Science, Logic, and Mathematics


Order

Search forums
Subscribe to this forum      feed for this page

 1 - 20 / 133 
2016-09-19
Electromagnetism or gravitomagnetism?
[See also  http://philpapers.org/post/20174
Halley's "Synopsis of the Astronomy of Comets", 1705, is an ingenious mathematical proof of the parabolic shape of a comet's path and fits those cosmic wanderers right into Newtonian Physics, but it does not explain how such paths are possible. We understand now the why of the famous "hypotheses non fingo", Newton could simply not start to imagine what such an explanation would have looked like. The only thing he could say was that his equations seemed to work. A cosmologist's nightmare.]

Ever since Faraday it has been understood that electricity and magnetism are inseparable. Electric current influences the magnetized needle of a compass, and the motion of a magnet can create an electrical current in a metal coil.
Gravity seems different not only because it always is attractive, but also because it is understood to be the reason why bodies not only move towards each other, but also orbit each other. And that i ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/20546 Reply

2016-08-29

We all know Mother Nature’s gradualist ways and have coined phrases for them: “Rome was not built in a day”; “a journey of a thousand miles starts with a step”, “little drops of water make a mighty ocean”, etc. Unfortunately, some cosmologists would prefer that the universe become wealthy overnight. The universe is now 1052kg rich (i.e. about 1069J) and they want to force this wealth, our current mass estimate into the very beginning (time zero), the Planck epoch and the other early times.  Of course, Mother Nature has resisted this get-rich-quick attitude and has inflicted such versions of our Big bang model with riddles, like the flatness and singularity problems for example.

In this post, I quote from Steven Weinberg’s popular book, The First Three Minutes,

 “As the explosion continued the temperature dropped …but the temperature continued to drop, finally reaching one thousand million degrees (109K) at the end of the first three minutes. It was then cool enough for the protons and neu ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/19646 Reply

2016-08-08
After the publication of this paper, I enjoyed personal communication with Aloysius Martinich and discovered that I misused if and only if in several places of this paper. The corrections are below:

The formula indicates the following:
1. A is relatively identical to the value, but A is not absolutely identical to the value.
2. B is relatively identical to the value, but B is not absolutely identical to the value.
3. The value of A is absolutely identical to the value of B.
4. A is not identical to B.
(page 135)

1. The expression 1 + 3 is relatively identical to the value 4, but 1 + 3 is not absolutely identical to 4.

2. The expression 2 + 2 is relatively identical to the value 4, but 2 + 2 is not absolutely identical to 4.
3. The value of 1 + 3 is absolutely identical to the value of 2 + 2.
4. The expression 1 + 3 is not identical to the expression 2 + 2.
(page 135)

1. The triumvir was relatively identical to Lepidus, but the triumvir was not absolutely identical to Lepidus.
2. The pontifex maximus ... (read more)


2016-07-20



This thread has been abusively deleted. The Philpapers Team offered me the opportunity to restore it.

"How many threads do you need to restore? Combining multiple posts into one would be a way to get around the limitation on 2 posts, and would also be less work for you. Since they were previously accepted, we'll make sure to accept them if you notify us ahead of time with the subject heading." The PhilPapers Team

]

1 What is the goal of vision, and does it need one?
The problem of the teleological approach is that it assumes that which still is not and cannot be known: clear vision. How can the brain have as goal the elimination of obstacles to clear vision, through, among other, all kinds of ocular movements, if clear vision is itself the result of these movements? As we shall see, many visual phenomena has been approached under this naive perspective, with many complex theories as a result.
If, like I claim, clear vision can never be the goal of the visual system, but only its effect, tha ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/18194 Reply

2016-07-20
It seems to me that this work is very much unavailable to students and professionals. Have not found it online in any form, save for a few hardcover editions for more than $500. Crazy.

2016-07-11

In a recent article “From Sexuality to Eroticism: The Making of the Human Mind” http://www.scirp.org/journal/AA/ I describe a new scenario for human evolution. Besides the well known topics of upright gait and explorative curiosity I dwell on the realm of erotic life. I do this in accordance with Owen Lovejoy’s pair-bonding hypothesis of human origins. In consequence of their upright gait early humans practiced frontal eye-to-eye copulation. In the beginning this was merely random and took place in the horde. But some females may have felt better with a specific male and thus looked for intimate relations with him. Here begins a sort of “emotional selection”, different from mere sexual selection for good genes. Through long-term bonds erotic feelings are intensified and extended onto higher-order emotions such as hope and jealousy. This scenario is confirmed by the fact that the development of the large brain of humans seems to be more in relation to emotional development than to techn ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/17694 Reply

2016-07-08
I have come across a strange discrepancy between the claims of Simon Stevin and Einstein concerning gravitation. Well, the first is a classic thinker of the 16-17th century, while Einstein is a prodigy of the 20th. So, why should it be a problem? But then, this is not my area of expertise and I would like very much to hear from people on the know.I would greatly appreciate comments on the following post:
http://philpapers.org/post/17566

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/17602 Reply

2016-07-07
[

This thread has been abusively deleted. The Philpapers Team offered me the opportunity to restore it.

"How many threads do you need to restore? Combining multiple posts into one would be a way to get around the limitation on 2 posts, and would also be less work for you. Since they were previously accepted, we'll make sure to accept them if you notify us ahead of time with the subject heading." The PhilPapers Team

]

1 Turing and the Myth of Universality

There is a strong, not to say absolute belief in the consistency of Turing's thesis, which can be, informally, expressed as such: what a computer can do, any other computer can.

Let us start with the simplest expression of all:

1) 0+1=1

It will be obvious to anyone that any computer worth its silicone, or any other material substrate, will be able to compute (1).

What does that say about universal computing?

Well, that's just it, really. It does not say anything at all. All it shows is that, once the problem has been solved, or at least, put ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/17546 Reply

2016-07-05
[

This thread has been abusively deleted. The Philpapers Team offered me the opportunity to restore it.

"How many threads do you need to restore? Combining multiple posts into one would be a way to get around the limitation on 2 posts, and would also be less work for you. Since they were previously accepted, we'll make sure to accept them if you notify us ahead of time with the subject heading." The PhilPapers Team

]


1 Hearing

George: I hate ears!
me: You sound just like Hate-Smurf. You did not mind the semi-circular canals, so why hate ears?
George: I don't mind the canals, in fact I love them. They're really fun. Any time you move your head I get to whoosh from one pool to the other!
me: And riding the basilar membrane, that's not fun? That's just like a trampoline, isn't it?
George: Yeah, I guess it is. Or at least it would be, if I could play the drums instead of having them bellowing in my head!
me: I don't understand.
George: Of course you don't. You're not supposed to. It's a h ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/17418 Reply

2016-05-13
Could anyone explain the difference between being part and being member (if any)? References to existing literature are welcome. 
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/15450 Reply

2016-04-22
Quantum Computing: Myth or Reality?

"What I like most in science is science-fiction"
Unknown from the web.

Schrödinger's cat is probably one of the most famous pets in history, right beside Cerberus and Pegasus. I must confess that quantum computing remains largely a mystery, and while researching the subject I could not but notice the lack of any concrete information about what it really entails.
Take the concept of qubit. It has mathematically been defined, and, as far as I can see, mathematicians agree on the definition. Which is certainly good enough for me. But then I wonder, how would a quantum gate or circuit look like?
Well, if you ask this question on the Internet, you get treated to more mathematical formulas.
A very intriguing concept is that of superposition. I have great difficulty in grasping the reality behind it. Let us assume that a bit can be both 1 and 0 at the same time. What good will it do to us if we are not able to get a clear answer after reading it? In other words ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/14978 Reply

2016-04-12
If you have any thoughts, comments or questions about this paper, let me know!

2016-04-12
If you have any thoughts, comments or questions about this paper, let me know!
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/14842 Reply

2016-03-29
The challenge is very simple: Give a full and explicit proof of the existence of Infinity.There is only one restriction: it is not allowed to refer to "proofs" already known. If you believe Cantor has proved Infinity, you cannot just refer to his work, but have to state explicitly what and how you think he has proved it.
I wish you luck.
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/14398 Reply

2016-03-22

Studies aimed at understanding the construction and probable location of the consciousness (or self) from the biofield emissions at a dying condition?

Are there any recent investigations carried out in connection with biophoton emissions from a dying person? or, at least, do we have investigations on various bio-emissions (which includes EM spectral emissions over various bandwidths) associated with a dying condition? Also, any recent Gas Discharge Visualization (GDV) studies on a dying person?

Suppose, if we are able to detect certain bio-emissions (having the specific bandwidth) other than in the Infra-red (IR) region (which is usually connected to the metabolic activity), then we can associate these emission frequencies to the fundamental oscillations or modes at which communication (both inter- and intra-) happens. These modes can then act as the interface between mind (non-material aspect), body (material aspect) and the environment.

If we want to understand how a material brain coul ... (read more)


2016-03-22
[The idea is to start with a concrete situation, like a mother preparing a meal for an extended family, and discovering numbers in their different form: natural, whole, negative, rational (including radicals), real, imaginary, complex, etc...

Mother is of course an archetype and can include many generations of mothers. There are 12 family members and, to make things simpler, they all eat the same amount of food.  Some kind of grain.]

1) Mother knows how much grain she needs to cook for all of them. She just keeps taking handfuls of grain and putting them in the cooking pan until she is satisfied that it will be enough. She has no way of knowing or naming exact quantities. Her experience as a cook is sufficient for the task. She can also enumerate each family member by name, including herself, while grabbing grain, since she also knows how much each member approximately eats. To be sure she does not forget anyone, or count somebody twice, she starts with Father, then herself, and then with ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/14270 Reply

2016-02-27
My reasons:
1. Accoding to relative information formula I=log[P(ei|hj)/P(ei)] in classical information theory, if P(ei|hj)2. A lie or wrong prediction is worse than a tautology or contradiction. For example, after master tells kitchener  "Three guests will come to have dinner", actually no guest comes. The master's saying is worse than a tautology or contradiction, because it will bring loss. Yet, according a tautology or contradiction, the kitchener either does nothing or asks for better prediction. 
3. If we code P(E|hj) according to a wrong prabability prediction or likelihood, such as P(E| hk is true) (actually hypothesis hk is wrong), the average codeword length will be H(E|hk)=- sum i P(ei|hj)logP(ei | hk is true)>H(E|hj)- sum i P(ei|hj)logP(ei|hj), which means that the saved average codeword length is negative.

I modify the formula  I=log[P(ei|hj)/P(ei)] into I(ei;hj)=log[P(ei|hj is true)/P(ei)]=log[T(hj|ei)/T(hj) 
where  P is statistical probability, and T(hj|ei) is the true value of p ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/13902 Reply

2016-02-22
Would like some responses on these thoughts:

Space is the negation of substance, of reality, of being; thus, space is nothing, unreality, non-being.

Can anyone see nothing or imagine nothing? Yes, for space is nothing. To see nothing means to see no thing.

Consequently, we do not see things in space; we see things alone and their negation, viz.,space.

Things do not occupy space. For then, what does space occupy?

Things negate space, i.e. nothing.

Take a plastic bottle of 1 ltr. How much water can it contain? 1 ltr. Squeeze it, can it contain 1 ltr of water? No, why? Because the bottle being squeezed increasingly negates space allowing less negatability for another (meaning that negatibility for it increases at the same time). For perfect density = perfect negation of space; less density = less negation of space. That which is negated cannot be again negated without the destruction of that which negates it.

Zero = infinite; therefore, space = infinite; it can be infinitely negated by things wi ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/13802 Reply

 1 - 20 / 133