Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 03:39:06 +0000
Subject: Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math
References: <67EF682D.135A@ix.netcom.com> <67F01AE8.5A1A@ix.netcom.com>
 <ItidnXXXTbPXrm36nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <IiqdnXqB2r2KqG36nZ2dnZfqn_QAAAAA@giganews.com> <vt9m79$53ot$1@dont-email.me>
 <ISudnbcBF58mFWX6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 20:39:02 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ISudnbcBF58mFWX6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <OLicnZxFXu5HE2X6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 176
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-neDvhXpDbpFJnn+Ly541TGzJRBRsfEIR2W2ylwlHvsCMjAS67RlNwpjmIOS+sc47vPQmy6oqLJ6xaCF!CjXAG+BSdMCUQvL8L7yanwqhVXeFh+w/cc/sJI6Oaz95XOwYJq3vlBYUHWMW9dD2fQ4qtlZeLx4=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 9063

On 04/10/2025 08:12 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/10/2025 05:02 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>> On 4/4/25 2:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 04/04/2025 12:29 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's sort of like Born's "Restless Universe",
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hehe :) That book is not that unfamiliar to me. What a coincidence.
>>
>>
>> And now that I think about it, I can kind of make informed guesses as
>> what caused him to write it.
>>
>> Born deserved a Nobel earlier but they hadn't given him one by 1935
>> while one of his students (Heisenberg) had got it. Who knows, Born may
>> have even been the one who gave the right idea to Heisenberg, letting
>> him do the job.
>>
>> He had done, way earlier, the same thing with Einstein's GR too. Born is
>> the one who was supposed to develop GR and he had started it too, but
>> soon found out Einstein is working on it also, so in a favor to Einstein
>> he stopped his own work on GR.
>>
>> He later said he could finish it much earlier than Einstein did, if he
>> had not stopped the work.
>>
>> I think the same thing may've happened with Heisenberg.
>>
>> Anyway, without a doubt, Born was a top physicist of his time, at the
>> least at the level of Einstein and Heisenberg. This is my point. Yet, he
>> hadn't gotten a Nobel.
>>
>> So he decided to make money in some other way, I guess. But how?
>>
>> Jews had already successfully shoved communism up cro-magnons' asses to
>> fuck those bastards up for treating them bad for centuries, and this had
>> destroyed the appeal that cro-magnons' "religion" had for them. And the
>> 1800's cro-magnons who had sold crap to people in the name of new
>> religions were also fast dying off in the 1930s. No market value. So a
>> kind of niche must've formed in those years to use cro-magnons
>> imagination and desire for strange baloney and make money by that. Some
>> chose writing science fiction stories and were successful.
>>
>> But what would Jewish scientists do to make money off of the
>> cro-magnons? The lousy ones resorted to write psychology books packed
>> with bogus theories about sexuality and fucking, just so to sell well,
>> and made good money too. But top scientists would not do that sort of
>> things. That kind of fraudulent work was beneath their dignity.
>>
>> So what would a man like Born do now that he was being denied the Nobel
>> Prize money? I think he chose to write this book, The Restless Universe.
>> I get a hint at least by the title of it. It is for selling something to
>> the maximum number of ordinary people hungry for stuff that are to some
>> degree strange to them and are true as well :)
>>
>> I happened to read this book way back in early 1970s cause someone had
>> translated it to Persian and one copy of that was for reasons unknown to
>> me in our house, I think purchased by one of my elder brothers falling
>> for its title. The book was being spotted by me here and there in the
>> house for at least a decade, along all sorts of other books and
>> magazines that I had nothing to do with them.
>>
>> In the 1960s, we high schoolers would see much more of George Gamow's
>> popular physics books which almost all of them had been translated to
>> Persian in late 1950s. But somehow, somebody in the same period of years
>> had chosen this book also to translate. I don't know why. I cannot
>> imagine Born was a known figure in Tehran as a top physicist. I
>> personally heard of his work only in early 1970s when studying physics
>> at Tehran University. And only then, it had clicked in me that this same
>> man was also the author of this "  جهان ناآرام  " book that here and
>> there I'd seen in the house for years.
>>
>> So after starting physics in university, and soon after my physics
>> background got strengthened a bit, I naturally began reading it at last.
>> I don't remember much, but the impression that the book had made on me
>> was that it was like a long story but in physics concepts, spoken to the
>> reader in a friendly manner, which was a great relief compared to how
>> physics was covered in the university - our physics texts in the
>> university were mostly translations of French physics books which were
>> all quite rigorous and formal and presented in somewhat sadistic ways
>> for students who were being exposed to them for the first time. The
>> French usually first treat everything rigorously, and only then may do
>> the explanations. It is not so in the United States, and thanks god for
>> that!
>>
>> That's the only expression of the Born's book that I still remember.
>> Gamow books were a bit too informal and for a wider audience. We had
>> begun reading them in high school.
>>
>> Anyway, when you referred to it, it took me a quite a few seconds to
>> realize and remember all that about it and make sure the book was the
>> same thing we had back then in the house :-) Still don't know who bought
>> it. Both my brothers are still alive, I can ask them that; they may
>> remember.
>>
>> Hehe :) I read that before even you were in existence :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Same words / different lens
>
>
> A lot of it is about his consideration and for Born what was
> a sort of dread of the continuous, as that being too rigid
> to make for chance, that then his shaky sort of lens made
> all the chance, or opportunity and possibility, that mostly
> he was about being able to make branches, instead of addressing
> the issue of why the origin's everywhere/anywhere/everywhere,
> that chance and uncertainty are constantly being created and
> destroyed, and otherwise his straight-and-narrow sort of
> linear narrative yet couched in the language of quantum
> mechanics, has he was missing out on a continuum mechanics,
> and things like the Zollfrei, and Poincare plane, as
> with regards to what later and further is about the continuous
> manifold, yet pretty about that mathematics _owes_ physics
> more and better mathematics about continuity and infinity.
>
>
> Then, Born rule and then the Copenhagen conference and that,
> arriving at a probabilistic explanation instead of things
> like Bohm and de Broglie and super-classical models of real
> wave mechanics, with probabilistic observables, has that
> pretty much for Bohm and de Broglie is the real wave collapse
> to fill the particle conceit, then that functional freedom
> is sort of like for a model of Dirac/Einstein's positron/white-hole
> sea, i.e. like Zollfrei metri, i.e. like Poincare's rough plane,
> i.e. like super-string theory.
>
> I.e., continuum mechanics. (Super-classical, super-standard.)
>
>
> Born ends "The Restless Universe" with something like "under
> our observables, the universe quivers", yet, on the one hand
> it's full of potential, on the other, not a theory of potentials.
>
> So, a potentialistic theory with things like Bohmian mechanics
> is considered a wider world though that Born rule is what it is.
>
>

Consider, for example, Schaefer's "A response to Carl Helrich".

https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/13448/#!

https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHART-8

"As to the power of authority, when Helrich can quote Max Born for the
metaphysical stance that “the wavefunction itself has no physical mean-
ing” (p. 554), Werner Heisenberg ([1958] 1962) can be quoted for the
opposite metaphysical stance."


========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========