Science Forums 2

[arkain101]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

I have been reading this thread because it seems to be heavily used. I don’t join in because I don’t find it to be very serious; however, arkain101 has been pressuring me for comments. With regard to that I have found your responses to him to be quite in line with my impressions. You seem to be a very logical and thoughtful person. For that reason, I was moved to respond to your current post.

Agreed, there has not been anything posted that is that serious, other than an introduction. I've so far included, 1)what I've found (insight into something that looks fundamental) and 2)my purpose of working to test its validity. 3)A quick overview of what its all about.

I hope you did not feel pressured to reply or even read. I explained that this would function as a response to your threads, if you were interested you could then share your thoughts.

When I read your work I see the same tautological theorem (correct?) that I feel I have come to see the need for in some things I am working on. I can't say at this point if I have a theory, a model, or a tautology. That is because the main focus has been on relativity and fundamental particles (properties and mechanics), and a relationship I think I have found between them, which led me to suggest, this could offer something quite fundamental?

I recognize your impressions, which I also share, however, I have decided to pursue none the less.

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

Concepts are human constructs and, by definition, are meaningful. They are also shared. It is by associating words with the underlying concepts that we communicate. Therefore, concepts are, by definition, knowable. Also it is true, in a sense, WHY they are knowable, because we construct them to be so. So, there is an a priori reason why (using Schopenhauer's terminology) we can say "Of everything that is, it can be found why it is".

Although I am unfamiliar with this philosophers(?) name, it seems I am familiar with those statements and the implications. Which is to say, I agree with what he says, since I have found may way to similar conclusion.

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

However, to analyse the relevance of this statement to physical reality, we need to break it down into two statements:
a) Everything that exists physically is knowable. And...
b) It is possible to know why everything that exists physically is as it is.

Sure, I agree. Now I suppose further one must clarify quite carefully what is physical, and how it is proved as physically existing. If two were discussing this and had different concepts of physical, well, then, it is quite obvious this would be the central obstacle.

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

Unlike concepts, there is no a priori reason why statement (a) should be true of physical reality. Also there is no way of knowing whether it is true, since we can only know that which we can know. I.e. If there were something that exists that is unknowable, we would not know it! So statement (a) fails.

Its true, we just don't know about a lot of stuff that exists in the universe. For example, there is tons of planets out there that we do not know about. We have no knowledge of the possible life forms or any other detailed things about the planet that we do not know about. Agreed.

But this is not the kind of "things that exist" that I am referring to when I speak of, "Everything that exists physically is knowable". What I refer to is the physics of the universe and its elementary parts and behavior, as well as the relationships between them like special relativity. Therefore, what I would be stating is "of everything that is found at the fundamental levels of physical reality can be known (prior to discovering them), and therefore why it is known" (based on the same type of priori as used in concepts). I don't expect that anyone should agree to this, as I can not even agree to it myself because I have yet to finish that part of the work to confirm this suspicion. This does not imply we can know the ontological and assume we have the right answer to things like what shape they are, and what they look like, since this is not possible due to the process of how we acquire concepts in the first place. That is, we create our own concepts form something unknowable. (That is, that conclusion will remain valid if I should fail, to succeed, at proving otherwise in this effort.)

However, this does not exclude the fact that we can't learn some interesting behaviors about the unknowable. Regardless if we know what an electron really is, we can determine some properties about the concept of an electron, and this goes on. However, what if there was an explanation the predicted the existence of these elementary entities and their behaviors? I am pursing exactly that, because I believe it may exist. (This is what I am doing, trying to formulate and construct this explanation in a way that can be tested).

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

Statement (b) automatically fails, because it is dependent on statement (a). However, it also fails in its own right... In everyday language the word "why" is often used when we actually mean "how". "How" is a scientific question. We can ask, "how is snow made?", and give a scientific answer. But the answer to questions like "why does the universe exist?" is bound up in our belief systems. By definition, belief systems are unproven, because, if they were proven, they would be facts, not just beliefs. Hence it is impossible to know "why everything that exists physically is as it is".

I agree statement B fails based on the expression of your statement on A.(concepts)

I have responded to your comments on A, and have explained that I agree with what has been deduced (based on concepts), and also pointed out the difference between your interpretation of what my work may be doing and what I am trying to communicate my work is actually doing.

Therefore, what my work (I don't like to call it work since I am no qualified professional in my opinion, but it is none the less what I am working on, and possibly that should suffice in the opinions of readers) is actually doing is to explain why the elementary stuff in the universe is observed to consist of the behavior it does when put under specific experiments.

So in conclusion, your breakdown of the law (of everything that is, it can be found why it is):

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

However, to analyse the relevance of this statement to physical reality, we need to break it down into two statements:
a) Everthing that exists physically is knowable. And...
b) It is possible to know why everything that exists physically is as it is.

:seems to me to be different from what I am considering physical and existing.

Now, this could mean that what I am working on IS NONSENSE. However, that will not be determined untill I test it. I would not bother to pursue this in the first place if I had not come across the evidence that supports it.

So I expect we (as in anyone involved in this) shall in time find out what is nonsense in respect to what I am working on.

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

So both statements fail, both independently and together.

Thank you for clearing that up. I agree with you, in the context of your explanation. Hopefully I have communicated clearly enough that the context of my explanations differs and therefore has not yet failed the tests I am preparing to put before them.

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

Agreed. But that does not change the fact that concepts ARE meaningful. For example, the vast majority of people (myself included) are never going to understand tensor calculus in detail. That does not make it meaningless (except to us).

I agree, in respect to world view comparisons, meaning is relative.

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

The problem you cite is real, you cannot directly communicate concepts. But I believe the issue can be overcome in certain circumstances. Firstly, the listened has to have the potential to understand the concept you are trying to communicate. Without that you will never succeed. Then by feeding back what you (the listener) have understood of what the other person has said, it gives him/her the opportunity to put it in different words, or use a different metaphor, to get the message across.

I have experienced that myself. I believe that there are (at least) two people on the planet that understand my simultaneity-time concept of space and time. Myself, and the editor of the journal it was published in. By feeding back to me suggestions of where my description could be improved, it was clear to me that he had genuinely grasped what I was saying (and expressed it better than I had).

Ah yes, the very real and common challenge of discussions and communication. A good example is this topic here. However, I've see us narrowing down those uncertainties. (The first step I try to accomplish in the explanations of concepts).

simultaneity-time concept of space and time: Is there a source I can find this? I am interested to read.

This real challenge can be solved adequately, using a method of exhaustion. That is, explain the same thing several times, each time raising the complexity of the elements in the explanations, until the explanation has reached the peak of the author. A rule in this method is The first explanation contains information to the extent it has communicated, while the peak explanation contains every step below it down to the first.

In this way the reader, can observe the journey, and when he comes to visit the author at the destination, and the other says, "That was come great scenery on the drive here wasn't it?", the reader can then respond in a valid way "Yes, I saw that scenery, it was rather catching". As opposed to, the reader jumping from check point 1, 5, 10, and having no clue of the scenery that led to the destination.

It requires a significant amount of extra work in the initial stage of the discussion, however, it provides a territory to fall back on when communication begins to occur. In that way the system of Q & A is organized as opposed to random (which can become very frustrating and confusing), and defeat the intention of the explanation to succeed with as much frustration and cunfusion removed as possible.

(I posted about this a year or two ago, and at the time was referring to this method as Truth-Basic, which I am sure can be found in a search.)