The chemical bond / Bohr's theory of the atom / Cassirer & Bohr QT / Wave particle duality

0:00 These cones, they are, they exist, they don't happen. So I could simply repeat the point and I don't, I don't see how he can, what resources he can... I think his response would just be that in this case it's a distinction without a difference. The happen, the happening here just is cashed out in terms of the existence of these cones. But what does the existence of these cones mean? The fact that you can draw them in a picture? No, they capture the state of awareness of an observer, of that worker. Psychological meaning. Yeah, they certainly have a... I can buy that. Yeah. So now we have... That seems to be self-evident. But then we now have here these... Doesn't have... Let's cut out... And we have all these cones. Doesn't have to be psychological. I mean, it could be... Okay, we don't call it psychological, but so I see a problem. It's supposed to represent... Our successive states of awareness, can it be that the successive states of awareness of one particular person have been backward-like of another one? Yes, perfectly easily, from his point of view. But what that would correspond to psychologically, but structurally, I can't see if there's any problem with it from his point of view, You've got to have some kind of account if you're a Parmenidean. You've got to have some account of temporal awareness, even if it is supposed to be ultimately a loser in terms of your preferred ontology. But I agree, it's certainly very counterintuitive. I think that's the solution for him. All you have to do is just keep it by, make sure nobody moves it. I can come back for it later. I'll come back before the end of the session. I will go out and for the third talk I will be in another session. When we go to Jens Hofbeck, who is speaking on the reductionism, so maybe I'll try and come back in a minute. So you're going to leave at 6.30, yes?

2:30 Yes, 6.30 I'm going. Okay, well I'll come back for you at 6.30. Just leave it for now, okay? Just leave it for now. It's recording. If you don't do anything with it, just simply leave it there. Let's break that in. Yes, yes. Thank you for your attention. They are also quite interesting in terms of theory, so for questions on the theory of mathematics, you can ask me about the theory of mathematics, and of course I'm going to ask you about the theory of mathematics, but this time I'm going to ask you about the theory of mathematics.

5:00 Thank you for your attention. It's after the morning session, at some point in the afternoon, they try to go to the prado, but it's not possible because there's only a few of them, and so I think they can't, but they want to go to the prado, so of course, in the morning, they have to go to the prado. What I'm trying to describe to you is a very good idea of what you're talking about. What I'm trying to describe to you is a very good idea of what you're talking about.

7:30 Thank you for your attention. There are also other kinds of mathematics, physics, quantum mechanics, algebra, algebra, algebra, algebra, algebra, algebra, algebra, algebra, algebra, algebra, algebra. I want to make more than one comment. Thank you very much for your attention, and I look forward to seeing you again soon.

10:00 There are a number of ways to think about the chemical pond, and I'm going to do it by a historical story to try and bring out some of the topological content that I can get. The way explanations go in areas of organic chemistry, then one sees this very large structural diagram, with arrows going from here to there to signify the transfer of electron pairs and so on, and on the other hand, there's a spectacle about whether the spectrum is, whether there's really anything else in response to that. So, chemical bonds are central to understanding how chemical substances behave. Certainly, some of the concepts of chemical information is molecular structure, the development of substance. And molecular structure is being a system of matter linked together in a certain way by a bond. Chemical reactions are understood in some ways through the making and breaking of bonds. And the method of spectra are explained as deriving from the vibrations and rotations of bonds or bonded structures.

12:30 From the middle of the 19th century, chemistry came to explain the chemical behaviour of a subsurface substance in terms of structural formulas. And these formulas were a lot of the first understood and embodied hypotheses about how reactions were arranged in space. The rise of stereochemistry came from setting out the structural formulas and the change in their state of the world, and the more physical that the problems were, the more healthy the structure together was in this field. In what follows, I'm going to examine J.M. Lewis's views on biology, which is the most fully developed conception of the problem prior to the advent of quantum mechanics. Three quantum mechanical conceptions of the theoretical role of the bond. Then in the last section I'm going to set out two conceptions of the bond, the quantum mechanical conceptions of the theoretical role of the bond, that respectively reject and incorrect the nature of the vision of the classical mechanical conception of the bond. So first the conception of von Lewis. In his influential book from 1923, Lewis discussed the opposition between two great theories of chemical affinity in the 19th century. In the electrochemical theory, that's the first one, affinity arose from the encounter of electricity between atoms. The attraction between the resulting opposite charges would explain the stability of the compound. As Lewis pointed out, this account found support in the link between electricity and chemical combinations, but they're fairly founded on the existence of homonuclear solutions like H2 and M2. There are also pairs of analogous compounds like chloro, cytochloroethesic acid, and in response to hydrogen-1 compounds,

15:00 All of this was replaced by negative scoring in Yale without any great difference in terms of physical properties. The approach to the electrochemical theory was structural in theory, which had its roots in quantum chemistry, altogether a more diffuse theory, which, rather than offering a precise physical core for chemical combinations, developed an unimportant theoretical role for the problem as a structural future. In the 1850s and onwards, or from the 1850s onwards, chemistry became a representative of chemistry. The number of lines connecting the atoms due to their valence is perhaps being defined in which number of atoms are above them. And these are, for that reason, they're called valence forms. They have structural forms in which they certainly have valence. But those, formerly, were not the first things to represent the real space of the positions of atoms between molecules, but their interpretation was enriched by these works of study again, making sense of these efforts at the time of Hawking to explain why there were two items of the compounds that are going to be here, and with four different groups that remained, or in fact, were single carbon atoms, like the totem of the valence of the rays, such as these two. So the two items were conceived of as mirror images. Adolf von Feynman explained the usability of the reactivity of an attack by letting it spread in their molecules while they were getting into the field of work. The stereochemical physics was essentially the expansion of the stereochemical powers depending on the specificity on which they were described. Stereochemical explanations in organic chemistry were pretty successful, so I'm going to throw it out to the space field. The newest available claim is that the prevalence of an action in an organic molecule represents a fixed number of bonds that tie this action to other bonds. Moreover, in the mind of the organic tension, we cannot perform with no mirror of structure, except the definite physical reality, as something is trying to happen to that. Although the nature of the time remains mysterious, yet perhaps one could put the bond in the form of some sort of bond,

17:30 by the fixed non-parachart theory of the simple theory of an action in such a situation. There is a description of the underlying unifying power of quantum reform. No generalization of science, including through those capable of the exact mathematical statements, has ever achieved the greatest success in attending a typically simple course on the multitude of ethnicities and observations in this group of ideas. But in its varying versatility and planetary power, there is also danger of over-extending the theory. The greatest success of structural and organic chemistry led to a tendency to treat inorganic compounds in a similar manner to non-physical factors. I still can't fully remember, but it is said to have died in many other sectors some 30 years ago in the craft of evidence for chemistry. When we were trying to memorise structural formulas, we were a great number of inorganic compounds. These are the key terms that we use in our research, and we use them in a number of different ways, regardless of all kinds of levels. Such forms are now believed to be almost, if not entirely, the source of all of this science. The distinction between polar and non-polar compounds is central to the reasons that we use in the test of the bond, and the antifold, that is, the scope of the specificity of the substance. Senses of potassium chloride and of methane, for example, are polar and non-polar compounds. The argument in 1913 is that we must recognize that there are two types of chemical combinations that differ not merely in degree but in time. Non-permanent compounds are immobile, and non-permanent compounds are unreacted, inert, and slow to change into more stable forms, as evidenced by the large number of separable items. The inorganic compounds, on the other hand, are present more frequently in the ideal polar or mobile type characterized by its degree of activity. This distinction, of course, is roughly but not extensive. It's exactly so extensive.

20:00 And there's also a relation between polar and non-polar types. Polar, for example. The differences, of course, between two compounds were counted for by different fondings in the two types of tests. Both types of compounds used to describe a sort of mathematical structure, but this term doubtless has very different uses. For the immobile compounds we may describe a sort of frame structure, a fixed arrangement of the atoms within a molecule, which is limited to describe the physical and chemical properties of the structure by a single structure. The change in the non-coder of the frame structure may be regarded as a collapse of the frame structure. The objective is to change these conditions, and then change the spectrums, constantly delaying the action between the polar molecules and the action between the diodes. And this is a somewhat over-exercised construct, and its alignment is simply polar, not heterogeneous. The one consequence is the mobility of the polarized complex, so it isn't electrostatic, it's non-violent electricity. And so the compound behaves then as if it were a mixture of heat and sulfur. There are many kinds of mathematical systems. For example, sometimes quantum mechanics. But it's the quantum spectrum which goes into the phasor form to be representative of the real structure of a non-analytical context. Another important aspect is then the direct analysis of cognitive methods of mathematical mathematics. Consider the contemporary proposal to represent the polygons of the potassium chloride comparison, and that is that the electrons of their names are the same as those of the potassium chloride, which would signify that both one electron is part of the potassium chloride.

22:30 Consider that with reason, because if you want to subtract the electrons that are part of the potassium chloride, you can do that by subtracting the electrons from the potassium chloride. The form doesn't remind from that passage, but again, the positive charge is not the one negative charge only, but all the negative charges that it's made of. There's a non-molecular prototype, such as the Cappadocian Clorox, the form is electrostatic, and therefore very dimensable. And an individual ion, there's no special relationship to any one of its names. In short, the number of prototypes is not correct. So, those offer the pairing of electrons and unifying its dimensions. So, a bond is a total of non-magnetic contact. Bonds are like matter, and even if these electrons share the same amount of yellow electrons, they're ready to share electrons on them for transferring them internally to the ion after electrons that are bonded to a polar bond. So, these shared electrons may not be shared equally, though they're important. Geo-paradigms may also be considered continuous, and Darcy-Storey's theory is sort of a synthesis of the theory of the construction of the world between humans and all of us in our potential. There are some features that we can use in one way, which is all this. We represent the fact that the field-wrapping cells of electrons contain a wrapping cell that contains multiple electrons. So that's the range in which the electrons are formed. In fact, that's what these are. But there is the same concept that comes out of the mathematical physics. In that way, what we are talking about is the people who think that quantum mechanics is the right course in the mathematics of astronomy. Hawking saw himself as, I wonder if you saw him, Hawking saw himself as bringing together two different bits of theory. One being the hyperluminescence account of quantum physics, the hyperform, and the other, this theory, using quantum physics, electron pair modeling.

25:00 These many characters are part of one of the many definitions that quantum mechanics will then be understood as something like the superposition of linear systems in classical physics. And the important part of the subject of this question is why do these people do this? And so on. And a tonic account of quantum physics is that the laws of physics, or the molecules, or all these molecules, are truly motivated by the underlying quantum mechanics. And many theoreticians point out that it's not a fundamental subject, it's a form of theory. They weren't found in the quantum mechanics, rather the quantum mechanics were reinterpreted in... There is no explanation of the bonds. Yes, that is the case, but this account of the chemical bonds is rather non-scientific. While there is a synthesis of quantum mechanics, which Lewis has identified, there is an extension of quantum mechanics, which corresponds to one basic structure, where there is a natural extension, where there is a square, plus or minus, or plus or minus, or more than one. So the second factor is that one kind of criticism was that Pauline's work was Pauline Mosek's point of view of the idea of quantum mechanics and the second point is that nothing will have to do with the form of the quantum, or could be the form of the quantum mechanics of space because, well, to start, quantum mechanics requires that...

27:30 And the second problem, of course, is the regard... There are various parts of molecules that have grown and look at it as that part there, that really form the mechanical state of the molecule, which is the whole molecule system. We can't look at that part in the nature of the other kind of state of the molecule, given that it's the same type of thing. So in the final part of the talk, I'd like to identify... Two broad conceptions are the bonds corresponding to what was done, according to these four examples. Secondly, the cryptocanons and the logarithms, as I've just talked about. On the structural conceptions, the bonds, the core intention is to retain the explanatory insights, according to what I've just talked about. The theoretical role of quantum in the structural form predates both the discovery of the vector and the advent of quantum mechanics. Also, the structural view ought to be compatible with the discovery that becomes part of it. So, the structural view ought not to incorporate too many concepts into the material basis of quantum mechanics,

30:00 One way of being taught in physics is through structural theory to identify as the natural functions of a bond continuous with the electrical bonds that they have in actual form. So the use of the theorem of the electrical identification to identify the physical reality of an actual bond is a lot of the case in additively structural bonds. Penrose depends on the algebraic subject to be realized by the master of the world. Penrose topology is a kind of a bond bar. It is the molecular substance's material part of the molecule which is responsible for stationing, localizing, and sub-electrolysis. As we've heard earlier, there are two kinds of structures that don't use quantum statistics in the vector of the organization. They don't use the substance as a counter-informative. Electrons are permeable. This is why molecular waveforms are sometimes symmetrical. Molecular waveforms are counter-dependent by density of electrons. I looked at this as an electron-based identity. Bonds are counter-dependent by density of electrons. Electron-based identity is made out of the whole molecule. There is a limit to our performance as an electron-based identity. These two problems, who have the identical technical properties, can be addressed by recognizing the involvement in the situation by the incompetent members of the audience, rather than the... The second problem is the electrification can be addressed in similar fashion. Some parts of the total electron density of the motion will be comfortable to perform, and it will be a matter of empirical and theoretical techniques, theoretical expectations, writing, writing, writing, and you can never come to that part of the equation. It makes it difficult to find out the answer to that question. That's my point. Let's do that.

32:30 Structural conceptions are the antithesis of the theory of mathematics. The generalisation of mathematics comes from quantum mechanics. I'm going to leave out the quantum mechanics of mathematics. What sometimes is called non-structural, or structurality, or non-structural, is actually the definition of mathematics. The energetic concept in the book is the logical outcome of the skeptical thought about the problem of less light, which is like tomorrow, and the breakdown of day before tomorrow. While I'm sticking to material elements, I realize that the theoretical world is much different there. The energetic concept is somewhat common to all cases, and upon the energetic concept, facts about chemical components aren't just facts about energy. No requirement for legislation on the level of algebra and algebraics, and the identity is more general than I thought it was, and more ethereal in terms of performance, which is why it's such a nice piece of paper, but it's in the form of a definition of biology. And when the identity does find support, I'll try to help you.

35:00 The measure of the strength of the particle at the form of a new chemical could be estimated by breaking the process of its formation down to the form of a new chemical, and that might lead to the fact that a new chemical is followed by a formation of a new chemical, and the new chemical is exactly the same as that of a hydrogen, and also the new chemical might also be struck by a new chemical, and that might be a very good measure of the energy change in the form of a new chemical, or a form of a new chemical. Similar fractions of that percentage can be solved. And so on and so forth. A state which does not want to separate galaxies. Confolded forms, just to enhance the quality of the state, are known as the anatomical geometry, which is described as being like a natural order, where there is an entire model. And the anatomy of geometry is explained as the local minimum of the natural energy state, determined by a dependence on geometry, which is unconstituted, and which is derived in specific features. So the anatomical geometry, there is no more than this at that point. This can be found, as I said before, in quantum mechanics in many centers, with what is not reported, but more than two of them in one. This kind of seminar will serve as an example of the science of the year. Bonds remain central to modern organic chemistry, as I said in the introduction. The n-thesis concept, then, is quite new to us all, and it has been shown to be a hit by the n-thesis concept.

37:30 Thank you very much for your attention and I hope to see you in the next lecture. I don't know too much about chemistry, but I think the question is that the structure of the universe, the structure of the atom, the space of the atom, the space of the atom, the space of the atom, the space of the atom, the space of the atom, And quite another kind of experiment than the technotropic experiment of a man's theory that investigated the energy structure of a man. And based on the temporal structure on the one hand and the energetic structure of the energy momentum on the other hand. For four, there are no complementary methods. And I suppose I would like to suggest that here, there is practically any kind of complementary simulation. You said that only one type of algorithm is the other, and this is a kind of experiment that can be performed at the same time, but always together with a complete view of this form of algorithm. Yes, there are certainly features of that, some of which are written down. There's a lot of content based on software, and you can see the connection between the two terms, which is more or less the same, widely separated, very close to each other in their own way, and very similar to what happens when you get to the structure thing, and now...

40:00 So yeah, it's not supposed to be, I mean, depending on the energy intensity, you don't want to see it, see it that way. But what I want to talk about, I mean, it's not supposed to be, what's in the energy intensity is kind of there in there, but if you get the, if you use the energy change and you've got it, there's a sort of down the line, a sort of down the line flow from the, there's some stuff that you don't want to see. I was thinking whether there was also, kind of, one being more realistic and two being more instrumental in the world. I told you someone who said quantum chemistry on the side, against this first view of cosmology, and if this is right, then I would like to know, what is the role of things that we call mathematical approximations in the second view, sometimes seen as well-tested, in the way I'm trying to describe the acceptance. So you need to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

42:30 Well, progressively that instrumented. Certainly, that's the way it's treated quite well in the form of a very nice theoretical concept that we've done in the past, and it's a good thing that we've done with a lot of people. And, you know, things that can't be counted, like theory, you know, things that, um, sometimes people don't say, but, you know. Yeah, I mean, you're just saying that the whole other hardware lies, lies behind you in the very beginning. Oh, yeah, yeah, that's right, yeah. So, but that's all about the limitations, in a way. Um, well, that's the, that's the, I suppose, the, um, the, the my role in it. So, I'm, I'm, I kind of try to be comfortable. Because the way I see it, the energetic field, once you bring in the electrical data about a column, there's a bit like an afterthought, you know, you start making requirements that are saying, well, bonds aren't real, you know, you need to get them into the quantum mechanics of space. So, in terms of, you know, the fact that the structure is that way, or not, and that's what makes the problem, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. Speakers are from continuity, given the idea of chemical bonds in the 19th century and today's idea, which is the exposition and self-continuity of any crucial experiment able to convey the previous views of chemical bonds. Well, that's been done, that's done. So, if you make a structure at the end of the day, you're going to have a lot, but if you've got the structure, the substance of it has to be represented by the intelligence and the structure, and that's what you're not getting at the end of the day.

45:00 There are even other terms on that. So on the topic of the energetics, that's how they think about it, that's how they think about it, and they keep that very close to the topic as to where they're coming from. But what I think is interesting about Lewis is that he's always aware of it, but he doesn't have the energy to talk about it. So it's very informative to say what he could and therefore... You are here to talk, you are here to play, to have an interview, to have an interview, to have an interview, to have an interview, to have an interview, to have an interview, to have an interview, to have an interview, to have an interview, to have an interview, to have an interview

47:30 There is quite a lot of literature on mathematics, quantum physics, quantum physics theory. As a student, he knew quite a lot of the content and what to focus on and what I was going to use. If you think about physics, then you need a set of predictions that should follow from it, okay. So, already we're trying to stream a theory behind a theory, a set of predictions that should follow from it. So, we assume, as we've talked about, that there is a set of propositions, okay. So, the first question is, what is philosophy? What's the common sense? And we... I don't understand. What is a composition? What is the content? And then, kind of comparing to the composition, what colors from that content? And if some contradiction follows on it, what do you tell me? Is there any inconsistencies to that? Is that the point of the title? So, as I said, some people also sometimes say that there are inconsistencies. Externally-consistent theory. So a lot of people say, well, the theory of the atom is inconsistent, and what we know is it's inconsistent with all the things, so the theory isn't great or less consistent with all the other dynamics, the shock that there's in 1918. So, obviously, the theory is only externally-consistent. And that's not so interesting. What's interesting is that there's supposed to be theories in the history of science which are self-proclaimed in history and yet people can use them and commit to them for many years and that's been phenomenal. So in terms of, so in terms of levels of electricity there, like such as there in 1970, a research program was getting on inconsistent foundations that are used to describe force theory of reactions.

50:00 And, as Dr. French said, there were two contradictory propositions within force theory of reactions. And, uh, these, as you can see in the course, they include both classical mathematics and other principles. And one of those principles is the climate of resistance. So in my paper I go into more detail for paper people looking at the literature to give quite a formal explanation of what the inconsistency of this thing is and how it manifests itself and how do we get conclusions. So the first one, people watch the transition to the light from the street to orbit, compared with the continuous projection in orbit. So this is seen as the focus of the income of the city, and in some places. Second, the fact that in the stationary space, which is a ground space, some but not all of the laws of action are being employed. So you've got to use two lines of law, and then you find... The other is non-classical, radiations, but the radiations in the atmosphere of mathematics is a bright and proud example of explaining that this is the source of income for the community. We can think of each one as a conflict between classical and non-classical principles. In ORBIT, which is actually the classical intersensory, the electrons enjoy a continuous load line. Between ORBITs, this continuous load line seems to be a kind of a classical non-classical conflict. The second instance we see is about classical and non-classical principles within the ORBIT, meaning... Coulomb's law is used, but certain parts of the classical electrical dynamics are ignored, and the non-classical in the old history of classical electrical dynamics is ignored in part, and yet the radiations seem to practice this way. Do you think it would be interesting to explain? Okay, thanks. We've done some consistency claims, so I want to introduce some general objections between consistency claims.

52:30 So here we're dealing with context objects. So as Bob stated explicitly, the dynamically equilibrium of the systems in the states is the same, if you talk about the ordinary laws of mechanics, while these laws do not hold to the pattern of the systems between the different states. In other words, it's part of the theory that these mutually incompatible principles of context arise, except for their mutually exclusive contexts. We often think of this as a part of the series because a lot of it, by the end of it, is going to be a paper, so we still don't know what the theory was, but it's going to be very popular, and that's what we read, that's what we're going to see, so I guess I'd say it proposes principles to many gaps, but we'll have to face the principles later. And, you know, there's a wide range of different sources for that question. So, we wanted to say that, if there was anything that was said, you know, to inform the dynamics of the chat, to support the discussion, you know, to state that these principles can find their context. Okay, again, it's definitely interesting to play through all the different theory objects in those. So, for the particle law, as you said, so it's not interesting to think, so it's the only necessary theory element in the particle-elastic dynamics, for both theory and for the elliptic studies of the polyparticles, because they're both very needed in the particle-elastic dynamics in the context of the elliptic studies of the two of them as well. So, for whatever intended, you know, very classical mathematics dynamics could be a part of the theory. And some people would say, you know, you can't just divide theory books like this to go to an independent park. Um, all right, classical art books, they were, they were stuck with, um, you know, there's a packet of classical mathematics. They're difficult, and I think it's an important part to provide many books with these kinds of books in a typical theory. So I won't go into that here, but this is just my main objection to that inconsistency claim. The third inconsistency claim, so I guess this was quite a common claim there. The radiation interaction with atoms is classically, but the electrons is non-classically.

55:00 So again, we could use it as a concept objective possibly by saying, well, these principles don't get their context, so they're not practical for the electrical field, they're not practical for the impact and radiation. But I think it's more true to what Bohr and others thought in the day, to use it as a third general objective and projective claim, which I thought would be a very good objective. Well, the non-mathematical treatment is fundamental. The mathematical treatment is a case of merely approximating to the proper non-mathematical treatment. Like, obviously, we can say, one thing, say, is what I believe. For example, I could say that I'm 64. One, I could say I'm 64, and I'm going to say, unfortunately, to the second thing, it's unfortunately, to say that I'm 64. I think there's just so much in here. I mean, people do work, but they've been a few students in my system quite a bit of all the time, depending on what's convenient, or sometimes it's that they don't know what's going to be fundamental in a certain place. I think there's something similar like classical lexidynamics, but there's been a reason today where And we explained that if an inconsistent intutates something that's widely acknowledged as an approximation of convergence will actually be a fundamental part of the theory. If an intutates is only an approximate, and intutates is only an approximate, then your belief state is inconsistent, even though perhaps the equations you're using are. And it's interesting in itself, you know, scientists use an infinite set of equations, but, you know, how do they reason with them, and how do they, the fact that they believe what they see is approximate, get factored in so that they don't derive a contradiction. And I think under a sensible definition of theory, we can find a theory to be the thing that's believed, and in this case...

57:30 The equations for the early part are consistent after all, just conceptually I got problematic in my degree in topology, saying, you know, they're the same, they're the same, they're the same, they're the same, they're the same, they're the same, they're the same, they're the same, And people at the time didn't think it was inconsistent so much, but in 1923, the first time we've been given a consistent theory to explain the arrangement and motion of the electrons in the alphabet. It seems to me that hindsight is better off, you know, what's the longest theory? It must have been inconsistent. But, I mean, and it seems crazy that people were so committed to it for so long that they really thought it was inconsistent. I didn't like it at all, and yeah, I was quoting my paper to that end, but I think I had a lot of problems with things that were inconsistent, otherwise, you know, they would have, they would have changed a lot of things, which would have led to a certain amount of contributions, which they didn't change. Okay, so, I wanted to say that the later part of the theory was that it might have been consistent. Okay, it's got implicitly inconsistent, so there's no mystery why we took it fairly, because nobody knew about it there for about eight years. Quantum conditions themselves expanded on that in 1916, and it brought in new rules for which orbits were possible. So here's the atom, here's one possible orbit, the third new orbit of this radius. Here's another possible one, so these are all what allow for quantum conditions. Some of us have decided that this would be a possible moment. It's not really a moment at all, but this is called a pendulum moment, where the electrons are trying to get straight towards the nucleus and then inexplicably come straight back, and some of us felt that this was absurd, so we tried an intersponsive condition, and it doesn't influence the error, which you can just translate as a pendulum moment and not a possible one. I talked about the quantum condition with the part of the theory. Again, I haven't done that in much detail. And also the quantum value of value principle, which Aaron spoke about in about 1917, and James Weisberg accepted.

1:00:00 And the failure of Adalman in 2000, the value system from 1917, and the value of value principle, But when you add the quantum algebraic principle to the quantum condition of Stolkow, with the other core theory, it turns out to be a minor contradiction, as this one is going to go back to the first step, by powering, where it says... The allowed orbit, x equals zero and doesn't equal zero, and factorization of the division of it, m equals zero and x doesn't equal zero. In a case in which it was difficult, you could only be achieved by a radical change in the factorization of the area. In other words, if you divide using the algebraic principle, the pendulum orbit must be possible. And yet, the theory also says that the pendulum orbit is very impossible. So that's the contradiction that we've derived. But nobody, it was there for eight years, sorry, nine years, but nobody, nobody figured out the contributions of the power in consciousness, which is where I want to say the theory is in consciousness, or should be labeled in consciousness. And what about the objections? The concept of objections doesn't work, because both the adiabatic principle and the quantum conditions were meant to apply to the Heiden atom, and it's the Heiden atom where Pauli derived the contradiction. So they weren't complying to these three different concepts. The revision of theory objections doesn't get off the ground because everything that's required to derive a composition is definitely a part of the theory. And the reduced commitment objection, I don't think this is worth either because the theory's commitment wasn't made, both the algebraic principle and the qualitative conditions. They just look sensible in predictions, explanations. I don't think any of these general objectives we've just explained were for this particular You know, where are we getting there? Where have we got these objections, these consistency claims from, and why do I think I do them? Why do I define a theory the way I am?

1:02:30 For example, I seem to say that even the language of a theory is not inconsistent, so if m doesn't equal 0 it's not a part of the theory, so it's not used for any explanation for your predictive work. In other words... You know, you could try to say that's how I define theory, and I define theory that everything in this part of theory must be due to some explicit religion where, you know, there's a lack of what there is in the income system. I'm going to go into the details of the definition of theory here, but basically I think I'm being guided at least by the first notion of theory. For example, the notion of theory we all grow up with, some formulate hypotheses in everyday life. For example, I recently had a damp patch on the dining room wall, and I formulated a theory, that sort of notion of theory. And often scientific theories have similar kinds of things, and sometimes they're not. I think that's to say that this is a very broad-sized experience. We've got an edge behind it, I would say. In that sense, it's very well-meaning because we've been here for a long time. Yeah, but there were three comments here about what you said about CEB and the things I've said. So the issue of reduced commitment, in fact, I mean, that's what I say, too, is that scientists aren't holding inconsistent beliefs, but rather they have reduced commitment to the various parts of the theory. But the related question to that, you said in that context that, you know, well, we should then say they believe a consistent theory, I mean, either in Bohr's case or in classical economics, the theory is just what they believe. I mean, that's at least a non-standard way of thinking about theory. So that, I mean, traditionally, probably we'd want to distinguish a theory in our epistemic attitude towards it, so where the theory is, you know, the set of sentences or the class of models or what have you. And then our attitudes could be that we're committed to the truth of it, we could be committed to their careful adequacy of it, we could be committed to the approximate truth of it. So I just wondered if you could... Yeah, no explanation there. I just see whether that's right. Obviously, I don't want to say that all day, when you say everything you believe is true. Even if I had to say it in a way like that, it's just the time that that's the truth, I think, is what I should be saying.

1:05:00 There have been a candidate for two, but it's been put forward as a candidate for two. It might be inconsistent. We know it's inconsistent, but we don't consider it to be a theory. A theory which we believe could be inconsistent is not a problem in two sets of planes. It doesn't need to be inconsistent. I think that there is a big tendency for the truth on the first notion of the least, although in fact it is what, yeah, I think we're all going to do something related to this theory, we can go on and on. Question on the finite form. So was the only reason for Samatha to abandon, or to reduce the condition in the subject life to be equal to zero? Was it only that he thought it's counterintuitive or absurd, or did he have other reasons? Because then, Pacific was just counterintuitive. Especially after looking back at it, you know, having the very counter, in some sense, very counter to the later quantity, we would say, well, it came well as a benefit without any harm. Yeah, as far as I know, it was just, I mean, obviously, you're going to have to say that the new system in Africa, and this was drawn, in fact, people in 1927, Lindsay, wrote a paper saying, you know, we cannot pay too much, let's just say that. The abstract thing which has the inputs where attraction, for the most part, is in the extreme vicinity of it, that are reported, and that's the way to accept them. And I just don't think, I think that being, yeah, started out, I think I was just thinking to yourself at the time, to achieve those, you know, you've got to do well, or maybe just think to yourself, well, it's a bit like how we regard the strong force today, isn't it? Okay, yeah. Yeah, okay, in that respect it was crazy. I think it was, I don't know, it did, I think that was the only way to say it. And there was, there was, I don't think there was anything to say about it.

1:07:30 I think it was written at the beginning of quantum theory because the physicists themselves, in the early days, thought that the quantum theory was going to fail. But then the phenomena were unveiled, the Feynman effect and the Sartre effect followed up. And then the physicists got the theorem that the theory was incompatible. And this found up in about 1904 or so, when we then had a new vector model and a new formula, I don't know, in the English expression. And then he has assigned two different velocities to the elements and at this point that is related to the extent of the domain of the theory and to the phenomena connected to the later concept of sin, then the inconsistency shows up. But if there has been no sin, then one of the theories has been dealt with the conditions. Yes, thank you, I was aware of that. We did some kind of a talk about that, but I'm not going to tell you the total. Okay, thanks very much. Inconsistency is a virtue of heaven. Is it a virtue of heaven? Inconsistency is a virtue. Yes, in the sense that you can, it's obvious, yeah, it happens to be. Yes, in the sense of, in the sense of inconsistency, it's a relation between this view of inconsistency as a virtue to your final statement. The two propositions are both inconsistency, inconsistency... A model is not available for support in context. I would like to speak your opinion on the context of the two final statements on quantum mathematics theory. I'm not familiar enough with the text, but I'm going to have to go there. I'm not sure.

1:10:00 And a few things from the University of Pittsburgh, or the University of Barcelona, or the University of Barcelona, or the University of Barcelona, or the University of Montreal, or the University of Montreal, or the University of Montreal, or the University of Montreal, or the University of Montreal, or the University of Montreal, or the University of Montreal, or the University of Montreal. I agree that both Casillas and Boas agree on the impossibility of considering extensive recommendations as direct exhibition solutions for quantum objects and products. In this sense, both consider the knowledge of the quantum theory of physics to be wrong. However, while for Casillas, Witten, Hawking, and Spencer Semple's initiatives play not a central role in this theory, Boas maintains that these initiatives provide a mathematical formalism equivalent to a physical one. Instead of celebrating an event around a mathematical representation, Bohr claims that the spatial-central picture should be repainted in order to achieve quantum-morphic composure and morality. In this way, Witten says that it is only the complete view of quantum-morphic calculations, as we may name it in mathematics or physics and physics, that Bohr has ended around the mathematical concept of quantum theory as well as its mathematical relations to gravity. In the following, I start to reconstruct Cartier's views on the role of sensory intuition in modern science. Then, I start to work on accounts of the theoretical functions of classical physics and quantum theory. And finally, I consider the problems of the systematic relationship between our knowledge of the classical and the quantum theory.

1:12:30 So let's start to compare Cartier's views on symbolic and intuitive knowledge in mathematics. Catheal consists of all of the mathematical issues as well as the bonding theory, as following the general tendency for very short, very rare, length of the architecture. The knowledge of nature, provided by more science, is performed by the progressive abandonment of the concept of hasta in favor of the concept of antra. This process leads us to refrains from any place in relatively new concepts contained, whereas in the substantialistic conceptions, And to which properties are adept? According to the contrariety view, objects have no longer the stopping point as well as the end goal of our consideration. Our knowledge of nature progresses by condensing into law and thus into objective statement, empirical data-based observations, and methods, and hypotheses. Objectivity, or objective reality, contains only laws and tools for us. There is conformity to laws, not vitality. It is precisely by accepting any similarity between concepts and things that moral science is able to become aware of the local methods in which it is led. This means that moral science becomes, as I said earlier, fully systematic only when it comes to math. For Katsira, this new character of science is not inconvenient.