History Biographies, History, Philosophy of Physics

[sbrothy]

On a more serious note and spurred on by this thread: RIP Jayant Narlikar (1938-2025)

I dug this one up:

Jayant Vishnu Narlikar

An essay on Jyant Narlikar in the Living Legends of Indian Science series of the journal Current Science.

 

[TensorCalculus]

I cannot take this paper even remotely serious:

Quantum Panprotopsychism and a Consciousness-centered Universe

Even though I know panpsychism is an "established" philosophical theory, the word "panprotopsychism" just gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies! And what is it with connecting consciousness with quantum mechanics? Yeah I know, the observer thingy and whatnot but it just reeks of meta-metaphysics!

It may be that it's prefectly serious (certainly the authors seem to take it seriously). I just can't.

I understood just about none of that and gave up a couple of pages in in favour of finishing the book I was reading

On a more serious note and spurred on by this thread: RIP Jayant Narlikar (1938-2025)

I dug this one up:

Jayant Vishnu Narlikar

 

[fresh_42]

I cannot take this paper even remotely serious:

Quantum Panprotopsychism and a Consciousness-centered Universe

Even though I know panpsychism is an "established" philosophical theory, the word "panprotopsychism" just gives me the screaming heebie-jeebies! And what is it with connecting consciousness with quantum mechanics? Yeah I know, the observer thingy and whatnot but it just reeks of meta-metaphysics!

It may be that it's prefectly serious (certainly the authors seem to take it seriously). I just can't.

I didn't want to investigate this paper further than reading the abstract since I share your opinion. Considering consciousness as a consequence of quantum mechanics isn't new. It tries to link its randomness, better, uncertainty to the randomness of individuality. To me, this is an artificial bridge resulting from the lack of understanding of both.

What remains is the observation that the universe created an entity, us, that investigates itself, and it knows about this fact. Hence, the university has self-awareness, and the philosophical consequences of this observation are part of this investigation. Whether this is sufficient to attribute consciousness to the universe is a different, philosophical question. And whether this is due to quantum mechanical principles is a bit far-fetched in my opinion. To me, it is more of a modern version of worshiping the sun god than a real correlation or cause. However, as long as people do not know what the sun is, or Kepler's laws, as long as there will be people justifying the sun god.

 

[Hornbein]

Then there's the esoteric philosophy of pre-post-panprotopsychism.

 

[sbrothy]

Then there's the esoteric philosophy of pre-post-panprotopsychism.

Yeah, it turtles all the way down!

 

[fresh_42]

This is at odds with the current view about the human condition that was strongly influenced by a science based on classical mechanicism, and led to nihilism and existentialism in late 19th-century Europe, and more recently to the rise of anti-foundationalists perspectives. The centrality of consciousness resulting from the incorporation of a quantum ontology into our worldview leads us to reconsider the nihilistic view and conclude that we live in a world in which a precise physical order leads to people capable of accessing a transcendent phenomenal realm.

To me, this is word salad. It seems to be in line with what other aging scientists have published at the end of their lives. I'm particularly thinking about Michael Francis Atiyah and his claim to have solved the RH, or of what I personally witnessed, a lecture by Konrad Zuse in the early 90s, and his early 80s about his current "research". It is a bit sad when such stories overshadow earlier, great achievements.

 

[sbrothy]

Speaking of word salad. It kind of reminds of Immanuel Kant, who was apparently a little vain:

"[...] Kant was baptized as Emanuel and later changed the spelling of his name to Immanuel after learning Hebrew. [...]"

---- Wikipedia (cf: Kuehn, Manfred (2001). Kant: a Biography. Cambridge University Press.)

Maybe being Jewish was just in at the time?!

Sorry for the aside. What I wanted to say was that, when I was younger, I tried to read his books but found it nigh on impossible. Of course much of it was due to the fact that I'm just not that smart, and that my attention span leaves a lot to be desired, especially in the context of metaphysic philosophers such as Kant. Still, as a product of his time, he argued:

"[...] that the human understanding is the source of the general laws of nature that structure all our experience; and that human reason gives itself the moral law, which is our basis for belief in God, freedom, and immortality. Therefore, scientific knowledge, morality, and religious belief are mutually consistent and secure because they all rest on the same foundation of human autonomy, which is also the final end of nature according to the teleological worldview of reflecting judgment that Kant introduces to unify the theoretical and practical parts of his philosophical system. [...]"

(Again one of those words which gives the willies: "teleological".)

Although he may have been inspired by Newton he couldn't escape his religious views.

"[...] Although now recognized as one of the greatest works in the history of philosophy, the Critique disappointed Kant's readers upon its initial publication. The book was long, over 800 pages in the original German edition, and written in a convoluted style. Kant was quite upset with its reception. [...]

I'm not entirely sure what the word "greatest" is supposed to mean here. I can just imagine him complaining that he was surrounded by idiots! I guess it's really no wonder I couldn't make it to the end.

 

[TensorCalculus]

Speaking of word salad. It kind of reminds of Immanuel Kant, who was apparently a little vain:


---- Wikipedia (cf: Kuehn, Manfred (2001). Kant: a Biography. Cambridge University Press.)

Maybe being Jewish was just in at the time?!

Sorry for the aside. What I wanted to say was that, when I was younger, I tried to read his books but found it nigh on impossible. Of course much of it was due to the fact that I'm just not that smart, and that my attention span leaves a lot to be desired, especially in the context of metaphysic philosophers such as Kant. Still, as a product of his time, he argued:



(Again one of those words which gives the willies: "teleological".)

Although he may have been inspired by Newton he couldn't escape his religious views.



I'm not entirely sure what the word "greatest" is supposed to mean here. I can just imagine him complaining that he was surrounded by idiots! I guess it's really no wonder I couldn't make it to the end.

Immanuel Kant is a name I've heard again and again in our PER (Philosophy, Ethics, Religion) lessons. Some of his philosophies are really interesting.
That being said, I also find them extremely confusing. My brain often ends up going on tangents after PER lessons.
Newton himself couldn't escape his religious views: he was definitely deeply religious and I remember reading in some book somewhere about how he chose to believe in absolute time because he thought it would violate his religious views if time were otherwise.

Don't quote me on that last one though... I really can't remember where I got it from...

 

[sbrothy]

Yeah, about Newton there was also something about his rotating bucket-on-a-rope thought-experiment that he knew was wrong but he couldn't put his finger on it. Can't remember if it violated the no-special-frame-of-reference or it was more involved. I'm just about to turn in. Don't want to read a lot right now....

EDIT: Or maybe he *could* put his finger on it but choose to ignore it.

 

[TensorCalculus]

Yeah, about Newton there was also something about his rotating bucket-on-a-rope thought-experiment that he knew was wrong but he couldn't put his finger on it. Can't remember if it violated the no-special-frame-of-reference or it was more involved. I'm just about to turn in. Don't want to read a lot right now....

EDIT: Or maybe he *could* put his finger on it but choose to ignore it.

Oh I haven't heard of that specific one: though I can imagine it was the frame of reference thing: maybe something about the pseudo "centrifugal force" that he couldn't put his finger on.
Time to make the extremely mature and totally responsible decision, the opposite of what you did: read up on it and stay up later than I should. (Pray it doesn't take more than 10mins to get to the bottom of)
Meh, I had a maths problem to finish anyway. wasn't going to sleep on time either way is my excuse.

 

[sbrothy]

[...] The famous bucket example that follows is offered as illustrating how forces can be distinguished that will then distinguish between true and apparent motion. The final paragraph of the scholium begins and ends as follows:

It is certainly very difficult to find out the true motions of individual bodies and actually to differentiate them from apparent motions, because the parts of that immovable space in which the bodies truly move make no impression on the senses. But the situation is not utterly hopeless…. But in what follows, a fuller explanation will be given of how to determine true motions from their causes, effects, and apparent differences, and, conversely, of how to determine from motions, whether true or apparent, their causes and effects. For this was the purpose for which I composed the following treatise.

What does follow are two books of propositions that provide means for inferring forces from motions and motions from forces and a final book that illustrates how these propositions can be applied to the system of the world first to identify the forces governing motion in our planetary system and then to use them to differentiate between certain true and apparent motions of particular interest. In this respect, the empirical content of the theoretical concepts that Newton has explicated in the section called “Definitions” is inextricably linked with the physical theory presented in the rest of the Principia.

The contention that the empirical reasoning in the Principia does not presuppose an unbridled form of absolute time and space should not be taken as suggesting that Newton's theory is free of fundamental assumptions about time and space that have subsequently proved to be problematic. For example, in the case of space, Newton presupposes that the geometric structure governing which lines are parallel and what the distances are between two points is three-dimensional and Euclidean. In the case of time Newton presupposes that, with suitable corrections for such factors as the speed of light, questions about whether two celestial events happened at the same time can in principle always have a definite answer. And the appeal to forces to distinguish real from apparent non-inertial motions presupposes that free-fall under gravity can always, at least in principle, be distinguished from inertial motion.

Equally, the contention that the empirical reasoning in the Principia does not presuppose an unbridled form of absolute space should not be taken as denying that Newton invoked absolute space as his means for conceptualizing true deviations from inertial motion. Corollary 5 to the Laws of Motion, quoted above, put him in a position to introduce the notion of an inertial frame, but he did not do so, perhaps in part because Corollary 6 showed that even using an inertial frame to define deviations from inertial motion would not suffice. Empirically, nevertheless, the Principia follows astronomical practice in treating celestial motions relative to the fixed stars, and one of its key empirical conclusions (Book 3, Prop. 14, Corol. 1) is that the fixed stars are at rest with respect to the center of gravity of our planetary system.[...]

---- Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Stanford)

Stumbled across these two too. YMMV.

Newton's Old Bucket Experiment and the Modern Liquid Telescope
The quantum Newton's bucket: Active and passive rotations in quantum theory

 

[TensorCalculus]

---- Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Stanford)

Stumbled across these two too. YMMV.

Newton's Old Bucket Experiment and the Modern Liquid Telescope
The quantum Newton's bucket: Active and passive rotations in quantum theory

I just spent 10 minutes reading this wiki page about it and then decided I better get cracking on my maths problem and go to sleep before like 2am :)
Quantum theory? I will be reading that!
But maybe not now... I told myself I would sleep early tonight...

 

[sbrothy]

Not much to report from here recently. I mean papers bluntly define themselves as metaphysics and iterate all the really hard problems but provide mostly speculation (Sorry if that offends any authors. I can't hold a candle to their efforts, metaphysical or not. I just don't feel I get much out of it.).

On something and nothing: The interface of two types of nothing (arXiv)

We suggest that the question of why is there something rather than nothing can be answered by the existence of two types of nothing. We propose that matter occurs at the boundaries of intersection of both nothings. This accords with the common view that there are three worlds; the platonic world of concepts, the material world (i.e. of matter), and the non-material world (i.e. of consciousness). Both the material and non-material worlds have their own type of nothing, thus leading to the proposal. The interpretation provides an alternative type of duality distinct from property or substance dualism, and may unify the two. The interpretation also has implications for the understanding of physical causation, and Mach's principle as the boundary of intersection provides a return to the aether concept.

 

[fresh_42]

We propose that matter occurs at the boundaries of intersection of both nothings.

They are right. There is a nothing on the left and on the right of me. I waved my arms, but there was nothing.

 

[sbrothy]

Exactly my point. I just don't have the heft like you do to outright call it bunk.

EDIT: Well, what do you know, I kinda did anyway.

 

[fresh_42]

Exactly my point. I just don't have the heft like you do to outright call it bunk.

EDIT: Well, what do you know, I kinda did anyway.

I once made an account on one of these "we publish everything" platforms, more or less out of curiosity. Then someone posted about my article about Fermat's last theorem, and he had an article about his take on "a new proof" so I had a glimpse of it to check how serious this was. Well, it wasn't. And ever since, I get notifications about every article on that platform that deals with FLT. You won't believe how many people still try to solve this already solved problem, which also required heavy machinery to prove it. Hence, if you are interested in junk, let me know.

 

[sbrothy]

Oh I'm a sucker for junk but my inbox is already brimming, so thank you very much.

EDIT: But hey.... what you're saying is that you have a viXra account?!

 

[fresh_42]

Oh I'm a sucker for junk but my inbox is already brimming, so thank you very much.

EDIT: But hey.... what you're saying is that you have a viXra account?!

academia.edu

I used the name of my grandpa, which is quite old-fashioned and uncommon. Now, I get dozens of notifications along the lines "xyz mentioned your name". Funny.

 

[sbrothy]

Oh I'm a sucker for junk but my inbox is already brimming, so thank you very much.

EDIT: But hey.... what you're saying is that you have a viXra account?!

Sorry for those EDITs. It's hard to know what you "like" if my posts gets edited seconds later. Just ignore it.

 

[fresh_42]

Sorry for those EDITs. It's hard to know what you "like" if my posts gets edited seconds later. Just ignore it.

I edited mine, too, between your like. Lol.

 

[sbrothy]

academia.edu

I used the name of my grandpa, which is quite old-fashioned and uncommon. Now, I get dozens of notifications along the lines "xyz mentioned your name". Funny.

Yes. I get those too. According to my inbox I have an Erdős number of -1.

 

[fresh_42]

Yes. I get those too. According to my inbox I have an Erdős number of -1.

I once calculated mine and arrived at 4. I know of a member who has 3.

 

[sbrothy]

Reflections of Sadi Carnot

The Carnot theory is unique among the theories of heat developed before the emergence of thermodynamics because it considers the relationship between heat and work. The theory is contained in Carnot's book published in 1824, which includes the basic ideas on how thermal machines work, including the need for a temperature difference. The fundamental principle of the theory is stated with the help of a cyclic process invented by Carnot, involving two isotherms and two adiabatics. The ratio between the mechanical work produced during the cycle and the heat involved depends only on the temperatures. We make a critical analysis of Carnot theory and show how the fundamental principle was used by Clausius to define entropy in terms of which he enunciated the second law of thermodynamics.

A Theory of the Big Bang in McTaggart's Time

There are long standing questions about the Big Bang What were its properties? Was there nothing before it? Was the universe always here? Many conceptual issues revolve around time. This paper gives a novel model based on McTaggarts temporal distinction between the A-series future-present-past and B-series earlier-times to later times. These series are useful while situated in a Presentist and Fragmentalist account of quantum mechanics, one in which the consistency with the Special Relativity in particular the relativity of simultaneity will be made explicit section 6. This allows us to make a fruitful distinction between two pertinent questions what happens as we go to earlier times toward the Big Bang? And: what happens as we go further into the past toward the Big Bang?

 

[sbrothy]

Fixed.

 

[renormalize]

Paul Merriam's arXiv paper reads more like philosophy, with a capital P, not physics. All of its recent references appear in philosophy journals. Is it suitable for posting on PF?

 

[sbrothy]

McTaggart's arXiv paper reads more like philosophy, with a capital P, not physics. All of its recent references appear in philosophy journals. Is it suitable for posting on PF?

I understand your critique. And yeah, much of it is philosophy with a capital P. I should perhaps be more selective but I honestly think philosophy of physics serves a purpose when done right.

I should perhaps update the title, clean up the thread and await a moderator judgement.

Also, it is in one of the softer forums and often related to history.

This one for example:

Post in thread 'Biographies, history, personal accounts'
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/biographies-history-personal-accounts.1060020/post-7075808

EDIT: It should also be mentioned that some of the more speculative P papers are posted tongue in cheek and ridiculed a little.

 

[sbrothy]

What say a moderator, for instance @berkeman ? Have I taken it too far? Would it help if I cleaned it up, loosing some of the more metaphysical papers, and not so serious posts, in the process? Maybe changing the title to a more honest one?

To be honest the thought struck me before and here is now legitimate criticism....

EDIT: I think there is legitimate information here but YMMV.

 

[sbrothy]

OK then. I'll clean up the thread. Get rid of some of the more blatant metaphysics unless it elicits a smile.

 

[sbrothy]

Triggered by this thread:

RIP Rainer Weiss (1932-2025)

arXiv:

DEDICATED TO COSMOLOGY AND GRAVITATION - AS TOLD BY RAINER WEISS