- Thank you received: 0
Quantum properties in MM
- tvanflandern
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
20 years 8 months ago #8754
by tvanflandern
Reply from Tom Van Flandern was created by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />all electrons are alike to the greatest accuracy of measurement possible whereas MM would postulate that they are not "identical" but merely "almost identical" ... and ... if we could but see down to a sufficiently small level, we would note small differences due to their constituent particles (MIs).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your understanding of MM in this area is not even remotely consistent with mine, which probably accounts for you seeing roadblocks that I do not see.
Have you read "The structure of matter in the Meta Model"? It is a general MM principle that all forms consist of particles or waves, although the medium of waves is always particles at some smaller scale. Then there are two reasons why we might see lots of seemingly identical entities: (1) When the entities have mainly local motion or are static, like air molecules or grains of sand on a beach, they are probably similar-but-not-perfectly-identical particles with a common formation mechanism or some affinity for each other. Or (2), when the entities propagate yet remain identical, that is a sure indicator that we are detecting properties of a wave, not a particle.
As this applies specifically to electrons, I concluded that electrons may have particle "cores" over some considerable range of differing sizes, all of which will have negative elysium haloes such that the charge-to-"mass" ratio appears constant. (Mass in this sense is a measure of substance, and is certainly not at all like a gravitational mass.) But that constant ratio is a property of the wave (elysium) part of the electron, and holds even though the particle cores need not be similar in size, shape, composition, or in many other ways.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If the quantum parameters of the Standard Model are not "logically" viable ... but only statistically viable as in MM ... why do they so accurately account for the behavior of matter? A case in point would be Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics and Leibniz' principle of the "Identity of Indiscernibles" which bears upon such statistics. Here, particles which are "logically" identical to one another give rise to different statistical properties than if they were just "almost identical" as in MM.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are comparing the Standard Model to a strawman model, not to MM. MM has not yet been developed into these areas, so I have no idea what it will have to say about them once it is developed to that extent. But the "almost identical" particles idea is definitely the wrong model. Protons nor electrons need to be especially similar to others of their own kind to have identical wave (elysium halo) properties.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It would appear that MM cannot call two particles identical in the absolute sense because each MI in such a universe is known to every other ... and ... no particle could be considered "fundamental" in any absolute sense ... and therefore cannot be "identical" ... and therefore should show no predisposition to behave in accordance with the relevant statistics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't understand this whole paragraph. In MM, no two particles could be identical because for the same reason no two galaxies or stars or planets could be absolutely identical. Similar is the best that can be expected. In QM, no two composed particles can be perfectly identical because of different separations or orientations or the phases or spins or other properties of their constituents being out of synch. As for uncomposed particles, one can only postulate that they might all be identical, pending the absence of a future discovery of further constituents. In that regard, the experiments finding evidence for substructure in quarks are very revealing.
How would any MI (matter ingredient) be known to any other MI, and what does "being known" mean anyway? And why wouldn't collections of similar particles behave indentically in any statistical aggregate?
Because I didn't understand any of these points, I couldn't make sense of your paragraph.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I regard this a a major hole in MM. To me, it is not that MM hasn't gotten that far yet. It's that it has no "road" to get there, in principle, by it's fundamental design.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Because your logic, much like the possible roads forward, simply vanished into a forest of possibilities, I might be inclined to marvel at your superior insights into the workings of nature if you did not seem to have some blind spots affecting the pathways I can still see down.
Once again: You cannot use interpretations and deductions based on the Standard Model to construct arguments about MM or any other model. Each model is entitled to interpret nature using its own premises, unconstrainted by supposed conclusions drawn from rival models. The only way to argue that MM "has a major hole" (as contrasted with being incomplete) is to show some inconsistency with a raw observation. An inconsistency with the conclusions of another model about what that raw observation means counts for nothing. -|Tom|-
<br />all electrons are alike to the greatest accuracy of measurement possible whereas MM would postulate that they are not "identical" but merely "almost identical" ... and ... if we could but see down to a sufficiently small level, we would note small differences due to their constituent particles (MIs).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your understanding of MM in this area is not even remotely consistent with mine, which probably accounts for you seeing roadblocks that I do not see.
Have you read "The structure of matter in the Meta Model"? It is a general MM principle that all forms consist of particles or waves, although the medium of waves is always particles at some smaller scale. Then there are two reasons why we might see lots of seemingly identical entities: (1) When the entities have mainly local motion or are static, like air molecules or grains of sand on a beach, they are probably similar-but-not-perfectly-identical particles with a common formation mechanism or some affinity for each other. Or (2), when the entities propagate yet remain identical, that is a sure indicator that we are detecting properties of a wave, not a particle.
As this applies specifically to electrons, I concluded that electrons may have particle "cores" over some considerable range of differing sizes, all of which will have negative elysium haloes such that the charge-to-"mass" ratio appears constant. (Mass in this sense is a measure of substance, and is certainly not at all like a gravitational mass.) But that constant ratio is a property of the wave (elysium) part of the electron, and holds even though the particle cores need not be similar in size, shape, composition, or in many other ways.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If the quantum parameters of the Standard Model are not "logically" viable ... but only statistically viable as in MM ... why do they so accurately account for the behavior of matter? A case in point would be Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics and Leibniz' principle of the "Identity of Indiscernibles" which bears upon such statistics. Here, particles which are "logically" identical to one another give rise to different statistical properties than if they were just "almost identical" as in MM.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are comparing the Standard Model to a strawman model, not to MM. MM has not yet been developed into these areas, so I have no idea what it will have to say about them once it is developed to that extent. But the "almost identical" particles idea is definitely the wrong model. Protons nor electrons need to be especially similar to others of their own kind to have identical wave (elysium halo) properties.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It would appear that MM cannot call two particles identical in the absolute sense because each MI in such a universe is known to every other ... and ... no particle could be considered "fundamental" in any absolute sense ... and therefore cannot be "identical" ... and therefore should show no predisposition to behave in accordance with the relevant statistics.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't understand this whole paragraph. In MM, no two particles could be identical because for the same reason no two galaxies or stars or planets could be absolutely identical. Similar is the best that can be expected. In QM, no two composed particles can be perfectly identical because of different separations or orientations or the phases or spins or other properties of their constituents being out of synch. As for uncomposed particles, one can only postulate that they might all be identical, pending the absence of a future discovery of further constituents. In that regard, the experiments finding evidence for substructure in quarks are very revealing.
How would any MI (matter ingredient) be known to any other MI, and what does "being known" mean anyway? And why wouldn't collections of similar particles behave indentically in any statistical aggregate?
Because I didn't understand any of these points, I couldn't make sense of your paragraph.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I regard this a a major hole in MM. To me, it is not that MM hasn't gotten that far yet. It's that it has no "road" to get there, in principle, by it's fundamental design.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Because your logic, much like the possible roads forward, simply vanished into a forest of possibilities, I might be inclined to marvel at your superior insights into the workings of nature if you did not seem to have some blind spots affecting the pathways I can still see down.
Once again: You cannot use interpretations and deductions based on the Standard Model to construct arguments about MM or any other model. Each model is entitled to interpret nature using its own premises, unconstrainted by supposed conclusions drawn from rival models. The only way to argue that MM "has a major hole" (as contrasted with being incomplete) is to show some inconsistency with a raw observation. An inconsistency with the conclusions of another model about what that raw observation means counts for nothing. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 8 months ago #8825
by n/a10
Replied by n/a10 on topic Reply from ed van der Meulen
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
If the quantum parameters of the Standard Model are not "logically" viable ... but only statistically viable as in MM ... why do they so accurately account for the behavior of matter?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Very simple. How can you use statistics? To use statistics you have to know the underlying structure. See Probability theory. Note that the stochastic variable is an unknown notion in mathematics. Statistics is for experts, who know the difficulties of applying this tool. Some statisticians say statistics can't be used at all.
I try to listen to every scientist.
You just make with MM a jump and hope the observations will confirm it. But you have only hope.
The same is true for the statistical Wave functions of Schrödinger. That are the Schrödinger equations. They worked. But the question why?, was not known.
You have to use the physical chaos view (not a theory) for that. Then you see for instance this. Why do we have to do much tries to find a Higg's particle?
Roughly you can say in our theories are many steps with probability and a small chance for a real hit. When you look at the SM please count also the failures and the nearly successes. The results have structure as well. So neither SM as MM is so precise?
But the physical chaos view tells us. Look at the underlying LOD (level of detail), and now we use the very important principle of fractality.
[url] nnw.sourceforge.net/docs.php/intro-frac [/url]
And yes, build with it please an underlying structure and then you know more.
Another right thing is this. Use the notion of margins. Comparable with the Heizenberg uncertainty. Use then statistics but with an amount of uncertainty.
Know as well Cosmology is a very strange science. You talk about Low LODs and very large LODs as well. Take care of extrapolating. That's really dangerous.
A black hole as singularity is also extrapolating to something that is physically absurd. Infinity in physics???
The physical chaos view works constantly with margins. We can never look exactly precise. So please give it up. I am a mathematician telling you this.
Uncertainty is normal. Maybe I die tomorrow in a bad road accident.
The reality is full of surprises. Statistics tell only about the past. Why?
Mathematics has no intrinsic time. Biological cells grow old. But numbers don't. And as mathematician I am glad with it.
Do you know that top mathematicians have tried to predict the financial markets. And all they have failed. Why?... life is full of surprises. And so the quantum level as well. We only can have expectations.
[url] nnw.sourceforge.net/docs.php/intro-surp [/url]
Margins are built up at higher LODS. From the quantum level to the stars are all LODS. At the human LOD we have already enormous margins, and in economics even more. The present economic theories are obsolete. Again something interesting.
I use the notion LOD, level of detail, because detail tells me I only can see a part. And details tells me as well, it's for me a detail, maybe I am drunk, or know too little from a theory or something else. So the researcher is a part of the experiment. Knowing that, helps you as well. That's why I use level of detail. LOD.
And for stating hypotheses we don't need to know more. Ideas are enough. For power outages as well. Action can be taken on imprecise information.
Directors of firms do it all the time.
A nice introduction book about the physical chaos view is from M. Mitchell Waldrop - Complex systems at the edge of chaos. The mathematical version is only an approximation. This book contains still the true view of the starting Santa Fe group in 1967. And they were so right. But the mathematical community, my group, took it over.
I have an AI project and that's extremely productive. And we promote that view again and it will change all sciences also economics and the political system. Yes those early Santa Fe people were extremely enthusiastic. And in that AI project we are very enthusiastic again.
I have never understand why physicians don't wont to listen to the physical view on reality of layers.
Don't google for layers. You would drown in them. Layers are really everywhere. But you can google for - layers everywhere.
I have written it for the large public, so the threshold is very low, and it's in fact an open door url. I hope you like to read much. Most people print it. That's easier reading.
You knew it already, you used it already, but now that url brings it explicitly to you and then it's easier to understand.
The following url is typical for mathematicians, but maybe you like it as well. It's a mathematical proof of the layer url.
nnw.sourceforge.net/docs.php/era-proof1
The Physical view comes from the famous Poincaré and top physicist and economists, Nobel prize winners In the early Santa Fe group. Great thinkers.
Have a nice day.
Ed van der Meulen
If the quantum parameters of the Standard Model are not "logically" viable ... but only statistically viable as in MM ... why do they so accurately account for the behavior of matter?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Very simple. How can you use statistics? To use statistics you have to know the underlying structure. See Probability theory. Note that the stochastic variable is an unknown notion in mathematics. Statistics is for experts, who know the difficulties of applying this tool. Some statisticians say statistics can't be used at all.
I try to listen to every scientist.
You just make with MM a jump and hope the observations will confirm it. But you have only hope.
The same is true for the statistical Wave functions of Schrödinger. That are the Schrödinger equations. They worked. But the question why?, was not known.
You have to use the physical chaos view (not a theory) for that. Then you see for instance this. Why do we have to do much tries to find a Higg's particle?
Roughly you can say in our theories are many steps with probability and a small chance for a real hit. When you look at the SM please count also the failures and the nearly successes. The results have structure as well. So neither SM as MM is so precise?
But the physical chaos view tells us. Look at the underlying LOD (level of detail), and now we use the very important principle of fractality.
[url] nnw.sourceforge.net/docs.php/intro-frac [/url]
And yes, build with it please an underlying structure and then you know more.
Another right thing is this. Use the notion of margins. Comparable with the Heizenberg uncertainty. Use then statistics but with an amount of uncertainty.
Know as well Cosmology is a very strange science. You talk about Low LODs and very large LODs as well. Take care of extrapolating. That's really dangerous.
A black hole as singularity is also extrapolating to something that is physically absurd. Infinity in physics???
The physical chaos view works constantly with margins. We can never look exactly precise. So please give it up. I am a mathematician telling you this.
Uncertainty is normal. Maybe I die tomorrow in a bad road accident.
The reality is full of surprises. Statistics tell only about the past. Why?
Mathematics has no intrinsic time. Biological cells grow old. But numbers don't. And as mathematician I am glad with it.
Do you know that top mathematicians have tried to predict the financial markets. And all they have failed. Why?... life is full of surprises. And so the quantum level as well. We only can have expectations.
[url] nnw.sourceforge.net/docs.php/intro-surp [/url]
Margins are built up at higher LODS. From the quantum level to the stars are all LODS. At the human LOD we have already enormous margins, and in economics even more. The present economic theories are obsolete. Again something interesting.
I use the notion LOD, level of detail, because detail tells me I only can see a part. And details tells me as well, it's for me a detail, maybe I am drunk, or know too little from a theory or something else. So the researcher is a part of the experiment. Knowing that, helps you as well. That's why I use level of detail. LOD.
And for stating hypotheses we don't need to know more. Ideas are enough. For power outages as well. Action can be taken on imprecise information.
Directors of firms do it all the time.
A nice introduction book about the physical chaos view is from M. Mitchell Waldrop - Complex systems at the edge of chaos. The mathematical version is only an approximation. This book contains still the true view of the starting Santa Fe group in 1967. And they were so right. But the mathematical community, my group, took it over.
I have an AI project and that's extremely productive. And we promote that view again and it will change all sciences also economics and the political system. Yes those early Santa Fe people were extremely enthusiastic. And in that AI project we are very enthusiastic again.
I have never understand why physicians don't wont to listen to the physical view on reality of layers.
Don't google for layers. You would drown in them. Layers are really everywhere. But you can google for - layers everywhere.
I have written it for the large public, so the threshold is very low, and it's in fact an open door url. I hope you like to read much. Most people print it. That's easier reading.
You knew it already, you used it already, but now that url brings it explicitly to you and then it's easier to understand.
The following url is typical for mathematicians, but maybe you like it as well. It's a mathematical proof of the layer url.
nnw.sourceforge.net/docs.php/era-proof1
The Physical view comes from the famous Poincaré and top physicist and economists, Nobel prize winners In the early Santa Fe group. Great thinkers.
Have a nice day.
Ed van der Meulen
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 8 months ago #9527
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eenwerd</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
If the quantum parameters of the Standard Model are not "logically" viable ... but only statistically viable as in MM ... why do they so accurately account for the behavior of matter?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your attribution is incorrect. The quoted words were written by EBTX.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You just make with MM a jump and hope the observations will confirm it. But you have only hope.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There are no "jumps" in MM. And we have plenty of good reasons to have high expectations for the model. "Hope" plays no legitimate role here.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The same is true for the statistical Wave functions of Schrödinger. That are the Schrödinger equations. They worked. But the question why?, was not known.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is a common problem with inductive models. But deductive models such as MM always evolve from cause to effect, not vice versa. So the "why" is already there in the model before the effect one would like to explain arises in it.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A black hole as singularity is also extrapolating to something that is physically absurd. Infinity in physics???<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Such things do not exist in MM. The physical principle that "the finite cannot become infinite" prevents it.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So please give it up. I am a mathematician telling you this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Around here, mathematics is a very useful tool, but not much good as a source of wisdom. Those whose thinking is guided too closely by mathematics are led to believe in black holes, for example. It is good to see that you have not fallen into that logical trap. -|Tom|-
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
If the quantum parameters of the Standard Model are not "logically" viable ... but only statistically viable as in MM ... why do they so accurately account for the behavior of matter?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your attribution is incorrect. The quoted words were written by EBTX.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You just make with MM a jump and hope the observations will confirm it. But you have only hope.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">There are no "jumps" in MM. And we have plenty of good reasons to have high expectations for the model. "Hope" plays no legitimate role here.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The same is true for the statistical Wave functions of Schrödinger. That are the Schrödinger equations. They worked. But the question why?, was not known.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is a common problem with inductive models. But deductive models such as MM always evolve from cause to effect, not vice versa. So the "why" is already there in the model before the effect one would like to explain arises in it.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A black hole as singularity is also extrapolating to something that is physically absurd. Infinity in physics???<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Such things do not exist in MM. The physical principle that "the finite cannot become infinite" prevents it.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So please give it up. I am a mathematician telling you this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Around here, mathematics is a very useful tool, but not much good as a source of wisdom. Those whose thinking is guided too closely by mathematics are led to believe in black holes, for example. It is good to see that you have not fallen into that logical trap. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 8 months ago #8826
by n/a10
Replied by n/a10 on topic Reply from ed van der Meulen
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eenwerd</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
If the quantum parameters of the Standard Model are not "logically" viable ... but only statistically viable as in MM ... why do they so accurately account for the behavior of matter?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your attribution is incorrect. The quoted words were written by EBTX.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Is my attribution incorrect? But then EBTX observations were right in my opinion. Observations are always very useful.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You just make with MM a jump and hope the observations will confirm it. But you have only hope.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
In a deductive model all jumps are made by accepting the axioms. So that's a big jump. See proof theory of mathematics. See the history of sciences. The old way.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There are no "jumps" in MM. And we have plenty of good reasons to have high expectations for the model. "Hope" plays no legitimate role here.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You've plenty of good reasons. That's the point. You have chosen early, while the good method is wait long when you have a lot of info and then step forward. Work inductive step by step. And don't want to do all at once. Nice enlarging the theory step by step. That's a more natural way as well, I think.
Deductive reasoning needs axioms. Inductive resoning is free and uses all that it meets.
Most mathematicians work deductive. In my AI project we use the science way of inductive reasoning. That means starting in uncertainty and gathering as much info you can get. That is free thinking and much more pleasant. And we reach more.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The same is true for the statistical Wave functions of Schrödinger. That are the Schrödinger equations. They worked. But the question why?, was not known.
This is a common problem with inductive models. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not precise. The idea was inductive, but the theorie has been used as nearly an axiom. And that is very deductive.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But deductive models such as MM always evolve from cause to effect, not vice versa. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
We talk about inductive reasoning. Yes we live and grow older.
You put causality into the MM and so it works causal. But many physisist know nature isn't causal. The reality is contingent. Streams that we don't know complewtelty meet exh other and interact. With axiam working theories are deductive and don't meet serendipty for instance. So those theories are a known simplification. Why do you make them? But you are right. Your good reason. That is the point to discuss. I know you are intelligent to make a internally sound theory.
Look what politicians do is that logical are there strong causal paths to see. Especialy to predict? Why does the weather stations who work with finite elements methods only speak of expectations, often with a huge bias, for they know in the air causality is a poor notion.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
lSo the "why" is already there in the model before the effect one would like to explain arises in it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You have eliminated the question early. That's why scientists need so often better mathematical models. Mathematicians have to skip nearly all of the environment. That's the weak point of deductive reasoning.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A black hole as singularity is also extrapolating to something that is physically absurd. Infinity in physics???
Such things do not exist in MM. The physical principle that "the finite cannot become infinite" prevents it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
And that is healthy. We can't think about infinities. We use then always a notion that we can't grasp. Infinity is a mathematical notion.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So please give it up. I am a mathematician telling you this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Around here, mathematics is a very useful tool, but not much good as a source of wisdom. Those whose thinking is guided too closely by mathematics are led to believe in black holes, for example. It is good to see that you have not fallen into that logical trap. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Indeed I think inductive and deductive. But in my opinion you believe too much in your deductive tools. How can you ever know that the axioms were right. That was the moment of hesitation. I know you have bright brains.
This is also typical the problem of many mathematicians. They believe there are numbers in the reality. But they are only in our head. They believe their axioms are complete. Gödel already says, no. That's my problem. The axioms of MM. And informal your good reason. You can't escape anymore your early choices.
You are on a discovery trip but the way you go is fixed. You have to follow your axioms.
But Tom... Look... There... Have we just passed a great opening? No, you look forward. But look EBTX went that other way. Is he mad?
When leaves of trees are always different. Do you think seeing forward is causal. Can you predict the shapes of leaves?
Can you predict the surprises where life full of is.
Could you predict my answer? That would be deductive. But deductive looks only at the past. Google please for layers everywhere and you see history becomes circumstantial, the opening, to a locally lower energy state that draws. History was enough. This is the cookie jar. In that layer story.
So also at quantum level, a particle finds a local lower energy state and escapes. Please compute for me all those local lower energy states. Quite a problem.
Is the history of that particle then so important. It can move to that other position. That's pulling him. All in nature pulls an tucks.
Black holes suck mass and energy away. Forward in physical chaotic way and backward we can see causal paths.
Phisical chaos is the hurrycane and we find a causal path to one butterfly in the Amazone tropical forrest. And the next hurricabe it was you
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by eenwerd</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
If the quantum parameters of the Standard Model are not "logically" viable ... but only statistically viable as in MM ... why do they so accurately account for the behavior of matter?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your attribution is incorrect. The quoted words were written by EBTX.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Is my attribution incorrect? But then EBTX observations were right in my opinion. Observations are always very useful.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You just make with MM a jump and hope the observations will confirm it. But you have only hope.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
In a deductive model all jumps are made by accepting the axioms. So that's a big jump. See proof theory of mathematics. See the history of sciences. The old way.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There are no "jumps" in MM. And we have plenty of good reasons to have high expectations for the model. "Hope" plays no legitimate role here.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You've plenty of good reasons. That's the point. You have chosen early, while the good method is wait long when you have a lot of info and then step forward. Work inductive step by step. And don't want to do all at once. Nice enlarging the theory step by step. That's a more natural way as well, I think.
Deductive reasoning needs axioms. Inductive resoning is free and uses all that it meets.
Most mathematicians work deductive. In my AI project we use the science way of inductive reasoning. That means starting in uncertainty and gathering as much info you can get. That is free thinking and much more pleasant. And we reach more.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The same is true for the statistical Wave functions of Schrödinger. That are the Schrödinger equations. They worked. But the question why?, was not known.
This is a common problem with inductive models. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Not precise. The idea was inductive, but the theorie has been used as nearly an axiom. And that is very deductive.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But deductive models such as MM always evolve from cause to effect, not vice versa. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
We talk about inductive reasoning. Yes we live and grow older.
You put causality into the MM and so it works causal. But many physisist know nature isn't causal. The reality is contingent. Streams that we don't know complewtelty meet exh other and interact. With axiam working theories are deductive and don't meet serendipty for instance. So those theories are a known simplification. Why do you make them? But you are right. Your good reason. That is the point to discuss. I know you are intelligent to make a internally sound theory.
Look what politicians do is that logical are there strong causal paths to see. Especialy to predict? Why does the weather stations who work with finite elements methods only speak of expectations, often with a huge bias, for they know in the air causality is a poor notion.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
lSo the "why" is already there in the model before the effect one would like to explain arises in it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
You have eliminated the question early. That's why scientists need so often better mathematical models. Mathematicians have to skip nearly all of the environment. That's the weak point of deductive reasoning.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A black hole as singularity is also extrapolating to something that is physically absurd. Infinity in physics???
Such things do not exist in MM. The physical principle that "the finite cannot become infinite" prevents it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
And that is healthy. We can't think about infinities. We use then always a notion that we can't grasp. Infinity is a mathematical notion.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So please give it up. I am a mathematician telling you this.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Around here, mathematics is a very useful tool, but not much good as a source of wisdom. Those whose thinking is guided too closely by mathematics are led to believe in black holes, for example. It is good to see that you have not fallen into that logical trap. -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Indeed I think inductive and deductive. But in my opinion you believe too much in your deductive tools. How can you ever know that the axioms were right. That was the moment of hesitation. I know you have bright brains.
This is also typical the problem of many mathematicians. They believe there are numbers in the reality. But they are only in our head. They believe their axioms are complete. Gödel already says, no. That's my problem. The axioms of MM. And informal your good reason. You can't escape anymore your early choices.
You are on a discovery trip but the way you go is fixed. You have to follow your axioms.
But Tom... Look... There... Have we just passed a great opening? No, you look forward. But look EBTX went that other way. Is he mad?
When leaves of trees are always different. Do you think seeing forward is causal. Can you predict the shapes of leaves?
Can you predict the surprises where life full of is.
Could you predict my answer? That would be deductive. But deductive looks only at the past. Google please for layers everywhere and you see history becomes circumstantial, the opening, to a locally lower energy state that draws. History was enough. This is the cookie jar. In that layer story.
So also at quantum level, a particle finds a local lower energy state and escapes. Please compute for me all those local lower energy states. Quite a problem.
Is the history of that particle then so important. It can move to that other position. That's pulling him. All in nature pulls an tucks.
Black holes suck mass and energy away. Forward in physical chaotic way and backward we can see causal paths.
Phisical chaos is the hurrycane and we find a causal path to one butterfly in the Amazone tropical forrest. And the next hurricabe it was you
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- PheoniX_VII
-
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 8 months ago #9468
by PheoniX_VII
Replied by PheoniX_VII on topic Reply from Fredrik Persson
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/....(and so on).. = 2
The answear to an infinite equation can be finite.
The answear to an infinite equation can be finite.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 8 months ago #9659
by n/a10
Replied by n/a10 on topic Reply from ed van der Meulen
Yes, but when you would do it physically you would never reach 2. So you use a way in your head, mathematics.
Great is your expression "and so on", you avoid the notion infinity.
So when you don't have that notion infinity, you can say it as well.
But your "and so on" is great. Then it looks you can reach a horizon, where the rainbow starts and maybe we find a pot of gold there. Who knows.
But serious do you really think you can make as many as infinite steps. How old would yopu be then.
Many such series are convergent and have a limit. The word limit is a right word. And in mathematics we can compute with an easy formule the limit. But that doesn't mean we can physically reach that upperbound.
Im mathematics can happen much more than in reality. Famous is the choice axiom. I can devide one solid unit sphere into a finite number of parts. I can rearrange the parts and form two solid unit spheres. That's also common mathematics. You can google for such things. There's much about on the net.
Can you do that in reality 1 = 2?
Thanks for your posting old firebird. How is the weather in Sweden.
Ed
Great is your expression "and so on", you avoid the notion infinity.
So when you don't have that notion infinity, you can say it as well.
But your "and so on" is great. Then it looks you can reach a horizon, where the rainbow starts and maybe we find a pot of gold there. Who knows.
But serious do you really think you can make as many as infinite steps. How old would yopu be then.
Many such series are convergent and have a limit. The word limit is a right word. And in mathematics we can compute with an easy formule the limit. But that doesn't mean we can physically reach that upperbound.
Im mathematics can happen much more than in reality. Famous is the choice axiom. I can devide one solid unit sphere into a finite number of parts. I can rearrange the parts and form two solid unit spheres. That's also common mathematics. You can google for such things. There's much about on the net.
Can you do that in reality 1 = 2?
Thanks for your posting old firebird. How is the weather in Sweden.
Ed
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.330 seconds