Dialogos Posted March 17 Share Posted March 17 I have a question, born of necessity : I believe that simplicity should always be at the center of everything : complexity becomes a poison for intuition and truth, when it is a mental masturbation apt to feed the ego of scientists who do not seek universal truths, but elitist beliefs to feel superior regardless( or, simply, the need to feel important, which in itself is an understandable need, but not at the cost of truth and justice ); the ego must not be developed without putting truth, courage, justice, the critical and rebellious spirit, as its foundation; otherwise it will be moved by the need to lie, to omit, to adapt reality to his oasis of certainties that have never really been questioned (in their foundations), preferring the illusion of having done so, made possible precisely by the use of complexity and dogma passed off as science; complexity, yes, but when it is really necessary, without ever losing sight of simplicity; but perhaps, since complexity is also, from a certain point of view, relative to the ability to know how to handle it, then it is better to say that simplicity is that something you can most easily relate to those things that communicate universally, practically all the time, while complexity is something that moves away from that, but still DERIVES from that, from simplicity, and is not something disjointed from it. From simplicity to complexity, via modularity, which is still a way of managing with the measure of simplicity, complexity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modularity Broadly speaking, modularity is the degree to which a system's components may be separated and recombined, often with the benefit of flexibility and variety in use. The concept of modularity is used primarily to reduce complexity by breaking a system into varying degrees of interdependence and independence across and "hide the complexity of each part behind an abstraction and interface". I am a firm believer in the following statement, "You haven't really understood something until you are able to explain it to a five-year-old" ( or "You haven't really understood something until you are able to explain it to your grandmother." : in this statement there is a universal truth that should, must, permeate everything; what strays from this assertion, strays from truth, and therefore, from justice. --- Here ( July 2014 ) https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.2448 A more fundamental International System of Units The universally accepted method of expressing physical measurements for world commerce, industry, and science is about to get a facelift, thanks to our improved knowledge of fundamental constants.* However, international consensus is building to once again advance the SI to reflect contemporary understanding of the physical world. The new framework of the future SI will no longer define seven base units and coherently derived units; instead, it will adopt exact values for seven fundamental constants of nature on which all SI units will be realized. Gone are the base units and their definitions. The new SI will also have seven base quantities: frequency, velocity, action, electric charge, heat capacity, amount of substance, and luminous intensity. As can be seen in tables I and II, the present and future definitions of the SI have similarities, especially when one compares the present base quantities of time and length with the new base quantities of frequency and velocity. The definitions are fully equivalent, as is also the case for luminous intensity. That equivalence is because the present SI has already incorporated invariants of nature as part of its foundation, thanks to the 1967 and 1983 redefinitions of the second and meter, respectively. Because the SI has been continually evolving with new knowledge and technological advances, (...) --- Here ( May 2019 ) The New International System of Units (SI): Quantum Metrology and Quantum Standards https://www.wiley.com/en-us/The+New+International+System+of+Units+%28SI%29%3A+Quantum+Metrology+and+Quantum+Standards-p-9783527814497 we get into the specifics, with the five Ws ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ws ), on those units of measurement. --- Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units Unit name: ampere Unit symbol: A Dimension symbol: I Quantity name: electric current Typical symbols: I, i Definition: "The flow of exactly 1 / 1.602176634×10^−19 times the elementary charge e per second. Equalling approximately 6.2415090744×1018 elementary charges per second." However, the definition of ampere seems to me to be more of a derived quantity/units of measure than a fundamental quantity/units of measure; And in fact here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_base_units it is stated that the new definition of 2019 is more 'fundamental', than the previous one ( although it is also said that "A consequence of the revised definition is that the ampere no longer depends on the definitions of the kilogram and the metre; it does, however, still depend on the definition of the second." ) and so on. --- Here https://www.kpphysics.com/fundamental-quantities/ Seven physical quantities have been chosen as fondamental or base quantities these are length, mass, time, electric current, thermodynamic temperature, amount of substance, and luminous intensity" "have been chosen" Are there actually only seven, of these physical quantities/units of measure, or is there an arbitrary choice, and would there also be more, perhaps not considered for certain, or indeterminate, reasons ? --- Now, on this premise, I ask you : is there a searchable source for study where the whole ( or almost ) physics is ALL expressed in terms of only fundamental quantities/units of measure, thus without the use of derived quantities/units of measure ? Derived quantities/units of measure have their utility, certainly; but My request is also an epistemological and gnoseological experiment; to always express everything, whenever possible ( is it always possible ? ), in terms of only fundamental quantities/units of measure, I feel this as a security on the side of truth, thus of knowledge that is going to expand with research; and where it might seem that it is not possible to apply such a principle, it must be shown why, with empirical experiments attesting that something more must be added, of 'only' fundamental quantities, in order to be able to continue with research; essentially, simplicity is thus the guarantee of not ending up in blind alleys without realizing it, dazzled by unnecessary complexity. Fundamental quantities/units of measure are a function of what ? Of our senses; the measuring instruments built by the Human Being, flow from the awareness one has, of one's senses ( and I mean these : https://www.hellahealth.com/blog/wellness/humans-five-senses/ , https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/think-you-have-only-5-senses-its-actually-a-lot-more-than-that/ , and many more ). It might seem a limitation, but the Human Being is meter and measure for the whole of creation, someone would say ( and I agree ) Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now