Discussions in Physics

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:

There is no difference between the undetectable and the nonexistent.

You probably think in terms of an argument proceeding from pure logic
and proving conclusively that such a thing cannot be.  But pure logic
is just a machine which, being fed some propositions with known truth
value (True or False) spits out the truth values of composite
propositions made from the input ones.  Nothing more.  And, where do
the truth values of the input propositions come from?

That's why you can't base science on pure logic.  External input is
necessery and this input is provided by observations.  And there is no
difference in this mode of operation between the unobservable and the
nonexistant.  I can postulate countless entities existing in parallel
to what we can observe but not interacting with anything.  Such
postulates can neither be proved, nor disproved.  But they make no
difference in anything.

Mati Meron                      | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu         |  chances are he is doing just the same"

prfbrown@magna.com.au writes:

Dreaming is nothing special. There are millions of examples
of actions performed by the living human being which is very
much part of that human being's life, yet which is not amenable
to "scientific talk" due to this problem of the provision of
empirical proof.

So?  Is this a problem?  There are also countless stories being told
which aren't accepted as true since they cannot be substantiated by
evidence.  And, no doubt, some of them are true.  Do you suggest that
we should drop the demand for evidence so as not to miss the few true
ones?  Don't you think that the damage of accepting the much larger
number of false ones in the process will overwhelm any possible
benefits.

Sure - in the background the global scientific (generic) research
continues on day and night, and it operates on this principle of
the provision of substantial evidence to separate those theories
which will be retained to form the basis of its internal structure,
and it will discard (for the time being) those theories which do
appear to be able to be substantiated via the physical provision
of evidence.  To do anything else (generically) would be
unprecedented.

However, there are such folk as individuals, and they may be
permitted to engage in the discussion of alternative viewpoints
and the exploration of previously discarded notions with a little
more latitude.

The current specifications of the many and varied phenomena of
the cosmos within which - it would appear - we are embedded,
are outlined only in part by physics.  The desire to be able
to outline the entire spectrum of phenomena in a unified manner
is probably at least part of the goal of many researchers in
the field(s).  However, as you have stated before, the more
universal description of cosmic (including terrestrial)
phenomena is much like the definition of the topography of
a living landscape with its areas of high traffic development
and its areas of rugged wilderness.  The paths to the opening
up of these "wilderness areas" may not come through the standard
and usual highly populated regions.

So that is why certain folk accept the risks of consideration
of stories which are beyond the bounds of standard evidence
(or at least that which is prescribed by the generic tradition
of the time).  And certainly, one has to employ other forms
of discrimination concerning the "value" of such theories or
stories.  To my mind, these other forms of discernment in
relation to the understanding of the natural phenomena (within
which we are embedded) must seek reference not from the mind
and the intellect - as the way of science has chosen this path -
but by the way of the heart ... and I mean this in a sense of
the traditional manner in which it is said that the heart of
man might understand things if it is not distracted by the
worldly desires and possessions, but is made pure.

Having said this there are many who would not understand what
I am trying to communicate. It is a difficult thing to express
in words.  I guess it might be reduced to the pursuit of one's
intuition about things, which may or may not lead the individual
astray in the long run.  The intuition with experience is not
without its degree of discernment, and while this may not be
the same measure of visible and substantive (generic) evidence,
it may be sufficient for that individual to explore remote
areas of the inter-relativity of phenomena.

I will agree that non-discerning pursuit and pre-occupation
with countless stories and theories represents a ceaseless
to-ing and fro-ing  is invariably unproductive for all
concerned.  However such agreement should take into account
the possibility of valued progress through a discerning and
experienced intuition - until otherwise disproven.

 Science learned from experience that it is better to proceed
 carefully, checking and cross checking the ideas that are being added
 to its inventory, than to try to rush it.  Impatient individuals, like
 you, may think it slows the advancement of science.  Well, check how
 much time was lost in the past on undoing the damage caused by
 accepting half baked ideas with no much evidence.

You would appear to be outlining the nature of the development
of the generic science - that which is being contributed to
by many researching parties around the world (and from the
data and precedents of the past - in time).

But science, for some, is also a personal exploration of the
understanding of the phenomena of the cosmos, and while this
understanding might be greatly tempered by the generic structure,
the will invariably be personalised interests and hypotheses
from just about all levels of the scientific community.

Such folk - whether they are scientists or laymen - are probably
going to waste alot of time exploring false leads and paths,
but this damage sometimes fortifies the next steps of the journey.

Consideration of the possible universality of the ancient elements
of nature might clearly be seen to be "nonsensical" by yourself and
others - after all, these were dispensed with centuries ago.

 Right.

Well you dont have to agree so readily.

However I would choose to disagree with your assessment.
After all, even the human senses would seem to be correlated
to these "nonsensical elements" ...

 And what makes you think that humans, or even life on Earth as a
 whole, is a measure of all things.  Here it is you who (while laying
 claims to universality) take the parochial view.  Atoms are universal,
 we get radiation corresponding to well known atomic transitions from
 arbitrary distances away.  Which also means that QM, which predicts
 these transitions, is pretty universal.  On the other hand there is
 no evidence to the effect that life in the specific form known to us
 on 'Earth is a universal phenomenon.

Simply stated, I would think that I would have to take on a hypothesis
which ran in the following fashion ...

Until we understand what it is to be human, we are never going to
understand what it is to be alien or in another manner - universal.
Our human culture exists.  It may not be unique or alone.  It may
not be the rule but the exception.  But the evidence has it that
it definitely exists and is represented in each individual to one
degree or another.

Therefore my thinking is along these lines: that it is the humanity
which is gathering data on, and developing theories of atoms and
their energy states and transitions.  Sure it may also be the little
green prartie people of western andomeda, but as far as we are all
concerned (evidentially) here and now in the history of things, it
is just the human conception which we have to deal with.  So we are
seeking the universality of phenomena by means of human expression.
Hypothetically, I can see no other way of approach.
Can you?

Touch ........  earth

 And water.  And ice (frozen water).  And frozen air as well.  And
 anything solid or liquid.  Nothing magical about Earth here.

Evolutionary, the emergence of life into humanity has had to come
to terms with the manipulation of physical things within the
environment - probably initially in the procurement of food
for the missus and kids, self and tribe, etc, etc.  Also
defence against creatures of similar but opposing intent.

Nothing magical here - I'd definitely concur.  Just basic
plain down to earth survival.  We are born into the earth
of the womb and our physical body is consistent of earth
which is alive.  We subsist day to day by consuming food
(earth) not unlike an amoeba or any other "living" thing.

Far too general ... a working definition of terms is
required ... I can hear you say - and i would agree.

Is earth then the same as "matter"?  Well - yes it is,
I would observe - except it is generally reserved for our
local matter in this terrestrial environment which is
contained in our local cosmic environment - and has been
so perceived throughout the entire evolution of our life
(in the global sense) on this planet.

If you see nothing magical about determining the analysis
of matter in remote star systems in our galaxy, then I
see nothing magical in attempting to perceive exploratory
vantage points in a system of thought (or rather being -
for the system embraces life) of our _earthly_ existence
as distinct from our (objective) material existence.

Taste ........  water

 Only because our body chemistry is base on water.  You could imagine
 life based on other liquids, ammonia for example.  Nothing special
 about water here.

Nothing special in the great objective picture.
But the alternative liquids suffer from a great lack of evidence
at the present time, whereas the hypothesis that water is an
element of (universal) life at least does hold (*some*) water.  :)

The special thing about water is that it enable us to do
science.  If it were not for water, there would be no science,
no thought, no consciousness, no life.

Smell ........  air

Molecules propagate in gas.  They do propagate in liquid as well.
Fish smell in water.

Perhaps a month without earth (food), and a week without water.
But we canna go more than a few minutes without air.
The breath of life arose with the evolution of aerobic creatures,
and became dominant in the kingdom of animals, out of which it
is said, mankind then arose to move evolution into the realm
of consciousness.  Whether this is a fact or a fiction, will
there ever be anything akin to evidence in this area?

For the first three of the elements are sourced dominantly
from within the terrestrial environment, but the source of
the dominant energy for the global environment is not in the
terrestrial but in the local cosmic environment - with the
sunshine: electromagnetic energy - the cosmic "fire".

Now I dont state this in any categorical manner, but only
in such a manner as might be fitting for this exploration of
the nature of these ancient elements from the perspective
of moden knowledge about the phenomena of the cosmos.

But there would seem to be some form of boundary condition
in place between the systems of the terrestrial environment,
and the systems of the (solar) cosmic environment.  In a
similar fashion, there would also seem to be some form of
conceptual boundary conditions between the natural realms
of the terrestrial environment and the microscopic quantum
realms.

We are born and raised and live our life in the natural
macroscopic world between these two "boundaries" - the
cosmic on the upper hand, and the quantum on the inner.
Our senses provide us with experience of the outer world,
but that is - in some as yet unknown degree - tempered by
the nature of our own intrinsic "inner world" - for our
experiences are more often than not various from individual
to individual ... unless we restrict ourselves to the basics.

And these basics (or one way of approaching this description)
IMO are simply the ancient elements of (living) nature ...

Hearing ......  (physical vibration) / (heat) .... FIRE

 Vibration, yes, not heat.  You don't hear heat.

But you do hear words, and you do create them also.

And words are a fire (in consciousness) and can set
on fire the entire planet.  Guess I might get flamed
over this.

Sight ........  (aetheric vibration) / (light) ] .... FIRE

Or anything that emits radiation.  Put a beta emitter in water and
view the Cherenkov radiation.  It ain't fire.

For what its worth, in my working definition of terms, fire
has two aspects - heat and light - the lower and the higher.
The ability to perceive the external environment is paramount
to survival.   When the first proto-human first domesticated
the use of terrestrial fire, he could have said: "One small
step for man; one great leap for mankind".

Fire has been with us since the beginning of our emergence
and I would expect there would be certain forms of evidence
which might be brought to bear to substantiate this claim.

But recently - only a few decades ago - we came to the first
knowledge of the cosmic fire in the form of nuclear energy.
In all the aeons of life on this planet, it has not been
until very recently that the nature of the cosmic fire could
be not only seen and understood, but controlled to a limited
degree.

Self-reflective consciousnes - itself often described as a flame
or a fire - has been credited as forming the foundation and
the potential that these things might become known.

And if one does not have consciousness, then one may as
well not be alive in the standard sense of the word.

All you say in the above is that we've senses which evolved to take
advantage of the types of signals which propagate easily within our
specific environment.  Very true but hardly profound.  And nothing
there to give our senses any claim to some universatility.

What is derived from the above is that not only has our experience
of the outer world been channelled through the conduit of senses
which seem to be somehow in alignment with the ancient elements of
(living) nature, but also the experience of our inner world is
therefore related to this survival.

And if this is the case, then it may be of assistance in our
understanding of the way we are as human beings. Our environment
has been not inactive in its influence over the formative processes
of either our external nature or our inner nature - would this not
be supported by evidence?

Furthermore, it would seem to me to be not entirely improbable
that the presence of the spark of life which characterises every
single living being - including human beings - is in some manner
responsive to a system which is not terrestrial but cosmic, in
the same manner that the life of the global ecosystems is not
driven by anything in the earthly realms, but by the spring of
EM energy in the form of sunshine.

That we may house both terrestrial and cosmic natures, and the
manner in which this may be seen as a natural consequence of
the systematic relativity of these elements of nature, might
be seen as a profound possibility for some.

Usually such points are achievable through religion only,
and not through some form of "holistic science" whatever
this may turn out to be - way up the track somewhere.

There is lots of middle ground.  It includes all the stuff you think
about, contemplate, hypothesise about, but cannot put it to a
scientific test, at least for now.  As long as you recognize that, no
matter how well this stuff sounds, it may be wrong, as long as you
present it only as "that's what I think", not "that's the way it is",
everything is fine.  It is when you acquire an absolute certainty in
your position without the data to back you up, that you engage in
"religion".

No no ... if you brush your teeth every night *then* you perform the
task religiously.

You forgot the smiley.

But I was being deadly serious here !!!!
I hate the dentist !!   ;-)

Religion - according to Alfred North Whitehead -
is what people do with their solitude.

 That's a very broad definition.  I would narrow it, considerably.
 Just think of all the possible things people may do with their
 solitude:-)

But I think that is precisely what he was aluding to ;-)
He makes it quite clear that religion is an extention of
a set of beliefs, and in its evolution within the tribe
of humanity it has certainly never been just a good thing,
but can be either a good thing or a bad thing, depending
upon whom is burning or conquering or pillaging or etcring
whom ...

In case anyone's interested I have placed a series of his
lectures concerning "The Making of Religion" on the web at:
whiteh_0.htm

Whether one contemplates wave equations or just waves,
women or wine, the experient amidst the experiences,
the elements of nature or the spectrum of atomic elements,
one's contemplation of the nature of the phenomena (in
which we are all embedded [Prigogine]) boils down to the
making of one's own sense of religion, and our own
perceptions - whether they be right or wrong or neither -
concerning our relationship with ourselves and the cosmos,
which includes our neighbours.

But such is life.
All the best for now,



Pete Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 BoomerangOutPost:       Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
 Thematic Threading:     Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
 Webulous Coordinates:   welcome.html

 QuoteForTheDay:

  "It is the story of all life that is holy and is good to tell
   and of us two-leggeds sharing in it with the four leggeds
   and the wings of the air and all green things,
   for these are the children of one mother
   and their father is one Spirit"

      -  Black Elk, Sioux Elder