Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!border-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 03:50:31 +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>
 <OLicnZxFXu5HE2X6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 20:50:06 -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: <OLicnZxFXu5HE2X6nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <pY-dnY_8ncQVDGX6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 181
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-WAtnnJvGHRPgh5mPxF2iCaefWDtsU2uI3ol0QRJcf0Pc4mhYdNFdCTsA9ldW9NyHSoKo3+9z78NUcwO!vISv7R5DkH7C+1FOCV+PfCFOsI3mmBxGWMwKaNdZQV1hwJeKgJ1HEDlMkRWUuZZ6VgKdxR7rc9w=
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

On 04/10/2025 08:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 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 ==========