Mike Smith Cosmos
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mike Smith Cosmos
-
-
Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
.Sigh. Stop repeating that without thinking about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Criticisms
And you certainly don't know for sure that your fingers exist. They could be a product of your imagination. (As could the entire universe, including the embers of this forum.)
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
-
Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
.I don't want to bring myself up. I just want to discuss the truth.
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
-
Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
..
Example, the truth that I am typing this sentence now.
There is really absolute truth. Another example is the truth that we exist is absolute. Don't tell me that it is still relative because if you do, you would actually not exist. There is only two options, to exist or not exist. The fact that we exist is truly absolute. This is the absolute truth of existence.
.
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
-
Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
.Even if it does, you have to apply some rational thought to the ideas you have, in order to filter out the nonsense.
I am reminded of the story of someone who kept having amazing ideas in his dreams, that contained the secret of the universe. But they faded from his mind within minutes of waking. He decided to keep a notebook by his bed to write down his thoughts as soon as he woke from a dream. In the morning he found his notebook full of things like "the smell of peanut butter pervades all".
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
-
Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
.The idea of logical argument was developed by philosophers as a way of rationalising / formalising the "laws of thought".
If you want free-wheeling thinking with no logic or restrictions or basis in reality, then you probably want writers on drugs.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/nov/16/drugs-history-literature
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
-
Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
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 !" The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning."http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophyWhich boundaries do you see in that 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
-
Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
." The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning."http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophyWhich boundaries do you see in that definition?
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
-
Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
.
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
-
Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
..................... It's here , I start to come unstuck ... Somehow ....?
..your ....
...
We can equally assign different coordinates to different points in your electro-magnetic field however that doesn't mean those coordinates gain a medium quality. The electromagnetic field itself not its coordinate field is what exhibit the medium qualities.
So Spacetime curvature under GR is the collection of vector relations where we set the geometry as the free-fall motion.
A geodesic is describing a free fall motion at every coordinate with the use of vectors via the stress tensor between two points. This is what space-time curvature (under GR) is describing a collection of vectors at each coordinate. In accordance to the Principle of least action (kinematic motion under free fall).
This is also why we use inertial frames in SR (key word inertial)
Now a medium induces further delays in the kinematic motion of two particles. So if space-time was a medium we would have further delays. It would be the same as placing additional resistance to the electromagnetic example above. Recall the word Impedance in your electromagnetic theory. Mass is a form of impedance it is impedance to kinematic motion. impedance=resistance.
Now using the electromagnetic field once again. You may recall that two circuits with two electromagnetic fields can induce impedance upon each other (propogation delay) we can describe these delays via coordinate time if we assign coordinates to each point of each field. See where I am going with in time dilation ?
If every particle is a field excitation then time dilation itself is by analogy a form of propagation delay. Just as it is in the electromagnetic field theory.
(keep in mind the above is a simpification) A heuristic rudimentary means to understand space-time under familiar terms. I won't try to show that gravity is not a force under GR using kinematic action as I know your not ready for that level of mathematical detail. However it does include everything I described above in particular the principle of least action under space-time curvature
As I indicate above " about here in your explanation I start to become unstuck " ...?
-
Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
.Pretty good your getting the picture now congrats I know how troublesome thats been for you +1
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
-
Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
.Of course, spacetime is incorperated in very deifinition of a particle itself when you get into the QFT treatment of a particle. You literally cannot describe a particles wavefunction without spacetime
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
-
Not sure why you are replying to me, Mike?
I don't recall ever discussing grad, div & curl with you.
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
-
Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
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.Isn't referring to 'fluid dynamics' a bit limiting?
How about Continuum Mechanics which includes FD and much more besides?
I say this because there are many texts at many levels including this in the title.
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
-
.it has been a year or so since i last posted on this forum so i will reintroduce myself.
my favorite subjects are black holes and quantum theory.
hopefully I will be able to practice my argumentation skills and get better at it... or at least learn something new.
hello everyone!
Hi ! Nice to see your ( sun image ) again .
Mike
-
-
Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
.
You appear to have here, three possible sources for the truth , for what really is SPACE?
1) Is it the sum total of all Mathematical rules. .. Or
2) Is it the sum total of all of the standard model particles and fields , already discovered as well as those not yet descovered.
3) Is it the sum total of things going on that we ARE and/ or, ARE NOT YET AWARE , or we have not any conception of what they are or what is going on ?
Mike
Ps . I would suggest that the third definition is more likely to be nearer to the truth ( reality ) than the first or second , As the first two assume we currently have all the maths and all the particles and fields , and knowledge of everything that is going on ! ( which I would suggest is not true ) ?
-
Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
.Hi everybody. I'm Dlouro from Portugal and I am interested in understanding life, the Universe and almost everything. naturally my native language is portuguese so, please forgive my grammar errors .
Welcome , aboard . I am a Brit but also from Aljezera in Portugal ., in the Algarve . We have land overlooking the Atlantic Ocean . One of our Daughters will develope it one day . . Beautiful coast for surfing ? Xavia ! Surf the surf!
Mike
-
Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Glastonbury
Performing right now. I have a short video on ' the cloud '
Not sure how to load it
I have tried and given up
😰
Mike
-
-
Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
Here is a beautiful " Transatlantic sessions song .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9-nEdqWm6o&list=RDf9-nEdqWm6o
Mike
Sorry chaps ( I screwed up ). Apparently only playable on You tube directly .
Here is link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9-nEdqWm6o&list=RDf9-nEdqWm6o
But you will need to copy to youtube to play . It is worth it . You will be touched
Mike
Sorry , I screwed up a second time
The link is youtube.com/watch?v=f9-nEdqWm6o&list=RDf9-nEdqWm6o
Mike
-
Edited by Mike Smith Cosmos
.Thread,
The twelve segments look like this, when imposed on the globe, using the poles the equator and the 35 degree 23 minute latitude lines, North and South. The spacing of the equatorial four points is 90 degrees, and the spacing of the north and south three-points is 90 degrees, and there is 45 degrees between the three points and the equatorial four points.
Regards, TAR
.
Very clever, and very impressive , I must say . I think your name is going to go down in history as :-
. . . " The Tar Projection" . . .
Mike
-
Hello. I'm ceyha. Each letter of my nickname stands for a part of my name. I am interested in many of the sciences, but I decided not to major in the field of science. Instead, I am majoring in special education and psychology. However, I find science intriguing which is why I joined this forum, so I could interact with people who mayor may not have the similar interest in science as myself. I look forward to reading more into this forum.
Welcome Ceyha .
Spread out and take your pick of subjects. There is enough to get lost in !
Mike
-
-
Hello, my name is Benjamin and I'm from Germany. I'm currrently highly mentally busy thinking about certain science/philosophy stuff, so much, that I recently got my own age wrong by year
. No need to worry about me, however 
Welcome. Aboard !
. Plenty of thinking goes on here. Plenty of forgetting of age too! And where did I put my Glasses.
Mike
Philosophy, Science & Reality
in General Philosophy
·
Edited by 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 !! )