Register to reply

A revolution in Physics needed?

by math_04
Tags: physics, revolution
Share this thread:
Feb22-09, 06:14 AM
Fra's Avatar
P: 2,799
Quote Quote by Dmitry67 View Post
let me give an example. A manual on the INTEL processor, the one probably installed in your computer, inambigously describes every tiny detail of how INTEL processor works.
Ok, I think I see what you mean. I have to say I do not believe such a "TOE" or set of cpu-instructions for the universe will ever be seen.

Quote Quote by Dmitry67 View Post
When you talk about the frog's view and bird's view, this is important. We can not discover all FACTS about the birds view, but we can decipher all LAWS of the Bird's view, like we can find a form of 3D object looking at it's 2D shadow. This is exactly what we did before: we were looking at reality (gamma rays, K-mesons, blach holes) thru the prism of our experminatal devices. We can not see an elector forming a wave in an atom. We interpret some spikes and numbers, coming out of the computer. Deciphering the bird's view is not more difficult.
This is exactly the point. To induce the birds view, from the frogs view is a game, an guesswork, it is not a certain deduction, that is the basic reason for my entire attitutude here.

I do not think there exists no universal deduction scheme todo this. Such a scheme does however develop spontaneously, but it is not universal, and it's not a deductice process. As I see it, any process-strategy is either beneficial or non-beneficial to the observer, this feedback evolves the very induction strategy.

It's this evolution I think we might sniff onto. But I don't think it's possible to find any fixed evolution laws. Even THESE laws are subject to change. At some point, it's all we've got, and it's on what our actions are based. For sure the frog would gladly think that this is his deduce birds view, but it's nevertheless just an evolving guess, an image - and the point is that as far as the frogs actions goes, it does not matter if it's "just an image", because it's nevertheless the basis for all frogs actions!

The difference is when you analyse interacting frogs, the assumption that their "bird views" are the same is a mistake IMHO. I try to avoid that mistake. They can however emerge to be the same, but far from equilibrium, this is I think not the general case to expect.

The difference here, is that since I acknowledge this limit, I do not focus on the unattainable goal (the perfect symmetry or perfect birds view) I focus on the dynamics and evolutionary mechanics of it. I think this is a more efficient strategy.

Feb22-09, 06:36 AM
Dmitry67's Avatar
P: 2,456
unattainable goal? I dont understand your pessimism. In your answer you repeat many times that "it can not be done", but I dont see WHY. Have we ever failed before?
Feb22-09, 06:49 AM
Fra's Avatar
P: 2,799
Quote Quote by Dmitry67 View Post
unattainable goal? I dont understand your pessimism. In your answer you repeat many times that "it can not be done", but I dont see WHY.
Oh, I am not pessimistic, on the contrary do I look step right into the darkest part and accept the challange.

Quote Quote by Dmitry67 View Post
Have we ever failed before?
Failed what? that is the question.

1) Never ever before have we failed to make progress - this is my emphasis. Progress, not perfection. By setting progress into your target seeker, rather than perfection, I think more efficient progress will be made, because the focus is more tuned.

2) But never ever before have we attained perfection :) As I'm sure you agree current models are great, useful and amazing, but not perfect.

My conjecture is that the BEST model, WILL come with some inconsistencies, if you keep looking for a perfectly consistent model to explain everything, you may be misguided.

This does NOT mean I don't care about inconsistencies, on the contrary. Inconsistencies are there to be removed, and inconsistencies in our understanding is the very driving force. I also think inconsistencies between the frog views are responsible for interactions.

So this is not a "problem" or "flaw", I think it's how nature works. How about the mad thought that inconsistenceis are continously appearing and resolve, and that's the flow of time. This is self-organisation and evolution at it's best.

Feb22-09, 06:56 AM
Fra's Avatar
P: 2,799
Quote Quote by Dmitry67 View Post
In your answer you repeat many times that "it can not be done", but I dont see WHY.
Ok, do I know with certaint that it can't be done? No of course not.

Do I need to KNOW for sure in order to make a decision? No.

In fact life is in general composed of decisions made upon incomplete information.
It's part of the game.

I have more reason to believe it can not be done, than the opposite. My personal intution tells me it is the wrong focus.

If I want to get as close to X as possible, I do not ask "can I reach X".
I ask, what is my next step to get closer to my goal, irrespective of
wether the goal will be reached or not.

To add the constraint that is WILL be reached with certainty, adds constraints
on my actions, and this may inhibit me from finding the shortest path.

Still my strategy never prevents me from reaching X! If it's attainable I might reach it,
but my journey is not depending on the destination. I just "move forward".


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Scientific Revolution: Newtonian Physics - gravity waiting to be discovered? Introductory Physics Homework 4
PHYSICS HELP NEEDeD Introductory Physics Homework 5
Single man revolution in Theoretical Physics today? General Physics 6
Stunning Revolution in Physics or dumb Newspaper? General Physics 6
New theory of time-space: revolution in physics 1 General Physics 0