Prev: Einsteins patents
Next:  Entropy ( dissipation, lost eXergy ) is the fifth dimension.
From: john on 14 Apr 2010 02:27
On Apr 13, 11:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You have said the following before:

" However, volume is not a property of fundamental entities."

You deceive yourself.

Name these fundamental entities, please.

john
From: PD on 14 Apr 2010 02:59
On Apr 14, 1:27 am, john <vega...(a)accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 11:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> You have said the following before:
>
> " However, volume is not a property of fundamental entities."
>
> You deceive yourself.
>
> Name these fundamental entities, please.
>
> john

We're not sure which ones are fundamental, John. What we know is the
ones that have measurable volume always end up being composite.

So far, electrons show no sign of structure and no sign of volume.
From: Huang on 14 Apr 2010 22:03
On Apr 14, 12:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 10:43 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > I actually agree with this with one caveat. Using mathematics to model
> > > > thing implies existence of those things you are modelling. By using
> > > > mathematics you are peeking behind the shadows and implying "what is".
> > > > This is because mathematics is based exclusively on the existent, and
> > > > so there is a subtle implication which is inherited by every
> > > > application of mathematics - even in physics.
>
> > > I disagree with the statement that mathematics implies existence. I'll
> > > give you an example from group theory. There are physical instances of
> > > many examples of mathematical groups, such as SO(3). But there are
> > > also other groups, for example the so-called "monster group", for
> > > which it is not assumed there is any physical instance at all.
>
> > > > What John said about Dark Matter is interesting because it seems that
> > > > this matter does not exist, or cannot be observed.
>
> > > And John is wrong about that. Something that cannot be observed is, in
> > > physics, taken to be a useless concept and for all practical purposes
> > > does not exist. Dark matter is not presumed to be in that category.
> > > However, it is also not presumed that dark matter exists, either. What
> > > is said is that IF this model of gravity accurately describes nature,
> > > than this would *predict* the existence of dark matter in order to be
> > > consistent with observations. This prediction would then be put to
> > > independent experimental verification, whereby the existence of dark
> > > matter would be tested by some means other than the gravitational
> > > model. If it turns out this existence is so established, then the
> > > model of gravity finds support; if not, then this model of gravity
> > > starts to get into trouble. Note there is no *presumption* of
> > > existence of dark matter; it is a matter to be tested.
>
> > Kinematic equations are regarded as being correct, and all the dark
> > matter data implies the presence of something which remains
> > unobserved. I would argue that contemporary theory implies the
> > existence of something unobserved, hence the mystery. Dark matter
> > could be regarded as already being observed indirectly. If one
> > considers indirect observation valid, it has already been observed in
> > the data. Im not so sure that this would be an incorrect conclusion to
> > draw at this point.
>
> > But I agree with everything you said above, it's a frontier of science
> > and so being absurd about it is not really very mature so I wont try
> > to quibble about the dark matter in this regard. What I'm getting at
> > is pretty subtle and it's better to look at simple examples.
>
> > Lets try something more academic.
>
> > You have a billiard table. The 8-ball is at rest, and then suddenly
> > accelerated in some direction on the table. You can derive all kinds
> > of things about the energy involved in this situation, but the overall
> > model assumes that the 8 ball exists, and at least one other ball
> > exists which collided with it. The existence of the balls and the
> > existence of the forces involved is widely regarded as common sense,
> > that these things exist is never questioned. The math and the logic
> > involved seems to support the notion of existence and so existence
> > becomes a forgone conclusion.
>
> > It is clearly the case that the billiard balls do not satisfy having
> > the property of nonexistence, and so anything other than "billiard
> > balls exist" is regarded as being absurd.
>
> I disagree. It is entirely possible that the what we *perceive* as a
> billiard ball has no basis in reality. But what is true is that if we
> take a series of pictures, where those pictures are something we can
> observe later, then there will be an image in those pictures that
> appears to change location at a regular rate. Note again I'm not
> making any claims about *reality*. I'm just making note of what it is
> we *observe*. Then we can make some additional claims about
> regularities noted in those observations. It makes no difference
> whatsoever whether that billiard ball *exists*, nor is it absurd to
> think that it doesn't exist. The fact remains is that we have
> observations with regularities in them.
>
> [And in fact, what the billiard ball "is" is likely much different
> than what we perceive it to be. For example, we consider a billiard
> ball to be a solid, which means that it occupies a definite volume and
> shape. However, volume is not a property of fundamental entities. It
> is a *collective* property of composite things, where the volume
> derives not from the constituents so much as from the interactions
> between the constituents. For another example, we common associate the
> billiard ball with a definition location and path, but we know believe
> that if there is any reality to the billiard ball, it is as a quantum
> object, which means that it does not have a single, definite
> trajectory through space.]
>
>
>
> > There are many such examples. Math is constantly being used to make
> > forecasts and to predict the (physical) existence of things in the
> > real world such as the KT Crater, when it will rain or snow i.e. when
> > rain will exist or when snow will exist, etc.
>
> No, math doesn't produce that. What produces it is observed
> circumstances, and behavioral rules we induce from observed
> circumstances. This is what a *model* does, is it says: if you see
> such-and-such circumstances, then by the rules we have learned apply
> in systems of observations like this, we should be able to reliably
> count on seeing so-and-so results. It so happens that the rules have a
> quantitative, calculational basis that makes those predictions
> definite, but it still stems from *observations*.
>
> > Existence in the
> > abstract model implies existence of things in the real world, and
> > although the distinction between the abstract and the physical is
> > sacrosanct you still have an implication in the minds of most people
> > IMO.
>
> I disagree. It is the implication you have discovered in yourself,
> perhaps, and one that you are trying to liberate yourself from. I,
> however, do not share that, nor do I have strong evidence that more
> people share your view than mine.
>
> PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I've been corrupting the terminology pretty badly. To say that
something is "implied" is actually wrong, because implication is a
mathematical relation which is not the sense that I had intended when
I used the word "implied". I think that "suggests" is probably a
better word. Saying that existence is suggested is probably better.

If you see an apple fall from a tree, this observation suggests that
there is a planet. The existence of planet is suggested. Existence
cannot be "implied" in this example because apples would also fall
from the tree if the tree were accelerated (Einstein's Rocketship).
So, you really dont have a true implication in the mathematical sense.

However, if you rule out the possibility of acceleration, then the
only explanation of apple falling toward the ground is a gravity
field, and hence existence of planet. You might have a real
implication of something in this case, after ruling out the
possibility of acceleration.

This is an interesting procedure. If I flip a coin 3 times you have a
binary tree with 8 possible outcomes. If you start ruling out possible
outcomes at various nodes along the tree you wind up with a
deterministic sequence. To apply that methodology in something like GR
would have some interesting effects in terms of the fundamental
relationship between math and physics. Kind of interesting.

I think that you can do the saame thing with existence itself. If you
rule out existential indeterminacy (EI), then you have that things
either exist or not, you have the traditional dichotomy (ED). If you
rule out that dichotomy, then you have existental indeternminacy. And,
I have beenm arguing that ED and EI are equivalent.

Snake eats it own tail & never gets full.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Einsteins patents
Next:  Entropy ( dissipation, lost eXergy ) is the fifth dimension.