Eise

42 minutes ago, iNow said:

It's just not a single place like a gas station on the corner of two streets. It's instead a town, or a neighborhood, a rhetorical symphony where no single instrument or note makes the music, but all together matter for the end experience being explored. 

I like that. Just to add: there is also no single time. 

And to the topic in general:

I recently read somewhere this interesting bonmot: the brain is hallucinating constantly, the senses filter out which hallucination fits best for our survival.

In 1976 I visited a talk about lasers, for interested laypeople. One of the applications of lasers that were presented was nuclear fusion. I remember the presenter told that in fact the only problem that had to be resolved was to fire the lasers at exactly the right time, to avoid that the pellet would be thrown out of the mid-point of the lasers. That is 46 years ago... 

Just to add another anecdote to Moontanman's.

I think when we had invested all the money in durable energy sources and develop technologies that use less energy, instead of nuclear fusion (including Tokamak and other methods), we would have solved our CO₂ emission problems...

"About the quadrant.

How one should make the hour lines in the quadrants"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrant_(instrument)

On 3/7/2022 at 3:28 PM, Jonathan Day said:

There are a number of problems with this particular philosophical question, the most obvious one being that we don't have a single definition of free will. (We have many, some of which are contradictory, but what we don't have is a single agreed definition that we can then actually test against.)

Yes, that is the first problem. So any question or answer on this topic should clarify first which definition of free will one is using. 

On 3/7/2022 at 3:28 PM, Jonathan Day said:

A second problem lies in the fact that science is based on observable phenomenon, falsifiability, measurement and invariance. You can't observe free will directly, so we'd need something we can observe that is a surrogate. That's fine, physicists do that a lot. Only, what do we observe or measure here? Without a working definition and model, we don't know what to look for or how to quantify it.

I think measuring free will without treating a human as a subject, but as object only, will never succeed. Compare it with 'meaning'. From the physical properties of ink, it is not possible to derive the meaning of the sentence that it forms. To assess if somebody acted from free will, you need to know her motivations and reasoning. 

On 3/7/2022 at 3:28 PM, Jonathan Day said:

In principle they can be distinguished, since free will implies that a variable that is actually independent as far as the physics is concerned can affect the outcome.

You did not make your definition of free will explicit. What you say here fits to the 'libertarian' definition of free will, or even stronger, a dualistic definition. Something like 'the soul interferes with the physics of the brain'. 

Same holds for this:

On 3/7/2022 at 3:28 PM, Jonathan Day said:

We do have one possible path, Professor Conway's Strong Free Will Theorem. This is a dense mathematical argument that essentially states that free will can only exist within the universe if physics itself has a notion of free will. If something that is fundamental within the universe has the capacity to behave in non-random, non-deterministic ways, then this can potentially accumulate into free will in something as complex as a brain. If there is no such capacity, there is no free will.

I agree that this can be true for certain definitions of free will, as the one you were using above.

Personally I think we should adhere to the daily use and experience of free will, but only to an empirical notion of it. Why do people say they did something freely, or just the opposite, were coerced to it? The compatibilist notion of free will comes closest: somebody acts according her free will, if she acts according her own motivations, and not those of somebody else. However, such a definition only works in a deterministic universe. This guarantees that my motivations and actions can be related. Don't throw randomness in it, because then this relation is disturbed. Also, to anticipate the results of your actions, the world better functions in a regular, and therefore predictable way, which can also be guaranteed by determinism. So determinism is a necessary condition that free will can exist; there simply is no contradiction between determinism and having free will.

On 2/22/2022 at 2:49 AM, Markus Hanke said:

If you really think you have free will, you obviously haven’t been owned by a cat 🐈 

Ah, I know you are joking, but the remark is interesting. It presupposes that a cat can limit your free will. But how can a cat limit something you would not have at all in the first place? 

On 2/25/2022 at 10:25 PM, Genady said:

As to so many other questions in physics, an answer to the OP question depends on a reference frame. In this case, there are two types of reference frames with different answers, external and internal.

I would prefer to say that there are different discourses: you won't find meaning, consciousness, or free will if you only study quarks, electrons, molecules, or whatever. That is because they simply do not exist in that discourse. But they exist in a discourse about choices, beliefs, feelings, ethics, laws, etc etc. The second discourse is not invalidated by the first. 

@mistermack: You made up your mind, I made up mine. 

11 hours ago, Arthur Smith said:

12 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Luke is Paul's constant companion, and also an apostle in good standing

What do we really know of Luke?

Next to nothing. But historians assume that the author of the gospel of Luke and Acts are the same.

12 hours ago, mistermack said:

You do know that basing your hopes on the difference between a and the is a sign of desperation?

No. It is taking the text 'as is'. The strategy of mythicists with text fragments very often is:

• It cannot be true, so it is a falsification
• the author did not mean what he wrote

And then again Flavius mentions the execution of James:

Quote

so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned

12 hours ago, mistermack said:

As for Flavius Josephus, it has clearly forged references to Jesus, forged by Christian apologists,

You know that different versions of the Testimonium Flavianum have been found? Some of them are shorter, and missing the obvious insertion by Christian scribes.

You are preoccupied by 'your own book'. Surely you think the same of me, so let's end this fruitless discussion.

7 minutes ago, Arthur Smith said:

Luke wrote Luke's gospel and the Acts. How do we know? Because Luke tells us in Luke's gospel and the Acts.

Textual analysis shows that the author very probably is the same. See my link above. 

Sigh... Here we go again.

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

At first sight, it does seem to refer to Paul meeting a brother of Jesus, and therefore is proof of an actual human Jesus. But the reason that it might not be, is that Paul referred to all Christians as brothers or sisters. He often starts his letters with "I am writing to you, brothers and sisters" and constantly refers to people as either "brothers" or not. In other words, he uses the word brother just to inform the audience whether that person is a christian, or not. Basically, it just means you are one of the bretheren, which he also uses. So this quote could mean he's saying James is the brother of Jesus, or equally, he could be saying that James is one of the bretheren.

You do know the difference between the articles 'a' and 'the' I hope. Further, James was also called 'the brother of Christ' in Flavius Josephus Antiquities of the Jews.

And I hope you know 'Cephas' is the disciple Peter. 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

The reason why I think it's pretty certain to be the second, is that that's ALL he says about James. If he was talking about the actual brother of a god, you would expect an absolute flood of detail, stuff about the life and sayings of Jesus that only a brother would know. But he says nothing. Just, "then I went to Syria" blah blah blah.

Expectations? Whose? Yours? Carrier's?

The Pauline epistles are letters to churches he grounded, and meant to react on all kind of problems and theological questions that arose there. He was spreading his variation of believe what was Jesus' aim: not just reinstate the laws of Jews to them, but to prepare for the apocalypse also for the gentiles. This point was probably that which Paul quarreled about with Peter and James.

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

For a man like Paul, dedicating his life to a religion, to pass up on all and every detail he could have extracted from James, true brother of Jesus, is just impossible in my book. So to me, it can only be the first case, that he's just saying that James is a christian. 

I do not assume 'your book' is a scholarly work based on classical text analysis, put in the historical context in that time. Basically, you are just saying "I don't like it, so it is not true".

I am not a Christian, but assuming he existed, makes a much better understanding of the development of early Christianity: the change in character of the gospels the later they are written, the bending of the story of Jesus' birth to fit the prophecies in the old Testament, the mentioning of John the baptist (also mentioned in non-Christian sources), and the mentioning of Jesus (or 'Christ') in a few non-Christian sources (including his crucifixion).

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

But, his mission was to preach the Christian message, and he wanted to shine in that. If he actually met the brother of god, do you not seriously think that he would have used that? What better tool could you have, than to say, "yes, ask me anything you like about Jesus, I actually met his brother !! "  

Any self important person like Paul would have used it over and over to impress his audience. He didn't. 

So instead of taking the texts as they come to us, compare them, set them in historical context, you base your opinion on a psychological 'analysis' of Paul's character? There go many suppositions in such a stance. Above I wrote what the epistles of Paul were meant for. You find out by reading the texts, and analysing them in their context.

On 1/15/2022 at 5:04 PM, MigL said:

Don't know mythers
But here it is

 

Yes, I was one of the participants, arguing strongly that Jesus more probably existed than not.

I am missing reference here to the fact that Paul mentions meeting Peter and Jesus' brother James (in a letter that is considered genuine), and that James is also mentioned by a few (two, if I correctly remember) historians in the Roman age.

There is also the strange fact that according to one gospel Jesus was simply born in Nazareth, but in Luke there is the complicated history where Joseph and Maria had to go from Nazareth to Bethlehem, obvious bending history to get it in sync with the prediction that said the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Such a bending would not be necessary if the story was a myth from the beginning.

Most classical historians agree that the evidence hints at a real existence of Jesus. But 'hints' does not mean 'proves'. Read e.g. Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus really exist?.

But the picture of who Jesus really was, is very different from how he is pictured by (modern) Christianity. He seems to have been an apocalyptic preacher, expecting to see the 'youngest day' (the Apocalypse) on Earth (not in heaven!) in his own lifetime, or at least very soon.

I will not repeat every argument here, there are many posts of me in that thread.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Whilst I agree with you about the QM and programming, there are many sorts of computer whose working do not depend upon QM. Some of these are purely mechanical from astrolabes and orrerys to slide rules, some are electrical, some elctromechanical, some fluidic.

I hope you see that you exactly make my point: as I said earlier that it makes no difference if a traffic jam consists of horse cards, diesel or gas cars, for a computer it makes no functional (or logical) difference if it implemented in a completely different way. I happen to work, as most of us, with computers that are transistor based, not gear based, but to write my programs I do not need any knowledge of the computer's physical principles. So another way of seeing this, is that emergent properties have some independence of its physical substrate. No question, a physical substrate is absolutely necessary, but there are many cases where different kinds of substrates can do the job. 

I do not exactly get your example of day and night. Not knowing the cause of a phenomenon does not mean it is emergent. It is essential that the emergent phenomena arise from their components, mostly many of them (molecules for the Gas Laws, neurons for mental phenomena, vehicles for traffic jams, etc). 

3 hours ago, joigus said:

Am I getting closer?

Definitely.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

May I suggest that electrons would be a better example than water molecules since H₂O and D₂O have some different physical properties ?

Yes, you may. Your introduction from this other 'natural kind', D₂O makes your world view more precise.

3 hours ago, Genady said:

Which regularity makes differential geometry effective in describing GR?

None, if you ask it in this way. But I would say, based on the regularities we see (perihelion precession e.g.), we know there must be at least some mathematical explanation. It is 'just' a theoretical insight that differential geometry does the trick.

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Schrödinger equation describes the phenomenon of a wave function evolution without knowing or needing from what it exactly emerges. Does it make this phenomenon an emergent one?

You can only see if a phenomenon is emergent, when you can explain it from simpler constituents. My hunge with the Schrödinger equation is that it is not emergent, given that physicists already do not not agree if it is just a calculation algorithm, or is ontic. The Schrödinger equation already 'lies deeper' then our direct experience. E.g. we cannot observe its phase. We can only observe that it describes our observations statistically correctly.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I don't agree that the Gas Laws show any emergent features.

Well, since we know it we can derive the Gas Laws from statistical mechanics, we know they are emergent. (But, btw, I understand swansont's doubts that it is a good example of emergency, because the effects of more or less bouncing particles in a bottle can be linked to the macroscopic pretty directly; I like my example of the traffic jam better).

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I look around and sometimes see light and sometimes see darkness.

Do you mean 'light' and 'darkness', or your seeing of them. (Hopefully Koti is not around... )

2 hours ago, joigus said:

The fact that some emergent phenomena can be formulated without referring to the more elementary level doesn't mean that we shouldn't aspire to it.

I nowhere implied that! Of course, my expectation is that we live in 'natural world' through and through. If somebody would not accept natural explanations, he is simply enforced to introduce new metaphysical entities, like souls, or God. So yes, I am interested in neurology, to a certain level, but for certain questions we do not have to know much about it.

2 hours ago, joigus said:

I'm not going down the rabbit hole of free will now.

That's fine. It surely will pop again when some newbie starts a new thread, saying 'We are determined so we have no free will!'. Then the great free will defender will do his work again (if he is not too stressed at that moment...).

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Eise, I think, prefers to place a black box around the 'simpler parts' in order to describe the laws of the composite system without referring to the simpler parts, because they are 'irrelevant.' If I understood him correctly.

No, you did not understand me me correctly. I only said it is possible to describe phenomena at a higher level than its composite parts, not that our understanding of the phenomena incredibly increases when we know how they are rooted in more fundamental parts. The other way round: there are things we, as humans, simply cannot understand at its fundamental level. I do not need quantum physics when I write programs for my databases, but the workings of computers is only understandable from quantum theoretical technology (PNP layers, and so). (Here you see an interesting example 'the other way round'. First there were the 'quantum discoveries', then the question 'what could you do with it', build a transistor, put millions of them together, et voila, a computer!).

On 12/11/2021 at 2:13 AM, joigus said:

I'm particularly interested in what @Eise and @Markus Hanke have to say about these matters.

Trying to challenge me? 

I think we can talk about emergence when following condition applies:

The phenomena can be described without knowing or needing from what they exactly emerge.

A few examples:

• the gas laws of Boyle and Gay-Lussac: without knowing that gas is made of flying around particles these laws cna be fixed empirically (but not explained, of course, then we have to get to statistical mechanics, assuming smallest particles bouncing around)
• One of my favourite examples: traffic jams. These can be mathematically described without knowing if we are talking about horse cards, diesel or gas cars 
• And yes, of course, free will. The problem of free will and determinism can be decided without reference to the brain, neurons and neurotransmitters. Just take determinism for granted, and ask if in a determined world free will is possible. That simply means that neurologists have nothing to add, if you take determinism for granted. The exact details are of no importance.

About time as an emergent phenomenon I have nothing to say: ask Carlo Rovelli, or Lee Smolin... It is of course highly speculative. But a fact is that all our established theories can work very well without knowing if time is emergent or not.

Wow, 4 weeks later. Sorry....

Sorry for neglecting the forum for such a long time. It is a stressful time (corona (homeoffice) and stress at work), and I seldom have the peace to do more 'thinking' for this forum.

Here an observation about this topic:

I wonder if it is really so astonishing that math is so effective describing the world around us. In my opinion we need only two aspects of nature to more or less guarantee that we can use math to describe it:

• regularities in natural phenomena, to begin with simple phenomena like the yearly rising of the Nile, sun sets etc. I cannot imagine a regularity that cannot described mathematically. If somebody can, please give an example.
• the existence of 'natural kinds', like water molecules. Simply said, if you acquired knowledge about one water molecule, you know it is valid for all water molecules.

Life would would be impossible without these. So just add the smallest bit of anthropic reasoning (if above aspects of nature would not be the case, no observers could exist) and your are done. No?

What Studiot is aiming at, is that a space-time diagram is not a plot, but a map.

However, you cannot put time into a drawn map. So it makes sense to use time multiplied by a velocity to get a distance. 'c' is used because we already know from relativity the importance of 'space-time distance', which is similar to the normal 3-D distance in space, but not the same: instead of the 'space version' of Pythagoras (s² = x² + y² + z² ) we have s² = x² + y² + z² - (ct)², or in just one space dimension s² = x² - (ct)², which means that distances are distorted compared to a normal map of Euclidian space.

Still, it can be use to create a mechanical device that transforms distances in space.time correctly (see e.g. the space-time globe).

1 hour ago, Eise said:

There is no 'given time of the universe' is a block universe.

Just too late to edit it. Read:

There is no 'given time of the universe' in a block universe.

21 hours ago, 34student said:

This is very interesting.  I did not know that there was a distance that all observers can agree on.  Is this an absolute distance or something?

Yes, for the simple reason that the space-time distance between two events is the same for all observers.

However, there are many combinations of x, y, z, and t that give the same space-time distance. What the values of the coordinates are depends on the movement of the observer relative the train. So asking what the length of the train is without knowing how the observer moves relative to the train, is impossible.

BTW, that you did not know about this space-time distance, tells me you do not understand what is meant with the 'block universe'. And if you have a wrong picture of it, your conclusions will be wrong too.

Otherwise you would also not say something like this:

18 hours ago, 34student said:

The universe in a given moment in time.

  There is no 'given time of the universe' is a block universe.

On 10/26/2021 at 5:22 PM, 34student said:

Aliens from another dimension are looking at our block universe from 2050 to 2100.  Will they see a 100 meter train or a 1 meter train or something else?

What I am about to say was probably already said in several variations, but you did not get it yet. So here my try:

You cannot simply imagine the 'block' universe as a simple extension of a 3-dimensional block: just add another dimension and voila. The block universe is not a block with just 4 space dimensions instead of 3. Time stands in relation with the space dimensions, but in another way. This is especially true for Pythagoras theorem. So the metric of the block universe is not:

s² = x² + y² + z²  + t² (Invalid!)

When this were the case you would be probably right. But you are then just extending the Euclidian metric with one dimension. Instead you must use the Minkowski metric, in which 'Pythagoras' is:

s² = x² + y² + z²  - ct² 

This is the so called 'space-time' distance, and it is a distance all observers agree upon: all observers in the block universe agree on its value. Now a god-like high-dimensional alien creature, looking at our block universe would take that as the distance between two events (e.g. the train's passing of a point, first event is the passing of the locomotive, second event is the passing of the last wagon). However when an observer in the block universe prays to the alien, and asks 'how long is that train really in my 3 dimensional space?', the alien must first ask (or look) how the observer is moving in respect to the train. Only then he can answer the question. But the answer will be different for another observer. This is also true for an observer that is in the same inertial frame of reference as the train.

There are conventional reasons to take the length of the train as the length measured in the frame of reference of the train, but these are not physical reasons. 

I think one should not see philosophy too much as a separate subject, but looking in a special way to a subject. When a physicist is trying to find a particle  at CERN he is doing physics. When a physicist is trying to find a new theory he is doing physics. Both activities are about physical reality. However, when it e.g. turns out that a conceptual framework does not work anymore (e.g. rise of quantum theory in the 1920s), when there are questions about the validity of certain methods, or about a demarcation criterion for science (e.g. string theory, multiverse) then one is doing philosophy. And one does not necessarily need a philosophical education for that: the interest in conceptual clarity and the intellectual capacity to do so, are enough. Latter should not be a real problem for physicists. First of course is really a question of what one is interested in. It's not everybody's thing.

So not philosophers should push scientists to philosophical questions, so to speak from another discipline; the need for doing philosophy should arise in themselves because e.g. methodological or conceptual problems. Philosophers might be helpful in methodological and conceptual discussion, they are well trained in such discussions. 

On 10/7/2021 at 10:47 AM, bangstrom said:

I have been searching for the answer to the question of whether either observation or consciousness can influence the outcome of the double slit experiment for several years now and I feel I have made a lot of progress in understanding the problem but I have possibly reached the limits of my expertise to come to any definite conclusion except to say that this is an extremely thorny issue with no easy answers.

It has an easy answer: consciousness has no influence for a given setting of the experiment. Consciousness might decide what kind of experiment you are doing (e.g. a 'which way' experiment, or a 'phase' experiment), but once chosen the experimental setup, consciousness has no influence whatsoever. The only 'real problem' I see is the problem of QM at large: the measurement problem. (± collapse of the wave function).

23 hours ago, Brian King of Trolls said:

Isn't the quantum realm a strange place to look for answers about free will? The mind is a better place. Quanta is so small, it is so distant from significant human experience.

Right. Physics present basically 2 options: classical determinism or quantum probability. Both do not work together with the idea of libertarian free will. Whatever free will 'really is', that your actions are random does not belong to any reasonable concept of free will. So QM is no help here.

20 hours ago, MigL said:

Free will ( and consciousness ), on the other hand, is not clearly defined, nor consistant.

But one can define free will pretty clearly. One of the reasons however that these discussions are so difficult is that people often refuse to stick to a single definition. Above I mentioned one kind, libertarian free will, but there are other definitions. 

Just to clarify

1. Incompatibilism: determinism and free will are incompatible
   a. Hard determinism: determinism is true. therefore we have no free will
   b. Libertarian free will: determinism cannot be completely true, because we have a direct experience of free will
2. Compatibilism: there is no contradiction between determinism and free will
   a. Conceptual compatibilism: mind, motivations, beliefs, actions, etc are a complete different way to look at our human world than looking with a physical (chemical, biological, neurological) eye to humans. Both are valid in their domains, and you shouldn't mix them up.
   b. 'Hard compatibilism' (I never found a real name for this): Determinism is a necessary condition for free will. This means for 'real free will' that the world must be 'sufficient determinism'; with other words too much randomness will make our character and with that our actions to chaos.

1b is inconsistent (we would need non-physical causes: what would those be? The soul?) 2a might hide an inconsistency. But 1a and 2b seem consistent to me. But both must be explained in much more detail before one can start a fruitful discussion.

12 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

It’s far more complex than that, because determinism does not imply predictability; and determinism+predictability don’t imply computability. 

But predictability has nothing to do with free will. Free will means just that I am able to act according my motivations and beliefs (to the latter belong justified true beliefs, i.e. knowledge). 

13 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

That means the brain physically initiates motor action before you ever become aware of any decision-making to act. Where does that leave free will?

You mean "Where does that leave libertarian free will?" Yep, nowhere. But there is no contradiction with the compatibilist concept of free will.

And btw, I think libertarian free will would be worse than wrong from a none-dualistic viewpoint.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

And thanks for the reasonable approach. 

You're welcome. Therefore my reactions.

But before I start, until now I never declared what my position is: I only defended that Davy asked reasonable questions and also had reasonable arguments. So, here we go:

13 hours ago, beecee said:

[1] So do you believe we know the true nature of gravity? [NO]

I have no idea what 'true nature' of anything means. For me it is the believer in the 'true nature' of anything, who should tell me what the method is by which she can declare this is a justified claim. I am pretty sure that most philosophers would shoot holes in such a justification. So my answer would be the same as in the Zen koan 'Does a dog has Buddha nature?'.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

[2] Do you accept that sciencetific theories are useful models that do not necessarily aim for truth and reality? [yes]

I agree only with the first part of your sentence: the minimum one can say about scientific theories is that they are useful. I think one could say that science also aims for truth, but surely not in the sense of 'The Truth', but for a simpler concept of truth: that they can predict observable phenomena. 'Reality' cannot be an aim, that is a category error. Theories are 'language entities', not the reality they describe.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

[3]Do you agree that perhaps if there is a truth and/or reality that science may one day accidentley discover it? [possibly]

See my answer on 1. We simply cannot know. So, no.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

[4] Do you accept that the further any scientific model matches our observations, and keeps making successful predictions, it does get ever more certain? [yes]

Here we agree, as long a we do not fall for the illusion of 'absolute certainty'. In limited contexts we can have absolute certainty, but not if we start talking about the 'true nature of things', or the 'Truth about the Universe'.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

[5] Do you think perhaps if  that  "certainty" is reached, it could be this truth/reality?[possibly]

No, see my reaction at 4. 

13 hours ago, beecee said:

[6] Is there any truth or reality to be found? [dunno]

True propositions are surely possible, 'reality' only as far as it appears to us.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

[7]Might it be impossible to find? [dunno but in reality, and until we have one all encompassing theory, it may as well be]

It is impossible to determine that we found it. It presupposes that we can look' behind the scenes'. We can't.

14 hours ago, beecee said:

I'll surprise you now....

Ah, well. It is because of what you wrote before:

21 hours ago, beecee said:

Let me make a final comment on the above...I don't adhere to any particular form of science. I follow science to the best of my ability, because of its phenomenal success rate...afterall it affects our lives everyday. It has given us much, and answers many questions, and is  trying to answer more...it took us to the Moon, and has sent our probes to every planet, minor planet in our system...

These are all more or less practical results. And that is not trivial for me. The use humanity makes of technology has given us very much, no question. But it also gave us a lot of problems, and some of them might kill us all (but that would be another discussion). See it as an ambiguity in my position about science: on one side we are on the brink of destroying ourselves because we do not make reasonable use of the results of science; on another side, science is warning us about this fact, and shows us possible ways out; and on still another side, as I said before, I love the insights science gives us about the world we live in.

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Let me make a final comment on the above...I don't adhere to any particular form of science. I follow science to the best of my ability, because of its phenomenal success rate...afterall it affects our lives everyday. It has given us much, and answers many questions, and is  trying to answer more...it took us to the Moon, and has sent our probes to every planet, minor planet in our system...zeal?

Don't get me wrong, I am highly interested in physics and astronomy, why else would I have taken them as subsidiary subjects in my study? A difference between you and me is that I like the deep insights that physics deliver (I think my notorious winner is Noether's theorem, but there is more of course), less the results. Technology, the immediate child of science, has also given a lot of problems, for which we should not close our eyes. 

In Einstein's words:

Quote

Perfection of means and confusion of goals seem–in my opinion–to characterize our age. If we desire sincerely and passionately for the safety, the welfare, and the free development of the talents of all men, we shall not be in want of the means to approach such a state.

Davy's question, and why I chimed in, aims, as I said several times, on the selfunderstanding of physics. He wanted to discuss that with physicists here. 

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

White man speak with forked tongue.

He doesn't in this case, at least not literally. Philosophy could give rise to valid results (like the 'scientific method') on one side, and spout nonsense on the other. He obviously sees Davy's point as philosophical nonsense.

I am just wondering a little that he accepts people who studied physics as authorities in the area of physics, but people who have studied philosophy not as authorities on philosophy. Surely that does not mean that my opinions are always better (truer?) than other's, including not-philosophers, but it means that I very well know what is done in philosophy, and what is qualitative good philosophy, and what isn't.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

It's only your opinion that they are unknowledgable about philosophy, coming from an online self claimed educated philsopher.

Self claimed? Must I send you a copy of my certificate from the university of Utrecht, the Netherlands? (Subsidary subjects, btw, physics, astronomy and mathematics).

I'll stop here. You are simply not interested in a substantive discussion.

11 hours ago, beecee said:

[1] the same old argument that other philosophers have put up.

[2] You can dress it up to fit your agenda, and exaggerate his remarks to your little heart's content, but it changes nothing. Reminds me errily of the justice/jail merry-go-round. Let me tidy it up for you. He expressed an opinion on the hypocrisy of religion and also expressed an opinion on philosophy that other notable and reputable people have. And I more or less agree ith his views, and dismiss yours.

[3] Tell me, what is your truth and reality? Are you again making a poor attempt to practice your psychoanalysis of me? 🤮 That question has been answered a hundred times, and will not change no matter how many times you act so pretentiously in asking it again.

[4] More pretentious nonsense, if not a blatant misinterpretation. I have never said philosophy is invalid, that's just you once again, making a piss poor attempt at trying to sound like a reasonable philosopher. 

I am wondering why you do not answer dimreepr's questions. You are just, rather aggressively, refusing to answer them. You are just one step away from saying 'I am right because this is the way I think'. That cannot become a fruitful discussion. I am especially surprised about [1]: you could just have copy/pasted this 'old argument' from the article, and we would know at least what you are talking about.

11 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes, thanks for that, and yet we still have so called philosophers like dimreeper still overlooking the truth and instead practising the politics of philosophy, and rather poorly I add.

Ah you know the truth! 

11 hours ago, beecee said:

17 hours ago, Eise said:

With dimreepr I ask: which argument? I assume you think the argument is not valid: so why not? And why don't you really read the whole article? (Or my posting). Are you überhaupt interested in the topic? Or is your only aim to present sneers to philosophers?

I havn't yet had time to read the whole article, as even in lockdown, I do have other interests and things to do. Yes, you are right, I don't believe the arguments put forward are valid and find far more logic in the reasons put by Krauss and others. My aim, as you put it is simply to express my lay person's opinion, that the practical nature of science, and the theoretical physics aspect, has crossed over into regions that were once the sole domain of philoosphy. Why do you see that as sneering at philosophers? Yes, I have been provocative, and I make no apologies for that, as the same can be said for others here that have taken the opposite stance. I will attempt to read the whole article later today or tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure it won't change my mind, just as I'm pretty sure if I scrounged the Internet and dug up all the arguments and more reputable people agreeing with Krauss, won't change your PoV either. 

You see: you do not exchange arguments. You share your gut feelings.

And I do not expect you to change you PoV: I want an exchange of arguments. 

Your position "the practical nature of science, and the theoretical physics aspect, has crossed over into regions that were once the sole domain of philoosphy" is a perfectly sensible viewpoint, and we can discuss that. (Even if I think that the metaphorical language you use leaves much room for interpretation, and it would be interesting to flesh that out). That has nothing to with your sneers and 'bon-mots', and these help nothing in an exchange of arguments.

11 hours ago, beecee said:

Yes. "Still" has a simple everyday meaning, so stop being all pretentious and playing the poor philosopher in trying to read something into it that is not there.

Yes, I know the word, And it introduces an ambiguity that you obviously did not notice. This is what you said:

19 hours ago, beecee said:

philosophy is rather astract in its dealings, while still being the foundation of science

Possible readings:

1. science has historically grown from philosophy
2. Being foundational to science, science is (logically/conceptually/..) dependent on philosophical premises.

I know you adhere to 1, therefore I assume this would be the correct reading. However, the word 'still' makes it to a pretty open door. When it yesterday was true that Caesar crossed the Tiber, then it still is true today. That is normal with historical facts.

And because it is an open door, interpretation 2 seems a more viable interpretation. E.g. you could mean that the scientific method is a product of philosophy, and therefore philosophy is still the foundation of science.

What is it? 1 or 2? Or maybe even both?

11 hours ago, beecee said:

Please refrain from taking the one sentence out of context, it could be construed as dishonest.

Nope, it is not dishonest. Nobody suggested that different opinions about the relation between science and 'reality' has something to do with scientists being wrong ('mavericks') and those that are correct. 

11 hours ago, beecee said:

And since when have philosophers always spoke with the one voice? 

They don't. But you can't blame somebody with a philosophical background, like Davy, to be interested in this tension, and asking scientists here what their take is. Throwing your truths at him does not help much.

11 hours ago, beecee said:

😊 Perhaps you can practise some of your semantics and pedant with me now. Your inference of calling Krauss "your god" is that an example of sarcasm? Facetiousness? provocation? or stupidity? 

I think something like sarcasm and provocation. dimreepr also noted that you are defending your scientismic (somebody who adheres to some form of scientism) views with a nearly religious zeal. 

11 hours ago, beecee said:

Again, I'm in total agreement with Krauss, Feynman, Hawking, Degrasse-Tyson, and Weinberg. I may see when I have time, if I can dig up some more reputable physicists that see it the same way.

As long as they are also unknowledgable about philosophy that won't help. e.g., I reacted on your Weinberg citation, but I have not seen that you reacted on it. Are you just going to use the argument of authority? 

11 hours ago, beecee said:

I cant see anything too controversial in what Feynman says in your video.

First, I used this video snippet already several times, but against 'physics-crackpots', especially when they say something like 'I can't accept it' about QM. And it is really very humorous.

But! You nearly see how Feynman is wrestling with the correct formulation: first he says 'this is how nature works'. Then later on he says 'we looked at it, and this is what it looks like'. So first he sounds like a realist, but then he takes a more careful stance, as e.g. in his magnetism video (that if I remember correctly you also have linked in at least on posting).

2 hours ago, swansont said:

This suggests physics as a monolithic effort, and it's not.

Well, at least it was not my intention to suggest something like that.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Some work is basic research, other work is applied research. I wouldn't be surprised to find that there's a significant chunk of physicists that don't speak at all on the matter, because their attitude is "meh"

Of course. I am also not continuously thinking about the basics of relational databases. Only when somebody asks me. (Did you know relational databases can meta-describe themselves? No Gödelian problems.) I have nothing against people doing their work. It is just that I like them a bit more when they also reflect on what they are doing.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

"So much resources" sort on string theory? What level is that, and what fraction of the budget for all physics does it represent?

I stand corrected. It is true, when thinking about physics I (as possibly many others) are thinking about the 'front lines'. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I read part of Albert's argument, and found it the same old argument that other philosophers have put up.

With dimreepr I ask: which argument? I assume you think the argument is not valid: so why not? And why don't you really read the whole article? (Or my posting). Are you überhaupt interested in the topic? Or is your only aim to present sneers to philosophers?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Yes we both made cynical remarks, and Everyone is a philosopher, and in saying that, I also have my views, and while they are not terribly complimentary of philosophy in general, I have never claimed science is better, or greater, simply that science is  the practical search for knowledge, while imo philosophy is rather astract in its dealings, while still being the foundation of science.

With foundation I assume you mean 'historically grown out of philosophy'? I have some problems with your word 'still' in the last sentence. 

1 hour ago, beecee said:

And with regard to physicists not speaking in one voice, there are mavericks in every profession.

Now I think you have not understand one single word of what I am saying. I'll tell you, the physics community will never speak with one voice. Not while there are 'mavericks' but simply because they are coming to different conclusions. And that is because they are philosophical questions. And if they are good thinkers, they will give nuanced answers, that possibly do not conform to answers of other good thinkers. Some might even say "I don't know", but have much more insight than the simple-minded who just shoots from the hip, or even refuse to think about it.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I also find it rather disappointing, that you still chose to throw barbs at him with your condescending remark "just a good physicist"

Sorry for calling your god for what he simply is: a (very?) good physicist, with no understanding of philosophy. Please read the article you linked yourself. If you think that a philosopher (I at least am one by education) is not capable to see that Krauss is a lousy philosopher, then you cannot be helped.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

On your Feynman comment, all I can say is there you go again! Don't you think you are taking one word out of context?

No.

Only 1m 14s.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

What Krauss was effectively saying, and Degrasse Tyson from memory, is that areas that once were the domain of the philosopher, are now more the domain of the theoretical physicist.

I think I am saying the same, just in another way. I just wanted to point out that because of that philosophy is not useless: some of the best physicists are also good philosophers, when they are concerned with the basic problems of their discipline. (But not all...)