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> From: Ross Finlayson 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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: 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 ==========