View Full Version : i have an idea
sunshinesunny
Nov7-07, 11:10 AM
It is a simple system with some basic things to understand first
our main thing of interest is reality; that is the central topic
reality has various realms, here the concept of realm must be understood. The realm as i see is a separate area or reality which has a different nature, various realms interact or remain separate an d thus comprise the total reality.
hence it is not just reality its is " realms of reality"
next is that these realms or reality has some rules so our statement modifies to
" rules of realms of reality"
the realms of reality and the rules have some foundations or basic roots so we have another modefication
1----roots of the rules of realms of reality
These various realms can be considered as resources
and these resources interact with each other so we have
"reactions of resources"
there are various stages to these reactions and interactions
we can state
2-"results of the reactions of resources"
combining 1 with 2 we get
"roots of the rules of results of reactions of resources of realms of reality"
the above statement may seem cumbersome at first but if you see its meaning you will find this is exactly what is the objective of all science and knowledge, that is to use the resources of reality (our brains, mind and information)to understand reality its rules which we call laws or nature or principles.
here lets again study some basic terms
1- realm
these are the various areas of reality which have a fundamentally different nature. These may interact with each other or they may remain totally isolated and hence comprise the total reality.
2- rule
it is a statement which gives a description or a relation ship. A rules can be a law, a principle, a description etc
various types of rules are
a-point rule or static rule
these describe or state some thing as a simple description of some thing
b-dynamic or directional rule
these give the relation ship between things
3- dimension
these are the various facets, areas and faces of a realm or an entity comprised of various realms.
4- sense
this is the built in wisdom which is embedded in reality substance as well as the mind as meaning and well sense is sense for it makes sense and is perhaps one of the most sensible words.
NOW
there is the realm of existence and a realm of non existence both of which comprise the reality. There are non real realties and there are real realities.
so we have
existence-----------nature -----------truth-------value
existence is studied in ontology and truth is studied in epistemology
values are of two types
qualitative and quantitative.....................
values are assigned to rules
like a qualitative value of green , red , hot , cold , good bad can be assigned to some thing there by forming a static rule
similarly there are quantitative values which are studied in mathematics
NOW realm is a very basic categorization of reality
the basic realms according to me are
1--------- realm of ideas
2----------realm of beings
3----------realms of actions
these realms interact with each other to form the reality
derived sub realms are realms are
realm of beings ---------1-mind , spirit beings
-------------------------2-physical beings including biological beings
realm of action
derived realms are
action
work
events
happenings
doings
the various realms interact with each other in complex ways and one realm has facets of other realms
when we analyze one entity for knowledge we must keep account of all the three main known realms hence i call this analysis the
Inter realm analysis which has a secondary analysis of inter dimensional analysis and inter sense analysis.
Knowledge arises due to interaction of realm of
ideas
beings both the spiritual mind and physical realm including the biological
and the real of action which is involved in the other two realms because each idea is an act and every being is an act of existence
now the entities realized as a result of the interaction of these realms can be analyzed as follows
Analyzing beings (physical and biological) should be done along following dimensions and senses
the nature of bing that is the substance and matter comprising the thing
the composition of the comprising matter
the organization scheme and designs
the mechanics and dynamics
the state of the entity
the internal inter relations of the components
the interaction of the entity with other entities
the function and operation of the entity and its action
analyzing mind can be done as
mental functions
mental operations
mental processes
mental activities
such as perception, consciousness, conception, sensation, cognition, awareness, senses
mental formuations , i.e the ideas sensations , and every thing that mind formulates in other words the mental atmosphere.
meta-analysis helps analyze mind as it tries to analyze its elf and other entittes
similarly action is single act which along with other realms creates work , act of creation , events , doings , happenings etc
various entities thus formed should be analyzed and studied under
inter realm analysis
inter dimensional analysis
and inter sense analysis
the human mental thinking is one dimensional while reality is multi dimensional. we categorize world as
classes
categories
kinds
types
forms
varieties
diversity
and study them as
subjects
areas
fields
domains
disciplines
fields
topics
points
my focus is to analyze along realms and dimensions which will become obvious to you if you have understood the sense in which i have used these words.
hence nature of mind, reality, knowledge and action is interrelated which i will explain later
What exactly is the point of this thread? The forum isn't for posting lists of personal thoughts, (although you've done a good job of defining) you need to post something that encourages valid discussion.
You might want to briefly explain what your argument is.
Pythagorean
Nov7-07, 03:10 PM
This reminds me of when I was young and wanted to encompass everything I experienced in one theory. I suspect that it comes from the fission between physical events and 'spirituality' that exists in society nowadays. Perhaps it's natural for some of to have a desire to resolve the separation between the two.
My system was about simpler. I don't believe in a soul or a spirit in the religious sense, I see it more like:
The soul is to the body as the lattice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_model_%28physics%29) is to the crystal. It's an abstract representation of a physical system. Particularly the physical events that lead to psychology and consciousness and self-awareness. A soul is how one defines their own individuality. It need not have religious/supernatural ideas attached to it.
That being said, my system was a bit more simple than this one. My idea of 'reality' had only three realms, the traditional:
mind - knowledge, knowing things, intellectual processes, physical location is the brain.
body - the instrument with which we largely interact with the physical world, form perception (eyes, nose, ears, nerves) to action (muscles, coordination)
soul - the more emotional processes in the brain, where intuition and art and self-awareness (pride in individuality) come from.
To me, all of these can be reduced to physics given enough research, but we often find it simpler to discuss things that contain a large number of tiny events (like the brain) in terms of their overall results, such as chemistry, biology, psychology.
The soul is to the body as the lattice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_model_%28physics%29) is to the crystal. It's an abstract representation of a physical system.
I beg your pardon? A "lattice" is an "abstract representation of a physical system"? Since when? What do you think is the difference between graphite and diamond? Or do you consider that difference as nothing more than an abstract representation as well?
When you can do something similar to Bragg scattering, Laue diffraction, or LEED on a soul, then I'd say you have a leg to stand on to make such a similarity. Till then, this comparision makes zero sense.
Zz.
Pythagorean
Nov8-07, 01:20 AM
I beg your pardon? A "lattice" is an "abstract representation of a physical system"? Since when? What do you think is the difference between graphite and diamond? Or do you consider that difference as nothing more than an abstract representation as well?
When you can do something similar to Bragg scattering, Laue diffraction, or LEED on a soul, then I'd say you have a leg to stand on to make such a similarity. Till then, this comparision makes zero sense.
Zz.
I think you're taking it a little far with your last paragraph. Bragg scattering on a 'soul'?
I'm not comparing a lattice to a soul. It was an analogy (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/analogy): (particularly definition 2b)
"The soul is to the body as the lattice is to the crystal"
I'm not implying that the soul exists in an ethereal world or anything! The soul exists just as the lattice does.. an idea in people's heads. The lattice is not the crystal, the lattice is our theoretical description of the crystal. The crystal is the real physical thing. Our souls only exist in our minds, a theoretical description of our social behavior, our brain is the real physical thing
the "particulars" (from def 2b) I'm comparing follow from the following argument that you may or may not agree with, but it is what was taught by my solid state professor, who's pretty much the solid state guy in this state as far as I know.
The lattice is not physical, it is a description, a theoretical structure used to define something that's physical.
The idea is that what most people experience as a soul is (besides being a product of their imagination) their own perception of their individuality (their behavioral structure, their theoretical description of themselves, where they put themselves (or get put) in society).
This being said, you see why I would think Bragg Scattering on the Soul is a silly idea (other than it not having anything to do with the discussion)? How I was taught, you don't beam the lattice (it's a drawing on a piece of paper) you beam the (NaCl in my case) crystal.
Your instructor actually told you that a lattice is not physical? And he is the "solid state guy in your state"? Really!
If it is not physical, then you have not explained to me the difference between graphite and diamond.
You also have a strange way of defining what a "lattice" is. A "crystal" is simply an object having a "crystal lattice", as opposed to an amorphous object having no well-defined "lattice". Now if I use this "lattice" as the defining property of the object, how is this a "theoretical structure" not a physical one?
I don't care about your definition of a "soul". I do, however, think that you have made a silly analogy.
Zz.
Pythagorean
Nov8-07, 04:09 PM
(note: perhaps we should move this to solid state and drop the rest of the argument. I'm interested in other people's ideas)
Your instructor actually told you that a lattice is not physical? And he is the "solid state guy in your state"? Really!
It's our description of a physical thing, not the actual thing, are you hiding a fundamental belief that conflicts with 'descriptions of physical things not being physical'? Is this what the arguments about so we can cut the fat?
The lattice has no imperfections and we generally don't imagine edges on it (because that would be hard for some calculations in intro solid state).
If it is not physical, then you have not explained to me the difference between graphite and diamond.
I don't understand what this has to do with it.
Graphite and diamond have different structures as well as different physical properties. I don't have my Kittel book but I remember diamond being more complex (though similar) to draw than graphite.
Diamond has a shorter bond length that leads to way different physical properties than graphite.
You also have a strange way of defining what a "lattice" is. A "crystal" is simply an object having a "crystal lattice", as opposed to an amorphous object having no well-defined "lattice". Now if I use this "lattice" as the defining property of the object, how is this a "theoretical structure" not a physical one?
I know you hate wiki, but this will give you an idea of how abstract lattices are and how their application to crystals arouse. The atomic lattice IS on this map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_of_lattices
also, the main lattice wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_(order)
I don't care about your definition of a "soul". I do, however, think that you have made a silly analogy.
good, it's a pretty useless aspect of the argument anyway. I was more relating to the OP than trying to make profound philosophical statements. The little model of reality I described is not something I'm going to research or publish on; it was something I came up with in high schoold a decade ago. I don't even really think it's well thought out or complete at all.
What I hate more than using Wikipedia as a source is citing wikipedia using the word in the wrong context! I can't believe you think that what you cited as anything to do with how the word "lattice" is being used in solid state physics!
Why don't you actually go look in Kittel and point to me where such a concept is not physical. Tell me a "lattice point" and a "lattice constant" are such abstract concepts.
You should never have invoked something in physics to illustrate what you admitted is a weak idea.
zz.
Pythagorean
Nov8-07, 05:14 PM
It's not the wrong context. It is a completely abstract ordering model in mathematics that leads to the crystal lattice. The crystal lattice is only one of many semimodular lattices (particularly an atomic lattice).
I don't see how this could be proven wrong or right. I don't see how it could even affect my ability to do science, as this kind of discussion doesn't come up when doing real science. Either way, I'm going to use the lattice model just the same to study real crystals.
We don't stop in the middle of work and discuss whether the lattice is physical or not, but we don't consider the crystal and the lattice the same thing.
It's not the wrong context. It is a completely abstract ordering model in mathematics that leads to the crystal lattice. The crystal lattice is only one of many semimodular lattices (particularly an atomic lattice).
You still haven't given me any explanation on why something called the lattice constant would have a physical significance.
I don't see how this could be proven wrong or right.
Ah, so that is why you would mention such a thing only in the philosophy forum. It certainly does not qualify as a science.
Zz.
Pythagorean
Nov8-07, 06:28 PM
You still haven't given me any explanation on why something called the lattice constant would have a physical significance.
The lattice constant can be described using lattice units (which aren't physical)
or real physical units (usually angstroms).
There's always physical significance there, but the lattice (as I've been taught) is the model that describes it, not the actual physical thing. It's a human construct used to better work with it, because real crystals don't have little lines connecting their atoms and their atoms are much bigger than the lattice portrays them.
Ah, so that is why you would mention such a thing only in the philosophy forum. It certainly does not qualify as a science.
exactly! It's a philosophical discussion! It's for fun, not progress. I assure that when I did the Bragg Diffraction experiment with a NaCl crystal, and described the resulting lattice shape, this discussion never came up because it doesn't help us determine the results any better or make any new predictions.
My whole philosophy behind science is that it's not reality, it's a description (probably the best) of reality. Important, but subtle difference.
The lattice constant can be described using lattice units (which aren't physical)
or real physical units (usually angstroms).
There's always physical significance there, but the lattice (as I've been taught) is the model that describes it, not the actual physical thing. It's a human construct used to better work with it, because real crystals don't have little lines connecting their atoms and their atoms are much bigger than the lattice portrays them.
Er.. I'm sorry? Your definition of a "lattice" has what?!! "little lines connecting their atoms"? Er.. this is what a lattice is that you learned out of Kittel????!!!
Horrors! I would ask for my money back!
Zz.
Pythagorean
Nov8-07, 06:48 PM
Er.. I'm sorry? Your definition of a "lattice" has what?!! "little lines connecting their atoms"? Er.. this is what a lattice is that you learned out of Kittel????!!!
Horrors! I would ask for my money back!
Zz.
this is what I learned is a lattice:
http://inorganic.chemistry.pu.edu.tw/first/New/L4/nacl.gif
this is what I learned is a real crystal:
http://www.okc.cc.ok.us/sshore/personal/nacl.gif
They're both NaCl, but one is much more physical than the other.
And I did get my money back ;)
You learned solid state physics via an "artist rendition"? And you think THIS is what a lattice is?
Oy vey!
... and you have no problems with those "spheres"?
I still want to know where you learned this out of Kittel? What did he say about those "lines"?
Again, I would ask for my money back if I were you.
Zz.
Pythagorean
Nov8-07, 08:12 PM
Yeah, an artist rendition is how I've learned everything in my theory classes. Did you have your face in an electron microscope when you were taking theoretical classes? We can't afford a solid state lab here for academic purposes.
I wouldn't say I have problems with anything here, it's just impotent discussion. You'd have to ask a more specific question, I guess. I don't think the spheres are exactly how crystals look, but they're more physical than the lines and tiny atoms held far apart from each other.
I don't have my kittel book anymore. The claim that lattices aren't physical came from lecture, though.
And again, I already did get my money back.
A "lattice" has no "lines".
Now, do you think it is still it is an 'abstract representation'?
Zz.
Pythagorean
Nov8-07, 11:48 PM
Yes, I still think it's abstract, just like I think a free body diagram is abstract: It's simplified and doesn't represent a particularly real system; it represents an ideal system that you can use to approximate real systems that are similar to it.
What I hate more than using Wikipedia as a source
zz.
then help to make Wikipedia a good source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics
like it or not- Wikipedia is now the primary reference for all human knowledge in the developed world- and it's foothold on knowledge is only going to grow over the near term- it is our Alexandria- if it has any incorrect information about science then it needs to be fixed- or else we risk that the incorrect information will actually be considered the official record-
then help to make Wikipedia a good source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics
like it or not- Wikipedia is now the primary reference for all human knowledge in the developed world- and it's foothold on knowledge is only going to grow over the near term- it is our Alexandria- if it has any incorrect information about science then it needs to be fixed- or else we risk that the incorrect information will actually be considered the official record-You have absolutely no idea about the problems with wikipedia if you would make a statement like that.
jim mcnamara
Nov9-07, 04:47 PM
People will do malicious, stupid things to entries that a knowledgeable person may have entered correctly into wikipedia. For example, just changing a couple of - signs at random to + signs. Testosterone mediated behaviors....
People with an axe to grind commit absolute murder in some topic areas. Until there is an opengroup that stops idiots and quacks, there is little hope.
It's a good starting point - or if you personally know the subject matter is correct you can create a static link to it, so that future mutilation doesn't affect the link you have. But overall it is neither an accurate nor a dependable resource.
People will do malicious, stupid things to entries that a knowledgeable person may have entered correctly into wikipedia. For example, just changing a couple of - signs at random to + signs. Testosterone mediated behaviors....
anyone who does something like that get's IP banned within minutes and their vandalism is removed as fast as it appeared- with full information about what happened in the discussion section- references- and a complete history- you are just spreading the urban myth about Wiki being unreliable- it simply isn't true- and it is because of so many academics and teachers dealing with their students using wiki- years ago the academic community cleaned it up and keep it accurate
People with an axe to grind commit absolute murder in some topic areas. Until there is an opengroup that stops idiots and quacks, there is little hope.
have you ever even looked at the discussion section for each topic on Wiki? there you will find that for each topic or field their are often dozens of conservative anal nerds that literally spend every waking hour of there day lying in wait for trolls that might put in a pronoun that isn't cited and peer-reviewed in every major scientific journal- they immediately pounce and fix the page- and issue bannings left and right- anyone concerned with the integrity of information at Wiki should rest easy- every so often some bad info gets on there for a few hours- but there are just too many ultraconservative academics who spend all day and night obsessed with keeping Wiki accurate
anyone who does something like that get's IP banned within minutes and their vandalism is removed as fast as it appeared- with full information about what happened in the discussion section- references- and a complete history- you are just spreading the urban myth about Wiki being unreliable- it simply isn't true- and it is because of so many academics and teachers dealing with their students using wiki- years ago the academic community cleaned it up and keep it accurate
have you ever even looked at the discussion section for each topic on Wiki? there you will find that for each topic or field their are often dozens of conservative anal nerds that literally spend every waking hour of there day lying in wait for trolls that might put in a pronoun that isn't cited and peer-reviewed in every major scientific journal- they immediately pounce and fix the page- and issue bannings left and right- anyone concerned with the integrity of information at Wiki should rest easy- every so often some bad info gets on there for a few hours- but there are just too many ultraconservative academics who spend all day and night obsessed with keeping Wiki accurateZz and Chris Hillman can give you great examples of messes. I myself have seen vandalism which went unnoticed. What about the vandalism to the UK page that got so bad that they had to shut it down for a week or two.
You never know when you read something on wikipedia if what you are looking at is correct.
You never know when you read something on wikipedia if what you are looking at is correct.
why not use the DISCUSSION page and the banners? [which tell you if the entry is disputed- or has seals of approval] most of the science entries I visit there are moderated by at least 5-6 people and are updated several times a day- at least on the American Wikipedia- I have no idea as to the state of other countries- ours might be ahead of the rest in terms of moderation- pranksters have no chance to deface data any more- any such attempt sets off the wolves
JoeDawg
Nov13-07, 07:53 PM
You never know when you read something on wikipedia if what you are looking at is correct.
Isn't that true of reading in general?
Isn't that true of reading in general?This is different, it might be right at this very moment, but 10 minutes later, it's changed, tomorrow it's changed again. You absolutely cannot trust a source that can change minute by minute. At least with a book it doesn't change and you can read critiques that let you know if errors have been found.
JoeDawg
Nov13-07, 08:14 PM
This is different, it might be right at this very moment, but 10 minutes later, it's changed, tomorrow it's changed again. You absolutely cannot trust a source that can change minute by minute. At least with a book it doesn't change and you can read critiques that let you know if errors have been found.
Welcome to the internet.
sunshinesunny
Nov14-07, 10:23 AM
It is a simple system with some basic things to understand first
our main thing of interest is reality; that is the central topic
reality has various realms, here the concept of realm must be understood. The realm as i see is a separate area or reality which has a different nature, various realms interact or remain separate an d thus comprise the total reality.
hence it is not just reality its is " realms of reality"
next is that these realms or reality has some rules so our statement modifies to
" rules of realms of reality"
the realms of reality and the rules have some foundations or basic roots so we have another modefication
1----roots of the rules of realms of reality
These various realms can be considered as resources
and these resources interact with each other so we have
"reactions of resources"
there are various stages to these reactions and interactions
we can state
2-"results of the reactions of resources"
combining 1 with 2 we get
"roots of the rules of results of reactions of resources of realms of reality"
the above statement may seem cumbersome at first but if you see its meaning you will find this is exactly what is the objective of all science and knowledge, that is to use the resources of reality (our brains, mind and information)to understand reality its rules which we call laws or nature or principles.
here lets again study some basic terms
1- realm
these are the various areas of reality which have a fundamentally different nature. These may interact with each other or they may remain totally isolated and hence comprise the total reality.
2- rule
it is a statement which gives a description or a relation ship. A rules can be a law, a principle, a description etc
various types of rules are
a-point rule or static rule
these describe or state some thing as a simple description of some thing
b-dynamic or directional rule
these give the relation ship between things
3- dimension
these are the various facets, areas and faces of a realm or an entity comprised of various realms.
4- sense
this is the built in wisdom which is embedded in reality substance as well as the mind as meaning and well sense is sense for it makes sense and is perhaps one of the most sensible words.
NOW
there is the realm of existence and a realm of non existence both of which comprise the reality. There are non real realties and there are real realities.
so we have
existence-----------nature -----------truth-------value
existence is studied in ontology and truth is studied in epistemology
values are of two types
qualitative and quantitative.....................
values are assigned to rules
like a qualitative value of green , red , hot , cold , good bad can be assigned to some thing there by forming a static rule
similarly there are quantitative values which are studied in mathematics
NOW realm is a very basic categorization of reality
the basic realms according to me are
1--------- realm of ideas
2----------realm of beings
3----------realms of actions
these realms interact with each other to form the reality
derived sub realms are realms are
realm of beings ---------1-mind , spirit beings
-------------------------2-physical beings including biological beings
realm of action
derived realms are
action
work
events
happenings
doings
the various realms interact with each other in complex ways and one realm has facets of other realms
when we analyze one entity for knowledge we must keep account of all the three main known realms hence i call this analysis the
Inter realm analysis which has a secondary analysis of inter dimensional analysis and inter sense analysis.
Knowledge arises due to interaction of realm of
ideas
beings both the spiritual mind and physical realm including the biological
and the real of action which is involved in the other two realms because each idea is an act and every being is an act of existence
now the entities realized as a result of the interaction of these realms can be analyzed as follows
Analyzing beings (physical and biological) should be done along following dimensions and senses
the nature of bing that is the substance and matter comprising the thing
the composition of the comprising matter
the organization scheme and designs
the mechanics and dynamics
the state of the entity
the internal inter relations of the components
the interaction of the entity with other entities
the function and operation of the entity and its action
analyzing mind can be done as
mental functions
mental operations
mental processes
mental activities
such as perception, consciousness, conception, sensation, cognition, awareness, senses
mental formuations , i.e the ideas sensations , and every thing that mind formulates in other words the mental atmosphere.
meta-analysis helps analyze mind as it tries to analyze its elf and other entittes
similarly action is single act which along with other realms creates work , act of creation , events , doings , happenings etc
various entities thus formed should be analyzed and studied under
inter realm analysis
inter dimensional analysis
and inter sense analysis
the human mental thinking is one dimensional while reality is multi dimensional. we categorize world as
classes
categories
kinds
types
forms
varieties
diversity
and study them as
subjects
areas
fields
domains
disciplines
fields
topics
points
my focus is to analyze along realms and dimensions which will become obvious to you if you have understood the sense in which i have used these words.
hence nature of mind, reality, knowledge and action is interrelated which i will explain later
all of you read the original post care fully and discuss what you gather from it
Math Is Hard
Nov23-07, 04:55 PM
all of you read the original post care fully and discuss what you gather from it
I think you're the one who needs to read the post carefully, because all I see here is mumbo jumbo. You were given a chance to explain your thoughts, and you haven't made any effort toward this.
Thread closed.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.