Jump to content

Philosophical research


cpu68

Recommended Posts

 

1.
Logistic_development.gif

diagram. Logistic development

 

Logistic development (see diagram and for example my text Sociological theory) can explain a difference between a qualitative change and quantitative change. It shows that each kind of so called qualitative change, like for example liquefaction of gas, is just some form of quantitative change. Marxists are using conception of change where quantitative changes transform to qualitative change. But this idea is containing fundamental mistake that there is a difference between qualitative and quantitative change.
What I would like to emphasize is each so called qualitative change, for example the transition of water into ice, or steam into water, is actually a cumulative quantitative change; that is, a quantitative change taking place quickly over a short period of time.

 

(the above paragraph is from year 2008)

 

2. Let us assume an existence of homogenous formation space-time-matter, shortly STM.
Illustrative formula but not mathematical: STM = S + TM = T + SM = M + ST [spacetimematter = space + timematter = time + spacematter = matter + spacetime]

 

M + ST is concerning macroscopic conditions. If - M, + ST matter loses then spacetime profit, it is distance - perspective, objects decrease with distance - ordinary contraction. If + M, - ST matter profit then spacetime loses, it is bringing closer - perspective, objects increase in progress of bringing closer - ordinary dilatation.

 

S + TM is concerning microscopic conditions. If - TM, + S timematter loses then space profit, it leads to waves and fields. If - S, + TM space loses then timematter profit, it leads to particles.

 

(the above paragraph is from year 2011)

 

3. Electrons, quarks and gluons possess internal structure, consist of quadrillion of particles of size about 10^-35 m [they correspond with photons], these then from quadrillion of particles about 10^-50 m, these then from quadrillion of particles about 10^-65 m [they correspond with gravitons]. To confirm legitimacy of assuming of hypothesis of internal structure of smallest from hitherto known structural subatomic particles as electrons, quarks and gluons it can be invoked the theory of science created by A.Comte (see after text Comte's Theory of Science).

 

Galactic_model_of_preon.gif

diagram. Galatical model

 

Every following field uses in a large extent from previous, sociology from biology - theory of evolution, biology from chemistry - an example biochemistry, chemistry from physics - even if structure of atom and periodic table, physics from astronomy. Invoking astronomy it can be in physics reach eg. conception of existence of atoms and their internal structure - stars, planets, planetary system. It can be also reach models applied in conception of subquark particles and QG. It is galactical, cosmical and supercosmical model. Mystery of dark matter can be explained in this way that preonical particles possess mass (the above part is from year 2014). A more careful analysis of the galactical model leads to the conclusion that there are more types of particles of the right type. Types of stars, by supergiants, giants, dwarfs, all the way to the black star (black hole) would correspond to the types of these particles. Cosmical model analysis leads to similar conclusions, where the types of particles would correspond to the appropriate types of galaxies. At the end, the analysis of the supercosmical model leads to similar conclusions.
In addition, it can be assumed that there are types of photon-like particles and corresponding waves with significantly higher speeds than the speed of light. So there are non-electromagnetic waves far above the speed of light (the above part is from year 2019).

 

4. Two theories which modern physics is based on is the general theory of relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM). GR refers to great phenomena in cosmic scales, where gravity works. QM refers to phenomena in microscale, relates to particles and interactions. Years of research have shown that these two theories work well in experiments. On the other hand they are incompatible with each other. This inconsistency is revealed in very much small scale, Planck scale. To solve it, one should discover the theory showing a deeper reality, it will be the TOE (Theory of everything), explaining all phenomena in the universe.
Among ancient theories, apart from atomism, we can find another one equally useful theory created by the Greek sophist Gorgias who lived in the 5th century BC, which turns out to be helpful in searching for the TOE. In the work On Non-Existence we can find the first thesis of this theory: nothing exists. Well, the ultimate basis for everything is nothingness.

 

(the above paragraph is from year 2019)

 

 

5. Popper's Falsificationism seems to be wrong because the theory tests always strive to confirm it or confirmation and not refute it. So this concept is not unreliable with the actual way science is practiced. From the point of view of scientific research, striving to refute the theory seems to be a kind of nonsense and is something illogical.
For example, General Relativity found confirmation in the Mercury orbit anomalies that Newton's theory could not explain. This confirmation is treated as proof of the validity of the theory. Of course, you can give more examples.
Knowledge is inherently uncertain, as the ancient skeptics have already demonstrated. Therefore, science must use invalid inferences. Induction inferences is one of the basic types of inference of empirical sciences. These are uncertain inferences. Deductive inferences belong to the field of formal sciences such as mathematics and logic. On the basis of empirical science, the use of deduction is not meaningfully possible. By the way, ancient skeptics have also undermined the credibility of the deduction.

 

6. Solipsism assumes that there is only me, and all reality along with other subjects is only my imagination. Solipsism is more consistent than the positions of Bishop Berkeley. Berkeley assumes that observable things and phenomena are only systems of impressions, because only impressions are directly accessible to us, and assuming the existence of non mental matter is unauthorized speculation. Independence and order as well as existence beyond the perception of things and phenomena observed Berkeley justifies that they are perceived by God.
Berkeley accepts the existence of other subjects, which seems unjustified, a more consistent position is solipsism, which in some formulation may formulate the thesis that the things and phenomena observed are only systems of my private impressions, including other subjects. So since we accept the existence of other subjects, then on this basis we have the full right to accept existence beyond the mental reality. This argument is the strongest argument against Berkeley's theory, let me call it an argument from solipsism.

 

7. Mass of rubbish fills present physics, for example - cosmical branes giving beginning to big bang and creating other universes, multidimensionality, strings existing in 10 dimensions, parallel universes, microblisters, hyperspace and so on. They are products of exuberant speculation completely detached from reality.

 

8. Induction would provide knowledge about the future, as would all scientific prediction. However, any transfer of the past to the future is contradictory, because the future does not yet exist and is therefore non-empirical, unverifiable. Therefore, there is no reasoning that gives some knowledge, because 1. there cannot be knowledge about what is not empirical 2. there cannot be knowledge about what does not yet exist, therefore knowledge by its very nature is uncertain and if it was certain it would have to be contradictory. Still different, if certain knowledge is such knowledge that leads to the future, it can be seen that it is impossible because the future does not yet exist. Therefore, no reasoning about facts can be certain. We can't even know what will happen in a few seconds because the future does not yet exists.

 

9. Are there general abstract ideas? Do they exist in any separate world or reality? Well, the question of whether there is a world of ideas can be answered in the affirmative or negative if we answer the question whether there are general abstract ideas at all. The answer to this question is that these ideas do not exist. General abstract ideas are contradictory, for example, the idea of a tree must combine the properties of large and small trees, with serrated, round, coniferous leaves and so on.

 

10. For philosophy not questions are important but answers. Philosophy has not to pose, to multiply questions and leave it unanswered. What allegedly has to be its characteristic attribute. As same as science has not to pose questions and leave it unanswered. A function of philosophy, as same as of science is both to pose as and to give answers. But second are much more precious then first.

 

11. The development of science cannot overtake the moral development of society, an example of such a phenomenon is the release of atomic energy (under the pressure of Hitler's actions), this example should be a warning to future researchers to carefully present certain results, and hide some facts as necessary. Consider how you can make use of your concepts and the scale of the threat.

 

12. Marxism's errors consist in the fact that 1. the final development is the middle class, not the working class 2. A process of qualitative transition is not necessarily and usually not revolutionary. Even a demographic boom with a growth rate of 2% per year is not revolutionary but evolutionary. Against the background of previous development, it seems very fast, but only because that one was very slow. Therefore, if changes are needed, they should be endeavor gradually, though dynamically reaching them finally 3. Any so called qualitative change - for example, the transition of water into ice, or steam into water - is actually a cumulative quantitative change; that is, a quantitative change taking place quickly over a short period of time.

 

13. Plato proposed an involutionary model of social development based on gradual decline and degeneration. Which exactly contradicts evidently occurring social evolution and the emergence of an increasingly perfect system. Popper, in opposing historicism, did not take into account the theory of Spencer or Comte, where the development is shown so clearly that only a complete fool can deny it, it probably resulted from his ignorance.

 

14. Most metaphysics is irrelevant because it uses a not-so-precise, accurate, clear language. With such formalization of physics and chemistry, an informal study of reality should be possible, one should only indicate what it should look like, it should be a scientific philosophy, clear and linguistic precise. Examples include the Gorgias system, the Democritus system and the Berkeley system, others include philosophy closely related to empirical sciences, theory of science or philosophy explicitly referring to empirical sciences.

 

15. Characteristics of extended theory of evolution of Herbert Spencer, presents as follows - process of evolution is an integration of matter, whereat matter passes from a state of undefined, incoherent homogeneity, simplicities, primordialities, physicalnesses, unformed, amorphisms, undimensional, uniformity, homomorphism to a definite, coherent heterogenicity, complexities, modernities, culture, formation, construction, dimensionality, variousness, polymorphism. This seizure of process of evolution has a polycomplex character.

 

16. Astrology is the same what a divination from scattered animal bones - so from an aleatorily obtained configuration, function of bones fulfil planets; "accuracy" comes from inaccuracy of used categories which each separately can contain any property or notion. Of course, information value of such "method" must be equal zero.

 

17. Against claims of such philosophers as Popper atomism does not descend from metaphysical speculations. Democritus took over this view from Hindus during his travels in the east, conception of atoms existed there at the very latest about VIII century BC, and was based on paranormal perceptions of yogis - a source could be only paranormal activity, but for sure not philosophical speculation, in Europe spherical atoms appeared not before XIX century AD.

 

Gregory Podgorniak, Poland, year 2020

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cpu68 said:

7. Mass of rubbish fills present physics, for example - cosmical branes giving beginning to big bang and creating other universes, multidimensionality, strings existing in 10 dimensions, parallel universes, microblisters, hyperspace and so on. They are products of exuberant speculation completely detached from reality.

!

Moderator Note

I'm not sure what you wish to discuss on this science discussion forum, but you've just given us a bullet list of assertions like this one that can't stand as an argument until you support it with some evidence or reasoning. So far, this just looks like you don't understand the science, so you've determined it's wrong.

This isn't a blog, it's supposed to be a discussion, and you have far too many concepts listed for a coherent conversation about any of them. To keep this discussion from being complete chaos, I'm going to close this thread, and ask that you pick one of your research points to start a new thread about. We can discuss that before moving on to another. It's the only way your ideas are going to get a meaningful treatment. Thanks for understanding.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.