The views of Lee Smolin as opposed to those of the Platonist, Leibniz
The views of Lee Smolin as opposed to those of the Platonist, Leibniz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin A. Leibniz would agree with these views of Smolin: A1. QM is unfinished. A2. Time is not well understood. Leibniz did not think of time as substantial or time as flowing, it is just an indexed sequence of events. A3. There is no multiverse, only the universe. B. Leibniz would disagree with Smolin on these issues: B1. Smolin believes that computationalism is false (because there cannot be internal isomorphisms. Here the issue of Leibniz's pre-established harmony might be challenged. Hmmm). B2. Smolin is not a Platonist. (Leibniz was.) Lee Smolin's view on the nature of time: More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the beginning of physics.[11] Smolin does not believe that quantum mechanics is a final theory: I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe this because I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of quantum mechanics that makes sense to me. I have studied most of them in depth and thought hard about them, and in the end I still can't make real sense of quantum theory as it stands.[12] In a 2009 article, Smolin has articulated the following philosophical views (the sentences in italics are quotations): There is only one universe [I agree. RBC. ] There are no others, nor is there anything isomorphic to it. Smolin denies the existence of a timeless multiverse. Neither other universes nor copies of our universe — within or outside — exist.[clarification needed] No copies can exist within the universe, because no subsystem can model precisely the larger system it is a part of. No copies can exist outside the universe, because the universe is by definition all there is. This principle also rules out the notion of a mathematical object isomorphic in every respect to the history of the entire universe [computationalism - L would disagree. due to his concept of Pre-established Harmony. RBC] , a notion more metaphysical than scientific. All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. Anything that is true is true of the present moment. Not only is time real, but everything that is real is situated in time. Nothing exists timelessly [I disagree. This rules out Platonism, which Leibniz and I believe in. L also b elieved that time as not real, only an indexed set of situations. RBC]. [The following paragraph is in accord with Leibniz, except that L held that only ideas are real - RBC] Everything that is real in a moment is a process of change leading to the next or future moments. Anything that is true is then a feature of a process in this process causing or implying future moments. This principle incorporates the notion that time is an aspect of causal relations. A reason for asserting it is that anything that existed for just one moment, without causing or implying some aspect of the world at a future moment, would be gone in the next moment. Things that persist must be thought of as processes leading to newly changed processes. An atom at one moment is a process leading to a different or a changed atom at the next moment. Mathematics is derived from experience as a generalization of observed regularities, when time and particularity are removed. Under this heading, Smolin distances himself from mathematical platonism [ Leibniz and I are Platonists- RBC] , and gives his reaction to Eugene Wigner's The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. He also opposes the anthropic principle, which he claims cannot help us to do science.[13] [See below] He also advocates “principles for an open future” which he claims underlie the work of both healthy scientific communities and democratic societies: “(1) When rational argument from public evidence suffices to decide a question, it must be considered to be so decided. (2) When rational argument from public evidence does not suffice to decide a question, the community must encourage a diverse range of viewpoints and hypotheses consistent with a good-faith attempt to develop convincing public evidence.” (Time Reborn p 265.) --- The Anthropic Principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle The anthropic principle (from the Greek, anthropos, human) is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate
Re: The views of Lee Smolin as opposed to those of the Platonist, Leibniz
Smolin believes in a multiverse else his fecund cosmology makes no sense. On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: *The views of Lee Smolin as opposed to those of * *the Platonist, Leibniz * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin A. Leibniz would agree with these views of Smolin: A1. QM is unfinished. A2. Time is not well understood. Leibniz did not think of time as substantial or time as flowing, it is just an indexed sequence of events. A3. There is no multiverse, only the universe. B. Leibniz would disagree with Smolin on these issues: B1. Smolin believes that computationalism is false (because there cannot be internal isomorphisms. Here the issue of Leibniz's pre-established harmony might be challenged. Hmmm). B2. Smolin is not a Platonist. (Leibniz was.) Lee Smolin's view on the nature of time: More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both *deeply wrong about the nature of time.* It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the beginning of physics.[11] Smolin does not believe that quantum mechanics is a final theory: I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe this because I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of quantum mechanics that makes sense to me. I have studied most of them in depth and thought hard about them, and in the end I still can't make real sense of quantum theory as it stands.[12] In a 2009 article, Smolin has articulated the following philosophical views (the sentences in italics are quotations): *There is only one universe [I agree. RBC.** ]*There are no others, nor is there anything isomorphic to it. Smolin denies the existence of a timeless multiverse. Neither other universes nor copies of our universe — within or outside — exist.[clarification needed] No copies can exist within the universe, because no subsystem can model precisely the larger system it is a part of. No copies can exist outside the universe, because the universe is by definition all there is. * This principle also * *rules out the notion ** of a mathematical object isomorphic in every respect to the * *history of the entire universe [computationalism - L would disagree. * *due to his concept of Pre-established Harmony. RBC], a notion more metaphysical than scientific. * All that is real is real in a moment, which is a succession of moments. Anything that is true is true of the present moment. Not only is time real, but everything that is real is situated in time. *Nothing exists timelessly [I disagree. This rules out Platonism, which Leibniz and I believe in. * *L also b elieved that time as not real, only an indexed set of situations. RBC]. * * **[The following paragraph is in accord with Leibniz, except that L held that only ideas are real - RBC]* Everything that is real in a moment is a process of change leading to the next or future moments. Anything that is true is then a feature of a process in this process causing or implying future moments. This principle incorporates the notion that time is an aspect of causal relations. A reason for asserting it is that anything that existed for just one moment, without causing or implying some aspect of the world at a future moment, would be gone in the next moment. Things that persist must be thought of as processes leading to newly changed processes. An atom at one moment is a process leading to a different or a changed atom at the next moment. Mathematics is derived from experience as a generalization of observed regularities, when time and particularity are removed. Under this heading, Smolin distances himself from mathematical platonism *[ Leibniz and I are Platonists- RBC] , * and gives his reaction to Eugene Wigner's The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. He also opposes the anthropic principle, which he claims cannot help us to do science.[13] [See below] He also advocates “principles for an open future” which he claims underlie the work of both healthy scientific communities and democratic societies: “(1) When rational argument from public evidence suffices to decide a question, it must be considered to be so decided. (2) When rational argument from public evidence does not suffice to decide a question, the community must encourage a diverse range of viewpoints and hypotheses consistent with a good-faith attempt to develop convincing public evidence.” (Time Reborn p 265.) --- The Anthropic Principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle The *anthropic principle* (from the Greek, *anthropos*, human) is the philosophical consideration
Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth¡¯s atmosphere First phrase, first lie. The single most important climate-relevant blah blah blah is water vapour, not CO2 by a great margin. It makes about 90% of the global warming effect. I mean that this is a lie because they supposedly are scientists and they must know it. Anyway, this is bad news for those that, like me, receive Exxon checks, we need more antropogenic alarmists ; This list is becoming truly about everything. 2013/6/15 spudboy...@aol.com It's amazing how much damage the Anthropogenic CO2 can do to the Solar Photosphere. ;-) -Original Message- From: smitra smi...@zonnet.nl To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 10:43 am Subject: Re: On Global WarmingThe sun is getting a little hotter Not assumed to be caused, but known to be caused. The science is clear, it's only that the vast majority of the population is science illiterate to the point that many people with university degrees in economics, engineering etc. don't know much about physics and are susceptible to the same nonsense as most lay persons. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full ABSTRACT Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth¡¯s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state. It often is stated that water vapor is the chief greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere. For example, it has been asserted that ¡°about 98% of the natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and stratiform clouds with CO2 contributing less than 2%¡± (1). If true, this would imply that changes in atmospheric CO2 are not important influences on the natural greenhouse capacity of Earth, and that the continuing increase in CO2 due to human activity is therefore not relevant to climate change. This misunderstanding is resolved through simple examination of the terrestrial greenhouse. The difference between the nominal global mean surface temperature (TS = 288 K) and the global mean effective temperature (TE = 255 K) is a common measure of the terrestrial greenhouse effect (GT = TS ¨C TE = 33 K). Assuming global energy balance, TE is also the Planck radiation equivalent of the 240 W/m2 of global mean solar radiation absorbed by Earth. The Sun is the source of energy that heats Earth. Besides direct solar heating of the ground, there is also indirect longwave (LW) warming arising from the thermal radiation that is emitted by the ground, then absorbed locally within the atmosphere, from which it is re-emitted in both upward and downward directions, further heating the ground and maintaining the temperature gradient in the atmosphere. This radiative interaction is the greenhouse effect, which was first discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 (2), experimentally verified by John Tyndall in 1863 (3), and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (4). These studies established long ago that water vapor and CO2 are indeed the principal terrestrial GHGs. Now, further consideration shows that CO2 is the one that controls climate change. CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not condense or precipitate from the atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly active components of the climate system that respond rapidly to changes in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precipitating. This identifies water vapor and clouds as the fast feedback processes in the climate system. Radiative forcing experiments assuming doubled CO2 and a 2% increase in solar irradiance (5) show that water vapor provides the strongest climate feedback of any of the atmospheric GHGs, but that it is not the cause (forcing) of global climate change. The response of the climate system to an applied forcing is determined to be the sum of the direct (no-feedback) response to the applied forcing and the induced radiative response that is attributable to the feedback process contributions. The ratio of the total climate response to the no-feedback response is commonly known as the feedback factor, which incorporates all the complexities of the climate system
Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
Can we stop talking about religion? 2013/6/18 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth¡¯s atmosphere First phrase, first lie. The single most important climate-relevant blah blah blah is water vapour, not CO2 by a great margin. It makes about 90% of the global warming effect. I mean that this is a lie because they supposedly are scientists and they must know it. Anyway, this is bad news for those that, like me, receive Exxon checks, we need more antropogenic alarmists ; This list is becoming truly about everything. 2013/6/15 spudboy...@aol.com It's amazing how much damage the Anthropogenic CO2 can do to the Solar Photosphere. ;-) -Original Message- From: smitra smi...@zonnet.nl To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 10:43 am Subject: Re: On Global WarmingThe sun is getting a little hotter Not assumed to be caused, but known to be caused. The science is clear, it's only that the vast majority of the population is science illiterate to the point that many people with university degrees in economics, engineering etc. don't know much about physics and are susceptible to the same nonsense as most lay persons. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full ABSTRACT Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth¡¯s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state. It often is stated that water vapor is the chief greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere. For example, it has been asserted that ¡°about 98% of the natural greenhouse effect is due to water vapour and stratiform clouds with CO2 contributing less than 2%¡± (1). If true, this would imply that changes in atmospheric CO2 are not important influences on the natural greenhouse capacity of Earth, and that the continuing increase in CO2 due to human activity is therefore not relevant to climate change. This misunderstanding is resolved through simple examination of the terrestrial greenhouse. The difference between the nominal global mean surface temperature (TS = 288 K) and the global mean effective temperature (TE = 255 K) is a common measure of the terrestrial greenhouse effect (GT = TS ¨C TE = 33 K). Assuming global energy balance, TE is also the Planck radiation equivalent of the 240 W/m2 of global mean solar radiation absorbed by Earth. The Sun is the source of energy that heats Earth. Besides direct solar heating of the ground, there is also indirect longwave (LW) warming arising from the thermal radiation that is emitted by the ground, then absorbed locally within the atmosphere, from which it is re-emitted in both upward and downward directions, further heating the ground and maintaining the temperature gradient in the atmosphere. This radiative interaction is the greenhouse effect, which was first discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 (2), experimentally verified by John Tyndall in 1863 (3), and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (4). These studies established long ago that water vapor and CO2 are indeed the principal terrestrial GHGs. Now, further consideration shows that CO2 is the one that controls climate change. CO2 is a well-mixed gas that does not condense or precipitate from the atmosphere. Water vapor and clouds, on the other hand, are highly active components of the climate system that respond rapidly to changes in temperature and air pressure by evaporating, condensing, and precipitating. This identifies water vapor and clouds as the fast feedback processes in the climate system. Radiative forcing experiments assuming doubled CO2 and a 2% increase in solar irradiance (5) show that water vapor provides the strongest climate feedback of any of the atmospheric GHGs, but that it is not the cause (forcing) of global climate change. The response of the climate system to an applied forcing is determined to be the sum of the direct (no-feedback) response to the applied forcing and the induced radiative response that is attributable to the feedback process contributions. The ratio of the total climate response to the no-feedback response is
Fwd: [foar] mathematics and nature, physical law, etc
True but only in the large particle limit where waves become physical fields and nature is classical and deterministic does nature emulate logic and arithmetic. Richard 'Yanni' Ru -- Forwarded message -- From: Bill Taylor wfc.tay...@gmail.com Date: Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:13 AM Subject: Re: [foar] mathematics and nature, physical law, etc To: f...@googlegroups.com Cc: ker...@polaris.net On Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:43:11 AM UTC+12, KermitRose wrote: Therefore, it is obvious that biological and physical processes mirror in some way logic and mathematics. EMULATION b -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Fabric of Alternate Reality group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to f...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: On Global Warming----The sun is getting a little hotter
On 6/18/2013 4:21 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth¡¯s atmosphere First phrase, first lie. The single most important climate-relevant blah blah blah is water vapour, not CO2 by a great margin. It makes about 90% of the global warming effect. Water has the greatest greenhouse effect, but that doesn't mean it is 'most important' in determining climate. Water vapor in the atmosphere stays very nearly in equilibrium with ocean surface temperature, so it is a feedback factor not a driver. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [foar] mathematics and nature, physical law, etc
That may be because to maintain the internal entropy low, the living beings have to process information about the environment and the more properties an environment has and the less exceptions and contradicitions, the more posible is this information processing So life need this. Perhaps mathematics and reality have the same foundation: what we can think and what we can live in. And they have the same basic constraints, so it is natural that both match: the mathematics are the processing structures that repeat themselves at different scales to créate the complexity where we live in, and we think about them in order to break the puzzle of reality in terms of these pieces. 2013/6/18 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com True but only in the large particle limit where waves become physical fields and nature is classical and deterministic does nature emulate logic and arithmetic. Richard 'Yanni' Ru -- Forwarded message -- From: Bill Taylor wfc.tay...@gmail.com Date: Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:13 AM Subject: Re: [foar] mathematics and nature, physical law, etc To: f...@googlegroups.com Cc: ker...@polaris.net On Sunday, June 16, 2013 8:43:11 AM UTC+12, KermitRose wrote: Therefore, it is obvious that biological and physical processes mirror in some way logic and mathematics. EMULATION b -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Fabric of Alternate Reality group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to foar+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to f...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/foar. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: In spacetime (matter) and beyond spacetime (energy)
The article seems to go along with Gauriga and Vilenkins Chaotic Inflation. This would be occupying the phase space in the article. Is this what you see as well? -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: - Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Sent: Mon, Jun 17, 2013 1:29 am Subject: In spacetime (matter) and beyond spacetime (energy) Hi Since there has been some question from materialists about my use of the phrase beyond spacetime, I thought I would show that this is a perfectly legitimate concept now being investigated by the likes of Roger Penrose and Lee Smolin. Here is a 2011 article discussing phase space, which is another name for one form of beyond spacetime: Beyond space-time: Welcome to phase space http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128241.700-beyond-spacetime-welcome-to-phase-space.html#.Ub7EqJy0S-U As I gather, the issue has arisen from: 1) Explorations beyond the spacetime world of Einstein, and 2) The fact if bodies collide inelastically, one has to consider the conservation not just of energy or of momentum, but I believe of their sum. In looking into this, I see that energy, being a scalar, is beyond spacetime, while momentum, a vector, is not. Since I have been referring to mind as being beyond spacetime, perhaps there is a connection between mind and energy. - Roger Clough Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 6/17/2013 See my Leibniz site at http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
