To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Steven Ericsson-Zenith <steven@xxxxxxx> |
Date: | Wed, 24 Dec 2014 10:39:04 -0800 |
Message-id: | <CAAyxA7u-A8_tBU7cLNd+iCGHCw1mkm78BhAZ-rLUNh7uB9duRA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Yes indeed, falsification is a part of physics, I argue, although this point of view is not very popular among physicists these days. Until 2010 all of my work was in public. Unfortunately, I discovered that this is not sustainable for advanced basic research, early and incomplete ideas are too often subject to unwarranted criticism. My claim is only that the current models of computation are inadequate - in this I agree with Penrose. In particular, the solutions to General Recognition and decision making across large scale structures are impossible to consider. I make an informal argument, based upon a power analysis for conventional computation, that says modern computation is excluded from biophysics. There is no "load/store architecture," for example, in biophysics and, if you watched my video, at the end I note that memory is "free" in energy terms. So we need something new. That something is based upon a non-locality that is evident in biophysics. I hope to illustrate the new physics, along with new foundations for logic and apprehension, required to enable new models of computation in the book. I do not believe that anything is "non-computable," as Penrose does, in this sense. I should add that the physics I work with is experimental. It is my goal to provide viable alternative explanations for the current wealth of 20th century physical data, but my focus is the biophysics. My claim that light is static and the foundation of the gravitational effect, appears necessarily controversial, I know. It is, however, based upon existing equations in physics. Indeed, it exists in contemporary literature as the "heat death" of the universe. I simply use it as a purely mathematical starting point from which to reason. If you consider a universe consisting only of "photons," in conventional terms "traveling at the speed of light" then there is no "time" or "motion." Why get involved in the physics at this level? Well, it is important that I illustrate how we can mathematically unify a viable theory of biophysics with the remainder of physics. The book will be finished and generally available in the middle of the coming year. My health allowing. Regards, Steven On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Data Silos, Frank Guerino |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Child architecture, Michael Brunnbauer |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Child architecture, Michael Brunnbauer |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Child architecture, Michael Brunnbauer |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |