Boltzmann's Concept of Reality

This is a thread to debate the pseudoscience that RSE promotes, versus the science of our current day.
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Boltzmann's Concept of Reality

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

Boltzmann's Concept of Reality

Authors: Marcelo B. Ribeiro (1), Antonio A. P. Videira (2) ((1) Physics Institute, University of Brazil - UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, (2) Department of Philosophy, State University of Rio de Janeiro - UERJ, Rio de Janeiro)
(Submitted on 27 Jan 2007)

Abstract: In this article we describe and analyze the concept of reality developed by the Austrian theoretical physicist Ludwig Boltzmann. It is our thesis that Boltzmann was fully aware that reality could, and actually was, described by different points of view. In spite of this, Boltzmann did not renounce the idea that reality is real. We also discuss his main motivations to be strongly involved with philosophy of science, as well as further developments made by Boltzmann himself of his main philosophical ideas, namely scientific theories as images of Nature and its consequences. We end the paper with a discussion about the modernity of Boltzmann's philosophy of science.

13 pages

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0701/0701308.pdf
Whatchamacallit
Posts: 880
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:17 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Unread post by Whatchamacallit »

Comment on my previous post: This 13 page article addresses the perspective that theoretical pluralism is integral to avoiding dogmatic belief systems. For "Ramtha" to say, especially without substantiation, that we do not perceive reality, is simply a dogma. Or, a "Ram-thism", as I would affectionately borrow the "ism" from Hal.

My opinion is the following contradicts "Ramtha's" dogma about the reality of reality: "In summary, Boltzmann?s views about reality mean that one cannot confuse
the concepts of ?reality? and ?real?. The former are the set of mental pictures,
or images of Nature created by our brains, whereas the latter is Nature itself,
the external world, whose ultimate knowledge is and will ever be unknowable.
Nature constitutes what is real and, therefore, is outside our brains. Reality,
however, is the collection of mental pictures created in our brains by its
interface with what is real, with Nature. Reality, thus, connects our brains with
what is real, with the external world, meaning that reality is realistic. This last
statement means exactly this connection. Reason then can be thought of as
being the ?logical rules? 10 that govern reality. But, since reality is made of
mental pictures, or images, of Nature, and which will necessarily change with
time, we can only conclude that reality and reason must evolve."

An excerpt from the article I just posted above.

By the way, these posts aren't intended to be contentious in nature. They are my "critical thinking" about the matter. Matter - no pun intended, smile. For too many years, I sublimated my own doubts to enough of a degree that I went back to RSE. Despite a scientific and psychology background, I held faith and trust that "Ramtha" and "JZ" were HONEST, so the teachings must have been ahead of what scientists of today know. That's a VERY common attitude among Ramsters. I recall watching a replay of Brian Green's PBS documentary on the brain. When the various scientists were interviewed, and explained the limits of what they currently believed and/or understood as "reality", the Ramsters in the audience, myself included, laughed at them. We were laughing at how dumb they were because we believed we were SO much more "in the know".

Foolish, foolish woman I was. But that's okay. I dust off real well :P
Post Reply

Return to “Pseudoscience & RSE”