Following the advice of Krishna, I worked for more than a month. Here is the first part of the result
22-10-23 7:12
The (BAD, WRONG) pdf is here. There may still be typos (THERE ARE ERRORS).I realized it was a premature satisfaction. The method was a bad one and the result was wrong. Mistakes were made. I made them. Removed. Work contiunues ...
"... Einstein himself, who had declared some years after accomplishing the revelations of his general relativityI will devote the remainder of my life to thinking about light."
P.S.3. 21-10-23 13:09 Have finished reading the "Properties of Light" by Rebecca Goldstein. In the Afterward she (as many others) writes that Bohm's model of hidden variables is "deterministic". But it is not. It requires the initial data of the guided to be randomly selected in agreement with the Born probabilistic interpretation. Otherwise it is not in agreement with experiment. Thus the book is misleading. Also the position of John Bell is not presented faithfully. John Bell was inspired by Bohm's model, but not satisfied with it. Otherwise it was interesting to read the book through.
P.S.4. 22-10-23 7:21 Started reading (with one eye, as the other one is still giving a blurry image) "The Mind-Body Problem" by the same author, Rebecca Goldstein.
A bright Jewish girl comes to Princeton to make her PhD in philosophy. Being not quite able to find her place among the top-top-top rank philosophers she starts to seduce her male colleagues, one by one. Finally seduces a real genius (also a Jew, to her mother satisfaction) mathematician and easily succeeds in making him to marry her. Interesting reading, instructive psychology, also uncensored view of scientists and science, philosophy, physics, mathematics, by an insider.
P.S.5. 24-10-23 17:36 Have finished the difficult and tedious calculations. They came as expected. But there so much work to confirm what I know must be true. Now to write it all down....
Reading "The Mind-Body Problem". There:
"“From where I stand and what I can see from there—and I’m speaking only as a mathematician now—bodies and their space occupy only a rather insignificant stratum of reality. So it doesn’t surprise me at all that we—or at any rate our minds—turn out not to be bodies. That’s the way it really ought to be, that the thinking part of us, the part that can grasp the nonsensible, the purely intelligible, should itself be nonphysical.”
"so much work to confirm "what I know". The hero of the book, the genius (though solipsistic) mathematician, considers reincarnation as more supported by data by than some crazy constructs of quantum physicists. He would say not "what I know", but rather "what I remember".
And also this:
"There’s a certain degree of danger involved in the life of the pure mathematician, in his intimacy with the inhumanly perfect and the consequent liberation from mortal concerns. Insanity is an occupational hazard, a sacrifice the mathematician risks in his solipsistic splendor."
P.S.6. 25-1-=23 19:06
In my posts "Clifford Solution. P.S.2" and "Religion and Science – cruel Gods" I have mentioned "Atlas Shrugged" and "Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand. I was not well informed at that time, I was lacking the data. Here are the additional relevant data:
Next on my reading list:
ReplyDeleteRebecca Goldstein, " Plato at the Googleplex_ Why Philosophy Won't Go Away"
There i am finding:
"Sometimes a scientist is willing to stand up and bravely defend the claim that philosophy is worthless. “Philosophy used to be a field that had content, but then ‘natural philosophy’ became physics, and physics has only continued to make inroads,” Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist who writes popular science books, told an interviewer. “Philosophy is a field that, unfortunately, reminds me of that old Woody Allen joke, ‘those that can’t do, teach, and those that can’t teach, teach gym.’ And the worst part of philosophy is the philosophy of science; the only people, as far as I can tell, that read work by philosophers of science are other philosophers of science. It has no impact on physics whatsoever, and I doubt that other philosophers read it because it’s fairly technical. And so it’s really hard to understand what justifies it. And so I’d say that this tension [between philosophy and science] occurs because people in philosophy feel threatened, and they have every right to feel threatened, because science progresses and philosophy doesn’t.”
"There are many things that one can say in response to this position. For starters, one could point out that the position presupposes that we have a clear criterion for distinguishing between scientific and non-scientific views of the world. When pressed to give the requisite criterion, scientists almost automatically reach for the notion of “falsifiability” first proposed by Karl Popper. His profession? Philosophy. The Kraussian position also presupposes that fields like relativistic quantum field theory (the very theory that, according to Krauss, is helping to render philosophy obsolete) are offering us descriptions of physical reality, even though they employ concepts which refer (if they refer) to unobservable states and entities, such as, to take a non-random example, relativistic quantum fields. The view that the strange entities dreamed up in the models of theoretical physics, though unobservable, are nonetheless real (if the theory in question is true) is known as “scientific realism”—a substantive philosophical claim, countered by a view known as “scientific instrumentalism,” according to which such theories as relativistic quantum field theory are merely tools for making predictions of observations and are not about any actual things that exist in the world. In this view, the success of relativistic quantum field theory offers no reason to believe that there is any such thing as a relativistic quantum field."
As for me, I have nothing against the philosophy, except that I would am suspicious about philosopher's opinions about physics if they are not doing active research in physics. What do they know? The same concerns the philosophy of mathematics.