Newton, absolute to cosmic spacetime (contd.)

0:00 The divine power and wisdom arrange the fundamental calculus fine-tuning, fine-tuning, forwards to my topics here, he says, one quote. Had the planets been as clear as planets in proportion to their distances from the sun, as they would have been had their motion been caused by their gravity, whereby the matter at the first formation of planets might fall from the remotest region to the north of the sun, they would not have wanted to intersect at all, but in such extension, why did it happen? Second methodologies were all the planets as extreme as Mercury, or as slow as several satellites, or were their several velocities all the while much greater or less than they are, as they might have been had they arose from any other cause than the Earth. The first instance is according to gravity of load. The second type of instance is from a cause other than that. And so what I find interesting is that ultimately, given our own tuning of the various variables of cosmology, the fine tuning, the very fine tuning without which we have been nothing, the fine tuning argument is interesting because it leads to the same cause of the world.

2:30 So there is no cause that works, of course, other than that. Nothing works. The world organized by some kind of fine-tuning system is a vehicle of the world. Cosmology would be that, but not described, decided not to be impudent and aimless. He goes on to suggest that perhaps we have a very good reason in physics to believe that theory meets the deep gravitational effects of an infinite matter, to cancel each other out in one direction, ought to be how commanded by another infinite structure, So, the purpose of driving Newton to the wall and testing the strength of his optical ability. Newton says, I'm going to reply as a mathematician. He says, from a mathematical point of view, one cannot say, but in physics, that they are equal, but only that they have no relation whatsoever to proportions. It is never equal or unequal because definite, certain definite descriptions, thanks to such reads, it is possible to determine some differences or proportions. But this applies only to the inputs, which are themselves finite. In this case, we do not fall into the concept of finite amounts as being at the same time negligent. This, then, can be the reason for not dealing with inputs, as so far as there are real effects in the physical world, I understand. While there are restrictions and limitations, Newton does not deny that an infinite universe is inseparable from physical effects.

5:00 But then he argues that if a body is disturbed by some kind of effect, you add any new finite factor, that new thoughts come out of the middle, so ever. So, in this case, by the addition of the finite, either of them become an equal. So, instead of solving this problem, we can shift the whole question into its maybe equal intent, but this has no perceptible effect when we are supposed to use the non-neutral finite function, not even from zero. Mathematics applied to a complete infinite fullness destroys the strong reality of the machine. Now, once the equilibrium has been realized, what could justify the addition of a new finite object? Even if the motion of a single body is indifferent to the infinite, the addition of a finite does make the infinite unequal. And from this ventilation it remains that the total equilibrium of an infinite entity destroyed does affect the total physical conception of life on the machine. There cannot be any kind of motion The problem of the infinite is that it mainly displaces the problem of the finite. When we talk about the environment, about the minimum stability in the universe, about the unity of the universe, numerous hesitations between a finite and an infinite magnitude can display some interesting hints regarding the mathematics of science.

7:30 When the universe is finite or infinite, the same impossibility arises. It does not make sense to fix the sentence. To extend this argument, we need a general significance. A sentence made by improper and contradictionist phrases may sometimes be really in nature without any contradiction. We may finally use the statements innumerable number or the sum of the sum without contradiction because in using mathematics in this sense, or the larger sense, we are beyond language, even beyond mathematical language. This does not mean giving up the password, just what it seems about to waste away. The problem intensified with Newton. At the time of the lecture's event, we finally triumphed over the fully physical mathematical explanation of stellar physics with an ineptly remarkable design. A few months after that, Newton really thinks of cosmology again, very broadly. He says this, the high degree of symmetry is required to perform gravitational gradients. In order to prove that uniformity, Newton then undertakes a series of manuscripts to deduce stellar physics. From the number of stars that can be done from each degree of magnitude, we first assume that the scale of magnitude is quite relevant to estimate the distance between users for more of inverse squares for the brightness of a shining object and assume that the star is inconspicuously as bright as from the measurement of the star. In such a knowledge of star distances, it is impossible to develop a hypothesis in this matter. In tracking the results of the assumption of distributive uniformity, we soon realize that the data drawn from observation of star magnitude

10:00 We need to accept the conclusion that the increase in the number of stars is much too rapid as the distance from the Sun is increasing. So Newton now has the choice of either dropping the hypothesis of all stars by uniformity, uniform and right, or the linear relationship of languages. It is astonishing to see how Newton, in order for a movement to be, amends the latter hypothesis with a uniform universe. Newton does not need to take requirements for the number of stars for the Rubin effect. Newton's uniformity is only broadly correct, not because of the distribution value, or the sum is not quite as good as the sum of all the other stars. In these manuscripts, Newton thus works out the very idea that the opposite gravitation is a universal matrix, won over by the answer that Newton had sent him in correspondence. Because equilibrium with an infinite is not possible. Newton. But Newton never said that equilibrium with an infinite is not possible. He claimed rather that the possible equilibrium with an infinite does not prove that the world is actually infinite. The mathematics involved in the construction of this model is interesting because the harmony between number and thing is one in which the thing itself is the idealized universe.

12:30 If you want to transform your real universe into an ideal object, this object is idealized right from the start as some kind of absolute presupposition prior to this particular ideal smooth universe is totally impossible to see in actual experience. At night, there is no such thing. Far from it. Very far from it. Obviously this ideal object, the smooth universe, is absolutely unremittable. Even though Newton was so silent about cosmology, he thanked cosmology upside-down. In traditional astronomy, probably that we inherited from the Greeks, the purpose was to save the appearances. Save the appearances thanks to a linear model. In Newton, it is now just the opposite. Save the model despite the appearance. But our God actually operates in a different cosmological context regarding the magnitude of the whole universe and the square-like acts of the rest. In so doing, Newton opens up the field by means of this topology, which is that numbers are as if they were autonomous in an ideal world. The autonomy of numbers that Newton argues is not as there is in himself.

15:00 But now, things have become serious. The mathematical language has become a language. Thank you for your very rich presentation. Yes, although you are not a historian, neither a scholar of Newton, I never heard or read anything dealing with this issue with respect to Newton. And secondly, as a demonstrator of your clarification of this issue, you might be excellent. I want, it's too rich to really discuss everything in a minute. I want to make one point. This fundamental insight, that when you go from the finite to the infinite, that you make what I would call an ontological jump, comes so clearly out in what you say, I'm so thankful for this, and this is, now I can formulate a certain objection I had in the discussion with Andrew and with Ori. You cannot say that God is... He himself is in infinite space. God and infinite space exist together. If God is there, infinite space is there. But of course, since it does not make sense to say that something infinite is in some place for the reason that you exposed, this is not the same relation. You cannot just make an extrapolation to it. The same for you. I accept your argument that this could be a reason why... While this absolute space is present in Newton's system, the whole thing you did with the quantity of course and blah blah blah, but of course when you go, it's not just that the final box, the box which is itself an immovable space in which all the others move, it's not just the biggest one, it's a fundamentally different one, and this lacks new argument, but I think it's essential. Precisely for this... You would call it cosmological, but you can call it anthropological or mathematical or general or whatever, but this is the social term, this is essential to the system. Yes, okay. The scientific department, they count neutral kinds in as much as 10 mathematical problems with 100 mathematical problems.

17:30 It turns out that in examining the problem of the multiple possible sides, it turns out that... Doing pure mathematics is much more practical than looking at the sky. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, okay, I have no real problem with that, but it does not do away with what I said. Well, thank you for expanding on what I've just tried to say. It's a very tricky question. You know, there's no cosmology. We forget about cosmology. It's not out there, cosmology in the 18th century. What is cosmology? In the encyclopedie, the system, the comprehensive system, the comprehensive, foremost system of all the world of nature, whether there's a sun, or stars, or anything... I'll take that as God's passion! Well there's one real serious question... These are two kind of ironic observations. So, the serious question I want to pursue with you is actually just a strain in your thought that you introduced and then dropped, but I think might be a future research, and that's this. I'll preface it by saying something that I've puzzled over for a long time. Newton, so I've always asked myself, Newton wants to defend the science in which final causes have a place. And somebody like me is a little bit uncomfortable with that because I can only see the reason for this as being, as it were, theological. He wants to say that the design argument is a fine-grained argument, and that's why he's bringing in final causes. The one thing that I've noticed, and actually there are two strains in your paper that mention this, is if we can't, if we have to...

20:00 If we have the different stellar systems or solar systems too far apart, infinitely far apart, such that efficient causation is not But if we still want to do physics, then we need a notion of causation that will be different, so it strikes me that we actually have, besides the theological considerations that take seriously, we have a separate argument, and it's also in General Scobie that's connected to this, of why we want to keep final causes, despite they currently know them, in physics. And certainly there's a second place in your talk where you shut up. So this is all me working out the details and I wasn't wondering who you were thinking of. I really don't want to pick it up out of the comic. The other place is in the Einstein-Lobel observation, and that is that space has this asymmetrical relationship. I've long thought that this is kind of leftover formal causation in... And so that space constrains, but isn't in our, in a sense, the cause, but it's really the kind of formal, so one way I'm saying is that one reason to investigate Newton's cosmology is that we actually get a better handle on why he has what to us look, and even to some of his contemporaries, look like notions of causation that he should not have given himself. Except for vast theological reasons, of course. Now it looks like they're matched. In terms of the way we're conceptualizing mathematics and physics, we need explanations of causation. It accompanies this sort of condition of possibility to be a physics at all. Is that one way to read what he's done? And I think the correct approach, I think, is probably to move to this point. I'm trying to get a certificate. I have this idea that we tend to move at large. It is in fact a notion that I take the two conditions to the left and decide by sight that, supposedly, none of the calls, if probability is in one call, any of them, not just for any other call, must be correct. So, it is irrespective of the professional being noticed by the science faculty, they have to solve it by the end and look for random shape and find arguments that expresses the root in the reading.

22:30 Micro-effects are a general concern among philosophers of the nature of the business of students. I'm not sure about that. Did I ask that too? I didn't know why you said more than five or six, but let me say one more. Well, I think Einstein took it from science. Oh, okay, but he actually does say it. He's studying it. In what, when does Weyl say this? In the first edition of Space Time... Yeah, yeah, yeah. First edition, 1918. Ah, okay. And then in 1919, Einstein put it over from the 20th century. I've always thought that this comes from Bach. In some ways, it's indirectly connected to mathematics, but not with people talking about what's the problem with Newton's argument. The problem is that there is no Newton, and if there were a Newtonian, it's got all space, influence, and body, then Newton's story would be okay. Yeah, but what that does is it shifts us. Once we remove formal clauses from the legitimate notion of clauses, then this asymmetry becomes really problematic, but when you still think that formal clauses are available, then the asymmetry is far less problematic. What formal clauses are, they are asymmetrical. I have two ironic observations, not a string theory, but just to make you think. One is, of course, that in your final description of this private, cosmological reflection, Newton really becomes a platonic, humane philosopher. Does the work on the Milky Way, and then ends up creating a philosophy in which the phenomena are really saved, whereas Newton ends up having a philosophy in which the phenomena are really ignored and dismissed, and I think this is a problem.

25:00 And that's sort of the fact that it's cosmology that gets you this inverse. And the top turns out to be the real empirical blocks. That's the ironic observation here. All of these could be actually seen as extra-galactic systems from a certain perspective, so the elliptic shape of the surface of the Earth, for example, would be the way our world would look like if it were the state of mind of our system. Now, on the one hand, therefore, can't be the first thing we get to see on Earth. But he does it on behalf of Newton, of the involved Newtonians and Newtonians, namely by applying the law of dynamics to the whole system of galaxies. So he made two giant steps in the same work. First, identify those patches, the memory patches, and then organize them somewhere. And then, moving on to the other end, he just developed that dynamic as a big solar system. And therefore, Kant was not bothered anymore by Newton's distinct types of comments, which are very intriguing. Why does he speak to them? Why does he not allow the dynamic thought system in which everything moves like money? He does not allow it. This is flawed. Thank you very much, Tom, for being extremely rich. And actually, I'm teaching distinct theories right now back home. I can see connections between the antinomies and some of the issues. I can't apply my attention to the background.

27:30 Well, it seems quite appropriate then. It's not the external... What is the shame of the background? Sometimes... No, I agree it's not a bad thing. Okay, I'm shameless. But I wanted to say, I thought... I really appreciated your discussion of the letter to Bentley, because it reminded me that you can warn Bentley about, you know, as it were, the appearance of a contradiction between what's called a natural language, and I guess one of the examples is the sum of the sum, but apparently if you look at it from a mathematical point of view, you realize there's no contradiction, so in your account, is that general view connected to the... Including reaching the end of your talk where you can say in a way that mathematics will be the language that we ought to use and we ought to follow. Yes, but it's a language that stands on its own. It's not a language that has a clear reference to the natural world. That's the point I wanted to make. It's a language that becomes a verb without a spiral reference. I mean, how are we going to be useful for them now? Is it exactly what Newton does not do? One thing that's the problem is that he never revised the introduction to the particular where he tried to tie mathematics closer to mathematics. One thing that we're getting here is that there's speculations here. You can see a difference here in which the whole system becomes unmoorable. So, thank you for representing me with my tantrum spookles. The one thing I find really interesting is that I'm kind of close or close to what I call the big game world. I would like to use this topic since I've talked about it in this lecture. It's a very interesting topic. We have, in this topic, the trajectory of science and technology and we use the forces that are... And so on and so forth. And the Hilbert problem is true. It comes in several forms.

30:00 And the Hilbert problem is true. And the Hilbert problem is true. And the Hilbert problem is true. And the Hilbert problem is true. And the Hilbert problem is true. And the Hilbert problem is true. And the Hilbert problem is true. And the Hilbert problem is true. And the Hilbert problem is true. And the Hilbert problem is true. The way mathematics frees itself from the natural world, maybe Newton was looking for a mathematical tool that would prove to be possible, either he knew that he needed more mathematics, or he thought, the tools that I have are okay, but then I reach a real, absolute goal that is given by the nature of it, possibly because of some... To better understand what is in that story about, say, relationships, physics, mathematics, and, you know, phenomena and theory, what is really specific for cosmology here in that particular case, because in a sense, I think it's the whole, say, approach of not even only Newton, modern science is not, say, phenomena, not deduced phenomena. We never observe, say, inertial rectilinear motion. There is no such phenomena, so it's kind of principle, then we kind of force the phenomena in experiments. So, from that point of view, it just looks like, you know, general strategy, but then, of course, there is something specific to cosmology. What is exactly? Well, yes and no, there is a problem. Those problems reflect certain difficulties.

32:30 But it's just technical problems or you see kind of... are those problems no kind of technical problems? You think probably, you know, kind of like Kant would say in Critics, it's just there is no such thing as a universe as physical... Given the fact that in the 18th century cosmology wasn't defined as a set of laws or concepts purely, yes, here Kant, I think, made some kind of breakthrough to perhaps give you some sense of a masterpiece or theory, and it's the following. Kant is usually incorporated in the Metaphysic and Fundamental Anatomy of the chapter in the 1786 section, which follows the 16th rhythm. He is supposed to provide us with the foundations, but he himself has not provided them for some reason. They are prior foundations that he, Kant, has taken from. He only needs to make a motion as a way of applying the categories of the mind to the problems raised by the natural sciences. I think this is just, just as the passage from the solar system to the global system cannot be just straight extrapolation. Similarly here, we have the same thing, and it's not surprising that the first chapter of the Metaphysic Anthropology is going to deal with global space, space as an idea of reason, a cosmological idea. That's where, now I can confess, this is where all my thinking comes from. Now, what is it that is so specific about Kant's thinking that perhaps was a way of answering your problem that was raised by these questions, let's go over by you. It's that, think about the title of the book, Metaphysicist Unfound Water. It's not metaphysicist, it's really a priori, it's not a priori, it's unfound water.

35:00 Thanks to which, natural science gets started. But of course, these are not a priori, in the strong sense of the empirical theory, for accounting only with what is a phenomenon of the first critique, the undetermined object of an empirical intuition. And the wrong meaning of the first critique is to say, well, the principles are doing the job of determining this undetermined empirical intuition. It's an equation to be solved. What is this x, after all? It is a representation of Kant, of course. X must be maintained from beginning to end. That is what makes the distinction between quantum and illuminance significant, or what it would turn out to be. Von Weymann says that if we want to know an empirical object completely, it cannot be different from a transcendental object. Completely. Well, I think, therefore, that when Kant speaks about space in the first chapter of the Metaphysic and Fundamentalism as an idea of reason, not as an a priori, but one without which science does not get started, then I think he skips over the problem and therefore highlights it in some way, just because he skips over it. And of course the problem remains for him and for us the same, as always, which is how do we get connected with the things? So, I think one can be profusely, with great profit, attempt to contemplate this problem. No surprise, I'm not surprised by the fact that the first chapter of astronomy, of the meta-physiological problem, deals with how do we go from space to space, within which all these relative frames would be better categorized.

37:30 So I thank you all. So at 8 o'clock we meet people in the hotel who want to go for a rest or something else.