Philosophy: the best way to understand Nature.


socratus
#1
Philosophy: the best way to understand Nature.
==
a) The evolution of Nature began from micro-world,
from laws and formulas of Quantum physics.
b) All quantum particles exist in Dirac's ''vacuum sea' but nobody
explains the parameters and conditions of Dirac's ''sea''.
c) All quantum particles must have concrete geometrical form but
nobody explain the g/ form of quantum particle.
==
So, the best and easy way to understand Nature is to begin with
Quantum theory: Dirac's reference frame and g/ form of quantum particles.
========
Attached Images
Bohr.jpg (9.1 KB, 4 views )
 
socratus
+1
#2  Top Rated Post
In the beginning the Science was developed as knowledge about macro-world
and only in 1900 (thanks to Planck) physicists began to study micro-world.
Today we know: the Quantum laws of micro-world were existed before
the Classic / Newtonian laws of macro-world.
Micro-world is kingdom of Quantum's laws and it is a pity that we cannot
understand their essence.
'' I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.''
/ Richard P. Feynman /
In XXI century Philosophy without laws and formulas of Physics is tautology.
Attached Images
R.F..jpg (10.9 KB, 2 views )
 
OmegaOm
+1
#3
Philosophy is the best way to start to try to understand nature, but empirical science is the best way to prove it.
 
socratus
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by OmegaOm View Post

Philosophy is the best way to start to try to understand nature,
but empirical science is the best way to prove it.

Yeah, there are two ways to understand nature: by logic and by experiment.

Today the philosophy of physics is ''abstract'' (as Richard* Feynman wrote)
Today the philosophy of physics is concept of pompous words,*
To come face-to-face with a "map"* of the real world is possible only when we
understand the Quantum theory, its reference frame and quantum particles.

Philosophy is LOGICAL knowledge of Nature.
This LOGIC must be based on laws and formulas of Physics.

EXPERIENCE is another way to understand Nature
 
Blackleaf
#5


Ricky Gervais: Nietzsche said: "That which does not kill you, makes you stronger."
Karl Pilkington: That's not true. What about polio? Wake up Nietzsche!
 
socratus
+1
#6
About many-super-dimensions, string particles,dark matter, dark energy . . . etc
''There are no facts, only interpretations.''
/ Friedrich Nietzsche /

There are only abstract interpretations.
=========
 
socratus
#7
“[Quantum mechanics] describes nature as absurd from the point of view
of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment.
So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd.”
/ Richard P. Feynman /

Why '' . . . you can accept nature as She is - absurd.” / Richard P. Feynman /

Because Einstein and Infeld wrote in the book “Evolution of Physics” :
“ We have the laws, but we are not aware what the body
of reference system they belong to, and all our physical
construction appears erected on sand ”.
===
What can be reference frame for new ideas?
* DISCOVER.
FROM THE AUGUST 2008 ISSUE
Nothingness of Space Could Illuminate the Theory of Everything
Could the vacuum contain dark energy, gravity particles, and frictionless gears?
By Tim Folger.* Friday, July 18, 2008

'' When the next revolution rocks physics,chances are it will be
about nothing—the vacuum, that endless infinite void.''

'' Some physicists like to think that M theory will form the basis of what
they call a theory of everything, a set of laws that will completely
describe the universe in all its strangeness, where dark energy, quantum theory,
extra dimensions, and magazine readers will all fit into one tidy package.
But in the end, the key to cosmic truth may well come from another window
on reality, the looming void. A good theory of nothing just might be the
theory of everything physicists have sought for so long.''

Nothingness of Space Could Illuminate the Theory of Everything | DiscoverMagazine.com
#
Paul Dirac wrote:
'‘ The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex? ‘'
/ Paul Dirac /
================
If we want to* understand the logical reality of Nature we need to solve
'‘ The problem of the exact description of vacuum'' . . . /Dirac/

===============
 
darkbeaver
#8
arXiv.org > physics > arXiv:1802.00227

Physics > History and Philosophy of Physics
http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.00227
Is quantum mechanics creationism, and not science?

Werner A Hofer
(Submitted on 1 Feb 201
I revisit the reply of Bohr to Einstein. Bohr's implication that there are no causes in atomic scale systems is, as a closer analysis reveals, not in line with the Copenhagen interpretation since it would contain a statement about reality. What Bohr should have written is that there are no causes in mathematics, which is universally acknowledged. The law of causality requires physical effects to be due to physical causes. For this reason any theoretical model which replaces physical causes by mathematical objects is creationism, that is, it creates physical objects out of mathematical elements. I show that this is the case for most of quantum mechanics.
Comments: 9 pages, no in-depth knowledge of mathematics required, sets out the case for a major revision of theoretical physics Subjects: History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph); Popular Physics (physics.pop-ph) Cite as: arXiv:1802.00227 [physics.hist-ph] (or arXiv:1802.00227v1 [physics.hist-ph] for this version)

(DB This is a very interesting little paper out a few weeks ago discussing the very topic you have suggested.DB I found it helpfull in dismissing quantum physics altogether untill and unless someone can physically show me a handfull of the stuff. Math is not physical, period.
 
socratus
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Math is not physical, period.



Sorry.
Can you explain meaning of '' Math is not physical, period.''
 
socratus
#10
Modern interpretation of Quantum physics cannot replace classical - deterministic causality
===========
These two systems aren't closed.
There are interactions between these two systems where
macro* classical - deterministic causality is possible to observe and
micro quantum causality that is hidden - unobservant
( Heisenberg uncertainty principle ) and seems ''random''.
Planck, Einstein were skeptical towards the only (!) statistical interpretation
of quantum mechanics.
Niels Bohr said:
'' Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.''
Richard Feynman said:
“If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”
. . . . .

And the last scientific opinion:
Why Do Interpretations Of Quantum Physics Matter?
FEB 27, 2018 @ 04:10 PM

A couple of weeks ago, fellow Forbes blogger Ethan Siegel took to his keyboard
with the goal of making me sigh heavily, writing a post about interpretations
of quantum physics calling the idea that you need an interpretation
"the biggest myth in quantum physics."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorz.../#2bab2c357d57

So, ''Shut up and calculate''
Richard Feynman / David Mermin

==============
 
darkbeaver
+1
#11
In principle I prefer uncertainty over certainty. I only get up in the morning because I,m curiously uncertain.
 
MHz
+1
#12
Out West people get up because they aren't dead, why complicate it past that with minor details.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yYchgX1fMw
 
darkbeaver
+1
#13
How can you be certain those getting up people aren,t dead? Or might as well be? History is replete with risen dead, the undead litter this world ferfuksake, they continue to pay taxes to governments who only recognise thier monetary value, even a great piece of art cannot spare them the rape of the taxman. It,s far better to sleep when you,re dead than to wakeup already consumsumed at just cling to the material world in no better station than a fossil.
 
darkbeaver
+1
#14
And when we cleaned the streets of the corpses .all dressed in fine clothing every one. Thier appreciation of fashion had not served them.
 
Cliffy
+1
#15
 
Cliffy
#16
 
DaSleeper
#17
A Fakebook philosopher.......WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED
 
darkbeaver
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by socratus View Post

In the beginning the Science was developed as knowledge about macro-world
and only in 1900 (thanks to Planck) physicists began to study micro-world.
Today we know: the Quantum laws of micro-world were existed before
the Classic / Newtonian laws of macro-world.
Micro-world is kingdom of Quantum's laws and it is a pity that we cannot
understand their essence.
'' I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.''
/ Richard P. Feynman /
In XXI century Philosophy without laws and formulas of Physics is tautology.

Nobody understands quzantum phizzic cus it don ,eyt work Whatb a load of bullshit.
 
darkbeaver
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeper View Post

A Fakebook philosopher.......WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED


I think you,re as deep as you can go without experianvcreing not oxynated approximatw conditions, yes you can freeze on that spot I hope cotrrects the earlier misinterpertationsd, I think I,ll have a knap it,s syupposede that thease modern considerations are modern considerations,fuk know they aRE IN FACT PRIMAL CONSIDERATION DEMANDING religio us results, I hope thats helped you identify with my position. we are all going to hell. It,s not as bad as it reads To forge iron you need hell.
 
darkbeaver
#20
The real ironage what it feel like brain denscity will determine your utilty, they already know that most of us are idiots
 
darkbeaver
#21
That is myupoint ofview...
 
darkbeaver
#22
Your point of view matters.
 
darkbeaver
#23
How to die, part one,. Being of 65.6308 years of age, verifyable by public records, I recon. I can with confidance imagine my future, born again for sure, cuz I just can,t get it right. Only thye hammer of perpetual reincarnation can save me, who,s heaven are taxes?
 
darkbeaver
#24
You are in heaven stupid. The ghosts of ages past wait for thier call again.Ice cold future, toughinup or fossilization, it is better to burn. What was the question?
 

Similar Threads

7
Some of my art and philosophy
by Cliffy | Jul 11th, 2013