Wednesday, December 28, 2005 

Outline for a book that I should write but never will

I was thinking. . .
Long story short I was stuck someplace with little to do but doodle on someone else's sticky notes, an idea occurred to me, and I sketched an outline. It would be called, grandly:
Unity in Truth
or
How All Human Knowledge is Related
It breaks down into sections like this:

I) The Hierarchy of knowledge:

A) Reductionist Science
1) Biology reduces to organic chemistry, reduces to chemistry, to physics. Hierarchical.
2) Comparison between the metrical observational inductive scientific method and the theoretical deductive 'top-down' methods in science. Their relationship.
B) Philosophy and Nature/Man
1) Politics reduces to ethics, to a philosophy of man
2) Physics (philosophically) reduces to metaphysics. Hierarchy.
3) The threefold investigation of man into nature, as man, nature, and man's knowledge of nature (psychology, ontology, epistemology). The relationship between the three.
II) Mathematics and the Cosmos:

A) Math as logic
1) The failure of axiomatic structures explaining mathematical reasoning.
2) A consideration of the possibility of math as human structure simply, its possibilities and drawbacks.
B) Mathematics as Pythagorean/Platonic
1) Can mathematical objects really be 'out there'?
2) Tie in the relationship of espistemology to ontology from (I.B.3) to understand
mathematic objects existing separately from man.
III) Conclusions?
Okay, I know some of you out there are thinking "what's the point? Thomas already proved that truth=beauty=good=being=one". I know. I haven't forgotten. Others might say "okay what is the point? I really don't see where you are going" Answer: I guess I just like to think that all human understanding is ordered toward the same goal. I don't think that it is productive in the since of interdisciplinary dialogue to simply state this, without at least trying to understand how this can be. Someone I know talks a lot about the tradition. Agreed. But the tradition is richer than philosophers philosophizing, mathematicians mathematizing, experimenters experimenting, politicians politicizing, depending on one's departmental (compartmentalized) slant. Richer by far, I say, because all of these are co-mingled, mixed together, but in a hierarchical systematic way that can (or at least could) be elucidated (not merely stated as if self-evident).
But I will never write it anyway.

12/28/2005 08:08:00 PM | |

Thursday, December 22, 2005 

Theory and Reality

I was thinking. . .
While doing my lunchtime reading I stumbled across a lovely little book with BBC interviews of physicists about "string theory". Personally, with the minimal knowledge I have of it, I find it very compelling. The mathematics is way beyond me, but the basic ideas I find interesting (aside - I plan on eventually remedying the defect in mathematical knowledge - eventually). String theory basically breaks down like this:
Wait. Back up. Preview. Remember in general relativity how Einstein loves his gravitational theory because it is based on a geometrical interpretation of space time in four dimensions? Recall how gravitation of massive bodies 'bends' the continuum to create fields? Even if we look at the field equations we see that one half, at least, is geometrical. Also recall how in quantum physics energy is measured as only a difference in energy, (per Shulamite's complaints of energy) whereas in general relativity absolute energy is important. Finally, remember the difficulties in reconciling quantum mechanics and relativity.
In quantum physics the basic particles are treated as point-like entities without extension. This is false. Everyone knows that this is false. The basic building blocks of atoms (protons, etc.) are made up of quarks. In string theory a proton is made of the same three quarks as regular particle physics, but on a 'string'. (usually a closed loop) In fact all of space-time and all 'fundamental' particles are made of little Planck-sized strings. The benefit of this is a purely geometrical interpretation of the cosmos, which I find appealing. There are drawbacks, though...
First, the cosmos must not be four-dimensional. Instead, string theory dictates that there must be nine spatial dimensions and one time dimension. Ten dimensional space-time is very unattractive to some, but the particular mathematical choices of string theory (certain ones, that is) show how six of the spatial dimensions must 'curl up' into little tiny six-dimensional mathematical topologies, that would be undetectable. I guess if it isn't hard to swallow four dimensions, then it shouldn't be too hard to swallow ten (especially when six of them are considered in a size scale of the Planck size). Secondly, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that this should be the case. No experiments to confirm predictions, or any of the sort that is usually required by the metrical reductionist scientific method. Again, I find this rather appealing. Top-down is the way to go in science (generically).
There are also some good things. Unlike regular quantum gravity equations - that always give you the answer: infinity - string theory has quantum gravitational equations that are actually calcuable. Additionally, string theory describes the cosmos as entirely made up of strings. These strings vibrate in different resonances. These resonances make up different particles and forces. So we can imagine the universe as a giant symphony of resonating strings, all playing the chords of existence - I find this an elegant and attractive - if medieval - conception of nature. Opposing the brutality of force and inertia we have the harmony of creation. . . I daydream . . . innumerable nearly-infinitesimal orchestral choirs of strings. . .
Like Einstein, I think physics should be beautiful and elegant, and that is more the mark of truth than laboratory quantization...

12/22/2005 08:13:00 PM | |

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 

Random Thought

I was thinking... no musing....
Why is it in our culture that people make a big deal out of turning a certain age? Does it really make a difference whether one is forty or thirty-nine? But they sell those black balloons, and cards that only 'celebrate' the tens. I was wondering, why not use numbers that are unique? Why not use prime numbers for every major annual event for men! No driving at sixteen, that's just two to the fourth! Drive at seventeen! Vote and smoke at nineteen; drink at twenty-three. Become a representative at twenty-nine; Senator or President at thirty-seven. Retire at seventy-one. Why worry about forty being middle aged, when forty-one is prime? It works for children - start school at five, become a teenager at thirteen.
I know I know, the system has flaws, like "when does my senior discount start?" but trust me, there is a prime for everyone (like 53 for the AARP members).

12/21/2005 08:35:00 AM | |

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 

Quote of the day

The basic problem in modern physics is that these two pillars are incompatible. If you try to combine gravity with quantum mechanics, you find that you get nonesense from a mathematical point of view. You write down formulae which ought to be quantum gravitational formulae and you get all kinds of infinities. It's pretty discomforting for a physicist to find infinities in the middle of his calculations.

-Edward Witten

I was thinking. . .
Why do we even bother discussing things that have no bearing in scientific fact in order to make scientific sense of the universe? Well, because we have to. Take, for example, the radiation of dark bodies. Boltzmann fixed the constant of proportionality by experiment, and found that the radiation was proportional to temperature raised to the fourth power. Okay fine and good. Then Planck founded quantum theory, and it was found that the constant, fixed by experiment, is really based solely on Planck's constant. Beautiful theories finding that nature agrees with them? So what is the real dichotomy in modern physics?
The problem is not exactly as Witten writes it. Yes, it is true that the calculations go strangly awry when quantum mechanics and relativity are combined. But look at the theories closely. Einstein begins with a philosophical principle - the principle of equivalence. He uses some pretty and pretty elegant mathematics, and shortly thereafter we have general relativity. Quantum mechanics starts with observed facts - that energy only comes in discrete packets. Loads of not so pretty math follows. But what relativity has as its strongest point - a philosophic basis - quantum mechanics lacks. There is no compelling reason why we should believe in quanta, other than observation. What physics needs is a PHYSICS (in the manner of Aristotle). It needs a compelling reason to think that this is the way the cosmos (in deference to Shulamite) should be.
aside - energy has mass according to general relativity. In quantum mechanics, the messenger particles that carry energy (photons) can't have mass because they travel at the speed of light. Now where are all of our ugly infinities coming from?

12/20/2005 08:07:00 PM | |

Tuesday, December 06, 2005 

Three Brief Points

I was thinking...

While some of us pretend to be philosophers, mathematicians, and so forth (when anyone who knows me knows that I am a blue collar working stiff) there seems to be three points I'd like to keep in mind in my long winded inquiries here:
1) All true things, insofar as they are true, are unified by this truth - even if this is transubstantiation and Apollonius and muon decay rates.
2) To quote: "God is a mathematician". Laws (of nature and otherwise) have more of the force of unbreakability the more they approach mathematic exactitude. This is true of nature and human positive law.
3) Tradition isn't better because its older, nor is novelty better because of newness. The historical and culture advances in human understanding have to maintain what is true always. All ideas - both old and new - should be scrutinized for their truth and not accepted on mere authority nor because of new technical jargon (this applies to all disciplines).
[aside - it is pretty bad when the spell check tries to replace (the possibly misspelled) 'transubstantiation' with 'transvestite'.]

12/06/2005 08:32:00 PM | |

Thursday, December 01, 2005 

If IDers only knew

I was thinking...
There has been this 'great' debate recently on evolution and so-called intelligent design. While the crux of many well-meaning 'Christian' arguments against atheist evolution (whatever that means) is based on the appeal to the extraordinary circumstances that would have to be present in order for specification to take place (and for life in general to arise), I got to thinking, this is a pretty microscopic horizon to be considering, you lazy IDers. Look at the odd set of coincidences necessary for the cosmos - then talk shit about evolution. For example:
Grant, for the sake of argument, the big bang is an explanation for the beginning of the universe. Alright - BANG - but what if the bang isn't big enough? Instead of the relatively uniform density of stellar matter you have CRUNCH due to gravitation. What if the bang is too big? Whooosh - too rapid acceleration away from each other prevents the forming of galaxies, stars, planets and so forth - hence - no us. What if matter is perfectly evenly distributed at the big bang. Instead of galaxies, stars and so forth you have uniform density and nothing different than anything else. Pretty large coincidence, no? And again:
What if matter at the beginning of the universe was too clumpy (like bad gravy)? Instead of pretty uniform galaxies, stars, planets, you would have gigantic galactic sized black holes sucking in everything mercilessly (and not planets, stars, and thus, no us). Awfully lucky, aren't we? Oh, and again:
What if neutrinos didn't have the properties they have. Pretty much no mass, speed approaching the speed of light. In fact, one neutrino could penetrate and entire light year of solid lead, without being diverted. You may think, and rightly, what does this particle have to do with me? Well, I'll tell you. In the center of a star that has expended most of its nuclear fuel (read: hydrogen) neutrinos react to create supernovas (exploding stars) instead of the collapse due to gravity that would cause a black hole. Without supernovas, heavier elements than hydrogen wouldn't exist outside of stars. Guess what - no planets then and therefore, no us. Oh wait, there's more:
Chemically, all living things are carbon-based. Where does all this carbon come from? In the nuclear reactor that is the center of a star three helium atoms sans electrons have to collide at very high speeds - an extremely rare occurrence - 'cause its easier to crash two than three. Think about it, what if the laws of physics prohibited a crash of more than two. No carbon. That would be pretty rough for us. Nice coincidence? I think. But wait....
One last example. I talk a lot about relativity and quantum mechanics in my posts (mea culpa). Think about this, however: Quantum uncertainty only applies to little tiny itty bitty things. Relativity only applies to HUGE MASSIVE FAST-MOVING things (as gravitation increases the effects of relativity [read general relativity all over again]) Again, by 'applies', I mean is noticeable. What if the initial conditions of the big bang were different. Many cosmologists have studied this, and they found "universes" which didn't have a realm of classical (Newtonian) physics on any scale - all was quantum. In fact that was the vast majority of them. Imagine your beer suddenly blinking out of existence in your hand, because it was subject to quantum uncertainty. That would be bad. But, that is the more statistically likely - if we had to make a table of possible universes - in fact, hugely more probable. Lucky, aren't we? Our universe has classical physics at our scale.
I guess all this is to say - shut up ID. Biology isn't even a science anyway [being the least mathematical of all of the so-called 'hard' sciences]. If you want to fight for intelligent design, pick a ring where you have a chance, 'cause chances are big in the realm of cosmology. The odds of me evolving from primordial ooze are great in comparison to there even being an earth in the first place. Evolution [Darwinian] versus there even being a coherent universe in the way ours is? I will take that bet any day.

12/01/2005 08:27:00 PM | |