Philosophical approach to a Theory of Everything

Sorry, I don't agree, at least not given how you define the aether. To me, analogies to aether in this context smack of a desire for "hidden-variable" solutions to QM, that is, the attempt to instate causality behind QM. Hidden-variable physics is fine (and fun) speculation, but let's not call it science, please.

Yes, hidden variable physics is fun. I agree! I have a article that I have written ON EPR and a possible solution. Does that surprise you? NO, ha ha ... It will need to be rewritten as in the last couple of months I have a new and improved solution. It involves a mechanism for allowing faster than light communication. I am even working on a formula to help prove it. Should be fun but fairly difficult task for me to accomplish. I actually got the idea just last night about 4 in the morning. The same formula may help solve a few more questions as well.

Once upon a time, I was a business analyst for about 15 years, at 2 different companies. I had opportunity to read numerous business proposals, white papers, functional and technical specifications. A fair percentage of those written by each company's software developers displayed rather similar organizational principles as your website displays.

Well done, on the deduction that is very impressive! I agree with your observations of my writing style.

No, as a philosophical position, mathematics is unnecessary. What you need is a conceptual framework that functions as an explicit alternative to conventional understanding of material solids. I say explicit, because without explicit description, your current descriptions of the aether still imply all the conventional structures of material solids...which rely on concepts that don't depend on an aether, undercutting your position.

Well we are just not going to agree on this. I use the identity principle to equate my aether elastic solid to similar standards of other know existing objects and further establish relationships to those objects. That's enough for me and if I do it well enough it will be enough for others as well. I know you don't agree and that's fine. If my latest attempt at a formula for matter energy transformation works out I just may be able to make a new prediction that can be validated with our current technology. That should help as well.

If you mean an objective physical reality, independent of human consciousness, then you are correct.

I think at this point we are approaching a very important topic to discuss that should be in another thread. Perhaps we should start a new thread dedicated to the battle between Objective Realty and Subjective Reality. I believe Subjective Reality best describes what you believe in. If there is a better term let me know in your next reply. For people commenting on this thread they must be willing to accept the possibility of a physical reality independent of us and our consciousness.

Yes it is, but it sure hasn't stopped scientists who care not a whit about the a priori status of "reality." It should also suggest something to you about the limitations and ad hoc nature of logic (Logic is not among the tools of basic cognition; it's one of the products). Ultimately, all human concepts when analyzed to their fundamental premises betray circular reasoning as far as I've been able to tell. I should add that this is a good thing in my book, providing the epistemological basis for free will, and consistent with my disbelief in objective reality.

The fact that you and others do not care about “reality” is another core issue for me. The entire attitude is that of a person that has given up. Reality and some of the things we observe are difficult to explain for QM. So let’s just say we can’t explain these things, no even worse we shouldn’t even bother to explain them. It’s all relative to our human experience and consciousness. That my friend, is a cop out. So tell me what is the name of your book? I would like to check it out.

I agree. Einstein consistently displayed that he was a classical thinker all his life. GR is very much a classical theory.

Hmm, yet as a classical thinker he made some of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. Huh just lucky I guess. Not bad for a hubristic unenlightened spiritual person. That last statement will make sense when you read my last comment.

I disagree. Your statement serves up what to me is a self-contradiction, stating that GR describes both a physical reality and Einstein's physical model. A model cannot be physical reality by definition. My guess is that you see no contradiction because you believe in a one-to-one correspondence between the model's components and specific elements of reality. So, philosophically, you believe in the correspondence theory of truth...no surprise given your realist views. But I don't believe in the correspondence theory of truth at all. To me it is obvious that the only correspondence involved in truth is one of concepts-to-concepts.

Perhaps I said it wrong or perhaps you simply misinterpreted what I was trying to say. So let me say it again. Einstein conceived a mechanical model in his mind. I define a model as something that represents or simulates something else. I am not saying that a model actually is the same thing as a physical object. I am saying that he constructed a model in his mind of how he thought that gravity works. He then developed the mathematics based on his mental image of physical reality. He used mathematics to bridge his mental image (Model) to explain the physical reality that is observed. So what I am saying is that if a reality model that we conceive and explain using mathematics is proven by test and observation that is a physical truth. I know you don’t agree it’s all relative…. We need to start a new thread and battle it out on that thread, I am not contradicting myself here, as I am not saying a model is physical reality. I am saying a model represents physical reality. Remember my definition. A model is something that represents or simulates something else. You really missed the boat on that analysis.

To me, your conclusion that experimental verification of GR means GR represents objective physical reality is erroneous and, moreover, a non sequitur. If it wasn't a non sequitur, then we'd logically have to conclude that Newtonian Physics represented objective physical reality until 1919 (when Eddington experimentally verified GR's predicition of gravitational lensing). After 1919, Newtonian Physics stopped being reality and reality began following the principles of GR instead. I think even you will agree that this is preposterous, yet it follows logically and directly from your belief that GR represents objective physical reality.

Now you are beginning to disappoint me here. Your logic in the above paragraph is completely non sequitur. Allow me to demonstrate. The logical argument you propose is so flawed I am having difficulty knowing where to start. The idea that experimental verification of GR provides us with proof of a physical reality is not in any way inconsistent. It is certainly not a non sequitur (I see you are a Star Trek fan). There is no problem in concluding that Newtonian Physics represented objective reality until 1919. Your statement is simply not accurate and not sensible. Newtonian Physics (gravity in particular) did and still does represent an approximation objective reality. Einstein’s General Relativity is the most accurate and most likely the perfect representation of gravity. Newtonian physics as so far as gravitational theory is concerned did not stop being a reality it was superseded by a more accurate formalization. By the way Nasa still uses Newton’s formula’s to launch rockets and calculate trajectories. Perhaps you might convince them to use Quantum Mechanics to calculate trajectories. Yes, that would be good. We could have an infinite amount of rockets taking an infinite amount of trajectories and just simply let our consciousness decide which trajectory the rocket will take. Don’t you see how broken your logic is. Our world does not work that way. When one really examines QM it breaks down and becomes nonsensical. We really need to debate reality versus QM on another thread that would be fun.

To that end, you are just shooting yourself in the foot when you declare--by fiat as it were--that GR (and your SR superstructure hoisted upon it) are physical (objective) objects. It is an obstacle to your reader's understanding, not a benefit. Your reader, entrenched in current theory, is saying, "Well, wait...we don't need an aether, we've got QM." You need to compell them to stop thinking that, so you have to discredit QM before you build your castle in the sky upon the foundations of GR.

Discrediting QM is fine with me. The question is what kind of argument or evidence would it take to convince a true believer of QM that the theory is not a complete theory. It is merely a mathematical abstract formalization that uses statistical method to predict the behavior of real world phenomena. It is just a useful tool for analyzing groups of measurements and really tells us nothing about why and how things work in our Universe. I know you will say we just don’t give a damn about reality. All we care about is getting the right answer without understanding how we got it or what it means. That may be good enough for you. It’s not good enough for me.

"Wait a minute...that's what they thought the transformations were for in the 1880s. Why do I want to think like a dinosaur?"

I love it when scientist types think like that. You would think that it would make me angry but it does not. I can definitely see why you or others of the same mindset would think that way. My beliefs are such old style thinking compared with what we have come to believe in this day and time. It matters not to me. You don’t care about objective reality. I care about the truth and what is real and what is not. Maybe I am just an ole fuddy duddy nostalgically clinging to the past. On second thought, I just like to solve mysteries and I have examined both sides of this argument and I have decided to go with the proven winners Einstein, Lorentz, Maxwell, Faraday and Newton. I would put that team up against anyone in these times, anytime, anywhere and anywho. LOL… They were on the right track and we in this time are not.

QM is certainly 100% mathematical abstraction to my way of thinking, yes. Humans have no cognitive apparata to fully reconcile its counterintuitve predictions and philosophical implications with their entrenched cognitive biases which evolved solely in response to macroscopic phenomena. That is what makes QM so wonderful to me: we finally have a model of reality that both (1) stretches our imagination out of its comfort zone, forcing us to evolve intellectually up to the new bar it sets, and (2) it has a scientific basis! It makes me proud to be a human being to think that we could conjure something so beautiful into existence. And its delightful complementarity to General Relativity makes it seem almost holy. I just wish there were more farsighted scientists like Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin, who can see this complementarity and how Gravity is made even more beautiful when conceived as an emergent property instead of a fundamental force or particle.

I think your in love… Ah. It’s nice that you have a great appreciation for your ideas and such. We all should back what we believe in.

This would take us far afield and I would fail, given the lack of a common reference frame for our analysis. Suffice it to say I see overwhelming evidence in every arena of experience that human knowledge is entirely relative, that there is no such thing as absolute truth even in principle, and that any claim to ojectivity--even a claim of the potential for objectivity via some priveleged methodology--is utter hubris and, I might add, indicative of a rather unenlighted development "spiritually."

This one I wanted to save for last. Let me sum this up for the readers. You’re a Chicken brock… brock… your afraid that you might lose the debate. First of all, we have a common reference frame. We are both human and speak the same language and live in the same Universe. We just have opposing points of few. So what. If you don’t convince me and I don’t convince you is that a big deal? No, not really. I will force you to think and you will do the same for me. This and all the other statements you make in this paragraph are excuses, except for the last sentence. I am a little disappointed in you. When you use fancy words to disguise what you are saying it is not fooling anyone. To call me ”hubris” (code word for arrogant) and then add the description of me as unenlightened (code word for ignorant). Oh, by the way you misspelled unenlightened. Ironic don’t you think. LOL Well that little burst above was just ole fashioned name calling. I thought you said that you wanted to get away from that kind of conversation. What this tells me is that you are intolerant of people that do not agree with you. Shame, shame. “Unenlightened spiritually” well that one really hurts. I am not sure how you got there. Actually I am a very spiritual person. You have no idea. So are people who believe as you spiritually enlightened and everyone else ignorant fools. It’s a good thing I don’t take those kinds of comments seriously. I still think we should start a new discussion and debate your reality vs mine and we can see what will happen. It should be fun if you can resist name calling and hurtful comments.

I can see the time has come to pass on further commentary then. And I'll pass on the separate thread idea too. After all, the last thing a chicken should attempt is to go up against a self-fulfilling prophesy. Brock brock. Good luck with your website.

Thanks, Good luck to you as well.

I've changed my mind. I will pick up the debate again if you like. There is a certain value in illustrating where the two of us lack a common reference frame for evaluating the subjects under discussion, if only for other readers. But I am going to ingore your offense at my use of words like hubris and unenlightened spirituality. Your emotional interpretation of words meant solely at face value is your business.

You state:

The fact that you and others do not care about “reality” is another core issue for me. The entire attitude is that of a person that has given up. Reality and some of the things we observe are difficult to explain for QM. So let’s just say we can’t explain these things, no even worse we shouldn’t even bother to explain them. It’s all relative to our human experience and consciousness. That my friend, is a cop out.

No it isn't. It is an empowering experience to liberate oneself from absolutism. I actually suspect I care about reality more than you do, given that I grant such respect to the cognitive mechanisms whereby we humans apprehend reality and include them in any conceptual modeling of that reality, while you consider such mechanisms incidental to some "objective" external edifice which you must seek to know more thoroughly, implicitly assuming our cognitive apparata are adequate to do so, while ignoring that those very apparata are part and parcel to what you seek. To me, it is your position which seems more limited and limiting (and maybe more uncaring) than mine.

The idea that experimental verification of GR provides us with proof of a physical reality is not in any way inconsistent. It is certainly not a non sequitur (I see you are a Star Trek fan). There is no problem in concluding that Newtonian Physics represented objective reality until 1919. Your statement is simply not accurate and not sensible. Newtonian Physics (gravity in particular) did and still does represent an approximation objective reality. Einstein’s General Relativity is the most accurate and most likely the perfect representation of gravity. Newtonian physics as so far as gravitational theory is concerned did not stop being a reality it was superseded by a more accurate formalization. By the way Nasa still uses Newton’s formula’s to launch rockets and calculate trajectories.

By my way of thinking, everything you've clarified here supports my original statement while doing nothing to suggest your conclusion...hence my accusation of non sequitur remains intact. Ptolemy's Epicycles are a model. The model still works when its application is confined to those contextual situations where it does not have to confront its own limitations. The same can be said of Newtonian Physics. The contextual situations are broader for Newton than for Ptolemy, and his math is more practical. General Relativity covers even more situations. QM covers situations where GR breaks down. You have not provided a single illustrative statement to demonstrate that GR or any other model is the "truth of physical reality" over any other model. So I still hold that experimental verification is insufficient to identify a given model as such. Your conclusion to the contrary does not follow from the evidence.

Perhaps you might convince them to use Quantum Mechanics to calculate trajectories. Yes, that would be good. We could have an infinite amount of rockets taking an infinite amount of trajectories and just simply let our consciousness decide which trajectory the rocket will take. Don’t you see how broken your logic is. Our world does not work that way. When one really examines QM it breaks down and becomes nonsensical.

Of course it is nonsensical when evaluated from a realist framework. It is one of the several reasons why I am a non-realist. Actually, I am disappointed in you for thinking that your flippant remark about consciousness has any bearing on the use of QM to model reality. The fact that you would try to illustrate QM misused for macroscopic objects like rocket ships makes me wonder if you even understand QM (Hmm, maybe that's why your website ignores it). My logic is broken when analyzed from an inappropriate framework of evaluation.

Discrediting QM is fine with me. The question is what kind of argument or evidence would it take to convince a true believer of QM that the theory is not a complete theory. It is merely a mathematical abstract formalization that uses statistical method to predict the behavior of real world phenomena. It is just a useful tool for analyzing groups of measurements and really tells us nothing about why and how things work in our Universe. I know you will say we just don’t give a damn about reality. All we care about is getting the right answer without understanding how we got it or what it means. That may be good enough for you. It’s not good enough for me.

I agree with your first 4 sentences here verbatim. Your 5th sentence is blatantly incorrect. Your 6th sentence is also incorrect regarding the assessment of caring. If we didn't care about how we got our knowledge there would be no point in distinguishing science from scorcery. If we didn't care about what it means, we wouldn't be avidly debating about it on a phlosophy forum.

I love it when scientist types think like that. You would think that it would make me angry but it does not. I can definitely see why you or others of the same mindset would think that way. My beliefs are such old style thinking compared with what we have come to believe in this day and time. It matters not to me. You don’t care about objective reality. I care about the truth and what is real and what is not. Maybe I am just an ole fuddy duddy nostalgically clinging to the past. On second thought, I just like to solve mysteries and I have examined both sides of this argument and I have decided to go with the proven winners Einstein, Lorentz, Maxwell, Faraday and Newton. I would put that team up against anyone in these times, anytime, anywhere and anywho. LOL… They were on the right track and we in this time are not.

Actually, I care too much about reality to declare by fiat that its existence is objective, ignoring the reality of our conscious participation in it. Objectivism, when carried beyond the role of a circumscribed analytical tool, becomes inimical to understanding since it precludes the interpreter's own assumptions as part of the "objectification."

And what is the point of segregating Einstein, Lorentz, Maxwell, Faraday and Newton from those who were able to stand on such giants' shoulders: Planck, Bohr, Dirac, Feynman, Bohm, et al.? You seem to contrast them while I see a continuity. QM is just another model. Without it, how is your aether-based theory going to model the empirical realities of quantum tunnelling, laser optics, superconductivity, et al.?

I think you guys need some company on this thread.

Mmfiroe: I'm going to have a look at your website when I get the time. No time now! Just a placeholder.

Amateur here.

Increasing numbers of reported near death experiences (NDEs) suggest that consciousness transcends the physical. (See “Consciousness Beyond Life, the Science of the Near Death Experience” by Pim van Lommel (Harper-Collins)) A clinically ‘dead’ individual observes himself and the hospital staff from above, and, on recovery, is able to recount such observed details, reporting, as well, being greeted long-dead parents, friends, etc. suggesting that consciousness is eternal. Van Lommel reviews experiments in quantum theory that seem to relate.

It is suggested that we should regard the physical, including our bodies, as emergent, contrived means to an end, or purpose, rather than fundamental. In other words there will be no TOE in completely objective terms as ‘things; time, space etc.’ are not fundamental but emergent from an indefinitely hierarchic structure of Natural Order.

It is suggested that creation represents the eternal Subject on an eternal journey from eternal sameness to eternal novelty where novelty is not possible apart from the perceptions of the Subject Agent being constrained by contrived limits of time and space.

Given the hierarchic structure of natural order implied by reductionism, we find the particulars of symmetry underlying all conservation law; i.e. all physical repression, while symmetry, itself, is but a particular of the still deeper and more inclusive qualities of aesthetics. And we all know how our choices tend to be guided most constructively by our evolved aesthetic sensibilities and feelings. And there sits ‘symmetry’ at the interface between the realm of subjective ends and the realm of objective means. What a coincidence. And then there are the several early religions that agree on the principle of The Golden Rule, a symmetry principle if ever there was one.

Of all the neural faculties that might have evolved, been naturally selected over the eons, what we got was the analytic/synthetic faculties for our science, and our aesthetic sensibilities to guide constructive choice, i.e. insight into both means and ends. What a coincidence. Reductionism does not bottom-out at the floor of physics, but merely connects the realms of sustainable ends and contrived means.

Joe

HI Joe,

Thank you for your comments.

Increasing numbers of reported near death experiences (NDEs) suggest that consciousness transcends the physical.

I fully agree with this statement. I think at some point I or someone should start a thread about the NDE and life hereafter topic. I personally believe, cosmically speaking that the afterlife is another dimension that exists along side of this physical dimension. I don't believe that its afterlife and the spirit's existance its energy and nonmaterial substance whatever that maybe can be physically related to our physical dimension.

It is suggested that we should regard the physical, including our bodies, as emergent, contrived means to an end, or purpose, rather than fundamental.

I don't think that we should regard anything that is physical as emergent. I instead believe that the soul or spirit that is bound to the flesh at birth maybe considered as emergent. Our consciousness stays with and is bound to the spirit. Our spirit emerges from this other non-physical dimension as an incarnation from the spirit world.

Therefore if all that I stated is true a Theory of Everything is still obtainable within this dimension that describes this dimension.

-- Updated May 18th, 2012, 8:33 am to add the following --

Hello Steve,

Yes, we definitely can use some additional commentary. I can now put the link to the Super Relativity website. http://www.superrelativity.org/

Best and newest articles are The Faster than Light Neutrino Explanation and the Origin of Gravity article. superrelativity.org/html/Faster_Than_Li ... trino.html

superrelativity.org/html/OriginOfGravit ... ty_SR.html

-- Updated May 18th, 2012, 2:51 pm to add the following --

Hi and welcome back "A Poster He or I"

But I am going to ingore your offense at my use of words like hubris and unenlightened spirituality. Your emotional interpretation of words meant solely at face value is your business.

It was not an emotional response at all. I was just trying to point out that your statement was a bit arrogant and judgmental. When we make such statement within a thread those kinds of judgmental statements degrade the conversation. I, in no way feel hurt or offended and I am happy that you chose to rejoin the discussion. Whether you realize it or not there is much at stake. If I am correct in my theoretical concept then it means that we will be able to break the light speed barrier. That is important! So it is important for me to get people to seriously consider the Super Relativity concept. I do not believe that there is another main stream theory out there that offers us a way to break the Light Speed Barrier. If there is let me know I would like to review it. See article "How to Build a Warp Drive" http://www.superrelativity.org/html/WarpDrive_SR.html this article is old and needs some revamping but it is good enough to give you the general idea of how it can be done.

So you may ask why is breaking the light speed barrier so important? Well quite simply it will allow us to actually visit other star Systems. When we do that and find life elsewhere we will be able to expand our knowledge and our consciousness. We will be able to understand so much more of what is true and what is real.

There is a certain value in illustrating where the two of us lack a common reference frame for evaluating the subjects under discussion, if only for other readers.

I could not agree more. These discussions that I have set up are what I like to call discussional beacons. Its primary objective is to let people view and discuss the issues and then make up their own minds as to what they believe is the right way to go. I believe we are wasting valuable time and resources pursuing red herrings. The classic example is (String Theory). That effort most likely is burning up our highest intellects in a fruitless effort. We as a human beings need to be on the right path and pursuing knowledge from the proper perspective. We need those resources to be working on really important things like room temperature super conductivity.

No it isn't. It is an empowering experience to liberate oneself from absolutism.

“No it isn't. It is an empowering experience to liberate oneself from absolutism.” The most empowering experience is knowing the truth, period end of sentence. Our discussion will examine what is the truth. Then we can make up our own minds on what we believe. Some of us will be right and some of us will be wrong.

I actually suspect I care about reality more than you do, given that I grant such respect to the cognitive mechanisms whereby we humans apprehend reality and include them in any conceptual modeling of that reality, while you consider such mechanisms incidental to some "objective" external edifice which you must seek to know more thoroughly, implicitly assuming our cognitive apparata are adequate to do so, while ignoring that those very apparata are part and parcel to what you seek. To me, it is your position which seems more limited and limiting (and maybe more uncaring) than mine.

Now see you are doing it again. By what means or proof do you come to the judgement that your model of reality places you on a higher ground than my point of view? I say that because you said this. “To me, it is your position which seems more limited and limiting (and maybe more uncaring) than mine.” How do you know that you care more than I do? Furthermore why is my position more limited? If it is the correct position it is not limited in any way.

Here is the problem as I see it. As far as this thread is concerned it should be dedicated to people who believe or at least accept the possibility that objective reality is the correct model. I believe any further discussion on indeterminism vs.objective reality is not appropriate for this thread. This is why I continue to suggest establishing that topic of discussion in another thread. I take as one of my primary assumptions that objective reality is the correct path to pursue and so this discussion should remain within that realm. For this thread people participating in the discussion have to allow for the possibility of that assumption to be correct. Hopefully I am getting through to you on this point. If you cannot play along with that idea we will never get beyond this. We must battle it out on another thread.

Thus far, as far as I am concerned you have presented no evidence to support your model. If you want to present such evidence so that it can be discussed and examined we should do it in a thread dedicated to that topic. That evidence and discussion needs to be on another thread so that we can develop a full attention to the topic. Do you agree?

By my way of thinking, everything you've clarified here supports my original statement while doing nothing to suggest your conclusion...hence my accusation of non sequitur remains intact. Ptolemy's Epicycles are a model. The model still works when its application is confined to those contextual situations where it does not have to confront its own limitations. The same can be said of Newtonian Physics. The contextual situations are broader for Newton than for Ptolemy, and his math is more practical. General Relativity covers even more situations. QM covers situations where GR breaks down. You have not provided a single illustrative statement to demonstrate that GR or any other model is the "truth of physical reality" over any other model. So I still hold that experimental verification is insufficient to identify a given model as such. Your conclusion to the contrary does not follow from the evidence.

Either you are not paying attention to what I have said or you don't understand. Just because you reiterate your statements again and again that does not make them true or correct. If your only line of argumentation is to say that your line of reasoning is correct and that is your evidential support we are going to get nowhere. It seems to me that you are more interested in being thought to be correct rather than getting to and finding the truth. When you say, “You have not provided a single illustrative statement to demonstrate that GR or any other model is the "truth of physical reality" over any other model. So I still hold that experimental verification is insufficient to identify a given model as such.” .” This is frustrating for me because I have done so, the bottom line is you have chosen not to accept it not that it has not been provided. I once again say we need to go at this problem in a fine and detailed manner on another thread. Until we do so I will be distracted discussing what is real and what is not. I think there will be people here that would like to know about Super Relativity’s Slip Wave and how to break the light speed barrier. It’s going to be hard to get to those topics if we keep battling over what is real and what is not.

Of course it is nonsensical when evaluated from a realist framework. It is one of the several reasons why I am a non-realist. Actually, I am disappointed in you for thinking that your flippant remark about consciousness has any bearing on the use of QM to model reality. The fact that you would try to illustrate QM misused for macroscopic objects like rocket ships makes me wonder if you even understand QM (Hmm, maybe that's why your website ignores it). My logic is broken when analyzed from an inappropriate framework of evaluation.

Oh come on now that was funny and you know it. You got to lighten up some. I understand QM well enough. I just have little use for it. Why is that so? Because basically its underlying reality cannot be pictured in detail, it’s just an estimation based on randomness and statistics. To further clarify my position I do not believe the mechanics of our Universe should be understood as a probability without any causal explanation. I refuse to accept the Quantum Mechanics is the proper direction to pursue the truth. I believe we need to develop a model for the underlying causes from which QMs apparent random statistical methods result. I understand QM well enough to know that it in the long run it will be shown to be irrelevant to the big universal picture. It is rapidly approaching its end of life. If the objective model is correct QM is completely irrelevant that is why I do not bother to mention it much on my website. See, it makes sense not to bother with what is not important. But I would be willing to discuss QM on another thread. I am going to keep suggesting that because that is what makes sense for this thread. You have a desperate need to prove your line of thinking so let’s go and establish a thread to battle it out and you can attempt to defend your position. I warn you though there will be a lot more flippant remarks as that is how I bring out the nonsensical character of QM. So you better buckle your EGO seatbelt. So far you have said nothing that has convinced me that your QM reality model is going in the right direction.

I agree with your first 4 sentences here verbatim. Your 5th sentence is blatantly incorrect. Your 6th sentence is also incorrect regarding the assessment of caring. If we didn't care about how we got our knowledge there would be no point in distinguishing science from scorcery. If we didn't care about what it means, we wouldn't be avidly debating about it on a phlosophy forum.

Okay this is fair maybe you QM guys do care. You sure have a funny way of showing it. Once again this discussion is best done in another thread.

Actually, I care too much about reality to declare by fiat that its existence is objective, ignoring the reality of our conscious participation in it. Objectivism, when carried beyond the role of a circumscribed analytical tool, becomes inimical to understanding since it precludes the interpreter's own assumptions as part of the "objectification."

I believe that our consciousness participates only in its ability to comprehend our physical reality not in its ability to have an effect on it, with the exception of course when we apply to reality an action through physical force to effect a change in our environment. Once again this is a discussion for objective reality versus the madness of QM.

And what is the point of segregating Einstein, Lorentz, Maxwell, Faraday and Newton from those who were able to stand on such giants' shoulders: Planck, Bohr, Dirac, Feynman, Bohm, et al.? You seem to contrast them while I see a continuity. QM is just another model. Without it, how is your aether-based theory going to model the empirical realities of quantum tunnelling, laser optics, superconductivity, et al.?

I segregated them for a reason. There is a pattern. I see the continuity as broken with the introduction of QM (: Planck, Bohr, Dirac, Feynman, Bohm, et al.) QM is a paradigm shift that has led us into the wrong direction. We are basically stuck in the year 1920. I could expand upon that more in the other thread not here.

As so far as my aether-based model going to explain quantum tunnelling, laser optics, superconductivity, et al.? Well first off it does not have to. I am fine with QM method of calculating these different phenomena. It is the logical and sensible approach to solving computations to predict the behaviour of materials at the microscopic level. Just don’t kid yourself into believing QM explains them because it does not. That is where you keep going wrong and I don’t think that you are going to understand. Why is that? It is that way because you are stuck in a paradigm that will not allow you to think out of the box. If it were possible to measure particles at the microscopic level without affecting them because of interference from our measurement equipment then I would say yes, deterministic objective reality based on my aether-theory could handle explaining all those things. Unfortunately at this time that is way beyond our technological capability. The computing power alone would be massive.

David Gross a Nobel Laureate made some startling statements about the state of physics including: "We don't know what we are talking about" whilst referring to string theory as well as "The state of physics today is like it was when we were mystified by radioactivity." Some of the physicists are beginning to acknowledge there is something fundamentally wrong with our approach. You should give it some thought. Perhaps it is your thinking that is limited…

Welcome to the forum. Theory of everything. Quite intreging. Ah! The nutirno. Back in the late 1960s. There was an experiment in a mine, of granite, with a heavy water pool. That was to capture the nutrino bubble trail. It was also explained that the nutrino goes through everything. That there was no mass that could stop the nutrino. Simple comparrison. A Bullet hitting a bullet proof vest. But goes through the vest, leaving no hole. That is why the nutrino has no mass, was explained. But the fact that the nutrino left a bubble trail in the heavy water vessel. Would mean that it does have mass. Theory. Does a comparison of time and the surface of water have the same affect. As a bullet hits the water. It leaves a momentory hole in the water. And then the water surface is flat once again. The same thing for the border of time, or light speed. Now the nutrino does have mass. But the time is either in the past or the future. Now I suggest in the future. It's like saying, what is tommorow when it's a day after tomorrow. That is why in our time we cannot observe the mass of the nutrino. That mass is in our future. And an object reaching the speed of light, will have an infinite mass, and will not an infinite amount of energy. That is like a rod of time space, being flattend from one end onto the other end. Simple. Squash a can from the top to the bottom, completely flat. Thus the bottom going towards the top of the can. Or our time moment going into our time future moment. One needs to look at the reallity in the time and not in the pressent 3 dimensions. It's like the 1500s. When people said it's impossible to go around the world. Because from thier obsevantions, they saw the boat go off the edge of the oceian, thinking the world was flat. Only since we have hade people in space, could we see for out own eyes that the world is round. But still if one stands on shore line at the beach. You only can observe things going of the edge of the world. Still the same view. But this is a simple explantion of observations that hav been made by scientists in physics. No insult intended. They didn't have the chance to go past the light barier.

may you have peace and wisdom.

Not sure about that Nob. Why does leaving bubbles imply mass

Dalehileman: It doesn't. I suspect Nobody is thinking of bubble chambers, which are a method for detecting the passage of charged particles using a superheated liquid (i.e. heated beyond its boiling point). Ionizing (electrically charged) particles trigger the liquid to boil and their tracks can therefore be seen from the line of bubbles.

Neutrinos are electrically neutral. Their presence is detected by various means in various tanks of fluids but always because of their occasional interaction through the weak nuclear force.

Mmfiore: I've had a quick look at your website. It's nicely presented with a lot of content. I was looking for the part where you explain how the luminiferous ether comes in and why the Michaelson/Morley experiment should have been performed with massive particles. Could you suggest a particular section to look at?

Mmfiore,

I’m glad I’m mistaken to think you were offended. I know you want to get beyond all this arguing about premises and just talk about Super Relativity. However, I feel you misunderstand your opposition, judging by your responses to me, and I would like to attempt to lessen this misunderstanding between us.

You state:

It was not an emotional response at all. I was just trying to point out that your statement was a bit arrogant and judgmental.

I disagree that my response was arrogant and judgemental. You asked me to “supply [you] with some evidence that…it is not important to determine the objective ontology of reality.” I sincerely believe that no evidence I could provide per se would be interpretable as supporting my position given your realist premises. So I chose to state my baseline premises to obviate the need for evidence. Those premises include my sincere belief that humans cannot objectify reality in principle, given that their very methodologies for objectification must be subject to the very same objectification. To believe otherwise is hubris. If that implies arrogance, the arrogance is incidental, not any kind of attempt to belittle your views. For example, if a pot calls the kettle black, the problem (and the irony) is that the pot has no way of seeing that it too is black. The fact that this might make the pot self-righteous or arrogant is incidental and of no concern to me in these discussions. I have gone out of my way to uphold your right to your views by consistently offering criticism toward the end of making your website more palatable to your opposition. If I intended to belittle you for your views, wouldn’t it be easier for me to just declare your website a piece of ****?

So you may ask why is breaking the light speed barrier so important? Well quite simply it will allow us to actually visit other star Systems. When we do that and find life elsewhere we will be able to expand our knowledge and our consciousness. We will be able to understand so much more of what is true and what is real.

I completely endorse these sentiments except the last sentence. To my mind, in order to best learn and integrate the experience of encountering the unknown, we are best served by leaving behind judgemental criteria of what constitutes true and real, and let what we encounter teach us what IT thinks is true and real, and most importantly why. After all, if we are to establish relations with what we encounter, it is what they believe that will matter to the success of those relations, not what we think about what they believe.

I believe we are wasting valuable time and resources pursuing red herrings. The classic example is (String Theory). That effort most likely is burning up our highest intellects in a fruitless effort.

Well we agree on String Theory! Bad science to be sure: 45 years of theorizing and no testable experiments. But to be clear, I only reject String Theory because as a model it doesn’t accomplish anything except to reconcile a presupposed problem (the incompatibility of QM and General Relativity) by disguising it within mathematical abstractions that don’t represent anything empirically testable. That’s not science to me.

We as a human beings need to be on the right path and pursuing knowledge from the proper perspective. We need those resources to be working on really important things like room temperature super conductivity.

My guess is that we will differ on what constitutes the “proper perspective.” However, I agree that institutionalized theoretical science suffers from being couched in a primarily academic environment instead of a business environment.

“No it isn't. It is an empowering experience to liberate oneself from absolutism.” The most empowering experience is knowing the truth, period end of sentence. Our discussion will examine what is the truth. Then we can make up our own minds on what we believe. Some of us will be right and some of us will be wrong.

I actually agree with your assessment verbatim. Unfortunately, the definition of truth entails the fundamentals of our philosophical premises. Since we have different premises, we don’t have the same definition for truth so if I state “the most empowering experience is knowing the truth, period,” I mean something completely different from you.

By what means or proof do you come to the judgement that your model of reality places you on a higher ground than my point of view? I say that because you said this. “To me, it is your position which seems more limited and limiting (and maybe more uncaring) than mine.” How do you know that you care more than I do?

May I remind you that it was you who assessed my stated position as :”giving up,” “not giving a damn about reality,” “a cop-out,” and that instead of taking my stated premises at face value, they rather constituted clear evidence of me being a “chicken…scared of losing the debate.” Of the two of us, who is it that really displays their conviction that they have the intellectual high-hand?

Mmfiore, I am perfectly willing to grant you your confidence in your position and your right to argue from it. But if you think that means accusing me of not caring about reality, how can you expect me to not react defensively since it is a blatant untruth? I happen to sincerely believe, based on ample evidence, that a realist position is a more limiting position when it comes to best integrating knowledge, as opposed to a non-realist position based in intellectual relativism. If such a value-judgement constitutes a personal attack upon you, then I refer you back to my earlier remarks about the pot and the kettle.

Furthermore why is my position more limited? If it is the correct position it is not limited in any way.

To have coherent meaning, your 2nd sentence presupposes an objective standard for what is correct. I believe standards are relative creations whose utility is circumscribed by specific contexts of interpretation. Therefore, not only is the “correctness” of a postion of belief limited by the context of interpretation, there is also no such thing as an unlimited position of belief.

In the context of scientific inquiry, a realist position presupposes metaphysical concepts which potentially interfere and render unviable any methodology of inquiry that aspires to the scientific method. A non-realist position on the other hand—for example, an idealized positivism—is free(er) of metaphysical presuppositions, and is limited (ideally) solely by epistemological presuppositions. Hence it is less limited.

Here is the problem as I see it. As far as this thread is concerned it should be dedicated to people who believe or at least accept the possibility that objective reality is the correct model. I believe any further discussion on indeterminism vs.objective reality is not appropriate for this thread. This is why I continue to suggest establishing that topic of discussion in another thread. I take as one of my primary assumptions that objective reality is the correct path to pursue and so this discussion should remain within that realm. For this thread people participating in the discussion have to allow for the possibility of that assumption to be correct. Hopefully I am getting through to you on this point. If you cannot play along with that idea we will never get beyond this. We must battle it out on another thread.

In my opinion, you’re asking to have your cake and eat it to. You established this thread to gain the critical insight of others regarding your position so you could better present your own position, partially by addressing their concerns. I tried to demonstrate that one of the biggest obstacles your website (and your position) faces is in the need to address other people’s biases (their non-belief in the aether) in a manner that convinces them to question their bias. That means backing down from the premise that your aether represents an objective object (not in your beliefs, mind you, but in your presentation) and presenting it as a scientific alternative (i.e., one whose utility as a model is demonstrable via scientific evaluative means).

By asking for carte blanche granting of your realist premise, you are in effect saying, “Please evaluate my belief, but only if you believe yourself.” Did you come to this forum just to get a pat on the back for your intellectual achievement? It’s just my opinion, but aren’t you better served in your goals by accommodating your opposition’s position within your own arguments? And if so, shouldn’t you be trying to understand their criticism from their position instead of seeing how you can dispense with understanding it?

I do not believe the mechanics of our Universe should be understood as a probability without any causal explanation. I refuse to accept the Quantum Mechanics is the proper direction to pursue the truth. I believe we need to develop a model for the underlying causes from which QMs apparent random statistical methods result. I understand QM well enough to know that it in the long run it will be shown to be irrelevant to the big universal picture. It is rapidly approaching its end of life. If the objective model is correct QM is completely irrelevant that is why I do not bother to mention it much on my website.

In philosophy, we call this begging the question. Because you presuppose the falsehood of QM, you feel justified in bypassing the need to demonstrate why, even though your stated goal requires you first demonstrate the falsehood of QM. Your seriously-minded scientific critic is expecting it. The point I have tried to make to you, in service to your own stated goal of presenting Super Relativity for serious consideration, is that ignoring QM doesn’t serve you. It hinders you.

As so far as my aether-based model going to explain quantum tunnelling, laser optics, superconductivity, et al.? Well first off it does not have to. I am fine with QM method of calculating these different phenomena. It is the logical and sensible approach to solving computations to predict the behaviour of materials at the microscopic level. Just don’t kid yourself into believing QM explains them because it does not. That is where you keep going wrong and I don’t think that you are going to understand. Why is that? It is that way because you are stuck in a paradigm that will not allow you to think out of the box. If it were possible to measure particles at the microscopic level without affecting them because of interference from our measurement equipment then I would say yes, deterministic objective reality based on my aether-theory could handle explaining all those things. Unfortunately at this time that is way beyond our technological capability. The computing power alone would be massive.

Wow, your response here took me by surprise. If I understand it, you are granting QM its legitimacy as a model of the subatomic realm. Your only real problem with QM is that its utility as a model doesn’t provide any evidence that it is a true picture of the factual objective world.

Am I right? Is so, then why do you have any trouble understanding me when I said your statement "the empirical proof of General Relativity means it is physical truth” is a non sequitur? To my mind, you are saying the exact same thing I am saying, only somehow GR is immune, but QM isn’t. Don’t get me wrong: I am clear on why you think GR is right and QM isn’t. I’m just puzzled how you could be so mystified by my criticism, saying my logic is broken when you have reached the same conclusion. The only difference is that I say it about ALL scientific theories while you have limited it solely to QM for reasons that seem to go no further than your disregard for QM.

David Gross a Nobel Laureate made some startling statements about the state of physics including: "We don't know what we are talking about" whilst referring to string theory as well as "The state of physics today is like it was when we were mystified by radioactivity." Some of the physicists are beginning to acknowledge there is something fundamentally wrong with our approach. You should give it some thought. Perhaps it is your thinking that is limited…

Not at all…I agree with the assessment, and recently read a couple of books to give substance to my thoughts about String Theory being bad science. I just don’t include QM in that assessment. QM fulfills its responsibility to demonstrate its scientific credentials as a theory. In fact, it is the most successful scientific theory in history, consistently providing greater accuracy and greater predictive capacity than any other scientific theory.

Do I think QM is a picture of physical reality? Not for a second. Do I think it will be superseded by a more comprehensive model that can address its flaws and contradictions? I sure hope so. In fact, my own faith in the credibility and viability of science demands it of ALL theories. The day there is a final theory of everything set in stone with no chance of being superseded is the day I will declare science to have surrendered to fascism.

By the way, there is this concept I heard about called Super Relativity that supposedly answers some of the questions QM can’t answer, and does so more comprehensively and intuitively than QM. Unfortunately, when I started to investigate it, I ran right into the problem of its fundamental assumptions of a realist metaphysics. It’s too bad really, because I can imagine how its inventor might have presented his ideas to me without couching them in ANY metaphysical framework, but simply as independent constructs in an abstract conceptual model. Granted he would almost certainly have to demonstrate the viability of these constructs with mathematics for me to buy into them, but as it is he won’t get the chance because as a thinker, motivated by the wonder of the universe, and sympathetic to scientific methodology, I was too put off by the implicit metaphysics: declaring space to be a material object by fiat, for instance, then relying on operational principles that are inconsistent with what science says about material objects…

Ah! The leaving of bubbles. The perception of mass, is for us of mass. Is based upon the tengible. Like water, air ir a solid as a stone. As you know. That when you have no mass. You cannot have an equal action and reaction. The princeple of pushing a ball or the letting out of air from a balloon. You will notice that there is no physicle evidence left after the reaction. If you put something on the ball or in the air. A color of some kind and it leaves its mark behind. Then you will have proof that indeed the ball or the air has moved. Since you can see the ball but not the air. You percieve that the ball has moved. Because of its position change. But air is not to be seen. Unless it has color. Or like a cloud which reflects light. You can feel air when the wind blows and notice the air by things that are displaced by the wind. Would one say, air has no mass? And the ball does? The way we see things in the normal way for our five sences, is not always what actually happening. Just like light. Back to dear old Einstein. He looked at the thing of light. And found out that he could measure the speed. But from a different point of view. Not the conventional way. Then we have the question. What is mass? Old style. Protons, nutrons and electrons. They make up, things like rocks and the rocks are hard. But are the electrons and nutrons and protons mass? So, what is mass?

THE KNOWLEDGE OF FINAL KNOWLEDGE? Would it be a super paradox over all the subs?

Hi Mmfiore,

Thanks for the reply – much appreciated.

1. “Emergent” – guess I misused the term. According to Hawking there is scientific theory to account for all objective phenomena. Unfortunately, as he also reminds us, the relevant science is in the form of five separate theories, with no existing objective theory common to all. As Hawking says, “It may not make sense to talk about what is real.” He makes it sound like the physical is not ‘stand-alone’ fundamental.

2. The existence of physical process implies emergence of mass which implies an expression of energy, the analysis of which implies an origin at extremely high temperatures that are said to be unachievable on earth (for achieving proof of any objective theory, etc.), and then what is the origin of that initial condition as an event having properties of time and space that had no prior expression (prior to big bang, etc.)?

3. Why separate the order of matter (objective) and the order of mind (subjective) into separate ‘dimensions’? All natural laws (objective) are extensions of the deeper Natural Order (subjective), i.e. the quality of symmetry rules all conservation law, meaning all objective expression, while symmetry, in turn is a particular of the deeper, more general and inclusive quality of the aesthetic (subjective) which guides sustainable creative choice (such as the Golden Rule, etc.) In other words, symmetry stands at the interface between the fundamental subjective realm (ends) and its emergent objective expression (means). And our neural faculties have evolved to give us exactly the analytic/synthetic skills essential to objective means, as well as aesthetic sense and feelings to guide sustainable constructive choice. In other words the subjective and the objective appear to be a continuum in terms of “meaning.”

4. A new thread on NDE’s would be most meaningful, providing convincing messages of the fundamental unity of the whole of creation, and capable of transforming human behaviour worldwide for the better.

Joe

The string theory is now the M theory. M=membrane. Interesting. Mass, is simply energy that has a certain frequency. With frequencies that have the correct ressonence. Become atoms and mollecules. That was a statement I have heard some time ago. But what is frequency? It does not explain why electrons orbit at a certain distance from the protons and nuetrons. Call shells in the old chemestry books. Back to Einsteins way of looking at things. Or not?