Losethem (imported) wrote: Thu Feb 21, 2013 1:30 am
We'll know the universe collapsing has started when all the worlds capitols turn into mini black holes.
--LT
The big crunch theory is but a theory.
The universe doesn't have to end with a singularity.
Another alternate theory is the deep freeze where entropy or the randomness of the universe becomes so dispersed or stretched out that it gets colder and colder and colder to the point of reaching absolute zero.(More ordered)
But I'm doubtful of this theory bc as I mentioned to dave previously scientists have moved beyond and are now encompasing negative absolute temps. Think of them as a reverse heat so to speak. It is still hot but reverse hot LOL
Make that hotter than hot.(Physics gets weirder with every discovery)
NB = I could come up with a theory that supposed I entered a blackhole I would be able to see disneyland
LOL....Of course this is completely untrue but without hard linking evidence from both the quantum and general relativity camps (we need a theory of everything to link those 2 bastards up bc the math isn't working)
well....We just don't know whats inside of a blackhole now do we?
The same logic applies to dark matter,gravity, string theory, multiverses etc...
It's why I ain't bashing Moi's doomsaying antics. The sooner we find more evidence the more we can disprove of Moi's silly erm....you get the idea
THat's right Moi I have to painfully endure your theories aswell.
Walter M. Elsasser, who was a theoretical physicist and a recipient of the 1987 National Medal of Science in the USA, also contemplated biology; in the Preface of his last book, is:
"Everybody agrees that if a biological theory is to come into existence it must belong to a mode of thinking that is broader than any kind of reasoning now employed in the construction of a "theory."
and, also from Elsasser's Preface:
"As distinct from the majority of those who have written about the problem of reductionism, I am not a biologist by profession; I am a theoretical physicist.
and, also from Elsasser's Preface:
"Since by general consensus a theoretical biology, a a theory of organisms, has not existed heretofore, a person who wishes to contribute to the establishment of such a theory must either be an experienced biologist or else he must be thoroughly at home in the methods and principles of constructing theories. In a long life I have never met a man who would have claimed competence in both fields, that is a biologist who is really at home in the mode of thought that underlies the formation of theories, which, in the past, have of course been mostly in physics."
After high school, I went off to college, to a liberal arts college as a physics major. That college had an arrangement with an engineering school, such that three years of liberal arts and two years of engineering would produce bachelors degrees from both schools. I did my three years of physics liberal arts, and then spent the next six or so years finding an engineering school that had an engineering curriculum that interested me; namely bioengineering.
So what?
In one of his books, Elsasser remarked to the effect that biology surely has to be the "pinnacle science" as it includes itself and everything else. As an undergraduate physics major, I had figured that out on my own, and had also recognized that analytical reductionism, the "sacred mathematics" of physical sciences, had to be stunningly inadequate for solving any sort of central existential enigma. I was hardly the first person to recognize the profound limitations of analytical reductionism; Jan C. Smutts wrote about this concern circa 1926, in his book, "Holism and Biology."
In the manner of the late Robert Rosen, the late Francisco Variella, A. H. Louie, and a bunch of other folks who have pondered theoretical biology, I find that the mathematics of relational holism are required for making useful sense of life phenomena.
To paraphrase Elsasser, what happens in a single living cell for one second is mathematically complex far beyond what could accurately be computed with a binary digital computer made of everything in the observable universe if that computer were to run for the expected lifespan of the universe. Life is, in terms of analytical reductionism, "unfathomably transcomputational" (my paraphrase of Elsasser).
The model of something cannot be the something modeled. In seeking numerical solutions to complicated problems in physics, I was taught the merit of tossing out the "insignificant" higher-order terms, so the numerical calculation became feasible.
Alas, my grasp of biology informs me that, over sufficient time, the higher order terms may sum to such an extent as to dominate outcomes, regardless of numerical calculation simplifications.
In the realm of maths that I use for theoretical biology modeling purposes (high-dimension-space, complex-variable, relational tensor calculus), relativity and quantum mechanics are complementary, and not even slightly contradictory. And gravity is an existential stabilizer, not a force, and not a curvature of space-time.
But then, I also observe that existence is primarily a process, not a state or static condition, and the process is of superposition, such that possibilities may become probabilities which may become actualities, in the manner of an mechanism of evolving creativity.
Elsasser, for one, noted that sufficient complexity will result in the generation of novel events, and the generation of novel events is, functionally, creativity itself.
Every supposed paradox I have ever come upon in the realm of physics seems to me to vanish identically if I model existence as the interior of an actually timeless and spaceless singularity, such that the singularity is far too small for any asp[ect of its interior to be other than what it is (hence the law of identity and its corollaries (like the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle for dichotomies, the law of the included middle for continua, and the law of rational inference)...
In my relational holism model, the interior of the existential singularity (existence is always now, and existence is always here) cannot contain something and also contain the opposite of the something. The troubling of Albert Einstein about "spooky action at a distance" (quantum coupling) becomes trivial within a singularity.
And observation, as a process, I find, necessarily includes the observer, the observed, and the process of observation as an aspect of the relation of the observer with the observed. Hence, no observation can ever be other than a model of the observed, the observer, and their relation to self and other.
The reality is not in the observation, save as a form of relation (relational holistic model, for me) of observer with observed.
The limitation of the analytical reductionism of traditional physics modeling is the equivalencing of the observation with the observed, while somewhat neglecting the observer.
Consider a rare Ming ceramic vase found by a farmer plowing a field, such that the plow shatters the vase. Let us suppose that, prior to being struck and shattered on impact with the plow, the vase was effectively flawlessly intact. Prior to shattering, the vase was not made of the potsherds into which it shattered; the surface energy of the new surface formed during shattering was not part of the vase prior to its shattering.
Something which is intact is not made of what it can be broken into. The contrary belief is the fatal flaw, methinks, of analytical reductionism.
Riverwind (imported) wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:57 pm
Thank you Janekane for your post, I have missed your wisdom where have you been?
River
River:
A fair question.
I have been intensely involved in survival mode activities. Medical attention for my wife and for me. She had serious surgery in November, and is back home and doing better and better day by day. She has prosthetic hips and knees, and her left hip prosthesis structure rather severely underwent a variation on structural failure. Numerous trips to Milwaukee, where there is a surgeon who appears to be capable of the very nearly impossible, and she can now walk with a simple walker, or, for a few steps, without assistive devices or assistive people.
And I found a physician in Milwaukee (both of us went to Froedtert Hospital for care) who really understands how to do side-view esophogastroduodenoscopy without sedation. It now seems that I will need to live for a while longer if I am to get cancer. In spite of a genetic condition (a form of familial adenomatous polyposis) that some medical literature suggests allows an average lifespan of 42 years, I am sneaking up on my 74th birthday, and draconian surgeries (I am not at all convinced that my orchiectomy was draconian) seem to have delayed my escape from this worldly life. For which I am grateful...
My wife spent three months forbidden by her surgeon to put any weight on her left leg, to allow time for her pelvic reconstruction to become strong enough to not fall apart in ordinary walking.
Perhaps I was "fortunate" to have come upon the writings of Dr. Abraham A. Low, a psychiatrist on whose work my bioengineering doctorate is partly based. Low was a psychiatarist at the University of Illinois, in Chicago, who once said, "If my patients had patience, I would not have patients." (That works properly only when read aloud...)
So, while being patients, we have also needed patience with being patients...
Seek or Search and study up for the next challenge of Modern Physics or our very, survival.
Can the unparticle theory of the demise of the universe be far off.
I hope they get the timing right on this one.
Moi
I feel so dissolved.
I think my Higgs Bosons have . . .
the unparticle, a mysterious entity dreamed up several years ago. It has an unusual trait: its mass varies depending on the way we measure it, due to a property called scale invariance. As a result, unparticle exchange would not drop off as quickly as electromagnetism with distance potentially giving rise to measureable long-range effects.
What Me Worry?
the unparticle, which behaves like photons (light particles) in some ways, and like particles of matter in others.
I find that, to the extent that the so-called "wave-particle duality" is in any useful sense a real phenomenon, methinks it needs to be assigned to the process of observation, and not to what is observed. In that sense, an observation, in the sense of the recognition and noting of an observed phenomenon, is a property of the recognition capacity of the observer, the nature, in form, function and whatever else, of the phenomenon observed, the noting capacity of the observer, and the ability of those who encounter the observer's noting to map it onto some semblance of the existential experience of the observer as a whole.
It is not how, say, "the unparticle" behaves that is of science, for the "behavior" of "the unparticle" is impossible, per se, to observe.
W. H. Werkmeister's "An Introduction to Critical Thinking" appears to me to be back in print (as a Kessinger facsimile reprint). In my view, that book of Werkmeister presents about as resolutely clear an arduously mentally painful total view of the nature of observation as I have yet encountered.
There is this little thing that analytical reductionists keep blundering into, the introspectionists of early scientific psychology (Wilhelm Wundt, and his adherents) found that introspection was functionally fractal, though they did not have that word available to them. Analytical reductionism has no possibility that I have yet been able to discern of any semblance of finality of any sort of analytical-reductionism-based theory I have ever stumbled upon or otherwise been met with which. (dangling prepositions are inherent to analytical reductionism?)
And, as I almost invariably expect the unexpected, the Higgs Boson findings to date fit well within my unexpected expectations; therefore, it is what I expected.
Why is the "Barber Paradox" of Bertrand Russell not actually paradoxical?
Janekane I am glad some of you understand this because its way way over my head, and I am not sure I even want to know but I am fascinated reading all these posts on it, I have no clue what its about but I am fascinated, maybe its the wow factor.
Riverwind (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:56 am
Janekane I am glad some of you understand this because its way way over my head, and I am not sure I even want to know but I am fascinated reading all these posts on it, I have no clue what its about but I am fascinated, maybe its the wow factor.
River
All you need to know is with each new discovery, The End is nearer."
Watch the follow up stories if not weapons development.
