Selasa, 28 Februari 2017

On Metatheoretical critics on Quantum Mechanics (Carlos Aranda)


I fully agree. As I keep saying, there problem lies in both logic and
empiricism. Because of the vast difference between them, scientists shied
away from discussing the implication of this difference. As the logical
study reached to astounding height in the development of information
science and technological advancement made it possible for empirical
science such as physics to study structurally very complex realities, we
started to feel that there must be some serious dialogue in between these
two gigantic scientific achievement. On this, I appreciate that Prof.
Feynmann initiated a dialog between elementary level logic and theoretical
physics. It is a shame that this project disappeared.

However, there is a tension of social or political nature in between them
as we have already been experiencing in this very interesting list. For me
difference is more important and productive than uniformity which always
is the end of progress and so often the product of some political
interference silencing the discussion. As a mathematical logician, when I
learned what happened to Prof. Dingle and Prof. Marmet, I was shocked and
appalled. This kind of conduct is not acceptable in any real science.
Substantial difference is blessing in the development of Science or any
human intellectual development.

When I was young, I learned what the politics did to Prof. Oppenheimer and
Prof. David Bohm. The Princeton University sacked both of them because of
their refusal to work with the US government for developing Hydrogen
bombs. For the community of science this was a serious attack on the
autonomy of science. Science does not serve any worldly authority. This is
a darkest record in the history of academy and science. Even in Soviet
Union, communist government could not remove Prof. Sakharov from the top
position in the Academy of Science. All they could do was to put him under
house arrest. The police could not enter the house as it was the property
of the Academy of science. When Western science and academy are alarmingly
politicized and we do not see even a fraction of what Academy used to be,
it is time to reflect upon what academy is about. It was founded not by
the so called "democracy". Just like hospitals, it was founded by Vatican,
the "Catholic Church", to provide earthly interference free environment to
study "higher truth". Ironically, Marxist Soviet Union seemed to have
understood what Academy is (a Christian value) way better than Democratic
"Christian" West. It is a shame!

Why I bring this painful past up now? It is because the academy is facing 
a "crisis" which is even greater than the time of the Cold War. There is
no more no string attached funding of academy. We sold our soul out to
politics and economics reaching to unprecedented corruption in the history
of academy. To compete on funding, academicians are forced to play
political games and the standard and integrity of academy dropped
alarmingly. This what most of the  intelligent people understand now. In
Physics, this had a catastrophic effect. For the fear of loosing funding
researchers stopped discussing. Differences have been "settled" by
political coercion and blackmailing as virtually anybody who appreciate
intellectual honesty knows. I myself experienced this kind of
anti-academic activities when I said that 0/0 =hf is a mathematical
contradiction presenting precise mathematical reasoning. I was called with
name in public and personal threat was issued by some totally deranged
individuals. It was not that long time ago.

So, I am now engaged in a battle to bring academy and academic discussions
back to academy, the community of physics in particular as it appears that
this discipline is most affected by this destructive war against academy.
I can hardly justify CERN spending astronomical amount of public money 
producing virtually nothing when more than 85% of the entire population of
this planet is starving. Did they learn anything from the tragedy of Prof.
Dingle, Prof. Marmet, Prof. Sakharov, Prof. Oppenheimer, Prof. Bohm etc?

I firmly believe that honest scientific discussion is the largest duty of
anybody who works in science.



Victor, what kind of reasoning is correct what kind of reasoning is
incorrect has nothing to do with the religion of theoretical physics. When
we know that UP denies trajectories and we have trajectories in our
experiments, we must conclude that QM is empirically refuted. Just as
simple as that. This means that QM is totally irrelevant to Physics even
if it may be logically consistent.

However as this work done in Cambridge, if his argument is correct,
showed that QM can logically deduce that trajectories exist clearly shows
that QM is logically inconsistent meaning that it is no good for anything.
We always find a person who replies yes to whatever question totally
useless. Yes we call them "Yes man". So, this fellow in Cambridge
unintentionally proved that QM is totally useless, it means nothing. This
is the virtue of logically inconsistent theory.

Logic is a principle which governs any human reasoning and any violation
of it in any theory simply means the theory is meaningless. It has no
application, never mind physics.

Emperical theoreis are more difficult that mathematical theories. This is
because, in mathematics, we say a theory is consistent as long as it
models a mathematical structure. in empirical science, a theory must model
an ontological structure. I should say a physica trheory is more picky
than mathematical theory.

Though I came from a most precise theory of mathematics, namely recursive
function theory, it took me a while to learn that physics is more
difficult because of this ontological modeling. As far as I know of,
virtually no mathematical logicians know about this problem.

Dear Prof. Brian Josephson and Prof. Akira Kanda

Greetings to both of you,
With regards to continuing discussion on logical inconsistency and
contradiction of QM, I just found a paper by Carlos Aranda discussing
metatheoretical critics on QM, appeared in Topologik journal 2014.
While I understood that Prof. Brian stands as one of the brightest
physicists nowadays, he may have intuition on what may be acceptable or
not in physics sciences.
On the other side, Prof. Akira Kanda is not a trained physicist, he came
from the world of logician mathematics, so he has different emphasis on
what is wrong and right.

I would just comment that such a discussion can be continued in healthy
manner, so both mathematicians and physicists can learn from each other.

Humbly yours,

Victor Christianto

Victor Christianto
*Founder and Technical Director,
E-learning and consulting services in renewable energy
**Founder of Second Coming Institute,
Twitter: @Christianto2013
Phone: (62) 812-30663059
***Papers and books can be found at:

Tidak ada komentar:

Poskan Komentar