Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[value]

My other topic about JWST imagery addresses the questionable history of the Big Bang theory. In my opinion the story about Albert Einstein's involvement would be an example case for the theory of Thomas Kuhn and investigating it might lead to interesting insights.

The topic asserted that from a philosophical perspective it all comes down to the concept begin: an exploding primordial atom or ...?

The Big Bang theory is based on assumptions about Gravity that might be proven wrong using philosophical theory. The idea that Gravity can compress into an infinitely dense point (a primordial atom) might be disprovable.

Scientists in 2018: no one has ever truly understood Gravity, nor have they proven its existence. (Gravity is a Myth)

A good place for philosophical progress may be to investigate whether Gravity fundamentally requires quality. Scientists likely have been neglecting the slightest sight of that idea. The idea of Qualia/Quality belongs to values and philosophy and cannot be investigated by science.

There are some indications that Gravity emerges from neutrinos:

Gravity -- a neutrino effect?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravi ... ino-effect

Gravity Emerges...From Neutrinos?
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... -neutrinos

If this were to be the case, neutrinos could be the source of both dark energy and Gravity with the same mechanism (a gravitational pull effect in different directions, which would include the source of life).

When it can be made evident that Gravity fundamentally requires quality, then there could be a case to seek the source within the potential of neutrinos to change their mass influence from within themselves, and that context might be beginning-less (infinite) of nature.

In theory neutrinos move at light speed because they can switch between so called 'mass flavours'. At light speed there is no time or distance so at question would be: how could a tiny particle deviate out of a state of timelessness to interact with mass in the physical world - 'out of itself'?

When a neutrino changes "flavor" or "color" it is in a transition state and therefore can be any mass. At the midpoint it is 0 mass and travels at speed c (light speed). When it becomes one or the other it has mass. In between it can have any mass, meaning even 0 mass. It's the same as Schrodingers cat. It works and is non-contradictory.

When Gravity is caused by the potential of neutrinos to deviate out of a state of timelessness then it is that deviation potential that requires investigation and that might be an opportunity for philosophy to regain a leading position (a crossing point for science).

It seems common sense to me that life requires a fundamental topical energy source that is a priori to life's sensing of the world.

Subjective experience would not originate from within the matter of the organism but externally, from a context that cannot be a pattern, e.g. a context Other than what existed but not irrelevant. One might consider that context beginning-less of nature, since it is the origin of the 'begin' by which subjectivity is manifested.

Questions:

1. What is your idea about Gravity?
2. Is there a clue that Gravity fundamentally requires quality?
3. Is there a link between Gravity, life and consciousness?

[value]

In the modern world doubting and questioning the foundations of science isn't allowed and is labelled as anti-science (heresy).

It explains the following reaction by an astronomy professor to recent JWST imagery:

“Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” ?

Could the entire scientific paradigm turn out to be wrong?
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=18811

The concept 'anti-science' by which people who dare to question science are to be persecuted as heretics provides a window into the dogmatic state of science. More subtly academics are barred from pursuing certain studies and when it concerns the Big Bang theory...

Eric J. Lerner writes: It has become almost impossible to publish papers critical of the Big Bang in any astronomical journals.

I was recently banned on Space.com for questioning the Big Bang theory.

In 2018, philosopher Justin B. Biddle wrote a critical paper on the concept anti-science and what he called 'war on science' propaganda in Western media:

The “anti-science” or “war on science” narrative has become popular among science journalists. While there is no question that some opponents of GMOs are biased or ignorant of the relevant facts, the blanket tendency to characterize critics of GMO as anti-science or engaged in a war on science is both misguided and dangerous.
https://philpapers.org/rec/BIDAZV

When resisting, one is to face persecution on par with terrorism and nuclear proliferation, or 'war by the state' on behalf of the dogma of science.

(2021) The Antiscience Movement Is Escalating, Going Global and Killing Thousands
Antiscience has emerged as a dominant and highly lethal force, and one that threatens global security, as much as do terrorism and nuclear proliferation. We must mount a counteroffensive and build new infrastructure to combat antiscience, just as we have for these other more widely recognized and established threats.

Antiscience is now a large and formidable security threat.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... thousands/

The state is being put in service to defend the dogma of science.

What is philosophy in a world in which people are classified as either being pro-science or anti-science?

There is simply no place for philosophy in such a world in which there is no middle ground. Philosophy, when not in service of science, is to be abandoned as divergent of what is scientifically true.

Blindly (humble observerly) following the science in the absence of morality and values is the destiny of human existence. There is a greater good, but that good is to be followed. It is a good in the form of a scientific truth that is given to humanity deterministically all the way down from the exploding primordial atom in the Big Bang explosion where the world supposedly began.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote the following in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 - We Scholars):

"...and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account."

"the IDEAL man of learning in whom the scientific instinct blossoms forth fully after a thousand complete and partial failures, is assuredly one of the most costly instruments that exist, but his place is in the hand of one who is more powerful. He is only an instrument, we may say, he is a MIRROR - he is no "purpose in himself

...he [scientific man] is no goal, not outgoing nor upgoing, no complementary man in whom the REST of existence justifies itself, no termination—and still less a commencement, an engendering, or primary cause, nothing hardy, powerful, self-centred, that wants to be master; but rather only a soft, inflated, delicate, movable potter's-form, that must wait for some kind of content and frame to "shape" itself thereto—for the most part a man without frame and content, a "selfless" man."

Science has attempted to overcome philosophy by placing philosophy on a level comparable with religions. Science has attempted to become its own master.

The fundamental error: the dogmatic belief in certainty that was introduced by Immanuel Kant's concept apodictical certainty (apodiktische Gewißheit) through which Kant provided science with a philosophical ground to become its own master.

The dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism is the belief in the intrinsic realness of space and time, and therewith a certain ground for causality. In its most simple form it is the belief that the facts of science are valid without philosophy.

Philosophy should be the master of science and not the other way around. Not by telling what science should do but by making science questionable (to secure optimal progress).

[Spearman+10]

No, and the reason is provided in Feynman’s Lectures on Gravitation.

Neutrinos are half-spin particles. If gravity was mediated by the exchange of single neutrinos, that exchange would change half-spin particles into integral spin particles and vice versa. We certainly do not see that happen (e.g., electrons don’t change into W- bosons under the influence of gravity) so single-neutrino exchange is ruled out as a means of mediating gravity on this basis.

Could pairs of neutrinos be responsible for gravity, though? When we work out the potential that follows from two neutrino exchange, it will be proportional to the inverse third power of the distance between two bodies. This contradicts our observation that the gravitational potential is proportional to the inverse first power of that distance. An inverse first power relationship could be obtained using three bodies (e.g., the Earth and the Moon under the influence of the Sun) but even that fails to work out in the end because of an additional logarithmic term that is much too large and conflicts with observation.

So no, the exchange of neutrinos just does not work as an explanation for gravity. In fact, this reasoning is easily extended to any half-spin particle. That leave integral spin particles, but a spin-1 particle, as it is well known, would produce a repulsive force between like masses. Spin-0 is also out, because it would violate the equivalence principle in observable ways. So we are stuck with a spin-2 particle as the simplest possible particle to serve as the quantum of the gravitational field, and indeed, a spin-2 graviton has all the right properties.

[value]

Thank you for your expert insight!

Some facts to consider:

1. The masses of other fundamental particles come from the Higgs field, but neutrinos get their masses another way.
2. Scientists also wonder if neutrinos are their own antiparticles. If they are, they could play a role to explain the question why the Universe exists.

While your arguments might be correct from an empirical perspective, the fact remains that it is unknown today how neutrinos exert gravitational influence and second to that it is unknown today how neutrinos can change their gravitational influence.

The OP cited the following assertion which would imply that neutrinos would need to deviate out of a state of timelessness to exert their gravitational influence, which could be a clue that one should have a different perspective on their gravitational effect compared to how that effect is generally observed in physics.

When a neutrino changes "flavor" or "color" it is in a transition state and therefore can be any mass. At the midpoint it is 0 mass and travels at speed c (light speed). When it becomes one or the other it has mass. In between it can have any mass, meaning even 0 mass. It's the same as Schrodingers cat. It works and is non-contradictory.

Clearly, it is justified to consider that neutrinos might need a different explanation for their gravitational effect in the world compared to other particles. Further, the specific ability to change their mass influence can provide a clue that the source of their gravitational influence must be contained within the neutrino, which could provide a basis for further philosophical speculation.

Also...

Only a fool doesn't believe in science.
...
Like I said, the matter needs to be left up to those with the technical knowledge.
...
I don't think it is philosophy's job to investigate science's claims.
...
I think Foucault has a lot to say about this. And implicitly, Kuhn. But science itself is unimpugnable.

I disagree profoundly on this matter. It is philosophy that is responsible for examining the foundations of thinking in any context, which includes science.

There is no 'closed for philosophy' area.

Science has no justification to assume the nature of it's facts to differ from common truths despite its aspiration in the face of esteemed factual quality. The aspiration itself is questionable just like any other truth claim.

One could start with the concept morality:

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

The question 'Is science 'out of control'?' tells it all.

Science should be fundamentally questionable and by that it would introduce morality and philosophy into its core practice. Not by saying what science should do, but how to do it better when considering diverse contexts, which could include social and moral aspects.

In the case of an explanation for Gravity, it might just have to be sought in a context that cannot be grasped by science, the scope of values and quality.

The ability of neutrinos to change their gravitational influence might be a crossing point for science that requires philosophy to create a new method for further progress.

Albert Einstein predicted it:

"Perhaps... we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” he wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find [new philosophical] methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space.

Within Western philosophy, the realm beyond space has traditionally been considered a realm beyond physics — the plane of God’s existence in Christian theology. In the early eighteenth century, philosopher Gottfried Leibniz’s “monads” — which he imagined to be the primitive elements of the universe — existed, like God, outside space and time. His theory was a step toward emergent space-time, but it was still metaphysical, with only a vague connection to the world of concrete things."

A new method beyond the scientific method to proceed. This would be a task for philosophy.

[Hereandnow]

Value wrote
I disagree profoundly on this matter. It is philosophy that is responsible for examining the foundations of thinking in any context, which includes science.

I suspect you really don't disagree with my view on this. It is just that it hasn't been examined closely enough and remains ambiguous.

Science has no justification to assume the nature of it's facts to differ from common truths despite its aspiration in the face of esteemed factual quality. The aspiration itself is questionable just like any other truth claim.

I don't dispute this. In fact, I argue for it, along with those who influence my thinking. To be clear, what I don't question, which is not to say there are no questions for there certainly are, is what keeps me confident in the dentist's chair and keeps satellites from falling out of the sky. Such things have a clear, if incomplete, science behind them. Is there more to this? Of course. I brought up Foucault and Kuhn and the poliitcs of "normal science" but this doesn't raise questions about Mohs scale of hardness or the validity of carbon dating. All science is open. All knowledge is open, essentially interpretative; facts are interpretative in their nature and it is not as if the scientist has a God's eye view of anything.

I would add that what you call "common truths" are just our everydayness through which science flows spontaneously and unquestioningly, in every step and utterance. This is the scientific method, a forward-looking "process" that defines truth as repeatable results, as when I walk down the street and implicitly affirm everything around me as normal. Call this the paradigmatic nature of ordinary living, or "normal science" as Khun puts it, of everydayness.

One could start with the concept morality:

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.

The question 'Is science 'out of control'?' tells it all.

But this isn't about science, but about politics, practicality in application, like the issue of using Josef Mengele's research on Jews in concentration camps to advance science. Or whatever else might be the source of an issue. It is not science out of control, but scientists. True, science can eclipse the moral dimension of our existence simply because morality is not objective and quantifiable (though this doesn't mean it has no objectivity) and these guys end up working with this deficit. But the came can be said for anything that encourages a singularity of thinking that ignores other things. Musicians can be mathematically obtuse and athletes relatively devoid of feeling, but this says nothing of music or athletics as such.

Science should be fundamentally questionable and by that it would introduce morality and philosophy into its core practice. Not by saying what science should do, but how to do it better when considering diverse contexts, which could include social and moral aspects.

In the case of an explanation for Gravity, it might just have to be sought in a context that cannot be grasped by science, the scope of values and quality.

Core practice? No. Science's core is rigorous commitment to the truth as the facts reveal themselves to observation. The fact that a scientist acknowledges moral obligations of one sort or another, or fails to altogether has no bearing on the scientific end. I'm certainly not saying mad scietists should be allowed to rule the world; I'm just saying science is not ethics and more than it is basket weaving.

The ability of neutrinos to change their gravitational influence might be a crossing point for science that requires philosophy to create a new method for further progress.

If you are talking about the philosophy of science, which is a specific field of inquiry not really distinguishable from speculative science, then sure. But this wouldn't be about ethics. It would be about looking for new paradigms in science.
Albert Einstein predicted it:

"Perhaps... we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” he wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find [new philosophical] methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space.

You know that Einstein had read Kant early in life. He was well aware of the two, objective time-space and "subjective" time-space. A curious notion to consider that one day the two will come together, just as curious that ethics/aesthetics/value will someday be part of science--after all, from a science pov, value is, speaking loosely, what matter and energy DO and it is ad hoc to exclude then from physics. But as your quote of Einstein's say, presently this is like breathing empty space. But if you are just imaging a one day unified endeavor to discover foundational Truth, then fine.

Within Western philosophy, the realm beyond space has traditionally been considered a realm beyond physics — the plane of God’s existence in Christian theology. In the early eighteenth century, philosopher Gottfried Leibniz’s “monads” — which he imagined to be the primitive elements of the universe — existed, like God, outside space and time. His theory was a step toward emergent space-time, but it was still metaphysical, with only a vague connection to the world of concrete things."

A new method beyond the scientific method to proceed. This would be a task for philosophy.

Well, like someone once put it, if there is anything better than reason, then this will be discovered by reason. I am quick to remind that thought itself is structured by the scientific method, for language acquisition is an observational process that is temporal and forward looking. This is what the pragmatists hold and I think they are right.

[Sea Turtle]

Bob Lazar claims to have knowledge of a machine that interacts with gravity. If his claims are valid, it would alter this topic.

[value]

Science has no justification to assume the nature of it's facts to differ from common truths despite its aspiration in the face of esteemed factual quality. The aspiration itself is questionable just like any other truth claim.

I don't dispute this. In fact, I argue for it, along with those who influence my thinking. To be clear, what I don't question, which is not to say there are no questions for there certainly are, is what keeps me confident in the dentist's chair and keeps satellites from falling out of the sky. Such things have a clear, if incomplete, science behind them. Is there more to this? Of course. I brought up Foucault and Kuhn and the poliitcs of "normal science" but this doesn't raise questions about Mohs scale of hardness or the validity of carbon dating. All science is open. All knowledge is open, essentially interpretative; facts are interpretative in their nature and it is not as if the scientist has a God's eye view of anything.

I would add that what you call "common truths" are just our everydayness through which science flows spontaneously and unquestioningly, in every step and utterance. This is the scientific method, a forward-looking "process" that defines truth as repeatable results, as when I walk down the street and implicitly affirm everything around me as normal. Call this the paradigmatic nature of ordinary living, or "normal science" as Khun puts it, of everydayness.

Your example is utility. Utility derived from repeatability.

One could start with the concept morality:

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.

The question 'Is science 'out of control'?' tells it all.

But this isn't about science, but about politics, practicality in application, like the issue of using Josef Mengele's research on Jews in concentration camps to advance science. Or whatever else might be the source of an issue. It is not science out of control, but scientists. True, science can eclipse the moral dimension of our existence simply because morality is not objective and quantifiable (though this doesn't mean it has no objectivity) and these guys end up working with this deficit. But the came can be said for anything that encourages a singularity of thinking that ignores other things. Musicians can be mathematically obtuse and athletes relatively devoid of feeling, but this says nothing of music or athletics as such.

How can you argue that it doesn't concern science when scientists behave immoral, when science is to be considered morally neutral and by that would promote immoral advances for the sole purpose of advancement?

When just the idea of immoral advantage is possible, the question why not can serve as both a motivation and justification.

Did the Nazi's believe that what they did was morally wrong? Eugenics was a global movement of science and the practice of eugenics was perceived as a greater good for humanity.

My view is that negligence of morality results in dogmatic corruption. That's not progress. Progress is the achievement of an optimal state of being in the face of infinity. It requires the abolishment of dogma's and a fundamental questioning of anything for ought progress. In real morality anything is possible, but one better steps it up ten notches to do it better than merely kicking-the-stone type of trying with a dose of evil or failure. Intelligence before practice. That is what morality is about. Morality transcends beyond laziness. Morality can provide an intellectual demand (responsibility) to put in an extra effort to do things better.

Science should be fundamentally questionable and by that it would introduce morality and philosophy into its core practice. Not by saying what science should do, but how to do it better when considering diverse contexts, which could include social and moral aspects.

Core practice? No. Science's core is rigorous commitment to the truth as the facts reveal themselves to observation. The fact that a scientist acknowledges moral obligations of one sort or another, or fails to altogether has no bearing on the scientific end. I'm certainly not saying mad scietists should be allowed to rule the world; I'm just saying science is not ethics and more than it is basket weaving.

I disagree. What you indicate as 'the truth' is merely an observation of repeatability. It is in that context that science intends to make a qualitative claim regarding the nature of facts, and in my opinion is it plainly obvious that there is no theory for validity of the idea that only that what is repeatable, is meaningfully relevant.

At first sight therefore, science is fundamentally insufficient. The belief that facts are 'the truth' is dogmatic of nature with merely utilitarian value as ground for justification. Allowing science to proceed without morality therefore is not responsible (not justified). In my opinion, this implies a fundamental requirement to introduce philosophy and morality into the core practice of science.

The ability of neutrinos to change their gravitational influence might be a crossing point for science that requires philosophy to create a new method for further progress.

If you are talking about the philosophy of science, which is a specific field of inquiry not really distinguishable from speculative science, then sure. But this wouldn't be about ethics. It would be about looking for new paradigms in science.

Perhaps not. What if the ability of neutrinos to change their Gravitational influence in the world would need to be contained within the neutrino? What if that ability is qualitative of nature?

Albert Einstein predicted it:

"Perhaps... we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” he wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find [new philosophical] methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space.

You know that Einstein had read Kant early in life. He was well aware of the two, objective time-space and "subjective" time-space. A curious notion to consider that one day the two will come together, just as curious that ethics/aesthetics/value will someday be part of science--after all, from a science pov, value is, speaking loosely, what matter and energy DO and it is ad hoc to exclude then from physics. But as your quote of Einstein's say, presently this is like breathing empty space. But if you are just imaging a one day unified endeavor to discover foundational Truth, then fine.

My argument would be that it [the target of a method beyond the scientific method] is not foundational at all.

Even 'is-ness' (Being) would be at question in a context that would be beginning-less of nature, a context beyond space and time.

What is the concept Truth outside the bounds of the potential provided by repeatable nature, a context that science therefore cannot grasp?

What it comes down to in my opinion is meaningful relevance.

Within Western philosophy, the realm beyond space has traditionally been considered a realm beyond physics — the plane of God’s existence in Christian theology. In the early eighteenth century, philosopher Gottfried Leibniz’s “monads” — which he imagined to be the primitive elements of the universe — existed, like God, outside space and time. His theory was a step toward emergent space-time, but it was still metaphysical, with only a vague connection to the world of concrete things."

A new method beyond the scientific method to proceed. This would be a task for philosophy.

Well, like someone once put it, if there is anything better than reason, then this will be discovered by reason. I am quick to remind that thought itself is structured by the scientific method, for language acquisition is an observational process that is temporal and forward looking. This is what the pragmatists hold and I think they are right.

Did you notice the topic Logic is it's own fallacy.? The author of that topic might be Robert Pirsig (IQ 170), the author of the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values (1974), the most sold philosophy book ever (5m copies).

Pirsig was trying to convince philosophers of the significance of 'Quality'.

The Guardian: "Though a website dedicated to his ideas boasts 50,000 posts, and there have been outposts of academic interest, he is disappointed that his books have not had more mainstream attention. 'Most academic philosophers ignore it, or badmouth it quietly, and I wondered why that was. I suspect it may have something to do with my insistence that "quality" can not be defined,' he says."

His website is Metaphysics of Quality www.moq.org.

Quality and Values... This might be the scope where further progress is to be sought. A context outside the bounds of repeatable nature but 'meaningfully relevant'.

While my logic initially resulted in the concept 'pure meaning' I recently started to refer it as 'pure quality'.

Can logic and reason explain its own origin? Can logic and reason provide the required method?

[value]

No, and the reason is provided in Feynman’s Lectures on Gravitation.

I questioned an AI about it and, while it didn't find support from its sources, I managed to use philosophical reason to have it conclude that neutrinos must be the source of Gravity.

1. Bosons cannot exist without carrying a force.
2. Fermions are involved in the creation of the force carried by bosons.
3. Therefore it can be established that fermions are the fundamental source of the force exerted by bosons.

Based on this reasoning, it was easy to conclude that neutrinos must be the source of Gravity.

The AI first rejected the idea that the force of mass exerted by the Higgs boson is the source of Gravity, however, philosophical reason made it infer the following:

1. Mass is fundamental to Gravity (Gravity cannot exist without mass) therefore mass is the source of Gravity.
2. Higgs-bosons are the source of mass in all particles except neutrinos.
3. Therefore it can be established that Higgs-bosons are the source of Gravity.

Since all fermions have mass and must acquire that from the Higgs-boson, it was easy to conclude that neutrinos must be the source of Gravity.

1. It was established that a fermion must be the fundamental source of the mass force exerted by the Higgs-boson.
2. The fundamental fermion for the force of mass cannot be the source of its own mass.
3. Neutrinos are the only fermion that may not acquire its mass from the Higgs-boson.

A source:

Do hidden influences give neutrinos their tiny mass?
"When a particle interacts with the Higgs field, the Higgs field switches that particle’s “handedness”—a measure of its spin and motion. When a “right-handed” electron interacts with the Higgs field, it becomes a left-handed electron. When a left-handed electron interacts with the Higgs field, the opposite occurs.

But as far as scientists have measured, all neutrinos are left-handed.

Something else seems to be going on with neutrino mass..."
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/articl ... -tiny-mass

Conclusion: neutrinos are the source of Gravity and therewith the world.

I wonder whether Gottfried Leibniz Monad theory could be applicable.

[value]

A recent new theory (since 2018) intends to replace Dark Matter and Dark Energy with a single concept: Dark Fluid.

"some of the biggest mysteries in cosmology require either negative mass or 'dark energy' to explain it"

The negative-mass cosmology proposed by Farnes 2018 (NASA) replaces both dark matter and dark energy with one single ingredient, namely the negative-mass fluid. The idea is that negative mass would create a repulsive form of gravity that would counteract the attractive force of normal matter, leading to the observed accelerating expansion of the universe.

(2018) Can a negative-mass cosmology explain dark matter and dark energy?⋆
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_ ... 17-19.html
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.08287.pdf

Farnes 2018: https://github.com/jamiefarnes/negative-mass-simulator

The concept negative gravity (in the dark fluid theory) would break Einstein's theory of relativity. This would make it interesting for philosophical speculation since a whole lot may be learned from it.

Only a fool doesn't believe in science.
...
Like I said, the matter needs to be left up to those with the technical knowledge.
...
I don't think it is philosophy's job to investigate science's claims.

But what if it concerns a mass influence change potential that must be contained within a particle that might be fundamental to the existence of the Universe? Would it be responsible to 'leave it to empirical science'? How can science even consider the concept Quality other than through human psychology?

When neutrinos are the source of mass and Gravity, and when the source of their gravitational influence must be contained within the neutrino and when that would include the potential to change that mass influence, it would imply that, if there would be the slightest Quality involved in that changing mass/Gravity influence, it would manifest as both positive and negative Gravity.

An example cosmological observation:

(2023) Universe Defies Einstein’s Predictions: Cosmic Structure Growth Mysteriously Suppressed
Scientists have discovered that cosmic structures grow slower than Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity predicts, with dark energy (negative mass) playing a more dominant role than previously thought.

Galaxies are threaded throughout our universe like a giant cosmic spider web. Their distribution is not random and requires either dark energy or negative mass.
https://scitechdaily.com/universe-defie ... uppressed/

Not random = qualitative. That would imply that the mass change potential that would need to be contained within the neutrino involves Quality.

[Hereandnow]

Value wrote
But what if it concerns a mass influence change potential that must be contained within a particle that might be fundamental to the existence of the Universe? Would it be responsible to 'leave it to empirical science'? How can science even consider the concept Quality other than through human psychology?

When neutrinos are the source of mass and Gravity, and when the source of their gravitational influence must be contained within the neutrino and when that would include the potential to change that mass influence, it would imply that, if there would be the slightest Quality involved in that changing mass/Gravity influence, it would manifest as both positive and negative Gravity.

An example cosmological observation:

(2023) Universe Defies Einstein’s Predictions: Cosmic Structure Growth Mysteriously Suppressed
Scientists have discovered that cosmic structures grow slower than Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity predicts, with dark energy (negative mass) playing a more dominant role than previously thought.

Galaxies are threaded throughout our universe like a giant cosmic spider web. Their distribution is not random and requires either dark energy or negative mass.


Not random = qualitative. That would imply that the mass change potential that would need to be contained within the neutrino involves Quality.

Apologies Value. I don't have time these days to respond. Soon, I hope.

[value]

A short interaction with AI, which was actively defending the idea that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are different phenomena, resulted in the AI giving in that both dark matter and dark energy should be perceived from 'the point of view of cosmic structures only' which is Quality per se.

AI's initial stance: Dark matter and dark energy are two distinct phenomena that have different effects on the universe.

In its description of differences it listed the following:

Dark Matter: "It behaves like gravity and exerts an attractive force."

Dark Energy: "It behaves like anti-gravity and exerts a repulsive force."

Question: Is there any evidence that the effects of Dark Energy or Dark Matter are random?

AI: No.

Question: When dark matter would be actual matter, it could behave randomly, is that correct?

AI: When dark matter is considered as actual matter, it could behave randomly, but this is not the case.

Question: If that is the case, then shouldn't dark matter be considered from the point of view of the observed structural effect only, and not as independent matter that could potentially exert influence randomly?

... a few more interactions ...

AI gave in: Yes, it can be established that both dark matter and dark energy are not random and are directly tied to cosmic structures. ... Therefore, both dark matter and dark energy should be perceived from the point of view of cosmic structures, as they are directly tied to the formation and evolution of the structure of the universe.

Question: The point of view of structure only is Quality per se or Quality as intended by Robert Pirsig, is that correct?

AI: Robert Pirsig's concept of Quality could be applicable to the point of view of structure in the context of dark matter and dark energy. The Metaphysics of Quality is based on the idea that Quality is the fundamental force in the universe that stimulates everything from atoms to animals to evolve and incorporate ever greater levels of Quality.

Pirsig believed that Quality is a fundamental aspect of existence that is both undefinable and can be defined in an infinite number of ways. In the context of dark matter and dark energy, the Metaphysics of Quality, which is based on the idea that Quality is the fundamental force in the universe that stimulates everything from atoms to animals to evolve and incorporate ever greater levels of Quality, could be used to explore the nature of dark matter and dark energy and their relationship to cosmic structures. The rate at which structure in the universe forms is sensitive to the properties of both the dark matter and the dark energy.

Therefore, the concept of Quality could be used to explore the nature of dark matter and dark energy and their relationship to cosmic structures from a philosophical perspective.

New reading material for fans of Robert Pirsig (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance)
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =6&t=18771

Can the question of Quality be left to science?

The following IAI.tv video debate (25th October 2023) discusses the subject:

structure-universe.png (247.86 KiB) Viewed 4443 times

Imagining the universe
We see imagination and creativity as central human qualities vital to technology and innovation as well as the arts. Yet the scientific account of the universe, operating with immutable laws and strict cause and effect, appears to leave little room for anything genuinely new, and thus truly imaginative or creative. Is creativity an illusion or is the scientific model itself critically flawed?

Should we conclude that imagination and creativity escape the corset of cause and effect, creating new worlds that we are then able to inhabit? Or is imagination merely the combination of prior experiences, forming nothing essentially original? Is more at stake here than the character of creativity and instead do we need to reframe the very nature of reality and our role in it?
https://iai.tv/video/imagining-the-universe

What's interesting in this debate is that they seek a distinction between creativity and imagination, with imagination going beyond creativity. An AI can be creative from an empirical perspective. But what it takes for structures to arise that one day enabled humans to walk on an Earth, that might be different.