String theorists are physics' answer to Krugman.
They're mathematical masturbators with no way of achieving useful theories.
@epicurus
"Science inherently searches for skeptics, peer-review is based on this concept. But peer-review is not the be all, end all of the scientific method. Some people in this thread could benefit from a kowledge of the difference between physical sciences and social 'sciences.'"
Yes, in order to get published in a 'well respected' journal you've got to pass through the guildish peer review process. I think physics has become a dogma of "truth" where physicists say they have "proved" physical interpretations with mathematical equations, and anyone who speaks out to the contrary is a quack. Physics is run democratically. It is about "truth" or "untruth" rather than rationality vs. irrationality. And when the "truth" is beyond human comprehension that should be a red flag. The problem is that you can't "prove" something that is irrational because you don't even know what you are proving.
"If you think the data should fit the explanation you are entirely wrong about the scientific method (as it is supposed to be practiced). It is the exact opposite, the explanation should fit the data."
I disagree with the scientific method as it is currently conceived, yes. It's not that the data has to fit anything, it's that the numbers by themselves don't mean anything without some understanding of the relationship between the unit of measurement and that which is being measured. At the very least there must be some understood relationship between the unit and that which is being measured so that the number can have meaning as a physical quantity. it would only make sense to establish your theory prior to any measurement or experiment so that you can be sure you are interpreting the data consistently. once you do that you can have many, many competing theories, unlike the hegemonic "laws of physics" view that is now established firmly. equations aren't laws, they are functions relating hypothetical quantities, and they can be very accurate. but, they in and of themselves explain nothing, causation is not brought into the picture until the physical interpretation is given. as far as i know most physicists at least agree that causality is presupposed a priori.
physicists already implicitly make use of shape as a definition for objects, just never consistently. every quantity and variable they write down represents a relationship, and because there are different possible physical interpretations, it is necessary to understand that relationship and the process of measurement. shape is the only property of an object that is not relational and quantitative, but inherent and qualitative. all physical quantities ultimately derive their meaning from shape being used as the definition for an object in one way or another.
"And if it doesnt make sense (to you) that is a fault of the human mind, not so much the scientific method."
i thought science was for skeptics? do you take the "truth" passed down from physicists on faith, or are you certain of the "truth" of some physical interpretations based upon your own understanding? or has the whole thing grown too monstrous for any one person to really grasp? rationality in physics renders it accesible to anyone who can think logically. the current scientific method used in physics relies moreso on democratic consensus rather than strict adherence to rationality and consistency.
"Also, you cant bring certain theorys into the debate and claim they debunk established science (once again, if you have the data to do so go ahead), as they are still contested theories, i.e. string theory and dark matter/energy."
They are irrational, there is no need to present data. Let's take string theory. Some physicists are saying that it's possible that 1D strings actually exist. The problem is that no one can imagine what one of these strings looks like, much less say what it means for a "1D string" to "exist." You can't tell me anything physically about the string, all you can do is show me equations and then draw pictures of strings. That doesn't tell me what "1D strings exist" means. It has no physical meaning, so how could it be part of a theory of physics? It would be impossible to prove or disprove, just like you can't prove or disprove the existence of god. No one even knows what is being contested.
"Modern physicists don't call Newton wrong in his interpretation of gravity, they think of his theory as incomplete in the light of new evidence provided by einstein."
Right, Newton himself said that he never supplied a causal explanation for gravity. He could not accept the notion of action at a distance, which amounts to an a priori consideration. GR attempts an explanation for gravity, but i'd contend that the interpretations are irrational.
@z1235
"Shape of what?"
If you are going to lay out a theory of physics, you are establishing that something exists, so you've at least got to define what you mean when you say something exists. I would argue that the only consistent definition for existence in physics is "that with shape and location." Anything else is a quantity (which relies upon shape) or a description of behavior. You can attempt to establish different sets of definitions, but once you assume one set it should be used consistently.
Empiricists don't want to presuppose anything in order to avoid artificially placing anything onto reality, but data cannot even be understood without using certain modes of human conceptualizing. I don't see how that's avoidable. But as long as you bring everything in as assumptions, and remain consistent, then you are standing on solid epistemic ground, and also have the flexibility to consider many different possible definitions, hypotheses, theories, etc.
So, i guess to try to answer your question, i'd say that the "truth" of reality is a concept that lies outside the scope of the scientific method, there is no way to assert anything about the "ultimate" or "true" nature of reality, there is always some ultimate given. Shape is a way to formulate physical models and theories so that the human mind can attempt to explain observed events rationally. I don't think there is any way to know the answer to "shape of what?" In what form could the answer possibly come? Another shape? A concept? As far as i see it all you can do is define the meaning of the word "existence" as it is used in a physical theory so that quantities can have some meaning.
John Ess: Nothing Krugman ever says, at least in the NY Times, sounds very technical.
Nothing Krugman ever says, at least in the NY Times, sounds very technical.
His columns for the NY Times are meant for people with very little background on econometrics and economics in general. Krugman's papers are pretty technical. Also, it's not Krugman's columns that shape political policy, or have political influence, but his papers, because it was his papers which landed him his current academic career and will prob. land him even better employment with the government (I'm not sure how likely it is, or how interested he is in the position, but he prob. a candidate for future Fed chairman).
Eric080:I read your blog post, Gocrew, and it was very interesting.
Gracias!
Eric080:Who do you think would take the risk to fund science? After all, isn't science usually a very risky field where mistakes are more common than break throughs?
Science has always been funded, to a great extent, by private endeavours. Most who argue for government provision, or at least subsidy, of R&D make this argument as if private provision of R&D were untried. Read this book for some good reasons why we don't need government involvement.
We need to remember that sometimes the market is better at doing things, other times the market is better because it correctly decides not to do something. For instance, we did not need a government to create the Panama Canal. Private interests had already looked into the possibility and decided that it was not then worth the trouble. Private action here is superior because it decided against the action (and therefore did not take the lives of so many poor workers), not because it did the action better. The same is true for R&D. If mistakes are more common than breakthroughs, that must be considered before we decide how to allocate scarce resources. Is it really worth going after, say, a warp drive that will take decades and decades to achieve, as well as untold amounts of money, when those resources might go to something else that may help us more and far earlier? We need a profit loss test to be able to make this judgment.
Eric080:I definitely see medical corporations and pharmaceutical industries funding biological projects, but it seems like theoretical physics would have a tough time getting funding.
Private companies will need physicists as technicians, and part of the price of employing them will be to allow them some leeway into pure theoretical research (the above linked book goes into this more). My guess is that this sort of thing would be more of a hobby, and that's probably all it should be. How many hours of time have great minds spent over String Theory, and how have we benefitted from it? Also, to the extent that we might benefit from theoretical physics - and we can in the long run - we would benefit from a more open physics society, where people are free to pursue what they want, rather than herded into the pet research projects of senior physicists.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
Unlapped, there's a reason we use the scientific method and not the logical method in science anymore. We liked what aristotle had to say, there was a lot of data, but it was incomplete. Logic cant tell us everything; just because it's logical doesn't mean it's right. Just because it's right, doesn't make it logical.
Does it make sense to you that matter, at any given moment can be a particle and/or a wave? I hope it does. The evidence for this isn't in some scholars thought experiment, nor is it just in his math. There is physical, tangible, empirical evidence that can be repeated time and again to prove that all things are both a particle AND a wave at any given time.
I can argue that God IS a spaghetti monster, i could make it logically valid, it's still false.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
" Logic cant tell us everything; just because it's logical doesn't mean it's right. Just because it's right, doesn't make it logical. " How can you give physical meaning to a quantity without presupposing the validity of logic? The goal is not to force any kind of human presupposition onto nature, but to the extent that there has to be human artificiality, to bring it in as assumptions and be consistent. And this all depends upon what you mean by logic. I am not presupposing that the universe is "truly" logical or illogical, or anything else, but the words used in a dissertation should be open to logical analysis. What do you mean when you say something is "right?" Do you mean "true?" I don't think truth has any place in physics, only rationality and irrationality. No matter what all we can do is create a model of reality, so in that way all models are "false," but I think the real question is which one best explains observed events? So it may be "true" that there are all sort of strange, incomprehensible things going on in the universe, but we as human beings just won't be able to explain them. That is why I would reject, for example, the notion of a 1D string. It's not that I am rejecting that there may "truly" be 1D strings, it's that as a human being I can't even know what it would mean for a 1D string to exist, so it can't serve as an explanation of anything. "Does it make sense to you that matter, at any given moment can be a particle and/or a wave? I hope it does. The evidence for this isn't in some scholars thought experiment, nor is it just in his math. There is physical, tangible, empirical evidence that can be repeated time and again to prove that all things are both a particle AND a wave at any given time." Any evidence, ie, an experiment or measurement, is taken in and interpreted by the human mind, this is unavoidable. You've got to make assumptions about the physical relationship between the measuring device and what's being measured in order to give meaning to the number. So how could you conclude that you've proved "wave-particle duality" which is an assumption as part of a theory used to explain the observations? "Wave-particle duality" is an attempted explanation for the physical, tangible, empirical evidence. I'm not saying that "wave-particle duality" is impossible, just that as an explanation it is not rational b/c there is no physical interpretation for those words. I cannot even begin to assess the "truth" or "falsity" of something that is incomprehensible. "I can argue that God IS a spaghetti monster, i could make it logically valid, it's still false." In what way do you mean it's false? Are you saying it's still false b/c god is not a spaghetti monster, or that god could be a spaghetti monster but god still doesn't exist? i would just say that any discussion dealing with god is irrational b/c "god" is not a coherent concept. you can't make any statement as to the "truth" or "falsity" of it b/c the word doesn't point to anything.
btw epicurus, i don't know how things work here, if we are getting too far off topic i'm down to start a different thread for this.
I think we are a little, not much but a little, off topic (seeing asi it "is this guy the other guy of an unrelated field").
In logic there is no true or false, there is only valid and invalid. If one's logic fails to sync with the empirical and objective data, it is their logic that is invalid, but the data is still truth. The reason it proves difficult to view 1d strings (which is still a higly contested theorom), IS BECAUSE of the human desire to relate it to something known. They call them strings becuase it's the closest thing to something familiar the could find.
The actual description would be "energy compressed into so dense a form that it holds a core of nothingness, that to our 3d brains, resembles a string looped, or a rubber band." But the common man already lost interest at "energy compressed blah blah blah" so they simplify it, calling it String Theory. (Which in and of itself is a perversion of the word theory. Tho there is a lot of math backing it up, I dont believe any physical evidence has been presented yet, nullifying itself of theory status...)
To the vast majority of physicists, and to many laymen, these descriptions of wave/particle duality, etc, are entirely comprehensible. All things in their natural state exist in a state of "wave-ish particley things." ....
THink of it like this; the Bose-Einstein phenomena shows that if you take a particle and its "sister" particle and seperate them by any vast amount of space (even all of it), then switch the rotation of one particle, the other will switch in lockstep. This was/is a phenomena incromprehensible to brains from the macro unvierse; information cannot seemingly travel through space, especially at speeds far exceeding the speed of light (which is impossible to break...). So Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance."
The data was clear that it was happening, but our brains couldn't/have'nt been able to comprehend it. It is not the phenomena that needs to catch up with our brains, it is our brains that must catch up with the phenomena.
=
On the I AM (God, yawheh, tetragrammaton) subject, i was making no personal judgements on the nature of God other than that it is most certainly not a spaghetti monster. And your comments on God are both true, and exactly the point I was trying to get across to you. In science, discussions of God ARE irrelevant (not bad, just not science). But the concept of God IS entirely subject to rational (ie, logical) analysis. Therein lies the problem with logic in that it can make un-falsifiable concepts completely valid according to the logical method of analysis. Remember logic only deal with what is valid or invalid, it says nothing about what is true.
In logic there is no true or false, there is only valid and invalid. If one's logic fails to sync with the empirical and objective data, it is their logic that is invalid, but the data is still truth.
For an argument to be sound it needs to possess true premises. Logic doesn't "sync" with empirical" and "Objective" data, it's the means by which steps are made from certain facts (premises) to conclusions. Were it not to follow the laws of logic (e.g. that a and -a are a contradiction) data would be a meaningless concept altogether, for what do you say of something that both is an atom and is not an atom at the same time, say? Nothing. It's gibberish.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Physicists will make up any chimera for research grants.
scineram: Magnus: John Ess: This guy has been claiming just what you described. His videos are interesting and he has a website with some interesting snippets from his book where he explains things in more detail. He's actually pretty inflammatory about these topics. Similar to how economists here react to Krugman and the like. He even has a healthy skepticism of mathematics like we do as well (though I think his goes beyond ours). His personal economic views is that humans will become extinct very soon -- which is a bit head scratching, though. http://www.youtube.com/user/bgaede his website http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/WGDE.html Very interesting. Thx for posting. I like how this guy starts out with the basics. That is pure crankism right there.
Magnus: John Ess: This guy has been claiming just what you described. His videos are interesting and he has a website with some interesting snippets from his book where he explains things in more detail. He's actually pretty inflammatory about these topics. Similar to how economists here react to Krugman and the like. He even has a healthy skepticism of mathematics like we do as well (though I think his goes beyond ours). His personal economic views is that humans will become extinct very soon -- which is a bit head scratching, though. http://www.youtube.com/user/bgaede his website http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/WGDE.html Very interesting. Thx for posting. I like how this guy starts out with the basics.
John Ess: This guy has been claiming just what you described. His videos are interesting and he has a website with some interesting snippets from his book where he explains things in more detail. He's actually pretty inflammatory about these topics. Similar to how economists here react to Krugman and the like. He even has a healthy skepticism of mathematics like we do as well (though I think his goes beyond ours). His personal economic views is that humans will become extinct very soon -- which is a bit head scratching, though. http://www.youtube.com/user/bgaede his website http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/WGDE.html
This guy has been claiming just what you described. His videos are interesting and he has a website with some interesting snippets from his book where he explains things in more detail. He's actually pretty inflammatory about these topics. Similar to how economists here react to Krugman and the like. He even has a healthy skepticism of mathematics like we do as well (though I think his goes beyond ours). His personal economic views is that humans will become extinct very soon -- which is a bit head scratching, though.
http://www.youtube.com/user/bgaede
his website
http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/WGDE.html
Very interesting. Thx for posting. I like how this guy starts out with the basics.
That is pure crankism right there.
That was my inital gut reaction too, but after watching his video's and browsing his site I think there's a lot more to him than that. He makes a great point that Theoretical Physics (specifically mathemetics) attempt to use "rigor" as if what they are doing is a logical deduction, but in reality it's nothing more than a shell game of using one definition, switching to another and continually molding it to shape their theories. In his feature on black holes, he shows that within their mathematical framework they are doing the equivilant of substituting parameters of different units, calling them the same, and ending up at black holes.
I think the problem with him is that he comes off inflammatory and brash. He's never going to get anywhere with his attitude.
The scientific communitity within academia is completely State controlled, grants are issued based on politics and special interests. If there are problems with physics or they are pursuing rat holes, it's going to be very difficult to bring about change. There are way too many careers invested in string theory for there to be any viable alternatives. As the OP stated, I would say Stephen Hawking is to Physics as Paul Krugman is to economics.
If anyone is interested in other theories for cosmology, I would recommend looking into Plasma Cosmology. I found out about it about 6 months ago and found it a very compelling alternative model to the Standard Model. It's similar to what others have linked at www.thunderbolts.info but isn't quite the same.
"In logic there is no true or false, there is only valid and invalid. If one's logic fails to sync with the empirical and objective data, it is their logic that is invalid, but the data is still truth."
Would you agree that the data requires more than just a number in order to be the alleged "truth?" You add meaning to a quantity with a physical model of the process of the measurement, one that is assumed a priori. This is done implicitly every time in one way or another. Just by making sense of a quantity you are already formulating assumptions and modeling reality in some way.
"The reason it proves difficult to view 1d strings (which is still a higly contested theorom), IS BECAUSE of the human desire to relate it to something known. They call them strings becuase it's the closest thing to something familiar the could find."
As long as you agree that they are incomprehensible. I am saying that it doesn't make sense to posit that something might exist while not being able to say what it would mean for it to exist. Also it doesnt make sense to say that something that is incomprehensible can be a part of an explanation.
"The actual description would be 'energy compressed into so dense a form that it holds a core of nothingness, that to our 3d brains, resembles a string looped, or a rubber band.'"
Right, incomprensible.
"Which in and of itself is a perversion of the word theory. Tho there is a lot of math backing it up, I dont believe any physical evidence has been presented yet, nullifying itself of theory status..."
How can you have a theory based purely on mathematics? Not one equation by itself has ever explained anything in the history of physics. Every time there is an attempted explanation there is a physical interpretation associated with the equation. Causality can't be brought in without it. As for string theory, no one can say what it means for the causal agent to exist, or what the causal agent might actually be, so there is no theory, no explanation, just abstract mathematical description of something beyond our comprehension.
"So Einstein called it 'spooky action at a distance.'"
If such irrational physical interpretations are allowed into physics then why even bother doing physics? The evidence may make it seem like something "spooky" is happening, but if the alleged explanation invokes the incomprehensible then there is no explanation at all. What would be the difference between that and just saying "god did it!"? It just means our tiny human brains can't comprehend it. Not that I fully agree with Gaede's theory, but he proposes a perfectly rational explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WfydkWLIkk
And if indeed something "spooky" IS happening, which is entirely possible b/c things may be occurring which are outside our comprehension, it just means we can't explain it.
"The data was clear that it was happening, but our brains couldn't/have'nt been able to comprehend it. It is not the phenomena that needs to catch up with our brains, it is our brains that must catch up with the phenomena."
The meaning of data depends upon the assumptions made in order to interpret the measurements, experiments, etc. Without some attempt at rationalizing the numbers can't mean anything physically. So some degree of human artificiality is already accepted and used implicitly.
And if our brains can't comprehend the "explanation," then how can it be an explanation?
"Therein lies the problem with logic in that it can make un-falsifiable concepts completely valid according to the logical method of analysis."
The models used in my view of physics are assumptions, they are taken at face value in order to interpret the data and formulate explanations. Theories then are not falsified or confirmed, they are compared and it is a matter of scientific opinion which one best explains the observed events.
"Remember logic only deal with what is valid or invalid, it says nothing about what is true."
Exactly! IMO "truth" has no place in physics. Theories are either rational or irrational, and all of them are "false" in that they are all conceptual models. If they are rational, then they are competing explanations for observed events. If they are irrational, then how could they be called explanations or differentiated from religious "explanations?"
Comparing Hawking to Krugman is perhaps a bit too much. Krugman couldn't find the knob on a theoretical door.
It is gibberish to you. It is a concept I am quite able to grasp and understand. Just like many economic explanations are gibberish to a large swath of society, but easily comprehended by you or I.
The Bose-Einstein phenomena is not "spooky" action, as much as it was called that by Einstein, because HE couldn't comprehend it. But String Theorists (once again, a very hotly contested thereom, far from established scientific truth) think they have a way to comprehend it. Perhaps the universe is made of 10 parameters + time (11 dimensions... and no! not dimensions like "im going to another dimension" lol) and space-time is folded up into one, more, or all of these parameters; this would allow for information to travel any distance instantly and explain what is now called The Bose-Einstein phenomena.
But here's the thing, anyone who tells you that String Theory is established science is flat-out incorrect. As far as I know, and I stay fairly up with this stuff, String Theory has not been observed physically. It is mostly just math.
Does the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun seem alien and incomprehensible to you? It did to many learned people for a few millenia.
The Sun revolves around the Earth.
"It is gibberish to you. It is a concept I am quite able to grasp and understand."
You cannot tell me what "wave-particle duality" means w/o appealing to same vague nonsense like, "wave-ish particley things." Hardly scientific.
"Just like many economic explanations are gibberish to a large swath of society, but easily comprehended by you or I."
Austrian economics is the only rational school of economics. I feel like people don't understand economics b/c they either haven't heard of Austrian economics, are too lazy to research it, or refuse to learn it b/c it would upset their world view. As far as i'm concerned tho it is open to anyone who really wants to learn it.
"But String Theorists (once again, a very hotly contested thereom, far from established scientific truth) think they have a way to comprehend it."
There is no physical interpretation for "1D string." There is no physical interpretation for "space-time." There is no physical interpretation for "11 dimensions." String theory is nonsense not b/c they haven't performed experiments, but b/c it is flat out irrational. The words have no physical meaning, and there has NEVER been a single physical explanation that is contained solely in the mathematics. So string "theory" isn't a theory, and in fact it doesn't even have a valid hypothesis.
"Does the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun seem alien and incomprehensible to you? It did to many learned people for a few millenia."
The theory that the earth revolves around the sun is as rational today as it was back then. The people back then could comprehend such an idea just fine, it was that they thought it wasn't true.
Anyone who says that they can "comprehend" a physical interpretation for something like "wave-particle duality" or "1D string" or "11 dimensions" is just fooling themselves. It all plays into the big brain culture of physics. "I can comprehend it but you can't!" I think it's total BS. A theory is either rational or it's not, people don't have special abilities to comprehend the incomprehensible. Someone can either give me a solid answer or i think they are getting weaselly.
It is gibberish to you
No, it's plain gibberish. Because it is stating a fact and then in the same breath denying it. So which is it? I'm referring to the LNC btw not so much the debate on wave-particule duality. That's more so to do with how matter can be understood in terms of posessing wave-like and particle-like properties, which doesn't mean it's both a particle and not a particle but rather than it's in possession of a conjunction of features, at least as I understand it. It could never, ever dislodge the LNC.
I've read A Brief History of Time and various articles by Krugman. Both difficult reads for me, albeit, for different reasons. I don't think you can compare Krugman and Hawking. I think Hawking is truly in awe of the things he studies and theorizes upon. His work is public and his theories scrutinized by people who, I assume, understand, unlike, it appears, the climate folks, who preach to the choir. The subject is beyond simple understanding and talking heads in the media, not to mention politicians, won't latch onto it to politicize it because it's a lot tougher than politics and dare I say, economics (at least far more people THINK they understand economics). Hawking is a true great in his field. Now there's a Nobel prize winner.
Tu ne cede malis.
unlapped_dog:I don't think there is any way to know the answer to "shape of what?" In what form could the answer possibly come? Another shape? A concept?
unlapped_dog:Right, incomprehensible.
Melanchthon wrote:
Some people believe that it is excellent and correct to work out a thing as absurd as did that Sarmatian [i.e., Polish] astronomer who moves the earth and stops the sun. Indeed, wise rulers should have curbed such light-mindedness.[48]
Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture,"[94] (emphasis mine)
However, in 1539, Martin Luther said:
"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, ... But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, ... The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth." Need I go on?
Jon has the best description I have seen in a while by the way of wave/particle duality. It is not so much that is IS wave/particle at the same time. It can theoretically BE a wave/particle at the same time, but the act of observation dictates which form it takes. And in our macro view of the universe, it most often appears (as in almost always) as a particle.
To be fair, I stumbled across it here. It's one of the more cogent explanations I've seen. Not an entirely unusual place to find it I guess, considering the book in question.
do you see what you are getting at, z? this is THE all encompassing question we are dealing with here, this is absolutely key. are we searching for truth or are we searching for rationality? you are asking me what the true nature of reality is with that question, and i am saying that it is not rationalizable, ie, beyond comprehension, ie, any answer you give me will just be a conceptual model, not the "TRUTH." if you think you can solve the great metaphysical question that has plagued philosophers for thousands of years then i'm all ears. this is why everything you bring in to interpret the data has to be brought in as assumptions, it is an admission of the inevitability of human artificiality when modeling reality.
also, shape is not incomprensible, shape is objective and comprehensible, and it is used every time to interpret quantities and measurements. it is brought in as an assumption, as a definition for existence so that one can even attempt to interpret the data.
this is exactly why i keep saying that theories are made up of assumptions, and so they aren't "proved" through experiments, they aren't confirmed or disconfirmed. they are all models, and so all of them are "false." the only relevant questions are, 1. are they rational?, and 2. which one best explains observed events?
Well, you believe what you want then. If nothing can ever be proven, why do science at all? It's just going to be what some guy made up...
What I'm trying to say is, objective truth does not require conscious acknowledgement to retain it's veracity. And the question "is it rational" is irrelevant. Who's to say what is rational? Reason is a subjective concept.
There's a tribe in Africa (i think, maybe called the Yananami.. idk, I've had to learn about a lot of different tribes) that every once in a while picks a another clan in the tribe, slaughters them, and smashes all their goods. They don't do this out of hate, it's just a social thing they do. They find it entirely reasonable to do so.
Until 30 minutes ago I was under the impression that Physics and exact sciences in general were (mostly) free from intellectual corruption.
I just became a bit more cynical about the world - again.
"If nothing can ever be proven, why do science at all?"
This doesn't bar us from discovering rational explanations for observations, it just means that explanations are deduced from assumptions. You can't prove an assumption, but you can at least argue for a certain set of assumptions based upon how well the explanations fit the observed world.
and as for wave-particle duality...
again, i'm not saying i completely agree with gaede, but he at least shows that a rational explanation is possible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOwTV-HgDUo&feature=player_embedded
"What I'm trying to say is, objective truth does not require conscious acknowledgement to retain it's veracity."
Are you saying the world is the way it is whether or not our minds are there to comprehend it? I wouldn't deny that. But if an attempt is going to be made to formulate explanations, then you are necessarily trying to model reality in some way. Rationality is objective b/c you are dealing with a clear cut identity, which enables logical analysis. I can build for you a physical model, point to it, and say THIS is EXACTLY what I am referring to when i use this word. Measurements and experiments are subjective because there are different possible interpretations. If you lay out the hypothesis and theory beforehand, ie, the shape of the objects involved, how they relate to one another, the definitions, and the rules of behavior, then you are being objective and consistent in your interpretation of the measurements and experiments.
"There's a tribe in Africa (i think, maybe called the Yananami.. idk, I've had to learn about a lot of different tribes) that every once in a while picks a another clan in the tribe, slaughters them, and smashes all their goods. They don't do this out of hate, it's just a social thing they do. They find it entirely reasonable to do so."
This is not the type of rationality i am talking about. Austrian economics is the only rational school of thought in that it is the only one that lays out the concept of deliberate human action clearly, and stays consistent with it. That's what I mean by rationality. But "rationality" is also used to refer to people's rationale for their actions. What one person considers "reasonable" may not be for another person, but, as mises pointed out, all action is "rational" in that it involves the employment of means and ends. There is no objective disctinction to be made between "rational" and "irrational" actions, but there are such distinctions when dealing with rational or irrational scientific theories, or else they could not be differentiated from religious explanations.
Well, the buden of proof is on him. Physicists have thousands of real-world observations, based on expiriments with controls. I see one observation here based off a simple, non-controlled experiment.
This non-controlled experiment is also based off of a false assumption, that the light source isn't bigger than the interference object. Too bad it is. I doubt this "experiment" would hold up to any kind of scientific scrutiny.
Okay, that's fine, my only point in bringing it up is to point out that there are possible rational explanations for Young's experiment.
"If you lay out the hypothesis and theory beforehand, ie, the shape of the objects involved, how they relate to one another, the definitions, and the rules of behavior, then you are being objective and consistent in your interpretation of the measurements and experiments."
Provide me a source that says science makes the theory, then finds the data.... that is the exact opposite of how science should operate. You CAN start with a hypothesis (this is not neccesary), then You find the data, and make the theory based off of it.
If I lay out for you all the data on the planets and the sun, there is only one conclusion you can come to that fits the data; that the sun rests at the center, and the planets rotate around it in elliptical paths. There is no other consistent explanation to fit the data.
I also fail to see how thoeries can be deliberate actors. I think there needs to be a new term for Mises' concept of reason, as it doesn't exactly jive with the established definition.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+reason&aq=f&aqi=l1g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CHVOOxKBQTJ72NpXggwTsg8mDBQAAAKoEBU_Qtp4q&pbx=1
Edit: to say that I have not yet read Human Action, and perhaps I am wrong in Mises' definition of reason. This is just the general feeling I get on the forums.
unlapped_dog in reply to z1235:
"this is THE all encompassing question we are dealing with here, this is absolutely key. are we searching for truth or are we searching for rationality? you are asking me what the true nature of reality is with that question, and i am saying that it is not rationalizable, ie, beyond comprehension, ie, any answer you give me will just be a conceptual model, not the "TRUTH." if you think you can solve the great metaphysical question that has plagued philosophers for thousands of years then i'm all ears."
The popular notions of "truth" are varied, yet all of them but one are ultimately incoherent or trivial. The coherent and non-trivial one is, what is "true" for a person P is what follows from the premises of P's model. Likewise, what is "false" for P is what does not follow from the premises of P's model. (To be even more strict, I would ditch the whole "person P" thing and just refer to my own self, as that would be completely bracketing the statement.)
I expect this to be highly controversial, for just about everyone, for a million reasons. Before replying, please note that I am saying this is the only coherent meaning for the word "truth"; I am NOT saying that what you mean by the word is actually tantamount to the above definition. Strictly speaking, I am making a statement about language, not (directly) about reality.
In other words, it doesn't even make sense at a deep level of analysis to speak of "truth" or "falsehood" - they're only useful as casual terms of convenience. When precision matters, I recommend using "follows from the premises" or "follows from the premises of my model" or similar. It's also interesting to note that the so-called logical paradoxes, such as the Liar Paradox, Curry's Paradox, and Moore's Paradox, cease to be paradoxes given my assertion above. (I know I still need to substantiate it, but in the mean time - if this actually interests anyone - I hope you'll think it out for yourself.)
Why anarchy fails
unlapped_dog:do you see what you are getting at, z? this is THE all encompassing question we are dealing with here, this is absolutely key. are we searching for truth or are we searching for rationality?
Honestly, I have no idea what you (or your bad toupe-ed hero) are trying to say.
You revived this thread claiming...
unlapped_dog:It gets worse once you start getting into modern physics. Now you have notions like bending of space, 4D space-time, virtual particles, black holes, wave-particle duality, wave-packets, zero dimensional particles, 1D strings, 11 dimensions, etc. These are all irrational (ie, they are inconceivable and thus not open to logical analysis).
Then you offered "shapes" as an alternative (solution?). When I asked you "Shapes of what?", you had no idea. "Incomprehensible."
How is this superior to whatever it's supposedly replacing/critiquing?
Z.
@Z
Well then let me spell it out as clearly as i can, and you can judge for yourself whether you think there is a point being made or not.
Would you agree that any attempt to understand or explain aspects of reality requires the creation of a model? When I say the ultimate nature of reality is incomprehensible, i am just saying that any attempt to "understand" or "explain" will entail modeling reality in some way, and so your question of "shape of what?" will apply endlessly. No matter what I give you, you could always ask, "well what is THAT made of?" When you try to grasp at the "True Nature of Reality" you end up going in circles forever. Since models are inevitable i am saying it only make sense to bring them in as assumptions and stay consistent. Then you can avoid the question of "Truth," ie, trying to find a solution to metaphysics, and focus on just being rational.
All of physics employs physical modeling in some way when it comes to assigning meaning to quantities. Shape is used as if it is applicable to reality, it is used to assign meaning to every quantity in physics. Every variable used in mathematical physics represents a quantity, which requires physical modeling in order to have any meaning beyond just a number, so what i am saying is not way out of left field here. You define existence as part of the hypothesis, and i like gaede's definition, "that with shape and location."
But regardless of how you feel about the definitions, take the first thing in that list you quoted, bending of space. what do these words point to besides a loose collection of vague ideas with some shapes mixed in? if space can be "bent," that implies shape, right? in einstein's GR they actually use shape to give a physical explanation in their "helper explanation." they show you the gravity well around the sun, and show how the bent space pushes on the earth to keep it in orbit. that is implicitly a physical explanation, showing you shapes, and then you take for granted that the shapes push off one another, and that is what causes the earth to go around the sun. but that is not supposed to be a real explanation, that is the "helper" b/c no one knows what "bending of space" or "4D space-time" actually means. The answer isn't in the math, b/c the quantities require modeling to make sense out of, so where is the model for these things? what do they actually mean? even the helper explanation fails because there is no way to account for the surface of the grid; what countours it if it is all just continuous space? and if there is no surface, then there is nothing to push on the earth. bent implies shape, yet no one can tell you the shape of bent space.
so we've "proved" that space can "warp" but no one on the planet can tell you what it is that has been proved.
"or your bad toupe-ed hero"
i wouldn't exactly call him my hero, can't say i'm a huge fan. but i do think he makes a lot of great points.
Well, I wouldn't use Hawking as an example. Richard Dawkins is the Paul Krugman of evolutionary biology though. In more than one way though. And keeping with the metaphor, Howard Bloom is the Bloomberg of evolutionary biology.
unlapped_dog in reply to z1235: "Would you agree that any attempt to understand or explain aspects of reality requires the creation of a model?"
All reasoning is creating models (which consist of sets of assumptions) and deducing what logically follows from them.
@misguided
I don't know very much about evolutionary biology at all, how is Dawkins the Krugman of it? now THAT i would be very interested in seeing! got any links?
Idk how he relates to Krugman. But I do know that Dawkins is a brilliant but pompous ideologue. I would rather anyone else in the world represent evolutionary biology than this self-righteous jackass. Him and Ms. Garrison...
He may have changed his theories recently but quite a lot of what he says on group evolution is just bizarre.
I wasn't joking, btw. You could accurately say that the Earth revolves around the Sun if you use the Sun as reference and you could accurately say that the universe revolves around the Earth if you use the Earth as reference. Is the Earth spinning inside the universe or is the universe spinning around the Earth? It's the same thing.