AlexL

Concepts are entirely mental. It depends; the valid ones do describe something in the objective world. I repeat: I do not understand what "operating in concert by elementary operations" means. I am not familiar with this terminology. This is a misconception, although it is widely held. But first, a caveat: one does not need to invoke the possibility of computing something (using Newtonian mechanics or anything else) in order to argue for causality. Yes, the ridges are what they are and could not be different, given the nature of the entities involved. However, I will mention for completeness, that there are other types of "events from the history to the present" which could have been different: these are those which are influenced by a consciousness which has free will. Now back to "explaining all the events by using Newtonian mechanics". A fact about the Newtonian mechanics is that the solution of the corresponding equations are extremely sensitive with respect to the initial positions, velocities, masses, forms and material of the particles. By this I mean the following: if one makes a change on the 100th decimal place of any of these characteristics, of any of the particles, after a time the equations will give a completely different state. Depending on the nature of such a many-body systems, this time may already be milliseconds. To say nothing of the fact that one cannot know, and process, the initial characteristics of particles with infinite precision (unless being omniscient, and omnipotent), of the fact that the equations are not exact, that the models for the particles are not exact, etc., etc. To consider, under such circumstances, that some specific equations do permit to correctly compute ("explain"), even in principle, the final state of a complex system, is an illusion and a fallacy. The above is not specific to the Newtonian mechanics: any mathematical description of a many-body system will exhibit such instabilities. For this reason the description in terms of different, collective, properties, will always be indispensable in principle. That's it for now Alex

And what does this imply with respect to the validity of my arguments? Alex

I? No, I can't. Can you? And what about the case when your opponent could not care less about efficiency? Alex

I do believe that there exist properties of systems which are not found in, or possessed by, its constituents. I also believe that they are due to, or are dependent on, the properties of the underlying components, but are not "reducible" to those properties (depending, however, on what does "reducible" means exactly.) What does "operating in concert by elementary operations" means, do not know. I do not think that scientific concepts (or science itself) are but a "useful way of thinking and organizing information". To sum up: I do believe the concept of emergent properties, such as I defined it, is a valid concept. If you believe it is not, you should tackle my examples. There are, certainly, different concepts of emergent properties, and some of them might be invalid. For example, if emergent property means the one that is in no way dependent on any of the characteristics of the microscopic components (one characteristic being their existence), then such a concept is invalid. Alex

I would call "emergent" that property of a system which is not found in, or posessed by, its constituents. Examples: - temperature and entropy; they characterize macroscopic systems only, are not found in individual atoms or molecules, but are due to their movement - DNA-replication; not found in individual molecules, but is due to their various characteristics Your definition, "property not due to properties of the constitutive atoms", is not precise enough, in my view. Alex

The argument from economic efficiency has a few problems. Here are two: - it is impossible to prove that the free market is more efficient than any other arrangement - it is possible that your opponent could not care less about efficiency, as many socialist and environmentalist now claim The only defensible argument for the free market is the one which stresses that: - one defends freedom and individual rights - on ethical grounds - and the free market is but one of the consequences of freedom and rights, namely in the economic realm - and to stress that even if the economic freedom would not result in the maximum economic efficiency (whatever this could mean), one would still defend it - on ethical grounds; - it is also important to stress that freedom and rights imply the absolute ban on initiation of force and perpetration of fraud, from whatever quarters it may come, including government. In this contextually embedded form the pro-free market argument is logically and ethically tight. Alex

Thanks, and thanks to Pearlist too. Alex

What is the real URL of this "PF.com" ? Alex

I looked at what I believe to be the article in question and I think that your first hypothesis is the correct one: the author probably misunderstood what the reviewer said. The authors of the article submitted for publication write that they could perform the calculations for "1 + 1 dimensions", that is for a simplified model with only one spatial and one temporal dimension. The authors note that for "3 + 1 dimensions" (that is for the real case of three spatial dimensions) one has to resort to numerical calculations, and that the result could be qualitatively different. The article does not question the result of the addition 1+1. Alex

FYI: Prodos moved on May 18, 2009 my questions/remarks to the www.tewlip.com forum, where Dr. Little answers member questions. The corresponding thread is here. Alex

Please come back with your opinion as soon as you have one. Some parts of the book are on Google Books here: Preface Chapter 1 / Philosophy: Beacon or Trap Chapter 2 / Foundations: Clarity and Order Chapter 5 / Quantum Mechanics in Search of its Referent Alex

Prodos, I would like to comment on this part of your post: (I don't have Dr. Little's book in order to check, but I will assume that you quoted the entire relevant part.) In fact, there is nothing unexplicable or strange in the phenomena that Dr. Little described above, from the point of view of the field theory: everything falls in place if one remembers that the field theory in question is not the field theory of the magnetic field only, but of the electromagnetic (EM) field. In this theory, the field is characterized by two "components", the magnetic field B and the electric field E. That is, the electromagnetic field is described by a compound object, which I will write as [E, B], and the same EM is characterized in a different inertial reference frame by a different combination of E and B - by the object [E', B']. Is there already something un-objective and/or un-realist in the above? No, at least not yet: such a situation is not new, it exists already in the classical mechanics. For example, the velocity v of a particle is different (v') and has different components along the axes in a different reference frame. In addition, if v is constant in time, we can allways find a reference frame in which some, or all, of the components of the particle's velocity v' are zero; this fact was used by Dr. Little in the fragment above. It follows that there is nothing apriory unusual in a situation where, for a given EM field, we can find a reference frame in which the magnetic component, B', will be zero. What would be unusual indeed, even strange, and even contradictory and truly un-objective, is for the action of the EM field on an electrical charge q to be different in the new reference frame. The action is measured by the force. The force is, in the first reference frame, F = q(E + vx, while in the second, in which B' = 0 (and v' = 0), it will be simply F' = qE', but the value of the "surviving" component, the electric field E', should be such that the force with which the EM field acts on the charge will be the same, F' = F (I am simplifying a little bit here). And indeed, in the traditional field theory of electromagnetism it is easily proved that indeed E' takes such a value as to fully compensate for the desappearence of the magnetic component of the EM field. To sum up: Dr. Little's account of the disappearence of the magnetic field seems incomplete to me, because it doesn't mention the other component of the EM field - the electric component - and its compensating change. Given these facts, I beleive I can affirm that the conventional theory is able to explain the situation described by Dr. Little. This does not of course, in and of itself, prove that the field theory of electromagnetism is correct (to paraphrase you), but it proves that Dr. Little's (and your) argument against the traditional EM theory does not seem to hold water. I will also note that the conventional explanation above is strictly local - a characteristic trait of a field theory, as opposed to action-at-a-distance theories. I am here answering your remark: Sasha

I understood your question very well. That is why I listed them under the title "Bunge's views of knowledge", not of QM. They were meant to be more like an appetizer. Maybe. If I'll have some more time. What about doind yourself some reading meanwhile? You expect me to read this article in order to understand what do you mean by "non locally interpretation" and "quantum leaps"?? No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. Sasha

His own, based on the following views of knowledge ("critical realism"): What do you mean by those? And you, why are you still beating your little sister? Alex

I must confess that I do. With most. Try Mario Bunge, Philosophy of Physics, it's quite intriguing. Out of print. In libraries only. "Limited preview" here. Sasha

No, the observer is not a necessary element of QM or of the interpretation of QM. It is smuggled into QM, without necessity, despite being incompatible with the formalism of QM and against philosophical principles of objective science, just because of once fashionable philosophies of pragmatism and of subjectivism. The observer, or the scientist, is necessary only to formulate, interpret, experiment and veryfy the theory :-) Sasha

"From Mohammed to Ayn Rand" Here Yaron Brook and Robert Tracinski are also mentioned. Alex

It does. Alex

My profile is your friend. Alex

Did he? Really? Then I am afraid he was wrong. Alex

Since 25 March 2009, Dr. Little is available daily to participate in discussions and answer questions regarding the elementary wave theory, including topics in physics or the philosophy of science. at the TEWLIP forum (http://www.tewlip.com) Alex

In evaluating a person or a movement, you should check not only against what is he fighting, but also - and even more importantly - for what. Is it for freedom and individual rights? or to replace a dictatorship with another? Besides, this method will allow you to objectively distinguish between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. Regarding material on Guevara: besides the book which was already mentioned, Humberto Fontova wrote a lot of articles about Cuba, Castro and Guevara, which you will find through his site and in particular on FrontPageMag.com, for example Fidel's Executioner. His articles are archived here Sasha

How strange that he didn't notice his color when he hired him... Alex

*** Mod's note: Post moved, from the general Financial situation discussion, to this thread. - sN *** This article with a provocative title Did poor minorities cause the crisis? denies that the CRA/Fannie&Freddie explanation of the current crises' roots is valid. The author claims, for example: And so on... I am not knowledgeable enough to evaluate the article's arguments. What do you think of them? Thanks.

OK, let's forget about your "theory" and what it was supposed to illustrate. However, if you think that Quantum Mechanics is a "'theory' that happens to make correct predictions", you did not justify your claim, and, besides, you are mistaken. QM is very well integrated in the rest of physical sciences, including the classical physics. Thus, for example, QM was arrived at by induction from: - numerous surprising new observations from around the year 1900, and - from the physical theory of that time, now called classical physics, primarily from the Newtonian mechanics It is least of all an ad hoc construct: it extends the classical analytical mechanics(*) from macroscopic to atomic particles, following a careful analysis of what macroscopic properties can and cannot be ported to atomic particles. Even if the analysis and interpretations were often flawed by subjectivism and pragmatism, this does not negate the validity of QM as a theory about reality. As to a non-pragmatic, non-subjectivist, but realist and objective analysis and interpretation, it can and has been done. QM is, therefore, a meaningful theory, whose predictions do not just "happen" to be correct; it is correct because it was induced from facts and existing theory, under the constant assumption that the reality is the ultimate judge. Sasha ----------- (*) I am thinking here about the fact, that QM takes over from the classical mechanics the Hamiltonian H (which generates the equations of motion, essentially the 2nd law of Newton a=F/m for a specific system) and constructs the QM equation of motion - the Schrödinger equation , which shows how a system's state evolves in time.