Re: Painful but inevitable resignation

From: Eckard Blumschein (blumschein_at_et.uni-magdeburg.de)
Date: 11/26/04 

Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 11:54:24 +0100

Thanks for many ideas. Today I am in a hurry.

On 11/25/2004 6:41 PM, Andr? Michaud wrote:

> Of course, I too can envision probable continuation of the trail into
> future, extrapolated from the existing trail. But I see such
> continuations
> more as the ability to predict the logical end or continuation of
> coherent
> processes that we understand.

The point is, real life is never completely predictible but embedded in
unseen external influence.

> Agreement. But the written record however helps a lot to preserve for
> good

For good is an unphysical human perspective.

>
>> Accordingly, I see at least three epistemically different notions of
>> existence:
>>
>> i) The usual one is independent of time but bound to an assumed object.
>> ii) Yours relates to this object's instantaneous action.
>> iii) The notion of an observer who only sees the object's traces
>>
>> I consider notion (i) speculative because it is just based on itself.
>> Notion (ii) additionally requires to imagine how the existing object acts.
>> My notion (iii) avoids any illusion. I do not see it a resignation if I
>> am aware of the impossibility to directly observe the object or its
>> action. I can see the traces providing evidence for the acting object.
>
> In my case, I would quality somehow as being a mix of (iii) and (ii),
> because conclusions about (ii) can only be drawn from the traces in
> (iii).

This was my reasoning.

> Before valid conclusions can be drawn, a critical exercise is
> distinguishing between the real traces, the assumed traces, and
> the false traces that make up the bulk of available knowledge.

Strictly speaking no judge is absolutely sure when he sentences.

[snip]

We have an Institute of Neurobiology in M. So I need no info.

>> Certainly. Things will perhaps become even more tricky if there are
>> 'clear' definitions in contrast to a more subtle common understanding.
>
> But isn't sharing clear common definitions the key to clear mutual
> understanding?

Illusive clarity is worst.

>> However, my caveat is
>> quite simple: I am humbly pointing to the trifle that physics treats
>> future time as if it was observable.
>
> Maybe "physics" does, but not me.

Did you utter that in public?

>> Well, I am just an engineer who was unhappy with lacking understanding
>> of auditory function. Meanwhile, I revealed the fact that perhaps most
>> physicists do not know why they need complex calculus for frequency
>> analysis and all related issues. If you are playing chess, then you may
>> have learned that complicated matter requires more flexibility.
>
> The reason is that physicists believe that no other tool than
> mathematics
> can describe fundamental physical processes.

That is my basis too. If the existing maths fails we need a better one.

>> According to my experience, genuine symmetry is rarely a perfect one.
>> Looking at a stunningly symmetrical measurement by a German physicist
>> Eisenmanger published in PRL, I was suspicious, and indeed the
>> symmetry was caused by a basic error.
>
> Mathematics allow building all kinds of logical universes whether real
> or imaginary. But out there, there can be only one objective reality.
> That's what I think. All descriptions that are at odds with any
> verified aspect of objective reality can only be delusions.

When Eisenmanger told me the streak images were asymmetrical as I
expected, I did not yet understand the reason of his error but did no
longer doubt that mathematics was to blame.

>> Yes. However the question of whether or not future time matters is
>> definitely relevant in description of the very reality.
>
> In my view, only in regard to useful predictable processes.

No. I meant something else. Traditional mathematics treats unknown
future by means of zero values. This causes unnecessary redundancy.

> I personally do not subscribe to Minkowski's spacetime geometry as
> representing objective reality. So, I have no opinion on any logical
> conclusions that could be drawn from it as a foundation.

I see it a descriptive model. All physical reality is contained within
the cone of passive past.

>> >> Your objective reality differs from my model in that it lets more room
>> >> for the unknown. In principle, such flexibility is to be regarded as
>> >> something valuabe.
>> >
>> > Presently, my view of objective reality leaves room for all that we
>> > still have not understood about it.
>>
>> That is the weak point. Your notion is a typical one. It even lets room
>> for such nonsense as objective observation of the not yet real future.
>
> Absolutely not. From my perspective, it lets room only for what we
> don't yet know about the fundamental electromagnetic mechanics of particles.
> Logics allows no straying into irrationality.

My following argument seems to be stupid while it is meant serious:
Imagine you are performing an experiment and being absolutely sure about
the outcome. Just electric power is suddenly switched off.

>> In this case you are better than me. It took me decades to grasp
>
> It took me decades too to get to where I am now. I have been analyzing
> the visible trail for 45 years.

If you are working in vision, do you know Bob Fendrich by chance?

>> that the ears do not throw away phase information,
>> how Nimtz's superluminality is just based on improper thinking,
>> why solution of wave equation is only evanescent in axial direction,
>> what is behind upwind differencing in numerial solution of wave equation
>> why spectra of real world signals always exhibit Hermitian symmetry,
>> who is responsible for non-causality of optimal filters,
>> how to overcome a notorious dilemma of the spectrogram,
>> how to understand Feynman's time running back and forth at a time,
>> how to causally interpret Sommerfeld's pre-runner,
>> why there is no convincing physical reason for negative frequency,
>> that Descartes enforced arbitrariness while intending to avoid it,
>> why Fourier performed his experiments on heat conduction with a ring,
>> why a book by Karrenberg even introduced an anticipating principle,
>> why physics spent so much effort to rigorize Heaviside's calculus,
>> why ears still outperform most advanced technology,
>> why Seebeck was wrongly decared wrong in his dispute with Ohm,
>> how to settle the old dispute between spectral and temporal theories,
>> what is wrong with Slaney's correlogram and with wavelets,
>>
>> etc., etc.
>
> It boils down to finding the real needles in the haystack.

I should live several hundred years in order to exploit all findings
after persuading all experts that I am correct.

>> Those who do not like my suggestion tend to agree that real-valued and
>> complex-valued analysis are equivalent to some extent. Actually, both
>> representations are fully equivalent to each other. My opponents however
>> argue that my preference for the real-valued variant is just my personal
>> and subjective view, and there is no reason to leave the traditional
>> view.
>
> This was the argument of orthoxy to all new ideas all through history.
>
> As I said before, there is no way to change the opinion of people who
> have already made up their minds.

More than 60 enviromentalists requested my natural spectrogram.
Unfortunately, the pertaining progam rather resembles a baby that
something that is comparable with easily available nearly perfect tools.

>> Actually, the complex-valued variant is only necessary if one
>> denies the objective fact that future events cannot matter in
>> reality-bound and thus observable physics. My opponents can just not
>> imagine that future time does not (yet) exist, because they consider
>> bilaterally extended spacetime the "objective reality".
>
> Precisely. Their mind is made up, and they will never reconsider.
>
> No logical argument, no physical demonstration will convince them.
>
> Just like it would be impossible to convince you that you are wrong on
> this particular point, because you have clearly understood it, it also
> is impossible to convince someone who has already concluded
> differently for their own reasons.
>
> And this is unfortunately the biggest hindrance to progress.

You might be right. However, I got the impression people do not trust me
because they feel I might be mathematically wrong.

> Fact of life. Dead end, Blind alley. The only option is for you to put
> your material at the disposal of members of the up coming generation,
> while they have not yet drawn final conclusions.

Feeling myself more independent than most youngsters, I will not write
off anybody.
>
> There is no other way of spreading new ideas. That's an
> uncircumventable historical fact.

> (the rest in next post)

Eckard

Quantcast