زمرہ آرکائیو: فلسفہ

فلسفہ بہت دور طبیعیات سے کبھی نہیں ہے. یہ میں کامیابیاں توقع ہے کہ ان کے وورلیپ میں ہے.

اینٹی ساپیکشتا اور Superluminality

لیو نے لکھا ہے:میں تعارفی حصہ اگرچہ کے ساتھ کچھ مسائل ہیں،, آپ روشنی سفر اثرات اور relativistic تبادلوں کا سامنا کرتے وقت. آپ کو صحیح طریقے سے سب ادراکی برم خصوصی اضافیت کے تصور میں دور صاف کر دیا گیا ہے کہ بیان, لیکن آپ کو بھی ان ادراکی برم خصوصی ساپیکشتا کے علمی ماڈل کے لئے ایک اوچیتن بنیاد کے طور پر رہنا اس کا کہنا ہے کہ. میں نے آپ کا کیا مطلب سمجھ یا کروں میں یہ غلط ہو جاؤ?

ادراکی اثرات طبیعیات میں جانا جاتا ہے; وہ روشنی سفر وقت کے اثرات کو کہا جاتا ہے (LTT, مخفف کو پکاتی). ان اثرات نگرانی میں اعتراض کی تحریک پر ایک نظری برم تصور کیا جاتا ہے. آپ LTT اثرات باہر لے ایک بار, آپ کو ملتا ہے “حقیقی” اعتراض کی تحریک . یہ حقیقی تحریک SR کی اطاعت کرنے کی توقع کی جاتی ہے. یہ SR کی موجودہ تشریح ہے.

میری دلیل LTT اثرات ہم LTT کی صرف ایک تیاری کے طور پر SR کے بارے میں سوچنا چاہئے کہ SR کی طرح ہیں یہ ہے کہ. (اصل میں, ایک قدرے غلط تیاری.) اس دلیل کے لئے کئی وجوہات:
1. ہم disentagle نہیں کر سکتے ہیں “نظری برم” بہت بنیادی ترتیب اسی تاثر کو جنم دے کیونکہ. دوسرے الفاظ میں, بہت سے مسئلے کا ایک ہم ہمارے خیال باعث بن رہا ہے دیکھنا ہے کیا سے جا.
2. SR محدد تبدیلی جزوی طور LTT اثرات پر مبنی ہے.
3. LTT اثرات relativistic اثرات سے زیادہ طاقتور ہیں.

شاید ان وجوہات کے لئے, کیا SR کرتا ہے، کیا ہم دیکھتے ہیں کہ یہ واقعی کی طرح ہے کیا ہے یہ کہنا ہے. اس کے بعد یہ ریاضی جو ہم دیکھتے ہیں کو بیان کرنے کی کوشش کرتا ہے. (یہ میں نے ایک formaliztion سے مراد کیا ہے. ) بعد میں, ہم LTT اثرات بہت SR کے ساتھ مطابقت نہیں تھا کہ سوچا جب (کے مشاہدے میں کے طور پر “ظاہر” superluminal تحریک), ہم سے تھا سوچا “باہر لے” پھر LTT اثرات ہیں اور کہتے ہیں کہ بنیادی تحریک (یا جگہ اور وقت) اطاعت کی SR. اگر میں اپنی کتاب اور مضامین میں تجویز کر رہا ہوں ہم صرف بنیادی جگہ اور وقت کی طرح ہیں کیا لگتا ہے اور اس میں سے ہمارے خیال کیا ہو گی باہر کام کرنا چاہئے ہے (دوسرے طریقے سے جا رہا ایک بیمار درپیش ایک سے بہت مسئلہ ہے کیونکہ). میری پہلے اندازہ, قدرتی طور پر, تھا گلیلی خلائی وقت. Luminal کی booms اور ان کے بعد کے طور پر GRBs اور DRAGNs کی بلکہ صاف اور سادہ explantions میں یہ اندازہ نتائج.

Discussion on the Daily Mail (UK)

On the Daily Mail forum, one participant (کہا جاتا “whats-in-a-name”) started talking about حقیقی کائنات on July 15, 2006. It was attacked fairly viciously on the forum. I happened to see it during a Web search and decided to step in and defend it.

15 جولائی, 2006

Posted by: whats-in-a-name on 15/07/06 میں 09:28 AM

ھ, Kek, you’ve given me a further reason to be distracted from what I should be doing- and I can tell you that this is more interesting at the moment.I’ve been trying to formulate some ideas and there’s one coming- but I’ll have to give it to you in bits.I don’t want to delve into pseudoscience or take the woo-ish road that says that you can explain everything with quantum theory, but try starting here: HTTP://theunrealuniverse.com/phys.shtml

The “Journal Article” link at the bottom touches on some of the points that we discussed elsewhere. It goes slightly off-topic, but you might also find the “فلسفہ” link at the top left interesting.

Posted by: patopreto on 15/07/06 میں 06:17 PM

Regarding that web site wian.One does not need to ead past this sentence –

طبیعیات کے نظریات حقیقت کی وضاحت کر رہے ہیں. حقیقت ہمارے حواس سے ریڈنگ سے باہر تخلیق کیا جاتا ہے. Knowing that our senses all work using light as an intermediary, is it a surprise that the speed of light is of fundamental importance in our reality?

to realise that tis web site is complete ignorant hokum. I stopped at that point.

16 جولائی, 2006

Posted by: whats-in-a-name on 16/07/06 میں 09:04 AM

I’ve just been back to read that bit more carefully. I don’t know why the writer phrased it like that but surely what he meant was:(مجھے) “Our perception of what is real is created out of the readings from our senses.” I think that most physicists wouldn’t argue with that would they? At the quantum level reality as we understand it doesn’t exist; you can only say that particles have more of a tendency to exist in one place or state than another.(ii) The information that we pick up from optical or radio telescopes, gamma-ray detectors and the like, shows the state of distant objects as they were in the past, owing to the transit time of the radiation. Delving deeper into space therefore enables us to look further back into the history of the universe.It’s an unusual way to express the point, I agree, but it doesn’t devalue the other information on there. In particular there are links to other papers that go into rather more detail, but I wanted to start with something that offered a more general view.

I get the impression that your study of physics is rather more advanced than mine- as I’ve said previously I’m only an amateur, though I’ve probably taken my interest a bit further than most. I’m happy to be corrected if any of my reasoning is flawed, though what I’ve said so far s quite basic stuff.

The ideas that I’m trying to express in response to Keka’s challenge are my own and again, I’m quite prepared to have you or anyone else knock them down. I’m still formulating my thoughts and I wanted to start by considering the model that physicists use of the nature of matter, going down to the grainy structure of spacetime at the Plank distance and quantum uncertainty.

I’ll have to come back to this in a day or two, but meanwhile if you or anyone else wants to offer an opposing view, please do.

Posted by: patopreto on 16/07/06 میں 10:52 AM

I don’t know why the writer phrased it like that but surely what he meant was:

I think the write is quit clear! WIAN – you have re-written what he says to mean something different.

The writer is quite clear – “Once we accept that space and time are a part of the cognitive model created by the brain, and that special relativity applies to the cognitive model, we can ponder over the physical causes behind the model, the absolute reality itself.”

Blah Blah Blah!

The writer, ہاتھ Thulasidas, is an employee of OCBC bank in Singapore and self-described “amateur philosopher”. What is he writes appears to be nothing more than a religiously influenced solipsistic philosophy. Solipsism is interesting as a philosophical standpoint but quickly falls apart. If Manoj can start his arguments from such shaky grounds without explanation, then I really have no other course to take than to accept his descriptions of himself as “amateur”.

Maybe back to MEQUACK!

What is Real? Discussions with Ranga.

This post is a long email discussion I had with my friend Ranga. The topic was the unreality of reality of things and how this notion can be applied in physics.

Going through the debate again, I feel that Ranga considers himself better-versed in the matters of philosophy than I am. I do too, I consider him better read than me. But I feel that his assumption (that I didn’t know so much that I should be talking about such things) may have biased his opinion and blinded him to some of the genuinely new things (میری رائے میں, کورس) I had to say. بہر حال, I think there are quite a few interesting points that came out during the debate that may be of general interest. I have edited and formatted the debate for readability.

It is true that many bright people have pondered over the things I talk about in this blog and in my book. And they have articulated their thoughts in their works, probably better than I have in mine. Although it is always a good idea to go through the existing writings to “clear my head” (as one of my reviewers suggested while recommending David Humes), such wide reading creates an inherent risk. It is not so much the time it will take to read and understand the writings and the associated opportunity cost in thinking; it is also the fact that everything you read gets assimilated in you and your opinions become influenced by these brilliant thinkers. While that may be a good thing, I look at it as though it may actually be detrimental to original thought. Taken to the extreme, such blind assimilation may result in your opinions becoming mere regurgitation of these classical schools of thought.

اس کے علاوہ, as Hermann Hesse implies in سدھارتھ, wisdom cannot be taught. It has to be generated from within.

Ranga’s words are colored Green (یا Blue when quoted for the second time).

Mine are in White (یا Purple when quoted for the second time).

Mon, مئی 21, 2007 میں 8:07 PM.

I’m, to different extents, familiar with the distinction philosophers and scientists make in terms of phenomenal and physical realities – from the works of Upanishads, to the Advaitas/Dvaitas, to the Noumenon/Phenomenon of Schopenhauer, and the block Universe of Special Relativity, and even the recent theories in physics (Kaluza and Klein). The insight that what we perceive is not necessarily what “ہے”, existed in a variety of ways from a long time. تاہم, such insights were not readily embraced and incorporated in all sciences. There is a enormous literature on this in neuroscience and social sciences. تو, it is indeed very good that you have attempted to bring this in to physics – by recollecting our previous discussion on this, by reading through your introduction to the book in the website and understanding the tilt of your paper (could not find it in the journal – has it been accepted?). To suggest that there could be superluminal motion and to explain known phenomena such as GRBs through a quirk (?) in our perception (even in the physical instruments) is bold and needs careful attention by others in the field. One should always ask questions to cross “سمجھا” boundaries – in this case of course the speed of light.

تاہم, it is quite inaccurate and superficial (میری رائے میں) to think that there is some “مطلق” reality beyond the “حقیقت” we encounter. While it is important to know that there are multiple realities for different individuals in us, and even different organisms, depending on senses and intellect, it is equally important to ask what reality is after all when there is no perception. If it cannot be accessed by any means, what is it anyway? Is there such a thing at all? Is Absolute Reality in the movement of planets, stars and galaxies without organisms in them? Who perceives them as such when there is nobody to perceive? What form do they take? Is there form? In applying philosophy (which I read just as deeper and bolder questions) to science (which I read as a serious attempt to answer those questions), you cannot be half-way in your methods, drawing imaginary boundaries that some questions are too philosophical or too theological for now.

While your book (the summary at least) seems to bring home an important point (at least to those who have not thought in this direction) that the reality we perceive is dependent on the medium/mode (light in some cases) and the instrument (sense organ and brain) we use for perceiving, it seems to leave behind a superficial idea that there is Absolute Reality when you remove these perceptual errors. Are they perceptual errors – aren’t perceptual instruments and perceptions themselves part of reality itself? To suggest that there is some other reality beyond the sum of all our perceptions is philosophically equally erroneous as suggesting that what we perceive is the only reality.

All the same, the question about reality or the lack of it has not been well incorporated into the physical sciences and I wish you the best in this regard.

Cheers
Ranga