"Are you confusing 'cause' and 'assumption?'"

No. I don't even know how the two could possibly be confused.

"The precedent for the assumption QM is probabilistic would seem to be drawn from the field of non-linear statistics."

I don't think so. The appropriate empirical model is dice or roulette. That is, assuming perfection information (the unique six sides of a die, or a finite number roulette wheel)there is an equally like chance of any number showing up in a single iteration. Applied to physics, this begs an "equally likely" hypothesis for an infinity of natural events. It is not a rational assumption.

"In other words, we use the concept of probability to apply to quantum mechanics, in order to make sense of its seeming lack of determinism. It would seem 'cause,' is detached from effect, leaving cause as ex nihilo."

No. The cause is clearly defined as the iteration (throw of the dice, spin of the wheel) that generates a measured outcome.

"The assumption the world is rational logically arises from its appearance of rationality."

It appears so because it is so. Physical properties of classical objects are rationally correlated, determined, precisely calculable.

"That this cannot be proven, means that it may be an incorrect assumption."

That it is true in all cases that we know, does not necessarily mean it generalizes over the universe. It's the principle of uniformity that cannot be rationally demonstrated or proven.

"Whether or not they are faulty doesn't mean they are not assumptions. Assumptions exist in that middle ground of having been drawn from partial evidence, but not being conclusively proven, that makes them assumptions."

No, that makes them inductive hypotheses. The assumption that inductive method is even capable of generating a closed logical judgment of how thee world works, is another irrational assumption.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Whether an assumption is rational, or irrational, doesn't change the fact of it being an assumption. Your statement seemed to be that assumptions lack cause, ie. ex nihilo. It seems to me the very nature of an assumption is to propose a reason or context for the existence of a circumstance, so the cause, the circumstance and the need to understand it, are the function of its existence.

Regards,

John M

"Whether an assumption is rational, or irrational, doesn't change the fact of it being an assumption. Your statement seemed to be that assumptions lack cause, ie. ex nihilo."

That's exactly what I said.

"It seems to me the very nature of an assumption is to propose a reason or context for the existence of a circumstance, so the cause, the circumstance and the need to understand it, are the function of its existence."

That's a tautological statement. It's also a nonconstructive argument -- in that it assumes the existence of something that was to be proved. Hence, the argument for or against the thing's existence has to be based on a proof by a technique called double negation. That is, the cause of the thing's existence is the thing's existence. (All proofs of Bell's theorem are nonconstructive.)

Rational science is the correspondence of abstract construction to observed phenomena. The mathematically complete theories of classical phyics can be shown 1 to 1 correspondent with natural events. By contrast, mathematically incomplete quantum mechanics corresponds only to observation, with assumptions akin to what you say above; it constructs no closed logical judgment on natural states of being -- the cause of the thing's existence is the thing's existence.

Tom,

" in that it assumes the existence of something that was to be proved."

Isn't that what an assumption is?

What I meant by the following;

"so the cause, the circumstance and the need to understand it, are the function of its existence."

Is that the cause of the need to make an assumption is due to the combination of a given situation AND the need to understand it. For instance, I make the assumption that the ice is solid enough to support my weight, because I need to get to the other side of the water. Now if I had no need to walk on the ice, there would be no need to make that assumption.

"Hence, the argument for or against the thing's existence has to be based on a proof by a technique called double negation. That is, the cause of the thing's existence is the thing's existence."

So the 'thing' is the assumption itself, not the situation of the ice.

"Rational science is the correspondence of abstract construction to observed phenomena."

And the reason for those abstract constructions is our need/desire to further understand observed phenomena.

Regards,

John M

Yet if you are assuming a given situation, then you are also assuming its cause. If the assumption proves incorrect, then the cause was insufficiently considered.

That last line was to be edited out.

Tom,

I consider not even assumptions strictly speaking ex nihilo. I dislike discrediting fundamental conjectures uttered by John as something that can neither be proved nor disproved. There are abundant mathematical proofs, that claimed to show e.g. the existence of god. Most mathematicians do not even understand that Cantor's second diagonal argument assumed that all of infinitely many points can be frozen. When v. Neumann created the numbers ex nihilo, he got admired. I dislike such stupid and pointless arrogance.

Shouldn't we return to questions that are relevant to real-time physics or at least to physics in general?

I found out that Schroedinger in 1939 concluded from the discreteness of spectral lines that the universe must be finite, and I consider this wrong. Isn't this a question that you should be qualified enough to deal with?

Eckard