Philipp Stammer

Hybrids of myself run through world history, one of them at @ICFOnians

I have already gone through my life 2 times in a dream

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

The misunderstanding consists in projecting the past into the future and then forgetting this act, the act of projection, and thinking that one can actually look into the future.

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

@CarlaFMFaria We can not answer this question, without knowing what underlies it. For @zeitloserprolet, there is no ontological difference between a 'quantum' and a 'classical' world. It is the same world external to him, but he use different concepts and methods to make bets on his next step.

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

@CarlaFMFaria The character @zeitloserprolet is indeed fun, but if his views are extreme is still in dispute. I think his views are mainly about extensive concepts illuminating the termination of the conjoint illusion we share as a community.

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

@CarlaFMFaria The character @zeitloserprolet is indeed fun, but if his views are extreme is still in dispute. I think his views are mainly about extensive concepts illuminating the termination of the conjoint illusion we share as a community.

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

There are no masses in the data of Brahe. The data is valid for the respective Kepler constant, which is specific for each planet. Of course we can write this in units of the gravitational constant G. But all of this has nothing to do with speaking about mass attraction.

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

Where does misconception, and megalomania start? When we think, that only because we can condense, and compress data, we have attributed "something" to this data.
To provide an explicit example: Let us consider the data of Tycho Brahe about astronomical observations.

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

But where does the fairy tale start? It starts when K = G Mm/m, namely, the re-scaling of the Kepler constant, which is different and unique for every object, and introducing the identity 1 = m/m. This is pure fiction.

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

Since it is not guaranteed that a different detector, a different measurement sequence, or a different source, will lead to the same signal "photon" or "click".

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

And this is exactly what it means: with this specific experimental configuration, and this special light source, then, we observe this particular signature at the detector.
But what does this imply about light in general?
The answer is nothing!

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

Physics does not speculate about the everyday phenomena called light!
Physics talks about measurements, and generates data (via experiments) and express this data in compact form (through theory). But, physics does not provide interpretations.

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

I don't want to talk just to talk, but in order to understand and see more. To discover through others what I do not realize, overlook or wrongly estimated. This is scientific discussion for me.

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

I don't want to get irritated, but rather I want to use a language which does not practice a self-fulfilling prophecy. The description by itself always includes a point of view. Data does not. Data includes a measurement setup.

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

Physics does not speculate about the everyday phenomena called light!
Physics talks about measurements, and generates data (via experiments) and express this data in compact form (through theory). But, physics does not provide interpretations.

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

“If physical theory has the purpose of explaining the experimental laws, then theoretical physics is no autonomous science, but is subordinated to metaphysics” - Pierre Duhem

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

Everything else, namely the purpose of research, results from direct data collection, and not from interpretations.

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

We want data, data is information, with information we can build machines, we can estimate the possibility of how things will evolve in the future with some probability. But, we do not know how it evolves until it has evolved.

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

Exactly in this point roots the misconception about laws of nature, namely, to believe, that we know how things will evolve. Although everybody knows, that we can not know, and tomorrow morning the sun can explode, and all the misconception was a waste of time.

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

But where does misconception, and strange megalomania start? When we think, that only because we can condense, and compress data, we have attributed "something" to this data.

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

The question is the following: what do we think about a principle of nature, which notion conveys this word? Is gravitation a law of nature? Where does verbiage stop, and where does natural science start?

[Philipp Stammer @zeitloserprolet]

I can only repeat myself, and tell over and over again, acquiring, collecting and recording data - this is research. To treat this data, to format the data for making it manageable, and to process this data - this is theory.