Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

On 04/12/2025 01:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Freitag000011, 11.04.2025 um 20:04 schrieb Douglas Laterza:

J. J. Lodder wrote:
>

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:

But particles, atoms, rays and many other physical objects are not
called 'Körper'.

>
of course not, since are particles and waves, and not koerpers.
>

The title 'electrodynamics of moving bodies' had therefore a strange
connotation in German.

>
So you are incompetent in scientific German as well.

>
Well, actually I'm not a physicist and don't know, how the physicists talk.
>
I'm an engineer from education and had no personal contacts to the
physics department. So: possibly they speak in a different idiom than
engineers do.
>
To me the title 'moving bodies' (combined with 'electric forces') sounds
like a synonym for 'sex'.
...
>
>
TH

It's a usual conceit to intercourse then that moving bodies or extended
bodies are about the particle conceit, points geometrically or atoms,
as with regards to the individua of continua, about why extended bodies
are any different than points, and about why moving bodies are any
different from points and extended bodies, then in real analytical
areas, about the differential and the infinitesimal, the infinities
of the continuous.
So, it's for a study of motion itself, vis-a-vis rest itself, and also
of their moments, with regards to time, and the passage of time.
Then, with regards to things like unstoppable forces and immovable
objects, that gets into all the notions of change and state, at all.
With things like the infinitely-many non-zero higher orders of
acceleration, and that the kinematics is always nominally un-linear,
about "Zeno and the zero-eth laws of motion", then for example
there are the usual formalisms of electrostatics and electrodynamics,
yet already that's bound up in the Lagrangian severe abstraction,
when underneath there remains a necessary deconstructive account,
of the objects of mathematics the objects of physics.
So, for particles and positions, and about how they arrive _at_
as well as arrive _from_, moving bodies and extended bodies,
wave mechanics, say, about state and change, has that the usual
classical linear inductive account is sort of a half-account,
that then down from resonance theory is both "particle/wave" duality
and, "wave/particle" duality.
It works out then to be a potentialistic theory, it's the best theory.
That requires a greater, fuller, wider dialectic than the usual
subjective, one-sided, inductive half-account. Then it also
builds those, though.