-
First he talks about UPB not existing (ok, fine!), but then he talks about UPB being "objectively verifiable" or somehow related to "objective reality". Er... sense no-makey. Behaviour isn't objective anyway, it's just... behaviour. It's a verb. Behaviour is not a "thing" (object). Behaviour is what objects
-
Although of course the issue with LaFreniere's hypothesis is that assuming matter is "made of" waves begs a central question. We need to hypothesize an object (shape) contoured by space (no shape, nothing) in order to explain anything. LaFreniere is stuck without any objects to begin with; what are his "waves" contoured by? Do
-
Some further discussion taking place, here: The Rational Science Facebook page
-
(Apologies for the poor audio quality. It improves as it goes.) Part 1 (Problems) Intro; Cern & the LHC; A Crisis in Physics; Black Holes & 0d Particles?!; The Atom; Mathematical Physics; more... http://blip.tv/philosophy/bill-gaede-in-austria-cern-and-the-lhc-part-1-5438667 Part 2 (Solutions) Definitions; Science vs Religion; Objects &
-
One thought I've had recently is this: is a HOW/WHAT problem just a subset of a WHY type question? For instance: "WHY is the sky blue?" [<< implies there are blank frames requiring general explanation?] Could be rephrased as: "HOW does the sky [object] create our experience [subjective] of colour [concept]?" [<< implies
-
[My thoughts...] I'll I'd add that, as a rule of thumb, a hypothesis means the WHAT (definitions, assumptions, invoked objects/exhibits); the theory hopes to answer WHY questions (filling in the movie blanks, possible causes, motivations); which also requires answering HOW (i.e. mechanisms) especially in fields like physics. HOW would relate
-
In response to: How does the presence or absence of a good's consumed physical space affect its scarcity? Non-scarce goods tend to consume no space but scarce good tend to. I can think of very few exceptions here - fire consumes space but is non-scarce but ideas, images, text, techniques, etc. consume no space - unless I'm forgetting something
-
Sorry for the necro-post but I joined almost solely because I found this entire thread fascinating and enlightening. Thanks to all who contributed and I'd be delighted to discuss the scientific method and/or physics (as opposed to math-phys) with others on this board. Let's say I'm somewhat sceptical of empiricism / a posteriori, modern