Mathematical Physics is Irrational (Video)

From fictional black holes to irrational "non-empty" space... the mathematical physicists have clearly gotten lost in their quest for rational explanations.  Mathematical physics is mysticism used to improve engineering & technology, it is NOT rational science and this is demonstrated by the video posted above.  I hope you enjoy.

Read More

Refuting the Simulation Argument

Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct).- Nick Bostrom, http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

This position is absolutely ludicrous and it is easy to see why when the key terms are defined.  The terms conscious, simulated, people, and computer all need to be defined in the context of this theory for anybody to even begin to make sense of it.  However, Nick leaves these terms ambiguous in order to subtly get you to use YOUR imagination to fill in his blanks.  When he asks for you to "suppose that the simulated people are conscious" he is pulling the wool over your eyes, and here's why.

Simulate is, of course, a verb.  We can define simulate as "an action intended to represent another action or shape."

Rationally, "simulated people" is a package deal- it is a phrase representing the process being performed by the computer, making it a concept.  We use the term "simulation" or "simulated people" as a noun to efficiently communicate the entire process as a conceptual whole, which is easy enough to understand when made explicit. Yet, this sort of "quick and dirty talk" makes it easy to then attribute actions to the new noun we have invented, even though that noun does not represent an object- but rather, another action.  This is called the fallacy of misplaced concreteness (reification of the concept) and it is entirely irrational, a fundamental error.

Let me expand.

Only objects (that which has shape) can act- can be conscious, can simulate, ect.  The proponent of the theory specifies that computers are objects doing the simulating, but then they subtly switch the acting object to "people" with the phrase "simulated people".  From computers, an actual object, to "simulated people", a pseudo-object place holder used to make talking about the process easier.

However, pursuant to the definition of simulate, "simulated people" is completely synonymous with the verb "simulate", making is the action performed by a computer.  "Simulated people" is only understood in the minds of the audience who watches the actions of the computer.  The "people" (simulation) do not become objects, no matter how "fine grained" they are.

Therefore, the notion that the "simulated people are conscious" is entirely irrational because it ascribes an action of a brain (consciousness) to the concept of the simulated humans. It treats the concept as an actor, committing the fallacy of misplaced concreteness (reification).  Processes, like simulations, can never perform any actions like to be conscious.

The entire Simulation theory follows as  incoherent due to this faulty hypothesis.

Read More

Debunking Black Holes

Do Black Holes Exist?

The answer depends only on the definition of what this alleged Black Hole is compared to the definition of exist.

More information: http://monkeyminds.hubpages.com/hub/Black-Holes-Do-They-Exist
Mathematical proof of the invalidity of Black Holes: http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/

Read More

Is time travel possible?

It seems that there is still hot debate in the mainstream about whether or so-called "time travel" is possible.  In this article I will put those claims to rest by exposing the implied definition of time given by leading "scientists" to show it's fundamental contradiction.  Then I will propose a definition that can be used rationally (i.e. consistently) which will once and for all show that time travel is a completely surreal notion, belonging only in works of fiction.

So, what do the experts have to say?  Edward Farhi, director of the Center for Theoretical Physics at MIT says,

"I don't know of a definitive theorem that says [time travel] absolutely cannot happen, other than it leads to logical paradoxes and it can also cause the entire universe to collapse."

Indeed, the most famous logical paradox to arise when considering "time travel" is the Grandfather paradox.  The saying goes that if you traveled back to before you were born, you could kill your grandfather before he impregnates your grandmother with your parent- a patently impossible feat.

But a logical paradox tells us nothing at all if we don't know what we're talking about.  So, according to Edward, what is time?

"That was a huge thing when Einstein realized the flow of time was not a constant thing."

So, it's a thing that is flowing but not constantly.  A thing is that which has shape.  Clocks are things because each individual clock will have a shape.  What shape is time?  I cannot even begin to imagine how it "flows" if they cannot describe it's shape.  This is not a semantic issue but an insurmountable challenge for the physicist.  If we are talking about some thing then it must have a definitive shape.  No mathematician alive today can tell you the shape and location of time, or it's direction of flow.

It is popular to respond by saying that time's shape is "4th dimensional" or some other higher dimension.  This still does not describe it's shape, but for the sake of argument let us examine this notion as well.  What is this mysterious fourth dimension?  It is imperative in our study of time to really define the word "dimension" so that we can be sure it is used consistently.  Doublespeak is not good for science.  So, a well known critic of mathematical physics, Bill Gaede, writes this on dimensions:

 In Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, the word dimension means something else:

“ Mathematics. The least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the points in a space... "

According to Mathematics, if you heat a cube at 3:00 p.m., the cube is now 5-D: length, width, height, 30ºC, and 3:00 p.m. So why can’t you visualize this cube? What did the mathematical dimensions add to or subtract from the structure of the cube that would suddenly make it invisible or unimaginable to you?

Dimensions in mathematics, as it turns out, can be any kind of quantitative measurement of an object- a sort of coordinate system.  Easy enough.  Is this any different from a physical dimension?  What is a physical dimension?  The common conception of dimension is:

“A measure of spatial extent, especially width, height, or length.”

The distinction made in mathematics is unscientific.  They are not consistently applying the word "dimension" and this leads to a lot of confusion.  Time is not a physical dimension- or extension of an object into space, but rather as what Einstein defined more much concretely:

"Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it."

Time is what a clock does, or what the Earth does around the Sun.
Time is a measurement of material change, specifically, a measurement of consistent movement- and movement absolutely involves objects to move.  It is a mathematical concept which refers only to objects in themselves. Time is not a physical object, it is a conceptual relationship between objects.  It requires "one or more frames in a movie", as Bill Gaede would say, in order to understand the concept.  Time can be symbolized or represented but it is nothing more than an abstract relationship between two or more objects.

This is a very easy way to have a rational understanding of time.  Imagine you have never heard of or seen clocks before in your entire life and somebody walks up to you and hands you a clock.  Until you saw that the hands moved at a steady pace and day after day the sun rose and set in accordance with certain numbers on the clock, you wouldn't be able to really have a clue what it does.  Time is just a concept.

Is the Universe eternal? What's time got to do with existence?

Did existence ever begin? Was there ever a "time" when there was "nothing"?

As demonstrated above, time is a conceptual relationship between objects.  Objects are, by definition, that which can be objectively measured or detected, things which have relationships. Relationships may not exist without objects and multiple objects create concepts.  Therefore, time requires physical objects in existence to be perceived.  Time is only a conception involving these objects. So does this mean that objects are eternal? It's always good to check with a definition first.

e·ter·nal/iˈtərnl/

Adjective:

Lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.

Does this fit with existence? 

It is clear by the definition of eternal that it is a concept. If the concept of eternal is even valid it must involve objects in existence .Objects, again, must exist as they are what concepts are referring to.   Rationally, since objects do exist, they must have always existed.
It is unimaginable that matter was "created" or "formed" in zero time.  "Formation" is necessarily a process occurring over two or more frames of a movie.  True creation (something from nothing as opposed to just moving pre-existing things around) requires matter to appear from the void in a single frame of the movie! Motion in zero-time!  This is a complete contradiction that needs no further illustration.

Thus, existence is eternal.  Time is ultimately a concept of consistent intervals in motion and does not exist in any rational sense.

This article is part of a Series questioning modern physics: 1. Has Physics Become Irrational? 2. Objects vs Concepts 3. Time 4. Specific Quantum Strangeness (Soon to come)

Read More