Unknowable Ontology?

[watcher]

.

 

Moderation Note: The following 14 Posts have been moved from Relativity of Motion discussion from “What is Time” where they were off topic.

 

.

 

what kind of chosen beliefs you have subscribed to think that things in themselves were forever unknowable and that ontology and epistemology are mutually exclusive? kantian? correct me if i am wrong, but you yourself in your approach chose an arbitrary definition of what ontology ought to be.

 

Now perhaps that example also is pointing out how these arguments tend to turn into completely pointless bickering about what things supposedly are "in-themselves". A primordial "egg" is not an "egg" unless you say it's an "egg", and same goes for anything you can think of; you had to define it first didn't you? "Whatever you say it is, it isn't", everyone remembers what that means?

 

but that is half truth. and probably a wrong fundamental assumption to build a worldview. i'll say what ever you say it is, it is. the things in themselves as they represent themselves to us through our perception are the exact images of themselves. although we cannot have a "live telecast" of the events that took place, the same events that we witness in delay due to the finite speed of light is the same events that took place nonetheless.

 

How many out there feel like asking "what is time?" and suppose to find ontologically valid answer?

Ahhh [/rant] -Anssi

 

if you have chosen to answer the question based on data patterns and process, this is the becoming aspect of ontology. but traditionally the ontology of metaphysics seeks for the fundamental unitive substance (being) of space, time, particles, fields and what not. the valid ontological answer is that time has no physical or substantial reality because it is only a mental construct for measuring motions. particles? they are statistical eigenvalues. fields? who knows what they are. but space do exists, because we lived in it. it contains us and everything else. its being cannot be denied.

 

as kant said " space is not a concept".

[coldcreation]

...the valid ontological answer is that time has no physical or substantial reality because it is only a mental construct for measuring motions. particles? they are statistical eigenvalues. fields? who knows what they are. but space do [does] exists, because we lived in it. it contains us and everything else. its being cannot be denied.

 

as kant said " space is not a concept".

 

Here, I think there is a confusion.

 

Space and time cannot exist alone, they are inseparable. If in ontology one can exist without the other then ontology is nonsense.

 

The importance of relativity, Einstein accepted, was to emphasize the idea that everything visible (matter) and invisible (the field) has a 4-dimensional geometric basis—an idea he associated with ‘the evolution of the notion of space and time into that continuum with metric structure.’

 

And in another way, Einstein writes: “the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist.” General relativity “implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field and as such, the propagation of light in ‘empty’ space rests on the notion of space and time, and the metric structure of the continuum."

 

Too: “There is no such thing as empty space, i.e. a space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but as a structural quality of the field.” He elaborates further, “the field is an irreducible element of physical description.” And, that “the totality of physical ‘events’ is thus thought of as being embedded in a four-dimensional continuous manifold.”

 

That is, three spatial dimensions and time.

 

CC

[jedaisoul]

Yes and since you bring that up, I would like to comment that DD's analysis is very much revolving around that notion; some aspects of your worldview aren't "real" by themselves, and shouldn't affect the answers.

 

The symmetry constraints (that are succintly expressed as a single "fundamental equation") exist as "aspects of your explanation that cannot affect the answers". They cannot affect the answer because they arise as necessary symmetries during the transformation process from "unknown patterns" to "set of persistent entities".

Hi AnssiH

You refer to Dr D's "fundamental equation", and I note that in the "Dirac" thread he says:

There is no need whatsoever to justify my model as I have shown that it is entirely general: i.e., there exists no communicable explanation of anything which cannot be analyzed from the perspective of my model. I need not argue that my view is the only rational view; I need only show that it provides a useful foundation from which real observations may be analyzed with confidence.

 

[snip]

 

I have brought together, in one expression the entire realms of physics represented by Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, electrodynamics and relativity (both special and general). And all this without postulating a theoretical relationship but rather by deduction from the simple limitations required by self consistency.

That is quite a claim, and might be considered hubris, unless, of course, it is true. Also, it sems to me that mathematics is entirely reality neutral. E.g. It is possible to model the universe with eleven dimensions (the M-theory), but that does not make it real. So I'm doubtful of his claim "There is no need whatsoever to justify my model", as I would suspect (not knowing anything about the equation itself) that it's relevance to reality cannot be presumed. Self consistency alone does not make something real.

 

Are you aware of anywhere I can read an exposition of the "fundamental equation". I.e. Not just the mathematical equation itself, because that is likely to be meaningless to me, but an exposition of the meaning associated with the equation, and its derivation. I'd like to know how it brings together in one expression "the entire realms of physics represented by Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, electrodynamics and relativity (both special and general)".

 

I acknowledge that this question should really be addressed to Dr D, but as you seem to be familiar with the equation, you may know the answer...

 

Thanks, jedaisoul.

[AnssiH]

Seriously guys, it can't be this difficult...

 

correct me if i am wrong, but you yourself in your approach chose an arbitrary definition of what ontology ought to be.

 

You are not entirely wrong, but you are entirely besides the point. Of course you can define "ontology" differently, but why would you choose to do that? What's the point of using the word like you are using it in your post? Think about why the concept was invented, and what it's supposed to refer to. It's meant to refer to the "actual reality WITHOUT human definitions". If you insist that it refers to "whatever we can define", then all the ontologies are true, and from that circumstance the concept of "ontology" is meaningless... I hope you realize how you are straight back to square one.

 

what kind of chosen beliefs you have subscribed to think that things in themselves were forever unknowable and that ontology and epistemology are mutually exclusive? kantian?

 

I've subscribed to specific definitions of "ontology" and "epistemology", and incidentally to exactly those definitions that they were supposed to refer to.

 

but that is half truth. and probably a wrong fundamental assumption to build a worldview. i'll say what ever you say it is, it is. the things in themselves as they represent themselves to us through our perception are the exact images of themselves. although we cannot have a "live telecast" of the events that took place, the same events that we witness in delay due to the finite speed of light is the same events that took place nonetheless.

 

And that right there is spoken in terms of your definition, leading to conclusions such as "auras are ontologically real force fields around us". Hey, people are measuring them! And you can define it as such that they are what the electromagnetic measuring devices are detecting! So they are ontologically real?

 

The original point with ontology/epistemology separation was that we are referring to patterns/data/stuff/%#(#% of unknown nature, and as is the case with measuring human "auras", is the case with measuring "electrons". Electron is a name to a circumstance, epistemologically speaking.

 

if you have chosen to answer the question based on data patterns and process, this is the becoming aspect of ontology.

 

Subscribing to my definition of "ontology", no it's not an aspect of ontology; I have no idea what is the ontological nature, or what lurks behind those patterns, and I don't even care to think about that because when I do, I am already thinking about it in terms of things defined in my head.

 

It just seems like most of this difficulty about talking about this subject is coming from people not being able to comprehend that they are not really talking about reality at all, they are talking about DEFINITIONS overlayed on reality. Now Kant did not say "reality does not exist". He said, whatever you refer to as a reality, is already something YOU DEFINED. There's a great difference there.

 

but traditionally the ontology of metaphysics seeks for the fundamental unitive substance (being) of space, time, particles, fields and what not. the valid ontological answer is that time has no physical or substantial reality because it is only a mental construct for measuring motions. particles? they are statistical eigenvalues. fields? who knows what they are.

 

Exactly and most importantly the point of, how do you suppose you understand "what they are", apart via epistemological methods. <- Understanding that sentence requires that one subscribes to the original definitions of ontology and epistemology.

 

but space do exists, because we lived in it. it contains us and everything else. its being cannot be denied.

 

as kant said " space is not a concept".

 

Now Kant went a bit wrong there, in that space can certainly be defined in multitudes of ways, as has been shown clearly by now. And even the euclidean space that Kant had in his mind was entirely a function of defined objects (their behaviour). I.e. ontological nature of space is just as non-sensical idea as the ontological nature of "human aura" or "soul" or what have you. And if that sounds strange to you, I think you need to think really long and really hard about what do you know about space, and how do you know it; what do you know about those objects that tell you what space is, etc.

 

I hope you don't dive headlong into choosing a specific model and confuse it with ontology, as is clearly the case with Coldcreation's post above. "Space and time cannot exist alone, they are inseparable", that's true only if you choose to define things that way. And the last thing this thread needs is people reciting things they've heard somewhere without understanding what they mean or where those implications are coming from. (And I mean, the conventional understanding of electromagnetism leading to relativity)

 

-Anssi

[AnssiH]

Hi AnssiH

That is quite a claim, and might be considered hubris, unless, of course, it is true. Also, it sems to me that mathematics is entirely reality neutral. E.g. It is possible to model the universe with eleven dimensions (the M-theory), but that does not make it real.

 

Yes!

 

So I'm doubtful of his claim "There is no need whatsoever to justify my model", as I would suspect (not knowing anything about the equation itself) that it's relevance to reality cannot be presumed. Self consistency alone does not make something real.

 

Exactly.

He said that because nothing is referring to anything "real", everything is referring to epistemological symmetries (or their purely logical consequences); the significance is that physical relationships are found from there, instead of from the "ontological nature" of the data.

 

Are you aware of anywhere I can read an exposition of the "fundamental equation". I.e. Not just the mathematical equation itself, because that is likely to be meaningless to me, but an exposition of the meaning associated with the equation, and its derivation. I'd like to know how it brings together in one expression "the entire realms of physics represented by Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, electrodynamics and relativity (both special and general)".

 

I acknowledge that this question should really be addressed to Dr D, but as you seem to be familiar with the equation, you may know the answer...

 

Yes, I'll give you a better reply later, just wanted to give a quick acknowledgement that I read your post and you are definitely on the right track.

 

-Anssi

[jedaisoul]

...but space do exists, because we lived in it. it contains us and everything else. its being cannot be denied.

I agree with much of what you said, but I would point out that, as I understand it, the question is not of whether space exists, but whether it exists in and of itself. I.e. If all the physical entities of the universe were removed, would space still exist? I suggest not.

[coldcreation]

I agree with much of what you said, but I would point out that, as I understand it, the question is not of whether space exists, but whether it exists in and of itself. I.e. If all the physical entities of the universe were removed, would space still exist? I suggest not.

 

Field cannot be extracted from the meaning of space. So, unless one considers (say, in a thought experiment which has nothing to do with the physical world) that the field is 'nothing,' then, no, space cannot exist in and of itself (again, without field).

 

Your question: "If all the physical entities of the universe were removed, would space still exist?" is meaningless, since, all entities (e.g., the field) cannot, even in principle, be removed. (Again, too, doing so in a thought experiment is nonsensical).

 

I would add that there is a limit as to what can be extracted from space in the realm of quantum mechanics, as well as GR, from which the above field cannot be removed. There is a residual energy that will always remain, even after everything else is extracted, called zero-point energy (ZPE), sometimes called vacuum energy: the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have. This is the energy of the ground state. The quantum mechanical system that encapsulates this energy is the zero-point field (ZPF); a concept first proposed by Albert Einstein and Otto Stern in 1913.

 

The concept of space, without field, and without ZPE/ZPF, is just as meaningless as the concept of space without time.

 

 

 

CC

[watcher]

Here, I think there is a confusion.

 

Space and time cannot exist alone, they are inseparable. If in ontology one can exist without the other then ontology is nonsense.

 

The importance of relativity, Einstein accepted, was to emphasize the idea that everything visible (matter) and invisible (the field) has a 4-dimensional geometric basis—an idea he associated with ‘the evolution of the notion of space and time into that continuum with metric structure.’

 

And in another way, Einstein writes: “the concept of space detached from any physical content does not exist.” General relativity “implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field and as such, the propagation of light in ‘empty’ space rests on the notion of space and time, and the metric structure of the continuum."

 

Too: “There is no such thing as empty space, i.e. a space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but as a structural quality of the field.” He elaborates further, “the field is an irreducible element of physical description.” And, that “the totality of physical ‘events’ is thus thought of as being embedded in a four-dimensional continuous manifold.”

 

That is, three spatial dimensions and time.

 

CC

 

after failing to unify the electro and gravity field, eisntein wrote ...

 

All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

[watcher]

The concept of space, without field, and without ZPE/ZPF, is just as meaningless as the concept of space without time.

 

which leads to an inevitable conclusion. space is not empty nor nothingness.

 

space is the substance of the universe's being.

it can't be simpler than that.

fields in space is a redundancy.

continuous fields with matter particles in space is double redundant and a convoluted concept. as einstein have later realized.

[watcher]

Seriously guys, it can't be this difficult...

 

You are not entirely wrong, but you are entirely besides the point. Of course you can define "ontology" differently, but why would you choose to do that? What's the point of using the word like you are using it in your post? Think about why the concept was invented, and what it's supposed to refer to. It's meant to refer to the "actual reality WITHOUT human definitions". If you insist that it refers to "whatever we can define", then all the ontologies are true, and from that circumstance the concept of "ontology" is meaningless... I hope you realize how you are straight back to square one.

 

anssi, i think you are the one making things difficult.

you are denying realism in the name of pure idealism. ontology doesn't meant to refer to actual reality without human definitions. this are the chosen grounds you have set to emphasize your arguments. you wanted to represent "what is" as it corresponds to our mental perception. i am saying that we can make direct representation of what actually exists.

[AnssiH]

ontology doesn't meant to refer to actual reality without human definitions.

 

If you take it that way, then you are not talking about the same topic as the people who invented the words "ontology" and "epistemology".

 

If you are interested of their topic, I think you need to start from the beginning. Here are some questions to think about, relevant for getting started:

- Which entities, if any, are fundamental?

- How do the properties of an object relate to the object itself?

- What is a physical object?

- What does it mean to say that a physical object exists?

- What does it mean to say that a non-physical object exists?

- Why do we keep talking about "objects"?

- What constitutes the identity of an object?

- When does an object go out of existence, as opposed to merely "changing"?

 

Then, to get a step further, add the fact that our world model is fundamentally build on top of unknowns. I can tell you you will not find any real answers to those questions. But you will find a lot of beliefs. Lots! And in some cases very emotional attachments to those beliefs, for various reasons. In all cases, it is interesting to think about the foundations of those beliefs. If you can track them, you will see the circularity in reasoning, and consequently the importance of self-coherence to our ideas about the world.

 

Perhaps you subscribe to your definition of "ontology" because you recognize that when it's defined as "reality without human definitions", it is - by definition - unknowable, and thus you may think it is meaningless as there can be no answers?

 

It is only meaningful in terms of pointing out that our personal ontological ideas are whatever we dream up for ourselves, and pointing out that many valid ontologies can always be dreamed up, and most importantly pointing out that our ontologies always include facets that arise from epistemology. Most importantly, the idea of "identity of an object".

 

i am saying that we can make direct representation of what actually exists.

 

Your use of words "representation of" implies you do draw some difference between "a representation" and "the ontological form". Notice how I needed to use that word "ontological" in there? It is meaningful in exactly this context.

 

Albeit your use of the word "direct" is lost in me. How do you tell between "indirect" and "direct" representation of reality?

 

-Anssi

[watcher]

anssiH, from wiki

Metaphysics investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science. Cosmology and ontology are traditional branches of metaphysics. It is concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world

 

A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into what types of things there are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another. The metaphysician also attempts to clarify the notions by which people understand the world, including existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.

 

Ontology (from the Greek ὄν, genitive ὄντος: of being (neuter participle of εἶναι: to be) and -λογία, -logia: science, study, theory) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences

 

A traditional realist position in ontology is that time and space have existence apart from the human mind.

Idealists, including Kant claim that space and time are mental constructs used to organize perceptions, or are otherwise surreal.

 

it was Kant who invented the "things in themselves" and they are beyond our knowledge. this was a necessary prelude for him to put god in the equation of his philosophy. a major spin off of kant's philosophy is of course a separate philosophy of the mind. this is huge subject in itself. it can be argued that the mind is universal, in t his view, it is the determinant of reality. and thanks to Qm it's making a comeback in mainstream philosophy. also in QM the unknowability of things were said to be intrinsic to nature and not a result of our lacking in knowledge of it, this is dead end in physics, and you don't want to g o there.

 

the point is that your view is just a small part in the whole shebang of ontology and you cannot take your view as a true representative of ontology. for one, i think you are confusing the symbolic contents of the mind from the mind it self as the true organ of perception. that is why you are denying the validity of the human mind to know what actually exists.

 

i mean directly is that while you have given up on ontology, you wanted to make a model purely based on our knowledge alone. never mind what actually exists. the realist view of ontolgy is to pursue the fundamental essence/substance or first principle of existence. relevant to physics, the nature of space, time and motions are investigated to look for its causes or substance.

 

Substance is a core concept of ontology and metaphysics. Indeed, philosophies may be divided into monist philosophies, and dualist or pluralist philosophies. Monistic views, often associated with immanence, hold that there is only one substance, sometimes called God or Being.

 

now kant did some take with space himself, he said that space is a necessary "a priori" . space is not a concept, it's intuitively known and logical deduced that our knowledge of it is not necessary for it to exist but it is necessary for all things to exists. including the brain with mind and all.

 

i think your a priori is that only information and its organization can truly represent reality. this is only a "specialization" on a particular branch of ontology. and let us not be hypocrite. epistemology is also an attempt on ontology, to say things are unknown is describing already the property of its nature. a more general, simpler and less unnatural and more attuned is for us to study the substance of reality, substance is more simple to grasp and we can intuit with it readily because we are it. we are the substance of the universe.

[Doctordick]

Well, a look at my e-mail indicated that Anssi had posted to this thread and I was curious as to what he had to say. And following that I found watcher's post. I have a few comments to make. In watcher's post, he quotes wiki: “A central branch of metaphysics is ontology.” To this I absolutely agree, “the investigation into what types of things there are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another.” The problem here is twofold, first solid analytical examination of the subject of ontology has not been done since the death of Aristotle, what, some three thousand years ago? Second, our capabilities or organizing exact examination has increased beyond measure since that date. Also we have the quote, “The metaphysician also attempts to clarify the notions by which people understand the world, including existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, and possibility.” This is not a trivial subject to be approached with no serious thought.

it was Kant who invented the "things in themselves" and they are beyond our knowledge.

Beyond our knowledge does not mean beyond thinking about.

this was a necessary prelude for him to put god in the equation of his philosophy. a major spin off of kant's philosophy is of course a separate philosophy of the mind. this is huge subject in itself. it can be argued that the mind is universal, in t his view, it is the determinant of reality. and thanks to Qm it's making a comeback in mainstream philosophy. also in QM the unknowability of things were said to be intrinsic to nature and not a result of our lacking in knowledge of it, this is dead end in physics, and you don't want to go there.

Ah, but I do want to go there! The failure to go there intelligently is a major fault of modern physics. The idea that “unknowable things” can not be explained, or rather, unknowable things can not be presumed identified, is ridiculous. What do you think Gods and religion are all about? These are invented things; invented to provide explanations to things that otherwise could not be understood.

 

What I do, and what every competent objective scientist should do, is to regard the ontological elements (those unknowable things) as actual “unknowns”; things we cannot know that we understand but that each and every explanation put forth by humanity is required to explain. That means that, with regard to the explanations (the epistemological constructs we choose to “have faith in”) these “unknowable” things are defined! But, those definitions are moot as they depend directly on the correctness of the epistemological constructs which depend upon them which can never be proved correct (they are all theories guy, whether they are talking about God or nuclear transitions).

...you are confusing the symbolic contents of the mind from the mind it self as the true organ of perception.

The mind itself is a thing of presumed existences: i.e., it is a consequence of a world view which has already established definitions of those “unknowable” things.

...now kant did some take with space himself, he said that space is a necessary "a priori" . space is not a concept, it's intuitively known and logical deduced that our knowledge of it is not necessary for it to exist but it is necessary for all things to exists. including the brain with mind and all.

And I am to take Kant as the final authority on what does or does not exist? Why don't you just take the Bible as the authority?

 

And your final statement is totally off the wall!

I think your a priori is that only information and its organization can truly represent reality. this is only a "specialization" on a particular branch of ontology. and let us not be hypocrite. epistemology is also an attempt on ontology, to say things are unknown is describing already the property of its nature. a more general, simpler and less unnatural and more attuned is for us to study the substance of reality, substance is more simple to grasp and we can intuit with it readily because we are it. we are the substance of the universe.

So long as you can “intuit it readily” I guess we have to accept your position as the final statement.

 

Anssi, I am happy to have met you.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[watcher]

What I do, and what every competent objective scientist should do, is to regard the ontological elements (those unknowable things) as actual “unknowns”; things we cannot know that we understand but that each and every explanation put forth by humanity is required to explain.

That means that, with regard to the explanations (the epistemological constructs we choose to “have faith in”) these “unknowable” things are defined!

 

you got it in reverse. things are not unknown. we just don't understand them. e.g. space is not unknown to you, your just ignorant of its nature/properties. you just have to understand its mechanics or dynamics, a mechanism can be defined in a manner of ways. definitions only help organized our thoughts not determines our understanding of this things. to define something it is assumed that you have already understood what you are about to define. therefore definitions are not fundamental.

 

But, those definitions are moot as they depend directly on the correctness of the epistemological constructs which depend upon them which can never be proved correct (they are all theories guy, whether they are talking about God or nuclear transitions).

 

yes, this would fall under godel's incompleteness theorem. then your analysis is no better than say a field model or a particle model or a wave theorem for the universe. and they do have their own mathematics to brag about. and let me take this opportunity to tell you that mathematics is not the only universal language. math origin was in geometry, geometry are waves frozen in time. waves are vibrations. everything in the universe communicates in waves. now you may want to investigate that, hmmm

 

So long as you can “intuit it readily” I guess we have to accept your position as the final statement.

 

no, just like you i am promoting an idea, LOL

interestingly though, all the great theorists were highly intuitive persons.

[watcher]

The mind itself is a thing of presumed existences: i.e., it is a consequence of a world view which has already established definitions of those “unknowable” things.

 

what you are defining the mind to be is that all our perceptions and conceptions of our surroundings is "filtered" and interpreted by our biases. is it not? there is a subtleness that you have overlooked here that leads you to give up on knowing what is out there and be contented to represent this "ontological elements" with mathematical abstraction and symbolic notations. iow, you have given up the question of what exists and proceeded to answer the question what can we say about it albeit you claimed though in a precise way using your analysis.

 

what you have overlooked is the subtle distinction between the perceiving/conceiving entity which i have called the organ of perception and the objects of perceptions/conceptions. while you have attack the problem from the latter by making precise analysis of these objects, i depended on the former as the knower of these ontological elements.

 

so you see i am not discounting what ever method you have devise to represent in a notation how the universe works, i just don't like exclusivism.

[coldcreation]

after failing to unify the electro and gravity field, [Albert Einstein] wrote ...

 

All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

 

Since that letter to Michael Besso it has been realized that Einstein's general theory of relativity could be simplified further by working with real wave motions of a continuously connected space, in addition to continuous fields.

 

It would have been impossible for Einstein (or anyone else) to have come up with a unified theory fifty years ago when that letter was written. That is because the quantum field theory Yang-Mills equation for all standard model forces was only discovered late 1954 and experimental verification was only observed in 1983 (at CERN) when the electroweak gauge bosons were detected.

 

Even today a completely unified theory remains elusive, and will so without hard experimental evidence. Particle physics was in shambles when Einstein passed away. And it was likely sensible for him to keep his distance from it. Most models from the mid-20th century are today deemed untenable.

 

That is the beauty of science, as opposed to ontology, metaphysics, or theology, its relentless advance forward is continuous.

 

But even in a perfect world in which Tom, Dick and Harry all won Nobel Prizes, disagreement would still seem inevitable (at least for now). :hihi:

 

 

CC

[AnssiH]

Hi AnssiH

Are you aware of anywhere I can read an exposition of the "fundamental equation". I.e. Not just the mathematical equation itself, because that is likely to be meaningless to me, but an exposition of the meaning associated with the equation, and its derivation. I'd like to know how it brings together in one expression "the entire realms of physics represented by Newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, electrodynamics and relativity (both special and general)".

 

I acknowledge that this question should really be addressed to Dr D, but as you seem to be familiar with the equation, you may know the answer...

 

I replied to a different thread. Somehow this seemed appropriate:

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/18457-explanation-what-i-am-talking-about-2.html#post284044

 

-Anssi