Mike Smith Cosmos

I have seen a comment on this thread, that stated that Science does not need reality , in order for science to be correct and true . I can not see that , that can be correct ! It might be correct in a stand alone capability. The capability of working within the zone of science ONLY . BUT in the zone of EVERYTHING , like REALITY included , it would be an incomplete understanding of the COSMOS. MIKE Eg 1+1 = 2 is true in one setting ( real numbers ) but is not true with (complex variables !! )

. We were arguing about Decartes and the nature of reality when I was at Brunel College , back in the 1960's. Obviously the nature of reality has a lot of " related to whom , does it apply " . Descarts logical reasoning was :- That the ONLY thing absolute that ' I Descartes know is ' that I exist ' , he took logical reasoned steps in thought , until he reached his finger ends ' , then I think it went a bit woolly , if I recall correctly . Other philosophers then continued the argument , in the great beyond . People like Bishop Berkley, and James Lock . I am ( by my life's experience ) inclined to agree. But I have strayed , by the ( indirect it is true ) experience of life into the outer regions beyond my fingertips . This by the experience of other humans , scientists , astronaughts , astronomers , thinkers , philosophical persons . To have a fuzzy picture extending to the moon , Mars , Jupiter , the asteroids , and beyond to andromeda Galaxy , as well as the deep ocean , rock strata , and beyond. By all these wonderful images and experiences , I am convinced we , including me on the inside region , inside my fingertips , combine to make up a part of fantastic reality. Beyond this expance and depth I ' suspect there is further reality beyond even this ( as indeed Descarte did in his limited access to reality ) . It is time we tried to NOW take a leap of beyond our ' boarders of reality ' as Other Philosophical thought has taken from time to time . We may need to explore the unseen , the invisible , the Unknown . Not to be limited by established Dogma . Mike

.I do not mean you are elevating yourself ( high up above others ) . I mean you are noticing a very important truth . Namely , as Descartes stated ,, the only thing you know with absolute certainty is working outwards from the central you , to the end of your fingers . .,beyond that is .. Out there .. You are all there is in absolute certainty . Everything else , you have to prove by assumptions . Mike

. Randolph I think your idea to bring YOURSELF high up , if not uppermost , into the idea of Reality , is a very , very good step . If ALL ELSE fails to come to the fore : You KNOW YOU ARE REAL Because you are thinking and conscious you are thinking , right at this moment you are thinking ! I think this was the philosophy of one of the great thinkers ( maybe. Lock, Berkley, or Decart ) +1 for your idea Mike

. O.k. I can appreciate things could be totally random , if one says " anything goes " . But there can be a halfway compromise . Where one explores thoughts that are outside the realm of established science , yet with a large stretch of the imagination , one could ponder for a passing moment a possible concept that currently does not exist. Then expose the proposed concept to a few ( what if 's , or if that were to be the case ( where could that possibly lead ? ) . Or discuss it with a colleague who has a fairly open mind ? I am sure this has been at the root of many ideas ( thought absurd at the time , that we currently take for granted? ) E.g l wonder if quantum tunnelling could work over astronomical distances ( with zero passage of time ) , like between here and the central region of the andromeda Galaxy ? Mike

. I take your point , and the references you gave about some famous people , and drugs . I am not advocating drugs as a way to progress philosophical thought . However it does touch , on a recent area of research . Namely , it has come to notice that . DAYDREAMING . which used to be thought of as a lack of discipline , by students and school children . .and more so teachers ( "Smith! , stop looking out the window . Concentrate on the lesson please ) . Now daydreaming has been proven to have some Jewel like content . To quote a recent New Scientist article CONCENTRATE ( NEW SCIENTIST 20 May 2017 ) Caroline Williams . " A wandering mind is not the enemy of concentration , if you know how to guide it . " Perhaps then is not surprising that some past accounts of famous scientists having gained an insight while under the influence of drugs. I am in no way advocating drug taking , but I can totally endorse getting into a " Day Dreaming " state to enhance creative thought processes . I use this process almost daily in my Retirement . I walk the dog , usually through woodland , along side rivers , in parks . Etc the random nature, and unexpected images are to me the most stimulating way of formulating painting images as well as setting me off on new ideas and new philosophical thought! Mike

Within this particular definition , that you refer to . The one element of this definition that 'stands out ' as a possible impediment to philosophical thought is this statement in your presented definition ! Namely :- ....... " based on logical reasoning " . ....... This has a slight ' Causal '. Or ' Scientific ' , ring to it . Which could impose restrictions . With this particular facet I would raise a warning note . :- By judging an idea or path of thought on its ' Logic content ' , we may close down a possible region of research or philosophical understanding that lays beyond our current perception , which in fact harbours jewels of understanding previously undescovered. New and exciting ways of looking at the ' Nature of the Cosmos ' , which will or could release WONDERS BEYOND BELIEF .? Mike

. Well some individuals could argue what they define constitutes nature ( eg 'this' ! , but not 'that ' ) ( which causes what ? ) ( what principle of reality applies here ? ) ( what logic , principles , values of reality , is used for such and such ? ) All these put down boundaries which ' Could ' restrict philosophical thought or discussion ? Limit research regions or areas of discussion ? And hense future possible descovery ? With philosophy surely we must sometimes , Think and discuss ' Outside the Box ' not all the time , but it is sometimes necessary . Not always , or we would never get anywhere . But sometimes it can allow for new development of new ideas , Is that not so ? If we did/do take a limited approach , we could ' ban ' for all time an area of philosophical understanding or later discovery ? Surely ? Mike

. If we put a definition to PHILOSOPHY , Then we have given philosophy boundaries to which it may not be allowed to go ! or lines it may not cross! In so doing we have destroyed the very endeavour we have in PHILOSOPHY . Namely the sphere of human endeavour to think and discuss openly both the norms and the extremes of human thought and discussion FREELY and without SHACKLES . Surely PHILOSOPHY is the last bastion of human contemplation , exploration , discussion , and freedom ! Without fear of ..... Any comeback ? or Anything ? Mike

As I indicate above " about here in your explanation I start to become unstuck " ...?

.I think a little bit more on the ' STRESS TENSOR/ ' s , would help me expell my ghosts . Not so much in mathmatical terms but in language or analogy form , would be absolutely great if you could Mordred. Then maybe , I can be put down to rest . ( for a little while at least ) . I don't suppose I am the only person who has struggled with this particular aspect of ' space time ' . Mike

.So you are sort of saying ' something else provides the STRESS TENSOR . And if it is set up by whatever , it becomes a Quantum Field , which has its own characteristics of Quantum Field Theory , which might well include. DIV , GRAD , and CURL. So in my case with radio waves and presumably including light waves , the div, grad and curl describes the state of curled space provided by the originating photon emission . And with gravity waves I presume something massive doing a bit of a move provides its own perculiar Div , Grad. And Curl . I sort of get a better picture now , if this is it . I suppose the tensor is just one of the components . I still have this slight disquiet about ' what quite is being ' tensed, curved, curled etc . If we say it is the geometry of space that is being affected . I will just have to accept that. I just have a slight , shadowy ' niggle ' Mike

May be you were not in on it , Eric . I will need to dig out the topic . It was probably to do with Gravity and the nature of Space , so that gravity waves get propogated across space . And I was asking ? What was the substance of space , such that waves could be propagated. I think I was 'left for dead ' , when I could not get my head round , that there was nothing there in ' space time ' .,unless you are saying the same . But it sounds like you and Maudred are saying that space time can be ( Div, Grad, and Curled ) . Or have I got it wrong a second time ? Mike

Why did you guys not bring this up when I was asking about the content and/or the structure of Space . Painfully I was taught DIV , GRAD , CURL . At Uni a couple of times as part of trying to get to grips with Maxwells equations and his proof around light and its speed. When I brought it up . Then you were leading me along the line " there is no content , to space ! ". You all said , or words to that effect. There must be something 'there' , if you can do an operation on it , like Div, Grad , and Curl ? Mike

.Hi ! Nice to see your ( sun image ) again . Mike