What Do We Know For Certain?

[mjv1121]

webolife,

how do they then confer cause and effect across the distance of the field?

By collisions with electrons and protons - brute matter, gross matter, bulk matter - the matter that is most usually recognised as "matter" - the really really "big bits" we are made of. The quantum field is the invisible stuff: gravity, electromagnetism, photons.


We can argue the philosophy of infinite, but it all becomes rather abstract. We could say 10^billion light-years, or 10^trillion or 10^trillion.trillion, none of which is adequate to describe infinity. But once we pass 10^a-very-big-number we may as well refer to that as infinity, if for no other reason than brevity.

Regardless of how we choose to bound space and time, if there is an edge, a limit, there must be something beyond that, even if it is empty space. If "infinite amount" offends your philosophical linguistic sensibilities, how do feel about "an infinite minus one amount" ?

Michael

[mjv1121]

Jim,

Yes I am certain and I certain about that.

Actually, I am not entirely comfortable with number 6) - the 2nd law of thermodynamics - we may understand the message, but the problem is the necessarily arbitrary definition of "isolated system". Is it really isolated or is it part of a cycle - see the Entropy thread and all the structures in the universe for an additional counter-argument.

Number 5) could initially be interpreted as a semantic definition. This is due to the contemporary dogma that is unscientifically content to assign the unknown or invisible to magic, but then to justify it by given it a name: "of course it isn't magic, this is science, the force is caused by the field". Somehow, it is dismissed and forgotten that force at a distance is impossible. Something must be causing the forces associated with the "field". I find it amusing that so many are able to poke fun at Einstein's curved empty space and then in the next breath freely accept that action at a distance is allowed. The field must be caused by something, therefore we may say that that something is matter. In times past you may well of been able to find the argument that air was not matter, but a mystical force. How little attitudes have changed. Regardless of those not able or willing to follow the logical argument, 5) is certainly true. In a way you could say that 5) takes 1) to 4) and using them as proof that invisible fields must simply be invisible matter.

1) to 4) are beyond logical reproach and indeed without them we are certainly lost.

Can you be certain you are correct if that belief does not fall under one of your six categories of things you are certain are true

Crafty, but to quote myself:

First of all, I would like to avoid any philosophical skulduggery that leverages the doubt of our fundamental existence. For sure we do not know the precise nature of our "consciousness". Also, perhaps we are living a matrix-like existence inside an alien supercomputer, maybe we are a dream within a dream within a dream. All quite possible, but all unprovable and all irrelevant to this discussion. We must assume that we exist as individual humans, on a planet, in a solar system, in a galaxy, in a galaxy cluster, in the universe.

We must surely assume that the physical process that evolution has provided to "allow" thought, also relies on the certainty of at least 1) to 5) and probably 6) too. In fact, I am certain of it.

Michael

[webolife]

MJV,
I still need you to explain what you think physically happens when two objects of whatever dimension you choose TOUCH, as in collide.

[Sparky]

mjv,

I was aware of my double infinity, but I reckon infinity times infinity equals infinity rather than infinity squared, hence I see no logical or grammatical error in using a split infinity.

[mjv1121]

webolife,

I still need you to explain what you think physically happens when two objects of whatever dimension you choose TOUCH, as in collide.

Obviously you have correctly deduced that there are a number of issues that arise from momentum transfer by collision with my quantum field. Not conceptually, but practically. If two identical particles, travelling at identical velocities, collide, there can be no net transfer of momentum. When this happens "in the field" it is a good thing, because it allows us to ignore the occasional collisions of field particles. Another problem is explaining the structural integrity of electrons and protons. If we assume, that they are built from quantum particles, then by what forces or mechanisms do they remain structurally cohesive?. If an incoming quantum particle collides, it would not "see" the electron or proton, but would only "see" the other quantum particle with which it collides. So how does the received momentum get distributed through the body of the larger particle? Also, what happens to the quantum that has now lost some velocity? and how does this affect the field?.

Yes, I am having problems with the detailed practical implementation of quantum field. It is not entirely bleak, statistical aberrations may solve some issues. Also, having already concluded that the quantum particles spin, it becomes perfectly feasible that they may spin at almost any rate we wish, since they have no structural issues and suffer no inertia.

Early on I had two aether fields: a superluminous very small scale field responsible for gravity and my present quantum field responsible for electromagnetism. Almost right from the start I considered that the "charge" field may also be responsible for gravity, but I dismissed it and went ahead with two aethers. However, I became dissatisfied with a gravity field that was entirely incalculable. It seemed too unsafe, too susceptible to the imaginings of the theorist (I think perhaps your universal field is likely similarly flawed.)

Although, a second aether would solve a lot of problems for me, I have a "hunch" that I am on the right track. However, rather than tackle all the detailed complexity mentioned above, I thought I would first review what fundamental tools are safely available - what do we know for certain? Aside from the basic laws of mechanical motion and maybe a hint of thermodynamics, there is not much that can be considered safe and even this much is contended by some.

Any ideas?

Michael

[Sparky]

mjv,

Also, having already concluded that the quantum particles spin, it becomes perfectly feasible that they may spin at almost any rate we wish, since they have no structural issues and suffer no inertia.

so, what if they decide not to spin?!

there may be some stuck in a glob of gluons, which is a logical construct, gluons being what they are..

[mjv1121]

Sparky,

You will note the spin of quantum/aether particles does not make it to the list.

What We Know To Be True:
1) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. This might also be summarised as all effects must have a cause. This also serves as proof that action at a distance is not possible.
2) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
3) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. This might also be summarised as the conservation of momentum and by extension, the conservation of energy.
4) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision. This also serves as further proof that action or force at a distance is not possible.
5) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical. This might also be stated as anything physical constitutes a form of matter.
6) The entropy of an isolated system never decreases.

Michael

[webolife]

MJV
Until you can answer the question of what happens in a bonafide collision in your universe, your points #1-5 are not "safe".

[mjv1121]

webolife,

Until you can answer the question of what happens in a bonafide collision in your universe, your points #1-5 are not "safe".

I entirely disagree. 1-5 are completely safe and it is a requirement of any physical theory of any kind to ensure that these physical laws are not violated. It is not my job to prove them, it is my job to comply with them. Any "bonafide collisions in my universe" may occur by any additional means or process that I am able to justify, but said collisions may not violate the laws of physics. As has been eluded to elsewhere recently, there is a distinct possibility, if not certainty, that some rules or measurements presently held as laws, may actually vary across the universe. Whatever those variations may or may not be, you can be entirely certain that #1-5 are not open to physical negotiation. Even gods and sorcerers are bound by these fundamental conditions of motion and interaction.

What We Know To Be True:
1) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. This might also be summarised as all effects must have a cause. This also serves as proof that action at a distance is not possible.
2) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
3) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. This might also be summarised as the conservation of momentum and by extension, the conservation of energy.
4) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision. This also serves as further proof that action or force at a distance is not possible.
5) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical. This might also be stated as anything physical constitutes a form of matter.


Michael

[tayga]

I entirely disagree. 1-5 are completely safe

Maybe you should change the name of this thread to "What Michael thinks he knows" or "What Michael continues to assert" since you are apparently unable to distinguish what you know from what you believe or posit.

It's just my opinion but I don't believe anyone can start to learn anything until they acknowledge their ignorance. Belief, falsely held as knowledge, is the death understanding - me, 2011.

[mjv1121]

tayga,

Do you believe you know anything for certain?

Have you anything to add to the list?

Which, if any, do you suggest should be removed from the list?

Michael

[tayga]

tayga,

Do you believe you know anything for certain?

Have you anything to add to the list?

Which, if any, do you suggest should be removed from the list?

Michael

With the qualification I've stated before, that we assume we can trust our senses, there is observational evidence to support 1-3. 5 is an assumption but I'd concede it's a necessary one to move forward. It should be recognised as an assumption, though. As I've said before, I think 4 is an unjustified assumption. It might be substituted with another more fundamental but less controversial assumption: that every effect has a cause which precedes it.

That would clash with any attempt to introduce QM and I don't see any way of ruling out 5. But if they are recognised as assumptions we are at least being honest with ourselves. 3 assumptions to reach 5 statements might offend your Reductionist position but I think it is a fair representation of where we are.

[Goldminer]

I agree with Tayga, and I am famous for being Right! What we know for certain is that we don't know for certain. Photons, for example, have never been detected without the use of matter. Waves appear to be particle like because at certain wave lengths they interact with other particle like entities such as molecules, atoms, electrons and protons. On the other hand, "particles" such as electrons and protons have characteristics of being standing waves, known as solitons.

Sooo . . . the case can be made opposite mjv1121's: That particles do not exist; and everything is made of waves! (link:) The material Universe is solely made out of Aether

Every forum needs a controversy just to keep things going. I miss Nereid; "she" was so consensus bound. Mjv is bound to "his" theory and he is entitled to it. Colligation always wins. When the lists of what we "know" are compared with each other, certain things on the lists contradict other things on the lists. Those are the things that need to be studied to unravel the contradiction. The things that are not contradicted still may not be the ultimate "knowledge," but possibly be closer to the way reality really works.

What we know for certain is that we don't know for certain. Be careful with the use of "is" or "for certain" since using "may be" will keep you from looking like an idiot later.


.

[StevenJay]

I can't speak for "we," only "I." And what "I know for certain" is that I love my wife and my children unconditionally. That isn't a belief, it's an unambiguous knowing that resides in the very core of my being. I also know for certain that I am an infinite spiritual being who is currently experiencing this physicality. That knowing resides in the same place.

Neither statement can be proved, nor plotted on a graph, and certainly can't be expressed mathematically. Nevertheless, it's what I know.

It's been my experience that beliefs are things handed to us by someone else, whereas, "knowing" springs from within. I refer to it as Heart Intelligence.

Steve

[Sparky]

Auminer,

-will keep you from looking like an idiot later.

what if that line has not only been crossed but scuffed, trampled upon, and buried?....