Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: Albert (albertwagner_at_cox.net)
Date: 02/16/05 

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:25:36 -0600

Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
> Albert said:
>
>>Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>>
>>>Albert said:
>>>
>>>>Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Albert said:
<snip>
>>>>>>Cause and effect have no inherent dependence on time or a concept
>>>>>>of time, but rather only on sequence. We define what comes
>>>>>>earlier in sequence as the cause of what comes later in sequence.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, now time is a mental construct? Maybe sequence is too, and space,
>>>>>and events.
>>>>
>>>>Careful. You are dancing perilously close to solipsism.
>>>>
>>>>Why do you think time is not a real physical dimension?
>>>>
>>>>Did I say that? Do you think time is just a 4th spatial
>>>>dimension? Or are you just asking why I said above that cause
>>>>and effect have no inherent dependence on time?
>>>>
>>>>Well, just for the hellovit, let's create a gedanken: if time is
>>>>an illusion and all that exists is sequences of cause and effect,
>>>>then we can have backward causality without fear of time
>>>>paradoxes, and without the silliness of a photon being a
>>>>probability wave that 'collapses' into a particle.
>>>
>>>Just because you can turn the laws inside out and roll time backwards
>>>conceptually doesn't mean that time doesn't exist.
>>
>>I never stated that time doesn't exist. Nor have I said anything
>>about rolling time backwards. A gedanken is a hypothetical for
>>exploring 'what if' questions.
>>
>>>If you have
>>>established physical law, you can extrapolate backwards to see, for
>>>instance, where Jupiter was in the year 1020. If the laws were all time
>>>symmetric, then I would consider time to be more like space. But time
>>>has unique characteristics that seem to be quite real.
>>
>>Yes, (sigh) a lot of things *seem* real.
>>
>>>I don't see the silliness of waves and particles turning into each
>>>other. Particles are just packets of waves.
>>
>>I had no idea that you so slavishly accepted scientific authority
>>when it came to truth.
>
> So, you are asserting that time exists, but isn't real?

Come on, Tony. Setting up a strawman consisting of what I never
asserted is neither helpful nor fair.

My assertion was and remains: "Cause and effect have no inherent
dependence on time or a concept of time, but rather only on
sequence. We define what comes earlier in sequence as the cause
of what comes later in sequence."

> What makes you
> think I am slavishly accepting authority. Is that what I've been doing
> with Cantor? You might want to consider the possibility that I believe
> in time and the interchangeability of waves and particles because they
> make sense to me, not because "they say".

It cannot be just because 'they make sense to you'. The QM
definition of photons is counter-intuitive and, in that you have
not personally performed the necessary experiments, you must be
believing the assertions of those who have. i.e. You believe
scientific dogma on faith. 

-- 
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the 
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally 
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
     -- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... >>I had no idea that you so slavishly accepted scientific authority ... > So, you are asserting that time exists, but isn't real? ... We define what comes earlier in sequence as the cause ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... >>I had no idea that you so slavishly accepted scientific authority ... > So, you are asserting that time exists, but isn't real? ... We define what comes earlier in sequence as the cause ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... now you are asserting that you didn't say that time doesn't not ... but rather only on sequence. ... >> conspiracy and that the results are all made up, ... around the world would report consistent results for a particular ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... now you are asserting that you didn't say that time doesn't not ... but rather only on sequence. ... >> conspiracy and that the results are all made up, ... around the world would report consistent results for a particular ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... now you are asserting that you didn't say that time doesn't not ... but rather only on sequence. ... >> conspiracy and that the results are all made up, ... around the world would report consistent results for a particular ...
    (sci.math)
Loading