Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science?

Why would you consider an obvious observation to be a model?
Example: "The space is over there and so is the illuminated object..."
This is an intuitive, logical and quite reasonable observation, and certainly not a model.

Personally I would rather do science based on observation and not models but that is just me...
Do you feel I should compromise this position?

The contradiction I was attempting to highlight was that whilst we can consider vacant space to be "out there" we have to because of an incomplete photon model consider light info to have traveled to be inside our eyes and not where we observe it to be.
I find it amazing that people are prepared to so easily ditch such an obvious observation for a model that is far from complete, yet regardless of my bewilderment people do ditch the intuitive in favor of some sort of constructed counter intuitive model.

If inert zone means "volume of vacant space ... sure... the light as observed appears to be in the location it appears to be, and that is upon the object itself.
There is no need for, an external of mass, carrier [photon] of information when you consider that the entire observation of light, space and object is what consciousness is...

So much time and invested energy devoted to playing with mainstream ideas as if they are complete then claiming them to be incomplete thus justifying the premises that underpin their incompleteness.. yes to actually drop the models and just observe what there is to observe would require a fresh start. The proper use of the scientific method would be handy as well...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm starting to get it, and "time and invested energy" is certainly a factor.

This would be a good place to discuss that issue. So I have two published colleagues. Both of them have theories about emergent space, but for whatever reason, they won't talk to each other. I can see that some of the ideas they present have merit (and others do not). In particular, when someone says they have a theory about emergent space, and begin telling you that "space can be created like the following", and then try to kick off the discussion by talking about how it is that space can be created WITHIN SPACE, well, that's a problem, isn't it?

When Minkowski proposed that length contraction / time dilation occurs because a 4D dimension with elements of both space and time rotates, that's better, but not by very much. The man was a mathematician. Extra dimensions don't bother mathematicians; it's something they just jotted down on their notepad, or whatever. The universe or something in it might love geometry, but modeling it that way is bound to cause problems with defining what a straight line is, or why a beam of light (roughly) seems to follow such a geometrical abstraction. Problem is, beams of light, even lasers, all obey the inverse square law and spread out in the real universe, and while this idea is also geometrical in nature, it just leaves a lot of wiggle room as to whether the space we observe in the universe is strictly geometrical in terms of the laws it obeys, or something else.

You may have noticed, I quit the other discussion when it was becoming apparent that I was making the same mistakes my colleagues did. If you are going to describe emergent space, either you must be able to do so without circular reference to space, or else don't bother. Nothing coherent is going to happen when you start to do that; you are just spinning wheels in your finite mind.

As I have pointed out in AI forums, the only non self-referential term in dictionaries of all human languages is the concept of length. It defies definition simply because it is the means by which our minds reason and categorize the things our senses render to our neurons. You will never understand what it is, any more than a machine intelligence will ever completely understand what a "number" is, why human minds created them and then later used them to create a machine intelligence.

Philosophy, including philosophy of science, makes this mistake again and again. More words only leads to more self-referential words. There is no real point to endlessly breaking down definitions that no one can agree upon in the first place. If you can't define something in terms of length or some generalization of it, you are hopelessly mired in superfluous use of the tool we call language.

And so it is that new ideas about emergent space will have to wait until there is someone clever enough to realize that you can't define space in terms of space and get anywhere with the discussion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can't compromise your model

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. If you want it to be your intuitive, logical and quite reasonable observations, then my use of the word "model" won't apply.

And your point is taken, that it is an intuitive, logical and quite reasonable observation in regard to the positions of space and objects.

Yes, space and objects we see are out there, not in our eyes. Yet, I don't see how that would eliminate the explanations for how we perceive those things. Light, as I was ruminating from the balcony at the beach, pretty well submits to the common understanding that something is coming to us from those objects and it travels through the empty spaces.

Maybe you are saying that our intuition tells us that our seeing of things out there simply is our consciousness at work, and the "why and how" of what we are seeing is based on an incomplete photon model that leads to all kinds of needless speculation.

Certainly, consciousness is characterized by our awareness of all of the things around us.

Observing what there is to observe is were we all start. What would you say the proper use of the scientific method would be, given all of those observations typical of consciousness?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Certainly, consciousness is characterized by our awareness of all of the things around us."

A mousetrap is conscious then. It is aware whenever a rodent (or something else) is taking a nip at some peanut butter or cheese on its trigger mechanism, and acts accordingly.

Our bodies have the same sort of mechanisms in order to counteract viruses, bacteria, and other disease agents. This mechanism is as fallible as any other neurosensory apparatus at our disposal, and any individual consciousness is also a matter of degree. One of us is not as "conscious" as all of us.

Consciousness is a term that has no real meaning, so I suggest a practical means to quantify consciousness in terms of the equivalent number of resettable mouse traps.

 

in a sense I believe you are on the right track. [as ridiculous as it seems]

Discussing how consciousness [life] is an intrinsic nature of all things whether animated or not is fraught with problems of preconception and conditioning.
However any unifying theory of everything MUST include life and in doing so consciousness, unconsciousness, self animation, self determination are essential ingredients. Including this with in the physical nature of the universe at large as physics and not relegated to mere metaphysics or theosophy etc.. hard scientific method based physics.

 

From a universal perspective [with out bringing life into it] perhaps consider the following:

That the center of mass [COG] is the unconscious (nihilo) and that the volume of space [including all that exists with in it is consciousness.
In doing so we could consider the universe to be conscious. [this doesn't mean that the universe has the "animated" capacity to "know " that it is conscious.]

any ways this is off topic... I just wanted to highlight the fact that the mainstream view of the photon is far from complete and leads to a cul de sac [dead end] when wanting to understand things like QM's quantum entanglements etc. IMO

 

Yes. A rock perched on top of a precipice that just happens to fall off with exactly the right timing to kill a mouse would be the same as a more sentient life form, such as a mousetrap. Or something the mouse could choke to death on. Or drown in.

The universe itself is sentient; no need to bring sticky organic Rube Goldberg contraptions such as ourselves into the question. A bear trap is as good as a mousetrap for larger mammals, and if properly concealed, can outwit our richly convoluted mammalian neocortex as well. Which of these sentient life forms gets the highest marks on an IQ test, I wonder; the concealed bear trap, or those hopeless humans who can't even seem to simulate the smarts of lower mammals such as mice with their artificial intelligence?

Just trying to knock down our narcissistic estimations of our much vaunted minds, intelligence, and capacity for doing math or physics a few notches.

 

Interesting discussion going on without me, which I like to see, but I do intend to respond to the recents posts. For now, here is a quick space filler:
ToE talk is interesting, and as we have been saying, consciousness and the role it plays in the universe is a big part of it. However, to me a ToE should describe a universe that endures, and because it endures, whatever role consciousness plays will be perpetually hosted in a potentially infinite number of hospitable environments across the landscape of the greater universe. That is why my hobby-model addresses and hypothesizes about the mechanics associated with big bangs, expanding big bang arenas, quantum gravity, wave-particles, and the defeat of entropy. They all combine in order to perpetually provide hospitable environments where life can be self generated from the environment (the generative "force") and evolve to intelligent, self aware individuals (the evolvative "force") who ... obviously will agree with me, lol.

 

Where are the discussions about current problematic issues in science? (the OP question)

My guess is that scientists like to keep their disagreements somewhat quiet because of the religious nutters out there that try to find conversions by pointing out problems (disagreements) in science.

Of all the great many problematic issues in science, which answers would you like to know the most? I have "simple" answers to nearly every possible question that I have ever thought of, or I think you could ask. You can decide whether my answers seem reasonable to you or not. Concerning all problematic issues in science, my answers will for the most part involve alternative theory that you probably have never heard of since most are generally unknown.

Questions anyone?

 

hee hee, ok I'll bite...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Define the term "energy" in a way that is self consistent across all applications.
best of luck...

 

imagine the following:
You create a large room that is entirely sealed.
You install micro camera's into every surface "pixel" on walls, floor and ceiling.
You feed all that room data in to a central CPU and do nothing with it.

Could this be considered to be a rudimentary non-animated consciousness?

Could the interior of this room be considered as artificially conscious?

Have we constructed a rudimentary conscious universe? [ abet a small one ]

...

Now insert Android AI that are individually making use (re: positioning etc) of this data and producing some of their own. (adding info to the collective pool)

Could this be considered as a state of rudimentary self consciousness, collective consciousness, self awareness?


Now replace the cameras with quantum entanglement that includes all particles of mass in the room and consider the volume with in the room to be a collective consciousness.

IMO
collective objectivity = true
collective awareness = true
Evolving collective and individual knowledge due to animation = true

No need for light particles due to quantum entanglement of info.

Every individual particle in this room is omniscient as they each have the combined info of the entire room due to quantum entanglement.

just thoughts...

 

Hi Forrest, I stood up for you in the Scientific Theories and Reality thread, and am sure you have a lot of knowledge and interesting perspectives. My first question: If you feel you want to offer us your answers freely, acknowledging that we may not agree with your answers, and alerting us to the fact that your answers may be "alternative science", ... what kind of thread do you think I am conduction here if not alternative, lol?

Second question: Why haven't you read posts #414 to #433? If you had you would know my questions. Answer any of them as you see fit.

Anyway, welcome to the thread and please feel free to contribute your perspective on the various topics. But be alerted, if you have questions I'm sure we are just as eager to answer them with our alternative views as you are to answer ours. This thread should be perfect for you.

 

Quantum Quack,

Thanks for the bite to keep interesting dialog continuing, I believe.

In this I think my reply is pretty standard so I will use a standard definition in this case.

Definition: Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work, FxD = E. Energy exists in several forms such as heat, kinetic or mechanical energy, all EM radiation, potential energy, electrical, and other action forms.

http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/energy.htm

This would be my preferred definition of energy. Whether you believe this covers all applications, you would need to make comments and then ask another question

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

OK?

 

Thanks for that. I have no intent of highjacking this or any thread so you let me know if you would like to see my related conversations in its own thread.

Thanks, I just perused this thread so you have given me direction. OK postings 414 and 433.

paragraph posting 414:

I like quantum wave theory since it implies and aether, which I agree with. It also can answer the hidden variable question, the actions of the aether are the hidden variables of Quantum Theory. I think there is a simple answer to quantum entanglement relating to the supposed communication of entangled particles. Here is my explanation:
Electrons, for example, have opposite spins when they are within the same orbital ring of an atom. In an aether model, as you suggest, there is aether waves and by this "communication" between the electrons. When quantum entangling electrons on needs to bring them very close together like electrons in the same orbit. When you do this, aether theory would say there would be communication between the electrons and there indeterminate state of spin would then be determined, even though one would not know the spin of each individual electron you would know that there spins have been determined by entanglement and will be opposite each other. You know send them off in different directions and if they are not interfered with, surprise, one will have the opposite spin to the other. A similar principle applies with photons, entanglement determines compatible states via the aether.

"hypothetical energy density equalization, and hypothetical quantum gravity"

Energy density equalization seems appropriate in an aether model, but I prefer a pushing model of gravity involving aether flow.

Now for posting #433, I think you meant 434.

I think we agree that the concept of space warping to produce gravity, is not the best theory. Your model of gravity waves seems reasonable to me, but not as a pulling force. A mechanical model would seem to require a pushing force, if your model is mechanical, rather than a classical force. Also, to date they have not detected any such waves but that doesn't mean anything in that they haven't realized the existence of the aether as yet either

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Vacuum energy is simple in an aether model. The energy observed is the energy produced by interactions of the aether with itself, and with particulates within it, both known and unknown. As to the Big Bang arena, I think the BB model will be replaced within 20 years, I hope

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Did I miss anything?

BTW, thanks for coming to my defense in the Scientific Theories and Reality thread. I stir up a lot of emotions when proposing that mainstream models may be wrong

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Would you include the fact that energy is polarized (-) and (+) where the sum of which is always zero?

 

As to EM radiation, I would agree. But there's a great many ways EM radiation can be polarized, that its sum equals zero over large scales makes sense.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Comments?

 

If you believe that energy = mc^2 as a fundamental would you also say that energy can exist independently of mass as in E=E and not E=mc^2 ? (i.e. EMR, dark energy etc)

Does energy have mass or does mass have an energ-istic potential?
In the context of the above can E simply equal E ever?

 

Energy, as defined above, includes EM radiation. E=E does not make sense in my model. EM radiation is created by matter but after production it is separated from it. I believe dark energy is not real but its basis was just a miscalculation of distances based upon the inaccuracies of the Hubble formula. Other than that, energy involves the relative motion of matter of some kind. In my model the intrinsic energy in matter is related to the "real" spin of fermions (not just angular momentum) and nucleons, and orbital momentums of atoms and molecules. The energistic potential of matter would be defined as potential energy. There is energy in the background aether field which is called Zero Point Energy, which I theorize to be energy of motion concerning aether particulates.

 

I guess this is why I raised the issue of defining energy in a self consistent manner.

As you have suggested and as it appears to be with mainstream thought, E can indeed stand alone and equal E [E= E] with out reference to mass, which I find directly contradicts E=mc^2.

Can energy ever be detected with out using mass to detect it with?

Bottom line is, energy can nor be observed or seen to exist with out demonstration by way of an effect on mass.
So how can we determine energy to exist independent of mass?

 

I agree with your thinking concerning the non-statement of E=E.

Energy in the form of EM radiation does interact with itself. Not much, but it can be detected. Since all detectors involve matter components, including the eye, I don't see how it might be detected without any form of matter involved. Even our brain hopefully consists of matter (neurons) , which are influenced by electrical impulses

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So my answer must be no

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!