Exploring Reality Beyond Peter Lynds: Measurement, Thinking, and Concepts

[sascha]

Independently of whether Peter Lynds is really right or wrong, I think he has put his finger on a sore spot in the way reality as a whole is most often being approached. This spot shows also in a few points which are obviously not well reflected as yet in the debate on Linds. Many ask for an experimental verification of any theory, even in this case of conceiving time in general (which is not left so general, e.g. in RT with its assumptions, and even less in QT). They seem to forget that the criteria for judging empirical reality can never be found in empirical data themselves, since they are implicit already in the way of choosing / organizing the data.

One may be aware or unaware of such circularities, but in any case they must one day be be revealed and transcended. This cannot be done by an experiment, as many scientists believe. In my opinion (my field is philosophy of science), the real issue is the problem of measurement, which is linked to the problems of what a concept is, what thinking is (and to what extent it is possible and can be cear), and so on. The ultimately relevant aspect for any understanding is always of the conceptual sort (more precisely: of the categoreal sort), not empirical.

All this has not been clarified to the bottom, among others also because the (very influential, and sometimes even a bit pushy) analytical branch of philosophy has narowed down the possible results by a trend to formalize all and sundry, reducing its thinking to a naive belief in science. In this way, the possibility of a really integrative view has considerably been reduced. The result is a maze of detail theories and no way of getting absolutely all of it together again -- getting lost in the bits and pieces.

In case somebody is interested in serious work in this sector, let's get together and do something. In the last years I have developed an approach that might be helpful. There are also some texts and publications, among others on the hitherto controversial concept of mass.

Sascha
sascha@magnet.ch

 

[chroot]

Who the **** cares about Peter Lynds?

Who are you ****ing quacks who keep making random posts about him here?

- Warren

 

[sascha]

Thanks for your contribution, so remarkably emotional. Is this the usual rationality of physicists? If the words “Peter Lynds” disturbs you, you may simply leave them away and respond to the problem as is stated, which is independent of any person. It would be a pity if you were at loss of arguments.

 

[Eh]

Maybe some physicists are just tired of hearing people harp on about someone's repackaging of old ideas?

 

[sascha]

Sure, I can appreciate such being tired. That is why I talk about ‘beyond’. After all, the problem of measurability and of the ‘blind spot’ in its logic is not solved. Do you think it is unreasonable to seek solutions for that? I think there is more potential to understanding than what is being discussed in physics -- also beyond eg. George Spencer-Brown, Gotthard Guenther, and similar approaches, in case you know them. Not absolutely everything is ‘by convention’ (Democritus). You forget the question of the ultimate reference frame. I guess if Lynds were only repackaging some old ideas, there would be less turmoil about him.

 

[Eh]

I think being over hyped by the media without actually accomplishing anything is the likely reason for any "turmoil".

 

[sascha]

OK, let’s assume the "turmoil" is merely a result of media hype. But then what about the problems he touches upon? These are what I am targeting. But you don’t seem to want to hear that side.

 

[sascha]

Eh,

judging by your obstinate silence concerning the real problem -- which is that ultimately you have only beliefs to offer, but no absolutely secure knowledge -- you seem to want to slip away. This attitude is usually called religion. You show this already in your Democritus citation. The belief that “in reality there are only atoms and space” is confirmed ever less by physics, since atomism has been overcome by QT. None of the many particles is strictly eternal; hence this cannot be the ultimate basis. There is no lower limit to the ‘pieces’, it is only a question of how much energy you pump into the breakup process. The attempt to solve the riddle of in terms of ‘energy’ and ‘information’ can’t lead to an absolutely secure understanding, because those concepts are themselves not totally fundamental. Energy is no primitive, but spatiotemporally organized force. And cybernetic information does not contain the information that allows to distinguish between meaning and noise. You remain in an anthropocentrism; there is no secure basis, just beliefs. This is why the public increasingly wants to know what eg. physicists are doing with the taxpayer’s money. Being able to manipulate something does not mean having understood fully what one is manipulating. It will not be sufficient any more to offer machanisms for producing gadgets and bombs; science is about more than that, and people will want to know. So your silence is counter-productive. You should realize this. That’s why I am telling you.

 

[chroot]

The proton is probably stable, and therefore "eternal."

The leptons and quarks have been demonstrated both theoretically and experimentally to be truly fundamental particles. Whether or not they can be represented as strings, and whether or not that representation buys us anything, has yet to be seen.

I don't know any physicists who would say they're trying to solve any riddles.

No one cares about your "cybernetic information."

If all you think science has given mankind are "gadgets and bombs," I pity you and your unimaginably pathetic intellect.

Last, but not least, this **** does not belong in the Physics forum. Moderators?

- Warren

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by chroot
The proton is probably stable, and therefore "eternal."

The leptons and quarks have been demonstrated both theoretically and experimentally to be truly fundamental particles. Whether or not they can be represented as strings, and whether or not that representation buys us anything, has yet to be seen.

I don't know any physicists who would say they're trying to solve any riddles.

No one cares about your "cybernetic information."

If all you think science has given mankind are "gadgets and bombs," I pity you and your unimaginably pathetic intellect.

Last, but not least, this **** does not belong in the Physics forum. Moderators?

- Warren

Yes moderators indeed. I can't tell weather it's fear or arrogance I'm sensing, but either way, you're way out of line. Are you always such a cockmaster to new posters?

Last time I checked the subject of physics was open-ended topic which didn't contain all the answers. Since you appear to know everything, perhaps you can enlighten us with your dissertation on a completed unified theory?

No? I didn't think so. Just because you don't happen to agree with something does not give you the right to be a jackass. So at the very least you should have phrased yourself differently. This is a topic pertaining to physics. Just because it challenges things that you think you KNOW are true, doesn't give you the right be be rude, arrogant, or dictate terms here. Perhaps you should reconsider your posts.

TO the moderators I say: Is this the type of behavior we need to tolerate on a physics board?

CHROOT, please put yourself in check you infantile egomaniac. If you need to start swearing at people, try www.chat.yahoo.com[/url] or [url]www.aol.com[/URL] I'm sure they'd welcome you there

 

[Arc_Central]

Chalk up another discussion ruined before it got started thread - Thanks to the bully of the boards. Isn't he special?

If I were a moderator - I'd boot him. Regardless of his walking encyclopedia of (ideas)? There is no need whatsoever for this garbage being be played out. I say boot him because I really don't think chroot can help himself - Meaning ... he will ruin other threads at some other date without fail. Be gone with him and good riddings.





The dude is tantamount to an emotional pig.

The least a moderator can expect is an apology from chroot to Sasha for hijacking the thread.

 

[FZ+]

Uh... is there really any need to walk into a discussion you haven't taken part into give someone a personal insult?

Chroot can get a bit emotional at times. So can other people, as your post shows.

 

[Arc_Central]

FZ

I happened to be interested in the discussion, and was planning on being a part of it. Whats the point when some jerk destroys any possibility for such an event?

And yep ... I'm being emotional. It's called pissed.

 

[FZ+]

Lesson you learn in life. When pissed, don't talk.*

*: Instead, plot death and destruction to your enemies.

 

[Zantra]

I only see one unimaginably pathetic thing so far, and it's not sascha's intellect.

Oh and what I said wasn't emotional. I was completely calm when I said it, and I don't intend to retract a single word.

Perhaps now we can get back on track?

 

[chroot]

When did I ruin, hijack, or destroy this thread?

I made a very reasoned and accurate response to sascha's comments, and then pointed out that this is not the appropriate forum for this kind of discussion. The rest of you poop-flinging chimpanzees are the ones who loused the thread up.

Despite what you may think Zantra, this forum is certainly not open-ended. That's why we have both a physics forum AND a theoretical physics forum. This thread does not belong here.

Oh, and Arc_central, you've already demonstrated your mongoloid gray matter before. Go away.

- Warren

 

[Arc_Central]

Chroot and for the moderators.

I made a very reasoned and accurate response to sascha's comments, and then pointed out that this is not the appropriate forum for this kind of discussion. The rest of you poop-flinging chimpanzees are the ones who loused the thread up.

You did no such thing, and I quote.

Who the **** cares about Peter Lynds?

Who are you ****ing quacks who keep making random posts about him here?

This is the stuff that (chimpanzees) are made of. Who's kidding who here? This is how you hijack a thread, because now we are only talking about you - Rather then the overall intention of the thread. You have done this before, and I suspect...will do it agian and again and again. I must admit that you can't help yourself, but why should that be an excuse? I submit that moderators are called for...for there really is no other option open to those people willing to discuss in a civilized manner ... the topic or topics in question.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by sascha

Eh,

judging by your obstinate silence concerning the real problem -- which is that ultimately you have only beliefs to offer, but no absolutely secure knowledge -- you seem to want to slip away.

Actually if you noticed, I didn't offer any belief on the validity of his claims at all. My only criticism is that his ideas are far from being revolutionary, groundbreaking or even all that new as it has been hyped by by the media.

This attitude is usually called religion. You show this already in your Democritus citation. The belief that “in reality there are only atoms and space” is confirmed ever less by physics, since atomism has been overcome by QT.

I put the quote there because it was a good prescient guess. Atoms don't have indepdent existence of their associated fields, and there is no void, but some of the ideas came fairly close. The basic idea of reducing nature to a single "thing" (whether or not a string, loop or field is more fundemental) is quite close to the modern physics, and it's an impressive education guess considering it was made in a time that people still believed in deities from the sky.

 

[FZ+]

It might be a good idea for the moderator to lock this thread since it has gotten so far off track. There are other threads around dealing with the same topic in the philosophy forum/theoretical physics, so people might be better advised to leave the combustible baggage and talk more sensibly there.

 

[On Radioactive Waves]

Ha Ha Ha. Chroot asked for a moderator and everyone follows suit.

Maybe if you groveled to the mentors whom actualy exist here, someone might care?

And last note (of which I made myself guilty of right, now but needed to point out):

If you want to discuss physics, THEN DISCUSS IT! It certainly gets you further than bickering.


This lookks like another one of those "no one will listen to what I have to say because I'd rather spindoctor myself up a little sympathy" type threads

 

[Lightyear]

I'd suggest that some of you actually read his papers. They're dead on. The ideas in them are also certainly original. Try http://www.peterlynds.net.nz