Correspondence

Athens, 01/02/2012

Dear Friend

Congratulations!!

Boston is a beautiful and interesting city. And up to now, the center of
constructive, general and political thought.

And M.I.T is one of the centres of important logical and extralogical and
technical, scientific, and not only, thinking.

So, I am sure – knowing you – that you will have there a successful and
brilliant career. And probably, being Greek, a good time.

Since you will be in such a prominent centre of thinking and learning and
have the required mental and educational and academic capacities and
requirements:

I will be grateful to you if you could: having submitted them to the
specialised scientific Bostonian community and to your judgment: send
me your comments and those of the M.I.T experts of the Big Bang on the
following ideas or theories, at the above address.

These are in a nutshell my beliefs and views and hypotheses and
questions on which I demand some comments and/or help and/or
enlightment or governance:

1

A!

1)
That: there is a large, substantial and fundamental and logical and
not only, unbridgeable in some of its aspects, difference between: The
real, sensible (also with our scientific equipment) beings.
And the imaginary “beings” that I put in brackets in order to distinguish
them.

2)
That the imaginary “beings” create the imaginary “situations”
and “events” and “consequences” and “results” etc.
And the imaginary “world” in which many people live and act.
And which they try, and very often are able, to impose on others.
(Imaginary: “religions”, “philosophies”, “theories”, “principles” etc.).

3)
That: this difference between imagination or myth and reality, has
been mainly neglected and ignored or minimised.
Even by our philosophical and scientific communities.
So that we live and think and try to progress in a mongrel world mixed
with undifferentiated, imaginary and real beings.
A world that often misleads us and guides us to numerous errors of
thinking and judgment and acting and living.

4)
That this omission and neglect and misguidance and error, has to
be corrected if we want to live and be and progress with success in a real
World.

5)
That: even worse:
Up to now, the imaginary “beings” and their resulting
imaginary “situations” and “attitudes” and “consequences” are
considered, by most people, most times, as more important and valuable
and influential and existing and binding and frightening than the real
ones.
And that: also this misjudgement has to be urgently reversed when it
occurs and misleads and harms us.
If and when we want to avoid making dangerous mistakes.

2

6)
That: consequently: progress can be defined, not only as the
approaching of an aim or goal, but also as: the departing and distancing
from our misconceptions.

7)
That: up to now, humanity often progressed by putting aside many
of its prejudices and degrading or deposing imaginary “beings” and/or
imaginary “situations”.

8)
That: it is useful to the present argument to enumerate some of the
more fundamental differences of these, so often, opposite kinds of
existences, that normally and logically should have different proper
names.
And not, both be named, without being qualified further, “beings”.
An omission that is due mainly to ancient Greek thinkers and
philosophers: especially Parmenides, Plato and Aristotle.
As their obedient and uncreative followers and disciples, had not the
capacity or the guts, to oppose them or contradict them.

So, real beings are:

a) Made by the combinations and admixture and binding of atoms.
And as we now know: atoms are made by the combinations and
binding and separating and mixing of subatomic energomatierial
particles: electrons, quarks and other, resulting from the expanding
and cooling of our Big Bang.
A Big Bang that has in this manner made us or “created” us, or
combined us and in which we all real beings, are prisoners and
slaves of its rules, laws, forces, changes and movements.
With a minimum of possibility of substantial change by our
initiative.

b) Real things are also: Sensible by, and to, our senses.
So that we can see them and hear them and touch them and smell
them and taste them with our senses.

And more recently also, with our scientific instruments:
microscopes, relescopes etc.

3

c) Real beings, as they are made of a combination of atoms and
subatomic energomaterial particles, can have and have, mass and
volume and magnitude and size.
And can be measured by our measuring devices.
And by our human, very different in every country, or civilisation,
or era, ways of measuring. Decimal and/or other.

d) Also: Real things can move and are moved and change and are
changed constantly. And alter and are altered all the time and
endlessly. (As Heraclitus has stipulated). And are altered and alter
from one kind of thing, one combination, to another. That is to say
that they are changed from one sort of thing to another one, the
next one. And/or the contrary one.
And as Hegel (the German philosopher and logician) taught: when
a being is changing: it moves necessarily and logically from what it
is to what it is not, i.e to its contrary, or to its exact opposite. “That
constitutes a new thesis for a new change”.
As also Carl Marx after Hegel explained, in very similar terms.

Imaginary “beings”

Imaginary “beings” on the contrary: have none of the above
qualities and/or capacities and/or characteristics.
And often have the exact (Hegel, Marx) opposite ones.
Or, at any rate, very different ones: (depending on when, in which
stage, of change we observe them).

a) They are not made by atoms or combined or exist outside our
brains.
They are the products of our human neocortical (7th layer?)
imagination and only of this.
Other animals do not have our prolific human imagination.
Cats and dogs have no concepts. Nor do they believe in gods or
saints or Angels (sorry).
They relay often only on us for their existence.
We are their “gods”.

4

The moment, we humans, will stop thinking of them,
imaginary “beings” will stop existing.
And when humanity will disappear from this planetary system:
Justice and Truth and Beauty and so many other of our
creations, dear to us, or feared by us, will disappear from this
Big Bang.
And will not exist any longer. As on the contrary of what, our
science – fictions novels and films want us to believe: it is very
improbable that: other extraterrestrial beings will have our kind
of brain structure and functions.
On the contrary, real things or beings will continue to exist and
move and and be: a long time after our disappearance from this
Big Bang.

b) Imaginary “beings”: consequently: are not sensible by or to: our
senses.
And we cannot encounter in the Agora the person of Truth, or
Justice as Plato erroneously hoped.
We cannot also in any way touch them or see them or hear them
or smell them. Whether with our senses or with our instruments.

c) Also, as they have no mass, or volume, or any material
existence of any kind, they cannot, or have to, be measured.

d) Imaginary “beings” further more: cannot move or be moved by
other beings, nor can they change or be changed or altered by
themselves.
They are bind to our human imagination and/or definitions of
them forever.
If and when we change our definition of an imaginary “being”,
it has to have another – a different – proper name.
On this fixation and unmovability of ON = the Greek concept
of Being and its definition it is worth and instructive, to read the
poem of Parmenides that was written almost 2600 years ago.

9)
That: there are also many other important and fundamental
differences between real and imaginary “beings”.

5

Yet, this enumeration suffices for the present purpose.
That is to say: to establish the enormous gulf between these two opposite
categories of “existences”: the real and the imaginary one.

10) That: there are many instances in which these differentiations and
differences and oppositions have no validity.
Or are not important, neither relevant.
Many cases where we can, and should, neglect them.
Where, our imagination coincides with reality and reality with our
imagination.
One of the definitions of truth is: “ The coincidence of our imagination
with what is”. Or with reality.
Or with what happens, or will happen:
“Coincidentia rei et intellectu”. “Σύμπτωσις νοήσεως και είναι”.
Cases where what we think and what we know and what we expect and
what we imagine and what happens coincide. Accidentally or not.
Also it is possible that an idea of ours, an imaginary “being” or “thing”
or “situation” that we thought – we imagined – that it might exist: is
confirmed by subsequent information and experiments.
And it is transferred from the “world” of imagination to the world of
reality. This being, often the way sciences progress. So there are many
fields and circumstances and cases and instances and occasions where
there is no need to oppose real and imaginary “beings”.
Or where imaginary and real things and beings can be thought – although
different – profitably as the same.
Or where they have or must be combined and mixed for the sake of: eg
Art, poetry, literature, fairy tales.
And every day by ordinary people chattering or economy of expressions.

11) But: in the fields of philosophy and logic and the sciences and
especially physics, these differences are very important and matter.
And matter very much.
And we should be very careful and accurate and exact and precise, when
using or adding or comparing or mixing reality with imagination.
As the danger to mislead is great. And the consequences of errors in this
domain, can be grave. And sometimes disastrous.

6

That is the reason for which I believe that: to teach and to write
eg “Universe” instead of Big Bang and Big Bang instead of Universe, as
many scientists do, should be avoided.
The “Universe” is an ancient Greek concept, like so many other important
Greek concepts eg Being, Essence, Virtue, Truth, Justice, Existence,
Freedom etc. A concept that is made by the observations made by human
(7th ?) neocortical layer, of real beings and their properties.
And the combination and summing of them, by our imagination.
And only by our human imagination.
A concept that summarises and helps and guides our intellects and our
intellectuals. (It is possible that initially it came to Greece from ancients
Pharaonic Egypt, as the unification of upper and lower Egypt was capital
to them).
A Greek concept: ΕΝ – ΠΑΝ, ΣΥΝ – ΠΑΝ = All is one.
Everything together is ONE.
A Greek concept that had been taken, as so many others, and
transliterated and translated to: “Uni – Versus” by the Romans.
And through them was imposed to other – European – languages.
And Western minds and sciences.
A Greek concept that means and stipulates that: nothing can exist outside
the all comprising big ONE.
That the ONE comprises all beings (and perhaps even “not-beings” as
Aristotle said).
This is its definition, its meaning.
A definition that like all others cannot be altered neither changed.
Because then, we should not be speaking of the Universe but about
something else that has other properties and qualifications.
A not – ONE. A not everything is ONE.
But of something that deserves and needs a different name.
Being a concept, the “Universe” cannot change or be changed neither be
measured of moved. Nor can it grow or diminish neither alter in any way.
And it cannot expand or multiply. It depends entirely from our
imagination and its definition of it.
A definition that covers it completely.
And binds it forever.

7

Being a concept, the “Universe” belongs to the “World”, the category,
the “Universe”, the kind, the group, the sum, the class of concepts, ie, of
imaginary “beings”.
Therefore, it has all the characteristics of its class and category.
And obeys all the prerequisite rules and “laws” and obligations of it.
The Big Bang, on the other side, although in the beginning of the 20th
century it started (like the Uni-Verse) as an idea, as a hypothesis.
A conception. A concept. An imaginary “being”.
As something that might have probably happened.
But about which there was doubt.
Gradually, according to some and very “fast” according to others: and at
any rate, in the middle of the 20th century, it stopped being controversial.
And it became accepted by the majority of the important scientists.
And it changed into the leading theory.
And later, into the “Standard Model”.
The progression and validation and/or confirmation of the Big Bang did
not stop to this.
And it continued expanding and dominating the scientific world.
So later on, with the progress of special sciences and new information
and experiments and discoveries, it became possible to hear it (with our
scientific instruments) and see it in our TV sets (as a TV snow).
And to measure it with other instruments.
And to date it, that is to say, to calculate it with our human dating
standards and units that it really happened: “it took place” or “space” –
almost 13700 billion years ago.
So, in not so many years, “suddenly”, following the “laws”, the rule,
the phenomenon of change of quantity into quality, towards the end
of the 20th century, the Big Bang stopped being a hypothesis, an
imaginary “event”, something about which there is doubt and it turned
into something totally different: it became its opposite.
And from the “world” of fiction and imagination, jumped into the real
world. The world of reality.
Today, it is recognised by – almost? – all special scientists and
consequently everybody else that counts, as a fact. A real event.
So it can endure all the tests of reality.
And it is scientifically and experimentally proven and measured and
sensed.

8

I do believe – and hope I am not the only one – that:
In order to determine whether a being is real, or imaginary:
And a fact is a fact, belonging to reality.
The competent body to decide about this vital question are our special
sciences.
And our special sciences consider the Big Bang now, as a fact.
So, having become a fact:
There is no more doubt that:
The Big Bang, has all the prerequisites and characteristics and properties
of its class.
And follows all the rules and “laws” of it.
And it belongs to the opposite of the imaginary “world”.
That is to say, it belongs to reality.
That is the reason for which I object:
To the using of these two, so different by now, beings: the one belonging
to reality and the other to imagination, indiscriminately.
And to saying and writing:
“Universe” instead of Big Bang.
And Big Bang, where the term “Universe” should be used.
We cannot, logically and correctly and accurately and meaningfully, say
or write “Two Universes”, or many “Universes” as some scientists do,
where we should write instead: “many Big Bangs”.
The Uni-verse by definition – has to be one and one only.
As for the expression “Multi – Verse”
Apart of sounding odd and being of bad – I think – taste, is also erroneous
and misleading.
Because what it really says is that:
“There are many aspects”, “many instances”, “many expressions” of a
thing, of a being, of a unit (eg the Big Bang or the Universe).
That is what the expression “multi-verse” expresses.
Instead, what it wants to say is that:
“There is a possibility that some other Big Bangs might exist”.
Again, I think that in physics, one should be very accurate and careful
with ones expressions.

9

B!

Another hypothesis (or “theory”?) of mine on which I would love to have
the comments of M.I.T specialists and yours, is:
That: what, we in quantum physics call Plancks Constant (and/or
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle?) are due to our particular Big Bang
and its particularities or its specificity.
And that it is possible that, in other Big Bangs, because of other
specificities, these particularities do not exist or are not valid.
And perhaps other predominate.

C!

And yet another one – or the same? – is that:
Many difficulties we encounter when we want to combine our logic and/
or causality, with physical realities = Physics.
Eg: to unify general relativity with quantum – physics, are due to: either
the neglect of taking in to account the difference of imaginary with real
beings, or the specificity of our Big Bang.
Does this indicates that causality (and logic) are of no unlimited
application?

On all the above, I would love to have your comments and those of M.I.T
specialists the soonest possible, as I am writing a larger text about our Big
Bang and its characteristics. And its progress (the progress of the book,
not the BB), will depend largely on your answers.

Again: Congratulations!!
And have a profitable and good time.
After all, this is what finally, matters,

Much love

Pandia



------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 May 2012

Pandia I trust all is well. I apologize for the late reply, in the
beginning I had too much work and then I forgot about it. I played some
chess today after a long time and I remembered you. Unfortunately I have
not met any Physicists or Philosophers. The people I work with are
Engineers. I am writing in English, to avoid translating terms. As I know
very little about Philosophy or Physics, I will just give you my feeling (I
don't even dare say it a well formed opinion) of what you write, which was
definitely an interesting read.

First of all, it belongs in the realm of Philosophy not Physics, and as
such cannot be evaluated as correct or not. For arguments shake I will play
devil's advocate and bring some objections, to which I am sure you could
also object and so on. Philosophy discussions seem to be this way, there is
no space for final answers.

From my limited exposure to Physicists I think that modern (at least
experimental) physics is becoming more and more distant from Philosophy.
Many Physicists refuse to even discuss anything else than predictions and
experiments. An answer to the question "Which interpretation of quantum
mechanics do you find more sensible?" often attributed to Feynman is "Shut
up and calculate". (If you are interested, there are quite a few
interesting videos of Feynman on youtube, including many of his lectures.)

In Physics too there are no final answers. Even the notion of a theory
being true is somehow dubious. It can be true only in the sense of not have
been being falsified yet, and in that it is qualified to be our tool for
prediction until a new experiment casts doubt on it. But at least, many
(but not all?) theories in Physics, unlike Philosophical statements, are
universally considered as a good approximation of the world as we know it
from the experiments up to the present day. In this sense, discussions can
reach final conclusions, and can be reopened only by new experiments and
not by clever arguments. This only holds about the mathematical description
of the theories, not the philosophical interpretations.

You make the distinction between the 'real' and the 'imaginary', and you
classify the Bing Bang to the real beings, while you say it initiated as an
imaginary one. And the transition from an imaginary one to a real one is
due to the change in the degree of acceptance among leading scientists. This
seems to suggest two things:

i) That the distinction between real and imaginary is soft. Is
there an in-between stage? At which moment in time did it start being real?
What degree of confidence is needed?

ii) According to your reasoning it is possible that an
imaginary being can be transformed to a real being. But is it possible for
the opposite to happen? What if new experiments prove the current model
wrong?

I think, at least at an intuitive level, if something is a real being it
ought not to be retransformed to an imaginary one. Science, however, does
not give final answers. Only mathematics. But strictly speaking mathematics
is not a physical science, and loses its unlimited authority as soon as you
apply it to anything real.

iii) Also, and this seems only a technicality, but I though I
should mention, I think of the Bing Bang as an event in the past. As such
it does not seem to have some of the properties that you assign to real
beings (the change for example.)

I may be wrong but I have not seen the terms Bing Bang and universe being
used interchangeably. For me Bing Bang refers to the event of rapid
expansion of the universe at the distant past.

The many universe interpretation of quantum mechanics to which you refer,
is just an interpretation and thus does not belong to physics but to
philosophy. It does not seem to be falsifiable, and thus according to
Popper's(sensible in my opinion) view does not belong in science. (Another
case of the distaste of some leading Scientists for imprecise philosophical
statements is Pauli's 'Not only this is not right, it is not even wrong.')

I think that you will get more meaningful responses about these things from
Philosophers who know a bit of science than from Scientists.

Take care,

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Athens, 21/06/2012

Dear Friend,

A) To say or write or use the expression (as many scientists do), one,
or two, or many ‘Universes’ is, I believe, wrong, or misleading, or
an erroneous expression.
Because what ‘Universe’ means and says is ‘Every Thing’.
And you cannot meaningfully say or write ‘The Everythings’ or
many ‘everythings’ . It makes no sense.
On the contrary, you can meaningfully write or say: two or three or
many Big Bangs.
This has not to do with science or philosophy, but with plain,
meaningful and accurate expressions.

B) In most books of physics you will find the expression ‘Universe’
when what they really mean is the ‘Big Bang’.
This is also something about which I object, as I think that in
science and especially in physics one should be as accurate as
possible.
Open any book of physics and you will see the mistake.
In Hawkins’ the ‘Grand Design’ 2010, you will find in page 167 :
‘ A period of very rapid expansion (much faster than light speed)...
in the extremely tiny preinflationary early Universe’.
What he wants to say is ‘early Big Bang’.

Many physicists (Einstein, Hawkins page 168) use the expression:

To see how this works, we need to understand that: gravity
warps ‘space and time’

To me thisagain makes no sense. (No to say it is nonsense):

‘gravity’ referred here is the real property of a very bulky, real body
or group, e.g a star, or galaxy that has body = mass.

While time and space are concepts, i.e imaginary ‘beings’, creations
of our imagination and ways we, humans, measure events and classify
real beings and real properties.

‘Beings’ or ‘things’ that have no-body and cannot be warped.

What these scientists want, probably, to say, is that: this bulky body
exerts an influence – produces a change – in the position and structure
of all other massive beings around it, at a measurable distance (In
analogy with its size).

I still maintain that scientists have to be accurate in order not to
confuse and or be clear in their expression for the sake of good
science.

As for the distinction: Science and Philosophy. There are both ways
and methods, we humans, try to understand and know and experience
and remember and use, events and beings and therefore both have – at
least – to make real sense and be accurate.

I am sorry to have taken so much time to reply, but we had many
troubles over here. And elections!!

And I was trying to think and in my age it takes time.

Hope to see you and discuss in Athens or Spetsai this summer.

P.S. Remember : concepts are human generalisations and creations
and condencessions .

And : Truth, Justice, Morality, size, time , space, grammar,
mathematics, intelligence, God, nature, etc. cannot be warped, by any-
body, or anybody.

Only concrete body things (with mass?) can be warped.

Imaginary ‘beings’ and real sensible beings are two different
categories that sometime coincide , but at others not, and in the above
examples and many others, they do not.

‘Mathematics loses its authority as soon as you apply it to anything
real’.

It helps me to understand that mathematics is a way – a method –
of us humans, to measure and estimate and relate and calculate and
understand real things (= real beings) and their relations that change
all the time.

And that outside our human thinking it has no value or permanent –
even for humans – application. As everything changes.

When humanity will disappear, concepts and mathematics and all
other imaginary ‘beings’ like truth and justice etc, will exist no longer
in this Big Bang or ours,that contain and governs us.

A B.B. that will outlive us, probably, for another 14 billion years.

Sorry to repeat myself. It is the characteristic of old age (Alzheimer?).



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 Jun 2012

Geia sou Pantia,

I guess that it would not be correct English to say 'everythings' and you
might have a point with respect to the root of the word. It does not annoy
me however and I think that it describes accurately what the multiple
universe interpretation of quantum mechanics wants to say: that when a
quantum experiment is performed all outcomes are obtained, each in a
different world. We cannot observe more than one outcome since we only live
in one world. This of course in not science, just storytelling consistent
with experiments.

I do not agree with your point B. Big Bang has nothing to do with the
universe. The universe describes with one word everything that exists. The
big bang refers to an event that, at least with current knowledge, is
considered to be unique in the universe history.

I agree however that these books written for the public are not very
accurate. They can't be. They are trying to put into words things that can
be accurately described only by mathematics. The interpretations of quantum
mechanics, strictly speaking, are not physics, and by no means they are
scientific facts. After all, one contradicts the other. Physicists are
accurate (as much as humanly possible) in their articles written for the
scientific community, not in their books for the public where they are
trying to illustrate ideas and inspire interest.

The wrapping of space and time is an expression that I did not like either.
It is an example of what I am saying above. Curvature in mathematics has a
specific meaning. In the equations that describe general relativity (I
think, I haven't read them) mass can have this kind of effect. The problem
is that when you are not shown the equations, to understand the specific
meaning of the terminology 'wrapping', it can be misleading. But there is
no way around this. (I would like more honest introductions in these books
though, saying that you should try to get the main idea without taking the
details too seriously.)

No comments: