Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??
From: tadchem (tadchemNOSPAM_at_comcast.net)
Date: 12/24/04
- Next message: tadchem: "Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??"
- Previous message: kenseto: "Re: SR and LET Are Incomplete Aether Theories"
- Maybe in reply to: George Bajszar: "Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??"
- Next in thread: tadchem: "Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:54:08 -0500
"Consc" <cons_cie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103835831.916631.195210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> > A similar number of 'philosophers' seemed to feel that:
> > 1) matter was not atomic, but that one could indefinitely continue
> > subdividing something
>
> Isn't it that string theory says the quark may be a particular
> expression of a string... so maybe not subdividing but something
> like that.
"String theory" is a mathematical model of fundamental particles (read
'particles that cannot be subdivided') based upon the mathematics of
vibrating strings, extended to a higher number of independent variables
(often called 'dimensions').
> > 2) there were only four elements, corresponding to what we now call
> the
> > three commonest "states of matter" plus 'fire'
>
> Four elements.... Four Fundamental forces.
There are also four:
cardinal directions
dimensions in electromagnetic theory
horsemen of the Apocalypse
'seasons' in the astronomical year
If you want to get into numerology, I don't think this is a forum that will
welcome you.
> Well. I'm not saying they
> are right. Remember they are just trying to speculate about reality
> and it is up to science to prove or disprove them.
So are all the cranks, religious zealots, crackpost and delusional
schizophrenics whose posts can continually be found in this forum.
Fortunately it is not difficult for science to either 1) reach into its
archives of data to pull out empirical observations that completely
contradict many of thses 'speculations', or 2) to logically demonstrate that
the 'speculations' are so logically flawed that they cannot even provide
testable predictions of the behavior of the universe, and thus can never be
proven OR disproven.
> philosophers... let's not be so hard on them.
I see no reason why they cannot adhere to the same standards of logic and
validation that us empiricists live with every day - the only price to pay
is one's arrogance.
> How do you know the spirit doesn't exist, just for sake of discussion.
We do not know that it exists, nor do we know that it does not. The concept
of 'spirit' has no common definition we can all agree upon, and no one has
suggested any observable consequences of either its presences or its absence
that can be independently verified. All we can say about 'spirit' is that
the concept has made no measurable contribution to our understanding of the
operation of the universe.
> Physics deal with the physical. What if there is a non-physical that
> no instruments can detect "yet". I'm not saying there is spirit, but
> let's not conclude there is nothing beyond it.
Until it can be detected or measured or the consequences of its existence
and/or presence can be independently observed, it will remain
inconsequential.
Like the 'points' on "Whose Line Is It?", it doesn't matter (pun definitely
intended).
> What is behind the
> wave function for example.
Please define the word 'behind' in this usage.
> What realy happens during a quantum
> measurement. Why is it it is. Science just describes it but doesn't
> explain it as its core. Those who attempt to explain it such as
> physicist Fred Wolf are dingling between science and metaphysics
> and we can't blame people such as them because they want to attempt
> to explain the why of everything.
I fear your absence of clearly organized thoughts on this question has
proven to much of an handicap for your grammatical skills and your
vocabulary to overcome.
> Maybe what is the behind the wave function is the real reality. See.
> Well. I'm not siding with philosophers but let's not be so hard on
> them.
Why not be 'hard' on them. Perhaps if they were more accountable for their
utterances, they could improve the overall quality.
I had a math professor (Calculus, Differential Equations, Linear Algebra)
who practiced teaching through daily *graded* homework problems and weekly
quizzes. The rapid and precise feedback he gave the students insured that
they understood what they were doing and did it properly, *before* a minor
misunderstanding could grow out of proportion and cause them to blow a
mid-term or a final.
By the time the term was complete, his students were so confident in their
mastery of the subject matter that those few who actually 'studied' for the
finals did so out of habit and not out of desperate hope to catch some datum
they had missed earlier that might affect their final grade.
Philosophy students should be trained half as well.
Yes, Virginia, there *IS* a 'right and wrong' way to do something.
> Yes. I'm a hard data person too. It's up to science to prove or
> disprove the philosophers. They go hand in hand.
Scientists are also responsible for proving or disproving themselves. If
more philosophers understood the scientific method and the fact that is is
possible to obtain reliable and repeatible validation or contradiction of a
statement in a manner independent of the philosopher, they they could
perhaps make more progress. Until then they spend an awful lot of their
time and energy tilting at windmills.
> > Philosophers also gave us the "flat earth", the geocentric universe,
> > Aristotelian gravity, and any number of quaint and curious
> mythologies.
>
> Because they don't have science yet at that time. Philosophers
> speculate reality. Science prove or disprove it.
Scientist also gave us the *viable* alternatives to those mush-headed ideas.
Philosophers and scientist *BOTH* speculate about reality, bot only the
empiricists *DO* something to test their speculations. Once the
philosophers completed their 'speculations, they placed them untested out in
the open for all to wonder at and accept as the truth, as revealed to the
philosophers. When the speculations are done, the scientist says to himself
"OK, Let see if it works" and tries it out. It is this critical step that
distinguishes scientists from mere philosophers. If philosophers could
learn to do it, they would become scientists, and they could expand on their
successes and learn from their failures.
> What if there is a reality that is Bohmian in nature... that is higher
> order quantum or behind what causes quantum events.
Reality is whatever it is. There is only one reality because any given
observation has only one result. We cannot directly examine "why" something
happens. We can only examine *what* happens and compare that to the
predictions of our models. When two or more models agree in details of
their preditions, their is not empirical reason to prefer one over the
others. Ther *are* reasons, but they are mostle aesthetic and have no
empirical justification. Even Ockham's Razor is more of an aesthetic reason
than an empirical one for making a choice among agreeable models.
> Don't conclude that the science we have now is the ultimate science.
> There may be more to come that deal with paraquantum or beyond the
> quantum as many scientists are not inkling.
I have never even implied that. I do assert that, so far, nothing other
than empiricism (reliance on the scientific method and on the experimental
testing of our models of reality) has allowed us to collect and organize the
massive body of observations (the 'lore' of science) and continually refine
our ability to predict the way the universe would function under a variety
of circumstances. As we learn more, our ability to observe grows. We can
now image the universe in the electromagnetic spectrum from radio waves to
cosmic rays. Next week we may be imaging the ocean floor in ultrasound or
the earth's crust and mantle in seismic waves (even as we are doing now with
the sun).
Gravitational wave imaging, someday, maybe?
> Philosopher may be a bad term nowadays.
They have brought it upon themselves with their arrogance.
The scientific method consists of several steps - *processes* that extract
one 'substance' from another in the manner of alchemy.
1) The 'physical world' is *observed* to extract 'data'
2) The 'data' is *analyzed* to discern 'ideas' about how things may be
working
3) The 'ideas' are *extrapolated* to develop 'predictions' about how things
are expected to work
4) The 'predictions' guide *experimenting* to alter the 'physical world'
The process is cyclic, and therefore self-correcting in the manner of a
numerical predictor-corrector algorithm - accuracy is improved by a method
of successive corrections.
The approach to exactness is asymptotic, and may therefor require an
infinite number of iterations, but the empiricist is not after *exactness*
so much as a prediction with errors too small to measure.
> Don't
> know other terms... but curiosers... the mere tagging of "philosophy"
> can cause automatic response in scientists.
Philosophers' claim to fame is in achieving mastery (in their own eyes, at
least) of step 2 above. All four steps are needed to complete the cycle,
and the completed cycle is necessary to roll ahead and make progress.
> What if there is a hologram substance in every atom linking all
> of them together.. sorta kinda of a morphogenetic field.
Does that concept have any observable consequences? If so, you need to
define it well enough that any of us empirical idiots here can recognize it
reliably when we see it, and then tell us how it affects when we can obseve.
If you can also tell us what the observable consequences of altering it or
eliminating it would be (Step 3), that would be even better. It would give
us lab geeks who toil in Step 4 something to do. If, after we have done it,
there is something new to observe in Step 1 again, we can all accept your
concept and you will be hailed as the new emperor and properly clad in
honors and awards from Swedish societies.
Hey, it worked for Einstein. He defined and predicted the nature of the
'photoelectric work function' which let to irrefutable evidence of the
quantization of light:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
> So this is why scientists hate philosophers. Philosophers may be
> semantically abused words already. Maybe just use the generic term
> curiosers. Newton, Einstein, etc. were once curious.
That ('curiousers') sounds like something from a Lewis Carroll novel. If
'philosophers' could even progress to Step 3 of the scientific method, we
could fairly call them 'theoreticians.'
> I don't know if you know EL.
Let me look. Um...Oh, yes...here he is deep in my killfile.
> He suggested that for sake of discussion,
> the definition of consciousness is "the awareness of being aware".
That is about as succinct as circular reasoning can get. It reminds me of
some of the alleged 'philosophy' that arose from the Acid Generation
(Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco - late 1960's)
> See the thread.....
>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics.new-theories/browse_frm/thread/c525679e8a6d6ef9/d54ed59239b31634?_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.sci.physics.new-theories%2Fthreads%3Fstart%3D30%26order%3Drecent%26&_doneTitle=Back&&d#d54ed59239b31634
>
> Support or challenge him.
Not today. I've got to wash my hair - or something. Really.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
- Next message: tadchem: "Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??"
- Previous message: kenseto: "Re: SR and LET Are Incomplete Aether Theories"
- Maybe in reply to: George Bajszar: "Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??"
- Next in thread: tadchem: "Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
