Challenge/Discussion: Most Simple Science Theory Reality

[Voland0]

Greeting with wishes of health and peace. No, really, I mean that, even if I am compelled to post a "Hello". In fact, I further wish for you prosperity and wisdom, that latter being the fount of all the former.

"Voland0" is my favorite 'nym, but I'll supply my name upon direct request, or one can find it with a Google search without any problem. I'm primarily a student right now, learning what I need to contribute design solutions for pollution remediation. Right now, that means Chemistry classes. Of course, this is not my only Learning interest, which is why I'm here, having followed searches initiated by a photo on the Astronomy Picture of the Day. Besides Learning, other interests include Cooking, Construction & Crafts, Diving, Flying, Hiking, Sailing, and Sex, not in order of preference nor frequency of enjoyment.

I'm sorry I'm not ready with an avatar. Soon, I promise.

On http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-Scientific-Theory-Reality.htm , the Cartesian line of reasoning seems fraught with some problems, most of which may merely need some sidebar for clarification or expansion. The clearest problem is in step 6: the chain of "creation" implies the existence of the Process of Reproduction, not Evolution. There are many more premises which must be considered before this conclusion. A prime previous premise must be non-sameness between generations, since Evolution means, essentially, "Change".

Previous to this problem, even if Necessary Connection exists, it doesn't follow that some unifying One Thing exists, since there may be more Necessary Connections, which have non-sameness.

Step 2 seems problematic, because it looks like a claim of some Universal Principle, as opposed to some clarification of the process involved in the "Think" of step 1. If this is what is meant, then this truly doesn't follow from step 1. Steps 3 & 4 make it look more like the claim of a Universal Principle. Otherwise, Step 3 is only true in that species of Reason called Logic. And Step 4, as a feature of External Reality, follows not at all from a feature of Internal Reason.

So, even before this, must be a supportable statement of the existence of everything that is not "Me", the existence of which is sufficiently established in step 1. I've started something along this line in my blog, http://princeuncert.blogspot.com .

[northjetty]

Hey there, welcome to the forum. The whole overview here implied by the wsm can be helpful in trying to make sense of the individual reasoning aspects going on. The wsm describes everything that exists, as substance. There are substances about in reality, thus there is a base substance that is common to all, so infinite reaching, and the one substance that fits this criteria is space itself, as the infinite substance that exists everywhere.

So this substance that is space, with the properties of a wave medium, is full of jiggling and energy throughout. This substance has always existed, according to this theory, and these waves moving throughout, upon intersecting paths, form spherical standing waves, that by combining with one another go on to form the various shapes and images that we see around us as reality. So an evolution here, is no more than the constant amount of movement and motion in an infinite system of perpetual existence, that is of a non-origin. All deducing of reality takes place from this infinitely broad perspective according to the wsm theory.

So the process of evolution is as perpetual as the system itself. It is always happening. So everything is under motion and change, and always will be. This is what we have named evolution. It may help to have the whole "overview" presented. It took me awhile to get the big picture of the theories implications. I am in agreement with this ontology.

Hope this helps,

northjetty/the cosmos

[haselhurst]

Hi V,
I have been thinking about this simplicity / dynamic unity of reality argument for some time now - meaning to re-write page you refer to.

Will do this this week - then we can discuss.

However, my internet connection is down (I am in town 20K from where i live to use internet cafe). So may not upload new article and post here for a week (depends on Telstra - when they get my line working again).

Good important argument. Thanks.
Geoff

[Steve Anthony]

Hi Voland0,

Welcome to the forum.

[Lazyman]

Hi V, all,

[Steve Anthony]

Exactly, lazyman!

Same wave, just a few hundred years of motion making the difference?

Anyway, I found an interesting link to some nice, free, classic philosophy, including the aforementioned Descartes' 'Discourse...' ...for those interested...

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/index.htm#CATALOGUE


Have fun!


~§~

[Lazyman]

Great link, Steve!

I needed some new reading material

[Lazyman]

Hi Steve, all,

Steve, you brought up the 'physicist as philosopher' topic. In keeping with that thought, how about the following for a profound statement?:

[haselhurst]

Hi all,

I referenced the Einstein quote to his book 'Ideas and Opinions" which was published in 1954 (a year before his death, it is his collection of his best writing / speeches - all thinking people should read this book).
But yes, a lot of the quotes actually come from earlier work of his.

Hope that helps explain things!
Cheers,
Geoff

PS - great Einstein quotes - I love him - he is like a friend in my head I have read so much of his work so many times. He was very close to the truth, realising that matter / energy and space / time where a unity (thus no discrete particles - and therefore humans are structure of the universe). His error in founding relativity was to represent matter as continuous spherical fields in space time rather than more simply from spherical waves in continuous space (which also explains quantum theory - his great failure).

PPS -Thanks Steve for philosophy link - very useful.

PPS - The re-writing of simplicity argument is slow going. Hopefully by end of this week pages will be finished. Then I hope we can discuss and you can help improve them.

[haselhurst]

One further thing.

I am glad people appreciate the importance of philosophy AND physics being studied together.
Metaphysics is also very important - the three subjects together complement one another, help prevent us making errors. (This is why specialisation of modern academia has contributed to many of our current problems / errors of academic knowledge).

Einstein realised this.

This is why the url of this forum / site is;
http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com

Cheers,
Geoff