Re Putnam.... I'm agnostic when it comes to matters of "religion", Gods or (as a nominalist) much of anything actually Universal, especially in the intellectual or intelligence plane.... But "agnostic" means.... I don't know...... I have been known to wager on catching striper bass.... and known to anticipate asteroid strikes.... (HAR)
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:57:33 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > James A Putnam (who sounds a bit like Craig) has written: > "Our ability, or even an insect's ability, to analyze hoards of always > changing, almost random data coming to us at the speed of light is > demonstration that something magnificent is occurring within our > minds. What this means is our conscious mind is in communication with > a subconscious mind that already knows what to do. It also means the > universe is in communication with our subconscious minds. The universe > sends us information for which we must already know the meaning. Our > intelligence contains the meaning of the universe. Universal > intelligence is our intelligence."[6] > "Judging from the universality of phenomena, the nature of such > phenomena, and the logical necessity of an adequate cause therefor, it > is assumed that there is a Universal Intelligence which is the > governing power of nature. Everything which exists is, in its degree, > a manifestation of an Intelligence which is superior to the > individual's comprehension. This Intelligent Power is not found alone > in the great crises such as the first appearance of life and the > dawning of consciousness or mind, but in the whole continuous, > purposeful process."[7] > "There is more to intelligence than human intelligence. Intelligence > is a property of the universe and of all that is in it. Universal > Intelligence is the intrinsic tendency for things to self-organize and > co-evolve into ever more complex, intricately interwoven and mutually > compatible forms. Our human intelligence is but one manifestation of > that universal dynamic. The more we are conscious of universal > intelligence and connect ourselves to it, the more intelligence (and > wisdom) we will have to work with. One might also describe Universal > Intelligence as the mind or will of God or Spirit."[8] > > His work on physics can be found here - > http://newphysicstheory.com/COMPLETE_THEORY.pdf > > The perplexing thing is whether there is insight here or complete > bollox. I don't have enough physics to know. For that matter, > visiting a local allotment and listening to an old Asian guy who does > grow better vegetables than me, I don't make the right sense of > gardening books either! > > On 6 Mar, 23:40, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Most gardening books in England are fairly hopeless for someone on the > > Northwest - here the environment is mostly rain and questions on how > > to keep most of it off one's crop are rarely addressed - one finds a > > flood of recommendations on water preservation. Even the photon > > leaving a particle leaves us with questions on how it 'achieves' light > > speed in what we mistakenly regard as nothing. Physics enters a form > > of relableism here, collating evidence of the very small with that > > from the cosmos. > > > > On Mar 6, 10:59 am, sadovnik socratus <socra...@bezeqint.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > About ‘tropical fish’ > > > One can study tropical fish in a restaurant and have > > > his a culinary philosophical doctrine . > > > Other can study tropical fish in their own surrounding natural > > > environment. His philosophy is absolutely different. > > > The problem is that physicists study electron without know > > > its own surrounding natural environment - vacuum. > > > Therefore we have ‘a culinary philosophical doctrine’. > > > ==. > > > > > On Mar 6, 10:22 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Electron is now three quasi-particles - spinon, holon and orbiton. > > > > Physics is less about what an electron is than that it helps us use > > > > them - "sending them down wires so our computers work" and so on. > We > > > > don't know what a particle is. > > > > > > My take on Socratus is he may ask (rightly) too much of science. > > > > > > My take on science is this: > > > > ‘… scientific realism[is defined] as the common sense (or common > > > > science) conception that, subject to a recognition that scientific > > > > methods are fallible and that most scientific knowledge is > > > > approximate, we are justified in accepting the most secure findings > of > > > > scientists "at face value." What requires explanation is why this is > a > > > > philosophical position rather than just a common sense one. > Consider, > > > > for example, tropical fish realism -- the doctrine that there really > > > > are tropical fish; that the little books you buy about them at pet > > > > stores tend to get it approximately right about their appearance, > > > > behavior, food and temperature requirements, etc.; and that the fish > > > > have these properties largely independently of our theories about > > > > them. That's a pretty clear doctrine, but it's so commonsensical > that > > > > it doesn't seem to have any particular philosophical import. Why is > > > > the analogous doctrine about science a philosophical doctrine? > > > > The answer is that -- setting aside skepticism about the external > > > > world -- there are no philosophical arguments against tropical fish > > > > realism, whereas important philosophical challenges have been raised > > > > against scientific realism.’ (Boyd 2002:1 [] mine) > > > > > > The philosophical issues are intractable if we start with the idea > > > > they can be bottomed-out. With a comfortable sinecure I might spend > > > > the rest of my life trying, say, to reconcile what the Ancient > Greeks > > > > knew about argument and complex set theory in the programmes of > > > > Scheibe, Ludwig and Sneed (see Balzer and Moulines 1996; Ludwig & > > > > Thurber 1996 and Scheibe 2001). The later work is German and may > give > > > > us some pointers by describing the complexity of theory formation in > > > > physics. Ludwig’s main points are: > > > > • Physical observations are first translated into sentences of > an > > > > auxiliary mathematical theory containing only finite sets, and, in a > > > > second step, approximately embedded into an idealized theory. By > this > > > > manoeuver the authors accentuate the contrast between finite > physical > > > > operations and mathematical assumptions involving infinite sets. > > > > • Inaccuracy sets and unsharp measurements are always considered > right > > > > from the start – the role of approximation is held key in theory > > > > formation. > > > > • The ‘basic domain’ of a theory is now that part of the > ‘application > > > > domain’ where the theory is successfully applied, up to a certain > > > > degree of inaccuracy. > > > > • The complicated terminology concerning various kinds of > hypotheses > > > > in Ludwig is radically reduced to a small number of cases including > > > > fuzzy hypotheses. > > > > • The problem of unsharp indirect measurements is reformulated > in an > > > > elegant way which yet should be scrutinized by means of case > studies. > > > > > > I'm not good at this stuff as it 'butters no parsnips' in my life - > > > > just interested. Issues of science and technology as ideology are > > > > well articulated in Critical Theory (esp. Habermas) and I take them > to > > > > be right if construing 'use' (as in the vampire squid of > neo-classical > > > > economics and corrupt politics). > > > > > > We don't work in the certainty of faith in science and approximation > > > > plays a key role. I think this gets lost and to some extent Nom I > > > > think your nominalism plays a role in ironing some of this out. > David > > > > Deutsche recently said: > > > > > > Constructors appear under various names in physics and other fields. > > > > For instance, > > > > in thermodynamics, a heat engine is a constructor because of the > > > > condition that it be > > > > capable of ‘operating in a cycle’. But they do not currently appear > in > > > > laws of physics. > > > > Indeed, there is no possible role for them in what I shall call the > > > > prevailing conception > > > > of fundamental physics, which is roughly as follows: everything > > > > physical is composed of elementary constituents such as particles, > > > > fields and spacetime; there is > > > > an initial state of those constituents; and laws of motion determine > > > > how the state > > > > evolves continuously thereafter. In contrast, a construction is > > > > characterised only > > > > by its inputs and outputs, and involves subsystems (the constructor > > > > and the > > > > substrate), playing different roles, and most constructors are > > > > themselves composite > > > > objects. So, in the prevailing conception, no law of physics could > > > > possibly mention > > > > them: the whole continuous process of interaction between > constructor > > > > and substrate > > > > is already determined by the universal laws governing their > > > > constituents. > > > > However, the constructor theory that I shall propose in this paper > is > > > > not primarily > > > > the theory of constructions or constructors, as the prevailing > > > > conception would > > > > require it to be. It is the theory of which transformations > > > > input state of substrates → output state of substrates > > > > can be caused and which cannot, and why. As I shall explain, the > idea > > > > is that the > > > > fundamental questions of physics can all be expressed in terms of > > > > those issues, and > > > > that the answers do not depend on what the constructor is, so it can > > > > be abstracted > > > > away, leaving transformations as the basic subject matter of the > > > > theory. I shall > > > > argue that we should expect such a theory to constitute a > fundamental > > > > branch of > > > > physics with new, universal laws, and to provide a powerful new > > > > language for > > > > expressing other theories. > > > > > > We are not perplexed alone! > > > > > > On Mar 5, 6:42 pm, sadovnik socratus <socra...@bezeqint.net> > wrote: > > > > > > > Are you "Physics" perplexed, like me? Options > > > > > ==. > > > > > 1 > > > > > *ATOMS* - have electrons. . . . . . . . . > > > > > 2 > > > > > *ELECTRONS* Negatively charged particles that constitute > electricity. > > > > > 3 > > > > > *ELECTRON VOLT* . . . . > > > > > 4 > > > > > *FERMIONS* . . have leptons . . . . . . . > > > > > 5 > > > > > *LEPTONS* . . . .Lightweight particles like the electrons that > > > > > constitute electrical current and . . . . . > > > > > 6 > > > > > *NEUTRINOS* Extremely light, almost massless, invisible particles > > > > > produced > > > > > in radioactive decays, they are part of the lepton family . . . . > > > > > 7. > > > > > PHOTONS* Particles that transmit electromagnetic forces, or light. > > > > > 8 > > > > > *STANDARD MODEL* A set of equations that describes forces of > nature > > > > > in > > > > > terms of elementary particles, known as fermions, . . . . . > > > > > 9 > > > > > There are three forces of nature in the Standard Model: > > > > > light, or electromagnetism . . . . > > > > > ===. > > > > > Half of your perplexed points tied with electron / photon. > > > > > Nobody knows what electron is. > > > > > If we solve that problem - the perplex will be disappeared > > > > > ==========================.. > > > > > The Electron’s puzzle. > > > > > ===. > > > > > 1900, 1905 > > > > > Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f. > > > > > 1916 > > > > > Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c, > > > > > 1928 > > > > > Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy: > > > > > +E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2. > > > > > According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s > > > > > energy is infinite: E= ∞ > > > > > Questions. > > > > > Why does the simplest particle - electron have five ( 5 ) formulas > ? > > > > > What is connection between them ? > > > > > Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ? > > > > > a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass > > > > > b) Maxwell’s equations > > > > > c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law > > > > > d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law > > > > > e) Fermi-Dirac statistics > > > > > What is connection between them ? > > > > > # > > > > > What is an electron ? > > > > > Nobody knows. > > > > > In the internet we can read hundreds theories about electron > > > > > All of them are problematical > > > > > We can read hundreds books about philosophy of physics. > > > > > But how can we trust them if we don’t know what electron is ? > > > > > ==. > > > > > Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations: > > > > > > > "One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae > > > > > have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own, > > > > > that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their > discoverers, > > > > > that we get more out of them than was originally put into them." > > > > > =. > > > > ... > > > > read more » > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
