Mr. Sammi

Feather,

finally I have a reasonable idea of what I am searching.

I have been recently instructed that Physics is a meta-language of the Universe, I have learned to seperate this meta-language from the physical characteristics of the universe - The regularity of the Univere, or perhaps at times the irregularities.

It may be important be me to note that it is difficult to speak of the physical characeristics of the universe without using this meta-descriptor, this meta-language, this physics.

Oh and yes, this physics seems maniford in intellectual terms. Itz meta-language has an active component perhaps something akin to itz semantics WHICH seperates it from mathematics. The syntax of physics then can be easily mis-understood due to itz relation with mathematics AS the sole element of physics. This mistake is obvious seeing there are a few examples on board here. The relation of the syntax of physics to the physical world, which I see as the semantics, the proper application of the meta-language, is needed to properly construe the totality of physics.

Now we can move on to the physical characteristics of the Universe, without too much reference to our much touted meta-language - physics.

Now the real question is exposed. What is the derivation of these physical characteristics. Is there another meta-language which should be able to adequately describe the evolution of our regular universe. Some have hinted at this.

Questions of chance, the cooling of parts of the universe, the formation of Quantum mechanical meta-descriptions and others come to mind. The final question would be why was the early dawning of the universe brought towards order? This is the order, the regularity which can be described using our various meta-descriptions, including Quantum mechanocs. Was it chance, or are these ordering algorithms intrinsic to energy?

addendum : What do youthink of the possibility at this stage of the game, that the universe was founded on 3 OR 4 "elements", things bi-polar with sufficient intermediate ranges to spawn all the particles. Speculation which needs no response.


Sammi Na Boodie ()

Mr. Sammi

cfgauss : I'm really not going to give you several years of the math and physics training that you clearly don't have,

Mr. Sammi : nice way of saying you have been training in math and physics for several years. What puzzles me is how is it so crystal clear to you that I clearly do not have this? Are you psychic OR telepathic OR something, and using these gifts to read into my past, seeing the last time you were obsessed with some idea that my posts were not the gospel truth...

cfgauss : but need to understand in order to have the slightest idea what one is talking about, Sammi.

Mr. Sammi : what makes you think that you have a privledged position when understanding is in play? Why do you have such low estimation of humans?

cfgauss : I doubt you even got my gamma function example, which is something that I knew about in Jr. High.

Mr. Sammi : From the mind of a solipsist anything is possible, including the delta variation of the gamma function! Did you know about that variation too?

cfgauss : blah, blah, blah.

Mr. Sammi : I stopped reading anything you post on physics OR math, as I noted elsewhere, reading or listening to people mumble is not my favourite pastime. (OH, I scanned your message for your dissociation from me, which I have come to expect.)


Sammi Na Boodie (merci bien)

jj

We have models. Where are these laws?

cfgauss

"Mr. Sammi : nice way of saying you have been training in math and physics for several years. What puzzles me is how is it so crystal clear to you that I clearly do not have this? Are you psychic OR telepathic OR something, and using these gifts to read into my past, seeing the last time you were obsessed with some idea that my posts were not the gospel truth..."

Well, considering you've said several things that are flat-out false, misleading, interpretations only non-physicists and physics minors accept, pop-sci interpretations, interpretations you can only think without having looked at the math, etc, it should be obvious that I'm using my amazing powers of reading to determine that maybe you aren't an expert in that field!

Also, considering the fact that you've attacked several sarcastic remarks I've made--including at least one I made against myself--I'm guessing your reading skills fall short of those that intelligent people have.

To summarize: You don't know what you're talking about and you need to read more carefully!

Mr. Sammi

cfgauss : In a debate, it is far better to cite an example rather than make an all encompassing statement. All encompassing statements do not appeal to the intellect. So far all the COMMENTS you have made about me are baseless. They have argumentatively NO SUBSTANCE.

Of the many things which you claim that I have written which were flat out false perhaps utilising the 'quote' function provided by the iidb discussion board may further your opinions FAR FAR better than simply stating what is not obvious.

Concerning the sarcastic remarks you think you have written, you can easily re-write history BY CLAIMING they were sarcastic, rather than saying you were trying to belittle my position on the subject matters.

The world does not turn how you, cfgauss wishes it to turn, and because they are others trying to further themselves and their causes by fair and reasonable means, this by no means allows you to impose your rhetoric on them by the use of foul means.

The only thing which has to be read carefully on this board OR any discussion board IS what CONCERNS the subject matter, sarcastic or personal remarks can be taken into account by any measure, any measure. Again it may be more useful to the discursive process if you can cite a post which you believe my response was inadequate.


Being an expert in a field ultimately has nothing to do with holding a chair at Oxford or being a tutorial assistant ay any University. Far from this fact, what matters is the interpretation, if it falls within academic acceptance then it matters NOT, how LONG the string of letters are which follow the name. Can you comperhend this? In fact the only crieteria for these matters on this discusion board, if you check the advertisement is : FOR THOSE WHO THINK HARD, or general discussions on the subject matter. This is not a lecture series!!!

IF YOU CANNOT CITE CONCRETE EXAMPLES of what I have posted on this discussion board, please refrain from addressing me WHILE I am utilising this public posturing forum.

Sammi Na Boodie (pleased)

Shadowy Man

You have done similar things. For example, you displayed a crude, at best, understanding of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, but maintained your certainty. Additionally you called elements particles, while claiming the word "elements" is unscientific. And others.

You claim to be a student in theoretical physics. I hope that as you continue your studies, you will begin to develop a deeper understanding of the physics that you clearly do enjoy learning about. If you continue on to get a Ph.D. and become a professional, I think your appreciation will only grow. Good luck.

Goliath

Mr. Sammi,

So be it. My counterexample thusly stands, and your claim that meaningful mathematics must have something to do with reality is soundly refuted.

That will probably (not definitely, just probably) never happen. However, that doesn't change the fact that Factorization Theory is a legitimate, meaningful part of mathematics (hell, it sprung out of unique factorization in the integers, which of course does have real world applications)

I do not know how the laws of physics came about.

Sincerely,

Goliath