Ross Finlayson

Пікірлер

@butterchain 7 күн бұрын

1≠1

@ieronim272 11 күн бұрын

I really enjoy your videos, although it's a bit difficult to follow. Thanks a lot for sharing

@rossfinlayson 10 күн бұрын

Thanks for your comment. These are not very structured accounts, yet, as well reflect immersion in the language of mathematics and science, and philosophy, that the goal is both a gentle introduction, and a challenging course. As well, making these video essays is a course in learning itself, and often there are ideas that simply naturally arise in the stream of consciousness, and the train of thought. That said, while it's a very natural and unscripted format, one hopes that the often usual stammering is not distracting, that otherwise the language is full and fluid, and you can find that the usage is both informed, and correct, and a fuller dialectic. It's like a philosophical essay, to start with definitions, and discurse, or discurse, and reach definition.

@projectmalus 16 күн бұрын

Happy holidays and thanks. This is at or just beyond my reach yet with the explanations seemed to inspire a reason to actually do the work in order to grasp.

@rossfinlayson 14 күн бұрын

Thanks for your comment. Reading is fundamental and vocabulary is enabling, having a ten to twenty thousand word vocabulary is necessary for being able to read at a glance.

@2Hesiod 17 күн бұрын

Manifolds are only diagrammatic representations of he math and not physical dimensions.

@rossfinlayson 14 күн бұрын

Thanks for your comment. Physical dimensions have all the many, infinitely-many implicit dimensions about and around them. That this "is" a continuous manifold, is here considered with regards to, "Poincare completion".

@FOSology 19 күн бұрын

Really love the topics you cover. I’m really interested in the philosophy of applied mathematics and adjacent subjects. What is your educational background?

@rossfinlayson 14 күн бұрын

Thanks for your comment. I was in MathCounts and got the highest SAT and LSAT scores in my school, and I got a Mathematics degree. Mathematics is always kind of both "pure" and "applied", then that "Foundations" is the idea of having a theory of everything of mathematics.

@w1zzk1dd 27 күн бұрын

Thank you ✌️🙃

@rossfinlayson 22 күн бұрын

Thanks for your comment

@vaydaimages 29 күн бұрын

Thank you

@rossfinlayson 22 күн бұрын

Thanks for your comment

@butterchain Ай бұрын

Plato’s cave shadow theater.

@rossfinlayson 22 күн бұрын

Yeah, that's a good one - then whether it's mute - and intentionally.

@butterchain Ай бұрын

Mapping the Doors of Perception? Brane Mapping? Scratch built modals for special affects? 1≠1.

@rossfinlayson Ай бұрын

The idea, is on the outside, there's an apple, an apple, and the universe. So, It's just an apple, and, the universe, minus the apple, is everything the apple is not. So, the apple, is, everything that it is not. Then, 1 =/= 1, expresses "no", then the idea is that there's a universal language no-one's ever heard, it's called "Comenius language", maybe it's from Rudy Rucker or Douglas Hofstadter where I heard this, "Comenius language". So, the Comenius language, is all truisms, except one called the Liar, yet that's it, that's all there is to it. So, all these truisms, may be affirmations, =, or negations, ≠, then, besides that either way it's the same: both ways it's the same. It is the no-mind that is Ku.

@butterchain Ай бұрын

I found you!

@rossfinlayson Ай 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 Ай 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 2 ай 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 2 ай 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 2 ай 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 2 ай 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 2 ай 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 2 ай 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 2 ай 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 26 күн бұрын

@ClabClab, in, Einstein's note "Sidelights on Relativity", the first essay ends with Einstein saying "yes of course there's an aether".

@rossfinlayson 26 күн бұрын

Also, you should be familiar with the notion, "SR is local", which is a way these days of saying that SR is "spacial", as Einstein put it when he said "SR is local", while GR and frames are "spatial", and extended, that SR's regime drops right off in the non-local, that "Relativity of Simultaneity is non-local", in case you haven't heard this yet. If you don't agree that "SR is local" is not-falsified, where we say not-falsified instead of just true because science, it's widely held that "SR is local". It's falsified that SR is not local. Einstein has a great account of this in "Out of My Later Years".

@rossfinlayson 2 ай бұрын

@ClabClab 2 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 2 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 2 ай бұрын

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

@rossfinlayson 26 күн бұрын

@ClabClab, only seeing this comment now: indeed here there's considered that "optical light is special" and that it's massless and chargeless and that calling it "electromagnetic radiation" is like calling that "energy", it just happens to fit _part_ of the model. I imagine you might be familiar with electrical theory, with regards to at least three definitions of "c", light's velocity, current in a perfect conductor, and the electrostatic/electrodynamic ratio about true and displacement current: three _different_ values that happen to be close to each other, that are _not_ the same. Indeed, here there's that energy is in its forms like nuclear/gravitational and electromotive and electrostatic and mechanical and kinetic and thermal and kinetic, and the chemical in liberation and absorption of energy, yet none of these things are just like the other, so, here indeed optical light is special, and saying that it _is_ electromagnetic energy, does not suffice, as nuclear radiation and optical radiation and electrical field radiation or radio, behave in three different ways. Photons are mass-less and charge-less, and, the virtual photons in QED, are not even real, merely mass-less and charge-less packets of energy, overloaded in their terms to sit otherwise the same way. So, indeed, though electrical waves may pass through a vacuum or what's usually in that part of the theory called an aether, and optical waves, and rays, may so also, they're different things. Thanks for your comment, it's appreciated that that's a usual part of the linear curriculum that wall-papers over important distinctions.

@ClabClab 2 ай бұрын

Do you have a mathematically rigorous model for your theory?

@rossfinlayson 2 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 2 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.

@rossfinlayson 26 күн бұрын

The idea of axiomless natural deduction is to arrive at what _are_ axiomatics, which could be anything yet what are usually considered principled laws, with regards to the premier theories of axiomatic definition like Euclid's geometry and ZF set theory, to _arrive_ at these theories from axiomless natural deduction. Of course there's still the rulial and regular and logical, don't confuse reason on its own terms with lack thereof.

@Jayden-su5sh 2 ай бұрын

Video look like from 1990s

@rossfinlayson 2 ай бұрын

Thanks for your reply.

@Miccram 2 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 2 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 2 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 2 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 2 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 2 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 2 ай бұрын

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

@Miccram 3 ай бұрын

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

@rossfinlayson 3 ай бұрын

It's a machine.

@Miccram 2 ай бұрын

@@rossfinlayson you are correct

@elinope4745 3 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 3 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 3 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 3 ай бұрын

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

@rossfinlayson 3 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 3 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 3 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 3 ай бұрын

Momentum > Force and Energy

@rossfinlayson 2 ай 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 3 ай бұрын

Great video

@rossfinlayson 2 ай бұрын

Thanks for your comment.

@JoshFMusic 3 ай бұрын

I love this!

@rossfinlayson 2 ай бұрын

Thanks for your comment.

@jaydenwilson9522 3 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 2 ай 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 2 ай 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 3 ай бұрын

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

@rossfinlayson 2 ай бұрын

Thanks for your comment.

@Miccram 2 ай бұрын

@rossfinlayson ❤️🫂

@mikip3242 3 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 3 ай бұрын

I speak in LaTeX too.

@rossfinlayson 2 ай бұрын

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

@Chris-of6xm 3 ай бұрын

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

@rossfinlayson 2 ай бұрын

Thanks for your comment.

@PaulHammond-br5xr 3 ай бұрын

is this in the exam?

@rossfinlayson 3 ай бұрын

This is the exam.

@FranklyLate 3 ай бұрын

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

@rossfinlayson 3 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 4 ай бұрын

Good info. Do a video on timelike geodesics

@rossfinlayson 2 ай бұрын

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

Ең жақсы KZbin

Пікірлер