What it represents is our inability to actually understand the true nature of emission and absorption. — Metaphysician Undercover

Therefore it is simply a vicious circle of misunderstanding, manifesting as the appearance of conspiracy — Metaphysician Undercover

From what little I know of the subject, these are reasonable comments.

(Oddly, I am working on a problem in elementary complex dynamical systems that has me caught up in a circular argument that must be broken: To show a certain sequence converges one needs to show it is bounded, but to prove it is bounded reflects back to its convergence behavior. It looks like a step-by-step argument alternating between the two will be the ticket.)

Think of a topological map with waves flowing over peaks and valleys that gradually change form as if by erosion and seismic shifting. — Enrique

Topographical map, perhaps? If it is topological, what are the open sets?

The ‘infinite wave’ you refer to, I see as a six-dimensional structure of seemingly infinite possibility or ‘meaning’. — Possibility

Entertaining notion.

As long as we're talking about credentials or lack thereof, what's your area of expertise? — Enrique

Certain dynamical structures in complex function theory. I don't say much in these Quantum discussions because I know very little about the subject. But that apparently is insufficient reason for others on TPF to not post their views. Oh well . . . :cool:

I'm going to be expecting that Nobel prize in the mail. — Enrique

Send me your mailing address. I'll print one out on my computer and send it. You deserve no less!
:cool:

I didn't get trained in philosophy for nothing. — Enrique

How about physics? :roll:

I thought Enrique's exposition looked a bit weird, but waited for someone knowledgeable to chime in. :cool:

Is the credibility of the creationists worldview significantly undermined by the progression of scientific understanding and to what extent are they mutually exclusive? — Julz

As for the professions, I doubt many scientists spend a lot of time mulling over the existence of a creator, rather they focus on discovering how their corner of the universe works. Some may give a certain credence to intelligent design, but when you speak of a "creator" that sounds like a wholly religious perspective.

Among the mathematicians I've known over the years there have been virtually no discussions of this issue, although there are a few who are or were religious. If you refer to creationists who think Earth is 6,000 years old or the like, I've never met one.

"...can be demonstrated physically if desired" is a stretch. I can imagine flying to the moon in ten seconds, but it ain't happening! :gasp:

Become a subscriber, Chris. Or link an image from an existing (safe) site.

This is an interesting thread and delves into the bizarre nature of some mathematical interpretations in physics, where the math can be crazy but results experimentally verifiable. For example,regularization techniques are used to "sum" series that normally would diverge to infinity. In the Casimir effect, the following weirdness prevails: ${{1}^{3}}+{{2}^{3}}+{{3}^{3}}+\cdots =\frac{1}{120}$ . Also of use is: $1+2+3+\cdots =-\frac{1}{12}$.

These "sums" are obtained by using analytic continuations of the Zeta function, and are jarring to one accustomed to normal mathematical summation. Crazy, in fact. If Kenosha Kid reads this he could tell us more about the physics.

. . . whose existence is inferred from the mathematics — Metaphysician Undercover

The math in QT itself is pretty shaky. Renormalization and regularization procedures are used to manipulate expressions that annoyingly become infinite. And Feynman's "Sum of all paths integral" is not really a functional integral as most mathematicians think of the term. Nevertheless, with a lot of handwaving the physics works out. Here's a quote from Feynman on Wikipedia:

"The shell game that we play is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate." :cry:

A true reflection of quantum physics. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's amazing how Dirac, Feynman, and others were able to discover the mathematics to deal with a world in which visualization seems so difficult, if not impossible. In high school in the early 1950s we were taught that electrons were like little BBs, flying around atoms. Now they are non-local fields or Poincare groups or whatever, and Feynman tells us to shut up and compute. For me, I don't know enough modern physics to even be wrong. :meh:

To the Greeks, zero didn't make sense. — TheMadFool

And here, unfortunately, neither does nothing. :roll:

What a garbled mess this thread has become. :sad:

Ironically, something similar to "Ectoplasm" and "Spiritual Energy" has been detected and analyzed, not in chemical or biological labs, but in modern computers — Gnomon

It's the same fundamental stuff that "Virtual Particles" are made of — Gnomon

Spiritual energy is a quantum fluctuation? — jgill

No. That's not even close to what I said. — Gnomon

Wiki: In physics, a virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation

Admittedly, you did say "something similar" to spiritual energy, so that lets you off the hook.

Ironically, something similar to "Ectoplasm" and "Spiritual Energy" has been detected and analyzed, not in chemical or biological labs, but in modern computers — Gnomon

It's the same fundamental stuff that "Virtual Particles" are made of — Gnomon

Spiritual energy is a quantum fluctuation? This is similar to ectoplasm? This sounds a bit like quantum mysticism. But whatever rings your bell.

Could you perform 3D Mathematical modelling of TWO dimensional Geometric shapes in f r/-R+\r ee SpaceTime? — Chris1952Engineer

The space part of space time is 3-D, and since 2-D is a subset of 3-D a flat square would be just that, much as you looking at one on a piece of paper. I must be missing your point. If so, please explain in normal language without all the extra symbols. I take it you were born in 1952 and are a retired engineer.

On the other hand you define metaphysics that allows interpretation of sub-particle activities to be of the same value and service to mankind, as witch burning and seances — god must be atheist

Good point. However, should ectoplasm be detected and analyzed in a laboratory your perspective could have merit. :chin:

This is because there must always be a future before there is a past. — Metaphysician Undercover

I question whether a future is necessary and not merely sufficient for a past.

Mindspace : The residence of one's state of dudeness — Gnomon

Right out of the 1960s, man! :joke:

However, I resent the implication that I understand talking to spirits, only because I understand wave function — god must be atheist

Thanks for this gem. Makes reading these threads worthwhile. :smile:

When I read this I thought "that is how I feel about mathematics!" and I went on to read a book about Post Modernism and Mathematics, and now I am in the middle of another book called Why is There a Philosophy of Mathematics at All. — Gregory

When you finish this last book, let us know the answer, please. :roll:

Does this ALL make sense to you? — Chris1952Engineer

Too weird. Sorry :roll:

You need to work on an axiomatic foundation for counting squares.

Math is not inherently two dimensional, although that's how the student is initially introduced to the subject. For example, college calculus normally follows a pattern established by what used to be a prerequisite course in 2-D: Analytic Geometry. But I think there are universities that begin calculus in n-dimensions. Or, I know that's been attempted. However, high school students work generally in 2-D since it is easier to visualize and thus convey principles and doesn't require complicated spatial intricacies.

Traditionally, pen and paper were the instruments of discovery and promulgation of mathematical knowledge. These days there is much math done in n-dimensions or infinite dimensions.

I don’t think anyone on the thread supported people not working entirely - referring to your two posts talking about supporting people who don’t wish to work — The Questioning Bookworm

Not on this thread, but in the past on this forum. I recall Frank Apisa (who was expelled) was one. I certainly never took that position. I've mentioned before meeting young Brits in England in 1985 who pooled their doles to rent a house, and then pursued their common interest, which paid nothing.

Are there an infinite number of dimensions higher than the 4d spacetime that defines our universe outside of our universe? — an-salad

Yes. And I have been there. Believe me. :nerd:

Here's another one: Infinite Brooch

The revelation here is that working at a job that you enjoy is a luxury because several others have to work other jobs they don't exactly enjoy just to make that possible — Darkneos

"Don't exactly enjoy" leaves a lot of wiggle room. You probably have statistics to back up your statement. A couple of others on this forum have expressed a desire for society to support those who don't wish to work. How do you feel about that idea?

Life tends to become a net negative when you begin to question everything around you. — Darkneos

I agree with this. :up:

You realize that the only way such a life is possible is because the majority doesn't follow that way of living? — Darkneos

For many I suspect working at a job you enjoy, or at least tolerate, provides an existential dimension to your life. I fail to see that your post provides any revelations about society. In my case I worked at a job I enjoyed and gave me time off for an important avocation.

But I admit, times have changed and it would be much more difficult to do what I did these days.

"At either end of the social spectrum there is a leisure class", E. Beck 1960s.

So how would you visualize them being one (imaginary) thing? — jgill

Sorry. I don't understand the question. — Gnomon

Think of this as a secular counterpart to The Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - all are one and there may be Christian mystics who can envision the three as one imaginary entity. :chin:

At each pixel a (complex number) value is computed, then the pixel is colored based on the modulus of that number. E.g., dark green=small, bright red=large. The actual functional computation is complicated. It's virtually impossible to ascertain beforehand what sort of image will emerge as the program runs. Hence, weak emergence.

Sometimes philosophical discussions can be dry and it helps to look at graphic examples in reality. :cool:

Here's a graphic example of weak emergence from a BASIC program I wrote that involved an infinite composition of complex functions. Unpredictable imagery. Magnified 2000X.

Quantum Bug (don't let this into your quantum computer!)

Waves, particles, fields - how they can be consolidated in the mind, now there's a challenge for metaphysics. — jgill

There's no metaphysical mystery to such immaterial notions : they are all imaginary. :wink: — Gnomon

So how would you visualize them being one (imaginary) thing?

I think the best way to preserve information is write it in stone — Athena

It's astounding how well the ancient Egyptians did this, isn't it? Continues to fascinate me. :smile:

What if one wants to work less and work for less money to be able to apply themselves in other areas of life more important to them? — The Questioning Bookworm

I did that with my life, very successfully. The system doesn't necessarily have to be changed; one has to use one's imagination to solve this problem. Don't ask the government to grant your wish.

This is just the physicist's way of saying we know there's some energy there but we don't know what form it has. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm thinking in terms of pure mathematics. Excitation in the complex vector field. I'm wondering how that might be interpreted, devoid of physics. (I'm sure someone will tell me :roll: )

Waves, particles, fields - how they can be consolidated in the mind, now there's a challenge for metaphysics. — jgill

This is an error in the interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation — Darkneos

I'm speaking of envisioning these three things as a single entity, not necessarily associated with QM. Probably beyond metaphysics. Like visualizing four dimensions.

Metaphysicians might try to formulate and discuss ways of comprehending and envisioning the fields of physics. As a math person I easily perceive fields as vector fields - usually 2-D - with functions giving vector values at each point. But when a physicist talks of "excitations" of a field that's a different matter, and one that is highly intriguing. Physicists use the word "particle" differently than does the average person, as KK has mentioned. Waves, particles, fields - how they can be consolidated in the mind, now there's a challenge for metaphysics. Or is this in the same category as visualizing four dimensional space? (I once knew a topologist who claimed to be able to!) :cool:

There are conversations about life's problems that some would consider "philosophical". These are ubiquitous. But when one starts using terms like "ascriptivism" or "coherentism" mundane life goes by the wayside and a more academic environment must prevail. It would be the same as me bringing up something like "algebraic varieties" in a social setting. Those present would soon depart.

If you are a serious philosopher you might pursue some arcane topic to exhaustion and write about it, posting your thoughts on the web, and obtaining some small satisfaction in doing so - even if few others show interest. I've done that in a tiny sliver of mathematics, and one of my colleagues expressed it well by saying, Its like being a retired priest and always looking for inspiration in the scriptures, You do it because that's what you do. :cool:

The quote is on page ten of QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, R. Feynman, Princeton University Press, 1985. It's in the introduction by Feynman. The book is a redacted version of a series of lectures Feynman gave at UCLA as part of the Alix C. Mautner Memorial Lecture series. :cool:

I don't think that's what Elhmann was arguing. He wasn't arguing a slowing of time but a full stop. — Krisaaaaeeeeeeee

Maybe so. I haven't looked at his article in a long time. Perhaps I extrapolated an infinitesimal time period from what he said since it makes a little more sense to me.

Time flies as you age . . .

Dr Ehlmann seems to have left the room. I find it interesting that while there is some evidence here and there (and personal experience of Moi) of time "flying" the older you are - that is, if you, for instance, think five minutes have passed when fifteen minutes have gone by - Ehlmann contends the opposite: Near death (usually when old) stretches the passage of time out dramatically. You might think a day has passed when, in fact, only a microsecond has elapsed. Curious indeed. :chin:

Why would quantum mysticism be better addressed by trained physicists than by trained mystics? — Metaphysician Undercover

By interacting with the Higgs Field, trained mystics would become weighty and pretentious. But I could be wrong. There's a lot of uncertainty here. :chin: