Click-the-Links!
Dear Readers,
Forgive my long delay in writing here. I spent the last few months wondering whether I would shutdown this blog or not. Well, I have decided that I will not, at least, not yet. So here are a few interesting links that I came across recently:
1) From the [PhilPhys] e-mail list, a talk by Stephen Summers (University of Florida).
“Yet More Ado About Nothing: The Remarkable Relativistic Vacuum State”
Abstract: An overview is given of what mathematical physics can currently say about the vacuum state for relativistic quantum field theories on Minkowski space. Along with a review of classical results such as the Reeh-Schlieder Theorem and its immediate and controversial consequences, more recent results are discussed. These include the nature of vacuum correlations and the degree of entanglement of the vacuum, as well as the striking fact that the modular objects determined by the vacuum state and algebras of observables localized in certain regions of Minkowski space encode a remarkable range of physical information, from the dynamics and scattering behavior of the theory to the external symmetries and even the space-time itself. In addition, an intrinsic characterization of the vacuum state provided by the modular objects is discussed. [Foundations of Physics in Greater Paris]
2) A new issue of Philosophia Mathematica is available online [June 2009; Vol. 17, No. 2], in special:
- Mark Balaguer, Fictionalism, Theft, and the Story of Mathematics
- Francesco Berto, The Gödel Paradox and Wittgenstein’s Reasons
3) New edition of Edge:
What’s Next? Dispatches on the Future of Science (Edited by Max Brockman): “A preview of the ideas you’re going to be reading about in ten years.”
May 30, 2009 at 9:15 am
Welcome back to virtual spaces, Christine (although I’m sure you’re always there as a reader). This your great pause should reveal your particularly deep way of thinking. That’s good but it would be interesting to see more often its direct, personal results, rather than only information about their papers and theories and reports and books. These can be of interest but finally appear to be vain, practically always. Such is our strange time. By contrast, your own estimates, progress, interests, understanding, predictions may be more … alive at least. Don’t be afraid to be “incorrect” or “subjective” (and don’t say you’re not afraid as you would
): in this strange time only incorrect and subjective attitudes (although eventually very few of them!) can be of interest. Just a personal wish, subjectively motivated. Stay tuned.
Are you going to present an essay to their new competition, it’s something about the limits of physics? After they have fully experienced those limits for themselves and can say nothing really promising and problem-solving for decades, they are asking everybody about their limits “naturally” confused with the limits of science in general. Funny, isn’t it? This world becomes the more and more ridiculous puppet show, haven’t you that kind of impression? It’s so grotesque, especially in their “best” places that you can hardly believe it and start suspecting a great gag behind it. But everybody on top and around is very serious. And very greedy. And especially serious with their greed. And the gag continues, with its “scientific” dimensions being yet far ahead of the rest of the stupid show. Shall we just laugh or maybe look for something else, but where? Anyway, the collapse is imminent and they are already looking very carefully to other dimensions and multiverse copies. Indeed, maybe not all universes are so stupid?
The last chance. Take it easy, it’s all so easy, too easy to be real…
May 30, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Hi Andrei,
Thanks for your interest.
Well, with time I came to understand what makes good, interesting blogs. First and foremost, the blogger should present his personal views and personal activities, of course. Blogs are personal web logs, after all. People like to know what other people are doing and thinking. We have that curiosity, that need to compare those thoughts/activities/lives of someone else with our own… some kind of “reality check”. Good blogs are also informative: not only a mere news aggregator; one have also to include some “insider” view, some information that is not available to those who are not part of that community, for instance. Along with personal points of view, of course. Good blogs, specially scientifically oriented ones, also often present pedagogical articles, or some criticism to specific works, or a presentation of one’s own work.
With time, I came to understand that I do not fit to those profiles or, if I do, other priorities or issues in my personal life (work, family, middle-age questionings) simple do not give room to explore or invest on those blog activities.
Also, I am not a genius with a neverending brilliant, original and thoughtful mind, who always have something sensible, polemic, interesting, or shocking subject to write.
With all those considerations, I often think about why I should have a blog after all. I usually think of Theorema Egregium as a kind of anti-blog. First because I am certain that it does not reflect what I think most of the day (when I do have time to think), but only superficially. And it does not do a good job towards making it into a good blog, according to the criteria above. So I really do not know what this blog is for. I’ve previously written some ideas here of my own, of course, but besides being fragmentary, most of the time I just include links to interesting or curious things elsewhere.
I am sorry to eventually disappoint you, but I belive that I am not what you believe I am, or perhaps what you expect me to be… So, yes, this blog is just a virtual, superficial collection of stuff that crosses my way, and not geared at getting more traffic. Not a repository of brilliant ideas (if I did, I’d publish them in professional, peer-reviewed journals, or write a book about them. I also would have a much nicer job, I guess).
Concerning the new FQXi essay contest, here is my position about it:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2211885&postcount=25
More on the previous FQXi essay contest, I also wrote over at PF a text, which I copy and paste here:
—
I think there is a need at some point to move from our present “input-process-output” style of thinking in mathematics, which is actually quite a good type of mathematics for the classical world, but limits our representation of the quantum world. I think we should move to a concurrent mathematics-type of reasoning: my point of view is that the quantum world is a fundamentally concurrent world, and determinism can be retrieved from it if we re-think physics in concurrent terms. For the moment, this is just a feeling and I have no worked out proof, nor I believe I will have a satisfying one. But I do believe it is an idea worthy to wonder about.
Well, my essay raises that exact issue because, from my ideas, time should arise as a unique deadlock avoidance constraint from the quantum substrate. My essay however has been practically ignored in the FQXi contest (as far as I know I did receive at least one restricted vote; I’m happy that someone thought the idea was somehow worthy). I am aware that my essay does not raise any specifics or formal models to express the idea, it is much of a philosophical essay and I just scratch the surface of the idea. I thought, however, that such a style would reasonably match the theme in question, because the nature of time is truthfully a philosophical issue per se — physics will be always behind it and always be an incomplete or poor description of it (this is also raised in my essay). But now I realise that most people focused in choosing the essays that could better convince the reader on the point of view offered. I do not have the style of convincing anyone of anything, but to simply share some possibilities that I find intriguing and that I know that are not being considered elsewhere, even if they are incipent ones. Now I realise that such an approach has little value.
I am not saying that the awardees did not deserve their prizes; on the contrary, I congratulate them for their very good work. The point that I raise here is how really far the ideas proposed there are really original or new or intriguing; sincerely, there is evidently very good work in those essays, but I did not see anything really *new*. I have accepted the final result from the FQXi judges and I am not complaining. In fact, it is great to see many people thinking about such a difficult issue. I’m just one more curious person and could be completely wrong. Yet, I must be convinced otherwise. The FQXi is just a prize and you win it or not. I didn’t, but I feel really sad when people mention that almost all essays apart from the first winners were disapointing or complete trash. Yes, of course, there were many essays that lacked quality. But I cannot accept that mine was one of those. One may not agree with the ideas there, but I am certain my essay has minimum quality. I accept not to have won a prize, but I do no accept general depreciative remarks from people that have not read my essay.
—-
Best,
Christine
June 1, 2009 at 8:11 am
You say in your Physics Forum discussion (and something like that elsewhere):”That is my ontic position, it’s philosophical, metaphysical, speculative, not physical. I’m not sure whether it could be developed into a physical model/theory with testable predictions.”
Well, as I said it already once, I do have a rather elaborated theory with many confirmed applications, “testable predictions” and problem solutions (otherwise absent), from fundamental physics to consciousness and ecology, that derives and realises something very close to “desirable” or “general” principles you describe in your “ontic” position (with mathematically derived “concurrence” I call “dynamic redundance”, ensuing real time flow, etc.). If you say you would be oriented to something like that and as you’re a scientist able to deal with all scientific tools (formulas, etc.), then it would be interesting to know your opinion about those my results (see e.g. my web site link here for a general description and then its further links to abstracts and papers in respective fields).
You are right in implying that science in general is rather against that kind of approach (as it is against anything essentially new, by the way). But we know also (and it is increasingly repeated by many everywhere) that this same science is in a deep impasse today, cannot explain anything anymore and creates rather than solves problems. In that situation it seems at least logical that a “minority position” (actually ONLY a minority position) may bring about real progress. In any case, I claim many well-known, “strong” problem solutions and describe them explicitly, without mystification or even too dominating or particularly hard mathematics, just in a well-specified version of that “time-bringing”, “Bergsonian” kind but of rigorous science (as you may know, Bergson himself finally thought it was impossible as science and could at best be only “felt” intuitively, with a reference to divinity, etc.). Any your opinion would be of interest. And then maybe people with such general inclination could try to interact more actively and variously promote their vision, approaches and results, especially when they pass from mere “philosophy” to quite explanative, problem-solving science. It is also to answer your “estimates” of your (or any) “abilities”, “talents”, etc.: they are not so much “technically determined” as they appear in motivation for and realisation of practical activity, like “you are what you do”, rather than “what you think/say you could – or not – achieve”. You’re still repeatedly saying that you would strongly prefer that “another”, “real-time” kind of science. So this is your “genial” ability, “thoughtful mind”, etc. that would simply need further realisation, of course, as all talents.
And by the way, “middle-age questionings” may also be of interest: maybe it’s rather a middle-age advantage we should share than a problem…
June 1, 2009 at 10:05 am
Thanks for the encouraging words.
Yes, you have mentioned previously about your work, but I admit not to have read it. But I will take a look at it, opportunely.
Just a note about Bergson: like all philosophers, I guess, there is a lot of room for interpretation. Unfortunately, in the case of Bergson, this is more problematic. There are some serious misunderstandings of his work, although he was an exceptionally good writer (as a Nobel prize in literature confirms…). The main problem is his “intuitional approach”, which for some was interpreted literally as some kind of valorization of glimpses “insights”, almost of a “divine” origin. I am not certain about his religious beliefs, but his “intuitional approach” has a very different meaning from that. Strangely enough, the best reading of Bergson comes from Deleuze. Deleuze is difficult to read, and sometimes irritates me: it appears a salad of deliberate confusion and nonsense. But I do recommend the first chapters of his book “Bergsonism” — it does give a remarkable interpretation of Bergson, with precise philosophical statements, and brilliantly, in my opinion. This even made me appreciate and respect a little more Deleuze.
Concerning middle-age questionings: I am not sure whether at 42 I am in the middle of my life, or even at the beginning or end of it (like anyone else). Perhaps this is the essence of my own questionings. I am quite apathetic at the moment, so I am not in my best. If I were at my 17 years old, this would be a very enthusiastic blog, of course. I was great at 17. At the moment I am just trying to understand my losses (just finished reading Viorst’s “Necessary Losses” — funny, never read “self-help” books, so it is a measure of how I am indeed not at my best). Since you appear to be so enthusiastic, I think you would not understand. Nor it is my intention to make anyone understand! It is a personal matter and I prefer to stop it here. But thanks anyway for your interest.
Best,
Christine