Re: [Wittrs] Hawking (in CHORA) and the Science/Mathematics Establishment
- From: Han Geurdes <han.geurdes@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 08:24:58 +0200
John,
Thanks. Of course I will be pleased if you try to read that paper. I can
give you any assistance necessary to understand and to make up your own
mind. I think it is a mathematical case of a Wittgensteinian research into
'grammar'. The orthodoxy in physics claims the description called classical
physics to be closed for the descritption called quantum physics. It turns
out that they have common 'grammar'.
Now did I understand it correctly that language with common grammar
describes things that are related in reality. In addition I can show you a
paper that demonstrates that classical probability theory may violate CHSH.
Hence, there is also no clear demarcation between classical probability
and the quantum world. This supports the previous conclusion.
Being a former biochemist (Isaac Asimov was my hero when I was young ) but
still able to think in those terms I tried to apply the previous ideas to
something like gravitropism in plants or the behavior of cells in
microgravity i.e. astrobiology or space medicine.
Well, I hope that you find your way in the gravity to quantum paper. And I
also hope you agree that an application of an idea makes it stronger (and
interesting).
Cordially
Han
On 30 May 2011 03:47, John Phillip DeMouy <jpdemouy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Han,
> Thank you for that. I've read through it quickly and inattentively to
> get a "feel" for it but will be trying to read through more carefully
> later this week. What I could understand interested me but I should
> confess off the bat that, while I am not completely ignorant in such
> matters, some of the mathematics is certainly over my head. So, I'll be
> trying to understand as much as I can about the relationships between
> various equations and theories - often taking your word for it - and
> trying to grasp their relevance and conclusions as best I can with such
> a partial understanding.
>
> I do grasp the general idea that a later scientific innovation might
> actually be deducible from earlier theories, even if no one at the time
> thought to make the inference. And I find that a very interesting
> historical point. I've recently been discussing elsewhere the
> possibility of complementary relationships between Wittgenstein and
> Historicist approaches to philosophical problems and this paper
> therefore finds a sympathetic ear. But I apologize in advance that my
> understanding will necessarily be limited.
>
>
> Take care,
> John
>
>
> On Sun, 2011-05-29 at 21:40 +0200, Han Geurdes wrote:
> >
> > John
> >
> > Agreed. Please read my paper on arXiv about this confusion in
> > phsyics.
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3348
> >
> > This stresses the need for philosophy of physics. Because if,
> > mathematicall, Dirac's quantum relativistic equation is intrinsic in
> > Einstein's gravity field equations, then this represents a breach with
> > the usual interpretation of classic and quantum physics. It
> > negates prof. Hawking's point of view about the observational basis of
> > phsycis and asks a question about the grammar of the 'languages' of
> > classical and quantum physics.
> >
> >
> > On 28 May 2011 17:51, John Phillip DeMouy <jpdemouy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-05-28 at 01:55 -0400, Osher Doctorow wrote:
> > >
> > > My favorite writer John Le Carre (at least, during his
> > "Smiley" period
> > > of writing - his latest books are not comparable to those)
> > or John
> > > David Cornwell as he is really named, is implicitly the most
> > > Anti-Bureaucracy philosopher in fiction of the last 60
> > years.
> >
> > If you are not familiar with it, the British sitcom, "Yes,
> > Prime
> > Minister", nee "Yes, Minister", is also a depressing (but
> > amusing) look
> > at the civil service and the narcissism prevalent therein.
> > I'd highly
> > recommend it!
> > >
> > > There is a similarity between Le Carre's criticism of
> > Political
> > > Bureaucracies and my criticism of the
> > Science-Engineering/Mathematics
> > > Establishment Bureaucracy. The recent attacks on Philosophy
> > by Hawking
> > > are only a symptom of what appears to be a general
> > devaluation of
> > > outsiders by Bureaucrats. It is also common in the Health
> > field
> > > (Medicine, Nursing, Medical Social Work, etc.) and even the
> > Military
> > > field and Legal(Law) field.
> > >
> > > What are the Motivations of Bureaucrats in all of the above
> > fields?
> > > Here are my candidates for their Motivations:
> > >
> > > 1. "My Career Only" orientation.
> > > 2. "Me Only" orientation.
> > > 3. "My family or relatives only" orientation.
> > > 4. "My power only" orientation.
> > > 5. "My pleasure only" orientation.
> > >
> > > I summarise 1-5 above as "Power-Crazy Hedonism" more or
> > less.
> > >
> > > There are certain TECHNICAL aids/supports which promote 1-5
> > above:
> > >
> > > 6. Use of a language that most people in the nation in
> > question have
> > > difficulty learning - such as legalese, groupthink or
> > groupspeak,
> > > un-summarised or untranslated quantitative language (into
> > English for
> > > example, even approximately or "roughly")
> > >
> > > 7. The tendency of some Philosophers of Science to imitate
> > physical
> > > scientists or accept their theoretical claims without
> > examining
> > > contradictions, anomalies, paradoxes, lack of clarity, even
> > lack of
> > > overt definitions.
> >
> >
> > This reminds me of an excellent article by the noted
> > Wittgensteinian,
> > Peter Hacker, who is a philosopher not so shy about
> > challenging
> > "authorities".
> >
> > http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/scr/hacker/docs/Relevance%20of%20W%
> > 27s%20phil.%
> > 20of%20psychol.%20to%20science.pdf
> >
> > Here are his concluding remarks:
> >
> > Wittgenstein is sometimes criticized for being a
> > philosophical
> > quietist. Nothing could be
> > further from the truth. For he gave philosophy a license to
> > criticize
> > scientists. He showed why
> > philosophy has a right to interfere with empirical sciences ?
> > for its
> > role is as a conceptual critic.
> > Philosophy is a tribunal of sense, before which erring
> > scientists can be
> > arraigned for transgressing the
> > bounds of sense. They can be arraigned, not by criticizing
> > them for
> > deviating from ordinary usage ?
> > which deviations may be wholly innocuous ? but for invoking
> > ordinary
> > usage and then misusing the
> > terms invoked, through misunderstanding and conceptual
> > confusion.
> > Philosophy is no policeman, but
> > an impartial judge. Scientists must be condemned out of their
> > own mouth
> > ? by demonstrating the
> > incoherence of their assertions. It is not the task of
> > philosophy to
> > sing the Hallelujah chorus to
> > science or to police its pronouncement. It is rather to
> > identify
> > conceptual confusions that are rife in
> > science, and to eradicate the scientific myth-making, no less
> > than the
> > anti-scientific myth-making, that
> > is endemic in the culture in which we all live today.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 8. The tendency of non-scientists or non-specialists in the
> > above
> > > fields to WORSHIP scientists, lawyers, medical doctors,
> > politicians,
> > > and so on.
> > >
> > > I do not have time at present to go deeper into each of the
> > above
> > > factors or provide more examples, but hopefully I will be
> > able to
> > > consider that later.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > >
> > > Osher Doctorow
> > >
> > > Messages to the list will be archived at
> > > http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/archives/chora.html
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wittrs mailing list
> > > Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> >
> http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wittrs mailing list
> > Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __._,_.___
> > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New
> > Topic
> > Messages in this topic (4)
> > Recent Activity:
> > * New Members 1
> > Visit Your Group
> > Yahoo! Groups
> > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest ? Unsubscribe ? Terms of Use
> >
> > .
> >
> > __,_._,___
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wittrs mailing list
> > Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wittrs mailing list
> Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://undergroundwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/wittrs_undergroundwiki.org
>
>
Other related posts:
