Jump to content

MSC

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by MSC

  1. 1 minute ago, swansont said:

    To follow up on this, the philosophy section has just under 29,000 posts. Physics, chemistry, biology, medical science and mathematics all have more. By a lot, in most cases. That’s one of the reasons they are broken down.

    Also because we’re a science discussion forum. We include philosophy (and other topics) because there is a natural spill-over in discussions. But the primary focus is science.

    The primary focus can't be science if there is no logic. Without logic, no science. 

    3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    Yes, but the rest of us understand how being harsh while trying to persuade is a failed tactic

    Tell that to Swansont.

  2. 4 minutes ago, studiot said:

    Also have you looked at some past threads on logic here in the forums ?

    I would but there is no section for it all to be found.

    Why should I have to promote logic at all? It's a field of study you can take a class in at most University's and you can get degrees in it. It's important. It's not my job to explain the reality of that to others who allegedly went to university.

    Just so you're all aware, I could have 1000 downvotes and still not give a shit. They aren't real communication and half the reason they are programmed into anywhere is to make the screen more addictive. "Oh yay I got an upvote, free dopamine!" "Oh no I got a downvote from a stranger, I must have been bad boohoo." 

     

    So yeah, downvote away. I couldn't give less of a shit. It's the go to response for people who have no good response.

    Quote

    Over the past two centuries the field of logic has developed at an explosive pace into new areas far removed from the traditional syllogism and formal proof. The purpose of this well-known introductory treatment is to chart, clearly and lucidly, this new domain of today's vastly sophisticated logic. Author Morris R. Cohen explores "the periphery of logic, the relations of logic to the rest of the universe, the philosophical presuppositions which give logic its meaning, and the applications which give it importance."
    Beginning with an exploration of the traditional scope of logic as the medium of formal proofs, the text pursues a modern investigation of the relationship between logic and the mind, logic and speech, logic in metaphor and fiction―and most significantly, logic and the concept of abstract reasoning as applied to the empirical world. Additional topics include logic and statistical method, probability, and scientific models. Concise and highly readable, this volume is suitable for college undergraduates and other readers interested in logic. 

     

  3. 18 minutes ago, MigL said:

    The 5 year old black kid that MSC mentions, might have a chance at an education IF his dad was home to encourage him.
    If his dad was home, he might not be on his own most of the time, and might not have to drop out to get a job, or worse , join a gang.

    Why do you assume it's because his dad isn't on the scene? You do realise most black fathers aren't leaving. It's a vicious stereotype that needs to stop. It's not like there aren't absent white fathers too.

  4. 3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    My friend, your signal to noise ratio is WAAAAY off. I think you need to take a break for a while, and think about your behavior towards a volunteer staff of people looking to share science knowledge. Your behavior behind the scenes is equally appalling. Please, everyone is frazzled at the present, and nobody needs you adding to the stress load. 

    Yeah, my behaviour is clearly the problem. Only asking for my field to not be denigrated and insulted. Clearly I'm bang out of order. 

    Projections are a pound a piece here it seems. It's not like I'm not also stressed. 

  5. 14 minutes ago, MigL said:

    the worst ones are of our own making.

    Our own making. Collectively or as individuals? 

    A number of pragmatic theories of ethics highlight that in terms of blame, Society is the object of moral responsibility and is far more deserving of moral condemnation than any individual who happens to randomly be born into it, without any say in the matter or any say in how society treats them for things beyond their control. 

    It's all very well to say that individuals have to do more to contribute to our moral ecology, but institutions have far more power to do this than any one individual can and many actively try to uphold a maladaptive status quo that harms our moral ecology and life as a whole. Why? Because money is God. People are expendable if there is enough money in it for institutions.

    One of the hurdles to getting a degree in ethics for example; is the desire of the ethical student to have an ethical teacher. How can he have an ethical teacher when his teacher props up a system of inequality and coercive manipulation? A system that uses people up and milks them for all they are worth. A system that has the audacity to talk about Free education as a good idea while it puts all mention of it behind a paywall so that only those who have proven themselves worthy by buying into it, can read it only to see it as a joke because why would they need free education when they've already paid for it?

    17 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    That all being said, an inquisitive mind with willingness to learn is clearly an important element. At the same time, I do understand that this in itself is a luxury that not everyone can afford. 

    In my experience this is something every child has, not everyone allows children to keep it though. 

    I can only afford this luxury because I refused to listen to anyone who said I should give it up since I was never going to be able to "Make money like that." I wanted to go on to study physics at University but all the adults in my life at the time, said it would be a waste of time and money and that I should just settle for joining the army so I could "stay out of prison."

  6. 5 minutes ago, MigL said:

    Why is it always barriers imposed by, or the fault of society, when someone fails ?
    What part does personal responsibility play in this ?

    Markus Hanke taught himself GR ( and many other aspects of Physical Science ).
    It was not provided for him, but he wanted it and he got it.
    Barriers did not hinder him.

    You, yourself, have displayed a questioning attitude.
    One of the best ways to learn about things you know little about.
    Yet others come here with the attitude that what little knowledge they have , is all there is.
    They ask no questions, but make conjectures and proclaim results which more learned members quickly dismiss.
    And yet their attitude, not barriers, allows them to double down and insist they are right ( until they are banned ).

    A good attitude, and a willingness to learn, go a long way in these days of internet access and on-line courses.

    Differences between moral and causal responsibility. 

    Would you say this to a five year old black kid, who's teachers have point blank said to him to give up on his dreams? Does the five year old black kid need to take personal responsibility for his failure there? Is it even his failure? Or should he just be put through it all and left to figure out at 30 that his teacher was talking shit?

    Responsibility cuts both ways. A good attitude and a willingness to learn gets you nowhere when it comes to career prospects and getting around other peoples prejudices and biases. It is not a failure of the victim that they are victimised by others. Victim blaming BS. 

    As for the people without a questioning attitude and a desire for some kind of positive attention, they seek what they have lacked their whole lives. They seek what was taken from them in childhood and excluding and isolating them DOES NOT HELP. 

  7. On 10/8/2020 at 8:26 PM, MSC said:

    Why is there no forum for Meta-ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, logic, aesthetics or Phenomenology in the philosophy section?

    Trying to drum up interest in these fields.

    Focussing on Logic.

    Is there a good reason why Logic should NOT be added to the forum? One that isn't based on whether or not people show an interest. Lot's of people have no interest in mathematics in their daily lives yet it's still important. Same is true of logic, especially when there are clear misunderstandings of what logic is and how it is used, being shared on the forum. Which makes it impossible for logicians to take things seriously.

  8. What are some of the barriers to providing equal opportunity to every one, within academia?

    Seeing a lot of ignorant and entitled posting lately, which doesn't even make a point to address this.

    It's a shame really, a lot of discouraging and disparaging comments being made about people, who through no fault of their own, simply are not offered the sort of education their disparagers have allegedly had and have no means of getting it.

  9. On 9/20/2013 at 8:03 AM, ydoaPs said:

    The title is a common view among crackpots. They often think that the ability to imagine something means that the universe might actually be that way or could have been that way were things differently. To use philosophy words, they often think that conceivability means epistemic or metaphysical possibility. But, the question is, is that true?

     

    To find that out, we need to find something that is conceivable but is impossible. For the first sense of possibility, (how things might actually be), that is incredibly easy. All we have to do is find something that is conceivable but not the case. Have you ever been wrong about something? If you have, you've shown that conceivability does not mean epistemic possibility.

     

    The second one is a bit harder, since there's disagreement on the exact requirements of what makes something metaphysically possible, but we do know that for something to be metaphysically possible, it must also be logically possible. That is, were things different, an accurate description of the universe still wouldn't entail a contradiction.

     

    So, we can knock this out by finding something which is conceivable, yet logically impossible. Can we imagine things which are contradictions? You might be tempted to say "No one can imagine a square circle!". But I'd like to talk about one which almost everyone intuitively conceives.

     

    People intuitively like to group things. It's how we make sense of the world. We have apples, chairs, etc. All you have to do is put things together and you have a group. In mathematics, we call these kind of groupings 'sets'. The things in these groups are called "members". Any group of members of a set is called a "subset". This does mean that all sets are subsets of themselves, but that's not of interest to us here. What we're interested in is the idea that you can group whatever you want into a set. You can make sets of sets. You can take your set of cats and your set of dogs and put them together into a new set!

     

    So, let's take a look at a specific set: the set of all sets which are not members of themselves. The set of all cats is not a member of the set of all cats-it's a set of cats, not of sets! So, it goes in! Likewise, any set consisting of no sets will go in this set of all sets which are not members of themselves.

     

    So, we pose a question: Is this set of all sets which are not members of themselves (from here on out, we'll call it 'R') a member of itself? If R is a member of R, then it fails to meet the requirements to be in R, so it isn't a member of R. That's a contradiction, so that's no good. That means R must not be a member of itself. But what happens if R is a member of itself? If R is a member of itself, it meets the requirement to be in R. Since R is the set of ALL sets meeting this requirements, it goes in. Again we have R both being a member of itself and not being a member of itself. So, either way, we get a contradiction. This means something is logically impossible. But we got this result simply from the definitions of sets and members and from the very conceivable idea that you can group whatever you want together.

     

    This is a situation in which something is conceivable, but logically impossible. This means it is not the case that whatever you can imagine is possible. Crackpots, take note: the fact that you can imagine something in no way implies that it is possible. It doesn't matter how clear your perpetual motion device/unified theory/God/electric universe is, imagining it doesn't cut the mustard. This is one of the reasons you NEED the math.

    Palpable entitlement and privilege.

    You also use "logically" impossible/possible incorrectly. Which is ironic considering the mention of Math.

    Seriously moderators can we have a logic section already so people can stop misusing the tool of logic like this? I can't even engage with this seriously due to this complete misunderstanding of what logic is. 

    Basic logic skills are in serious need of overhaul in this post.

  10. On 7/17/2020 at 11:16 AM, Justin2 said:

    Memorize the spelling,then the meaning in your language.

    Why don't you just decorate your classroom with the relevant data and formulas? My highschool math teacher had "Pi = 3.14" on the wall among countless other aids.

    Then your memory of those things just gets better every time you are in the space.

  11. 1 hour ago, Saiyan300Warrior said:

     

    It worked for me, I was locked up in a psychward and couldn't see my family for days and it was involuntary. I self reflected on my life and the future and from there I gained more focus on the things that mattered most in life like family because I have a decent one. If you love him and you wanna get your hands dirty then force him to change. He's an adult now a lifetime of experience and habits is set in him, only thing you can do is like how they do to slaves beat it into them but in a nice way. In other words force him to change ,people be like but that's not right , we'll look my brothers and sisters why do you think people have wars, it's because they using force to change what they wanna see... 

    I appreciate the sentiment and the help. My partner is actually a woman and I'd never ever have them committed to an environment where I don't know if I can trust the staff. 

    There are other ways for allowing deep self reflection to occur. 

    Without getting in to the specifics, a trump move last month has my partners work sector having to work massive amounts of overtime because of the empty love bombing move of the administration in the run up to the election. She is also pregnant so the initial event that proceeded my creating this thread may also be hormonal in nature, contributing to the scale of the argument. My work load has been increased by the same trump move so I've been pretty stressed lately. This all also coincided with a critical stage in my work, which relates to my discussions with scientists on the forum. 

    I'd have probably disagreed with your forced commitment. I believe the best change for an individual has to come through empowerment to change, not force to change. Especially where power dynamics themselves are part of the problem.

  12. 8 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    Well, the first thing is for the one writing this list to have it double-checked with someone else, ideally a professional. It is easy to project assumptions and perceptions on another person which then will clash with the experience and feelings of that person. If the person is already in therapy, asking for a couple therapy session might help. 

    Thank you, couples therapy is something that has now been broached and accepted as constructive by both parties. 

    Thanks for not echo chambering and being impartial too. 

  13. 10 hours ago, md65536 said:

    The thread's question needs interpretation, and I might be interpreting it differently than others. I think that what you're asking is how much mass you would need to make everything in the universe gravitationally bound to it, despite the current rate of expansion.

    If I'm thinking about it right, any constant rate of expansion will result in a constant-size cosmic horizon, beyond which it is impossible for matter to be gravitationally bound across that distance. The reason is that the matter would have to be falling in faster than the speed of light, to overcome the expansion of space between it and the mass. The horizon is determined by expansion alone, so making a more massive BH won't help... except...

    If you had matter right on the cosmic horizon, you'd need to basically have it falling in at a speed of c to overcome expansion. That would imply a BH with an event horizon at the same radius as the cosmic horizon??? (assuming Schwarzschild BH) But then, if you had a BH even close to that size, matter on the cosmic horizon would be a lot closer to it than if it were a point mass, so wouldn't it fall in anyway? Or does it work out that the gravitational influence of a BH is still the same as if it were a point mass?

    This seems really weird, because even if we completely ignore expansion for a moment, wouldn't this mean that the gravitational influence of a BH is roughly proportional to 1/r^2, while the mass is proportional to 1/r, no matter how big it is? That seems to imply that if you could have a BH of unlimited mass, you could make it so that the Schwarzschild radius is so large that an object outside it is so extremely far away from the center of the BH that the gravitational acceleration is small, even if it is near the horizon. Am I thinking about this correctly? How would an infalling observer describe the BH? It seems that the event horizon (a lightlike surface) would still pass by it at the speed of light, despite minimal acceleration. Meanwhile it seems like another observer, hovering farther away, outside the horizon, could easily avoid falling in, and see that same event horizon as stationary. Where's the error in my thinking?

     

    Back to expansion, would it even make sense to talk about a constant rate of expansion of spacetime, in a volume that is entirely occupied by a massive BH? The BH curves the spacetime so extremely that the volume inside the horizon is not a part of the same spacetime outside??? Does curved spacetime expand the same as flat spacetime? Would a volume containing a large BH expand the same as a volume of empty space?

    This is quite a charitable interpretation of my question and I'd like to thank you for altering some of the parameters of it so that it actually made sense. 

    I'm glad people are aware that I am only dealing in complete hypotheticals for the sake of testing how my imagination is trying to explain to me how gravity, expansion, BHs and Dark matter all fit together in the same universe. Since I don't know how to use Math to do it. 

    Rolled up in my question when I read back on your reply, is a thought. Why are things expanding more rapidly than most models can account for? What is missing from the models to explain this? The only thing that makes any sense to me is unknown sources of gravity that we aren't seeing. The only explanation my mathematically uneducated brain can conceive of is that Dark matter is responsible. So how could dark matter have a gravitational force powerful enough to explain the rate of expansion and why the rate of expansion is sometimes described as not uniform based on variance in expansion rates when we look at the behaviour of different galaxies? 

    We often hear people say that Dark Matter doesn't interact with regular matter, does that mean it doesn't interact with itself either or can dark matter clump together the way regular matter can? If so, why couldn't it also form black holes? 

    Thank you for everyone's patience with my questions. I'm doing my best to try to keep up and I apologise in advance for any ignorant questions I may ask.

     

     

    4 hours ago, joigus said:

    Not enough in the visible universe. You would have to go beyond the cosmic horizon (3-odd billion light years away) and pick up a lot that was lost when the universe was inflating more than a 3-odd billion years ago. And that's impossible.

    We suspect lots and lots of matter to have been lost forever beyond the cosmic horizon.

    Other users are suggesting different ways of understanding your question, though. That's interesting.

    Black holes are usually associated with very intense gravitational fields, but that's because they are behind their horizons; they are extremely compressed. But as pointed out by MigL, the outer field at a distance far enough away is indistinguishable from the field of any other source of the same mass.

    Be aware though, that the farther away you go, the more intense is the effect of energy vacuum, and the feebler is the "source effect" one. So you would never be able to compensate by accreting local mass. I hope the argument is clear.

    They pull, not only in different directions, but with opposite varying tendencies depending on the distance.

    I think that's key to  say; no, it would not be possible.

    Still IOW, you're trying to compensate for k'r with a -k/r2 by playing with k. There will always be a distance r such that your "compensation" breaks down.

    I'm doing what now? I'll have to take your word that the math of what I'm doing is explainable that way. Thank you for your patience.

    I'm unfamiliar with the term "Energy Vacuum." Looking up now! Thank you for the guidance. :)

  14. 3 hours ago, swansont said:

    And yet you gave an example of similarities, which is pointless as a rebuttal of my statement, and also does not buttress my statement.

    It only makes sense to make that observation if you are trying to say that philosophy and science are pretty much the same thing. Unless the point was to just go off-topic. 

    The point is to answer OPs questions in the general philosophy section of this forum. The point is to collaborate to do that. 

    I'm not trying to reject your statement that they aren't the same thing. 

    I'm sorry for upsetting you. 

    I really don't think your second statement is fair either. Why would I want to take us off topic? Why are you taking me out of context and ignoring the parts where I explain why this is pertinent to the topic of the thread?

    Really confused.

  15. 1 hour ago, MigL said:

    However, when the Sun is compressed past its Schwarzschild radius,    2GMsun/c^2 , or about 6 km across, it is enclosed by an event horizon, which means that, for the mass of the sun, a 3 km radial separation requires an escape velocity faster than the speed of light.

     

    1 hour ago, MigL said:

    Yes, mass is directly proportional to Schwarzschild radius, but I'm not sure I follow or understand the rest of your questions.
    Please re-phrase or clarify.

    So the only way in this scenario for the earth to fall into our sun, turned BH, is if the earth is within 3 km radial separation of the event horizon or for the mass of the BH to increase so that the required radial separation to stop escape velocity also increases? Or is it always 3km no matter how much the mass of the BH increases? 

    Maybe the more appropriate way to ask my original questions; how would the universe look differently to how it does now, if the mass attributed to dark matter was to be found in unknown collosal black holes found in voids in the cosmic web? Would our galaxy have even formed? 

    In the wikipedia you sent me in the other thread, it said the image on the right was what a galaxy spiral might look without taking into account the effects of dark matter and the one on the right was taking into account the effects of dark matter. What would it look like if the gravitational effects of dark matter were attributable to galaxy external collosal black holes? All around. 

    If my questions are still unclear I can only apologise. When I can find the time I'll track down the key readings that all kind of led me to this hypothesis, but this isn't my formal area of expertise at all. I'll probably have to learn a lot more to either ask what I need to ask or figure out for myself if my hypothesis is impossible.

    Thank you for your patience, I'm learning a lot from you and others here but there are probably explanatory gaps that are hard to overcome without my having more experience and knowledge of physics and mathematics.

    Edit: By the way I don't buy or jump to complete faith in any hypothesis I think of, I'm not afraid to look foolish if I ask what appears to be a dumb or ignorant question. I've even got questions about a counter hypothesis that Dark Matter is Anti-Matter but I think the good thing about trying to be creative is that you can learn a lot about how things actually are when the hypothesis is shot down.

  16. 7 minutes ago, MigL said:

    How exactly ???
    I suggest reading the link provided ...

    "The rotational/orbital speeds of galaxies/stars do not follow the rules found in other orbital systems such as stars/planets and planets/moons that have most of their mass at the centre."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

    I did, but I'm probably just not understanding it, even after my second read through just now it's still a little head crunchy. The MOND thing being non relativistic sounds confusing to me and I'll probably need to follow up on those relativistic ones. 

    I guess what I'm asking now is, Why don't they follow the rules?

×
×
  • 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.