Banner
Scientists And Philosophers For Donald Trump: Let Master Feng Explain The New Reality To You

Ah the beauty, from victory to victory for over a year now – is it not wonderful to be alive...

Lisa Long Leg: Vongehr’s Rational Free Speech Trump Cross For The Alt Right Revolution Of Love

Lovely Lisa Long Leg and Heil Hitler Screaming Nazi once again visit the Stupid Donald Trump Follower’s...

Moon Hoax Reloaded, The True Exploitation Of Blacks By Whites, Obama And Trump Again

If you are against the exploitation of Blacks, stop mislabeling, or do not stuff humans into...

Scientists For Trump In Spite Of Vaccine Autism And Climate Comments

Alternative Title:“Inevitable ‘Society of Walls’ versus the True Legacy of Donald Trump:...

User picture.
picture for Robert H Olleypicture for Quentin Rowepicture for Tommaso Dorigopicture for Michael Martinezpicture for Ladislav Kocbachpicture for David LePoire
Sascha VongehrRSS Feed of this column.

Dr. Sascha Vongehr [风洒沙], physicist and philosopher, studied phil/math/chem/phys in Germany, obtained a BSc in theoretical physics (electro-mag) & MSc (stringtheory) at Sussex University... Read More »

Blogroll

Cryptography aims to secure communication. Eve should not be able to eavesdrop on the communication between Alice and Bob. Quantum cryptography is 100% secure in as far as the physics is concerned. However, it is unsatisfying if this security is merely promised by a still new and even partially controversial theory. Who wants to trust their most important secrets to something that may be wrong?

  Modern physics is not accidentally relativistic and quantum, or in other words, Einstein-relative as well as Everett-relative (Bell-violating Everett-relativity is the very core of quantum mechanics!). Modern physics becomes ever more relativistic still today, and description relativity has revolutionized fundamental physics (see string theory dualities, Maldacena conjecture, black hole complementarity/holography, and so on). Why? Because we must take the observer’s perspective, and this means the describer’s perspective, ever more into account.

A common misconception is that all good scientific theory must be based on empirical science and provide ingredients where the theory can be potentially falsified (Karl Popper).

This dogma demands that a hypothesized theory should include something falsifiable, something that could be *possibly observed* and would then refute the theory (here in the words of Lee Smolin).

“Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits.” — Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus, 6.431 (emphasis added)

 

-- What is that even supposed to mean, “Finding eternity in the now”?

For several years I felt the desire to give readers a positive message around this time of year, as it is the most depressive for many. Alas, as you can tell from my writing ever less, I have little to say. Mostly because I understand now that my writing is too difficult and dark. I actually kept writing much, enough for a hundred good posts, but I keep revising, unable to let the light I seem to be seeing shine through the words.

The popular description of virtual particles “borrowing” energy and popping in and out of existence all the time is very misleading. There are no such processes “really happening” in the way of a naïve, classically mechanistic physicalism. Instead, all potential partial processes consistent with the observations are together what the observation supervenes on.