Jump to content

Eise

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1990
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Eise last won the day on April 30

Eise had the most liked content!

7 Followers

Profile Information

  • Location
    the old world
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics, Astronomy
  • Biography
    University degree philosophy, subsidary subject physics
  • Occupation
    Database administrator, a bit of Linux too

Recent Profile Visitors

14257 profile views

Eise's Achievements

Primate

Primate (9/13)

674

Reputation

  1. Neutrinos are not “the basic units of materialized energy” and there isn’t a pathway for neutrinos to form atoms. They don’t interact in ways that would allow that. You see, @graybear13, that is the problem. You do not even know what neutrinos are, so your proposal is dead from the beginning. So why do you throw so many absurd hypotheses into a science forum, suggesting that physicists would have a blind spot in their world view: 'Oh my, Why didn't I think of it!? Atoms could be made up by neutrinos! Good that people with fresh minds are also looking at this!'. Really? You think like that? If not, why you go on formulate hypotheses that every physicist knows will not work? Not even realising the difference between alpha particles and neutrinos, why do you even think you could bring up meaningful hypotheses based on them?
  2. No, alpha particles are not neutrinos. They are so different that you cannot say 'Ah, neutrinos do not work for my idea? Then maybe alpha particles do?'. You are just throwing words around without knowing the concepts behind that words. For a mind that knows nothing, everything is possible in his fantasy.
  3. What does 'contradiction' mean, according to you? Can one 'thing' ('truth' in this case) be a contradiction? Also, you only have to find one case where 'truth contradicts itself', and your question is answered.
  4. Well, 'no change' is an empirically impossible situation. The best we can do is define 'standard changers', aka 'clocks'. Then we can compare durations of processes with the number of 'ticks' of our standard changer. If we agree on such a standard changer (like an atomic clock), and on the scale of the units we use (so many ticks are 1 second), we can define a kind of 'absolute time'. 'Absolute' in the sense that we know that 1 second for one observer, is also 1 second for another one, assuming the clocks do not move relative to each other. In special relativity, we notice that all clocks in a system that is moving relative to me slow down: the atomic clock, the quartz clock, grandpa's pendulum clock, etc. Then we can justified say, that time has slowed down in in the frame that is moving relative to me. 'Movement' is just another change that can occur, as you say, a change in spatial location. I would not necessarily call it a measure, for a measure of time a reliable extremely fast periodical change is the best way to attach a time scale to it, and so can become a measure.
  5. Person, definitely: the management of Boeing.
  6. You read my mind. I'm not one of those people who can dash off a quick essay over the cellular. I remember having thought of "wannabe philosopher". Quotation marks would have done the job. And your expression certainly does it. The truth is we get a lot of this. People who think they can do philosophy, and by means of their philosophy of sorts, clinch the case of the most difficult (and long-standing) scientific problems: What is time? Did the universe have a beginning?, etc. The truth being they don't even get started doing science. They do very poor philosophy too. Yep. There are several problems to call OP's musings 'philosophy'. But the main problem is that one tries to solve an empirical question by pure logical means. And thereby using 'logical' where in fact it means 'according to my intuition'. Recently I saw a new one: What kind of vehicle has four wheels and flies? What moves in a muon, when it decays? (I think it was Swansont that one gave this as an example that we should talk about 'change', not 'movement'. Every movement is a change., but not every change is a movement.
  7. Hey! Don't mixup crackpotism and philosophy! Good philosophers know what they must know about the sciences, and know when they don't. If you know what I mean... See my 2nd and 3rd citations of Dennett in my disclaimer.
  8. Sabine Hossenfelder has a video about it: I liked this comment of a user there:
  9. I must assume you are kidding. I would add 'feeling'. I recently learned the concept of 'failed narcissists'. Seems to fit.
  10. Just to share my personal experience. I never was a 'womanizer', and not great at courting. For me, women were from Venus, and I from Ceres (definitely not from Mars...). I suffered from not having a romantic and erotic relationship with a woman. But halfway my student days, I got my first 'half-relationships', but suffered again when they broke up. Then I met the woman who is still my wife. From the moment that I got my feeling (and her's) that 'this is it', I suddenly got more involved with other women, even had a few extra-marital affairs (and was open about it to my wife, and she could accept it). Now we are already married for 30 years. My interpretation: since my fixed relationship, I could be much more relaxed in relations to others in general, and specifically to women. The pressure and the need were gone. But I see all this pressure (and aggressiveness) and need in what you write here. And that does not make you attractive at all. In those days, it was my fault, and so it is yours. My advice (which you already got from many here): let go the feeling of need, do not put pressure on others in your relationships. Do not whine, do not be aggressive, and do not be picky. And if you notice you can't, yes, search for help, e.g. psychotherapy. And let go the idea that you must be bodily attractive to attract women. Being pleasant company to others, men and women alike, is the most important. Having implicit demands does not work, people (e.g women ;-) ) feel it, and it shies them away.
  11. I saw it yesterday: this is extremely worrying.
  12. With one simple answer: observation bias.
  13. I fully agree that 'absolute truth' does not apply to the sciences (nor to any other 'truth capable' discourse). Let's call that 'Truth' with capital 'T'. But truth, lowercase 't' certainly applies to sentences that claim to reflect part of reality. E.g. 'the Eifel tower stands in Paris' is true. See also TheVat's description: Simply said: a statement is true, if it corresponds to objective facts. So this is the most simple definition of 'truth': factual sentences are 'truth-capable'. Now, is the sentence 'The earth is flat' true? Well, we know it isn't. Is the sentence 'The earth was flat in 4000 BCE' true? Again, no, we know that 4000 BCE the world was just as round as it is today. Does it then make sense to say that ''The earth is flat' spoken by somebody in 4000 BCE is true? She might be expressing what she really thinks, so she is 'truthful' (she really thinks the earth is flat), but the sentence isn't true at all. She just can't know it. Nothing concerning the topology of the earth did change since 4000 BCE. What changed was how people saw the world. Now for science: scientific theories are abstractions from true statements. They also contain how these abstractions can be translated into concrete empirical claims. Simplified: you have a theory, you put in the initial conditions that you measured or setup (when it is about an experiment), and the output of that are predictions of what you will observe, i.e. basic statements about 'affairs in the world'. If these basic statements turn out to be correct, again and again, even in very different situations (different initial conditions), then we can call the theory true, at least provisionally. (Or you can call it "best currently accepted internally and externally consistent provisionally validated model” as iNow prefers ). Now Truth would be the ideal that for every possible state of affairs, we have a scientific theory, with which we can predict and explain all possible states of affairs. I think that in this view it becomes clear that: we will never reach Truth but we strive to explain as many truths as possible, so aiming at Truth is still a heuristic principle and that trying to falsify scientific theories is the fastest way to make progress in science; repeating the same kind of measurements again and again to confirm a theory is pretty useless.
  14. Yes, as a minimum. I think it is also important that world views or scientific theories are consistent, in themselves and between each other. Another important criterion is explanatory power: the more phenomena we can subsume under only a few basic laws of nature, the better. All this does not lead to 'absolute truth', but a better match between our theories and the reality these theories describe. But the theory never becomes reality itself! I think it is this idea of absolute truth that bothers @MigL, no? But that are interpretations, not scientific theories, unless somebody discovers experiments that can show which interpretation is correct (or wrong). We already had such a surprise (Bell's theorem). Either that, or until an experiment is designed these are speculations, or when we never find discriminative experiments, the interpretations will be meta-physics. So what changed since this antiquity? Reality or our ideas about reality? Was the earth flat once, and not anymore? It is so simple: some empirical claims are flat out wrong, independent on what people believe. As said above, it seems to me you think 'absolute truth', in the sense that we know we have 'caught' reality exactly as it is. That, surely enough, lies beyond our reach. But a map that locates the Eiffel tower in Paris, near the Seine, is definitely 'truer' than a map that locates it in Wall Street in New York. Ah, there it is. I would say there is truth, but as a heuristic principle. It shows a direction where to go, but not something that can be reached, as a the ultimate endpoint of our quest to understand the world. It is a bit like I am giving up to be a morally good person, because becoming a saint (or boddhisatva) lies beyond my reach. NO! Exactly the opposite! Our ideas about reality improve, they become more encompassing, explain more phenomena than older theories, we can base more and more technology on it: in short, they become 'truer'. More and more about reality is dis-covered. That would be a huge discovery. But in the meantime we have learned a lot about the inner perspective of this simulation. Unless the operator of the simulation starts to change parameters, e.g. the speed of light, all our knowledge of the inner workings of the universe created by the simulation stays valid. I support that.
  15. I completely agree with @TheVat. The idea of 'truth' makes no sense if we do nor relate to an objective reality. Our scientific theories are about something. And they can be wrong, or true, in their (limited) domain. The earth never was flat, we know that. A majority believing that is was (is) may have reasons to think so, but it is, and was never true. For me the expression 'my truth' makes no sense: the word 'truth' implies that it is claimed to be the case for everybody. We dis-cover reality. Maybe not as it is, but as a map of reality. If we behave according to the map, e.g. find our way to the Eiffel tower, and we get there, then the map was 'true'. There may be much left out from the map, but the map expresses at least some true aspects of reality. Science is not just a 'narrative', as many post-modernist philosopher liked to say.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.