studiot
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by studiot
-
-
1 hour ago, Eise said: 3 hours ago, studiot said: Why only objects ?
Surely (material) objects have properties.
But properties are exactly descriptions of how objects can partake in causal relationships! We derive the properties from an object by the ways it can causally interact with other objects. (Oh, and I did not say 'material objects').
What is an object ?
No it is true I thought you were referring to material objects, but if you are not:
Take a piece of graph paper.
Draw a 1x 1 square on it.
Absolutely nothing else.
That (in my opinion) is a non material object as it is a gedanken experiment so no material graph paper will actually be defaced during the course of the experiment.
Now what causal or other relationships does that square possess ?
-
1 hour ago, Eise said: First, the hypothesis of the holographic universe and that we are some software implementation in a 'higher order' reality are not the same.
This is really ducking the issue.
I used the term holographic (as invented by someone or other with nothing better to do than dream up fancy terminology) to cover all possibilities where the observer and observed are part of the same system.
1 hour ago, Eise said: I would call that the wet dream of a physicist. I cannot exclude such idea, but I think we are far, far away from that, to say the least. It would mean we can derive the existence of our universe from mathematics alone. Do you really think that is possible?
great stuff +1
1 hour ago, Eise said: Fits under preconception 3. One could speak of two directions of explanations:
Downwards: that is reductionism. We explain the 'macro behaviour' of objects from its parts
Upwards: different objects that are in interaction can give rise to properties that the parts do not have.
21 hours ago, Eise said: 3. The causal potentialities of objects can be explained by the causal behaviour of their parts.
Why only objects ?
Surely (material) objects have properties.
And much causality and emergence comes from these properties.
And most properties are non material.
13 hours ago, swansont said: 20 hours ago, studiot said: Banach-Tarski paradox?
Not sure how this would be applicable to physical objects
I was thinking of Kuracharski's explanation of BT and how maths is adapting to accomodate this.
Proof - Professor Adam Kucharski 2025 p 48-49.
"How to make two copies of an infinite line of apples."
The point about this is that we are not sure any longer about underlying theory such as dimension.
If you can make another line of apples, you can make an infinite number of lines.
This really impinges on Eise's points 2 and 3. and emergence.
We are starting to realise that the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts as well as less than or equal to ie not as in the triangle inequaltiy (which underlies QM) .
-
-
5 minutes ago, MigL said: Yeah.
I'm reminded of his teacher telling Max Planck not to study Physics as there was nothing new to discover in that field, and it just needed to tie up a few loose ends, before Max went on to unveil a whole new domain of science, and usher in a paradigm change in how we view realityMax Planck.
Wasn't one of those 'fundamental constants' named after him ?
+1
-
A worthwhile discussion and introduction to it. +1
That does not mean I agree with it all.
1 hour ago, Eise said: I am sometime astonished how the anthropic principle is used in modern physics. I think it is used upside-down. I find it funny how it only came up in the context of fine tuning, or as explanation of why the universe is as it is.
Science aims to understand the world as it is: therefore, from the beginning, it is clear that it can only find a universe in which we find the conditions that makes our existence possible. So independent of how deep our understanding of the world around us is, we are guaranteed to find theories that show the possibility of our existence.
How does the anthropic principle play with a holographic universe where both the observers (us) and the observed are simply in tyhe mind of a computer or organism ?
1 hour ago, Eise said: Somehow I see a parallel with Douglas Adams' puddle: why should we be astonished that the universe fits to our existence?
But does it ?
Some bits do, more or less
Even the Canadians might blanch at over minus 200oC below. Yet Nasa thinks thre is a good possibility of life on Pluto.
There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.
I agree
1 hour ago, Eise said: 3. The causal potentialities of objects can be explained by the causal behaviour of their parts.
Emergence ?
Banach-Tarski paradox?
1 hour ago, Eise said: The question is, are these principles guaranteed to work endlessly? Or do we reach certain limits?
In my opinion we are reaching these limits. Examples:
Sounds a bit like complacent 19th cent Physics and the age of the Earth etc etc.
We are always discovering and testing new things, new ideas.
eg The iridium boundary ( A triumph of hardline Physics over Geology)
So yeah, let the discussion begin.
-
Edited by studiot
OK thanks for the pretty pink lnes which appear to have no significance, in relation to your incorrect understanding to phase diagrams and the critical points of water.
How do you account for the triple point of water ?
Let's discuss some actual physics because this is not the complete behaviour of water.
Transition of State and Critical Point
Transition of state is a widespread phenomenon in the universe and serves as an expression of a serial relationship. An illustrative example of this phenomenon is observed when ice is heated, causing it to melt into water, and when water is further heated, transforming it into steam. Notably, with each transition, the physical properties of the substance undergo corresponding changes. Ice exists in a solid form, water in a liquid state, and steam as a gaseous entity.
The critical point marks the juncture at which such transitions initiate. For instance, 0°C represents the critical point at which ice transitions into water, and 100°C is the critical point[5] for water evolving into steam.
Visualizing and understanding the process of the transition of state can be facilitated by the Interrelationships Model, as depicted in Fig-3. In this model, the convergence and subsequent divergence of lines signify the critical point – a recognized turning point. The left side of the model signifies the state before transition, while the right side represents the state after transition. Thus, the model effectively captures the entire process of the transition of state. Applying this model to the example of ice melting into water, the left side represents ice, where water molecules (H2O) exist in a solid form. At the center, the critical point (0°C) signifies the transition from a solid to a liquid state. The right side represents water, where water molecules exist in a liquid form.
The region between two critical points signifies a distinct form of existence. Beyond this region, an object adopt different forms of existence.
The transition of state and critical points are evident in various physical, chemical, and biological phenomena, such as the boiling of water. In the case of water, temperature and pressure, represented by lines to the left of the critical point, determine its phase. To the left of the critical point, water exists in a liquid state, and to the right, it exists in a gaseous state. The precise moment water starts to boil represents a phase transition[6], with the boiling point serving as the critical point. A similar principle applies to nuclear substances, where reaching a critical point, known as critical mass[7], triggers a nuclear reaction, transforming energy from matter to nuclear energy.
This is further complicated by the Chemistry when the water is not pure.
Which amplifies my point that Physics and Biology are not the only sciences.
-
9 hours ago, Externet said: Hello all. Did not know on which subforum to post. Here it goes.
If a LED is flashed for a tenth of a second, it is easily discernible. - For the same current/power pulse; if the time of a single flash is reduced to a hundredth of a second, it also is. What about 1 millisecond ? And 10 microseconds ? Shorter ? What determines the shortest time for perception ? Should it vary by observer ? Would color sensitivity be a factor ?
No offence meant but
Go see an optician.
😁
I say this because when you go to the opticians for eye tests, some of the tests are based on flashsng lights ever shorter and faster until you can no longer catch them.
As I am not an optician I don't know the timings, so ask one.
-
-
Perhaps a moderator would help you access/combine your old account as I can see your old posts under the user 'popcornfrenzy' ?
With regards to this question here is a free nifty visual network tool that allows you to draw and calculate the distance (weighted or unweighted) matrix amongst other things.
It has an instructional video.
Have fun drawing your tree and calculating your distances.
On 10/9/2025 at 1:27 AM, Frenzypopcorn said: I am really lost here, is it okay to request for a visual example if you don't mind? The ratios confuses me a lot.
-
-
43 minutes ago, MigL said: Unfortunately our politicians are always about 20 years too late with regulations.
And then, as with social media and digital currencies, just when it looks like we might get some regulations, new governments and billionaire investors come in, gut regulations, and twist them for their financial advantage.
( like having billions isn't enough )We already have plenty of regulations.
They just need to be enforced.
Remember the imaginative way Al Capone was finally taken down ?
Tax dodging. False Acounting.
-
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ced5wvn48q5o
Scammers using AI to lure shoppers to fake businesses
Image source, C'est La VieImage caption,
The images of "Patrick and Eileen" are among those AI-generated, experts say
ByAlice Cullinane and Rebecca Woods, Birmingham
Published
8 October 2025
Unscrupulous foreign firms are using AI-generated images and false back stories to pose as family-run UK businesses to lure in shoppers.
Customers say they feel "completely ripped off" after believing they were buying from independent boutiques in England but were delivered cheap clothes and jewellery, mass-shipped from warehouses in east Asia.
Among the websites is C'est La Vie, a shop purporting to be run by couple Eileen and Patrick for 29 years and based in Birmingham's historic Jewellery Quarter - but with a returns address in China.
Consumer guide Which?, external said the growing use of AI tools was making it possible for fraudsters to mislead the public on an "unprecedented" scale.
Another website appearing to use AI-generated images is Mabel & Daisy, a seemingly quintessential, mother and daughter-owned clothing firm, which claims to be based in Bristol but has an address in Hong Kong.
This one contains examples where it did work as well as did not work although the amount of backchecking required make the AI not worth it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8w6kn2dyzo
Hannah Read, 37, tried to use an AI chatbot to plan a trip to Norway with her partner and three children.
She wanted to drive from her home in Flintshire, north Wales and cross the North Sea by ferry.
"I thought it might make for a nice drive," Hannah says. "I asked ChatGPT if there was a ferry from the UK to Norway and it said there was one from Newcastle to Bergen."
She later checked a ferry travel website but found no such route exists.
A travel blog detailing how Brits can reach Norway says the last time the route operated was in 2008.
"I did feel a bit disappointed when I found out the information on ChatGPT was incorrect, as I'd got quite excited and had started planning the trip in my head," Hannah adds.
"My advice is don't rely on AI 100%, it's better to still do proper research."
-
First of all, thank you for trying to reply.
Unfortunately you may have missed moderator swansont's helpful short post about replying.
In line with your love of AI, I have enhanced the important line
On 10/9/2025 at 11:58 PM, swansont said: You need to have your answers be outside of the quote box
https://scienceforums.net/topic/135919-using-the-quote-function-2025-edition/
“To break up the quoted material, to respond to a specific section, put the cursor in the text box and hit return/enter a few times, and it will split the quote box in two, with a place for you to respond in between them.”
If you are having trouble with this please ask
Otherwise place your quote and then press return a couple of times to leave the quote box and add your own stuff.
As you can see there are plenty of folks here with an interest in discussing your ideas .
But they will soon give up if you make it too dificult for them.
When you have more experience of the fomat here we can help you further with the clever stuff like extracting a bit from a misplaced quote box and putting it in a different sort of quote or picking out quotes from different pages.
We all try to help each other here.
5 hours ago, Nia20855 said: I am not sure what exactly you mean but the IRM can certainly be used to represent some mathematics:
Really it is the other way round.
You will not arrive at a TOE without maths.
5 hours ago, Nia20855 said: In the mid-section of the diagram
I see no diagram.
You need to post discussion material here.
This is a very important part of the rules.
-
-
-
20 hours ago, John Cuthber said: You seem to have fundamentally failed to grasp the difference between US and UK (and, to an extent, the rest of Europe's) law.
Americans often point out that the UK has no "bill of rights".
That is true.
We don't need one.
We effectively have a "bill or wrongs".
We have a long list of laws which tell you what you are forbidden to do (and owning a gun is not on that list, no matter what Faux news told you)There is an interesting tale of Kurt Godel's application for US citizenship in Adam Kucharski's 2025 book 'Proof'.
When told that the US constitution could/would not allow a mad dictator he apparantly said that he could proove otherwise, noting that he had already shown the Prussian and Napoleonic codes to be logically flawed.
-
On 10/9/2025 at 6:03 AM, Nia20855 said: The quest for a unified “Theory of Everything” that explains the fundamental nature of the universe has long been a holy grail for scientists and philosophers, dating back to the ancient Greeks’ search for Arche. The mainstream of this research primarily focuses on the lifeless phenomena and laws of physics while ignores the realm of biology. However, a fundamentally different approach to the ToE has been put forward, presenting a viable alternative to address the challenge of a Theory of Everything. This approach does not seek the ultimate “building block” but rather aims to uncover the intangible rules that fundamentally govern everything in the universe, seeking their universality across the vast spectrum, from the minute subatomic world to the mega mass cosmic world and the magical biological world. This article explores how the Fundamental Interrelationships Model unifies our understanding of the evolution of the universe, encompassing the evolution of multicellularity, development of multicellular organisms, societal evolution, and the four fundamental forces, all within the context of the fundamental interrelationships. Thus, unlike most existing candidates, the Fundamental Interrelationships Model offers a comprehensive framework, encompassing both non-biological and living phenomena. As a truly all-inclusive theory, ToE shouldn’t only encompass non-biological processes and the laws of physics but extend to all facets of life, including evolution of life, evolution of society (civilization), humour, and justice, because life is an integral part of the dynamic cosmic system - the universe. Therefore, any hypothesis failing to integrate biology and sociology shouldn’t be considered a comprehensive Theory of Everything
22 hours ago, Nia20855 said: On 10/9/2025 at 10:42 AM, exchemist said:
"I hope I am talking to a real person here. 😃" Yes!
Well Gavin, you discover new things in the most suprising places.
It has taken me some while to untangle your underlying thoughts from all the tens of pages of AI responses in your article.
Let me just say two things about that.
Firstly docx documents are not acceptable on this website.
Asking an AI to answer technical 'questions' is fraught with dangers as the AI is worse than unintelligent, so their output is often technically incorrrect or inappropriate.
Of course, sometimes it is OK, but the trouble is the user doesn't know when or how to distinguish so can be seriously misled.AI's are presently unreliable and their output is not acceptable here.
Having said all that +1 for leading me to learn about 'arche' Thank you.
Buried in all that hype you have a germ of a good Idea that I agree with, along with lots of other mathematicians (did you think there is only Physics and Biology ?).
Mathematicians have been busy these last few decades reshaping maths to widen ideas rooted on 19th century Physics to acomodate many other disciplines.
One example is my thread here on metrics and measurement and another concerns biological applications of this widening.
For some a 'TOE' is like a red rag to a bull.
In my opinion it is the ultimate exposition of the human desire to classify and categorise, as is the notion of any sort of arche.
But your inter-relationships model is being accomodated within the body of current maths at fundamental level.
I look forward to your response with interest.
3 hours ago, exchemist said: Well it is a decent solvent for a great many things, including a wide range of gases and metal ions and, perhaps more important, is liquid over a temperature range at which chemical reactions proceed at a decent speed but sufficiently gently that complex molecules can form and avoid decomposition.
On Pluto H2O is a rock which forms molten lava (ie liquid water) through plate tectonics.
The NASA film of the last transmissions of the New Horizons fly by is fascinating.
Nasa believe that Pluto could be a good candidate for extra terrestrial biogenesis, and NH even discovered complex molecules in its spectral analyses.
-
19 minutes ago, swansont said: On the contrary, the rules governing biology should be the same everywhere, it’s the results that can differ.
It would be like arguing that two rivers aren’t the same because the rules of fluid flow vary. And we don’t assert that - we realize that it’s the variables and boundary conditions that differ. Biology has lots of variables and boundary conditions.
Interesting response. +1
-
24 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said: Huh? Catholics (whom I am not) don't need to reject any branches of science while YEC requires (at the very least) rejection of large parts of cosmology, geology, nuclear physics, paleonthology and genetics.
?
I used creationism as a shortcut of young eartth creationism which is what's typically understood by that term. The Catholic Church doesnt believe in that.
Small wonder I've got no idea what you are talking about. I am not a mind reader of short cuts.
Please say what you actually mean.
This also applies to Science and I have been noticing a resurgance of religion (including creationism) in the younger generations in countries I am familiar with, which excludes Poland but does include many european countries.
I wonder if the current lack of clarity and propagaion of woo in Science has anything to do with this.
-
35 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said: Here in Europe creationism is a fringe thing and the only churches that profess to it are imports from the US, not native European ones. T
5 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said: They do but in a different, less dogmatic way. The Catholic Church officially accepts evolution as a valid scientific theory (see the encyclical Humani Generis from 1950) and does not believe the world to be 6000 years old, the Genesis story is treated more like a metaphore than a literal account. The Genesis account was never taken fully literally by the Catholic Church, Saint Augustine of Hippo already warned against taking it too seriously.
Well there you are then.
Perhaps offer some more realisitic figures next time ?
-
-
Edited by studiot
12 minutes ago, exchemist said: Yes I'm in Europe too (London). You are now broadening this out to encompass fanaticism of all kinds though. I think that's a different subject. Creationists don't have to be fanatics, just people brought up with a set of beliefs that sets them against science in certain specific respects. Often they will be at pains to tell you they accept science in general and its products (e.g. medicine, engineering etc). I even once came across an astronomer who was a YEC! He accepted all of astronomy apart from the origin of the Earth, specifically, as the home designed by God for mankind!
Weird what people can do to manage cognitive dissonance sometimes. Yet I think we all live with degrees of cognitive dissonance in our lives, of one sort or another. In fact I suspect it is probably what keeps us sane. If we insisted on joining all the dots, across every facet of our lives, into a seamless self-consistent whole, I think we would go mad. But that too is probably another discussion.
Fair dinkum +1
I find the bit about joining the dots particularly poignant because that is the exact problem withs et theory that mathematics is still struggling with.
9 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said: For 99% of human history being factually accurate was far less important than being socially accepted, a tribal group full of freethinkers without ingroup-outgroup thinking would have fractured and died out. It all mighjt just be evolutionary legacy.
This thread is about ideological fanaticism as a whole, the specific beliefs might differ but general psychological mechanisms are identical.
I didn't understand a word of that.
Are you claiming that the pope and catholics no longer believe in a creation ?
-
Can we reverse-engineer technology to infer ontological truths about reality and if so, how can we test that inference scientifically?
in Speculations
·
Edited by studiot
So will all this stuff predict the location and severity of the next major earthquake ?