Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • I would say that ZFC constitutes a proof of the limits of mathematics. I would s

    I would say that ZFC constitutes a proof of the limits of mathematics.

    I would say that the construction of all of mathematics from operations is trivial. Which is its strength.

    I would say that the the development of techniques of deduction (proofs of possibility) given constant relations made possible by positional names is one of the high points of human intellectual achievement.

    I would say that those that are capable of applied mathematics in the discovery of patterns in reality is an art that never ceases to amaze me. if for no other reason, than like chess, it requires extraordinary state memory (modeling), extraordinary discipline, and the exercise of talent without much chance of material reward.

    I mean, the only people I am absolutely awed by when I meet them are applied and theoretical mathematicians. And I know that in the very least, they have far superior short term memories and modeling capabilities.

    And while I seem to have a talent for deflation (causality), I could never compete with that category of mind.

    I am fairly happy playing second fiddle to their art.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 18:04:00 UTC

  • The “Unreasonable effectiveness” trope annoys the hell out of me. The only reaso

    The “Unreasonable effectiveness” trope annoys the hell out of me. The only reason this ‘magical mathematics’ nonsense perpetuates, and the average person is still afraid of mathematics, is because it’s taught as a superstition.

    Math is trivial. 1 = any unitary measure. By the combination of some number of symbols – in the current case 0123456789, we can create positional names. By adding, subtracting units, and by adding and subtracting sets of units (multiplication and division), we can create positional names (numbers) for an unlimited set of positions. we can create names of positions in an unlimited number of directions (dimensions). We can create positions relative to any other position (relative positions). We can create changes in positions of relative positions. producing numbers, sets, and fields, and topographies (many different fields.

    So the fact that math is ‘unreasonable’ is rather ridiculous. It’s people who are unreasonable. Math is TRIVIAL. Deduction in multiple dimensions is hard because we are not well suited to it.

    I mean, we have 26 letters, and 44 phonemes in the english language. If we were ‘elegant’ we might increase the 26 to 44 letters, so that english was easier to read. but look at what we can say with those 44 phonemes, 26 characters, and 250K words in some including terms, and maybe 200K words that are not archaic.

    There are roughly 100,000 word-families in the English language.

    A native English speaking person knows between 10,000 (uneducated) to 20,000 (educated) word families.

    A person needs to know 8,000-9,000 word families to enjoy reading a book.

    A person with a vocabulary size of 2,500 passive word-families and 2,000 active word-families can speak a language fluently.

    Of those we can pretty much COMMUNICATE anything, although in wordy prose, with only 300 words.

    Now think of how much MORE you can say in language than you can say in mathematics.

    Why should it surprise you that running around with a perfectly scalable yardstick that can measure any distance, allows you to measure and compare anything? It shouldn’t. It’s freaking obvious.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-01 14:46:00 UTC

  • WHAT HISTORY TELLS ME ABOUT THE STATE OF PHYSICS My reading of intellectual hist

    WHAT HISTORY TELLS ME ABOUT THE STATE OF PHYSICS

    My reading of intellectual history suggests humans make the same mistakes over and over again, and the current paradigm in physics just radiates those mistakes.

    And I am pretty sure that confirms my central thesis: that the problem of advancement in science is primarily one of costs. And that the current problem in physics is a combination of anchoring, first principle, causal (dimensional) density, and cost of conducting the research necessary to run tests rather than mathematical models.

    I have seen nothing to counter most parsimonious explanation of the universe as a single medium, expressing a simple geometry, the different forces of which, are produced by different degrees of excitement (density), the apparent complexity of which is nothing more that overlapping field effects, and that the general problem of comprehension is reducible to the measurement of a subset of states ( fields, waves, particles) rather than merely densities). In other words, our attempts at deflation are causing categorical analysis that obscures the underlying symmetry.

    That is not a statement about the universe. It is a statement only of observations of the categories of human error in the past, and by analysis of those errors we can look for the solution. Not in our findings, but our errors.

    Meaning that in general, we have a serious problem increasing the number of dimensions we can comprehend, and the tools necessary for their comprehension. A problem which historically is solved by advances in mathematics. The applied elsewhere – endlessly for generations.

    In other words I don’t need to understand much about physics to make that statement. I just need to understand that all similar problems in history follow a similar pattern.

    At present the study of intermediary phenomenon (advanced mathematics) and operational patterns (computer science) appears to be providing us with slow but incremental progress in the hope of identifying patterns of causal relations that limit the variation in high causal density (high numbers of dimensions).

    So I suspect that the possibility is out there. And I suspect the central problem is not awarding prizes for the solutions to this category of problem and therefore ending the incentives to reinforce the paradigm.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-30 11:13:00 UTC

  • “The current institutions of “science” are inherently stagnant and political, in

    —“The current institutions of “science” are inherently stagnant and political, instead of innovative and impersonal. Why should we ever expect government-funded teachers writing articles for journals that no one buys (except the very universities that employ the teachers), whose editorial staff are the very same teachers who write the articles, to ever replace current, flawed theories with new, expensive ideas?”—Michael Andrade


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-29 19:57:00 UTC

  • “But everything in the universe fits together!!!”— If the universe has taught

    —“But everything in the universe fits together!!!”—

    If the universe has taught us anything, it’s that it operates by the most simple rules possible.

    My money currently is on something similar to E8 which consists of different states of excitability of ‘aether’: ‘some single unnamed field’, that I presently assume somehow constitutes spacetime itself. Not that I have any reason to think so. It’s just the only solution I know of that doesn’t depend on patterns of error that we humans seem to demonstrate in every era. Hopefully we will see some revisionary progress in our lifetimes.

    Everything fits together because the universe consist most likely of just one thing in different and somewhat equilibrial states of excitement, and therefore everything is constructed from a set of four forces with eight poles, and a just a whole lotta layers of puzzle pieces using that very simple set of ‘legos’.

    Which is what one would expect. Dead simple. I mean. Look at everything we can create with the number “1”. All of mathematics. Look at what we can create with the binary number system 1/0. Look at all the universe can create with the periodic table of the elements.

    I dunno. It all seems pretty simple to me. And the math says that there are zillions of other possible arrangements of those forces that would produce very different ‘constants’ and very different universes. Although I suspect the universe can’t ‘unwind’ (expand) in any other possible arrangements.

    All that is required to produce the universe using very, very, simple processes is an aether (field) that is compressed very tightly, uncompresses, and recompresses, and that there are only so many states that this aether can uncompress in and maybe just one that it compress in (gravity?).

    The common human error is that we have a very hard time with multiple dimensions of causality and equilibria. So that is where I put my money. On a very simple set of additional dimensions of causality. And there is something ‘wrong’ with how we are approaching the standard model. And I am not gonna, at this point in my life, going to switch from natural law, to mathematical physics. And there are plenty of smarter guys than I am already working on it (I assume.)

    Why it all works as it does just seems like it is going to take a lot of work to figure out if for no other reason, than running experiments that wind up space takes far more energy than we are able to manipulate. It’s one thing to accelerate particles, and another to bend space time. Although, I suspect, if we ever figure that out, it’s gonna be freaking awesome. I mean, electricity generation means winding and unwinding space time, right? Imagine we can wind and unwind other forces in the universe besides the EMR spectrum.

    Ohh, baby. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-29 17:43:00 UTC

  • LIST OF OPEN PROBLEMS IN PHYSICS by Mohan Rao The public has no idea that there

    LIST OF OPEN PROBLEMS IN PHYSICS

    by Mohan Rao

    The public has no idea that there is a huge problem in physics – the Standard Model theories are actually based on an utterly false foundation.

    Here are the biggest problems in physics.

    1. 122 orders of magnitude difference (10 to the power of 122) between the Cosmological Constant (dark energy or vacuum energy at the cosmological scale thought to be responsible for the expansion of our universe) and the quantum vacuum density (the energy density at the Planck scale — Planck density)

    2. The inconsistency between quantum forces (especially the Strong Force) and cosmological forces, primarily gravity, which is currently thought of as far too weak at the large scale to address the magnitude of the Strong Force. Hence they have been seen as having different origins, neither of which is explained.

    3. What is the source of Mass and therefore, Energy, since the two are convertible through Einstein’s E=mc2 formula?

    4. What determines the Speed of Light, that physics deems to be the ultimate “speed limit” of the physical universe?

    5. What is the “missing mass-energy” of the universe, called Dark Matter and Dark Energy, that’s currently required to explain large-scale dynamics of galactic structures and the expansion of the universe?

    6. Why the disparity of the mass of the Planck and the mass of the proton relative to their size (i.e. the Hierarchy problem between the Planck the proton and thus gravity).

    7. What is the mechanism and the source of energy that produces spin for both the cosmological scale in the universe and the quantum scale?

    8. What enables atoms and their constituent components (protons, electrons, etc) to remain spinning indefinitely with no known cause or explanation as to why they’re not slowing down due to inertia and entropy?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-29 17:31:00 UTC

  • PRIVATE RESEARCH IS BETTER THAN GOVT RESEARCH ( A HALF LIE) Half truth. (a lie a

    PRIVATE RESEARCH IS BETTER THAN GOVT RESEARCH ( A HALF LIE)

    Half truth. (a lie actually). Basic Research: the atomic bomb, the space program, weapons research, and the large hadron collider, the human genome project, cannot be paid for by private industry.

    Private industry however can perform applied research, and is far better at it than government might ever be.

    And it’s pretty clear that government ‘lending’ for the purpose of private industry’s applied research is the best of all – IFF we capture returns for the polity (directly or indirectly) by doing so.

    In other words, ‘market failure’ is not really failure, but ‘market reach’ is limited. There is often extraordinary value either directly (war) or indirectly (jump starting applies research) or very indirectly (leading knowledge capture and localizing talent). That the private market has no way of capturing the benefits of directly, yet rewards the public market (commons) profoundly.

    (Hell, there are quite a few of us who knew how to solve the Hard AI Problem, the issue was that no private investors would possibly fund that big an investment risk, and no government agency could tell the difference between possible solution and bullshit. So AI that we see today should have (in my opinion) been solved over a decade ago.)

    —“According to the National Science Foundation, 29 percent of federal R&D money goes to universities, 29 percent goes to industry, and another 29 percent goes to researchers who work directly for federal agencies. About 10 percent goes to federally funded labs operated by private contractors.”—

    That seems about right to me by back-of-the-napkin analysis. I would prefer that we provide investments and capture returns rather than ‘fund’ whenever possible, but this is merely a choice of providing incentives to whom.

    My primary complaint is that we must pay to access research publications and that just needs to end immediately.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-28 13:54:00 UTC

  • The problem is that while our hard sciences produce scientific statements irrele

    The problem is that while our hard sciences produce scientific statements irrelevant to the state, our social sciences produce pseudoscientific content in furtherance of the state, and our economic and financial system is structurally unscientific in furtherance of the state.

    So the means by which conservatives resist the pseudosciences of the state is to resist the sciences at all, as an opposition strategy, the same way that the marxists, postmodernists, and other pseudoscientists attack the civilization.

    So the only way we solve this problem is FULLY SCIENTIFIC including the social economic and political sciences or we continue to practice ‘cherry picking’ in the sciences.ï»ż

    It’s that simple.ï»ż


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 18:22:00 UTC

  • THE STATES OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY (very important ideas in here for serious p

    THE STATES OF SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY

    (very important ideas in here for serious philosophy students)

    If we define ‘science’ as ‘the invention of instruments by which we produce measurements, with which to reduce the imperceptible and incomparable to the perceptible and comparable, such that it is accessible to reason’ and that ‘the scientific method’ is the process by which we do that, then ‘science’ succeeds in applied science, (chemistry, biology, engineering, programming, mathematics) and is stalled in physics, and has been an utter failure in the social pseudo-sciences, and was an utter failure in ( the pseudoscience of ) psychology – although, in the past two decades, thanks to advances in imaging, have attempted to rectify psychology to some degree.

    So the problem is better stated as “science does well in the use of instruments’ and not so well in the use of reason.

    Philosophy has faced a worse decline than science, if for the simple reason that separating truth, goodness, preference, utility, and possibility in the discipline of philosophy in the same way that physics, chemistry, biology, and cognitive science has been separated in the sciences, has been almost impossible.

    Worse, the continental tradition continues to practice Abrahamic (religious) invention of conflating both point of view (experience, intention, action, observation) as well as the utility (true, good, preferable, useful, and possible), and even worse, the existential dimensions (real, hyperbolic, ideal-platonic, and supernatural-impossible). So the entire continental program is engaged in secular theology and nothing more.

    Worse, despite the (wasted century) culminating in Frege/Kripke, and the knowledge that set operations cannot result in meaningful truth propositions and that ‘all logic is but a test of tautology’ the discipline of philosophy still relies on language and set membership rather than operations and existential possibility (and if necessary, external correspondence).

    Worse, philosophy continues (to talk nonsense) to practice the long tradition of ignoring costs, or full accounting. And while, via negativa, this made sense in the ancient world, where all virtues require little more than refraining from imposing costs upon others – in the modern world, where we can use the vote as a proxy for violence by which to impose costs upon others, this is far less “honest and truthful” a tactic -and instead, is a means of self, and other-deception.

    If your discipline cannot fully account for all dimensions of reality in its propositions ABOUT reality. Particularly in the Possible, GOOD and the TRUE, then the entire purpose of the discipline is nothing more than evading reality (religion) and a means by which to produce falsehoods for the purpose of justifying parasitism on the left, and predation on the right.

    I am one of the harshest anti-philosophy philosophers, precisely because I do not practice ‘cherry picking’ of what I account for, nor do I tolerate conflations in any of the common dimensions.

    The excuse that philosophy is philosophizing is about as honest as religion’s claims – including the entirely falsifiable claim that philosophy ‘does good’.

    Either philosophy is the means by which we develop methods of decidability in possibility, utility, preference, good, and true, where the ‘true’ is that which is decidable independent of goodness, preference, utility, and possibility, or it is, like religion, a method by which – at best – dilettantes produce witticisms with which to deceive honest and moral people, and – at worst – the means by which the crimes of marketers, frauds, priests, academics, politicians, prey upon others for fun and profit.

    So, I don’t see much serious philosophy going on in this world outside of a few individuals who work in the sciences. What I see instead, is a vast number of dilettantes virtue signalling their cunning, while advocating their preferred version of self-rewarding immorality over that preferred vision of self-rewarding immorality of others.

    And that’s probably the most accurate description of philosophy today you will find.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-17 18:34:00 UTC

  • test of parsimony: E8. purely geometric universe. boringly so. Superposition and

    test of parsimony: E8. purely geometric universe. boringly so. Superposition and entanglement obvious effects. possibility that we cannot conduct experiments of sufficient energy to answer the non-EMR relations for millennia. forward progress in physics limited until then


    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-16 15:14:00 UTC