Ross Finlayson

Пікірлер

@butterchain 4 күн бұрын

I found you!

@rossfinlayson 4 күн бұрын

This is the place. What we're looking at is, "Foundations: theory of everything", that there is one at all. So, there's metaphysics, then logic and mathematics, then physics and science. It's very grandiose and ambitious, "theory of everything", which usually means doomed to fail. So, I wanted to know what all about it. Alright.

@rossfinlayson 15 күн бұрын

Here's a pretty great interview with Magee and Quine of 1977, "The Ideas of Quine", from any of various sources, where Quine makes a sort of logical positivist while Magee raises the issues with regards to further qualia, with regards to "idealism vis-a-vis analytis" as where the analytic was before that empirical, that then Quine says that mathematics is "merely" a science, though he reserves the right to say they exist, that in this talk there's considered how others have that philosophy has "logic" and "science" separately, as with regards to mathematical fact (logic, mathematical platonism), and experience and observation (science, logicist positivism), that here there's that science can for its own sake embody logicist positivism this "strong logicist positivism", while as well maintaining a "strong mathematical platonism". Quine entertains some ideas about continuum mechanics and quantum mechanics. Magee seems quite well-reasoned and holistic. One of the things for which Quine is most famous is "ultimate classes" and "logical atoms", these sorts extra-ordinary or sublime considerations with regards to universals in logic, his later opinion makes not much mention of what are considered his most enlightening ideas. The discussion of behaviorism is remarkably subjective (arbitrary). Language and inter-subjectivity is mentioned and relayed. One of the concepts in the field after Quine is the, "arithmo-Quine", as with regards to words and quotes. Quine might benefit from modern foundations in continuum mechanics. I criticized his "Two Dogmas". Quine introduces individuation which is great and fundamental in theories where continua are primary. Then he rejects impredicativity by ignoring it mostly, yet not quite thoroughly, given that it's usual. Quine is considered a great and I much enjoy Magee. Here there's a wider school than Quine's, yet, Quine's is at least wider than the usual school. Quine introduces "semantic ascent", which is type-lifting in model theory (duck types), so it's considered plainly contingent and speculative, as that it's a usual exercise of model theory. Then he talks about separating technical philosophy from semiotics. Then he talks about making sense of (human) psychology.

@jaydenwilson9522 26 күн бұрын

00:25 Geometry is motion? 00:50 When "science communicators" usually talk about Consciousness they are talking about Perception. And what is this about Pro-jection now!? First I am harassed by Billy Gaede over Ob-ject. And now you are going on about Pro-ject. "-ion" is short for "-ation" which is a suffix for Action yeah? But what is a "Pro-" prefix and root of "ject" implying? I don't get what is special about the ordering of those!!!!!! Nor do I get what Gaede is going on about with Ob-ject!!!!! (Subjects are obstructed by objects which throw their presence in your way according to Foolosophers apparently!) I'm sorry about my rant but why are we obsessing over jects!!!!???? 5:10 Dr. Piere-Marie Robitalle has thrown the CMB into questionable territory.... and the axis of evil can justify Geocentrism so no more of that! 6:10 PROVE IT! (In all seriousness there is no evidence that the past or future exist as we only ever have the present which takes a delay to perceive.... but we have configurations in thought like memories of the past and predictions of the future.) 9:15 Rates are guesswork! Gravity is a replacement for God! Do you mean Specific Gravity which is Density-based? Or do you mean Universal Gravitation which is Mass-based? OR do you mean Quantised Gravity which is, let's be honest, Electromagnetic-based? 15:45 Radius Consolidation > Length Contraction 😁

@rossfinlayson 23 күн бұрын

Thanks for your reply. The, what "jects" is resolve to etymology, it connects - the root meaning is from what's thrown for example a pro-ject-ile, as with regards to, that it's perceived to exist as its passage and in its passage, from all the observers' perspectives, where "spect" is about "to see", all the projections along all the paths all the perspectives all their projections, that perspective and projection and geometry and motion, is with regards to, "the origin", which is you, the world revolves around you, then it is upon you philosophically, to levitate yourself from that, and levitate that, along these lines. What that means technically, then, is that the definitions of the terms of mechanics, are as of a sort of "the world revolves around the diagram", which it doesn't, in its perspective in its projection, in its geometry, its motion. Then, with regards to "proving" sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials, I think that most would be familiar with the thought experiment "what if a higher power just fabricated a past and set us in motion this instant, wouldn't it be the same?", that it wouldn't matter and be the same, in a sense proving it. The sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials is more or less exactly from "not proving things that don't exist", Aristotle's "un-moved mover", "conservation laws", "least action", yet a gradient and not "no action", and this kind of thing. Thanks for your reply, good luck in your endeavors.

@jaydenwilson9522 23 күн бұрын

@@rossfinlayson "which is you, the world revolves around you, then it is upon you philosophically, to levitate yourself from that, and levitate that, along these lines." Yep! Inspiration. And an Uplift is a fundamental unit of Inspiration. And, Einsteinian Metaphysics is predicated on the assumption that there can be no absolute reference frame of K0. - Dr. Wolfgang Smith But what if the mover moves? Just like a center of mass of a rotating body, which doesn't rotate. But as the body moves linearly the center of mass moves with the motion its centered in.

@ClabClab 29 күн бұрын

At 9:00 minutes you allude to the aether, the aether does not exist. Also, F = ma is not post-newtonian and force is not always a function of time. In fact, force is rarely treated as a function of time in physics.

@rossfinlayson 26 күн бұрын

Thanks for your comment. Indeed, you'll notice that here force the classical notion is only the result of a sum-of-potentials theory, that the potential fields are considered the real fields, and the classical linear impulse only the last (final) cause after that. Then, here there's a ready deliberation as with regards to the infinitely-many higher orders of acceleration, after a classical exposition of Zeno, that it is a function of time, and so derived. With regards to aether theory, it is its own notion with absolutes and ideals and when motion is absolute, vis-a-vis relativity (of motion) theory where motion is relative. Then, the equivalency principle of gravity's force and g-forces, is discussed with regards to Lense-Thirring and other considerations of frame-dragging, as after an account of Einstein's relativity theory, with regards to the Dirac positronic and Einstein white-hole sea, why it is a thing. Thus, by stating what theories model your body of knowledge, you'd less likely fail when there are others, or be unpleasantly surprised as after unstated assumptions, which were opinions instead of after first principles. Thanks again for your comment.

@ClabClab 26 күн бұрын

@@rossfinlayson Einstein's theory of special relativity provided a physical framework in which light has a constant velocity. He developed his theory of special relativity to DISPROVE the idea of the luminiferous aether. You cannot claim that both the theory of relativity and the aether are simultaneously true because they contradict each other. That's like if I told you: I believe the sky is blue, and I believe the sky is not blue.

@ClabClab 26 күн бұрын

@@rossfinlayson Also, force is the gradient of a potential field. These potential fields are rarely taken to be time-dependent in classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, or relativity because they are not easily computable.

@rossfinlayson Ай бұрын

@ClabClab Ай бұрын

At about 12:50 you say that "there is no electromagnetic character at all except for the equivalence of the energy of the photon and the electron." Light is an oscillation of electric and magnetic fields, to say that light has no electromagnetic character is incorrect.

@rossfinlayson Ай бұрын

Light has no charge nor mass, photons are not electromagnetic at all, no. Where something like the opto-electronic effect occurs, for example at junctions like in photosynthesis, is an example of a junction, not a common form. No, while each of electromagnetic radiation and optical and radionuclear radiation has frequency and wavelength in a wave model of propagation, it ends there.

@ClabClab Ай бұрын

@@rossfinlayson Photons are electromagnetic. They are literally the quanta of electromagnetic fields. You cannot have light waves or photons without electromagnetic waves.

@ClabClab Ай бұрын

Do you have a mathematically rigorous model for your theory?

@rossfinlayson Ай бұрын

Foundations, is for a theory that is its own meta-theory, here for that "model theory" and "proof theory" are equi-interpretable, and represent the language of formalism, as with regards to that rigor, is that which establishes the rulial and regular, thus that sound and valid inference, can so follow in terms of the language representing the universe of mathematical objects, which here is of a strong mathematical platonism and discovered, not nominalist fictionalism and invented. "Foundations: has a mathematically rigorous model", is a hypothesis of there being a "theory of truth", according to mathematical logic, then that here, the "null axiom theory" is a reflection on "axiomless natural deduction", which has also a strong logicist positivism, so that strong mathematical platonism, and, strong logical positivism, are re-united, as with regards to there being a theory that mathematically rigorous, and, complete, at all.

@ClabClab Ай бұрын

@@rossfinlayson Formal systems have set axioms that act as "rules". Without any axioms, you have nothing that can't do anything. Also, the goal of metalogic is to logically deduce as much as possible with as few axioms as possible. The more ideas you must recruit to defend your theory, the weaker your theory is.

@Jayden-su5sh Ай бұрын

Video look like from 1990s

@rossfinlayson 23 күн бұрын

Thanks for your reply.

@Miccram Ай бұрын

I love the application you put to the accident of observation throughout history. Gives me a really satisfying feeling with the connections you make with the multiple faucets of science amongst philosophy of the time.❤

@rossfinlayson Ай бұрын

It's a monism or a theory like a platonism, that of course great minds think alike and the greatest minds even think the same. Then, that there are yet discoveries even close to the surface, that even today can be found, are largely in the infinities and infinitesimals of mathematics, even what define continuity and change. The standard linear curriculum is very ordinary, and it's great, yet the actual way forward since science has mostly used up what it can make of standard linear mathematics, is in the extra-ordinary, and the infinitary. Then, having a thorough knowledge of the standard is key, that advised by a thorough enrichment along the way like mental and logical paradoxes and their resolution, then the extra-ordinary and infinitary mathematics can make usual sense.

@Miccram Ай бұрын

@@rossfinlayson yes, though the knowledge is there few have done as you have. At this moment. ❤️ I look forward to the study of quantum fields and computing though I have little confidence in who has access to the use of it's applications.

@jaydenwilson9522 Ай бұрын

@@rossfinlayson Follow Continuity at your own risk. Cantor was one of the worse things that ever happened to Mathematics. Sure some Ratios are Commensurable and some are not... but don't waste your life counting the difference.

@jaydenwilson9522 Ай бұрын

People go on about it being a Gravity-based universe or a Energy-based universe. But we both know this is a Motion-based universe where Momentum is a fundamental unit of motion. In a motion-based universe can you guess the superforce?

@rossfinlayson Ай бұрын

In a sort of heno-theory, any one of the forces could be primary and the other things derived in terms of it, instead of the other ways around. Then with regards to absolutes and ideals, and absolutes and the relative, and absolutes in space and time and charge and mass and density and the areal and volumetric terms, you can see that the entire theory's structure is of course an entirely connected graph structure then as with regards to that truth is the super-force, it's a theory of truth.

@jaydenwilson9522 Ай бұрын

@rossfinlayson ...... The answer was Stillness.

@Miccram Ай бұрын

Abenics that was innovated brings the lever to a new level ❤

@rossfinlayson Ай бұрын

It's a machine.

@Miccram Ай бұрын

@@rossfinlayson you are correct

@elinope4745 Ай бұрын

I don't think that there can be perfectly smooth acceleration at a macro scale. If you zoom in to the quantum level you will have at some scale similar to the scale of Brownian motion, causing imperfect motion and you will find tiny pendulum motions that add up to acceleration in one vector. The more energy in the system, the more erratic the variation will be. Only massless objects would have smooth acceleration, which makes you wonder what it is, because it instantly goes up to c. Probably has something to do with the nature of time itself. If you want some dependent rotating frames, check out fluid dynamics and the role of friction in viscosity.

@rossfinlayson Ай бұрын

Well there's the visco-elastic, for example, and here it's terms of attenuation and dissipation, with regards to oscillation and restitution, the tendencies and propensities, as with regards to that here it's definitely considered that the theory is a _continuum mechanics_, and then that for example there are three models of mathematical continuity, which are at least two more than the most usual entire stack of derivations. Then as with regards to the perfectly smooth acceleration, i.e. not grainy then it most certainly does have infinitely-many nominally non-zero, if vanishing, higher orders of acceleration, and indeed it must.

@jaydenwilson9522 Ай бұрын

A constant is an admission that we know something goes here, we just dont know what. - Bruce Peret And boltzman has been invalidsted by not following causation laws.

@rossfinlayson Ай бұрын

Causality is key and anybody who says otherwise has no reason to.

@rossfinlayson Ай бұрын

One of the concepts here is that constants, represent quantities, and quatities, represent implicit quantities, so constants, as parameters and implicits and the formulation, make for that they're derived and always part of the context of the derivation, then as with regards to something like that there are physical constants and mathematical constants, and it's simple to find some mathematical constants in what are otherwise physical constants, and not merely mathematical coincidence, here then there's improved the context of "constants", then for that "running constants" can make more sense, vis-a-vis the symmetries, and symmetry-breaking, no: symmetry-flex.

@jaydenwilson9522 Ай бұрын

@@rossfinlayson That is true for Geometrical Constants. But not true for Analytical Constants. Geometricians > Mythomagicians Geometric Symmetry > Analytical Symmetry LIGO spent a fortune looking for Supersymmetry but they couldn't find it and PRODUCED the Higgs in the last minutes to save face. Counting begins at 1. Measure begins at 0. Take 0 off the number line. - Shiban Lal Pandita That's my mentor speaking and he is right! Counting discrete objects is not the same as measuring a continuous distance. But modern mathemagicians don't know the difference between counting and measuring. They also don't know the difference between a divisor, fraction and ratio.

@jaydenwilson9522 Ай бұрын

@@rossfinlayson Maybe the reason is to protect their status, theory and/or paradigm? Who knows.... maybe the conspiracy theorists are right and they are stagnating physics to protect the current world order.

@jaydenwilson9522 Ай бұрын

Momentum > Force and Energy

@rossfinlayson 26 күн бұрын

Thanks for your comment. Here if you follow these talks, you can notice that there's a rather thorough account of the theory behind the concept of motion, both mathematically and physically, here as with regards to the very definitions of inertia and momentum with regards and respect to each other, and, how the modern classical account, has among complementary duals, that in the "un-linear", that it so follows the definition here as after momentum is conserved, ..., "in the open", as with regards to a theory after relativity called: "rest-exchange momentum", which is thoroughly inertial.

@chihighhcg1116 Ай бұрын

Great video

@rossfinlayson 26 күн бұрын

Thanks for your comment.

@2ndHandHigh Ай бұрын

I love this!

@rossfinlayson 26 күн бұрын

Thanks for your comment.

@jaydenwilson9522 Ай бұрын

Momentum > Force and Energy If Light is higher energy then it means it has a higher frequency and oscillates more. That means it changes direction/momentum more times. Force is defined as a change in Momentum.... Then is Energy just a mean of changes in momentum and better regarded as momentum shifts? Energy, in this view, isn't just "stored" or a static property but is better understood as an aggregate or mean of the system's ongoing changes in momentum (momentum shifts). Each shift, such as in the oscillation of light, adds to the total energy in a way that reflects how much the momentum is being realigned, redirected, or dissipated. Higher-energy light has more frequent shifts, hence a higher "mean" momentum shift rate. This approach helps unify force, momentum, and energy in a dynamic way. AND!!!!..... Alignment means the bob's momentum matches Earth's natural momentum, seen in the rest state. Misalignment is when the bob's momentum differs from Earth's momentum, seen when lifted. Compensatory momentum induction is the process of realignment when the bob is released, swinging back to match Earth's momentum. Oscillation represents the ongoing interplay between these states of alignment and misalignment. What do you think!? I personally believe that Momentum is the most fundamental and Force and Energy are just misnomers for types, orientations, etc. for changes in momentum or differences in momentum.

@rossfinlayson 26 күн бұрын

Light is fleeting, light is flux, here momentum is described as "conserved, ..., in the open" in a rest-exchange momentum, in a system of the thoroughly inertial. There's a sort of tetrad that reintroduces itself, like "the four particles", "the four forces", "the four fields", and this kind of thing, with regards to that theories may be fundamental and elementary according to perspectives. Here that's traditionally in terms of the kinetic and mechanical, later the electrical, later the quantum, often a field theory. Thanks for your comment.

@jaydenwilson9522 26 күн бұрын

@@rossfinlayson "There's a sort of tetrad" ???? Balance is one thing..... "Great art is simple. My universe is great art, for it is simple. "Great art is balanced. My universe is consummate art, for it is balanced simplicity. "My universe is one in which many things have majestic measure; and again another many have measure too fine for sensing. "Yet I have not one law for majestic things, and another law for things which are beyond the sensing. "I have but one law for all My opposed pairs of creating things; and that law needs but one word to spell it out, so hear Me when I say that the one word of My one law is BALANCE And if man needs two words to aid him in his knowing of the workings of that law, those two words are BALANCED INTERCHANGE If man still needs more words to aid his knowing of My one law, give to him another one, and let those three words be RHYTHMIC BALANCED INTERCHANGE." Dr. Walter Bowman Russell, [The Secret of Light], page 104-105 Its pretty simple dude. One substance, loaded with motion, trying to find balance with the stillness that binds it. Weak and Strong Force are INVENTIONS. Gravity is a FICTICIOUS macroscopic Force emergent from Spin and Density Equalization. Electricity and Magnetism is just Momentum Alignment and Momentum Transfers. And thanks for the reply. (Feel free to come over to the DemystifySci Discord for a chat with fellows trying to work it out)

@Miccram Ай бұрын

Seriously idk who you are but I am really confused about how I feel. You make me so excited ❤

@rossfinlayson 26 күн бұрын

Thanks for your comment.

@Miccram 25 күн бұрын

@rossfinlayson ❤️🫂

@mikip3242 2 ай бұрын

What is this mystical crack physics mumbojumbo nonsense that you can't even comprehend yourself, much less communicate in a coherent manner.

@eyesyc 2 ай бұрын

I speak in LaTeX too.

@rossfinlayson 26 күн бұрын

Thanks for your comment. At one point I was thoroughly familiar with printer languages.

@Chris-of6xm 2 ай бұрын

Glad I came across your video. Love videos which inspire me to think. Thanks for the interesting content

@rossfinlayson 26 күн бұрын

Thanks for your comment.

@PaulHammond-br5xr 2 ай бұрын

is this in the exam?

@rossfinlayson 2 ай бұрын

This is the exam.

@FranklyLate 2 ай бұрын

Can anything exist without an observer? What is the definition of an observer?

@rossfinlayson 2 ай бұрын

Here it's framed as with regards to perspective and projection, the geometry, and motion. The observer has a perspective according to a projection, what are observables, measurables, and what the senses, can sample, as for the sampling, measurement, and observer effects. There's the intromissive, or passive, and the extromissive, or the active, in that. Then, that's phenomenology and the instrumentalist view, while, then to answer your question, the notion that there exists things without an observer, is usually called "Platonism", in philosophy, and "realism", in physics. An observer then is mostly considered as what's as well an actor besides merely a detector, as with regards to, for example, the instrumentation of a detector and its interpretation, or, the objective view, of any sort reasoner.

@BlueMushroomSmurfCat 2 ай бұрын

Good info. Do a video on timelike geodesics

@rossfinlayson 26 күн бұрын

There's some discussion of the "zollfrei metric". Thanks for your comment.

@omerdilek4169 3 ай бұрын

I am a chemistry student who has completed Calculus 1, 2, and 3 and will be advancing to the second year. My dream is to investigate conditions under which a monopole magnetic field is possible, from a thermodynamic perspective, by using physics and mathematics to study electromagnetism and its effects in the subatomic world through various sensory methods. My university will open in one month, and I need to improve my mathematics skills during this period and beyond because the research I aspire to conduct is not a simple chemistry or physics investigation. However, I am struggling with which topic to focus on-should I study tensor calculus or something else? Which areas of mathematics will be helpful for me? In the upcoming term, I will be taking differential equations.

@omerdilek4169 3 ай бұрын

I don't know which area of mathematics would be beneficial for me to learn; I am open to your recommendations on this matter

@rossfinlayson 3 ай бұрын

You must study all the courses and carry the linear curriculum. Study what interests you. Don't forget to study art. It seems you consider the discrete and continuous, it's super-classical. Learn the linear and classical, then also about the super-classical, like absolutes, dualities, and infinities. The CRC Press has a book called Sensory Evaluation Techniques. Consider that mostly all there is would be the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, it's the modern picture of the data.

@jean-pierremessager4366 3 ай бұрын

You forgot to mention kangaroos, carrier pigeons and slow cooking ! 🤣

@rossfinlayson 3 ай бұрын

I'm gratified your impression's improved. Merci et bonne chance

@andrewyoonhobai8453 3 ай бұрын

something something mobius thingamajig something something time travel something something, gatekeeper negotiations

@shailesh7593 3 ай бұрын

brodie got pressed when i questioned him 😭😭😭 he’s just blabbing incessantly on these videos 😹

@rossfinlayson 3 ай бұрын

Won't shut up

@shailesh7593 3 ай бұрын

is any of this even remotely correct? this whole channel is just you going on and on with mathematical jargon that seems unintelligible and illogical

@rossfinlayson 3 ай бұрын

I'm correct. Go away then.

@shailesh7593 3 ай бұрын

maybe write some of what you’re saying down? a weird way to show off your so called knowledge in mathematics with a bunch of books and a spinning globe 😭

@somecreeep 3 ай бұрын

26:00 If you construct a complex number whose entries are complex-valued, either you need a new i that interacts with the original i differently (much like the j of the quaternions), or you just get a complex number again. That is, if A+Bi = (a+bi)+(c+di)i, then that's (a-d)+(b+c)i which is back to a standard complex number, except now you've lost the fact that complex numbers defined to have real entries are unique; for example, (4+2i) + (3+1i)i = 3+5i = (7+4i) + (1+4i)i. If you define a new i that interacts in some way with your standard i, (let's call it j for clarity), then you get numbers of the form A+Bi = (a+bj)+(c+dj)i = a + ci + bj + dji and you have to make a choice of what ji does. Clearly though, since there's a bj term, you're not working with a system that can be called complex numbers anymore. I'd guess from that form that you'd have to be working with a system that is morphic (whether iso- or homo- or something else, I don't know) to some class of hypercomplex numbers, which have been studied since the 1850s or earlier

@rossfinlayson 3 ай бұрын

What you're getting at is even a recursive sort of definition, as what was introduced was a sort of left-complex and right-complex numbers, simply whether it's a + bi or ai + b, then those are only written in quadrants II and IV, because quadrant 1 is fulfilling this identity-dimension bit. Yeah, otherwise you figure all of mathematics is very well explored then that you'd wonder how it's possible at all to even have a style. That the complex numbers are just a diagram sitting on R^2, or, for example, that the definition of division of complex numbers _is a definition_ meaning _it's not a derivation_ so there are branches, of it, division in complex numbers, just like complex numbers are a branch themselves. In 1985 we knew that positive real numbers had at least two roots: the principal and any non-principal branches, and as here those are also singularities in a multiplicity theory.

@randomcandy1000 3 ай бұрын

You need to get some help, you’re just rambling about nothing for an hour straight

@rossfinlayson 3 ай бұрын

Go away then

@feynmanmethod4868 3 ай бұрын

Hey Ross, Love your talks, but I can't help but request that you introduce a blackboard where you can illustrate your thoughts. That would really help make your talks even more engaging, as it is a little hard for myself to keep up just using my imagination.

@feynmanmethod4868 3 ай бұрын

A whiteboard or paper would work too !

@rossfinlayson 3 ай бұрын

Thank you very kindly, though these talks are mostly for listening without video at all. The summaries contain a list of terms for you to research for further context.

@jean-pierremessager4366 3 ай бұрын

Your putting words in approximate right orders without making any sense whatsoever. You are insane at the highest degree. Your brain fried. Please, please, please consult a medical professional asap.

@jean-pierremessager4366 3 ай бұрын

Can some professional medical person helps this man?

@krollo8953 3 ай бұрын

Um... honestly idk. Seems like he just has a pretty niche hobby. Leave him be.

@randomcandy1000 3 ай бұрын

@@krollo8953no, as a mathematician what he’s saying makes no sense. He’s just rambling about absolute nonsense for an hour straight in multiple videos

@krollo8953 3 ай бұрын

@randomcandy1000 well thats rough. Not sure why he would volunteer to do that publicly. "Like absolutely no sense you reckon".

@rossfinlayson 2 ай бұрын

As a mathematician, what?

@gaiolobez 3 ай бұрын

Unwatchable

@rossfinlayson 2 ай бұрын

Breaks down the definition of division in complex numbers showing it's two-sided.

Ең жақсы KZbin

Пікірлер