Jump to content

MSC

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by MSC

  1. 12 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

    Thanks MSC. Very much appreciated. But I shy away from any direct contact such as you suggest. I like to communicate by typing on my keyboard.    By that means, I can talk to intelligent, science-minded people such as yourself.  It's a real, genuine pleasure. But I can't carry this any further..

    Therefore, I'm going to shut down.  Best wishes.

    You're quite the strange one haha. Keep being strange. :)

  2. 3 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

    The picture is thought-provoking.  Doesn't it remind you of the network of billions of neurones in a human brain.  With synapses lighting up as thoughts flash through them.

    Could the Universe, with its billions of stars, be a Cosmic Brain?

    Been there, done that. Impossible to know from our perspective of our existential context. :( Maybe the religious people can flip the script and try and claim lifes purpose is to create god, not be created by god. 

    There are actually images of this being compared along side neuronal ones and it is interesting and thought provoking. 

    Btw, would you mind if I DM you a suggestion on how to purport yourself on here so that you have more impact? Just optional pointers.

  3. You've heard the expression; one mans trash is another mans treasure?

    Well, one persons utopia is anothers dystopia.

    I suppose the closest to objective utopia definition would be; can science produce a world that is physiologically and psychologically beneficial in all ways to life while not being maladaptive to anyone despite amy subjective objections to the world science creates?

    iNow would you like to answer to this definition or tell me what is wrong with it? It's probably what you'd describe as a Pragmatic definition of ethical utopia.

  4. 27 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    This Youtube video does a pretty good job of explaining what I could have been more clear on. You might like this.

     

    Really enjoyed this! Thank you for sharing.

    Isn't the scale of mass and Schwarzschild radius relative though? Let say you put me into an indestructible space craft and shrink me down to the size of a microbe and throw me into the accretion disk of a black hole. How would I perceive my orbit around that black hole and is it a terminal velocity that will one day see me gobbled up? What if I'm orbiting some other massive object in the same orbit of the black hole as me?

  5. 20 minutes ago, MigL said:

    Wouldn't account for the anomalies in galactic rotations

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

    If my hypothesis were correct, wouldn't that account for the anomalies in terms of closer proximity to SMBHs at the center of galaxies vs collosal BHs in the voids outside of them? 

    Let me ask another way; assuming a black hole from the early universe was able to keep being supplied with more mass, how big could it hypothetically be now? I thought black hole evaporation takes an extraordinarily long time and outlasts the lifespans of stars and galaxies? Is it even possible for any but the tiniest and most isolated to have evaporated yet? Considering how everything used to be much closer together the further back in time you go. 

    There is also a more anecdotal and emotional reason I ask. Everytime I look at the Bootes void or some other void I get the strangest feeling my eyes are being tricked, my hair stands on end and I get a shiver running down my spine. 

    Doesn't the Schwarzschild radius of a BH increase as it gobbles up more mass?

     

  6. 26 minutes ago, swansont said:

    And?

    Having some similarities or overlap doesn’t make them the same thing. They’re still different disciplines.

    I never said they were the same thing? 

    I was simply highlighting your point that science and philosophy are not the same thing, and expanding and clarifying to others that you didn't mean this meant there was no overlap, similarities and interdisciplinary approaches. Analytical philosophy for example can be fairly scientific in it's approach and there are areas of philosophy where experiments can be devised to strengthen arguments with scientific data. 

    I personally see the relationship between Science and Philosophy as symbiotic, mutually beneficial. The reason why relates to OPs thread.

    Could we be wrong about everything? Perhaps but I think not, I think we are probably right about some things, there are hurdles to us knowing what we know with complete certainty but I believe there are things to be objectively right about whether we know it or not. Due to the positive feedback loop between science and philosophy. 

    Good philosophy is stagnant without good premises with which to philosophise about.

    Good science is stagnant without novel and counterintuitive interpretations of the good logical premises it provides to excite the imagination of scientist and philosopher alike. 

    By some interpretations of what it means to be either, A scientist is a specialist natural philosopher. Some philosophers can be thought of as a type of metascientist that in some ways can function like a contructive critic or opposition to science. 

    The thing is, a lot of philosophers would disagree with that and it's one of the reasons I don't particularly get along well with most of the rest. 

    In terms of student development, I always preferred the concept-centric approach of science vs the person-centric approach of philosophy. I grew up wanting to be a physicist but stumbled onto philosophy after being rejected from a STEM course years ago based on a biology teachers opinion that I wouldn't be capable of obtaining a PhD. 

    This matters to the topic at hand in the following way; Yes, we might be wrong about some things, but there is every reason to have faith that we will figure that out together and be all the better for it. Due to tje diversity of problem solving methods being applied to existence through science and philosophy.

    Sure, they are different sports. That doesn't mean we can't root for the others team. :)

     

  7. 1 hour ago, joigus said:

    Black holes are very small in relation to their mass. 

    The whole Milky Way is somewhere between 100-200 thousand light years across. Yet its Schwarzschild radius is about 0.31 light years only.

    On the contrary, the accelerated expansion is only noticeable beyond the range of billions of light years. So black holes would never overcome expansion. The mass would have to be ridiculously big.

    You can do the comparison yourself.

     

    G=6.674×10−11N⋅m2/kg2

    c=3×108 ms-1

    1 light year = 3×108 ms-1 × 365×24×3600 s

    M = (1 billion light years)× c2 /2×G

    Somewhere around 6 × 1042 kg I think. 1030 Milky Ways... Ridiculous

    A million million million million million Milky Ways.

    No way.

     

    56 minutes ago, MigL said:

    As Joigus says, the gravity produced by a BH is no different than from any other equivalent mass.
    If expansion can overcome the gravity of galaxy clusters, it can similarly overcome the gravity of a BH composed of the masses of the equivalent number of stars in that galaxy cluster.

    There is no upper limit on BH size.
    There is only a limit to how much you can feed them.
    Once they 'eat' all close by mass via their accretion disc, they can't overcome farther out stable orbiting material, and stop growing.
    Direct collapse, however,without going through star lifetimes, is a totally different mechanism.

    A ridiculously big amount of mass and matter. 10^30...

    Know ye of such a large amount of matter, presently unaccounted for in observations save for gravitational and lensing effects on other matter?

    What would the scale of the accretion disk of such a monster be like?

  8. How do you help someone who seems to take every "funny" look and every word as a personal insult?

    How do you help someone who behaves as if all of reality was designed to hurt them personally and is always completely disgusted by it?

    How do you help someone who shouts at you for no reason but then comes down on you for "tone of voice" afterward?

    How do you help someone like that if they are your spouse and parent to your children? 

    How do you help someone who seems hell bent on self-sabotage and refuses to take their medication through endless excuses and who can only listen to anything constructive by making you admit to some fault that is actually an adaptively beneficial characteristic just so they can save face and listen to something that might actually make them feel better about themselves and others?

    How do you help someone who, if this is not done, throws eggshells over the ground by saying "I'm just evil" "I'm just shit" "You should just go and be with someone else already".

    How do you help someone who seems to sometimes show improvement but just comes collapsing down the moment a stranger grazes their person with their eyes?

    How do you help someone who thinks they have powers of discernment of peoples intents and character based on practically barely any interaction with them and how do you deal with the splitting afterword? Are they shit? Are they awesome? Make up your mind? 

    How do you help someone who really doesn't see how talking to anyone directly about any perceived problem will help and will actively stop you from trying to deal with things in an adult manner without assuming the other party did it to personally mess with you on the rare occasions it is actually something most reasonable people would bring up?

    How do you help someone who won't even let you speak to their therapist to share some of your concerns over behaviour that is tearing the person you love down everyday?

     

  9. Been having some wild speculative thoughts, but I want to cross examine them with guidance on this question. Depending on the answer, my thoughts may or may not be valid. If there is some kind of known and verified limit on this then my speculation means nothing. 

    So how large can a black hole potentially get? 

    What I'm imagining is a Colossus of a black hole, with a strong enough gravitational pull that all matter everywhere is destined to fall into it. 

    Can such a thing exist?

    Correction: Overcome Expansion? May have messed up the terminology a bit.

  10. 11 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

    Look MSC, the Mods created this site.  Why do you think they did that?  Was it to further the progress of Science.  Or was it  or another reason.  Such as expanding their own ego's?

     

    Oh! I never thought of it that way! For some inexplicable reason, I feel like perhaps you are the true leader science needs at this time. Teach us your ways please!

  11. 1 hour ago, swansont said:

    The court that decided in favor of Roe was right-leaning

    They would probably be called RINO by todays MAGA Republicans. 😕

    19 minutes ago, MigL said:

    Again, this is not about the merits of the decision, rather, about who makes it.

    If the American people want abortion rights, put it into law.
    The 'Constitutionaity' is decided by the electorate.
    It should NOT be decided by unelected, unaccountable judges.

    Would you have preference toward doing away with the supreme court or having any ruling made by the supreme court followed by a public referendum on the verdict?

  12. 1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

    Why?

    Because you'd be doubting all sense data about the external world including your thoughts, feelings, sensory data of your body. You'd doubt your own consciousness. 

    If scientific facts don't matter or aren't worth caring about, then you're a type of Skeptic. 

    However, it's a precarious situation to be in and a bit of a logic trap. Proving that the Cartesian Skeptics account of reality is true is only one side of it, proving you're a legitimate Cartesian Skeptic is the other side and is next to impossible.

  13. 26 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Human, and that’s only a crude summary, since there’s detail that “interpretation” doesn’t necessarily cover. Philosophy and religion are also interpretations of the universe, but these are not science.

    True, but in philosophy, especially if you're an empiricist, you have to pay attention to scientific facts. Philosophy and physics disagreements, justified disagreement, usually occur between fact and fact interpretation. Even then it's only really reviews of logic and semantics than any other branch of philosophy.

    A famous example; Interpretations of the theoretical Nothingness prior to inflation. 

  14. 2 hours ago, Orion1 said:

    Ideally, in the United States constitution, the political scientists "founders" constitutionally intended Supreme Court justices to be unbiased and "apolitcal" (not interested or involved in politics), hence the reasoning for the lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices that are not directly elected public officials and selected and installed only by the most representative areas in such a government.

    How effective has this been?

    2 hours ago, Orion1 said:

    Because the number is bound by statute, it would be federally illegal to "stack" the court to higher numbers solely for generating judicial bias for political gain regarding any existent de jure (by Right; according to law) legal precedent.

    I agree. Does this mean the only legal mandate is to balance the courts? Can the number of justices be legally reduced to create an even split? This would give justices more incentive to work together and compromise to find more collaborative interpretation more as a judicial entity as opposed to individual or partisan identity?

    2 hours ago, Orion1 said:

    In the United States, the constitutional validity of a legislative act derived by any state or federal form of government may be challenged by a process called "judicial review" or through a "writ of certiorari".

    Does this apply to legislative acts that impact the structure of the judiciary? Could a majority of justices block the addition of a new justice office? Deferring to you on this because you clearly know more than I do and I quite mean that. 

    2 hours ago, Orion1 said:

    The United States constitution is not "written in stone", it is in fact alterable and amendable, possibly although improbably even abolishable by its own intrinsic constitutional design. The constitution is intrinsically designed to be difficult to alter for any governing body without a representative majority.

     

    What sort of senate majority would a government need to alter the judiciary branch? US specifically.

  15. 7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

    We generally only want one post per topic, unless your opening post phrases the question very differently. However, I would even discourage that as we are a relatively small community and chances are the same folks will be joining the discussion anyway. Making two posts would just unnecessarily split the discussion.

    Fair enough.

    I can probably ask for both answer types on one thread anyway. The Physicist answer and the Philosopher answer. The philosophy of science answer... Seems like a silly question now considering the forum 😄

    Thanks for your time :)

  16. 1 hour ago, MigL said:

    The 'effect' produced does not vary linearly with the 'cause ?

    For example, tapping someone on the head may produce a mild headache.
    Tapping someone a little harder would produce a bigger headache.
    That is the linear response part.

    If however, you bang someone on the head really hard … they die.
    That is the non-linear part ,because the effect produced diverges drastically.

    Tis can also be explained in terms of mathematical functions, but it isn't as interesting.

    Interesting, I always thought it was suggesting a causal thread that ties into past and future events, and that all events or some events have multiple causes. 

    I imagine a future where I tap you on the head.

    I tap you on the head.

    The creator of the piano imagines a piano.

    The creator sketches and plans to build a piano.

    The creator makes the piano.

    Are you familiar with the Character Bran from GOT? I think this relates to the concept of Non-Linear time. 

  17. 22 minutes ago, MigL said:

    Wouldn't an unelected, unaccountable President be a dictator ? So why do we put up with judges doing it ?

    I agree. Term limits, peoples nominees.

    As things stand, it's not really the judges fault. Offer a man absolute power and it may corrupt him absolutely. The issue isn't the judges, it's what the constitution allows judges to do. 

    That's why amendments, if it's broke, fix it. 

    Another good example relates to free speech and social media. We can't reasonably expect the writers of the constitution to account for something like that, however they did leave language in there drawing attention to the idea of new technologies and advancements requiring constitutional laws to be amended. I forget where that is but I'll dig it up within a few days probably. 

     

    14 minutes ago, iNow said:

    I’ve not validated for myself, but always thought it was Churchill who said it 

    Perhaps, but irrelevant. We were talking about law interpretations, not law enforcement decisions. 

    True, this is about constitutional law too. The only variance in speed limit interpretation really is "did that sign back there say 40 or 30?".

    I'd still be pretty pissed though if a cop just followed me and fined me everytime I went 0.01mph over or under the speed limit of a given road. 

    16 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

    Judges on the other hand don't make the laws...or at least are not supposed to...

    I suppose that's the danger of logic as a fallible human tool. Depending on the law, the original framing, the history of how the law has been challenged in court, dictionary changes, the present times and personal/group biases. 

    All of these are fuel for a greater range of interpretation in the legal modality of a written law. Will a judge one day rule in favour of people being able to stockpile nuclear arms because "Right to bear arms" by interpreting the lack of definition of limits on what sort of arms, to mean all arms possibly imaginable?

     

  18. 10 minutes ago, iNow said:

    Speed limits 

    Zugzwang haha you've checkmated me in one move. Bravo.

    That being said... some thoughts do occur.

    Does that imply that there can be numbers and math involved in creating all types of law to create as MigL would say; "a proper law"?

    What if I'm going 2 miles over or under in a 30mph zone late at night, and depending on how each cop feels about the context of that, may or may not lead to my getting a ticket? 

    Good response though, speed limits are definitely one of the most variance of interpretation resistant types of code/ordinance/law there is. 

×
×
  • 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.