PDA

View Full Version : Nature and Infinity.


s0cratus
18th-January-2014, 08:07 AM
Nature and Infinity.
=.
There are two separate infinite substances that exist in Nature:
"infinitely big" and "infinitely small".
The infinitely big substance is Zero Vacuum: T=0K.
( spacetime continues forever)
The infinitely small substance is Planck's constant –
- quantum of light - ( h, h*).
These two constants are fundament of creation everything in Nature.
===..
Best wishes.
Israel Socratus.
=..

The Void
18th-January-2014, 08:51 AM
But plank's constant is a finite no. however small may be.
Absolutely Infinitely Small = 0

BigApplePi
18th-January-2014, 12:25 PM
Yes. Is there something that prevents us from going on and on in either direction? Would there be something extra in nature that stops us at Plank's constant or contains us in space-time? If so, what kind of existence would THAT be?

The Void
18th-January-2014, 01:02 PM
Yes. Is there something that prevents us from going on and on in either direction? Would there be something extra in nature that stops us at Plank's constant or contains us in space-time? If so, what kind of existence would THAT be?

Well it can be something like those hindu philosophies : manifestation of infinity in a finite form.

Infinity is not such an easy subject, may be beyond comprehension may be not?
Infinity being absolutely beyond comprehension is a kind of paradox, on one hand one is saying it is incomprehensible yet comprehending it to be incomprehensible.

As I stated, if it was infinitely small, it will be just 0.

IFf it is potentially infinitely small it tends to 0.

But potential infinite is more like a process, a never ending process so it is an eternal journey towards 0 but it will never become 0.

For something to have form and all that, limitations has to exist, thus, the constants planck's constant, but may be there is something that transcends, ∞ manifesting itself in finity with constants and all that?

The universe may be Torus. but torus is unbounded but finite.
Anything that has a shape and form is finite.

0 and ∞ so close yet so different, or may be same, I can't compehend or can I?

PS: I don't know 'too' much about the T=0K vacuum....is that the infinity that I am talking about? Idk. May be that is the infinite potential, converting virtual to real or something? But mind has a bad habit of making order in disorder, what if all is within the mind? What distnguish between the mental and physical? May be it is pure chaos well whatever, order and disorder both abstract concept.

Blarraun
18th-January-2014, 02:38 PM
IFf it is potentially infinitely small it tends to 0.

Pure 0 is unachievable on the quantum level as we know it, it is another abstraction for infinity that is elegant and gives illusion of emptiness.

0 appears as an addition of two opposite terms that are equal in value:
-5+5=0, without the opposite terms 0 has some meaning as an abstraction of nothing.

The universe may be Torus. but torus is unbounded but finite.
Anything that has a shape and form is finite.

Some currently possible shapes of universe like
Calabi-Yau manifold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calabi%E2%80%93Yau_manifold)
http://bugman123.com/Physics/Calabi-Yau2.jpg
I recommend looking at String theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory)

0 and ∞ so close yet so different, or may be same, I can't compehend or can I?Part of opposite manifestations of something which may be one.

PS: I don't know 'too' much about the T=0K vacuum....is that the infinity that I am talking about? Idk. May be that is the infinite potential, converting virtual to real or something? But mind has a bad habit of making order in disorder, what if all is within the mind? What distnguish between the mental and physical? May be it is pure chaos well whatever, order and disorder both abstract concept.
The thing about 0K and 0 is this fact that 0 is not nothing.

In theory you could have a temperature of -100K and this would imply a very large amount of energy too.

At 0k it is supposed for Quantum Particles to appear at random and increase the temperature.
Even at 2k and around many substances behave odd, supercooled liquids etc.
it's science so when you hear something can never happen, then it means:"according to my best knowledge it is highly improbable to happen"
absolute 0
negative temperature

The Void
18th-January-2014, 03:08 PM
Pure 0 is unachievable on the quantum level as we know it, it is another abstraction for infinity that is elegant and gives illusion of emptiness.

If pure nothing 0 was acheived , then there would be nothing but there is something,
thus for something to exist there must be a constant...here planck's constant...
Yes Abstraction possibly. All is abstraction.

Blarraun
18th-January-2014, 03:10 PM
If pure nothing 0 was acheived , then there would be nothing but there is something,
thus for something to exist there must be a constant...here planck's constant...
Yes Abstraction possibly. but in a sense what is not abstraction?
I think you got it only one way:
Hmm there wouldn't be nothing :), watch the vids etc.
I provide a scientific hypothesis

from the article:
+0 K, ... , +300 K, ... , +∞ K, −∞ K, ... , −300 K, ... , −0 K."
So when 0 is approached from either side, both sides are energised. Only at a direct 0 particles are at their most stilled level, however this does not completely prevent movement and also it changes many behaviours.

Perfect crystal is interesting, it could be a compressed state of matter.

This could be an unstable energy state and it doesn't impact every particle
edit:
Oh my bad, I remember, wasn't that you mentioned something about connection speed?
I'll pm

BigApplePi
18th-January-2014, 03:39 PM
As I stated, if it was infinitely small, it will be just 0.

IFf it is potentially infinitely small it tends to 0.

But potential infinite is more like a process, a never ending process so it is an eternal journey towards 0 but it will never become 0.Guys. We don't have to talk about small = 0. Look up the concept of a "limit." All we need is the ability to get smaller and closer to some point. Yes it's a process. Same with infinity. We don't need that. All we need is the ability to go on and on in as many steps as you would like.



0 appears as an addition of two opposite terms that are equal in value:
-5+5=0, without the opposite terms 0 has some meaning as an abstraction of nothing.Note that there is the relationship of plus and minus. That relationship exists belying the idea that zero in this example is nothing.

I would like to see these concepts tying in with the concept (and reality) of existence. I know I made a post but can't find it. Cursed too many posts. Maybe it had nothing useful to say anyway.:facepalm:

Blarraun
18th-January-2014, 05:00 PM
Note that there is the relationship of plus and minus. That relationship exists belying the idea that zero in this example is nothing.
Not exactly my point, as long as the equation to 0 is unsolved it remains imbalanced.
Let's see:
you have 8 lapis lazuli bracelets and you have (-8 lapis lazuli bracelets[this means that these (-8) either exist as anti-objects, or that there is a process that will get rid of the 8 existing lapis lazuli bracelets]) which is interesting because as long as we have an equation like [[x+(-8)]+[8+(-x)]]=0 which shows that braces create separate frames of reference for these elements of omniverse.

In fact order of operation in mathematics has invisible braces that are removed for simplicity that are just a causal chain of events.
In this abstract equations we never began with complete 0 and never end with total 0, we simply happen to observe a 0 in our frame of reference.

You can see 0 as being an addition of every set of numbers with it's opposites, which would point to the conclusion that any other number is just a lack of the opposite number from an infinite pool of numbers.

Viewing it as nothingness or everything is very closely knit.

I would like to see these concepts tying in with the concept (and reality) of existence. I know I made a post but can't find it. Cursed too many posts. Maybe it had nothing useful to say anyway.
Maybe that was what you were trying to say?

The Void
18th-January-2014, 05:09 PM
I think you got it only one way:
Hmm there wouldn't be nothing :), watch the vids etc.
I provide a scientific hypothesis

from the article:

So when 0 is approached from either side, both sides are energised. Only at a direct 0 particles are at their most stilled level, however this does not completely prevent movement and also it changes many behaviours.

Perfect crystal is interesting, it could be a compressed state of matter.

This could be an unstable energy state and it doesn't impact every particle
edit:
Oh my bad, I remember, wasn't that you mentioned something about connection speed?
I'll pm

I was talking about a different 0.
The general concept of 0.
Or more about the Zeno's paradox, if you divide a line into infintely small points,
then if it is truly infinitely small then it must be just 0, and then nothing would exist.
It was not about 0K vacuum.
I wrote that before watching the videos or reading the wikis.

Blarraun
18th-January-2014, 05:18 PM
I was talking about a different 0.
It was not about 0K vacuum.
I wrote that before watching the videos.
The problem is that you connected, physical abstraction of planck constant and 0 with an abstraction of existence.

If pure nothing 0 was acheived , then there would be nothing but there is something,
thus for something to exist there must be a constant...here planck's constant...
Yes Abstraction possibly. All is abstraction. Not all is abstraction, there is a universal positive being that something exists.
What's else: The fact that everything is abstract is not an abstraction.

If there was nothingness, then the fact of existence would also cease to be,
you cannot erase the fact of something happening, it lies somewhere on the time arrow axis and it will remain there, this shows that there will always be some remnants of information or energy.

Planck constant deals with the smallest possible space for change to occur, so this wouldn't mean that if there was no lower bound smaller changes cannot occur.

The lower bound would be the smallest change that will occur throughout the history(or a set of every event, that may or may not be infinite) as beyond that any change that will not occur is pure nothingness.

Hawkeye
18th-January-2014, 05:24 PM
If there is zero amount of deadly bateria on an object, there is zero (no) possibility of getting infected as a result of touching that object. However, if there was an infinitely small amount of said bacteria on the object, there will be an infinitely small (some) possibility of getting infected.

Zero is not infinitely small.

Blarraun
18th-January-2014, 05:30 PM
If there is zero amount of deadly bateria on an object, there is zero (no) possibility of getting infected as a result of touching that object. However, if there was an infinitely small amount of said bacteria on the object, there will be an infinitely small (some) possibility of getting infected.

Zero is not infinitely small.
Any time you deal with infinitely small values you should know them, or assume there are non 0 if this is relevant.

In your case with bacteria you cannot calculate a limit as there is some factual amount of bacteria remnants or there isn't, or you are unable to measure the amount.

It is similar to a funny way you are taught at school that:
0.99999999999999999999999999999999(9)=x is one
because if you were to manipulate this you would get:
10x=9.(9), 10x-x=9x, 9x=9, 9x/9=x, x=1

ars magicka!, this is just an unknown value that is pretty convenient when you apply maths to reduce infinity, that's it

The Void
18th-January-2014, 05:35 PM
If there is zero amount of deadly bateria on an object, there is zero (no) possibility of getting infected as a result of touching that object. However, if there was an infinitely small amount of said bacteria on the object, there will be an infinitely small (some) possibility of getting infected.

Zero is not infinitely small.

Define infinitely small.
Why not just say extremely small?
Infinitely small? Why?

1/∞ say this is infinitely small.

If we see infinite as a process (the potential infinite)

then

Limit n->∞ 1/n -> 0

-> = tends to.

As n approaches infinite 1/n (infinitely small) approaches small.

But this is just a never ending process.

It is not really suitable to use a term denoting a process to signify number.

But if it is an Absolute infinite not a potential one.

Then the infinitely small can not have a finite value thus it can only be 0.

I am not using infinitely small in a common convention.
Indefinitely small I guess sounds better.

Even 2*10^-1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is a finite value then why say it as 'infinitely' small?

If there is a planet at a distance of absolute infinity from this planet then the planet don't exist at all.

Hawkeye
18th-January-2014, 05:40 PM
Yes, there are scenarios where the values below a certain threshold do not affect a system and therefore can be classified as zero. After all, this is how binary signals work in electronics.

My point was that, actually, only zero is zero and an infinitely small is a value merely close to zero, i.e., not zero.

The Void
18th-January-2014, 05:40 PM
The problem is that you connected, physical abstraction of planck constant and 0 with an abstraction of existence.

Not all is abstraction, there is a universal positive being that something exists.
What's else: The fact that everything is abstract is not an abstraction.

If there was nothingness, then the fact of existence would also cease to be,
you cannot erase the fact of something happening, it lies somewhere on the time arrow axis and it will remain there, this shows that there will always be some remnants of information or energy.

Planck constant deals with the smallest possible space for change to occur, so this wouldn't mean that if there was no lower bound smaller changes cannot occur.

The lower bound would be the smallest change that will occur throughout the history(or a set of every event, that may or may not be infinite) as beyond that any change that will not occur is pure nothingness.
First there is some reality.
But as soon as we start to think about we we enter abstraction.
We create ideas about reality, ideas and concept to represent the superset reality.
And it all becomes an abstraction.
I meant all concepts are 'potentially' abstract. Not saying that there is no true reality.
There is.
Probably?
So all is not an abstraction.
I was not specifically saying all is abstraction, but almost everything we know can be abstraction.

Blarraun
18th-January-2014, 05:44 PM
First there is some reality.
But as soon as we start to think about we we enter abstraction.
We create ideas about reality, ideas and concept to represent the superset reality.
And it all becomes an abstraction.
I meant all concepts are 'potentially' abstract. Not saying that there is no true reality.
There is.
Probably?
So all is not an abstraction.
I was not specifically saying all is abstraction, almost everything we know can be abstraction.
Pretty much I agree, I also agree with the way that limits are used.

They are good when you need to solve paradoxes, but they indicate passing over infinitissemaly small values or unknowns.

This is like introducing three valued logic to calculus and at that point it stops being two valued in truth.

My point was that, actually, only zero is zero and an infinitely small is a value merely close to zero, i.e., not zero.
So you would disagree with the possibility that 0 can be the highest value, that is the composite of all values? I have this problem unsolved too.

Hawkeye
18th-January-2014, 05:45 PM
But if it is an Absolute infinite not a potential one.

Then the infinitely small can not have a finite value thus it can only be 0.


I don't think you understand the concept of infinity. This infinitely small quantity will never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, etc... reach zero. EVER.

It's an immeasurable quantity that is not equal to zero.

The Void
18th-January-2014, 05:48 PM
Yes, there are scenarios where the values below a certain threshold do not affect a system and therefore can be classified as zero. After all, this is how binary signals work in electronics.

My point was that, actually, only zero is zero and an infinitely small is a value is merely close to zero, i.e., not zero.
0 and ∞ are weird things.
No finite non-zero values are actually closer to it. (only relatively closer to some no. relatively farther or like that)

Like 2*10^(-27362363). Will you say it is closer to zero?
Then again 2*10^(-23258975892578925789578923892735789235789)
must also be closer to zero.
But to no. has huge difference.

Same while extending towards infinity.

In my first post, I mentioned 'absolutely' infinitely small.
And I was trying to mean absolutely infinitely small (So I was not using the term 'infinitely' small in terms of how it is generally used) and it can only be zero.

If it is potentially infinitely small then it will tend to zero but never will be zero.

BigApplePi
18th-January-2014, 05:53 PM
Not exactly my point, as long as the equation to 0 is unsolved it remains imbalanced.Are you saying zero is a passing happening of perhaps special interest among a myriad other events? Not sure.


Originally Posted by BigApplePi http://www.intpforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?p=412562#post412562)
I would like to see these concepts tying in with the concept (and reality) of existence. I know I made a post but can't find it. Cursed too many posts. Maybe it had nothing useful to say anyway.
Maybe that was what you were trying to say?Define "that." Not clear.

The Void
18th-January-2014, 06:03 PM
I don't think you understand the concept of infinity. This infinitely small quantity will never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, etc... reach zero. EVER.

It's an immeasurable quantity that is not equal to zero.

That is the concept of potential infinity.
It is a process.

lim n->∞ 1/n -> 0

See here N is forever approaching towards infinity, and 1/n (your potentially infinitely small) will forever tends toward 0 but never reach 0 as you said.

A never ending process it is.

But in my first post I was talking about an absolute infinity.
Which even may be just an abstract concept?
Or may be something much beyond?


You can not divide a finite line into infinite points.
But you can go on dividing the finite lines forever but never reach infinite divisions, but you will go on and on and on and on
the size of each points will start tending to 0 and the no. of divisions will start tending to ∞ but will never become.
That is the potential infinite. (like future is potentially infinite (if time is linear(and if time never stops))
http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/courses/thereals/potential.html

by absolute infinite I meant actual\completed infinite

Hawkeye
18th-January-2014, 06:12 PM
Ah, well actual infinities cannot exist in the real world. They are pure abstraction, not to mention rather silly as they imply infinity has been reached!.

I assumed as we were talking about nature, we'd be using potential infinities: My bad.

PhoenixRising
20th-January-2014, 04:03 PM
Nature and Infinity.
=.
There are two separate infinite substances that exist in Nature:
"infinitely big" and "infinitely small".
The infinitely big substance is Zero Vacuum: T=0K.
( spacetime continues forever)
The infinitely small substance is Planck's constant –
- quantum of light - ( h, h*).
These two constants are fundament of creation everything in Nature.
===..
Best wishes.
Israel Socratus.
=..

I can agree hypothetically that space is infinite. But, it may be finite and we just don't know it yet because we have such a limited range of observation (and are located inside of it :/).

As far as finding infinity in the universe goes, the concepts put forth by chaos theory are quite fascinating to me. That every system in the universe has infinite qualities because of the phenomenon of feedback, and fractals are literally finite shapes with infinite borders. That each system has a complex order that repeats infinitely..

s0cratus
21st-January-2014, 08:34 AM
I can agree hypothetically that space is infinite. But, it may be finite and we just don't know it yet because we have such a limited range of observation (and are located inside of it :/).

..

Fact: the Universe (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/U/Universe) as a whole has exactly the required
density (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/D/Density) of matter to be flat.
The average density of matter in the universe (even
incorporating a dark mass and dark energy ) is equal to
or less than critical density and therefore the universe
as a whole must be a flat (http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/CosmosShape.html) infinite continuum.
2
Fact : that according to WMAP the universe as whole is flat.
http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html (http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html)
=.

PhoenixRising
22nd-January-2014, 11:58 PM
Fact: the Universe (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/U/Universe) as a whole has exactly the required
density (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/D/Density) of matter to be flat.
The average density of matter in the universe (even
incorporating a dark mass and dark energy ) is equal to
or less than critical density and therefore the universe
as a whole must be a flat (http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/CosmosShape.html) infinite continuum.
2
Fact : that according to WMAP the universe as whole is flat.
http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html (http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html)
=.

I wasn't arguing that I think the universe is finite in existence, all I was saying is that we really don't know that it is infinite for sure. I hold the same sentiment as the person who wrote the article you linked to, "All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."

The most current data we have does suggest that it is probable that the universe is flat, and therefore expanding outward infinitely. But even if this is so, the universe would have a finite volume at any given moment. If it didn't, it couldn't be expanding, because it would already exist infinitely. Therefore, it could be said that the universe exists in a finite space, but for an infinite time (and will therefore expand infinitely due to the nature of its movement).

If you believe that time = movement, then it could be said that the universe exists in a finite space, but moves outward infinitely and therefore, makes time an infinite quality.

Polaris
23rd-January-2014, 01:09 AM
The end of the Universe = the end of time. When time/the Universe ceases to exist, infinity remains.

Vrecknidj
23rd-January-2014, 03:45 AM
Yeah, but, what is infinity? Can I eat it? Does it have a smell?

The Void
23rd-January-2014, 04:31 AM
The end of the Universe = the end of time. When time/the Universe ceases to exist, infinity remains.

Infinity or void?

Blarraun
23rd-January-2014, 06:23 AM
Infinite time would be a requirement for infinity, or there would have to be an infinity that existed even before the time began. But the first change, the beginning of time requires some other time to take place. How would the time begin this depends on the reference frame.

s0cratus
23rd-January-2014, 06:37 AM
Yeah, but, what is infinity?

T=0K


Can I eat it?
Does it have a smell?

Vacuum transformation / fluctation, tunneling phenomena.
=

Polaris
23rd-January-2014, 08:17 AM
Yeah, but, what is infinity? Can I eat it? Does it have a smell?

Don't know. One would have to consider infinity as breaking the linear concept of time, as we understand it.


Infinity or void?

Something similar to a black hole. (http://phys.org/news205133042.html)

Source (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.4698v1.pdf)

Blarraun
23rd-January-2014, 09:06 AM
Reaching zero-point energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy) locally/universally might be the beginning of another universe.
Cosmological Inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29)
Inflation

Vrecknidj
24th-January-2014, 12:47 AM
Perhaps, though, T never reaches 0 K.

I understand, for instance, the idea of the limit, in calculus. I get that we can "sum to infinity" and notice that this or that mathematical series, when such a sum is carried out (in theory) is equal to some specific number.

I get it.

I find continued fractions to be fun.

There are infinite continued fractions, for instance, that are equal to pi or e. I understand that.

But, what about the ontological status of these things?

Remember, from Plato's perspective,
1) There ARE perfect squares. A square has 4 equal sides, it has two dimensions, opposite sides are parallel, adjacent sides are perpendicular, etc., etc. And, the definition of a square is such that every square meets its criteria and every other geometric object fails to meet it's criteria, and
2) There ARE NO perfect squares in this world

From which he concludes,

3) There IS a "world" or "dimension" or whatever wherein these perfect squares exist,
4) The human mind has access to that "place", and
5) This world, having no such perfections in it, is clearly, somehow, "wrong"

So, this "infinity" that we're talking about.

In which of Plato's ontological regions does it exist?

What I'm getting at here is that, if the universe is, from a physical point of view, "pixelated" (i.e. there is a smallest size of space, time, and energy packet), and if, from a physical point of view, the universe has a maximum possible diameter, energy, volume, etc., then, this infinity we're all talking about is in that other Platonic dimension and not this one.

(Is that better than my off-the-cuff question about its odor?)

:)

s0cratus
24th-January-2014, 06:44 AM
According to Hegel there are two kinds of infinities:
the " Bad Infinity" and the " True Infinity".
=.

Blarraun
24th-January-2014, 07:56 AM
What I'm getting at here is that, if the universe is, from a physical point of view, "pixelated" (i.e. there is a smallest size of space, time, and energy packet), and if, from a physical point of view, the universe has a maximum possible diameter, energy, volume, etc., then, this infinity we're all talking about is in that other Platonic dimension and not this one.

:)
Platonism is sometimes fun. I don't know why but most of these threads seem to finish in the divisibility of space topic, which hints that this might be the underlying question.
Similar threads and/or conclusions:
#4 (http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=15506&page=3&highlight=determinism+indeterminism)
#1 (http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=18694)
#2 (http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=18466&highlight=infinity)
#3 (http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=18417&highlight=determinism+indeterminism)

s0cratus
29th-January-2014, 02:46 PM
Vacuum and Quantum of light are still two fundamental puzzles in physics.

About quantum of light Einstein wrote:
'‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken.'‘

And about vacuum there are different opinions.
a)
" The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be:
What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with
its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word
vacuum is a gross misnomer!."
/ Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /
b)
‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
simple have no meaning.’
/ Book : ‘Dreams of a final theory’. Page 138. By Steven Weinberg./
c).
‘If we were looking for something that we could conceive
of as God within the universe of the new physics, this ground
state, coherent quantum vacuum might be a good place to start.’
/ Book ‘The quantum self ’ page 208, by Danah Zohar. /

Conclusion.
As Paul Dirac wrote:
" The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can't correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? "
=.
So, what is *philosophy of science* if we don't know these two simplest
but fundamental structure of the Universe?
=====…

Vrecknidj
30th-January-2014, 01:36 AM
When I was a kid working on my MA in philosophy, I decided I wanted to graduate via a thesis option (I changed my mind later). While so engaged, I thought it would be fun to attempt to grapple with the difference(s) between everything, reality and the universe. I had been deeply influenced by Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order and even had had an opportunity to interview Bohm himself for a couple of hours.

I was, naturally, overwhelmed. My background in math and physics was too limited, and I was frankly, way too young to truly have an appreciation for these problems (my explorations of cosmology, for instance, were weak at the time).

Anyway, I agree, actually, that this vacuum issue is the big one. From a certain point of view, it's similar to asking what the Tao is.

Is there this "thing" which is the ground of all other things? Is it that to which all other things ultimately return?

From another point of view, it reminds me very much of Jung's unconscious.

I've always thought that there were hints in these analogs such that working on any one would reveal secrets about the others.

s0cratus
30th-January-2014, 06:34 AM
Anyway, I agree, actually, that this vacuum issue is the big one.
From a certain point of view, it's similar to asking what the Tao is.

Is there this "thing" which is the ground of all other things?
Is it that to which all other things ultimately return?

From another point of view, it reminds me very much of Jung's unconscious.


Vacuum issue (T=0K) is similar to Tao ( maybe)
and
Quantum of light issue (h, h*, -E=Mc^2) is similar to Jung's unconscious. (maybe)
Question.
Can this be proved by physical laws, formulas and equations?
===…

Vrecknidj
1st-February-2014, 03:32 AM
Can this be proved by physical laws, formulas and equations?This is, perhaps, why I am a philosopher who dabbles in science and not a scientist who dabbles in philosophy. I admire and appreciate physics, but, my true love is metaphysics.

Metaphysics: willing to give up precision for scope.
Physics: willing to give up scope for precision.

Like I said, I admire and appreciate science, but, I'll remain on the side of the coin where the wild speculations and boastful attempts at analogies reside and leave the equations and proofs to the scientists.

Is it possible that these things can be proven with laws, formulas and equations? I don't know, but I hope so.

s0cratus
1st-February-2014, 11:13 AM
This is, perhaps, why I am a philosopher who dabbles in science and
not a scientist who dabbles in philosophy.
I admire and appreciate physics, but, my true love is metaphysics.

Metaphysics: willing to give up precision for scope.
Physics: willing to give up scope for precision.

Like I said, I admire and appreciate science, but, I'll remain on the side
of the coin where the wild speculations and boastful attempts at analogies
reside and leave the equations and proofs to the scientists.

Is it possible that these things can be proven with laws, formulas and equations?
I don't know, but I hope so.
The ideas of. . . Plato , Aristotle . . . . Spinoza, . Kant, . .
. . . Hegel . . . . are only " bits and pieces of ancient thought".
( maybe "bits and pieces" of Hermes Trismegistus or Vedas thoughts)
Old time - old ideas.
Today we have Quantum Mechanic and its works of genius technology.
We have Quantum Mechanic but not Quantum Philosophy.
Why?
First. Quantum Mechanic has no reference frame.
Second. Quantum Mechanic has one Hero ( in my opinion ) –
- it is Quantum of light / Photon / Electron.
About Quantum of light / Photon Einstein wrote:
" All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken."

And the simple quantum particle - electron has six ( 6 ) formulas:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2 , E=h*f , e^2=ah*c,
E=-me^4/2h*^2= -13,6eV and E= ∞.
Nobody knows "why?"
Nobody knows their correlation, how to unite them together.
=.
We have a wide field for speculations.
I say:" The Existence is written by Quantum of light /Photon / Electron".
But, of course, it is also one speculative thought.
==..
P.S.
“ One thing I have learned in a long life:
that all our science, measured against reality,
is primitive and childlike –
and yet it is the most precious thing we have.”
/ Einstein /
==========.

Vrecknidj
2nd-February-2014, 12:19 AM
Speaking of using philosophy to make outrageous analogies...

Didn't Jesus say something like "I am the light"? And, he also has unresolved duality: human and divine. (And, perhaps, also: alive and dead, depending upon your flavor of Christianity.)

s0cratus
2nd-February-2014, 08:12 AM
Speaking of using philosophy to make outrageous analogies...

Didn't Jesus say something like "I am the light"? And, he also has unresolved duality: human and divine. (And, perhaps, also: alive and dead, depending upon your flavor of Christianity.)



We live in the XXI century.
I try to think as a materialist.
If St. Augustine said: I believe in order to understand,
I say: I want to understand ( in scientific way) in order to believe.
==..

Vrecknidj
4th-February-2014, 12:15 AM
Either materialism has an irresolvable dualism at its foundation or it does not.

I don't know whether it does or does not.