Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?

[Philocrat]

GUIDLINES FOR MATHEMATICAL STUDIES

Mathematics must make distinction between systems and formulate formal procedures for studying each type in isolation, and then finally state the fundamental relations between those sytems.

There are fundamantally three types of system:

(1) OPEN SYSTEMS

A system is Mathematically Open if it is structurally and functionally open to change (It may be internally and externally reorganised to something completely different, or both its internal and external relations may be rendered fully dynamic.

A matheamatical study of an open system must describe:

a) How things and events are LINEARLY distributed, actioned and correlated

b) How Things and events are RANDOMLY distributed, actioned and correlated

c) How to reconcile SIMULTANEITY with SEQUENTIALISM interplaying in an open system.

d) And how structurally and functionally progressive things and events can be created from LINEARLY and RANDOMLY distributed, actioned and correlated things and events in an open sytem.

(2) SEMI-CLOSED/SEMI-OPEN SYSTEMS

A system is mathematically semi-closed or semi-open if its possesses needs that are internally fulfilable (or self-fulfilled) and needs that are externally fulfilable. (I am making this definination as wide as possible to give every intellectual discipline access to it. Every discipline should be able to derive their own tighter but relevant definition from it)

A Mathematical study of a Semi-closed or Semi-open system must describe:

a) How things and events are LINEARLY distributed, actioned and correlated in the overall internal organisation of a semi-closed system.

b) How Things and events are RANDOMLY distributed, actioned and correlated in the overall internal organisation of a semi-closed system.

c) How to reconcile SIMULTANEITY with SEQUENTIALISM interplaying in the internal organisation of things and events in a semi-closed system.

d) How INTERNAL DEPENDENCIES are quantitatively and logically interfaced with EXTERNAL DEPENDENCIES (or simply, how a semi-closed system is structurally and functionally dependent upon external systems of equivalent or different nature).

e) How to FORMALLY but SUFFICIENTLY render a semi-closed system structurally and functionally closed (call this 'THE FORMAL PROCEDURE FOR PERFECTING A SEMI-CLOSED SYSTEM' if you like, controversial though this may seem).

(3) CLOSED SYSTEMS

A system is mathematically closed if its possesses neither needs that are exteranlly fulfilable nor needs that are externally desireable. It stays structurally and functionally closed and completely disconnected from everything outside it.

A mathematical study of a Closed system must describe:

a) How to reconcile SIMULTANEITY with SEQUENTIALISM interplaying in the internal organisation of things and events. And since it is externally disconnected from everything thing else, this remains the only problem for the mathematician to tackle.

NOTE: The Formal Mathematical Procedure must respect completetly the Engineering Principle of 'THE PERFECT FIT'. The Procedure must predict PARAPLEXES precisely engineered into a PRAPLEXED SYSTEM.

 

[selfAdjoint]

A matheamatical study of an open system must describe:

a) How things and events are LINEARLY distributed, actioned and correlated

b) How Things and events are RANDOMLY distributed, actioned and correlated

c) How to reconcile SIMULTANEITY with SEQUENTIALISM interplaying in an open system.

d) And how structurally and functionally progressive things and events can be created from LINEARLY and RANDOMLY distributed, actioned and correlated things and events in an open sytem.

An open system can't be nonlinear or deterministic? Where do you get these ideas?

 

[Philocrat]

An open system can't be nonlinear or deterministic? Where do you get these ideas?

Yes, I know that. I woke up early this morning, and sat there for hours trying to define it and couldn't, so I pulled a fast one as a means of inviting people to help me define it. I am not quite sure, but I think I may have succeeded in recognising that an open system is fundamental and different except that I can't define it. Well, I leave that one to you guys in the science community to define it. I do not mind being enlightened, So, please pardon me on this one.

 

[quantumcarl]

Dr.D.

Zen thought. One way to prove it to yourself is to try it.

I get these dimwits telling me I can't prove the sky is blue because when someone expresses their impression of an experience it is not valid proof of the experience. One has to experience things for one's self. That's as far as it goes. You can write papers and poll populations til the cows come home but none of what you recover will be admissable as proof that experiences happen etc.

What I suggested was to study that which one can observe. And, of course that would mean observing the laws of physics. Beyond that there is only what you can imagine exists.

In fact, its not entirely certain that the physical world is not just a large artifact of mass hypnosis and active imagination.

 

[CronoSpark]

How true is the claim that everything in the whole universe can be explained by Physics and Physics alone? How realistic is this claim? Does our ability to mathematically describe physical things in spacetime give us sufficient grounds to admit or hold this claim? Or is there more to physical reality than a mere ability to matheamtically describe things?

I am not sure if you are referring to everything as in everything including the past of the universe. Right now there is a possibility that physics might explain it. To boldly state that it can is something that is highly questionable.

Our own perception toward things in the universe may hinder our explanations.

If it includes the past, then if physics can prove that "something" can be produced by "nothing", then I would say yes it explains everything about the universe.

 

[Doctordick]

Hi saviormachine,

Actually, you need a better handle, like a nickname or such ! I am very glad to hear you have some knowledge of symmetries. My interest concerns an aspect of symmetry very seldom brought to light. For the benefit of others, I will comment that the consequences of symmetry are fundamental to any study of mathematical physics. The relationship between symmetries and conserved quantities was laid out in detail through a theorem proved by http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Noether_Emmy.html sometime around 1915. The essence of the proof can be found on [URL='https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/author/john-baez/']John Baez's web site[/URL]. This is fundamental physics accepted by everyone. The problem is that very few students think about the underpinnings of the circumstance but rather just learn to use it.

You will hear many professors simply state that "symmetry arguments are the most powerful arguments which can be made" without explaining what makes them so powerful. They usually give fairly simple examples and walk the student through, displaying the result as a self evident conclusion. These examples almost always begin with the phrase, "assume we have [such and such] symmetry". Notice the opening to John Baez's proof starts exactly the same way:

John Baez[/URL]]Next, suppose the Lagrangian L has a symmetry[/color], meaning that it doesn't change when you apply some one-parameter family of transformations sending q to some new position q(s).

At least he tells you what he means by a symmetry. Symmetry is another of these things that is "understood" on an intuitive level without much thought.

What I would like to point out is that any symmetry is essentially an expression of a specific ignorance. For example, mirror symmetry means that there is no way to tell the difference between a given view of a problem and its mirror image: in effect you are in a state of enforced ignorance as to which view is being presented. Shift symmetry, the symmetry which yields conservation of momentum via Noether's theorem, arises if shifting the origin of your coordinate system has no impact on the nature of the problem: i.e., the information as to where the origin must be[/color] is unavailable to you. In a careful examination, every conceivable symmetry can be seen as a statement of some specific instance of ignorance.

The fundamental issue behind the power of symmetry arguments is the fact that information which is not available can not be produced by any algebraic procedure. It is a characteristic of mathematics that everything is deduced from a set of axioms; a proof amounts to a specific procedure which demonstrates that some piece of information is contained in a particular set of axioms. That being the case, how were we able to solve the problem above for specific expressions of q when changing q has no impact on the problem? The answer lies in Noether's theorem. There must be another relationship which relates the range of possibilities for q (the transformations Baez refers to) to the various specific solutions. In shift symmetry, this required relationship is conservation of momentum; in rotational symmetry, the required relationship is angular momentum.

The above can be seen as a means of obtaining information from ignorance. This is why it is called the most powerful argument which can be made. But let's think about that for a moment. Noether's theorem is a mathematical result and, as such, cannot produce anything which is not contained in the axioms. Ignorance cannot be the true source of our result; it must be arising from some other source. I will get into the real source of that result at a later date. For the moment, I want to get across the idea that symmetry is a form of ignorance. In many respects, Noether's theorem may be seen as a subtle result of conservation of ignorance.

There are about a half a dozen other fundamental observations (axioms ?) which I would like to get across before I step off into my proof.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[selfAdjoint]

Hi saviormachine,

Actually, you need a better handle, like a nickname or such ! I am very glad to hear you have some knowledge of symmetries. My interest concerns an aspect of symmetry very seldom brought to light. For the benefit of others, I will comment that the consequences of symmetry are fundamental to any study of mathematical physics. The relationship between symmetries and conserved quantities was laid out in detail through a theorem proved by http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Noether_Emmy.html sometime around 1915. The essence of the proof can be found on [URL='https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/author/john-baez/']John Baez's web site[/URL]. This is fundamental physics accepted by everyone. The problem is that very few students think about the underpinnings of the circumstance but rather just learn to use it.

You will hear many professors simply state that "symmetry arguments are the most powerful arguments which can be made" without explaining what makes them so powerful. They usually give fairly simple examples and walk the student through, displaying the result as a self evident conclusion. These examples almost always begin with the phrase, "assume we have [such and such] symmetry". Notice the opening to John Baez's proof starts exactly the same way:
At least he tells you what he means by a symmetry. Symmetry is another of these things that is "understood" on an intuitive level without much thought.

What I would like to point out is that any symmetry is essentially an expression of a specific ignorance. For example, mirror symmetry means that there is no way to tell the difference between a given view of a problem and its mirror image: in effect you are in a state of enforced ignorance as to which view is being presented. Shift symmetry, the symmetry which yields conservation of momentum via Noether's theorem, arises if shifting the origin of your coordinate system has no impact on the nature of the problem: i.e., the information as to where the origin must be[/color] is unavailable to you. In a careful examination, every conceivable symmetry can be seen as a statement of some specific instance of ignorance.

The fundamental issue behind the power of symmetry arguments is the fact that information which is not available can not be produced by any algebraic procedure. It is a characteristic of mathematics that everything is deduced from a set of axioms; a proof amounts to a specific procedure which demonstrates that some piece of information is contained in a particular set of axioms. That being the case, how were we able to solve the problem above for specific expressions of q when changing q has no impact on the problem? The answer lies in Noether's theorem. There must be another relationship which relates the range of possibilities for q (the transformations Baez refers to) to the various specific solutions. In shift symmetry, this required relationship is conservation of momentum; in rotational symmetry, the required relationship is angular momentum.

The above can be seen as a means of obtaining information from ignorance. This is why it is called the most powerful argument which can be made. But let's think about that for a moment. Noether's theorem is a mathematical result and, as such, cannot produce anything which is not contained in the axioms. Ignorance cannot be the true source of our result; it must be arising from some other source. I will get into the real source of that result at a later date. For the moment, I want to get across the idea that symmetry is a form of ignorance. In many respects, Noether's theorem may be seen as a subtle result of conservation of ignorance.

There are about a half a dozen other fundamental observations (axioms ?) which I would like to get across before I step off into my proof.

Have fun -- Dick

Good post. I have two comments.

1. What you have called ignorance could also be called indifference. In shift symmetry for example, there is no preferred place for the origin of our coordinate system. It is not the case that there is an origin around here somewhere but we don't know where it is; rather we can put the origin wherever we like and it won't make any difference to the physics.

2. There is an invisible elephant of assumed information in the whole Noether argument. That is that the Lagrangean works. This assumes that the "stationary action principle" describes the world, and that is not an obvious statement at all, and the original arguments for its ancestor the least action principle were theistic in nature.

 

[quantumcarl]

"Evolution of matter" hardly does the process justice, which is exactly my point. I really can't think of any way to explain why one type of gene proliferates rather than another without reference to how its phenotypic expression fits into a certain environmental niche, can you? There are certainly equations in population genetics (Hardy-Weinberg comes to mind), but they are not physics equations. Even reducing evolutionary biology entirely to molecular biology causes us to lose crucial information. There are phenomena in the world that are just emergent, and cannot be comprehended entirely by an appeal to their lower-order constituent pieces. These are discussed frequently around here, the latest being autocatalytic processes in chemistry and the non-linear dynamics of complex systems.

I'm not going to look at your example of karma and ethics, because they don't concern me for the purposes of this thread. I'm just bringing up other sciences that cannot be reduced to physics.

The subjects of all the physical sciences are physical. All things physical are governed by the laws of physics. Two of the most basic princibles involved in all the physical subjects of scientific inquiry are efficiency and conservation. These two princibles apply to natural selection, evolution and all other observable phenomena. Correct me if I'm off here!

 

[loseyourname]

The subjects of all the physical sciences are physical. All things physical are governed by the laws of physics. Two of the most basic princibles involved in all the physical subjects of scientific inquiry are efficiency and conservation. These two princibles apply to natural selection, evolution and all other observable phenomena. Correct me if I'm off here!

No, you're not off, but those two principles do not explain evolution. "Genes that result in phenotypes making an organism a better fit for whatever environmental niche it inhabits at any given time are selected for through differential reproductive success" better explains it.

There is also the problem of downward causation, a case of strong emergence, in which the parts of a system are constrained by the nature of the system, rather than the other way around.

 

[quantumcarl]

No, you're not off, but those two principles do not explain evolution. "Genes that result in phenotypes making an organism a better fit for whatever environmental niche it inhabits at any given time are selected for through differential reproductive success" better explains it.

There is also the problem of downward causation, a case of strong emergence, in which the parts of a system are constrained by the nature of the system, rather than the other way around.

A gene is modified by the trials and errors that are inherent in its interaction with the environment. The modifications take place during the sequence of the gene's production, reproduction and subsequent resulting generations. The outcome is that only those modifications will survive in the gene that produce a survival trait or have a benign influence on an organism. Any other modifications will result in the supression or elimination of the gene.

This reminds me of the way wind can wear away at sand leaving a natural sculpture of slightly compressed sand.

 

[selfAdjoint]

A gene is modified by the trials and errors that are inherent in its interaction with the environment. The modifications take place during the sequence of the gene's production, reproduction and subsequent resulting generations. The outcome is that only those modifications will survive in the gene that produce a survival trait or have a benign influence on an organism. Any other modifications will result in the supression or elimination of the gene.

This reminds me of the way wind can wear away at sand leaving a natural sculpture of slightly compressed sand.

No, no, no! The gene is not selectively modified by the environment. That is Lamarckism! The genes vary randomly, mostly by simple substitution of one of the four bases by its conjugate base (A <-> T, C <-> G, I believe, though I may have it backward ). The resulting change in the genome can make a change in the offspring (although it need not, see neutral evolution). The change may make the offspring more likely to produce viable offspring of their own. If it does, that change will be carried on. Conversely, changes that cause the next generation to be less likely to produce viable offspring will be lost. The test that tells which is the interaction of the organism with the environment.

 

[Philocrat]

I am not sure if you are referring to everything as in everything including the past of the universe. Right now there is a possibility that physics might explain it. To boldly state that it can is something that is highly questionable.

Well, even if physics is not making this claim itself, that's what the reductive activities tend towards. I been joining everyone and blindly debating with everyone up to this page without ever really thinking about the underlying value of 'reducing everything to physics', So, why? Well, there many good reasons for this:

Nanotechnology and the notion of Structural and functional Perfection. This is the claim that by rearranging atoms at the nano-structural level, we could improve the structural and functional qualities of things.

Genetic Engineering and the notion of structural perfection. This is the claim in biological science, which says that by genetically engineering things you can improve their structural and functional qualities. Eugenics or Race biology is a good example of this.

Costs naturally reduce if we know things and their relations to their finest details.

And so on. So, reductionism to the level of physics does have unigue intellectual and meterial advantages.

Our own perception toward things in the universe may hinder our explanations.

Yes, substantially so, but this does not rule out the possibility that we can explain and know things. It's just that some things naturally range over COP (Critical Observation Point). And I get very irritated when some scientists appear to abandon Logic at COP during routine observations and measurements in experiments. Yes, we are perceptually or visually limited, yet this is no license for us to give up scientifically at points of difficulties.

If it includes the past, then if physics can prove that "something" can be produced by "nothing", then I would say yes it explains everything about the universe.

I am intellectually allegic to the term 'nothing' as I currently believe it has no conncetion to 'reality' or 'something'.

 

[Doctordick]

What you have called ignorance could also be called indifference.

Not really as the connotations of "indifference" and "ignorance" are quite different. "Indifference" expresses a lack of interest, whereas "ignorance" expresses a lack of knowledge. Now I know ignorance carries the idea that the information might be available if you went after it but that connotation is easily removed by using the adjective "enforced".

It is not the case that there is an origin around here somewhere but we don't know where it is; rather we can put the origin wherever we like and it won't make any difference to the physics.

Oh, don't worry, I understand exactly what you are saying; however, in my opinion you have it exactly backwards. There is a very important philosophical point here: from your statement of the relationship you are required to make the assumption that "it won't make any difference to the physics". If your purpose is to establish the foundations on which to build physics, the defense of the assumption becomes circular. And secondly, from your perspective, you have thrown out the possibility that "there is an origin around here somewhere but we don't know where it is". Another assumption! Oh, I won't argue that you can't make some excellent arguments to defend your assumption but it violates my original purpose. I expressed my position on the scientific method and clarified that position with a post to "What is evidence?"

And we can argue about the necessity of your comment #2 after you understand where I am going. That is the standard approach to the Noether argument and not the approach I am headed for. For the moment, what is important is the realization that "symmetry" is a statement defining a specific lack of information; a perspective on symmetry quite different from the standard. The important point is that the "ignorance" perspective is consistent with being scientifically objective:

What I am talking about is the importance of creating methods of attack which will keep one's options open.

The perspective that "I am ignorant" is objective in that sense!

Have fun -- Dick

 

[CronoSpark]

Well, even if physics is not making this claim itself, that's what the reductive activities tend towards. I been joining everyone and blindly debating with everyone up to this page without ever really thinking about the underlying value of 'reducing everything to physics', So, why? Well, there many good reasons for this:

Nanotechnology and the notion of Structural and functional Perfection. This is the claim that by rearranging atoms at the nano-structural level, we could improve the structural and functional qualities of things.

Genetic Engineering and the notion of structural perfection. This is the claim in biological science, which says that by genetically engineering things you can improve their structural and functional qualities. Eugenics or Race biology is a good example of this.

Costs naturally reduce if we know things and their relations to their finest details.

And so on. So, reductionism to the level of physics does have unigue intellectual and meterial advantages.

I can see that the reduction have advanced quite drastically over these past years, and may reduce even further in the future. Yet it still does not rule out that it is a possibility ATM.

Yes, substantially so, but this does not rule out the possibility that we can explain and know things. It's just that some things naturally range over COP (Critical Observation Point). And I get very irritated when some scientists appear to abandon Logic at COP during routine observations and measurements in experiments. Yes, we are perceptually or visually limited, yet this is no license for us to give up scientifically at points of difficulties.

The world is flat.

I am intellectually allegic to the term 'nothing' as I currently believe it has no conncetion to 'reality' or 'something'.

It should not have any connection to "something". But I guess what I was implying was: where (how, why, when... who?) did "something" (or this "reality") come from?

 

[quantumcarl]

No, no, no! The gene is not selectively modified by the environment. That is Lamarckism! The genes vary randomly, mostly by simple substitution of one of the four bases by its conjugate base (A <-> T, C <-> G, I believe, though I may have it backward ). The resulting change in the genome can make a change in the offspring (although it need not, see neutral evolution). The change may make the offspring more likely to produce viable offspring of their own. If it does, that change will be carried on. Conversely, changes that cause the next generation to be less likely to produce viable offspring will be lost. The test that tells which is the interaction of the organism with the environment.

I'm not sure that I indicated a gene is "selectively" modified by its environment. A gene will selectively be expressed or repressed when conditions in the environment stimulate either function.

Believe me, in order to have "A" conjoined with "T" and "G" conjoined with "C" in a strong bond and diverse fashion you need certain elements in your diet. Diets are a type of environment. The diet requires certain minerals etc.. to arrive at a healthy mixture of neucliotides, amino acids etc... thus increasing the probablity of producing a functional gene.

If there are minerals missing in the diet that support the development of certain gene types, the gene type will go recessive or be elimantated. This scenario could be construed as environmental modification of a gene but not a "selective" or deliberate modification of a gene.

I am wrong here?!?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Believe me, in order to have "A" conjoined with "T" and "G" conjoined with "C" in a strong bond and diverse fashion you need certain elements in your diet. Diets are a type of environment. The diet requires certain minerals etc.. to arrive at a healthy mixture of neucliotides, amino acids etc... thus increasing the probablity of producing a functional gene.

This is absolutely wrong. Every cell in your body contains your DNA. Within that DNA are the bases A, C, T, and G in different triples coding for different proteins, plus other arrangements for control. They are connected by chemical bonds of different types, and as long as you are alive, indeed long after, they will continue to be. Random mutations apart, they and their sequence were established at your conception, and do not vary causally because of your diet or anything of that kind. Strong invasions of chemicals or radiation can modify the DNA in individual cells, but nothing short of dissolution will modify the DNA in ALL you cells.

You are talking about stuff you don't know anything about.

 

[saviourmachine]

Symmetry

Symmetry & conserved quantities

The relationship between symmetries and conserved quantities was laid out in detail through a theorem proved by http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Noether_Emmy.html sometime around 1915.

Mmm, very interesting stuff. I did electronical engineering, so I didn't know this theory yet.

Symmetry & ignorance

What I would like to point out is that any symmetry is essentially an expression of a specific ignorance. For example, mirror symmetry means that there is no way to tell the difference between a given view of a problem and its mirror image: in effect you are in a state of enforced ignorance as to which view is being presented.

I was thinking about this, this weekend. You extended my concept of symmetry, until now I thought only 1 & 2:

1. Symmetry as a property of an entity; a predicate
2. Symmetry as non-informational overhead; reducable according Shannon's or Kolgomorov's definitions of 'information'
3. Symmetry as lack of knowledge about the difference between (a part of) an entity and it's symmetrical counterpart.

Your definition - if I did state it well enough - does let it look as a perceptional quality (observing differences) and a conceptual quality (having to do with knowledge). Immediately does arise the question: "Does 'real' symmetry occur?"

[Question] Symmetry & (non-)existence of specific knowledge
And if symmetry is an expression of a specific ignorance; does this entail that there exist a specific knowledge about the very thing? Can we see symmetry as a lack of knowledge about differences, if there are no differences, and so knowledge about differences can not exist. I agree with you, although I don't know where you want it to use for yet. Are definitions as: "Groups denote lack of knowledge about the non-simularities of their elements." or "Edible are these things of which we are ignorant about its poisonous character." also valid? In what aspect do these sentences differ?

Information & ignorance

The above [conserved quantities] can be seen as a means of obtaining information from ignorance. This is why it is called the most powerful argument which can be made. But let's think about that for a moment. Noether's theorem is a mathematical result and, as such, cannot produce anything which is not contained in the axioms. Ignorance cannot be the true source of our result; it must be arising from some other source.

I do not really understand you. There is a fundamental observation: symmetry, which denotes a lack of knowledge, what can be solved by using the concept 'conserved quantities'. In what way is such a concept not an axiom[/color]? An axiom like: there exists a thing as angular momentum. Or an axiom like: we don't know the centre of our universe.

I look forward to your other observations.

 

[Paul Martin]

To whom it may concern,

I just received an email from Dr. Dick in which he asked me to do him a favor. To make sure I convey everything I know about his plight, here is the verbatim text he sent me:

"I am blocked off the Physics Forum
because of the required password change (long story
how that happened). At any rate, I can't get any of
the automatic e-mail answers from them so I can't seem
to get anything straighted out.

I have been posting on the "Metaphysics &
Epistemology" section to the "Can Everything be
Reduced to Pure Physics?" thread. "saviormachine" has
just answered my last post and I would like to let him
know that I can't get on the forum. If you would drop
him a private note or post a comment as to my problem
on the thread, I would appreciate it a lot."

I hope someone can help him.

Paul

 

[quantumcarl]

This is absolutely wrong. Every cell in your body contains your DNA. Within that DNA are the bases A, C, T, and G in different triples coding for different proteins, plus other arrangements for control. They are connected by chemical bonds of different types, and as long as you are alive, indeed long after, they will continue to be. Random mutations apart, they and their sequence were established at your conception, and do not vary causally because of your diet or anything of that kind. Strong invasions of chemicals or radiation can modify the DNA in individual cells, but nothing short of dissolution will modify the DNA in ALL you cells.

You are talking about stuff you don't know anything about.

Hi SelfAdjoint.

A diet for your genes

It comes as no surprise to hear that our diet can affect our general health, but the idea that different foods can influence health by targeting specific genes is more difficult to imagine. Yet scientists at the Institute of Food Research on the Norwich Research Park are setting out to find out how the food we eat might alter the activity of our genes. In the long-term they hope to be able to help the Government give better advice on how to improve our chances of a healthy life through the food we eat.

Our genes act as the blueprint that our bodies follow to develop and function properly. But not all of our thousands of genes are active at the same time, as genes are turned on and off at different stages in our growth and in different parts of our bodies. And the IFR scientists are wondering if our diet can also affect which of our genes are active. If they are right, it could pave the way for understanding exactly how diet can affect the health of our bodies.

From: http://www.nrp.org.uk/enews/edpgenomics.htm


Iron Deficiency Sends Cells Into Tailspin

THURSDAY, Jan. 13 (HealthDayNews) -- Iron deficiency forces cells to preserve what little iron they have and to maintain essential functions by dramatically reducing the activity of more than 80 different genes.
That's the conclusion of a Duke University Medical Center study in the Jan. 14 issue of Cell.

"We discovered that iron deprivation actually reprograms the metabolism of the entire cell. Literally hundreds of proteins require iron to carry out their proper function, so without this nutrient, there is a complete reorganization of how cellular processes occur," researcher Dennis J. Thiele, a professor of pharmacology and cancer biology, said in a prepared statement.

Some of the genes affected by iron deficiency are known to play important roles in generating energy, aging, protecting the cell from free radicals and copying the cell's genetic code. But the function of many of the affected genes is unknown, meaning that some side effects caused by iron deficiency may go unrecognized.

From: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=41463

And on and on into about 283,000 matches to a search on “diet affecting genes” for your records.

I must admit I made a calculated guess with my statement but, it turns out that I know what I’m guessing about! In actual fact I was only trying to define the environment of a gene and the effects the environment has on a gene. In the end the gene is the environment as well.

I know some of what I speak of because I have worked with world class geneticists and it has rubbed off.

It may even have altered my genes to a degree.

Bold statements like "you don't know what you're talking about" do not a mentor become. Try to take a more positive taque, at least when your mentoring the younger students, eh? :!)

 

[saviourmachine]

I am blocked off the Physics Forum because of the required password change (long story how that happened). At any rate, I can't get any of the automatic e-mail answers from them so I can't seem to get anything straighted out.

I have been posting on the "Metaphysics & Epistemology" section to the "Can Everything be Reduced to Pure Physics?" thread. "saviormachine" has just answered my last post and I would like to let him know that I can't get on the forum. If you would drop him a private note or post a comment as to my problem on the thread, I would appreciate it a lot.

Oh, take your time. I'll check every week or so. Maybe you can another pseudoniem, doctordick. Thanks for your time till now.

 

[Doctordick]

Well, I am back, sorry I missed you.

Oh, take your time. I'll check every week or so. Maybe you can another pseudoniem, doctordick. Thanks for your time till now.

I have no idea why what happened happened. Computers are strange things sometimes: apparently it never reset my password or sent me an e-mail. I kept trying variations on what I thought I had used and suddenly one worked

So: my response to "saviormachine"!

Mmm, very interesting stuff. I did electronical engineering, so I didn't know this theory yet.

I think you should be aware of the difference between "a theorem" and "a theory". A "theorem" can be proved, a "theory" can not, it can only be defended.

2. Symmetry as non-informational overhead; reducable according Shannon's or Kolgomorov's definitions of 'information'
3. Symmetry as lack of knowledge about the difference between (a part of) an entity and it's symmetrical counterpart.

Two and three are opposite sides of the same coin so to speak; one is entirely equivalent to the other.

I do not really understand you. There is a fundamental observation: symmetry, which denotes a lack of knowledge, what can be solved by using the concept 'conserved quantities'. In what way is such a concept not an axiom? An axiom like: there exists a thing as angular momentum. Or an axiom like: we don't know the centre of our universe.

I could be wrong but it seems to me that you are confusing the two different issues: the symmetry (a representation of some particular mode ignorance – or indifference, per selfAdjoint's perspective) and the deduced conserved quantity required to enforce or accommodate that symmetry (a requirement established by internal self consistency).

I don't know that I would use the phrase "symmetry denotes a lack of knowledge"; I would rather express it as "symmetry can be seen as a lack of knowledge". But of course, my main complaint is the vagueness of English anyway so I am not really aware of what relationships are implied in your head when you use the phrase. Thus it is that anything I say on the actual meaning of your comment is no more than an opinion. The symmetry and the conserved quantity are related through the necessity of maintaining that "non-informational overhead" you referred to in #2 above. As you said, the representation must be reduceable and the mathematical constraint which provides that reduction is the conserved quantity.

Take for example, the consequences of not knowing the "center of our universe" (the origin of the coordinate system used to represent positions in our problem solving). If we don't know where the origin is, we don't know[/color] the particular value of any position. It follows that there is a different solution for every possible position of that origin. The other side of the coin is, if we are able to find a solution (say x as a function of t) we can clearly take that particular solution and deduce exactly where the origin was.

Since we now have information which was not available in the original problem given to us, something here is logically inconsistent. Conservation of momentum is a mathematical relationship on that solution which makes all the various solutions (the collection of solutions, each of which would independently allow deduction of a different origin) equivalent to one another. It is the relationship which provides the required reduction in information. What I am giving you is no more than a different perspective on Noether's theorem.

My purpose in stating things in such a strange way is to bring out the obvious inconsistencies implied by presuming we know things we cannot possibly know (setting up a coordinate axis when we don't know where the origin is). Remember, my sole purpose is to establish the parameters on my thoughts which will assure me that I am not inadvertently presuming information I do not have. Noether's theorem is an excellent example of how easy such a thing can happen and I don't think the common presentation brings the most important issue to the forefront.

The axiom[/color] is: we are ignorant of something. When we set up our coordinate system, that ignorance is not explicitly displayed: blind usage of the coordinate system ignores the embedded ignorance. It follows that we must have a constraint which will yield up that same ignorance in our final results. It is the relationship I am trying to bring to your attention, not the solution.

At the moment, let me list what I have presented to date:

1)The existence of "squirrel thought" (intuition, zen, fundamental knowledge) which is not a process amenable to logical analysis because of the extreme limits on logical analysis but, none the less appears to provide very effective solutions to very important problems. This is the only source of solutions to any conceivable problems and we must keep its failings in mind.

2)The existence of "mathematics", a mental construct capable of extending logical relations far beyond what can be held consciously available for logical analysis. It constitutes a "very effective solution" (i.e., an intuitive construct) which has acquired far reaching agreement as to meaning and internal consistency. It is the only collection definitions which are accepted widely enough to provide anything close to "exact" communication. If a science wants to be exact, it must present its ideas with the same exactitude expected of mathematics.

3)That any representation of information in a mathematical form makes presumptions which must be carefully analyzed. We must make sure our ignorance is maintained in our analysis (we must not claim or imply that we know things we cannot know).

The next thing I would like to bring forth is apparently very difficult to communicate and I beg your indulgence. I tried to get people to think about this issue when I posted a simple question back in May of 2004. I totally failed and I am quite sure the fault was mine for not putting it in a form they could identify with. The original question was buried in a large post to Russell E. Rierson but is more easily discovered through a post on that thread by baffledMatt. If you want to look at my earlier attempt, a quick perusal of that thread might be a place to start. The original question was, "how does one tell the difference between an electron and a Volkswagen?" The point was that context is the single most important piece of information required to answer the question, a piece of information seldom even considered as significant.

In order for you to comprehend what I am getting at, consider the following steps. Your purpose is to examine an event which took place at the point in space referred to as (x,y,z,ict) (if we are to be exact, your approach must be general relativistically correct and we will use Einstein's picture). Your problem is to identify the object which was present at the event (for the fun of it we will make the answer to the question very simple; it was either an electron or a Volkswagen). First, can you go and look at the event? Of course you cannot; to do so would require you to have a time machine. Exactly what information do you normally have to go by in the situation where such a question might arise?

It should be clear to you that what you really know (or at least presume to know) is the collection of events which immediately surround the event of interest. If the object were a Volkswagen, the significant surrounding events might include a road, a driver, maybe some trees or a building. If the object were an electron, a more reasonable set of surrounding events might include and "electron gun" or perhaps a wire or maybe a lab table. So the first step is to identify the most significant of these surrounding events. But that is just a restatement of the original problem. Again, you can't go look; you must depend on what you already know. Fundamentally, you need to know the distribution of events in the vicinity of (x,y,z,ict).

For the moment, let us not worry about the process by which you come to know the existence of those events in the vicinity of (x,y,z,ict). What is important is the distribution of events themselves. What I am getting at is the fact that identification of any event is essentially a presumption of what distribution of surrounding events will be accepted as a valid set. In other words, if I were to give you a specific distribution of events the distribution itself would express the identity of its various parts.

What is important here is that the presumptive necessity of identifying the fundamental entities making up a particular situation it totally erroneous. If I were to give you a mathematical expression (a function of many variables) which yielded the probability of finding a specific distribution of events as a function of time (that distribution being the collection of variables looked at as coordinates, [x,y,z,ict], of specific unnamed events) then that expression itself fundamentally characterizes the identity of all those events.

This is a very simple concept with very far reaching consequences; particularly if we wish to keep our minds open to all possibilities. As I said, identification of a particular event is paramount to establishing a very large set of acceptable and unacceptable peripheral events which are, in the final analysis, only vaguely specified. This is a very poor basis for "exact objective analysis". One should not label things first and then attempt to explain the labeled things behavior; one should examine and attempt to explain the behavior itself: when, where and under what circumstance the behavior occurs. "When" and "where" is coordinate specification and "under what circumstance" is a specification of associated behavior found at a related "when" and "where".

Let me know if this perspective on the problem confronting scientific investigation makes any sense to you at all!

Have fun -- Dick

 

[saviourmachine]

Hi DoctorDick, you're back again! New mind-boggling thoughts!

Ignorance

The axiom[/color] is: we are ignorant of something. When we set up our coordinate system, that ignorance is not explicitly displayed: blind usage of the coordinate system ignores the embedded ignorance. It follows that we must have a constraint which will yield up that same ignorance in our final results. It is the relationship I am trying to bring to your attention, not the solution.
...
3)That any representation of information in a mathematical form makes presumptions which must be carefully analyzed. We must make sure our ignorance is maintained in our analysis (we must not claim or imply that we know things we cannot know).

I totally agree with you. Better to define, than to presume.

Identity

For the moment, let us not worry about the process by which you come to know the existence of those events in the vicinity of (x,y,z,ict). What is important is the distribution of events themselves. What I am getting at is the fact that identification of any event is essentially a presumption of what distribution of surrounding events will be accepted as a valid set. In other words, if I were to give you a specific distribution of events the distribution itself would express the identity of its various parts.

Question: Do you mean that the various parts do have there own identity ("the identity of its various parts")?

What is important here is that the presumptive necessity of identifying the fundamental entities making up a particular situation is totally erroneous. If I were to give you a mathematical expression (a function of many variables) which yielded the probability of finding a specific distribution of events as a function of time (that distribution being the collection of variables looked at as coordinates, [x,y,z,ict], of specific unnamed events) then that expression itself fundamentally characterizes the identity of all those events.

And, there exist an infinite amount of mathematical expressions that will characterize this specific distribution...

Question: Do you mean, that with reductionism the identity of the whole will be destroyed ("identifying fundamental entities ... is totally erroneous")?

Off-topic?: In a particular situation we observe - no object but - for example "periodicity";

• what for us - human - is a meaningful concept
• what we - human - can observe in other particular situations too

I guess this concept [periodicity] can be seen as part of a specific distribution too, but not in the coordinate system of 'reality' [x,y,x,ict], but in the semantical world itself {constancy, periodicity, heterogeneity, variety, multiplicity, linearity, irregularity, complexity}. Can you point out the flaw in me identifying this (semantical) concept? I think that would clearify it a lot.

Understood: Identifying occurs by embedding 'something' in an acceptible set / distribution of surrounding events / concepts.

One should not label things first and then attempt to explain the labeled things behavior; one should examine and attempt to explain the behavior itself: when, where and under what circumstance the behavior occurs. "When" and "where" is coordinate specification and "under what circumstance" is a specification of associated behavior found at a related "when" and "where".

I agree.

 

[Doctordick]

Hi Savior,

Glad to see you back. You seem to be the only person interested in my "crackpot" perspective. :!) If you haven't seen it, I have a new "intellectual" adversary: according to him, I am solving a pseudo problem and pseudo problems have many pseudo solutions.

Better to define, than to presume.

Very well put! I "squink" you understand.

Question: Do you mean that the various parts do have there own identity ("the identity of its various parts")?

Not really. What I mean is that if one is going to give identity (i.e., label in some way) the various collections of events which establish the identity sought for (i.e., the original label for the event at [x,y,z,ict]) then those identities are established in the exactly the same manner. That is, the significant collection must be looked at as a holistic entity. As I said earlier, the labels originally attached to these "events" are actually a presumed constraints as to what associated events are acceptable. All discussions essentially use definition as a mechanism to compartmentalize your thoughts. One can think of the identities of things as a shorthand for what is or is not the behavior under discussion.

As far as the behavior of "events" is concerned, in Einstein's perspective the concept is an oxymoron; events are a location in his space time. Events either exist or don't exist. It is the dynamic pattern of events (often called the time line of an entity) which gives meaning to the word "behavior". Now this "time line" can be seen as a collection of events related to the original event under scrutiny; and thus the "behavior" yields the identity of the event (and that behavior is[/color] a collection of events in the vicinity of the original event of interest).

Question: Do you mean, that with reductionism the identity of the whole will be destroyed ("identifying fundamental entities ... is totally erroneous")?

No; what I meant was that the presumptive[/color] necessity of identifying the fundamental entities is erroneous. The current approach to physics is to think of the behavior of identified entities as the fundamental essence of reality. I am pointing out that they have made a presumption that this identification is a necessary aspect of explaining reality. I am saying that, from the very structure of Einstein's space time continuum, this step is clearly unnecessary: i.e., this "presumptive necessity is in error"[/color].

Now, I am not saying it is not a valuable assumption! Without that valuable shorthand, we could not bring the circumstances of interest to us into a form which can be analytically analyzed. That is what most all of physics is about: analyzing behavior of real or hypothesized entities. But, as I said way back when I started this discussion, I want to do my very best to assure that I do not preemptively shut out a possible solution. My only point is that identifying events is such an unnecessary preemptive assumption.

I guess this concept [periodicity] can be seen as part of a specific distribution too, but not in the coordinate system of 'reality' [x,y,x,ict], but in the semantical world itself {constancy, periodicity, heterogeneity, variety, multiplicity, linearity, irregularity, complexity}.

There is no error in your identification. Definition can always be seen as a label identifying when and where usage of the label is acceptable. In fact, a dictionary entry can be seen as a specific description of the usage of the symbol (word, label, Idea, -- whatever you want to call it). In essence, words can be thought of as lossy data compression mechanism. This idea applies just as well to "real objects".

Understood: Identifying occurs by embedding 'something' in an acceptable set / distribution of surrounding events / concepts.

I wouldn't quite put it that way; in my head that sort of confuses the horse and the cart. Langauge is vague because of our limited ability to provide definitions. If we wish to be exact, we should do our best to avoid closing the door on exactly what these definitions should be. Essentially, I am suggesting we work with the holistic information itself and leave introducing identity until we fully understand the range of behavior possible and how it might be represented.

This is actually a very abstract perspective and difficult for most people to follow. In my opinion the problem is that their interest is in finding easy methods of solving important questions. My answer to that interest is, just go with your intuition, "squink" away at it; it's probably the best and easiest approach available to you. Presume all the authorities have already found the most convenient solutions and use them. My interest, on the other hand, is in understanding things at a fundamental level.

If all that is clear to you then I can step off to the next fundamental issue which should be examined carefully. That issue is also quite straight forward but seldom if ever discussed in detail. It has to do with what exists and what rules it obeys. The scientific community seems to hold that these two things are of great interest to them but they never seem to show any interest in the relationship between the two. When one looks at the big picture, especially with a historic perspective, it is quite evident that the two are intimately related. That is, changing the rules influences what must exist and changing what will be accepted as existing influences what the rules must be. There is most definitely a duality here.

It has been the practice of the authorities throughout history to hold that their understanding of one or the other of these two facets is correct and that the search should be constrained to the other. Either they know what exists and are searching for the rules or they know what the rules must be and they are searching for what exists. If you stick with me, I will show you that "what exists" and "what the rules are" are essentially orthogonal concepts and there is not a single possible correct answer but rather a relational answer (the rules are related to what exists and visa versa). For the moment, the only issue I want to get across to you is that the interdependence of these two is a fundamental issue worthy of thought; very like position and momentum or time and energy.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[saviourmachine]

To identify => to relate

Not really. What I mean is that if one is going to give identity (i.e., label in some way) the various collections of events which establish the identity sought for (i.e., the original label for the event at [x,y,z,ict]) then those identities are established in the exactly the same manner.

Yes, I agree; to identify is to relate (with events in same context).

Event - Location in space-time?

As far as the behavior of "events" is concerned, in Einstein's perspective the concept is an oxymoron; events are a location in his space time. Events either exist or don't exist. It is the dynamic pattern of events (often called the time line of an entity) which gives meaning to the word "behavior". Now this "time line" can be seen as a collection of events related to the original event under scrutiny; and thus the "behavior" yields the identity of the event (and that behavior is[/color] a collection of events in the vicinity of the original event of interest).

Do you really mean that "event" and "location in (Einstein's) space-time" are equal? Does this mean e.g. that: "Locations in space time exist or don't exist"? Intuitively I would rather interchange "event" for "translocation" (in space time). Would that be fine for you, or do I miss the point?

Recap: An entity will 'endure' a pattern of (space time) translocations / events, called its "(space)time line", or its "behaviour". A specific event can be seen as exemplar of the whole set of events. Identification occurs by investigating a subset of this set (events in space time vicinity of event).

No; what I meant was that the presumptive[/color] necessity of identifying the fundamental entities is erroneous.

I agree.

Circularity in defining prerequisites to call something 'existing'

If all that is clear to you then I can step off to the next fundamental issue which should be examined carefully. That issue is also quite straight forward but seldom if ever discussed in detail. It has to do with what exists and what rules it obeys. The scientific community seems to hold that these two things are of great interest to them but they never seem to show any interest in the relationship between the two. When one looks at the big picture, especially with a historic perspective, it is quite evident that the two are intimately related. That is, changing the rules influences what must exist and changing what will be accepted as existing, influences what the rules must be. There is most definitely a duality here.

I am curious.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Do you really mean that "event" and "location in (Einstein's) space-time" are equal? Does this mean e.g. that: "Locations in space time exist or don't exist"? Intuitively I would rather interchange "event" for "translocation" (in space time). Would that be fine for you, or do I miss the point?

A point in spacetime is specified by a spatial point (3 coordinates) and a time coordinate, thus "on the sidewalk under the Marshall Fields clock at 3:00 PM". It was traditional to call such a 4-D point, an event. Whether it corresponds to someone else's concept of an event is a question. Perhaps for this reason, the locution seems to have fallen out of favor during my lifetime.

 

[saviourmachine]

A point in spacetime is specified by a spatial point (3 coordinates) and a time coordinate, thus "on the sidewalk under the Marshall Fields clock at 3:00 PM". It was traditional to call such a 4-D point, an event. Whether it corresponds to someone else's concept of an event is a question. Perhaps for this reason, the locution seems to have fallen out of favor during my lifetime.

Aha, I understand. I thought of it, as "something that happens in a given place and time plane" in stead of "something that exists* at a given place and time".

Correction: It is location and no translocation.

Recap: An entity will 'follow' a pattern of (space time) locations / events, called its "(space)time line", or its "behaviour". A specific event can be seen as exemplar of the whole set of events. Identification occurs by investigating a subset of this set (events in space time vicinity of event).

* If it is about existence, than it's easy to mix up 'causation' with 'causation of existence'. If an object is defined as a pattern of events ([x,y,z,ict] locations), than I need help to define 'existence' and 'cause' in this context - and maybe some other concepts that become contra-intuitive.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Recap: An entity will 'follow' a pattern of (space time) locations / events, called its "(space)time line", or its "behaviour". A specific event can be seen as exemplar of the whole set of events. Identification occurs by investigating a subset of this set (events in space time vicinity of event).

Yes, this is good, except that the term "space time line" is not used. It is universally called the world line of the object. Maybe in another post or thread we can discuss how causal structures work in relativity.

 

[Doctordick]

It was traditional to call such a 4-D point, an event. Whether it corresponds to someone else's concept of an event is a question. Perhaps for this reason, the locution seems to have fallen out of favor during my lifetime.

Shows one how far out of touch I am: I didn't know it had fallen out of favor. However, in my head, an "event" existed: i.e., my mental picture was more analogous to saviormachine's "something that exists at a given place and time". That is, Einstein's space-time-continuum was a coordinate system within which one could identify locations where things existed. I guess the idea that the "space-time-continuum" was supposed to be "real" never really occurred to me. I always took it as intended to be a "valid" way of representing physical phenomena; not unnecessarily the only valid way.

Central to my current mental image of the situation is the fact that "infinity" is not a number (it is instead, a label for a process which cannot be completed). This means that the "time line" can not be a valid representation of our current knowledge at any time. Whatever means by which we came to "know" of that "time line", the fundamental information available to us can, at best, consist of a finite number of points in that space-time-continuum. That these points should[/color] be considered an entity (so identified and labeled) is an assumption and not a fact. What I am getting at here is that it cannot be a defendable fact as the defense would require proof of existence of an infinite number of points. On the other hand, the existence of a finite number of points could perhaps be defended (at least it seems reasonable that the validity of that issue is best laid aside for the moment).

It is the essence of my position that specification of the relevant space-time-continuum points is, at worst, equivalent to specification of a set of labeled identities and, in the final analysis, capable of representing any circumstance. From a physicalists perspective, the "universe" is referred to by simply making all events relevant; however, I will show later that the fundamental mode of representation goes far beyond physicalism.

Recap: An entity will 'endure' a pattern of (space time) translocations / events, called its "(space)time line", or its "behaviour". A specific event can be seen as exemplar of the whole set of events. Identification occurs by investigating a subset of this set (events in space time vicinity of event).

I presume, from your response to selfAdjoint, that you understand what I mean when I say identification is equivalent to specification of behavior in a given context. What I would like to add to that is the fact that "behavior" of that identified (and/or labeled) entity is also equivalent to to specification of acceptable context. Behavior is a statement of the expected path of that space-time-line given the space-time-paths of other relevant entities. The entire collection of information about the circumstance is embodied in the collection of space-time-points presumed relevant.

So let's stand back and look at the perspective I have just laid out. Our knowledge of the universe can be represented by a set of points in a four dimensional coordinate system. That representation represents both the existence of entities and the behavior of those entities. In addition to that, every bit of that "knowledge" available to us was gained in the past and we can't go back and change one iota of it. So, "what is" is "what is" and there doesn't seem to be any rules embedded in the perspective at all.

This brings me to the issue of rules. Exactly what do we mean when we think about "rules"? It seems to me that what we mean is that all possible distributions of "space-time-points" are not possible! That is, nameta9's "infinite-infinite" universe (also apparently known as the "Cosmic Universe of Complete Oblivion" ) is not an acceptable solution to the problem: "What is reality all about anyway?"

Thus it is that I come to the conclusion that "the rules of the universe" consist of a mechanism which will answer the question (regarding any specific distribution of space-time-points), "Is that particular distribution possible?" Or better yet, given what I "know" about reality, what is the probability that the specific distribution of space-time-points is a possible distribution? (I really can't presume the answer has to be either yes or no, since I have to include the possibility that I could be wrong )

Since the information (a specific distribution of space-time-points) is a set of numbers and the answer to the question is a probability (another number), it should be clear that it makes no difference what the rules are, they can be expressed by a mathematical function: i.e., you plug in the numbers which specify the distribution and the function yields the probability the distribution is a possibility. Note that I haven't made the claim that the function is easily represented by standard mathematics (it could be no more than a table of correct answers; that is, I could be God and simply "all-knowing" ).

What I have presented here is a very abstract representation of the problem. It clearly is not a very usable representation of reality but it is certainly rather universal; at least from a physicalist perspective: i.e., if what we know of reality can indeed be represented by that massive accumulation of numbers (the relevant space-time-points). Remember, I am trying to come up with an abstract representation of "the best that I can do" (knowing what I know) and am not making any claim that "the best that I can do" is ever the correct answer. However, tomorrow I may know something I don't know today but, even tomorrow, "the best I can do with what I know" will still be "the best I can do with what I know" so that[/color] at least will not change!

Think a little about what I have said here and let me know if any part of it seems unreasonable. At this point, I admit it seems rather physicalist in outlook but, if you admit that their perspective covers a lot of valuable ground, I will show you how to expand it beyond the physicalist view.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Philocrat]

HOW PARAFUSES IN SCIENTIFIC PROPOSITIONS AFFECT REDUCTIONISM (PART I)

The rate at which PARAFUSES (vagueness, confusions, misunderstandings) are plaguing scientific propositions is causing grave concerns, especially in mathematical and experimental physics. By this, I mean any scientific statements that appear on the surface as wholly true and conclusive but which in actual fact are vague or confused or grossly misunderstood. The devil (usually) is in the detail! There are many of them, but here are just two good examples:

1) A instantaneously reacts or responds to B, regardless of the space distance between them.

2) I experimentally create A and B from ‘Nothing’ (or ‘Nothingness’, if you like)

In Philosophy these two scientific statements would be held not only with utmost suspicion but also it would be confronted with utmost intellectual and analytical ruthlessness. The philosophers in the disciplines of Metaphysics, Epistemology and Philosophy of Science would have not only a great deal to say about these two claims but also a great deal of very hard fundamental questions to ask about them. Now, to have a glimpse of what I am talking about here, let alone appreciate it, let us look at each of these two claims in turn.

A instantaneously reacts or responds to B, regardless of the space distance between them.

Quantitatively, there is the fundamental need to state at the very elementary level the Time Interval (TI) or Elapsed Time (ET) between A’s Action and B’s Response or Reaction. For example:

Let ‘AT’ stand for Action Time
Let ‘RT ‘stand for Response/Reaction Time
Let ‘TI/ET’ stand for Time Interval/Elapsed Time

Therefore the calculation would be;

TI/ET = RT – AT

Now, the quantitative implication of this carefully deduced formula is that the resulting TI/ET from the calculation could range between an absolute zero and an infinitely large numerical value. This is a very basic and well-understood formula and, as far as a two-way communication is concerned, it could be escalated to any level of complexity and sophistication by adding relevant parameters (for example, nonchronous (a type of communication that the signal is received but with no response), synchronous and asynchronous types of communication). Here we are not concerned with that. Infact, that level of complexity is better left to communication and computer engineers who design and implement communication protocols for Computer Network Systems and Telecommunication Equipments. Rather we are only interested in the metaphysical, epistemological and logical implications of the action-reaction scenario of which this basics formula is more than sufficient to drive the message home. Therefore, fundamentally, there are two things that metaphysicians, epistemologists and philosophy of science philosophers would like to know, as consequences flowing from this basic formula:

The first one is this:

Does ‘A instantaneously reacts to B’ imply TI/ET = 0? In other words, what are the metaphysical, epistemological and scientific or empirical consequences of TI/ET being equal to zero?

For a start, with regards to this, metaphysicians and epistemologists would be outraged by your claim because you have single-handedly created a completely new metaphysical and epistemological categories that need a new breed of human beings to look at them, recognise them and understand them obviously in a completely new light. Metaphysically, you have created a Timeless/Spaceless Category in the psychology of the perceiver with regards to time, space and action. Epistemologically you have undermined our previous understanding (at the fundamental level) of the notions of time, space and motion and their causal relations. While in one hand Metaphysicians and Epistemologists are jointly pondering over this, the philosophy of science philosophers and Epistemologists in the other hand would be jointly outraged and pondering over the step-by-step procedures and methodologies by which you derived at such a claim. What methods or procedures did you use to derive at such a claim? So, as you can see these three groups of philosophers all have a stake in the magic that you are performing.

The key issues they are interested are these: (1) the possibility of this new Timeless Metaphysical category, (2) if so, how is this new category to be perceived and understood, and (3) if so, what scientific method or methods are there for bringing about or creating such a category? They would all together argue that by creating this new metaphysical and epistemological category, by whatever scientific method or methods that may be available, you are categorically implying that it is possible (1) not only for a single moving object of a given size to instantaneously act and react to itself at TI/ET = 0 but also (2) for multiple or infinite number of moving entities to instantaneously act and react or respond to each other at TI/ET = 0, regardless of the space distance involved. This is the gravest and far-reaching connotational implication of this sort of scientific claim or statement.

Any scientist that does not understand this and henceforth take utmost caution when he or she is making this sort of claim should immediately return his or her PhD back to the university that issued it. For no university that sincerely aims at bringing the production of scientific knowledge to the next level should tolerate this kind parafuse in scientific thinking and reports.

The second thing that they would also like to know is this:

Does ‘A instantaneously reacts to B’ imply TI/ET > 0? In other words, what are the metaphysical, epistemological and scientific or empirical consequences of TI/ET being greater than zero? That is, something like:

0.01
0.00142
0.000001
0.000000000000000000000000000134
and so on.

With regards to this they will argue that absolute zero is a plain zero with no fractional parts, therefore any zero that takes on any fractional parts (regardless of if such fractional parts run into infinities) is metaphysically and epistemologically inconclusive. For example, if you scientifically reported that ‘A reacts to B at TI/ET = 0.000000000000000000000000000134 unit of time‘, surely you wouldn’t want anyone who reads your report to think and understand this as being identical or equivalent in meaning to ‘A reacts/responds to B at TI/ET=0 unit of time’? Would you? Well, if you said yes to this question, epistemologists and their colleagues in the related disciplines would argue that the latter is instantaneous and not the former in the strictest sense of the word. Ok, for argument sake, you might say “but in mathematics, I have always been taught from childhood to round up numbers with fractional parts to the nearest whole numbers!” Good for you, but what your teacher failed to remind you of is the fact that when you do so you are chopping off a significant part of a numerical value that has meaning and relevance in reality. Metaphysically and epistemologically, you have not escaped the fact that you were taught how to make approximations with numbers that do not directly amount to absolute numerical values. Approximations may be representative and simulative of certain facts but they are not absolute facts. For absolute facts is everything over and above approximations!

Ok, let’s say that you went ahead and started to chop things off from your resulting scientific calculations and experiments. In that case, Epistemologists and their colleagues in the philosophy of science discipline would ask you:

“Ok, you have been taught and permitted in your scientific reports to round things up to the nearest whole numbers, and you are now doing exactly that here, what actual or potential effects could or does this have on the truth or epistemological status of the objects or events under observation?”

In this very case, the question would be referring to the actual or potential effects on rounding TI/ET of 0.000000000000000000000000000134 unit of time to TI/ET of 0 unit of time. Well, for a start they would argue that you are doing magic and cheating by trying to turn a numerical value of physical importance and relevance to an absolute zero. In Metaphysics, Epistemology and Philosophy of science, this would be a non-starter. They will argue that you do not understand the physical consequences of what you are doing scientifically.

NOTE: No one would appreciate the implication of this argument until you cast your mind back to those days when many machines were embed with crude bivalent logic circuitries and could not handle physical mathematical values that range over, or even if they did, were rounding things up to whole numbers that ignored important and relevant fractional parts. Do you remember those days that people used to kick and vandalised telephone boots and food and drinks vending machines because they could not give change back from the costs prices of those goods and services? Well, this is precisely what this argument is all about, and I guess those of you who lived in those countries with this problem should realize that during the period that these machines were in operation people must have been short-changed and cheated out of millions of their hard-earned currencies. This is just a simple real example of the consequences of parafuses in scientific thinking, methodologies and reports, yet holistic examination of this shows that the problem is widespread across science disciplines.

 

[Philocrat]

HOW PARAFUSES IN SCIENTIFIC PROPOSITIONS AFFECT REDUCTIONISM (PART II)

I experimentally create A and B from ‘Nothing’ (or ‘Nothingness’, if you like)

This claim is by far the most metaphysically, epistemologically and empirically or scientifically problematic. Reducing ‘Nothing’ to something and ‘Something’ back to ‘Nothing’ is metaphysically, epistemologically and scientifically impossible. But not withstanding, a huge population of scholars still believe that this is possible. On this PF alone, there are many threads running in parallel trying to prove both mathematically and otherwise that this is a scientific possibility. Well, not quite. Instead it is more a parafuse in the scientific thinking and calculations than a scientific possibility. The scientific claim that microphysical particles of matter can magically and non-procedurally pop up from nothing or nothingness is frankly not only an abuse of logic but also an abuse of mathematics as well. Now, let us look at this claim more closely (or should I say give it philosophical treatment).

If you were a scientist observing a given object with your visual organs or in combination with their extensions (scientific instruments) and then suddenly say “ I have just experimentally created particles A and B from Nothing’, metaphysicians and epistemologist would be outraged by this sort of claim because (1) you have not only single-handedly created a new Metaphysical category in the realm of the human reality that requires a new epistemological maintenance in the perceiver’s head but also (2) you have mysteriously or perhaps scientifically instantiated and enforced a brand new CAUSAL RELATION between two fundamentally alien metaphysical categories. Epistemologists and their colleagues in the philosophy of science discipline would argue that you have created a brand new world or universe with a completely new set of laws of physics. They will then say to you “please table the methods and procedures by which you step-by-step but systematically created such a world so that we can look at and examine them ourselves to the finest grains of details”.

On the quantitative side of things, they will ask you:

“How much of the world do you see when you observe things and events, either with your naked visual organs or in combinations with their extensions (scientific instruments)?”

In response to this question, they would expect you to say something like:

“The nature of my visual organs and their complementary extensions is such that I can see n% of the world whenever I am observing”

They will then insist:

“How much in hard number is n%? Or simply, what percentage of the world do you always see with your visual organs and their extensions when you are scientifically observing?”

Of course, at this point you would know right away that they want you to epistemologically commit yourself to giving the exact percentage value of how much of the world you always see under scientific observation. This is your only ticket to convincing them that your original claim of creating something from nothing has any credence or substance in it, let alone being wholly proven to be true. Would you then answer, for example, that?:

‘n%’ = 0
‘n%’ = 0.01
‘n%’ = 0.0023
‘n%’ = 0.0000000000000000023
‘n%’ = 10
‘n%’ = 50
‘n%’ = 99.99
‘n%’ = 100

Surely, you would not expect these guys to expect n% < 100 in your answer. Of course, they will expect you to epistemologically commit yourself and confidently assert that each time you scientifically sniff around the world you always see 100% of all there is to be seen. Well, I can’t speak for any other discipline, but in philosophy, metaphysicians, epistemologists and their colleagues in the philosophy of science discipline would not accept anything less than 100% in your scientific report. Then if you dare to commit yourself to this 100% limit, they would want you to submit the method or methods by which you came by this value for further philosophical scrutiny or inspection.

A further question of epistemological and metaphysical significance would be that concerning the issue of rounding things up. Supposing you decided as we did in the action-response problem above to round 99.99% up to 100% in other to appear to the reader of your science report or thesis as if you are implying or asserting that you always see 100% of what you are observing? But they would ask you what happens to the missing 0.01% from your calculus? Where did you put this missing percentage value that you treat as scientifically and epistemologically insignificant? Or were you trying to cheat and mislead your reader in the process?

-------------------------------------
NOTE: Infact, it is not only philosophers that would be puzzled and triggered to scrutinise to the finest detail this sort claim and chopping off of significant numerical values. Ordinary lay people in the real world would be as much startled and likewise triggered to do the same. They would do this because they know that if you take £0.01 from
£1,000,000 what remains is £999,999.99 and therefore you are no longer a millionaire. You would be metaphysically and epistemologically recategorised or reclassified as a thousanaire. The same is true of you trying to buy something from a shop priced at £10 and you have only £9.99 in your pocket, the fact remains that you may encounter a very strict and awkward shopkeeper that would not sell you that thing until you produce the remaining £0.01. Well, don’t take this as strange because it does happen.
-----------------------------------------

The final most important question they will ask is this.

“Does the remainder (0.01% missing realm of the world that you cannot see during your routine scientific observation) epistemologically translate to ‘Nothing’ or ‘Nothingness’?

Epistemologists particularly would ask you:

“How do you know that what you cannot see is Nothing?”

This sort of question is not the sort that you would respond with such asnwer as:

"I may not see 0.01% of the world, but I am convinced and do know that whenever I create something from this very source it comes from nothing" or simply that "I know that 0.01% of invisible part of the world is nothing

Well, I leave this two-part piece of my personal observation with no conclusion. Search your consciencne and make your own conclusion!

Many thanks.

-------
Think Nature...Stay Green! Above all, think of how your action may affect the rest of nature! May the 'Book of Nature' serve you well and bring you all that is Good!