Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 08:02pm PT
|
you guys do it badly...
Since it seems it's all being laid out on the table tonight forthrightly, I'll participate.
Neither of you, Mb1 or Edh, imo, are very good** at a) apologizing; b) correcting your mistakes; c) considering things from alternate povs or frames (contextual frames).
Room for improvement?
**Grade C at best, imo.
....
Food for thought...
Could anyone imagine getting a degree nowadays - that is, today, in the 21st century - in theist philosophy?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 08:06pm PT
|
Newton had no "notion of gravity" he offered a law to calculate gravitational force. His deep insight was that things falling on the surface of the Earth where affected by the same forces that act on astronomical bodies. How that all worked he famously declared hypothesis non fingo.
this is so well known that it is startling that you don't know it. Newtonian gravity is obtained from General Relativity, and that appears in the problems at the end of the first chapter of almost every text on General Relativity.
Newton's first law is a restatement of Galilean Relativity. The first law was shown to be inconsistent with Electrodynamics, which Einstein concluded in his paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", where he shows that relativistic transformations are given by the Lorentz transformations, not the Galilean transformations.
As you point out, this happens when things are moving fast, and it is easy to calculate the Galilean cases in the limit of velocities smaller than the speed of light, quantifying how "wrong" those calculations are.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 08:19pm PT
|
I do know a thing or two...
I knew that if I calculated the time and bearing of the Moon rise on a particular day from the West end of the Ahwanhee meadow that I would catch the Moon exactly here:
and using what madbolter1 has stated is the "falsified" Newtonian theory of gravity.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 08:45pm PT
|
Ed...how do you know that is the moon????
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 08:54pm PT
|
How do I know that's the Moon?
experience I guess...
I hope you are a better physicist than philosopher.
I am, and certainly to the extent that when a philosopher makes erroneous statements about physics that I am likely to point it out.
I don't claim to be a philosopher, sycorax has certainly stated many times that I do not demonstrate a mastery of that subject (and I agree) and so, she continues, philosophical discussions with me are a waste of time. But if you want to talk about physics, which you seem to, I'm all in.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 09:34pm PT
|
HFCS: So, I took a year in Statics and Dynamics in engineering physics... I am curious if either MikeL or MB1 took same? I got A's in these courses, what did you guys get?
I only got this lousy Ph.D. in Strategic Management! But I did get to hang out with some other really smart people who had a thing or two to say about the philosophy of science.
But aside, hanging out with the chemistry doctoral students made for some wonderful parties. They had access to pure alcohol, and other things.
Seriously, when you get to hang out over a few beers with other doctoral students from other departments in a university setting, you begin to take the common world apart. It begins to open up to you like a flower. Instead of certainty, mystery emerges. I was the poorest in my life, but probably enjoyed it the most.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 10:01pm PT
|
Could anyone imagine getting a degree nowadays - that is, today, in the 21st century - in theist philosophy?
Yikes! Your cluelessness is epic. There is no such thing as "theist philosophy." There's just philosophy, mostly of the analytic variety, some of the continental variety. Some philosophers are theists; most aren't. "Philosophy" is not "theist" or "not theist."
Wowwww
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 10:04pm PT
|
using what madbolter1 has stated is the "falsified" Newtonian theory of gravity.
Ed, you dance around, seemingly intentionally missing the point. It grows tedious.
Newton had a "metaphysics" of the universe. It was a "mechanistic" universe, and the hypotheses non fingo notwithstanding, classical physics is not "extended" by Einstein nor quantum mechanics.
You perpetually conflate "it works" with "it's true," even in your latest snarky post. They are not the same thing, and you know that they are not.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 10:10pm PT
|
But if you want to talk about physics, which you seem to, I'm all in.
What would be best is if physicists would not try to be philosophers. You do what you do very well. But many of us aren't going to stand by and agree that you can essentially define away the very possibility of God by defining "evidence" and "truth" in a narrow way that suits only your perspective.
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 10:11pm PT
|
This thread has somehow become the Venice Beach of academia.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 11:09pm PT
|
If you read Newton, hypothesis non fingo is a significant statement. Perhaps the best indication of his "metaphysics" with regard to his physics. The Universal Law of Gravitation, was so named because it "worked," Newton had no idea where it came from, none, and said so.
Newton's metaphysics (if metaphysics exists) is largely irrelevant to what Newton did scientifically. It might matter to you, but it doesn't matter to the science.
General Relativity is in the domain of "classical physics" it is not a quantum theory. Quantum Mechanics is not in the domain of "classical physics." Those domains are well known, and the physics we use in them provide calculations that agree with experiment to the precision expected (which is calculable also).
We use all this physics in the appropriate domains. Apparently the philosophical concept of "falsification" is not adequate to describe what is going on in science.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 12:31am PT
|
Newton's metaphysics (if metaphysics exists) is largely irrelevant to what Newton did scientifically. It might matter to you, but it doesn't matter to the science.
Ed, the problem with your perspective of physics is that you do smuggle in metaphysics without admitting it. And Newton's metaphysics was far from "irrelevant to what Newton did scientifically."
For example, you used your moonrise example to indicate that Newton's theory is "true," also poking fun at the claim that it's been falsified.
Well, the Mayans could do the same prediction as you did, and they had that capacity for over a millennium before Newton. Their causal system (theory) had tremendous predictive capacity. No need for Newton at that level of predictive power. Does that make their system of causes "true"?
Of course not. You'll say something like, "Well, as our demand for more granularity (and our capacity to measure perceived regularities) increased, nothing like the Mayan 'science' would prove adequate. Newton provided much more accuracy, and then Einstein provided even more."
But two points emerge here. First, your moonrise example doesn't "indicate" anything about the "truth" of Newton's account of gravity, whether you used him or not (the Mayans certainly didn't appeal to him). Second, this is a classic example of the fact that multiple theories (in fact, an infinite number) are consistent with any set of empirical facts. Both Newton and the Mayans could predict the same moonrise to which you refer. The moonrise indicates nothing about the "truth" of either theory.
Now, if you increase the range/set of facts, increasing the granularity of measurements, you now simply have a new infinite set of theories that are consistent with that set of facts.
What "works" entirely fails to differentiate among those theories in the sense of "verifying" or "confirming" any of them.
I could get into the implications of the Newtonian quote you make so much of, but it's really quite irrelevant. You wrongly sense "blood in the water," so you think that this is something to magnify. But, as I said, it entirely misses the point.
Your emphasized quote has FAR less import than you make it seem. Newton DID have a metaphysics, and it was incorrect. You KNOW this stuff, so don't be disingenuous. For example:
* Newton's theory revolves around discrete space and time. Einstein's theory combines them into spacetime. NOT some "insignificant" distinction! And even if you combine Newton's space and time into spacetime equations, you do NOT get the Einsteinian results, which point is related to the next one.
* Newton's theory famously posits instantaneous action-at-a-distance, with gravity being a "force" entirely unlike what "the force of gravity" means in Einstein's equations. Again, you KNOW this. You KNOW that what "gravity" MEANS to Newton is entirely, completely different from what it MEANS to Einstein! This alone makes your emphasis on your now-favored quote quite irrelevant. Newton DID have a "theory" that was really a metaphysics, regardless of his denial of same. The term, "gravity" had an entirely different meaning to Newton than it did to Einstein, and the very nature of the universe that emerged from that meaning was vastly different.
* Newton's theory depends upon a mechanistic universe. His equations are filled with constants that must be replaced in the Einsteinian "conversions" with "wave formulas." The very essence of the universe was vastly different in the two theories, as much as "mechanistic" has entirely different implications than "relativity." Again, you KNOW this, so don't play dumb about the fact that the posited "structure of the universe" is ENTIRELY different in the two theories.
The "furniture of the universe" is vastly different between Newton and Einstein, and those posited entities and forces just are the "metaphysics" of the two theories.
The Newtonian universe is as different from Einstein's universe as the Mayans was from Newtons. And the fact that you can make this or that granularity of prediction from this or that theory says NOTHING about the TRUTH of the theoretical implications of what the universe IS (the metaphysical claims that a theory implies).
Einstein did falsify Newton's metaphysics regarding the points I mention above, along with others. And you cannot "immerse" Newton into Einstein without doing a lot to "fix up" the theory, literally changing the metaphysics from one set of entities and forces to another. You have to entirely abandon action-at-a-distance and the mechanized notion of how things "work."
Whatever level of granularity of measurement you prefer, you'll find some extant theory consistent with the emergent experimental results. Change the data, and you merely change the set of "true" theories (plural). "What works" or "what the data is" cannot in principle distinguish between the multitude of theories consistent with that data. And, as stated, when you increase the granularity or set of data, you simply change the set of theories that are consistent with it by falsifying some and adding others.
Mayans, Newton, Einstein... all can predict the moonrise. Einstein can predict more than Newton. But, just as the Mayan metaphysics has been falsified, the Newtonian metaphysics has been falsified, and the Einsteinian metaphysics will ultimately be falsified. See, philosophy can make empirical predictions. And this one will come true, probably in our lifetimes.
You'll then recast that falsification as a "refinement," but you'll then simply be (conveniently) ignoring that the posited entities, forces, and even structure of the universe will have entirely changed in the new theory, just as they did from Newton to Einstein. And such fundamental "changes" are exactly what we mean by a "metaphysical falsification." The Newtonian universe simply wasn't true, despite the predictive power of the theory that posited it.
General Relativity is in the domain of "classical physics" it is not a quantum theory. Quantum Mechanics is not in the domain of "classical physics." Those domains are well known, and the physics we use in them provide calculations that agree with experiment to the precision expected (which is calculable also).
I'm well aware of that. I made that very point to note one of the primary motivations for string theory.
We use all this physics in the appropriate domains. Apparently the philosophical concept of "falsification" is not adequate to describe what is going on in science.
Now, again, that's just disingenuous, and you know it, Ed. THE thing we're discussing is not "use" but "truth." If you want to just stipulate that your theories are not TRUE, then we're on the same page, and there's no more reason to argue!
But you do NOT stipulate that. You perpetually (even with your moonrise example) conflate "usage" with "truth." And that conflation is not correct.
Furthermore, you cannot "neatly" claim that "the domains are different," as though that "settles" something! Classical physics and quantum mechanics do have overlapping "domains," and their equations are (at present) incompatible. So, physicists are seeking theories that can combine the equations, treating both theories as true, and string theory is just one such approach. There is no need to do this if you can "neatly" just "package up" discrete "domains" of the universe and treat the "domains" as somehow entirely non-overlapping.
But you can't do that. So a unified field theory is needed in order to provide a complete picture. And that theory, if it ever emerges, will have more predictive power and broader "usage" than anything before it.
And it will be no more "true" than either the Mayan theory, Newton's theory, Einstein's theory, or quantum mechanics.
Predictive usage does not equal truth.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 07:21am PT
|
For example, you used your moonrise example to indicate that Newton's theory is "true," also poking fun at the claim that it's been falsified.
yes, because you seem to go to great lengths to make your point, trying to stuff what goes on in physics into some philosophical framework which apparently does not fit it.
Please provide the Mayan (or references) calculations of the Sun rise/set and Moon rise/set tables. It would be interesting to see if they could have predicted, even in principle, the event that I predicted for that time and place.
You make this claim, but it is all words, from a science point-of-view its about the ability to make the calculation and test that calculation against what actually happens.
The very first issue with your assertion is the lack of decimals in the Mayan system, and the apparent lack of hour:minutes:seconds in their formal time calculations. That they might predict the day of the first Moon, eclipses probabilities, and enumerate the age of the Moon is far from saying they could have predicted the conditions of that image above. (See F. G. Loundsbury, "Maya Numeration, Computation and Calendrical Astronomy" in the Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography)
But if you can use the Mayan calendar to calculate it, please do so, and show your math. Failure to do so pretty much renders your argument incorrect.
As far as appropriating Newton's theory of gravity into the "modern" theory of Einstein (now over 100 years old), this is something that is done in physics, and it certainly involves changing the "meaning" of Newton's description.
However, Newton's space-time is actually a modern construction, one that was built to show the differences between the two theories and the implications of our notions of space-time. I do not believe that Newton actually had a well defined notion of it in the modern sense. I have not come across any of it in his writing (but I'm also not a historian). What you are holding up as Newton's "metaphysical" assumptions about space-time are pure speculation on your part, and you should acknowledge them as so. Or reference Newton.
Interestingly, while space-time were subjects of "metaphysical" investigation in Greek philosophy, the implications of Einstein's theory brought them firmly into "physics," how does that happen? This has nothing to do with a philosophical argument and everything to do with Einstein's ability to calculate, to make predictions, and have those predictions tested. Successful tests very much strengthened the case for General Relativity, or perhaps in the twisted logic of the PoS, it was the "non-falsfied" status of the theory.
Mach, who tread similar ground, though philosophically, is essentially unknown to physics, except in the historic association with Einstein. If there were a "metaphysics" that pointed to modern relativity, someone had to translate that into physics, had to make a physical theory of it, and philosophy certainly was no guide.
The very connection of space and time is modern, and are a result of Special Relativity.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 07:34am PT
|
The sun comes up in the morning and goes down later in the day
Science has proven that the earth rotates on it's axis. Fact
The ocean is very deep in places.
Science took depth measurements and proved that it is deep. fact
Space is vast.
our space ships could not reach the end of space, fact
Quartz is hard.
Science measured the hardness at 7 on the Mohs scale, harder than all substances that have a Mohs scale of less than 7. Fact
There are millions of these types of FACTS.
No complicated theories are involved in these scientific facts, just plain old scientific observation.
No argument can disprove these facts other than the solipsism "The Wall doesn't exist".
Science says the wall exists, you can touch it, end of argument.
There is No proof that the outside real world doesn't exist and that the only thing that exists is your mind,
so it can be disregarded completely as an explanation for the rejection of scientific information as being true or false.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 08:06am PT
|
Is there a convincing philosophical rebuttal to solipsism - the theory that the self is all that you can know to exist? Or are you all figments of my imagination?
The use of the work 'my' gives it away: if the world exist only in your mind then you and the world are one and the same; there can be no real 'me'. It follows that, relative to your perceived 'me', whether the rest of the world actually exists externally or internally is irrelevant. Solipsism is a rather bland theory.
D Doran, London
Dr Johnson would rap you hard on the head and say: "Thus I refute you!"
David Dreaming Bear, Horsethief Canyon, California USA
Although solipsism may SEEM appealing, in terms of irrefutable truths, Descartes assertion 'Cogito ergo sum' - 'I think therefore I am' (although he actually said, 'I think, I exist') has many problems. It seems that no logical argument can follow from this, supposedly a priori statement, that GUARANTEES the existence of others. However, we can refute that it is an a priori statement to start with. For, because there is a thought occurring at this moment, it does not follow from any rules of logic that there were any thoughts before, or there will be any after, this thought. Also, just because there is a thought, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is necessarily a 'self', or the 'I' who is observing this thought. However, one can appeal simply to 'common sense philosophy', or 'logical positivism' as it's become known, and we can see that it is simple common sense that we are not the only beings that exist. For more read A.J. Ayer's 'Language, Truth and Logic'.
Sam Reed, Brockley, London Britain
Solipsism is Descartes' famous first axiom (I think therefore I am) taken to extremes. It is remarkably difficult to move beyond this first inspired piece of philosophy to go on to prove that everything (anything?) else exists. This is the problem solipsists wrestle with. It is, of course, much simpler (under Occam's razor) to assume that the external world we perceive through our senses actually exists. The untenability of the solipsists argument is best demonstrated by a quote from a devoted solipsist who, at a philosophers convention, stated, "I'm a solipsist. And quite frankly I'm surprised there aren't more of us."
The most convincing solution to solipsism is to realise that it really doesn't matter. Since this is the world as we experience it, this is the world that matters to us. Though one can never be certain that anything exists beyond ones own consciousness, they still must experience the world as they do, which includes the existence of others.
Seth, Edinburgh Scotland
One night in Dublin, many years ago, a friend (who was very much under the infuence of Magic Mushrooms) asked me: "Are you real?" I took his hand, looked into his eyes and said: "I assure you with my heart and soul that, yes, I am real". He was neither reassured nor convinced. The next day at work he said: "Last night was very weird, I was convinced that everything in my life was only part of my imagination and it scared me." I told him that Solipsism was something he had to work at. He looked at me and said: "Now I know you are not real!"
Hedley McConnell, Tenerife Spain
Sartre held that the feeling of shame proved solipsism, and idealism to be false. If we are caught peeping at someone undressing in the toilet then we feel ashamed. If solpsism or idealism were true, this feeling would be false. But since we all have this feeling at one time or another Sartre held that there must exist other conscious bodies. The trouble with this is it reduces proof to emotion. It then follows that our opinion of what is real reduces to how we feel about it.
Andrew J Turner, Forestville, South Australia
__It seems to me that, because other people have asked the same question - "Am I the only thing in the Universe that exists?" - that we all exist.
Mike, Haddonfield USA__
Yes, there is a convincing rebuttal to YOUR solipsism - me. Unfortunately I do not find YOU to be a convincing rebuttal to MY solipsism. This proves that I am all that exists. Probably.
Jack Rawlinson, New York, USA
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-24820,00.html
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 08:15am PT
|
define away the very possibility of God by defining "evidence" and "truth" in a narrow way that suits only your perspective.
Every atheist defines God as any possible God, which includes all Gods that anyone and everyone defines as God or believe in as their God, which is the exact opposite of a narrow way that suits some perspective.
Give us your definition of God, and we will accept your definition and include it with the Gods that we do not accept as existing.
Can God exist as some type of God essence in everything?
No.
For this to be true, God would have to be some type of essence smaller that subatomic particles, since God would be part them as well.
God would be part of the vacuum of space, and more of God would exist inside Black Holes, since they are so dense, the God essence would be dense as well.
How would this essence be able to create or act as God?
It wouldn't, it would have no affect on anything other than being an essence of God, since the essence doesn't assemble itself into a form that is a sum of essence that is bigger than a subatomic particle.
Why define God as part of everything?
It's just another way hide God from the investigation of God's existence, all other Gods have failed under scientific scrutiny so they keep speculating on a possible God that can't be found, it's beyond detection!
Speculation on the possibility of these hidden Gods always reveal the real intent, adding more and more possible unknowns so they can avoid detection by scientific investigation so the beleivers can maintain their belief in God.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 08:39am PT
|
Science will continue to march forward, ever expanding knowledge of our planet and beyond.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 08:46am PT
|
Why define God as part of everything?
The simpleton Fry has it backward.
Everything is part parcel of One God .......
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 10:01am PT
|
Predictive usage does not equal truth.
I can totally understand why you reject this, but if "truth" has any meaning at all, "predictive usage" is a means of determining it.
Unfortunately, such a concept absolutely demolishes your philosophical beliefs. It is the reason that science makes progress and philosophy continues to discuss every idea that had been produced by philosophers, there is no way determine what you would call "truth" in philosophy, once faulty logic has been removed. To wit:
A) The Mayan metaphysics produces a physics capable of calculating the altitude and azimuth of the Moon at any position on planet Earth's surface at any specified time;
B) The Newtonian metaphysics produces a celestial dynamics capable of calculating the altitude and azimuth of the Moon at any position on planet Earth's surface at any specified time;
C) The Einsteinian metaphysics produces a celestial dynamics capable of calculating the altitude and azimuth of the Moon at any position on planet Earth's surface at any specified time;
since all these calculations are identical, calculation alone cannot determine which of the metaphysics is correct.
However, A) is incorrect, the Mayan calendric calculation is not capable of making the calculation, so whatever the metaphysics, the physics is not adequate to address this issue. It is not a relevant physical theory.
B) also fails to correctly predict various celestial observations. The best example is the perihelion shift of Mercury's orbit, known since 1845 to be in contradiction with Newtonian celestial mechanics.
C) correctly calculates this shift, and also it has been shown more recently, that it correctly calculates the motion of inspiraling black-holes as they merge, and in so doing release a tremendous amount of energy as gravitational radiation, the detection of which provides the quantitative measure, and test, of Einstein's gravity [see Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 221101 (2017)].
Now we can actually get from C) to B) and understand why Newton came up with his physical theory, we find that the metaphysics is irrelevant, but the physics is not. We also can quantify the difference in the predictions, and this allows us to define the domain in which B) and C) provide equivalent results to some specified precision. Using B) we can also see how A) could work, and this knowledge helps us to understand what the Mayan astronomers were up against in their calculations.
As for metaphysics, it's a non-issue. However, let's say that A), B) and C) provide equivalent results at the precision of all of our tests, then we could not rule any of the physical theories out, they are all equivalent in their predictive power.
As a scientist, I'm interested in understanding the universe, and "prediction" and "experimental/observational testing" are the ways I go about it. That way I do not become attached to ideas that are wrong, as demonstrated by their failure to predict.
I'm not the one calling this "truth" you are, and you like setting me up as a strawman philosopher, but we are all clear that I am not a philosopher.
You and Largo seem to convey on me that title... it's an interesting rhetorical tactic.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 10:48am PT
|
Can God exist as some type of God essence in everything?
No.
I don't think this is much of an argument, but, look, what exists as an essence in everything? There is in the universe an order to which all material, energy and force must be obedient. I don't think prediction is possible without that order. What is it and where did it come form? Wouldn't it be possible to describe it as a final term? Certainty in the face of mystery doesn't seem much of a virtue.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!