What Do We Know For Certain?

[mjv1121]

Jim,

You recognize when you know something for certain, right? You "know" the sky is blue, or that the traffic light had turned green, or where you were on the morning of September 11, 2001--you know these things, well, because you just do.

In On Being Certain, neurologist Robert Burton challenges the notions of how we think about what we know. He shows that the feeling of certainty we have when we "know" something comes from sources beyond our control and knowledge. In fact, certainty is a mental sensation, rather than evidence of fact. Because this "feeling of knowing" seems like confirmation of knowledge, we tend to think of it as a product of reason. But an increasing body of evidence suggests that feelings such as certainty stem from primitive areas of the brain, and are independent of active, conscious reflection and reasoning. The feeling of knowing happens to us; we cannot make it happen.

Bringing together cutting edge neuroscience, experimental data, and fascinating anecdotes, Robert Burton explores the inconsistent and sometimes paradoxical relationship between our thoughts and what we actually know. Provocative and groundbreaking, On Being Certain, will challenge what you know (or think you know) about the mind, knowledge, and reason.

Sounds interesting, but I wonder how he might have guided himself to be sure of what he was writing - perhaps he immune to his own subject matter.

Michael

[gamma ray]

mjv,

My wagon is hitched to the duck theory, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... For the last two hundred or so years everyone has been struggling with a 2000 year old particle model while trying to figure out why both experiments and theory indicate that wave motion is ultimately detected in everything.

Your list and my responses. Numbers refer to your list.

1) Space and time are infinite.
How do you know this? I prefer the term "unknown" to be more precise. I'm not a big fan of infinities nowadays.

2) All effects must have a cause.
Yes but there be monsters. Not sure where you are going with this, look what happened to the BB theories, they lead to nowhere. Causal assumptions are great for theories, but bad for certainty that we understand or even whether we are capable of understanding the causes. But I suppose such is the start of any scientific exploration.

3) Anything that can affect the physical universe, and thus is capable of motion, must be considered to be physical (this is really just a statement of definition so as to include light and fields and aethers in a broader definition of physicality, although it may conflict with some people's semantic ).
I think you are attempting to make a consensus definition of reality, but it is based on effects. Not sure but this may contradict your assertion that we can know something beyond effects.

4) Fundamentally all existence is particulate.
This is an assumption, and I see more evidence that everything is a wave. The only even moderate compelling reasons I see for believing in particles at all is interpretations of discrete units of energy transfer (eg. mass or charge), collision angles, and approximations that are based on point references, such as center of mass. All particle interpretations seem to me at least to be an artifact of mathematical approximation, which always fall short of completely explaining any phenomena. And every time the theories fall short, someone can always come up with a new particle that fills in the gap. This is because the concept of a particle is a completely mathematical abstraction - that is the duck I see, not reality. The mainstream had me going for some time but they lost me at "gravitons" which, having negative momentum, I think means that when they bump into something they somehow pull it in the same direction that they came from. If you can give me some plausible geometric particulate theory for attraction and repulsive forces then I would find that interesting to consider them.

5) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
This is likely a waste of time due to your lack of interest in wave models, but I'll try to reinterpret from a wave perspective given my understanding of waves. This is more for my benefit than yours - I like to attempt to refine ideas for clarity sake. A standing wave manifestation (body effect) demonstrates the appearance of uniform motion as long as the localized geometry, frequencies, and amplitudes remain constant. Some alterations of those parameters may result in the body effect shifting in location. When the frame of reference of observation includes body effects moving relative motion, this relative shift may be approximated mathematically by something we call a force. Standing waves always are in a feedback relationship to the whole, and the frame of reference and mathematics used to represent a local frame of reference are always a limited approximation to describe the behavior of the body effects.

6,7,8,9,10)
See above for #5. Note that we are both viewing the same motion effects and agree on what the behavior is seen. So both particle and wave theories can be used for interpretation.

11) Action at a distance is impossible. This is in an absolute sense as opposed to a mediated sense.
We agree that mediation is necessary because otherwise the deflection coils in my old CRT are doing something that is impossible to explain to the electron beam tracing out the patterns on the screen. So the mediation must occur somehow by the aether. If so, how? In your model the electrons are deflected by a push, so feel free to explain how this push occurs. I think that wave models have a much more plausible way to explain what we see as action at a distance. The particle models I have seen all attribute special properties to the particles. Those properties are usually circularly defined by the action at a distance effects that are observed. The particle models do not have a way to explain what is observed without circular property definitions. Unless I am completely mistaken.

12) All forces are a push. Mechanical attraction is not possible.
All forces are an abstraction, and see #5. I agree mechanical attraction is not possible when dealing with billiard balls. Not sure how you explain electric, magnetic, and gravitational attractions forces using particles. See #11 for avoiding circularity.

13) Energy is a mathematical abstraction from momentum and the transfer of momentum (i.e. force).

Ah. Now I get why you are asking me about by energy. I interpret energy as the inherent acoustic wave motion of the aether. We know it moves, we do not know why. See #1 for causality. You call energy an abstraction, which is correct given that you are interpreting it in relation to force abstractions. I see energy as motion itself, not just transfer. I agree that something is being transferred when we are talking about energy, but what I see transferred is wave motion based on the inherent motion of the aether, or of motion transfer between regions due to resonant frequencies between localized standing wave aetheric regions.

Thanks for the lively discussions... I guess for now all we can say for certainty is that existence is either particulate, wavelike, a combination of those, or something else completely. So much for certainty. The truth is out there!

[Aardwolf]

I'd like to see the particulate only theory explain the phenomena shown on the youtube link below; specifically how the puck maintains perfect alignment with the apparatus irrespective of the apparatus/puck orientation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA

[mjv1121]

gamma ray,

Thankyou for your extensive reply.

For the last two hundred or so years everyone has been struggling with a 2000 year old particle model while trying to figure out why both experiments and theory indicate that wave motion is ultimately detected in everything.

Opinionated conjecture, I disagree. I also disagree with Mr de Broglie's interpretations. That it is entirely theoretical may not make it wrong, but it is far from proven fact.

Space and time are infinite. - How do you know this?

Are you really suggesting that space stops somewhere? or that there was no "before"?

Fundamentally all existence is particulate. - This is an assumption, and I see more evidence that everything is a wave.

What do these waves travel through? Atomic matter is made of particles, even if you cling to LaFreniere's interpretations of particles, you still need to find aether particles for the waves to travel through and then you need a sub-aethereal set of forces to allow the aether to wave. Waves that we are actually familiar with require attractive and repulsive force effects to be able to operate - a system of aether waves requires at least as much: "This site does not explain how the aether works mechanically. Any medium capable of transmitting regular longitudinal waves could do the job. In order to keep things simple, one should postulate that the aether is perfectly homogeneous and that it preserves energy without any loss."
Wispy non-material substanceless energy substance, as envisioned by Einstein and by most everybody else, is a legacy remnant of historical and pre-historical belief in that which exists beyond the realm of physical reality. It really is the central pillar of all unscientific belief and unscientific thinking. If any serious attempt is made to consider the physical nature of this "non-material energy substance" it quickly deteriorates into the motion of a particulate background, i.e. a quantum aether in motion - although the nature and depth complexity of aethereal systems is not revealed by such a logical analysis (so LaFreniere's waves can survive, as can a random particle aether without waves). Ultimately, the particulate nature of physical existence has no logical adversary, but the particle or wave nature that immediately underlies our universal reality remains open for discussion.

5) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
This is likely a waste of time due to your lack of interest in wave models, but I'll try to reinterpret from a wave perspective given my understanding of waves. This is more for my benefit than yours - I like to attempt to refine ideas for clarity sake. A standing wave manifestation (body effect) demonstrates the appearance of uniform motion as long as the localized geometry, frequencies, and amplitudes remain constant. Some alterations of those parameters may result in the body effect shifting in location. When the frame of reference of observation includes body effects moving relative motion, this relative shift may be approximated mathematically by something we call a force. Standing waves always are in a feedback relationship to the whole, and the frame of reference and mathematics used to represent a local frame of reference are always a limited approximation to describe the behavior of the body effects.

This has nothing to do with waves or particles or even observation and experiment. This, as with most in my list, is purely logically conceptual. It is self-evident regardless of the systematic nature of physical reality.

Likewise "Cause and Effect" cannot be served by observation or experiment - it is self-evident and entirely separate and independent of any theory that attempts to describe causes or effects.

The particle models I have seen all attribute special properties to the particles. Those properties are usually circularly defined by the action at a distance effects that are observed. The particle models do not have a way to explain what is observed without circular property definitions.

I don't understand what it is you mean by this. What special properties? The only "properties" that are required are mass, the ability to be in motion and the ability to collide.
Interestingly, LaFreniere's explanation of the effect of gravity is the same in all important respects to that of Nicolas Fatio. It is a net force vector. This results from a homogeneously distributed aethereal "pressure" interrupted by the presence of "matter" which causes a mutual shadowing effect and hence a net force vector that pushes matter together (the illusion of attraction). Despite my whimsical use of the term "clown" waves I am an admirer of LaFreniere's scientific attitude and his insistence on mechanical solutions, unfortunately he has then tainted his mechanics with relativity. Also, for this standing wave particle system to operate requires that underneath is a sub-aether system that operates in the way that I am suggesting the aether could operate. It is an entirely additional level of aether introduced to accommodate a set of waves forms that are rarely seen at the macro (matter) level of the universe - this in itself does not make it wrong, it simply pushes it further away from the aspirations of Occam. By contrast the simple particle field aether involves straightforward collisional dynamics that mirrors the macro world of our experience.

I see energy as motion itself

This is the point that I am trying to make. Motion can only be defined by objects, objects have mass -> mass in motion. "Energy" is the mathematically derived quantity that defines the maximum potential to do work, i.e. the maximum amount of force that can be applied from a given mass moving with a given velocity.
E=1/2mv^2. Half the mass, since spinning objects have only half the mass travelling in the direction of motion at the point of collision (all objects are spinning at the component level). v^2 defines the potential for an object to decelerate, thus producing a force -> F=ma. Of course non-quantum (non-aethereal) objects do not decelerate at v^2. Likewise, quantum/aethereal objects do not decelerate at v^2 (since they are travelling at c, we may say c^2). Quantum/aethereal objects decelerate at c^2x10^-7 -> you may consult Mr Coulomb on this point.

Much of the foregoing is theory, not certainty (as is almost the entirety of LaFreniere's work). My point is that the laws of motion can be declared with sufficient confidence to warrant the use of the term "certain" (in my opinion). The theoretical models to describe the operation of the universe are entirely separate, but are also entirely dependent upon the laws of motion.

Michael

[Aardwolf]

I'd like to see the particulate only theory explain the phenomena shown on the youtube link below; specifically how the puck maintains perfect alignment with the apparatus irrespective of the apparatus/puck orientation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA

Michael,

Do you offer any mechanical "push only" description of why the puck stays in stasis relative to the magnet?

[mjv1121]

Aardwolf,

No not as yet, only a general acknowledgement of the "force fields" involved.

Does your gypsy sense tell you anything?

Michael

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf,

No not as yet, only a general acknowledgement of the "force fields" involved.

Does your gypsy sense tell you anything?

Michael

Only that it's not conceptually possible to create such a phenomena using push only effects. Yes the magnet could be pushing the puck away but what is pushing the puck towards the magnet to maintain equilibrium irrespective of its orientation relative to the planet.

This falsifies the push only element of your certainties.

[Plasmatic]

Jim,

You recognize when you know something for certain, right? You "know" the sky is blue, or that the traffic light had turned green, or where you were on the morning of September 11, 2001--you know these things, well, because you just do.

In On Being Certain, neurologist Robert Burton challenges the notions of how we think about what we know. He shows that the feeling of certainty we have when we "know" something comes from sources beyond our control and knowledge. In fact, certainty is a mental sensation, rather than evidence of fact. Because this "feeling of knowing" seems like confirmation of knowledge, we tend to think of it as a product of reason. But an increasing body of evidence suggests that feelings such as certainty stem from primitive areas of the brain, and are independent of active, conscious reflection and reasoning. The feeling of knowing happens to us; we cannot make it happen.

Bringing together cutting edge neuroscience, experimental data, and fascinating anecdotes, Robert Burton explores the inconsistent and sometimes paradoxical relationship between our thoughts and what we actually know. Provocative and groundbreaking, On Being Certain, will challenge what you know (or think you know) about the mind, knowledge, and reason.

Sounds interesting, but I wonder how he might have guided himself to be sure of what he was writing - perhaps he immune to his own subject matter.

Michael

The simple reduction to absurdity of the silly little game of concept stealing that all skeptics play.
"All generalizations are unreliable including this one" and "one cannot be certain of anything" are self refuting ramblings of those who smuggle certainty in their claims about doubt.

[mjv1121]

Plasmatic,

Not sure if your negative tone was aimed at me, but just in case and to make it clear to all: The following quote is the synopsis of the book cut and paste from Amazon:

Synopsis of the book On Being Certain, by Dr. Robert Burton M.D.:

"You recognize when you know something for certain, right? You "know" the sky is blue, or that the traffic light had turned green, or where you were on the morning of September 11, 2001--you know these things, well, because you just do.

In On Being Certain, neurologist Robert Burton challenges the notions of how we think about what we know. He shows that the feeling of certainty we have when we "know" something comes from sources beyond our control and knowledge. In fact, certainty is a mental sensation, rather than evidence of fact. Because this "feeling of knowing" seems like confirmation of knowledge, we tend to think of it as a product of reason. But an increasing body of evidence suggests that feelings such as certainty stem from primitive areas of the brain, and are independent of active, conscious reflection and reasoning. The feeling of knowing happens to us; we cannot make it happen.

Bringing together cutting edge neuroscience, experimental data, and fascinating anecdotes, Robert Burton explores the inconsistent and sometimes paradoxical relationship between our thoughts and what we actually know. Provocative and groundbreaking, On Being Certain, will challenge what you know (or think you know) about the mind, knowledge, and reason."


My comment:
Sounds interesting, but I wonder how he might have guided himself to be sure of what he was writing - perhaps he immune to his own subject matter.

I have not read the book, but it strikes me as difficult to be certain that what you are writing, about psychological aspects of certainty, can be accurate or not. He might well be right or he may not, but how would I be certain either way. I suppose we could at least be certain of his certainty, otherwise he certainly wouldn't have bothered to write the book.

Michael

[Plasmatic]

I was agreeing with your comment on the book.

[webolife]

MJV said: "It is self-evident regardless of the systematic nature of physical reality."
Is this not a description of premises [aka assumptions, beliefs, presuppositions, faith] rather than certainties?

[mjv1121]

webolife,

Michael V. said: "A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force....It is self-evident regardless of the systematic nature of physical reality."

webolife wrote: Is this not a description of premises [aka assumptions, beliefs, presuppositions, faith] rather than certainties?

At a philosophical level, certainly, but then everything must surely be reduced to a premise at some philosophical level.

As a matter of logically conceptual physics it is certain. If it is not certain then there is no point to the scientific endeavour and the universe is ruled and operated by magic. Whether it is possible experimentally (for beings constructed of conventional matter) to isolate any body in any part of the universe so as to make the statement true at a practical level is certainly doubtful.

Michael

[webolife]

Wow, hey, Michael, your last stement is as close to being the crux of what I'm saying as I've heard you admit. At this point is it possible that despite your vehemence, and my objections to it, all the rest is semantics? What I must reiterate though is that:
Logic, properly used, is only a straight path
from one's premises
through the evidence
to one's conclusions.

Your premises lead to your conclusions, mine lead to mine, both differing, despite the fact [or proposition] that both are encountering and incorporating the same evidence pool in the interim. And you have a fine set of premises from which to try to logically reach your own conclusions. I just don't happen to greet those premises as certainties... you have a great deal of faith in them, enough to provoke in yourself a drive and desire to understand the universe in a scientific and logical way. More power to you. I stand by my signature statement, and hope eventually we find ourselves learning more from each other in the future. In the meantime, you continue to make SOME statements here, and on the "What is Electricity" thread, that I am completely in agreement with contra the objections of some of the other posters, whom I also respect. However you couch them in such a fortress of certainty and arrogance that I am cautious of joining forces with you on those points. I would be curious to hear some of your questions regarding the Centropic Pressure Field Theory that I am beginning to publish, as a Google Document, with Lloyd's help. I think you might be surprised at some of our areas of agreement.

[mjv1121]

webolife,

A had a quick look at your google doc (just to check to link worked really), but I did not have time to read it yet, and I confess I have not studied the webocentric thread - it's on my "to do" list ok. However, I can find no other course of action other than to protest in the strongest possible terms at the, quite frankly offensive, shade of pink used at the top of the document - I suggest that you alter it to a less fluorescent shade at your earliest convenience.

With regards to your previous post, I find very little to disagree with and much with which to agree. I will be instructing my secretary to re-prioritise my to-do list to advance my study of "Centropic Pressure Field Theory" and I'll get back to you when I have some sensible questions.

In the mean time a Merry Xmas to you and to all forum visitors.

Michael

[webolife]

That's what you get for reading other people's mail!
I told Lloyd to move that, and I'm sure he will get around to it soon!

I know several things I say there will offend your mechanistic sensibilities, but I've laid out my premises, and I think the case is a good one. I'm particularly interested in "What about..." questions, as they test whether the unified field approach is able to stand up to, predict or explain new observations or questions.