Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Mmfiore]

Hello and I bid Welcome to the newcommers... I will attempt to provide a response to everyone that commented. Please look for your ID within this comment. I will separate my comments out for each person by addressing them by User ID one at a time.

@ nobody Since you made a couple of comment I will lump them together in the section dedicated to you. First comment you made concerning the neutrino. I think I get what you are saying. I see that you are visualizing using the Lorentz Transformations. You are then implying that because the neutrino maybe going faster than light that it is going into future time. Somehow you believe that we have trouble detecting the mass and its interactions because it is in the future? Not sure about that. If I got it right I believe that to be a fairly creative concept. I don’t agree with the idea but I appreciate what you are saying. As for the bubble trail and the neutrino having mass. If you read the article on my site you will see my concept about the mass of the neutrino. What I believe is happening is that the neutrino is oscillating as it travels and therefore it is both changing its mass as it oscillates and therefore also varying its speed. I believe that here is a point in this oscillation where the neutrino has less mass than the photon. At this point in the oscillation the neutrino breaks the light speed barrier for a brief moment in time.

Ah! The leaving of bubbles. The perception of mass, is for us of mass. Is based upon the tengible. Like water, air ir a solid as a stone. As you know. That when you have no mass. You cannot have an equal action and reaction. The princeple of pushing a ball or the letting out of air from a balloon. You will notice that there is no physicle evidence left after the reaction. If you put something on the ball or in the air. A color of some kind and it leaves its mark behind. Then you will have proof that indeed the ball or the air has moved. Since you can see the ball but not the air. You percieve that the ball has moved. Because of its position change. But air is not to be seen. Unless it has color. Or like a cloud which reflects light. You can feel air when the wind blows and notice the air by things that are displaced by the wind. Would one say, air has no mass? And the ball does? The way we see things in the normal way for our five sences, is not always what actually happening. Just like light. Back to dear old Einstein. He looked at the thing of light. And found out that he could measure the speed. But from a different point of view. Not the conventional way. Then we have the question. What is mass? Old style. Protons, nutrons and electrons. They make up, things like rocks and the rocks are hard. But are the electrons and nutrons and protons mass? So, what is mass?

Difficult to comment on all of this as your writing style seems to assume we know what you mean without filling in the blanks. The sentence structure is not so good are you from a foreign country? I’ll leave it to others to comment if they wish. What I can say is that you pose the question. What is mass? My suggestion is to read the Origin of mass article on my website for my answer as to what is mass. To sum it up according to my thinking, charged particles moving in an accelerated fashion generate mass according to my theory. Neutrally charged particles that travel in a non-accelerating fashion generate little to know mass. Please see the Origins of mass and the Faster than Light Neutrino Explanation for details of this concept.

@ Love-of-wisdom THE KNOWLEDGE OF FINAL KNOWLEDGE? Would it be a super paradox over all the subs? I don’t know actually. Could you give an example of what you mean?

@ joe Hi Joe You’re welcome.

1. “Emergent” – guess I misused the term. According to Hawking there is scientific theory to account for all objective phenomena. Unfortunately, as he also reminds us, the relevant science is in the form of five separate theories, with no existing objective theory common to all. As Hawking says, “It may not make sense to talk about what is real.” He makes it sound like the physical is not ‘stand-alone’ fundamental.

This is what “A Poster He or I” have been discussing here. It’s a big question that definitely deserves a detailed full discussion in a thread dedicated to it. I think one should be started so that we can go at it and see what everybody thinks. It’s definitely a deep philosophical question that is tailor made for this website. I assume for this discussion that Einstein’s concept of Objective Reality is correct so that is what we need to remain within for the sake of what makes sense for this thread.

2. The existence of physical process implies emergence of mass which implies an expression of energy, the analysis of which implies an origin at extremely high temperatures that are said to be unachievable on earth (for achieving proof of any objective theory, etc.), and then what is the origin of that initial condition as an event having properties of time and space that had no prior expression (prior to big bang, etc.)?

I will need to rewrite my Cosmological article so that these details are addressed. I am currently working on that. There is a complete mechanical explanation for the emergence of mass and the common particles that we have today using my Theoretical framework. It does not require a subjective or consciousness interface. The entire process can happen without humans being there. Remember they were not there when the big bang happened, right.

On the other hand philosophically speaking perhaps the Universe is nothing more than something that exists in the mind of God. But this concept cannot be proven in life but can only be known when we pass away to the other side. It is pure mystery. I personally believe that it does not matter whether the Universe is part of God’s consciousness or a completely independent physical reality created by God. Why so? Because the design was put in place with a framework that allows the entire system to work independently. I believe our Universe is like a clockwork that runs on its own without divine intervention. Our inability to see the clockwork is what makes it appear to be subjective.

3. Why separate the order of matter (objective) and the order of mind (subjective) into separate ‘dimensions’? All natural laws (objective) are extensions of the deeper Natural Order (subjective), i.e. the quality of symmetry rules all conservation law, meaning all objective expression, while symmetry, in turn is a particular of the deeper, more general and inclusive quality of the aesthetic (subjective) which guides sustainable creative choice (such as the Golden Rule, etc.) In other words, symmetry stands at the interface between the fundamental subjective realm (ends) and its emergent objective expression (means). And our neural faculties have evolved to give us exactly the analytic/synthetic skills essential to objective means, as well as aesthetic sense and feelings to guide sustainable constructive choice. In other words the subjective and the objective appear to be a continuum in terms of “meaning.”

I believe that from the subjective realm we derive meaning describing the objective world. We do this using a physical object called the brain. The spirit and its corresponding consciousness are bound together at birth. Together while we are alive we explore the physical realm. We observe, deduce and learn. When we die, we leave the physical realm and take with us all that we have learned. This is my personal belief.

4. A new thread on NDE’s would be most meaningful, providing convincing messages of the fundamental unity of the whole of creation, and capable of transforming human behaviour worldwide for the better.

I welcome that idea. I am an avid student of NDEs. I think much can learned from them. Thanks Joe, good comments.


@ A Poster He or I

I completely endorse these sentiments except the last sentence. To my mind, in order to best learn and integrate the experience of encountering the unknown, we are best served by leaving behind judgemental criteria of what constitutes true and real, and let what we encounter teach us what IT thinks is true and real, and most importantly why. After all, if we are to establish relations with what we encounter, it is what they believe that will matter to the success of those relations, not what we think about what they believe.

I get what you’re saying hear. I believe similarly, in that we should keep an open mind and see what we shall see.

Well we agree on String Theory! Bad science to be sure: 45 years of theorizing and no testable experiments. But to be clear, I only reject String Theory because as a model it doesn’t accomplish anything except to reconcile a presupposed problem (the incompatibility of QM and General Relativity) by disguising it within mathematical abstractions that don’t represent anything empirically testable. That’s not science to me.

We agree on that one.

My guess is that we will differ on what constitutes the “proper perspective.” However, I agree that institutionalized theoretical science suffers from being couched in a primarily academic environment instead of a business environment.

Well to be honest I have a selfish need for our scientists to be working on room temperature super conductor. It is necessary to construct the Slip Wave field. Not to mention it would drop the cost of transmission of power dramatically. It would be a great discovery for all of mankind.

I actually agree with your assessment verbatim. Unfortunately, the definition of truth entails the fundamentals of our philosophical premises. Since we have different premises, we don’t have the same definition for truth so if I state “the most empowering experience is knowing the truth, period,” I mean something completely different from you.

No disagreement here as well. We don't have the same conceptual model.

To have coherent meaning, your 2nd sentence presupposes an objective standard for what is correct. I believe standards are relative creations whose utility is circumscribed by specific contexts of interpretation. Therefore, not only is the “correctness” of a postion of belief limited by the context of interpretation, there is also no such thing as an unlimited position of belief.

Well we don’t agree on this one. There is no need for me to go into it anymore as I cannot invest more time in this thread on how we think and on subjective standards. That is for a different thread. Then we could dig deeply into what you are saying and dissect it carefully. I just do not want to get into that here.

In my opinion, you’re asking to have your cake and eat it to. You established this thread to gain the critical insight of others regarding your position so you could better present your own position, partially by addressing their concerns. I tried to demonstrate that one of the biggest obstacles your website (and your position) faces is in the need to address other people’s biases (their non-belief in the aether) in a manner that convinces them to question their bias. That means backing down from the premise that your aether represents an objective object (not in your beliefs, mind you, but in your presentation) and presenting it as a scientific alternative (i.e., one whose utility as a model is demonstrable via scientific evaluative means).

By asking for carte blanche granting of your realist premise, you are in effect saying, “Please evaluate my belief, but only if you believe yourself.” Did you come to this forum just to get a pat on the back for your intellectual achievement? It’s just my opinion, but aren’t you better served in your goals by accommodating your opposition’s position within your own arguments? And if so, shouldn’t you be trying to understand their criticism from their position instead of seeing how you can dispense with understanding it?

Ugh... Let me try again to clarify why I am requesting to keep the objective vs the subjective out of this thread. First off you are assuming everyone who goes to my website and reads my theory and is going to think and believe as you do. That is just not true. Although in your way of thinking I am not sure if true has any meaning. More ughs... You are the first person in all of the debates that I have had that has had this particular problem so apparently some people can suspend their beliefs for the sake of argument and discussion. Furthermore since I grant you that your position is a valid concern I have continually suggested and agreed that we should debate this specific concern you have on another thread and devote our energies to it there. I am surprised that this topic has not come up already on this website.

By asking for carte blanche granting of your realist premise, you are in effect saying, “Please evaluate my belief, but only if you believe yourself.”

No that’s not what I am saying. Those are your words not mine. I am saying if a person like yourself has this concern that you have if you could just for the sake of discussion accept the possibility that there is an objective reality then let us discuss the possibilities and ideas of my theory. I wish I could help you get by this for the sake of moving on. I have offered to discuss your concerns in a thread dedicated to the topic over and over. Why won’t you simply agree to do that?

Did you come to this forum just to get a pat on the back for your intellectual achievement?

This statement is not constructive.

It’s just my opinion, but aren’t you better served in your goals by accommodating your opposition’s position within your own arguments? And if so, shouldn’t you be trying to understand their criticism from their position instead of seeing how you can dispense with understanding it?

Okay you are just not listening. I have repeatedly said let’s start a thread to deal with this I am not avoiding the topic or belittling it. I just realize it is a big topic and it will consume much time and effort and it will eventually take us away from discussing other important ideas. If I am going to discuss it I want to go at it from what your belief system is so that I can dissect it properly. I just don’t know how I can get through to you on this point. I do not want to dispense with understanding it. I think that if I can separate your concern from this thread and deal with it in its pure state I can give it my full attention and make better arguments.

In philosophy, we call this begging the question. Because you presuppose the falsehood of QM, you feel justified in bypassing the need to demonstrate why, even though your stated goal requires you first demonstrate the falsehood of QM. Your seriously-minded scientific critic is expecting it. The point I have tried to make to you, in service to your own stated goal of presenting Super Relativity for serious consideration, is that ignoring QM doesn’t serve you. It hinders you.

Okay what you say here is fine and good. I have tried to respect others belief in QM by not attacking it outright on my website. I believe QM has its value. Overall though I do agree QM is in my way. In fact I would go even further and say it is in humanities way as well. At some point I was eventually planning on starting a thread for discussing the short comings of QM. Do you have any good ideas for a catchy title for that discussion? Your point is well taken so I will eventually write an article attacking QM. I now have no problem with that.

Wow, your response here took me by surprise. If I understand it, you are granting QM its legitimacy as a model of the subatomic realm. Your only real problem with QM is that its utility as a model doesn’t provide any evidence that it is a true picture of the factual objective world.

No I don't think QM models anything. It does not explain reality or the foundations of reality. It just statistically predicts the out comes of certain experiments that concern subatamic particle interactions. It's nothing more than a mathematical tool.

Am I right? Is so, then why do you have any trouble understanding me when I said your statement "the empirical proof of General Relativity means it is physical truth” is a non sequitur? To my mind, you are saying the exact same thing I am saying, only somehow GR is immune, but QM isn’t. Don’t get me wrong: I am clear on why you think GR is right and QM isn’t. I’m just puzzled how you could be so mystified by my criticism, saying my logic is broken when you have reached the same conclusion. The only difference is that I say it about ALL scientific theories while you have limited it solely to QM for reasons that seem to go no further than your disregard for QM.

What I believe is broken is that you have no standard at all but a belief in subjective relativity of reality. I just simply do not want to open that Pandora’s box in this thread. I do not want to attack your premise here. I would love to go into it deeply and fully on another thread. Can you do that?

Not at all…I agree with the assessment, and recently read a couple of books to give substance to my thoughts about String Theory being bad science. I just don’t include QM in that assessment. QM fulfills its responsibility to demonstrate its scientific credentials as a theory. In fact, it is the most successful scientific theory in history, consistently providing greater accuracy and greater predictive capacity than any other scientific theory.

Sting theory is composed of QM mathematics. Enough said there.

QM fulfills its responsibility to demonstrate its scientific credentials as a theory. In fact, it is the most successful scientific theory in history, consistently providing greater accuracy and greater predictive capacity than any other scientific theory.

I hear this often. Believe me when I tell you I can have a field day cutting QM to pieces just on what those last few lines state. Once again I would be opening Pandora’s box in this thread and I only want to open that box in a thread dedicated to defeating QM all by itself, in a thread only talking about QM. My theory does not need to even be in that conversation. It’s a big topic.

Do I think QM is a picture of physical reality? Not for a second. Do I think it will be superseded by a more comprehensive model that can address its flaws and contradictions? I sure hope so. In fact, my own faith in the credibility and viability of science demands it of ALL theories. The day there is a final theory of everything set in stone with no chance of being superseded is the day I will declare science to have surrendered to fascism.

Aye carumba! You are speaking blasphemy! As Wolfgang Pauli would say “It is not even wrong.”

[Wayne92587]

Our entire reality, the Reality of the Universe, the Reality of Everything, is not made of One Thing but is instead made up of a Single Thing, a real solid Object, Thing, having no mass, no quantity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero--O. The Motion of an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity is meaningless, The motion of a Singularity existing without displacement, Singularity however having a great deal of Passion built in, Passion being innate to a Singularity alone in the Emptiness; said singularity being nothing more that a Place Holder in the Emptiness of Space.

The Ether, Empty Space exists therefore something exists in the Space, said reality being a solid, the motion of said Singularity being meaningless exists without displacement, said Singularity having no Mass, no quantity, having no relative, numerical value, said Singularity carrying no weight, having no purpose, no intent, no measurable form, shape, design; The existence or non-existence of the Nothingness that occupies Empty Space, the Great Void, the Ether, being indeterminate.

The Single Thing that our Realty, the Reality of the Universe, the Reality of Everything is made seems to be the Nothingness that occupies the Emptiness of Space.

The seed of all Living Things, the Single Thing that the Universe, the Reality of Everything is made of is an Individuality, an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity; There being aThree Fold Nature to Singularity, Singularity being Trismegistus. O/1(n)

The Existence of a Quantum Singularity, being an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity is Uncertain (Infinite; unlimited or immeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of Emptiness, Nothingness, Space, the Ether).

The existence of Singularity being doubly Uncertain, not only immeasurable as to Location and Momentum in the Emptiness of Time and Space, Space-Time, because it is an INFINITELY Finite Indivisible Singularity but also because of the Highly Passionate Way, Spirit, Nature of the meaningless Motionless Motion Innate to a Singularity alone in the Emptiness, said motion existing without Displacement; Singularity having little or no value, simply taking up Space, as a place holder.

In the Beginning before the differentiation of Time and Space the Reality of Everything existed as a Quantum State of Singularity, a Steady State of Singularity, in which an untold number of Quantum Singularities existed with none having relative, numerical value; Three Fold Singularity, to include the Reality of First Cause, not being subject to the Relativity of Time and Space, Space-Time, not being Subject to the relativity of cause and effect; The Reality of First Cause, the Uncaused Cause being an Affect born of a Condition known as the Quantum, the Steady State of Singularity.

The so called Big Bang was more like a bump in the Night; The Reality of First Cause being the First Singularity to acquire relative value, a numerical value of One, being the First in a Series, the Beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the Beginning of a Process such as the Evolutionary Process; The Reality of First Cause being Uncaused, being an Affect born of the Nothingness of the Quantum, Steady State of Singularity.

The Realty of First Cause beginning its Life Cycle as a Singularity having a numerical value of Zero—O.

The Reality of First Cause being a Creation born of Nothing, being Spontaneously Generated; The Reality of First Cause not being any one Particular Singularity alone in the Emptiness was Randomly Thrust into the Lime Light as an Alchemical Transfiguration of a Singularity of Zero—O.

The Reality of First Cause being the First Singularity to acquire relative value, a numerical of One, became the First in a Series, the beginning of Cause and Effect, the Beginning of a continuum, Space-Time, the Beginning of a Process, The Evolutionary Process; having been displaced by a bump in the Night, the Reality of First Cause attained angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction, the Law of Cause and Effect being born of a bump in the Night, being born of the Randomness of Motion of a Singularity alone in the Emptiness.

O/1(n)

Hermes Trismegistus, Lord of the Ring, Keeper of the Holy Grail, Keeper of the Seed of All Living Things------O

Ye, Amen, Ra !!

[Mmfiore]

@ Steve3007

Steve I forgot to respond to your question above about the Michelson Morley experiment. The best link on my site to answer your question is: http://www.superrelativity.org/html/Mic ... ey_SR.html

The article is called The Undiscovered Error.

Basically after years of study of this experiment I have come to the conclusion that the experiment was done with the worst possible particle, the photon. The problem with the photon is it always has the same velocity while traveling in a straight line. They could not have picked a worse particle to use to detect the aether wind. The design of the experiment was flawed. The photon’s speed is completely independent of its emitting source’s velocity. What is needed for this experiment is a particle with an unbalanced charge. This type of particle has an associated mass. Since a charged particle has a disproportionate amount of negative to positive charge it will generate a small gravitational field as it accelerates within space. This unevenness in its charge distribution on the x axis causes this type of particle to move in a curved, accelerated fashion. Accelerated motion is an absolute type of motion and will cause a drag versus an aether wind. We already have an apparatus that should be able to detect the aether wind. The particle accelerator at Cern will do the trick very nicely. My bet is that the engineers that are responsible for calibrating the beam speeds have noticed a speed shift in the varying tunnels. The shift should be most easily noticed in the Winter. If you know anyone at Cern try asking them about this. If you do not no anyone who works there perhaps somewhere on the Internet there may be some article written by engineers who work there. Most like they will blame the speed shift on some other physical change in the environment. I have found some scientists that claim that radioisotopes half lives change in the January time frame each year. This fits right in with what I am saying. Nobody knows why this is happening. I can tell you an aether wind would be the last thing that would be considered by a modern day scientist.