From The Principle Of Least Action To The Conservation Of Quantum Information In Chemistry: Can One Generalize The Periodic Table?

The success of a few theories in statistical thermodynamics can be correlated with their selectivity to reality. These are the theories of Boltzmann, Gibbs, end Einstein. The starting point is Carnot’s theory, which defines implicitly the general selection of reality relevant to thermodynamics. The three other theories share this selection, but specify it further in detail. Each of them separates a few main aspects within the scope of the implicit thermodynamic reality. Their success grounds on that selection. Those aspects can be represented by corresponding oppositions. These are: macroscopic – microscopic; elements – states; relational – non-relational; and observable – theoretical. They can be interpreted as axes of independent qualities constituting a common qualitative reference frame shared by those theories. Each of them can be situated in this reference frame occupying a different place. This reference frame can be interpreted as an additional selection of reality within Carnot’s initial selection describable as macroscopic and both observable and theoretical. The deduced reference frame refers implicitly to many scientific theories independent of their subject therefore defining a general and common space or subspace for scientific theories (not for all). The immediate conclusion is: The examples of a few statistical thermodynamic theories demonstrate that the concept of “reality” is changed or generalized, or even exemplified (i.e. “de-generalized”) from a theory to another. Still a few more general suggestions referring the scientific realism debate can be added: One can admit that reality in scientific theories is some partially shared common qualitative space or subspace describable by relevant oppositions and rather independent of their subject quite different in general. Many or maybe all theories can be situated in that space of reality, which should develop adding new dimensions in it for still newer and newer theories. Its division of independent subspaces can represent the many-realities conception. The subject of a theory determines some relevant subspace of reality. This represents a selection within reality, relevant to the theory in question. The success of that theory correlates essentially with the selection within reality, relevant to its subjec

Why we live in the Computational Universe

To better understand the deep significance of our best physical theories it could be interesting to compare our Universe with its models. It may happen that the differences between the model and reality can be made indistinguishable, to the point that it may seem acceptable to consider reality as a gigantic program, a 'mother computation' running in a Universal Computer. The computational interpretation of reality is here adopted for introducing concepts that are common in computer science, they may offer a new insight. For instance, code and memory usage optimization techniques are common in computer science because they improve the performances at a reduced hardware cost. According to the concepts discussed in this paper, the possibility of recognizing the effects of optimization rules in a physical reality will allow us to discriminate if our reality is fundamental or the result of a large computation. Conversely, code and memory optimization has side effects, if it is present in our Universe it can produce many interesting phenomena, some seem readily recognizable, others only wait to be discovered.Comment: This is an excerpt from an article accepted by Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF 2006) February 12-16, 2006, Albuquerque Hilton Hotel. Space applications omitted. Title changed accordingly. 6 pages with 1 figure added for version

The Revival of Sree Sankara’s Hypothesis of Appearance and Reality: A Critical Analysis and Appraisal

The main foci of this paper are to delineate the distinction between appearance and reality in the light of Sree Sankara’s Advaita Philosophy and to look at how Sankara’s notion of appearance and reality is enjoying a contemporary revival, and it is important to try to develop an understanding of why this is so. The central theme of the notion of Sankara philosophy is that Brahman or the absolute spirit is the only reality and everything else is an illusory appearance of Brahman. The major essence of Sankara’s Philosophy can be expressed in the form of a half verse, ‘Brahma Satyam Jagat Mitya Jivo Brahmaiva Na apara' which means ‘Brahman is real the world is unreal and the so-called jiva nondifferent from Brahman'. In the current consciousness study, Sree Sankara’s notion of Brahman and Jagat is so conundrum in the material life of postmodern people. But it is inevitable to believe that Sree Sankara’s philosophy is not a conundrum for common people in contemporary society but the very conundrum for the non-common people

“All would be royal”: The effacement of disunity in Shakespeare’s Henry V

This paper seizes on the unresolved moment of conflict between Henry and the common soldier Williams in Shakespeare's Henry V to demonstrate the ways in which traditional criticism has occluded dissent and co-opted the common soldier on behalf of a perceived empathy towards the king on the part of the author. A look at documented evidence shows that Shakespeare was articulating a common reality in this unresolved moment, one which dsiplays rather than effaces contemporary discontent with the lot of the ordinary soldier

California Water Myths

Presents eight common myths about water supply, ecosystems, and the legal and political aspects of governing California's water system and explains how each myth drives the debate, the reality, and alternatives for better informed policy discussions

Lautman and the Reality of Mathematics

Working in he 1930s, Albert Lautman described with extraordinary clarity the new understanding of mathematics of that time. He delighted in the multiple manifestations of a common idea in different mathematical fields. However, he took the common idea to belong not to mathematics itself, but to an 'ideal reality' sitting above mathematics. I argue in this paper that now that we have a mathematical language which can characterize these common ideas, we need not follow Lautman to adopt his form of Platonism. On the other hand, Lautman should be much better known than he is for pointing philosophy towards this most important feature of mathematics

"If I join forces with Mr. Kuhn": Polanyi and Kuhn as Mutually Supportive and Corrective

My purpose is to examine how Kuhn and Polanyi might be mutually supportive and corrective so as to join forces in providing a more comprehensive understanding of the progress of science. My presentation will be divided into three parts: (I) The common ground Kuhn shares with Polanyi; (II) Four soft spots in Kuhn and their remedy; (III) Clarifying and upgrading Polanyi appeal to "objective reality.

Reality Is Not a Solid. Poetic Transfigurations of Stevens’ Fluid Concept of Reality

The main aim of this essay is to show that, for Stevens, the concept of reality is very fluctuating. The essay begins with addressing the relationship between poetry and philosophy. I argue, contra Critchley, that Stevens’ poetic work can elucidate, or at least help us to understand better, the ideas of philosophers that are usually considered obscure. The main “obscure” philosophical work introduced in and discussed throughout the essay is Schelling’s System of Transcendental Idealism. Both a (shellingian) philosopher and a (stevensian) poet search for reality. In order to understand Stevens’ poetry better, I distingush several concepts of reality: initial reality (the external world of the common sense), imagined reality (a fiction, a product of one’s mind), final reality (the object of a philosopher’s and a poet’s search) and total reality (the sum of all realities, Being). These determinations are fixed by reason (in the present essay), whereas in Stevens’ poetic works, they are made fluid by the imagination. This fluidity leads the concept of reality from its initial stage through the imagined stage to its final stage. Throughout this process, imagined reality must be distinguished from both a mere fancy and its products. Final reality is, however, nothing transcendent. It is rather a general transpersonal order of reality created by poetry/the imagination. The main peculiarity of final reality is that it is a dynamic order. It is provisional at each moment. Stevens (and Schelling too) characterizes this order as that of a work of art which is a finite object, but has an infinite meaning. Stevens calls this order “the central poem” or the “endlessly elaborating poem”. If ultimate reality is a poem created by the imagination, one may ask who is the imagining subject. I argue that this agent is best to be thought as total reality, that is, as Being. Stevens, however, maintains that if there were such an agency, it would be an inhuman agency, “an inhuman meditation”. The essay concludes, in a Derridian manner, with the claim that this agency cannot have any name; it is the “unnamed creator of an unknown sphere, / Unknown as yet, unknowable, / Uncertain certainty” (OP: 127). It is best thought as an X, as an unknown variable. Being has no name