Scientific Forums


 

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


> Naturally Bad Philosophy, If it's not physics what is it?
rpenner
Posted: Jan 5 2007, 07:57 AM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5777
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


Some posters insist that they have relevant physical theories without submitting to the tyranny of past observations or physically realizable experiments or mathematical derivations. This is unfortunately not physics, nor any type of science. But what is it? It is not mathematics, which becomes clear when these posters become incensed when mathematical results are paraded before them.

I submit that it is philosophy, and should be judged as such. After all, the philosophy of Mach was an influence on Einstein. After all, the original name for the discipline which became physics was "natural philosophy."

But is it good philosophy? Is it carefully reasoned?

I submit that they are not carefully reasoned by the the following criteria for unconvincing proofs of a proposition, p, on the following pages:

http://consc.net/neh/proofs.html
QUOTE
3. It's completely implausible and a violation of common-sense intuition to think that not-p. Therefore p. [various]
4. p is a bold and controversial claim that shatters common-sense intuition. Therefore p. [various]
QUOTE
Goldman:
Several critics have put forward purported "counterexamples" to my thesis that p; but all of these critics have understood my thesis in a way that was clearly not intended, since I intended my thesis to have no counterexamples. Therefore p.

Plato:
SOCRATES: Is it not true that p?
GLAUCON: I agree.
CEPHALUS: It would seem so.
POLEMARCHUS: Necessarily.
THRASYMACHUS: Yes, Socrates.
ALCIBIADES: Certainly, Socrates.
PAUSANIAS: Quite so, if we are to be consistent.
ARISTOPHANES: Assuredly.
ERYXIMACHUS: The argument certainly points that way.
PHAEDO: By all means.
PHAEDRUS: What you say is true, Socrates.
QUOTE
Putnam:
Some philosophers have argued that not-p, on the grounds that q. It would be an interesting exercise to count all the fallacies in this "argument". (It's really awful, isn't it?) Therefore p.



--------------------
愛平兎仏主
"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:7
It's just good Netiquette. Failing that, Chlorpromazine.
Top
Imagination
Posted: Jan 5 2007, 08:15 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 679
Joined: 3-May 06

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -68


QUOTE (rpenner @ Jan 5 2007, 07:57 AM)
Some posters insist that they have relevant physical theories without submitting to the tyranny of past observations or physically realizable experiments or mathematical derivations. This is unfortunately not physics, nor any type of science. But what is it? It is not mathematics, which becomes clear when these posters become incensed when mathematical results are paraded before them.

I submit that it is philosophy, and should be judged as such. After all, the philosophy of Mach was an influence on Einstein. After all, the original name for the discipline which became physics was "natural philosophy."

But is it good philosophy? Is it carefully reasoned?

I submit that they are not carefully reasoned by the the following criteria for unconvincing proofs of a proposition, p, on the following pages:

http://consc.net/neh/proofs.html


http://consc.net/misc/moreproofs.html


http://consc.net/misc/proofs.html

I will 'submit' my own theory(but which others historically know very well):

Love/Passion/Emotion/Desire/Need(and some other hormones), 'cause' the universe of ideas.
We need to be consciousness first, and then we 'emote'.

Consciousness and Emote. They are the 'first cause' of 'Being'.

*Now with regard to philosophical, and physical, ideas that haven't 'equationed'..

'Nothing' would 'be' if we were to have to await your 'proofs'.
All requires what I mentioned above, plus(no pun) 'Imagination'.

Ask Einstein, he was a great dreamer.


--------------------
edit your signature:: "okay dokey".........'sig'
Top
kaneda
Posted: Jan 6 2007, 05:34 AM


Nothing is beyond question
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 5044
Joined: 6-November 06

Positive Feedback: 59.46%
Feedback Score: 4


rpenner. There is no IQ test or minimum qualifications level to post on this board. It is a forum for the discussion of science (and a few other subjects) at all levels. If someone comes up with something completely outrageous, then it is down to the better educated people here to point out why they believe they are wrong.

As to accepted physics:
The Big Bang is laughable wrong. Branes are for the brainless.
Dark energy. Some years ago, anti gravity was said to be impossible, and so the idiots then invent it.
Dark matter has a few vague associations to explain a material that is as real as fairy dust.
Superstrings. Evidence for these is pages of maths. Real world evidence is the same as for the existence of Santa Claus.
Higg's bosons said to hold everything together has as much evidence to support it as creationism.
Quantum computing is never going to work because it is like trying to build a house of cards in a strong wind. The components are too small.
The two slit experiment does not take into account that waves are divisible.
Evidence for other dimensions beyond 3 is....? Evidence that time is a dimension is....?
Evidence for gravitons is.....?
And so on.


When all accepted physics is based on hard facts rather than what people believe is so, then they can criticise the untested theories of others. Until then, a bit of mutual tolerance.


--------------------
pupamancur is : Rabbit, Dallas, LearmSceince, Gizmo, Gehn, Alpha, BenTheMan, LeTUOtter, Charles Lee Ray and probably others. So little time, so much hate to post.
Top
Confused2
Posted: Jan 7 2007, 02:59 PM


Retreating member
*****

Group: Validating
Posts: 4893
Joined: 8-November 05

Positive Feedback: 63.06%
Feedback Score: -43



Self-evidently physics is the study of The Dreaming ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreaming ).

So far, by general agreement, (rash assumption) we seem seem to uncovered Dreaming_Relativity, Dreaming_Quantum_Mechanics and Dreaming_Other_Stuff.

Dreaming_Physics need not be a part of the Nightmare of war. There is only one side. We are all on it and part of it (by definition).

Like most people (assumption) sometimes Dreaming_Confused2 interacts pretty well with the Dream (no proof offered) .. sometimes he doesn't (no proof required).

No offence intended to any party - living, dead or yet to be born.

-C2.


--------------------
Anything completed in less than twenty years is likely to be hurried and unsatisfying.
Top
tikay
Posted: Jan 8 2007, 08:07 AM


a bene placito
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 3834
Joined: 21-March 06

Positive Feedback: 75.26%
Feedback Score: 149


QUOTE (Confused2 @ Jan 7 2007, 07:59 AM)
Self-evidently physics is the study of The Dreaming ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreaming ).

So far, by general agreement, (rash assumption) we seem seem to uncovered Dreaming_Relativity, Dreaming_Quantum_Mechanics and Dreaming_Other_Stuff.

Dreaming_Physics need not be a part of the Nightmare of war. There is only one side. We are all on it and part of it (by definition).

Like most people (assumption) sometimes Dreaming_Confused2 interacts pretty well with the Dream (no proof offered) .. sometimes he doesn't (no proof required).

No offence intended to any party - living, dead or yet to be born.

-C2.

i love you C2 wub.gif


--------------------
Send a PM if you want my e-mail address. Miss You, people~
;~})
Top
Confused2
Posted: Jan 8 2007, 01:09 PM


Retreating member
*****

Group: Validating
Posts: 4893
Joined: 8-November 05

Positive Feedback: 63.06%
Feedback Score: -43


It might seem that my last post did not fully adress the OP about mathematics and experimental evidence .. I just fail to see how anyone could NOT want such things .. as much as possible, in fact.

It just shows there are some very strange people and some very strange ideas out there.

C2.

Tikay .. awwww .. so sweet, thank you. Best wishes .. you'll be back!



--------------------
Anything completed in less than twenty years is likely to be hurried and unsatisfying.
Top
rpenner
Posted: Jan 14 2007, 05:34 PM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5777
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


QUOTE (Imagination @ Jan 5 2007, 08:15 AM)
'Nothing' would 'be' if we were to have to await your 'proofs'.
All requires what I mentioned above, plus(no pun) 'Imagination'.
I'm not asking for proofs that equations describe reality. I do not believe such proofs are actually possible. What I am asking for is for people with new idea to state their core insights and explain how they relate those insights to their conclusions with something like logic. "Imagination" (or inspiration) is not enough for anything but poetry. Even the most basic (even fictional) prose requires thinking to connect the sentences in a flow of non-contradictory logic.
QUOTE (Imagination @ Jan 5 2007, 08:15 AM)
Ask Einstein, he was a great dreamer.
Perhaps, but it is unquestionable that he was a great thinker as well. Read his 1905 papers and see how he starts with simple things (observations of Brownian motion, behavior of the photoelectric effect, the postulates of SR) and derives complex or hidden things.
QUOTE (kaneda @ Jan 6 2007, 05:34 AM)
rpenner. There is no IQ test or minimum qualifications level to post on this board.
I believe the qualifications are posted on the Terms of Service link below. I will concede that there is no minimum standard of IQ or education or sanity or relevance to physics to posting on this forum. But I submit, not all posts are created equal nor are all ideas equally true.
QUOTE (kaneda @ Jan 6 2007, 05:34 AM)
It is a forum for the discussion of science (and a few other subjects) at all levels. If someone comes up with something completely outrageous, then it is down to the better educated people here to point out why they believe they are wrong.
It's often not even a matter of (formal) education. It's about being able to relate ideas about the physical world to observations of the physical world. It's about thinking about what types of relations are provable and which aren't provable.

QUOTE (kaneda @ Jan 6 2007, 05:34 AM)
As to accepted physics:
The Big Bang is laughable wrong. Branes are for the brainless.
Both of these "arguments" correspond to the vacuous reasoning of Putnam, cited above. Except Putnam said it better.
QUOTE (kaneda @ Jan 6 2007, 05:34 AM)
Dark energy. Some years ago, anti gravity was said to be impossible, and so the idiots then invent it.
Classically (non-quantum), anti-gravity is impossible. That's what impossible means: following the postulates of a theory (GR + PET) you get a theorem (no anti-gravity) as a result. If you discover a physical contradiction, it means you started from the wrong place and should try a different starting place (perhaps GR + QFT -- but there is no single theory of quantum gravity yet).
QUOTE (kaneda @ Jan 6 2007, 05:34 AM)

Dark matter has a few vague associations to explain a material that is as real as fairy dust.
I don't have a map of where to find fairy dust, but I do have a map to find dark matter, so dark matter is at least as real as fairy dust.
QUOTE (kaneda @ Jan 6 2007, 05:34 AM)
Superstrings. Evidence for these is pages of maths. Real world evidence is the same as for the existence of Santa Claus.
Math isn't evidence. No physicist says it is. Evidence is the existence of physical observations corresponding to quantum field theories and physical observations corresponding to gravity. But it's not unique evidence.
QUOTE (kaneda @ Jan 6 2007, 05:34 AM)
Higg's bosons said to hold everything together has as much evidence to support it as creationism.
Somewhat more evidence exists for the Higgs boson, the existence of which is physically compatible with thousands of precision experiments. The evidence for six-day creationism is actually negative as there are observations which are incompatible with this world-view. The fact that the sky is dark at night may contradict some versions of Vedic creationism, but I am no expert.
QUOTE (kaneda @ Jan 6 2007, 05:34 AM)
Quantum computing is never going to work because it is like trying to build a house of cards in a strong wind. The components are too small.
In your (unsupported or very weakly supported) opinion. "Impossible" has quite a narrow meaning in physics. To state something is impossible, you need to state your starting place a a physical theory and then prove that theory says it is impossible. You haven't done this, but said instead that there are substantial engineering hurdles.
QUOTE (kaneda @ Jan 6 2007, 05:34 AM)
The two slit experiment does not take into account that waves are divisible.
This is unclearly stated. All waves are spreadable and partitionable.
QUOTE (kaneda @ Jan 6 2007, 05:34 AM)
Evidence for other dimensions beyond 3 is....? Evidence that time is a dimension is....?
Time is unquestionably a degree of freedom in specifying physical events. While qualitatively different from North-South, East-West, it fulfills the physics requirements of a dimension. Note: Up-Down is qualitatively different than East-West, due to local conditions. Minkowski's geometry is fully compatible with modern concepts of time and space.
QUOTE (kaneda @ Jan 6 2007, 05:34 AM)
Evidence for gravitons is.....?
And so on.
Direct observation of gravitons is physically beyond the pale. As is the existence of VLF radio photons (I think). But all steps towards quantum gravity require gravitons.

QUOTE (kaneda @ Jan 6 2007, 05:34 AM)
When all accepted physics is based on hard facts rather than what people believe is so, then they can criticise the untested theories of others. Until then, a bit of mutual tolerance.
You confuse theoretical and experimental branches of physics. It is entirely possible to criticize either for a lack of logical thinking. It is also not possible to prove one with the other.


--------------------
愛平兎仏主
"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:7
It's just good Netiquette. Failing that, Chlorpromazine.
Top

Topic Options

Add reply Start new topic Start new poll


 

Terms of use