I contend that duty is perhaps the single strongest motivator for action I can think of, whether it is duty to the tribe, an ideal, a spouse, etc., and should be nurtured wherever it exists to good ends — ToothyMaw

As a child who watched B17s fly over the family farm house as WWII wound down, and then as a young man in the 1950s my first thought, now, when reading the introduction, was required military service. Conscription existed into the 1970s in the US, and I never questioned the practice until the years of the Vietnam War, after I had done my stint and resigned my commission as a captain in the USAF. Up to that point I felt the need to fulfill my "duty". Afterwards, not so much.

How many of you served in an armed forces and considered it your "duty"?

The concept of the aether has long since been discredited and discarded — tim wood

The classical notion, yes, but perhaps not quite that simple. From Wikipedia:

Physicist Robert B. Laughlin wrote:

It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is not accepted (taboo).

So the best analogy I can come up with is that photons are particles which also exhibit wave-like behavior. And particles do not need a medium in which to move. — EricH

:up:

What Bohr is saying about measurement is that any properties of reality are, at minimum, a relation between two pairs of non-commutative variable values, one of which, for us, acts as time. So we don’t need to assume space or objects - we only need to recognise one of those values as ‘time’, and one of those pairs as our involvement - our entangled embodied subjectivity. — Possibility

This seems a step beyond metaphysics in vagueness and incomprehensibility. Perhaps a link would help. :chin:

But you have a moral obligation by virtue of all the good you could do - and no one gives a damn if playing the game makes you uncomfortable — ToothyMaw

Sorry, but I am just too old and infirm. But thanks for asking. :cool:

What does a typical hero look like in the US? Dirty Harry,. . . — Benkei

More like Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn. She's got my vote. Well, if it were possible for an Aussie- born to run for office. :smile:

It is highly technical, but it’s really just that the relativity of time is in fact a relativity of all four dimensional variables - their non-commutative ‘properties’ are simply the irreducible quality of dimensionality. What Bohr is saying about measurement is that any properties of reality are, at minimum, a relation between two pairs of non-commutative variable values, one of which, for us, acts as time. So we don’t need to assume space or objects - we only need to recognise one of those values as ‘time’, and one of those pairs as our involvement - our entangled embodied subjectivity. — Possibility

When I think of non-commutative algebras I think of matrix algebras and non-commutativity of multiplication. When you speak of two pairs that takes me to linear fractional transformations, 2X2 matrices, so that time might be one entry and space three. But that isn't what is going on here. Perhaps one pair is $\left( t,t+\Delta t \right)$. The other pair - our entangled embodied subjectivity - is just plain weird. I don't know what to make of your comments, but I appreciate you making them.

I’m saying that each event (including ourselves and time) is most accurately understood (rather than described) by employing the model of a quantum mechanical system (spacetime), consisting of four qualitative dimensions (irreducible structural relations) of variable values, one of which corresponds to a classical sense of temporal ‘order’. — Possibility

Thank you for providing additional information about your ideas. Spacetime at quantum levels seems to involve non-commutative algebras and appears to be highly technical. I have enough trouble with spacetime in relativity theory, so I will pass on this. For Bohr, position and momentum of quantum particles simply do not exist before measurements. They come into existence upon the act of "observation". Extrapolating this into the larger world gives rise to intra-action I suppose. But, is this extension from one realm to another warranted?

Guess what's happening here? :cool:

These are things he said he would do, and at least he made efforts to do so, whether anyone thinks they were appropriate or preludes to disaster.

Early on my daughter, a Brooklynite, told me he was thought a criminal by many if not most of his fellow New Yorkers, but I reserved my opinion - and I liked that he promised to do something about the border situation.

But I was simply relating what I thought might be an answer to the question by

Not only motion, but the idea of any instance of activity, without anything acting is incoherent. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have trouble with this also. But in a social, let's say feminist setting, intra-acting amongst participants can and does produce "objects" - movements - and the flux of cause and effect is cloudy.

As to the notion that time pre-exists space, that's a metaphysical stance and as such cannot promulgate conclusions about the physical world without absurdities like intra-action.

The metaphysical foundation I prefer is that, at each instant, spacetime is created. Bergson, in The Creative Mind, speaks of an instant of hesitation before Nature moves on, and it has been suggested that the collapse of the wave function marks the next step in the creation of spacetime. In a sense the wave function collapse is Bergson's instant. So there is indeed a block universe, only behind us and not in front.

This makes Schrödinger's equation a predictor of the future in a wider sense than originally thought. I have misgivings about this, however, in that it reifies mathematics beyond my comfort zone.

It's the otherwise well-tempered folks that would vote for him that is the riddle to be solved. — schopenhauer1

This is a more hair-raising idea and I agree, that's some riddle. — Tom Storm

Hint: He made an attempt to stop illegal immigration along the southern border. He made an attempt to influence NATO members to pay more their share. He met with tyrants to try to reduce tensions. . . .. feel free to ridicule.

But I hope he's stopped from running for president this time around.

I continue to stand by my argument that treating time quantum mechanically is an important step in eliminating dualism — Possibility

No problem. But, could you summerize what you are saying here about time?

I can recall three here who have PhD's in philosophy. Not quite what you are asking.

There is no outside to the universe. This is the irrefutable fact of quantum mechanics. — Possibility

How's that? Just curious. :chin:

Can't any concept be broken down into smaller understandable sub-concepts? Is there a theorem on that? — RogueAI

Not that I'm familiar with. I often bring up trying to teach my late Corgi mathematical concepts, to no avail. He passed away with not an inkling of calculus. Perhaps we are like Corgis, cute but limited as to intellectual depth. What is beyond our comprehension may remain that way. However, AI, coupled with the human mind might find a way to break the barrier. Even then we might just be relegated to following instructions, like "roll over". :cool:

I've never come across the word "supervenes" in mathematics, so I assume it is more a philosophical term. However, what comes to mind is the reliance on fundamental set theory as a foundation for all of mathematics. Many if not most mathematicians in classical analysis, say, don't even think of the intricacies of set theory while involved in research. But what they are doing supervenes upon set theory.

I suppose.

I look to AI rather than SF to open conceptual doors. I was more or less active as a mathematician for many years, and I witnessed a huge increase in topics more and more sophisticated, complicated, abstract, and generalized to the extent I gave up long ago trying to keep up with the subject - over 25,000 Wikipedia pages - and hundreds of research papers appearing daily on sites like ArXive.org . Perhaps AI will take us into realms beyond human comprehension, where visitation by aliens makes more sense. We may be at this threshold regarding quantum theory, where the math overrides human understanding - the ability to recognize analogies from everyday life, even from the vantage point of advanced science.

Of course, AI comes from human minds. So what may appear might be simply concepts that are too complicated to understand, rather than concepts beyond what an idealized human mind might conjure up.

the topic lends itself to that kind of speculation - like ‘wormholes’ or spacetime portals and the like. None of which seem remotely feasible in terms of current science. — Wayfarer

Yes, SF can be speculative philosophy. There is the question of human understanding. I used to try to teach my Corgi, Jake, elementary calculus. You can guess how that turned out. :cool:

so our "space" is fundamentally derived from and therefore refers to the property of objects. Objects are logically prior to space — Metaphysician Undercover

Even in more abstract mathematics this is true. For example, when one describes a way to measure "distances" between finite contours in the complex plane, one begins the construction of a "metric space" for these objects.

It's always seemed to me that visitation by an alien would have had to be one of absolute desperation. Whereas - due to time dilation - their voyage might have lasted a year, their home planet would have aged by thousands of years.

I don't think quantum mechanics has any special understanding to add to the study of consciousness beyond it's role as the substrate for all physical phenomena. — T Clark

:up:

why not biology as a first science rather than physics? — Moliere

It's too messy. And chemistry and physics underlie it. A biophysicist could go into more detail. There is one lurking here.

The form of the math expresses the physical reality, rather than represents it. — Moliere

I've been pondering this. It is possible, I suppose, that the mathematics in quantum theory has been reified to some extent. The Mathematical Universe is this idea writ large.

Yawn. Silly silly. Trump will be the candidate. If behind bars his popularity will soar.

Asked to raise their hands if the candidates believe climate change is human behavior driven — Mikie

Is that how it was phrased? Like asking, "do you believe in God?" There are other forces at work on the climate. A more delicately composed question, like,"do you think human behavior is as responsible for climate change as natural causes?" might have gotten a few positive responses. Maybe not. Going all in and declaring a non-believer a heretic worthy of belonging to a "basket of deplorables" will win few converts.

If there's a easy link to figuring out how to embed multiple crosses, jgill, I'd be happy if you could pass it along because it does look prettier, and if I can figure out the syntax it's probably not that hard to embed multiple crosses. — Moliere

$\left. {\overline {\, \left. {\overline {\, \left. {\overline {\, a+b \,}}\! \right| \,}}\! \right| \,}}\! \right|$

\left. {\overline {\, \left. {\overline {\, \left. {\overline {\, a+b \,}}\! \right| \,}}\! \right| \,}}\! \right|
put in the math boxes on either end, as before.

it will take a brilliant physicist to translate those juices into changes in the way practicing physicists do their job — Joshs

It will be interesting to see if anything comes of her ideas. Certainly, quantum theory these days seems more a reifying of mathematics.

I get the impression that you think the social-philosophical and natural science spheres of knowledge are somehow independent — Joshs

I see physics notions like entanglement applied to social sciences, but the other way around is a bit more obscure. Psychology in physics? The measurement problem? As for mathematics, Barad and her followers suggest a loosening of the framework of the subject, citing the concept of non-Euclidean geometry. But this is always happening in the research community - nothing new here. However, to propose something similar in math education at the early levels is bold, to say the least. Reminds me of the New Math of the 1960s and 1970s.

so it can’t be the same old eight ball even apart form the pool game — Joshs

Oh, but it is. It aligns perfectly from my last game. Well, a few more scratches. As for Barad, They are a person who has taken a certain perspective of quantum physics and applied it to feminism, genderism, and other societal issues - perhaps successfully. Elsewhere applied it seems highly speculative and tangential rather than fundamental.

With regard to math education, They seem more concerned with the entire physical, social, familial and emotional environment in which math is learned. Not so much with the nitty gritty of the subject of mathematics as with the entire environmental structure intra-acting. There is some value in that.

Shallow analysis:

When a group convenes and creates an "object", let's say a social movement, in the process of intra-acting, there is entanglement plus creation.

When two players rack the billiards and play a game of pool, there is intra-acting and entanglement, but the eight ball is the same old eight ball.

I think the notion of ‘cause’ in ‘what causes wave collapse’ is problematical. The wave function is not physical, either, it’s simply a distribution of probabilities. It gives the answer to ‘where is the particle’ prior to it being measured in terms of probabilities. When the measurement is taken, it’s not longer a matter of probabilities but a certainty. That’s the ‘collapse’. — Wayfarer

:up:

I wrote a simple program for my computer, following the rules of arithmetic originating with the principle of succession from set theory. When I ask the program to add two numbers it follows the rule I have instilled.

New rule: replace an a with an i.

Science is just superstition and religion glorified with the so called "scientific methods" i.e. hypotheses, experiments and observations. — Corvus

What more needs be said?

you'd probably not have to pay a dime — Ø implies everything

Not directly, of course. But the money has to come from somewhere. Income taxes, etc. or if you happen to have a group medical policy, its spread out over many. Good to know you are thinking ahead.

Otherwise, how will you finance your odyssey?

On the other hand, the monoclastic neutrinal differentiation . . . — alan1000

Sokol prize winner.

Quotidian or whatever didn't do the job? Wayfarer is far more wistfully wise.

Far too much wealth in far too few hands.

Inductive logic would simply (possibly incorrectly) guess that it is a duck. — PL Olcott

:up: :cool:

My old saying is if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck lays
eggs and everything else just like a duck it could be a space
alien perfectly disguised as a duck. — PL Olcott

Here inductive logic works wonders.

You and Kripke may be excused. Return to dinner when you have stopped playing your little games.

$\left. {\overline {\, a \,}}\! \right|$

From MathType. Place math and /math, enclosed by square brackets on either end and try: \left. {\overline {\, a \,}}\! \right|