You said a thing is flat to the degree that it's not curved, and a thing is curved to the degree that it's not flat — Metaphysician Undercover
(Wiki)The "remarkable", and surprising, feature of this theorem is that although the definition of the Gaussian curvature of a surface S in R3 certainly depends on the way in which the surface is located in space, the end result, the Gaussian curvature itself, is determined by the intrinsic metric of the surface without any further reference to the ambient space: it is an intrinsic invariant
is Logical Necessity caused by some physical force or entity? Or is it a fundamental principle of Reality? Is it a law of Physics, or a law of Meta-Physics? Are natural Laws (physical regularities) necessary (absolute) or contingent (fortuitous)? If they could be otherwise, what was the prior Cause (the "must") of their necessity for the emergence & evolution of the physical world? — Gnomon
The...thing this discovery illustrates is the ever present gap between theory and verification. The standard model was enormously successful in its account of the basic particles and the forces through which they interact. It was mathematically satisfying and elegantly based on notions of physical symmetry. Yet no one would ever have suggested that it must be correct regardless of any process of empirical verification. Such a process of verification lies at the heart of the scientific method. Theories are not self-verifying but always remain hypothetical constructs, subject to the next round of possible verification or falsification from the data.
This leads to a significant tension in the whole scientific project. Its drive is to seek intelligibility or patterns in the empirical data, to express these patterns in theoretical constructs, yet in the end it must deal with a brute fact of existence, which either verifies or falsifies these proposed patterns.
That reality is intelligible is the presupposition of all scientific endeavours: that the intelligibility science proposes is always subject to empirical verification means that science never actually explains existence itself but must submit itself to a reality check against the empirical data. This existential gap between scientific hypotheses and empirical verified judgment points to, in philosophical terms, the contingency of existence. There is no automatic leap from hypothesis to reality that can bypass a "reality check." — Neil Ormerod
Even if there were nowhere anywhere free form this strict physical determinacy, it would still be logically (if not physically) possible that there might have been. And of course, in any case, we don't, and can't know the truth about any of this. — Janus
Whatever the noumenal reality is, I’m a part of it. Not the "me" who is an object of experience—that’s the phenomenal me. And the naïve “phenomenal me” that comes from immediate introspection is no less phenomenal than what scientists look at when they study my brain. What bearing it has on the “noumenal me” remains an open question.
But still, I am what I am—and so in being me (as opposed to putting myself at the objective pole of conscious observation and then studying me) I am being part of noumenal reality. And there may be a way to leverage that fact into some kind of understanding of noumenal reality. That’s what Hegel tries to do in The Phenomenology of Spirit. — Eric Reitan
Yes. Although I would say that Matter is generic Information in a particular formation. Energy & Matter are different forms of general Information (E=MC^2). And the "formation" is called a meaningful pattern of information interrelationships. But "Energy" & "Mass" are mathematical concepts, while "Matter" is a conventional linguistic term to denote whatever has Mass & Intertia.n deep humbleness I dare to give a definition: information is matter being in formation. — Haglund
Yes. The Big Bang theory caused cosmologists, such as Einstein, to reconsider their presumption that the physical world was eternal, hence unconditional. So some, including Krauss, began to look beyond the BB -- pre-phenomenal domain -- for a First & Final Cause of our contingent universe. But most of those pre-BB causes -- Many Worlds ; Multiverses ; Inflation -- are still assumed to obey the same physical laws as our Real world. So, the question of the (noumenal??) Lawmaker is still open. :cool:One of the things that occurs to me is how often it is assumed that the phenomenal domain, the vast realm which is subject to investigation by the natural sciences, is, in this sense, the domain of contingent facts. — Wayfarer
It depends on what sense of 'knowing'. This writer says that Kant claims that the noumenal is unknowable - but that both Hegel and Schleiermacher then point out that, even though the noumenal might be unknowable in any objective sense, in another sense, it constitutes our own being, that it constitutes us, as subjects of experience. — Wayfarer
physical causation is an a priori intuition
Yet no one would ever have suggested that it must be correct regardless of any process of empirical verification. Such a process of verification lies at the heart of the scientific method. Theories are not self-verifying but always remain hypothetical constructs, subject to the next round of possible verification or falsification from the data. — Neil Ormerod
Yes. The Big Bang theory caused cosmologists, such as Einstein, to reconsider their presumption that the physical world was eternal, hence unconditional. So some, including Krauss, began to look beyond the BB -- pre-phenomenal domain -- for a First & Final Cause of our contingent universe. But most of those pre-BB causes -- Many Worlds ; Multiverses ; Inflation -- are still assumed to obey the same physical laws as our Real world. So, the question of the (noumenal??) Lawmaker is still open — Gnomon
Ironically, Kant's unknowable noumena are the very kind of knowledge that philosophers specialize in : speculation & conjecture into the unknown, and objectively unknowable, mysteries that are not amenable to scientific exploration. That's why only "mad-dogs" & philosophers go out into the sun-less mysteries of the Mind : Consciousness & Subjective Knowing. :smile:It depends on what sense of 'knowing'. This writer says that Kant claims that the noumenal is unknowable - but that both Hegel and Schleiermacher then point out that, even though the noumenal might be unknowable in any objective sense, in another sense, it constitutes our own being, that it constitutes us, as subjects of experience. — Wayfarer
So it is wrong to assert that the same shape is to some degree flat, and to some degree curved. — Metaphysician Undercover
My view of this issue these days is very superficial: the difference between an ant crawling across the surface of a large sphere and recognizing another dimension above, and an ant somehow embedded and crawling in the same surface and finding it 2-dimensional — jgill
Apokrisis is claiming that flat and curved are two limits, so that all real shapes are somewhere between, being to some degree flat, and to some degree curved. — Metaphysician Undercover
the idea of physical necessity such that given exactly the same causal conditions, exactly the same result must always reliably follow, no matter how well attested we might think it to be by science, does not equate to logical necessity. — Janus
If such a physical necessity does rule, which is questionable given quantum indeterminacy, then it would follow logically that given exactly the same causal conditions, then exactly the same effects must follow. — Janus
Bear in mind that the Cosmos exists to serve the second law and thus its aim is to maximise entropy — apokrisis
So even without the inherent quantum uncertainty, the Cosmos is committed to the production of uncertainty at every turn.
13mOptions — apokrisis
I think it's pretty obvious that the basis particles are not basic at all. I asked the question about preons on several physics forums and even a philosophy part of a forum. — Haglund
All elementary particles are composite in some sense even in the Standard Model view. Quarks mix like neutrinos. Photons are effective mixes of Bs and W3s. The electron mixes with the anti-positron. We are back to Chew’s S-matrix bootstrap as far as I can see. — apokrisis
So I don’t think preons are the answer. Or at least understood as a new deeper level of concrete particles - rather than gauge degrees of freedom - would be just to recreate the old atomistic paradox of why there would be any fundamental grain of matter at all. — apokrisis
But there does seem to be now broad acceptance in particle physics that all fundamental particles are composite in the fashion of a soliton or other examples of topological order in condensed matter physics. — apokrisis
The non broken gauge state has never been observed. It's a fantasy to fit the facts, like the value of the VEV, of which the origin is unknown, which is because it's just posited on purpose. — Haglund
And it explains muon g2. — Haglund
Everyone fears to say they don't believe in the standard. Their careers... — Haglund
If you call the mainstream trend of thought a fantasy, then they are right to treat you like a crackpot — apokrisis
If you made a well motivated case for why it is a blind alley, that would be a different matter. — apokrisis
Sure. They are all roped together like nervous mountaineers on an unclimbed summit. You think the prize belongs to the solo athlete with grit and flair. — apokrisis
The muon g2 result is explained by considering the muon a triplet of three massless Weyl particles. Each with charge -1/3. — Haglund
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.