—“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 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 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
A LOT OF TRUTH
SCIENTIFIC METHOD (DUE DILIGENCE FOR TRUTH)
Truth as used in science : the study of the elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) by the construction of physical and logical methods of measurement that reduce the imperceptible and incomparable and undecidable to that which is perceivable, comparable, and decidable given the limits of human ability.
D]EFINITIONS OF TRUTH.
1 – [T]RUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
2 – [T]RUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
3 – [H]ONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
4 – [D]emonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.
5 – [P]reference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants).
6 – [P]osition: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.
7 – [O]pinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.
8 – [I]ntuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).
THE DEMAND FOR TRUTH
1 – True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
2 – True enough for me to feel good about myself.
3 – True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
4 – True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
5 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
6 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
7 – True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.
8 – Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.
CATEGORIES OF FALSEHOOD
1 – ignorance
2 – error
3 – bias
4 – wishful thinking
5 – suggestion
6 – obscurantism
7 – fictionalism (PseudoMythology/Theology, Pseudorealism/Idealism, Pseudorationalism, Pseudoscience)
8 – deceit.
THE SPECTRUM OF TRUE TO FALSE
+5 – The Analytically True (Tautological). Logical
+4 – Apodictically True (non contradictory) Rational
+3 – The (ideally) True (most parsimonious possible in human language) Rational and Scientific
+2 – The truthful (that which we have performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, by the tests of consistency in the categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational-incentive, reciprocal-moral, and fully accounted.)
+1 – The truth candidate (that which we have not yet found false but have not yet fully exposed to due diligence)
0 – The undecidable (that which we can say is neither true nor false nor possible)
-1 – The False candidate ( which which is possible in the process of failing due diligence)
-2 – The Falsified (that which has failed due diligence and cannot be otherwise than false.)
-3 – The (ideally) False (the most parsimonious possible in human language)
-4 – The Analytically False (Self Contradictory)
DIMENSIONS OF ACTIONABLE REALITY
1 – categorical (identity)
2 – logical (internal consistency)
3 – empirical ( correspondence. external consistency.)
4 – operational (existential, temporal, experiential consistency )
5 – rational (rational choice given incentives at the time)
6 – moral (fully reciprocal: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition upon others by externality.)
7 – scope (fully accounted – without cherry picking)
DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS
1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent?
2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency?
3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence.
4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility? And is it free of imaginary content when we articulate it as such?
5) is it a rational choice by an actor at the moment in time with the information at his disposal?
6) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?)
7) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting? (Is information lost or artificially gained?) Is it limited? Do you know it’s boundaries (falsification)
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-29 14:35:00 UTC
TRUTH: ENDING SPECIAL PLEADING IN EVERY SINGLE DISCIPLINE
(excerpt)
So just as we prohibit special pleading in theology, just as we eliminate special pleading in philosophy, if we eliminate special pleading in logic (the study of constant properties of categories and sets), an if we eliminate special pleading in mathematics (the study of constant relations between types), we are reduced to existential (testimonial or performative) truth as used in science (the study of the elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) by the construction of physical and logical methods of measurement that reduce the imperceptible and incomparable and undecidable to that which is perceivable, comparable, and decidable.”
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-29 14:16:00 UTC
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
MY VIEW OF TRANSCENDENCE: TRANSCENDENCE IN FACT
—” high trust methods of scientific testimony “—
Well yes, you are correctly defining my objective.
How about my version of transcendence, a higher plane of existence, and a higher experience, and ‘godhood’, is one different from the synthetic(drugs), the submissive(divine), the unburdened(occult) the immune(buddhist), and the real(stoic) and that is agency(power/reason): transcendent in fact in the next, not pretense of transcendence in the present.
So lets say that of the experiences of transcendence I am proposing an additional way. and that it is the only way that is not an illusion in the present, but an achievable fact in the future.
If I work very hard I can reach a certain state – a state which all other specialists in the technique describe and pursue. A frictionless state of experience where we are free of the frailty of our reason. the question is, which experiences do you seek to free the base of the reptile? the social of the pack? the intelligence of the human? And do you seek freedom FROM something, or freedom of limitations to do something. Do you seek exit or agency?
I understand what Gautama Buddha was looking for. I can understand what the most disciplined and pious are looking for. I can understand what the lost-lamenting catholics are looking for. I can understand what the german idealists are looking for.
But there are good ideas and bad ideas, there are good gods and bad gods, and good means of transcendence bad means of transcendence, because those gods and those means of transcendence either produce transcendence by agency or not. And those that do not are no different from shooting heroin. They provide the feeling without the achievement.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 17:05:00 UTC
Is that true? (a) increases in demonstrated intelligence appear to result almost entirely from the learning of general, universal rules. (b) The discipline of science exists almost entirely of methods of developing general rules of decidability independent of a diversity of ideas. (c) truth itself, differs from good, or preference in that it provides decidability regardless of preference or good. Is diversity of law a good thing? What about logic? What about criminality, ethics, morality, and evil? Teh only ‘diversity’ that I know of that is good is invention of that which is true, good, and preferable. Every other diversity, is almost always reducible to a means of conducting thefts under moral pretense.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 10:05:00 UTC
WE FACED OUR IGNORANCE WITH COURAGE AND DESTROYED SUPERNATURALISM
Can we face our ignorance, and this time, destroy our pseudoscience and pseudorationalism?
WHEREAS
1) Operational descriptions are perfectly testable – informationally complete.
2) Names of operational descriptions for brevity – but at the expense of lost information.
3) Names of categories of operational descriptions for brevity – but at the expense of lost information.
4) Conflation of names of categories of operational descriptions for (a) transfer of meaning by association, (b) admission of ignorance, (c) use to obscure ignorance (d) use for deception.
5) Use of abstract categories “thing”, “is/are/was/were” for (a) brevity (b) admission of ignorance (c) to obscure ignorance (d) for deception.
CONVERSELY
One can speak entirely in operational descriptions limiting one’s self to operational grammar. The uncomfortable problem that results, is the near universal admission of our near universal ignorance, and our use of pretentious prose to obscure our ignorance and deceit.
This is what I have learned from our failure to defeat the pseudosciences and pseudo-rationalisms of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-26 19:47:00 UTC
Philosophy without history, economics, and science is just secular religion – a form of conspicuous consumption.
Just by adding costs in to philosophy half of all questions disappear.
Just by adding operational language to philosophy, the rest disappear.
There really aren’t very many difficult questions: metaphysics (action), epistemology (testimony), ethics (reciprocity), politics (markets for commons), group evolutionary strategy (predation, parasitism, cooperation, or avoidance.)
The meaningful issue is: why don’t you like the answers? 😉
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-25 17:12:00 UTC