The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy  (Read 12360 times)

Offline Kedar Joshi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« on: 11/11/2004 16:07:35 »
The NSTP ( Non - Spatial Thinking Process ) theory, a published invention of Kedar Joshi ( b. 1979 ) (i.e.Myself), a Cambridge, UK  based philosopher, is a position that, in computer terminology, regards Universe as a Non - Spatial Computer and Space as a Virtual Reality (UNSCSVR). This model of reality can resolve the mysteries surrounding quantum mechanics ( e.g. the wave - particle duality, the EPR ( Einstein - Podolsky - Rosen ) paradox, the Schrodinger's cat paradox ), Zeno's paradoxes, the biological phenomena of 'protein folding' and 'cell development and differentiation', relativity, action at a distance ( which is a rehabilitated mystery through Joshi's work ), etc. All these mysterious phenomena are, in fact, multiple aspects of a singular underlying structure, composed of four conceptual elements :

1.impossibility of spatial mechanism (This one is further based on the Joshian conjecture of no spatial mechanism. In some cases it is extremely strong (99.999..%), while in some cases it is not very strong.)  
 
2.space as a form of illusion

3.phenomenal mind as non - spatial

4.intelligent orderly execution of spatial events through non - spatial mechanism

The NSTP theory is the unique theoretical representation of that structure. The NSTP theory is a philosophical / scientific masterkey that unifies apparently diverse phenomena through its powerful non - spatial mechanical framework.

The NSTP theory is based on

A] Three axioms ( i.e. self - evident truths ) :

(One's objection that these propositions are not axiomatic is nothing but one's inability to perceive the truth. These propositions are clearly axiomatic to the author.)

1) Phenomenal mind ( or feelings or qualia ) is non - spatial. i.e. No kind of feeling, e.g. feeling of colour blue, can be represented by any spatial structure.

2) All kinds of experiences, even thoughts I know I am having, are feelings or qualias.

3) A phenomenally conscious self is a temporal stream of non - spatial phenomenal mental events. ( A Non - Spatial Thinking Process (NSTP), as every feeling is itself a thought or idea. )

B] And two hypotheses :

1) Space ( as a room or void out there : whether three or higher dimensional, bounded or unbounded ) is a virtual reality ( i.e. a form or projection of non - spatial mind, a kind of feeling ).

2) Individual or local NSTPs are orderly ( or thoughtfully ) executed by a gigantic, central, or global NSTP ( rather a group of NSTPs ), representing superhuman thoughts or ideas, in order to account for the order in the universe, e.g. the gravitational phenomenon. ( The central non - spatial superhuman thoughts are processed in zero time because of no spatial limitations; e.g. in space it takes time to transfer data from one spatial location to another. Although a conscious human is nothing but an NSTP it is, at least partially, conceptually, as opposed to physically, bound to the spatial biochemical brain, and thus the core NSTPs introduce time lag in processing of individual NSTPs, where appropriate. )

Further, the existence of the central NSTPs is assumed for two reasons :

i) In any machine where its peripherals are not intelligent enough to modulate ( or be able to account for ) their own behaviour there has to be some central intelligent part in the machine to bring out the peripheral happenings or phenomena.

ii) As the laws of physics ( or any other than those of pure mathematics or logic ) are not logically or conceptually necessary there has to be a way to change the ways individual NSTPs are generated ( or produced or executed ). And for that to be possible there has to be some central intelligence existing in the form of ( non - spatial ) mental events, which itself could be modulated to alter the modulation of individual NSTPs.

Thus, in computer terminology, in the NSTP model of reality the hardware of the universe is composed of non - spatial feelings, while its central software is made of superhuman thoughts, and the peripheral software is made of non - superhuman ones.

Now take for instance the EPR paradox or some equivalent mysterious experimental quantum phenomenon ( e.g. In 1997 experiments were conducted in which light particles ( photons ) originated under certain conditions and travelled in opposite directions to detectors located about seven miles apart. The amazing results indicated that the photons interacted or communicated with one another instantly or in no time. See Robert Nadeau, and Menas Kafatos, 1999. The non - local universe. 1st ed. Oxford : OUP. Back page. ). According to the NSTP theory this is no longer a mystery as the behaviour of photons is just a form of illusion, a virtual reality ( to non - spatial mind/s ) which is actually modulated ( or orderly executed ) by hidden / core non - spatial superhuman mental events. ( Again in analogy with spatial desktop computers such a photonic behaviour on the computer monitor screen has no slightest mystery surrounding it, as it is just a changing pattern of pixels which is modulated by some hidden software processes. )

The NSTP theory maintains both idealism ( as reality is exclusively mental ) and realism ( as the material entities we see out there do have a real existence in the core central non - spatial mind/s, which would exist independent of any other mind perceiving them ), and both mentalism ( as reality is exclusively mental ) and materialism ( as mind is real, it is physical / material ).


'Philosophy is written in this grand book - I mean the universe - which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it.'
- Galileo Galilei

In reality the universe has no geometry.
- Kedar Joshi
The Superultramodern Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica : The Foundations of Superultramodern Physics, Mathematical science, and Philosophy.

Most of the mysteries of the universe are out of the human belief that any mechanism has to be spatial. In reality the mechanism of the universe is non - spatial, whose appropriate understanding shall resolve those mysteries.
- Kedar Joshi (K.J.)

All science is either mathematics ( characterised by utmost certainty, in case of pure mathematics, and precision ) or philosophy ( lacking what maths essentially has ).
- K.J. ( Inventor of Conmathematics : Conceptual Mathematics)

To be is to be intelligent.
To be is to be a machine.
To be is to be non - spatial.
To be real is to be physical / material.
All machines understand. However, only non - spatial machines understand concepts. - K.J.

Superultramodern science begins where ultramodern science stops. (The prefix 'super' means above/beyond.) In physics, its basic principle is that reality is non - spatial. At its heart is the NSTP theory which unifies many apparently diverse phenomena and solves most of the most challenging problems in modern science.
- K.J.


Is the Universe a computer ?
- John Barrow

Yes, the universe is a gigantic non – spatial computer, free of all spatial constraints ( e.g. time to fetch data from memory, limited memory, possible faults in hardware and / or software ). The spatial world is a virtual reality, a mere illusion to non – spatial observer/s. The universal computer hardware is composed of non – spatial mental events. The universal software is a group of non – spatial computer programs. The laws of physics, being logically unnecessary, are changeable rules in the universal computational programs. The NSTP ( Non – Spatial Thinking Process ) theory is the abstract mathematical description of this universal computer. In other words, NSTP is a computer theory of the universe. And the ultimate triumph of human achievement is to be able to manipulate the universal non – spatial software in order to obtain maximum benefit. Though the road to such triumph is not yet clear, its beginning is set out in the ‘Superultramodern Principia’.
- Kedar Joshi

All the theoretical physicists today are being deceived by the smart non – spatial computational processes that create the spatial virtual reality. The non – spatial universal software knows general relativity, for example, and produces appearances, that confirm with the scientific experimental observations, as if the general relativity is true.

Virtually all of the ideas in modern physics are severely incomplete on their physical ( or ontological ) side, e.g. general relativity. Some of them are ( likely to be ) wrong in any sense, e.g. the particle theories’ explanation of the force of attraction, the concept of graviton, or the string theories. So unless and until revolutionised on a grand scale modern physics can never reach the zenith : realising the theory of everything.

Most of the pure mathematics today is not worthy of being hailed as ‘pure’ ( or genuine ). In fact, it is applied ( or fuzzy ), something whose existence is mere for the sake of convenience with no intrinsic meaning at all. And sometimes this meaninglessness causes severe absurdities. ( e.g. the Poincare conjecture ).

To sum up, at present, theoretical physics and pure mathematics are less theoretical ( or pure or conceptual ) and more practical. They are notoriously indifferent of the semantic content and conceptual validity of their models. This indifference is leading them to wrong directions. If they wish to get on the right track, if they desire to succeed, and if they ever seek the holy grail, they must open their doors for a new brighter light to come in. Opening the doors is a revolutionary act, a paradigm shift, which Superultramodern science endeavours to achieve in the 21st century.
- Kedar Joshi

What are space and time ?

Space and time have two kinds of existence, which I state in the decreasing order of certainty. 1) They are experiences existing in the form of non-spatial feelings. 2) They are superhuman ideas also existing in the form of non-spatial feelings. Space and time are forms of illusion to non-spatial observer/s.
- Kedar Joshi


All meaningful theories speak about reality, and thus are verifiable / falsifiable. However, they may not be verifiable / falsifiable at present due to limited human knowledge, powers, and, in general, progress. ( It is possible that they are forever unverifiable / unfalsifiable for humans. ) And this human inability does not at all mean that such theories are unscientific or absurd.
- Kedar Joshi


I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favour of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.
- Werner Heisenberg

The smallest units of matter are indeed ideas existing in the form of non – spatial feelings, the ideas that are inferior to the Platonic realm of eternal mathematical truths and ideas, which exist in some unknown physical form.
- Kedar Joshi


I am afraid of this word reality.
- Arthur Eddington

I am so pleased with the non – spatial reality.
- Kedar Joshi


Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.
- Niels Bohr

I am not shocked by quantum theory ( rather, quantum phenomenon ) as I have understood it.
- Joshi


Whence arises all that order and beauty we see in the world ?
- Isaac Newton

It arises through non – spatial powers and non – spatial superhuman mind which is too profound to be fully intelligible to humans.
- Joshi


‘For physics to be able to accommodate something that is as foreign to our current physical picture as is the phenomenon of consciousness, we must expect a profound change - one that alters the very underpinnings of our philosophical viewpoint as to the nature of reality.’…
- Sir Roger Penrose ( Shadows of the Mind, 1995 )

‘It is quite likely that the 21st century will reveal even more wonderful insights than those that we have been blessed with in the 20th. But for this to happen, we shall need powerful new ideas, which will take us in directions significantly different from those currently being pursued. Perhaps what we mainly need is some subtle change in perspective - something that we all have missed…’

- Sir Roger Penrose ( The Road to Reality, 2004 )

The most intelligent and powerful machine is not spatial. It is non – spatial.

- Kedar Joshi

Ultramodern physics is absolutely concerned with spatial structures and mechanisms. The fundamental change is nothing but to understand that underlying these apparent spatial structures and mechanisms lie non – spatial structures and mechanism, far intelligent and mysterious. For modern physics to be able to accommodate something like the phenomenon of consciousness ( and demystify the mysteries including quantum theory ) it must undergo the fundamental change, a new 21st century revolution, and transform itself to Superultramodern Physics.
- Joshi


‘… but it is certainly the case that, though we know how to do the sums, we do not understand the ( quantum ) theory as fully as we should. We shall see in what follows that important interpretative issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their eventual settlement not only physical insight but also metaphysical decision.’

- Sir John Polkinghorne,
Quantum Theory : a very short introduction


I can say that now the physical insight has been obtained and the ( so called ) metaphysical decision has been taken.
- Kedar Joshi


'To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.'
- Charles Darwin, On Natural Selection

'Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.'
- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

Darwinian theory of natural selection is not a complete theory of evolution, rather far from it. There is, in addition, yet a dramatically different kind of natural selection where the non – spatial universal intelligence ( or software ) modulates the ( conceptually ) spatial species ( or structures ) and consequently selects them in order to execute the plan of design. The Darwinian natural selection is Spatial Natural Selection ( SNS ), while the later one, being a specific case or application of the NSTP theory, is Non – Spatial ( Computational ) Natural Selection ( NSNS ), which should now be called as Joshian Natural Selection. NSNS, through its idea of non – spatial computational intelligence creating orderly spatial illusion, answers the hardest biological problems such as the problem of cell development and differentiation ( ) or the problem of newly minted protein settling into the correct shape ( ), which the Darwinian theory of evolution, or, in general, the SNS completely fails to answer. And it is very clear that the Joshian ( Non – Spatial ) Theory of Evolution is at the heart of evolution, not the Darwinian ( spatial ) theory of evolution. In effect, the Darwinian theory of evolution is severely incomplete and hardly, if at all, answers how life develops.

The watchmaker is not blind but extremely intelligent, powerful, and a great foreseer.
- Joshi


Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I have no doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot totally reveal himself all at once because of his large size. We can see him only the way a louse that is sitting on him would.
- Albert Einstein

I think I have seen the lion face to face. However, as yet I cannot fully defeat him.
- Joshi


In the 16th century Copernicus made a shocking claim that earth moves around the sun. In the 20th century De broglie suggested that subatomic particles could also have the properties of wave. In the 21st century I propose a revolutionary model in which space is a form of illusion, and the universe is a gigantic non – spatial computer, the model that unifies many mysterious phenomena. Great intellectual revolutions almost always take place by destroying common sense.

- Kedar Joshi


As science progresses common sense collapses. The progress of science relies on revolutions, and revolutions rely on failure or destruction of common sense. Those who do not understand this philosophy fight against revolutions for common sense and hinder the progress of science. They are the true villains of knowledge and science indeed.
- Joshi



The 21st century shall witness the greatest intellectual revolution of all times !
-Kedar Joshi
« Last Edit: 29/11/2004 12:49:44 by Kedar Joshi »


 

Offline Simon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #1 on: 16/11/2004 13:21:33 »
I'd be interested to hear how your theory "explains" protein folding.

Simon
 

Offline Kedar Joshi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #2 on: 16/11/2004 17:07:30 »
Thank you for your interest. The NSTP theory explains the intelligent way proteins fold up with no apparent spatial structure and mechanism responsible for the intelligent activity. (Assuming the NSTP conjecture that there could never be any spatial mechanism responsible for the intelligent activity of protein folding) the activity of protein folding is a mere spatial illusion to non-spatial observer/s, where the illusion is modulated by a super - non -spatial being. The non-spatial mechanism is stated in the first post.
 

Offline Simon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #3 on: 17/11/2004 09:54:04 »
But protein folding does not demonstrate "intelligent" activity. Folding is driven thermodynamically through a number of processes that result in the "funnelling" of interactions until the energy minima is found. Similarly the use of chaperone and scavenging molecules help to facilitate efficient structure formation and if necessary remove misfolded poly-peptides. I cannot see how there is any need for some form of outside "help".

Simon
 

Offline Sandwalker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 83
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #4 on: 17/11/2004 16:55:55 »
quote:
(One's objection that these propositions are not axiomatic is nothing but one's inability to perceive the truth. These propositions are clearly axiomatic to the author.)


How to gain friends and influence people! Tell them their stupid.

Exactly where and how does the 'Non - Spatial Thinking Process' happen, if 'The central non - spatial superhuman thoughts are processed in zero time because of no spatial limitations'.
« Last Edit: 17/11/2004 17:00:00 by Sandwalker »
 

Offline Kedar Joshi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #5 on: 17/11/2004 22:33:43 »
Please consult "George Johnson's, A shortcut through time" for the problem of newly minted protein, which he regards as the hardest problem in the universe. There are some other famous books as well like "The 20 biggest problems in science". I forgot the name of the author. Thank you.

quote:
Originally posted by Simon

But protein folding does not demonstrate "intelligent" activity. Folding is driven thermodynamically through a number of processes that result in the "funnelling" of interactions until the energy minima is found. Similarly the use of chaperone and scavenging molecules help to facilitate efficient structure formation and if necessary remove misfolded poly-peptides. I cannot see how there is any need for some form of outside "help".

Simon

 

Offline Kedar Joshi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #6 on: 17/11/2004 22:37:55 »
I'm not interested in demonstrating others' stupidity. I just wanted to be straightforward, which I think is essential in science.

The question 'where the central NSTP(s) happen' is absurd as space does not exist as a real entity. It happens at the same time with non-superhuman thoughts as a kind of abstraction or interpretation of them.
 

quote:
Originally posted by Sandwalker

quote:
(One's objection that these propositions are not axiomatic is nothing but one's inability to perceive the truth. These propositions are clearly axiomatic to the author.)


How to gain friends and influence people! Tell them their stupid.

Exactly where and how does the 'Non - Spatial Thinking Process' happen, if 'The central non - spatial superhuman thoughts are processed in zero time because of no spatial limitations'.


 

Offline Simon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #7 on: 18/11/2004 10:32:53 »
quote:
Please consult "George Johnson's, A shortcut through time" for the problem of newly minted protein, which he regards as the hardest problem in the universe. There are some other famous books as well like "The 20 biggest problems in science".


 I am a structural biochemist, I know full well what the problem of protein folding is. My question is related to how this "NTSP" theory impacts the science, and therefore how it is useful. Can you give a more detailed example with perhaps reference to some peer-reviewed articles regarding this theory?

Simon
 

Offline Kedar Joshi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #8 on: 18/11/2004 15:42:23 »
However, from your following message it seems that you think there is no problem of protein folding.
-Joshi  

But protein folding does not demonstrate "intelligent" activity. Folding is driven thermodynamically through a number of processes that result in the "funnelling" of interactions until the energy minima is found. Similarly the use of chaperone and scavenging molecules help to facilitate efficient structure formation and if necessary remove misfolded poly-peptides. I cannot see how there is any need for some form of outside "help". Simon


quote:
Originally posted by Simon

quote:
Please consult "George Johnson's, A shortcut through time" for the problem of newly minted protein, which he regards as the hardest problem in the universe. There are some other famous books as well like "The 20 biggest problems in science".


 I am a structural biochemist, I know full well what the problem of protein folding is. My question is related to how this "NTSP" theory impacts the science, and therefore how it is useful. Can you give a more detailed example with perhaps reference to some peer-reviewed articles regarding this theory?

Simon

 

Offline Sandwalker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 83
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #9 on: 18/11/2004 19:36:53 »
Zero time - that would mean no change therefore no process! For your NSTP's to happen they must exist where some form of change, that is time, is allowed.

A process is change! Change means time flows!

quote:
3) A phenomenally conscious self is a temporal stream of non - spatial phenomenal mental events. ( A Non - Spatial Thinking Process (NSTP), as every feeling is itself a thought or idea. )


The above axiom speaks of a 'temporal stream of ... events', this is a description of flowing time is it not.

I think your theory is fundamentaly flawed.

But then I could be wrong, I'm only human, with limited comprehension of the universe('s) as a whole.

Does your theory make any quantitive predictions that can measured. This would then make it worthy of investigation. Until then its as good as my theory for quantum gravity, which sucks, (pun intended).
« Last Edit: 18/11/2004 19:47:47 by Sandwalker »
 

Offline Simon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #10 on: 19/11/2004 12:49:59 »
At risk of wasting my time with this discussion:

 We cannot exactly model the mechanism of protein folding, however we are fairly sure of at least a number of important influencing factors. As such it is this "partial" understanding that drives the research simply because we KNOW our models are not fool proof and hence we experiment further.

 As far as I understand from what you've written above, this "theory" is simply an atheistic re-hash of the classical "God of the gaps" argument so favoured by those whose world-view relies on the mystical. As "NSTP" does not drive or encourage research, I question its usefulness.

Simon
 

Offline Kedar Joshi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #11 on: 19/11/2004 14:58:26 »
I beg your pardon but it sounds like you are completely ignorant of the so called philosophical challenges to modern science, in fronts of quantum mechanics, the nature of space, time, and matter, etc.
Before attempting to discuss the NSTP theory it's better to first get used to the works of scientists like Roger Penrose, Julian Barbour, where the former one is so worried with the nature of consciousness while the later one regards time as an illusion and seeks to revolutionise physics. Any ways ultimately they have to get to the NSTP theory as there is no escape. It's obviously very difficult to understand the NSTP theory, and if not understood it's more obvious that it causes serious confusion. Thank you.  

quote:
Originally posted by Simon

At risk of wasting my time with this discussion:

 We cannot exactly model the mechanism of protein folding, however we are fairly sure of at least a number of important influencing factors. As such it is this "partial" understanding that drives the research simply because we KNOW our models are not fool proof and hence we experiment further.

 As far as I understand from what you've written above, this "theory" is simply an atheistic re-hash of the classical "God of the gaps" argument so favoured by those whose world-view relies on the mystical. As "NSTP" does not drive or encourage research, I question its usefulness.

Simon

 

Offline Ultima

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
    • View Profile
    • My Homepage
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #12 on: 19/11/2004 16:56:42 »
Guys this peep is a Troll leave him alone..!

http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/byzantium/55/troll.htm

wOw the world spins?
 

Offline Sandwalker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 83
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #13 on: 26/11/2004 00:13:20 »
quote:
'you are completely ignorant'
quote:
'ultimately they have to get to the NSTP theory, there is no escape.'
quote:
'It's obviously very difficult to understand the NSTP theory'
quote:
'If not understood it's more obvious that it causes serious confusion.

You really know how to make friends and influence people.

All I hear is arrogance!

Find a philosophical/metaphysical forum they might be intrested.
« Last Edit: 26/11/2004 00:20:02 by Sandwalker »
 

Offline ebzZzZ

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
    • http://www.rgouin.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #14 on: 26/11/2004 03:29:41 »
protein folding is a many realities process to it's lowest energy state, this is the reason they need super computers
to resolve when it just happens in the body, the same process
powers photosynthesis, which again they will not replicate
without an understanding of the many realities aspect of the
life process.
 

Offline Darken Rahl

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
    • http://www.yes.i.have.a.homepage.co.uk.org.net.com
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #15 on: 26/11/2004 16:28:07 »
So Basically what's actually happening here is that you've invented a very complicated theroy which, in your mind, explains everything (maybe not, i'm generalising) and you claim to be a scientist and philosipher. so why, when people suggest to you that your theory is flawed, do you simply ignore them and refuse to change your views? Surely if you're really a scienctist and philosipher you should be open to new ideas and change?
Or maybe you're just desperate for attention?
Which seems more likely to everyone else?

Fear the Extra-Temporal Chrono-Bananas
 

Offline Kedar Joshi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #16 on: 26/11/2004 21:22:48 »
quote:
Originally posted by Darken Rahl

So Basically what's actually happening here is that you've invented a very complicated theroy which, in your mind, explains everything (maybe not, i'm generalising) and you claim to be a scientist and philosipher. so why, when people suggest to you that your theory is flawed, do you simply ignore them and refuse to change your views? Surely if you're really a scienctist and philosipher you should be open to new ideas and change?
Or maybe you're just desperate for attention?
Which seems more likely to everyone else?

Fear the Extra-Temporal Chrono-Bananas



Do you mean that as these people suggest that my theory is flawed I should better change my views ? If yes, then I've to say that their suggestion does not prove that it's flawed.
(What you're saying sounds to be in favour of the idea that as 99 out of 100 persons believe that proposition A is true while only 1 out of 100 persons believe that proposition B is true, proposition A is true, as 99% people believe it's true. Majority wins!!!)

I'm open to new ideas. Rather those who are responding so furiously seem to be closed to these (apparently) philosophical ideas. I don't usually reply because there are some limitations how far I can convince others. (And especially those who appear to be so far from understanding them.)
« Last Edit: 26/11/2004 21:29:23 by Kedar Joshi »
 

Offline Alexh

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #17 on: 28/11/2004 13:20:13 »
I think everyone would agree that the theory you have laid out is one of the many possible answers to the biggest questions - what is the universe, what are we doing here and why do things seem to work as well as they do?

Unfortunately it suffers from the same problems as other answers which have been put forward - omnipotent gods or the possibility that there is only one conscious entity (me in this case) imagining the rest of creation.

If Galileo, Newton or Einstein had believed in the theory to the level you do, why would they have bothered looking for the answer to the question "Why do things fall to earth and stay there?"? The answer is clear - because thats the way the algorithm that runs  Virtual Reality is written (BTTWTATRVRIW).

Actually, there do appear to be laws that govern why objects fall to earth that we can understand and as we look deeper and deeper we see how more of these laws work.  The current "problems" that appear to have no solution - like the protein folding problem are just ones that appear to have no solution now.  Of course, there is always the possibility that you are right and in these areas we have reached the level beyond which the answer is (BTTWTATRVRIW) but it seems a bit of a coincidence that we are reaching them now and not at any point in the last 25 centuries or so of scientific experimentation and philosophy.

In one sense, your theory is no different logically from the omnipotent god theory as in at any point the answer to any physical question can be "because that's the way God wants it" and THAT answer has been a fundamental drain on our assault on the unknown.

maybe by continuing to explore the fundamentals of physical law we can actually test your theory - or just discover it to be correct.  Either way, as a useful mechanism for furthering our understanding of the Universe, it falls down.

In the meantime then, we should just carry on and leave it in one of our folders as a possible explanation for all things like any other religion - and I have to say that your defence of your theory does sound fundamentalist in another sense.

Keep trying though - perhaps you could use it in a science fiction novella?
« Last Edit: 28/11/2004 14:42:06 by Alexh »
 

Offline Kedar Joshi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #18 on: 28/11/2004 15:36:30 »
quote:
Originally posted by Alexh

I think everyone would agree that the theory you have laid out is one of the many possible answers to the biggest questions - what is the universe, what are we doing here and why do things seem to work as well as they do?

Unfortunately it suffers from the same problems as other answers which have been put forward - omnipotent gods or the possibility that there is only one conscious entity (me in this case) imagining the rest of creation.

If Galileo, Newton or Einstein had believed in the theory to the level you do, why would they have bothered looking for the answer to the question "Why do things fall to earth and stay there?"? The answer is clear - because thats the way the algorithm that runs  Virtual Reality is written (BTTWTATRVRIW).

Actually, there do appear to be laws that govern why objects fall to earth that we can understand and as we look deeper and deeper we see how more of these laws work.  The current "problems" that appear to have no solution - like the protein folding problem are just ones that appear to have no solution now.  Of course, there is always the possibility that you are right and in these areas we have reached the level beyond which the answer is (BTTWTATRVRIW) but it seems a bit of a coincidence that we are reaching them now and not at any point in the last 25 centuries or so of scientific experimentation and philosophy.

In one sense, your theory is no different logically from the omnipotent god theory as in at any point the answer to any physical question can be "because that's the way God wants it" and THAT answer has been a fundamental drain on our assault on the unknown.

maybe by continuing to explore the fundamentals of physical law we can actually test your theory - or just discover it to be correct.  Either way, as a useful mechanism for furthering our understanding of the Universe, it falls down.

In the meantime then, we should just carry on and leave it in one of our folders as a possible explanation for all things like any other religion - and I have to say that your defence of your theory does sound fundamentalist in another sense.

Keep trying though - perhaps you could use it in a science fiction novella?



Actually, what's happening is you're not getting my theory on its foundational or core level. You rather incompletely understand it on its surface level and find similarities with some established  philosophical ideas. (This is not at all out of my arrogance but my unprejudiced analysis.)

Galileo, Newton, Einstein did not understand that it's logically possible that apple goes away from earth instead of falling on it. And if it's logically possible how can you deny its real or so called empirical possibility ?

The comment that I'm a religious kind of fundamentalist is ridiculous. Rather you're fundamentalist. You get annoyed with words like consciousness, non-spatial, philosophy, God. I'm trying to cross the manmade boundaries and am open to new ideas. You're closed minded.  

I don't want to waste my time and energy on those who are so unlikely to understand these ideas. I hope someone comes and succeeds.
« Last Edit: 28/11/2004 16:00:14 by Kedar Joshi »
 

Offline Alexh

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #19 on: 28/11/2004 17:43:02 »
Apologies for the fundamentalist quip - I think I really meant fanatic anyway - but apologies anyway.

I may not understand your theory at the core level - I responded to it after a brief perusal of your post, after all.  I think you misunderstand my comparison of your theory with other philosophical ideas though - it is most similar in that it is unverifiable and currently gives no clue as to how to even start to test it.  Note that I do not necessarily rule it out as a possible answer to life the Universe and everything as a result of this.

If you are serious about pursuing this you have 2 possible routes;

Follow the David Ike approach and shout about it until crackpots the world over believe you may have something here.  You can continue to apply the theory as it stands to every scientific problem and find that they, too can be answered by it (in an unverifiable way of course. Again.).

or

You can look as closely as you can to work out a way in which it can be made to provide predictions that you can test.  This would be the true scientist/philosopher approach.  I personally believe that this would be ultimately fruitless - because yours is equally as likely as any other "Big idea" that purports to answer these questions (ie very unlikely).
« Last Edit: 29/11/2004 00:24:13 by Alexh »
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #20 on: 28/11/2004 17:44:14 »
Dear Mr. Joshi,

I think the basic resistance to your idea, "NSTP", is that you are only telling us what it is "not", e. g., it is "non-spatial", and so on. You would do better to tell us what it "is", and what it can do for us.

As an example, when Einstein published general relativity, it was a pretty pointless theory. Newtonian mechanics was perfectly suited to everything we humans wanted to do or know. The ideas were outlandish, and required a complete paradigm shift to comprehend. Einstein was good enough to explain his ideas thoroughly, defining new terms very carefully, in both simple qualitative ways, and complex quantitative ways. Then he also put forth several tests of GR that were within the scope of scientific observation, such as the perihelion rotation of Mercury, and the bending of starlight as it passes near a massive object. These were all necessary parts of a new theory, because scientists could understand what GR was about, and what answers to tough questions it could provide.

I don't see you doing this here. Right up front you claim you can resolve wave-particle duality, but I never saw it done. You use a lot of terminology without definition. Unprovable axioms are the stuff of philosophy, not science. I refer you to Einstein's explanation of the equivalence principle as an example of doing a theory right. Read that over a few times, and then try to explain your non-spatial principal just as well. If there is some other body of work that you have written that we should see, then please give us a reference.

The world is full of philosophical ideas not too different from yours. Most of them, your's included, give unsatisfying answers to tough questions. If you wish to have your ideas taken seriously, then you must do a better job of explaining what they are, and why anybody would want to use them.
 

Offline Kedar Joshi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #21 on: 28/11/2004 18:12:45 »
quote:
Originally posted by gsmollin

Dear Mr. Joshi,

I think the basic resistance to your idea, "NSTP", is that you are only telling us what it is "not", e. g., it is "non-spatial", and so on. You would do better to tell us what it "is", and what it can do for us.

As an example, when Einstein published general relativity, it was a pretty pointless theory. Newtonian mechanics was perfectly suited to everything we humans wanted to do or know. The ideas were outlandish, and required a complete paradigm shift to comprehend. Einstein was good enough to explain his ideas thoroughly, defining new terms very carefully, in both simple qualitative ways, and complex quantitative ways. Then he also put forth several tests of GR that were within the scope of scientific observation, such as the perihelion rotation of Mercury, and the bending of starlight as it passes near a massive object. These were all necessary parts of a new theory, because scientists could understand what GR was about, and what answers to tough questions it could provide.

I don't see you doing this here. Right up front you claim you can resolve wave-particle duality, but I never saw it done. You use a lot of terminology without definition. Unprovable axioms are the stuff of philosophy, not science. I refer you to Einstein's explanation of the equivalence principle as an example of doing a theory right. Read that over a few times, and then try to explain your non-spatial principal just as well. If there is some other body of work that you have written that we should see, then please give us a reference.

The world is full of philosophical ideas not too different from yours. Most of them, your's included, give unsatisfying answers to tough questions. If you wish to have your ideas taken seriously, then you must do a better job of explaining what they are, and why anybody would want to use them.



1) If axioms are proved they no longer remain axioms. Do you prove something like the law of syllogism ? The same is true with the NSTP theoretical axioms. The NSTP theory is a mathematical theory (both pure and applied : its axiomatic part is pure while the hypothetical part is applied)

2) The proposition 'consciousness is non-spatial' is, though apparently negative, in fact positive. It tells that the spatial ideas are inaplicable to be ontology or physics or existence of
consciousness. That's it.

3) I might not succeed in verifying/falsifying the NSTP theory. But that does not mean that it's meaningless or unscientific. It is a mathematical theory speaking about reality. (Any mathematical theory does speak about reality.) Pure science is concerned with exploring the nature of reality. It is another thing to use that knowledge for practical purposes. If I get experimental support for the NSTP theory it will contribute in strenghthening my believe in it. Otherwise I've 'reason' ( or so called mathematical reason) to believe in it.
« Last Edit: 28/11/2004 18:16:23 by Kedar Joshi »
 

Offline Alexh

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #22 on: 28/11/2004 22:20:16 »
Kedar

I don't think I can be called closed minded because I apply equal weight to any unprovable hypothesis - I am not denying that you might be right.

Also, I do not get annoyed by the use of any of those words (Consciousness, non-spatial, philosphy, God). Damn, I am only on this forum because these are the things that interest me most (well, maybe not non-spatial..). I am not scared or disturbed by the theory you have launched upon the world - I just want to point out that your idea and edifice you have built upon it is really no different from any of the others that have already been espoused by many other equally evangelistic proponents.

BTW, I notice you have submitted your ideas to a number of other scientific forums - I recommend the newbielink:http://forum.darwinawards.com/index.php?s=33d533c8c058bef280987d8fbfdf695f&showforum=4 [nonactive] if you really want some feedback. I would reconsider your approach (ie. calling anyone who disagrees with you stupid) though, because those guys will eat you alive.
« Last Edit: 28/11/2004 22:30:20 by Alexh »
 

Offline Kedar Joshi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #23 on: 29/11/2004 12:39:09 »
quote:
Originally posted by Alexh

Kedar

I don't think I can be called closed minded because I apply equal weight to any unprovable hypothesis - I am not denying that you might be right.

Also, I do not get annoyed by the use of any of those words (Consciousness, non-spatial, philosphy, God). Damn, I am only on this forum because these are the things that interest me most (well, maybe not non-spatial..). I am not scared or disturbed by the theory you have launched upon the world - I just want to point out that your idea and edifice you have built upon it is really no different from any of the others that have already been espoused by many other equally evangelistic proponents.

BTW, I notice you have submitted your ideas to a number of other scientific forums - I recommend the newbielink:http://forum.darwinawards.com/index.php?s=33d533c8c058bef280987d8fbfdf695f&showforum=4 [nonactive] if you really want some feedback. I would reconsider your approach (ie. calling anyone who disagrees with you stupid) though, because those guys will eat you alive.



If one thinks that the NSTP theory is not original then s/he has not understood it. Could you please present a list of all the ideas/theories you know that you think are similar and/or exactly similar to my ideas (esp. the NSTP theory)?

Please don't get me wrong but what I've done is very similar to the kind of work Sir Isaac Newton did. Massive unification on solid foundations (though Newton had some vague concept/s like 'force' and his ideas were seen as 'absurd' by some respected scientists). And when the scientific community, on average, comes to believe in this fact they'd have comprehended my ideas thoroughly.

Mere saying that the world is an illusion or space is an illusion or we live in a matrix, etc. is not sufficient. You need foundations and reason why these ideas to be believed.

Many thanks for your patience and regards--


The 21st century shall witness the greatest intellectual revolution of all times!
« Last Edit: 29/11/2004 13:04:27 by Kedar Joshi »
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #24 on: 29/11/2004 17:55:12 »
Dear Mr. Joshi,

You should not compare yourself to Newton, or any other physicist like him. A comparison to Kant or another philosopher would be better. Newton's works were carefully thought out and were verifiable by experiment. We all know there were problems with his physics and the physics of his followers, such as Maxwell, because parts of it could not be verified by experiment.

Unprovable axioms and logically proven theorems are the stuff of philosophy and mathematics. This is fine, there are many systems of philosphy, logic, and mathematics that have been developed for the edification of their authors. A few have broad interest. Most do not.
« Last Edit: 29/11/2004 18:16:32 by gsmollin »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Superultramodern Science and Philosophy
« Reply #24 on: 29/11/2004 17:55:12 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums