Perhaps I phrased it badly.It is a fact that the circumference of the Earth is within 1000km of 40000km.
It is not a fact that the circumference of the Earth is 40000km.It is also a fact that the circumference of the Earth is within 1km of 40075km.
It is not a fact that the circumference of the Earth is 40075km.
(Assuming that those numbers are correct and that the actual circumference is the given 40075.17km +/- 0.01 km)Any scientist, in the formal paper describing these results, would make the first claim not the second.
Yes they would. I'ts fuzzy, and convenient. I'ts logically sound to say that object X is greater than Y and smaller than Z. But it's not a fact, it's already two facts
Fact 1 : X>Y
Fact 2 : X<Z
And a logical operator between the two propositions expressing the two facts X>Y AND X<Z
Maybe it's easier for technical reasons to approximate the fact X=X by two other facts like 1 and 2, does not mean there is no fact like X=X, only that it's difficult to measure.
This sort of a response really does back my opinion and its typical if not ubiquitous. It really is more akin to the response by an annoyed theologian than a scientist. When i questioned my physics professor about things going faster than light speed he was ecstatic to write back about how and why the surrounding ideas worked.
Did you say to him : hey, I'vo got a question, but wathever your awnser is, I won't buy it because physics is stupid and irrelevant? Maybe you would have seen an annoyed scientist.
And by difficult you mean impossible. More precision is always possible until you start hitting quantum indeterminacy effects and then you can't be precise. Literally there is no fact X=circumference of the earth. There are only successively closer approximations.More importantly though, it may be convenient but it's not at all fuzzy. Clearly stating the limitation of the measurement makes it less fuzzy, not more so.
Or are you trying to claim that the only facts are the actual real objects and that descriptions of them, even if true, are not facts? That's what you seemed to imply with "The measurement is not a fact, it's a measurement of a fact." But now you say X<Y would be a fact...
Technically impossible, yes. But Such a fact is still logically required by the theory, if only to distinguish between approximative measurement. You need to have X as a real fact in order to say measure 1 is better than measure 2. Measure 1 is better, because it's closer to X than 2. Without this fact, you would be unable to compare measures.
And please, quantum indeterminacy is irellevant at the mesoscopic scale. Granted, quantum theory needs counterfactual facts, and multiples universes to map them to, but there are facts nonetheless. David K. Lewis was the one to explain it. : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lewis-metaphysics/
X<Y is not a measure, it's a fact about a relation between two things, X and Y. Like saying X is north of Y. The relation (fact) is what make true your proposition.
Also, "fuzzy fact" is only a technical term to describe what you are talking about : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
Did you say to him : hey, I've got a question, but whatever your answer is, I won't buy it because physics is stupid and irrelevant? Maybe you would have seen an annoyed scientist.
The question was couldn't you break light speed by [insert different attempt here]
That wouldn't work because of x
How do you know x
We did this experiment ...
The thing is that the ultimate arbiter of science is reality. Philosophy doesn't have that trash can. You can have a beautiful, elegant idea that explains everything and in science you will take that idea and devise any possible means you can to crush it into a bloody pulp. The fact that an idea hasn't been crushed by an experiment yet proves its worthiness.
What you're telling me, based on your own authority, is nonsensical, unworkable, unproven, and unlivable. Science simply would not work as well as it does if it had to sit and contemplate its navel every time it tried to take a measurement. You measure the earth, you measure the angles to the stars, you make your conclusions as well as you can and move on.
Why on earth should I believe a philosopher of science rather than a scientist?
The thing is that the ultimate arbiter of science is reality. Philosophy doesn't have that trash can. You can have a beautiful, elegant idea that explains everything and in science you will take that idea and devise any possible means you can to crush it into a bloody pulp. The fact that an idea hasn't been crushed by an experiment yet proves its worthiness.What you're telling me, based on your own authority, is nonsensical, unworkable, unproven, and unlivable. Science simply would not work as well as it does if it had to sit and contemplate its navel every time it tried to take a measurement. You measure the earth, you measure the angles to the stars, you make your conclusions as well as you can and move on.
Why on earth should I believe a philosopher of science rather than a scientist?
The ultimate arbiter of philosophy is also reality. We do have this trash can.
Science does not have to "contemplate its navel", that is why someone must to do it : philosophy.
My own autority is established by two universities, and 6 years of teaching and research.
Take your mesurement all you want, and please, make your conclusions! I'll need them to see what we can learn about the relation between logic and reality. Seriously, we don't start by saying to scientists what to do, we take what they have and give something in return. So, through science, philosophy is as much empirical and as much about reality.
Once the menu of well-worked-out theories is before us, philosophy is a matter of opinion. Is that to say that there is no truth to be had? Or that the truth is of our own making, and different ones of us can make it differently? Not at all! If you say flatly that there is no god, and I say that there are countless gods but none of them are our worldmates, then it may be that neither of us is making any mistake of method. We may each be bringing our opinions to equilibrium in the most careful possible way, taking account of all the arguments, distinctions, and counterexamples. But one of us, at least, is making a mistake of fact. Which one is wrong depends on what there is.
The ultimate arbiter of philosophy is also reality. We do have this trash can.
And what philosophical ideas have been tossed out by reality?
Science does not have to "contemplate its navel", that is why someone must to do it : philosophy.
Like literary criticism I don't think it needs to be done.
My own autority is established by two universities, and 6 years of teaching and research.
In what field?
Take your mesurement all you want, and please, make your conclusions! I'll need them to see what we can learn about the relation between logic and reality. Seriously, we don't start by saying to scientists what to do, we take what they have and give something in return. So, through science, philosophy is as much empirical and as much about reality.
Why are you even a part of the process? Shoo!
Let me give you a question. Why do Domestic dogs have floppy ears?
Once the menu of well-worked-out theories is before us, philosophy is a matter of opinion. Is that to say that there is no truth to be had? Or that the truth is of our own making, and different ones of us can make it differently? Not at all! If you say flatly that there is no god, and I say that there are countless gods but none of them are our worldmates, then it may be that neither of us is making any mistake of method. We may each be bringing our opinions to equilibrium in the most careful possible way, taking account of all the...
Case in point: How long has that question been around and does philosophy have a definitive answer?
Why are you even a part of the process? Shoo!
Goodbye sir. I'll work with respectfull and interrested scientists. Fortunately, there are plenty. And with that attitude, I doubt you'll be able to be a respected member of the academic community. So keep trolling on forums.
Let me give you a question. Why do Domestic dogs have floppy ears?
Because the domestication process leads humans to select for less aggressive traits, and this coincidentally makes the animal (not just dogs) retain more infantile characteristics. Domestic dogs have floppy ears because puppies have floppy ears.
At least, if that Nova I watched was correct.
Let me give you a question. Why do Domestic dogs have floppy ears?Because the domestication process leads humans to select for less aggressive traits, and this coincidentally makes the animal (not just dogs) retain more infantile characteristics. Domestic dogs have floppy ears because puppies have floppy ears.
At least, if that Nova I watched was correct.
Ok, now answer that question using only facts as our resident badger defines them.
Goodbye sir. I'll work with respectfull and interrested scientists. Fortunately, there are plenty. And with that attitude, I doubt you'll be able to be a respected member of the academic community. So keep trolling on forums.
That question is pretty much the crux of the discussion. Why are you part of the process at all?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me give you a question. Why do Domestic dogs have floppy ears?Because the domestication process leads humans to select for less aggressive traits, and this coincidentally makes the animal (not just dogs) retain more infantile characteristics. Domestic dogs have floppy ears because puppies have floppy ears.
At least, if that Nova I watched was correct.
Ok, now answer that question using only facts as our resident badger defines them.
Goodbye sir. I'll work with respectfull and interrested scientists. Fortunately, there are plenty. And with that attitude, I doubt you'll be able to be a respected member of the academic community. So keep trolling on forums.That question is pretty much the crux of the discussion. Why are you part of the process at all?
Because without philosophy you would have no process. The scientific method is born out of the process of inductive reasoning, which is CORE to philosophical thought and was formalized by philosophers. Again, scientists ARE philosophers, so saying philosophy does nothing good you are saying science does nothing good and contradicting yourself.
Just because you refuse to admit to a positive definition of philosophy and stick with your own rhetorical definitions does not make your argument right.
Furthermore you are being belligerent, obnoxious, and dismissive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because without philosophy you would have no process. The scientific method is born out of the process of inductive reasoning, which is CORE to philosophical thought and was formalized by philosophers. Again, scientists ARE philosophers, so saying philosophy does nothing good you are saying science does nothing good and contradicting yourself.
Just because you refuse to admit to a positive definition of philosophy and stick with your own rhetorical definitions does not make your argument right.
Furthermore you are being belligerent, obnoxious, and dismissive.
Thanks man, but I would advise you to quit. Talking to this guy is like talking to a dogmatic religious person. He's just imprevious to reason. Don't waste your time.
Because without philosophy you would have no process. The scientific method is born out of the process of inductive reasoning, which is CORE to philosophical thought and was formalized by philosophers.
It was formalized into philosophical thought by philosophers for philosophers. So if you remove the philosophers from the equation what have you lost?
Again, scientists ARE philosophers, so saying philosophy does nothing good you are saying science does nothing good and contradicting yourself.
No, I'm not. Remember that philosophy is primarily speculative, not anything speculative.
In short I do not buy your assertion that scientists are philosophers. You're trying to make the definition far broader than it is.
Just because you refuse to admit to a positive definition of philosophy and stick with your own rhetorical definitions does not make your argument right.
Philosophy: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
Its not rhetorical. I got it out of the dictionary and encapsulates what i mean by philosophy.
Furthermore you are being belligerent, obnoxious, and dismissive.
I'm being honest, and he's being evasive.
You asked before what i meant about the arrogance of philosophy. The badgers providing a perfect example of trying to lord over and dictate scientific terms and methodology. He's not doing it incorrectly according to the philosophy of science, but i don't see whats belligerent about asking what is the point of doing it that way is.
WoW to much entusiams in this thread, this is paizo forum, there is no need to bee rude (for both side of the discusion)
Since i think i can trust you for an honest answer, what did i say that was rude?
WoW to much entusiams in this thread, this is paizo forum, there is no need to bee rude (for both side of the discusion)
And please, quantum indeterminacy is irellevant at the mesoscopic scale. Granted, quantum theory needs counterfactual facts, and multiples universes to map them to, but there are facts nonetheless. David K. Lewis was the one to explain it. : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lewis-metaphysics/
Do you know quatum mechanic? i do not try to make an ad hominen or to be disrespectful, is just that you make two problematic claims
1) Quatum efects can not be discarded in large scales so easily, there are macroscopic force due to quatum efects (cassimir efect). Also quantum entanglement can be the responsable of classical chaos. and more.
2)Multiple universe is a posibility, not a fact, not even a logical necessity
Oh, I know you are not being rude, or making an ad hominem. What I was trying to say is that the indeterminacy problem of measure (and not the entirety of quantum mechanics) is mostly irrelevant for the problem of measurement of a mesoscopic object like Earth.
Also, I know multiple universe is "only" a theory. I never claimed it was I fact. I claimed it was the best and most logically sound theory we had to make sense of a certain kind of facts (possibilias, captured by counterfactuals propositions) quantum mechanics have to deal with.
Like "its possible the cat is dead, and it's possible it's alive" are two counterfactuals propositions about possibilias (possibles facts) and the best logical theory we have right now, originated in modal logic and by Saul Kripke and Devid Lewis was known as the possible worlds theory.
I'ts the perfect example where you can't have an empirical awnser to a question (is the cat alive?) and have to turn to logic and philosophy to determine which theory is the better explanation of a fact you can't have a precise measure for.
I meant that even this problem of quantum mechanics does not change what a fact of a theory is. Fact is a verificactor of a measure or of a proposition, and the theory of possible worlds is there to explain you NEED a fact somewhere (even in another universe) for the science to be sound. It explains quantum indeterminacy not by saying there is no fact to be measured, because then the theory would collapse(pun intended), but by saying it's so damned important such a fact exist we need to postulate alternate universes if we are to make sense of the problem at all.
Again, it's a perfect (if somewhat more complicated) example of the difference between fact, measure, and theory. Even whan you can't mesure due to quantum indeterminacy, you still need a "possible fact" (and possible here only means actual in another universe) to make sense of the measure.
But hey, what do I know about science, right? I do do labs, so I must be totally stupid ;-)
1) Evolution is a theoritical construct about a set of established facts and able to make predictive claims about similar facts.
2) Evolution is a biological process still taking place today.
1 is a theory.
2 is a fact. This fact is a "big fact" outside the scope of practical verification. It can't be tested, not because it is not a fact (de jure), but because we lack the mean to observe evolution due to time constraint (de facto). Lets call this big fact a "derived" fact.
Not quite.
We can observe generational changes in traits in fruit flies, for example, on human time scales; and bacteria are even easier. That they evolve is fact: i.e., direct observation. The fossil record shows that this happens over longer time scales for other organisms as well, but even setting that aside, the claim that "evolution cannot be observed" is false.
The theory here is that the primary driving mechanism for evolution is natural selection, and that it works by acting on allele frequencies.
To have a meaningful discussion, we need to stop conflating evolution (that organism populations show shifts in traits over time: a fact, or rather series of observations) with modern synthesis theory (a well-tested explanation for why evolution occurs).
---
P.S. Notice I'm making no claims for or against the usefulness of philosophy. All I'm trying to do is clear up the sloppy use of language, and point out where a partial truth is being passed off as the whole truth.
WoW to much entusiams in this thread, this is paizo forum, there is no need to bee rude (for both side of the discusion)Since i think i can trust you for an honest answer, what did i say that was rude?
Telling someone to "Shoo!" is rude and dismissive at best.
Telling someone to "Shoo!" is rude and dismissive at best.
I was going for humor to lighten the mood *shrug*
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed!
I can't believe I missed the fun!
Removed a couple posts. Calling someone here a "big fat arrogant troll" is not cool. I know it's kind of traditional for philosophers to get drunk and have fist-fights, but this is not the place.
Yes, I'm sorry about that. But your own caricature is not very cool.
Long time ago philosophy pointed out the only fact that can be argued with logic: We know nothing and we can't know (Greeks, Descartes, Uncertainty principle, etc..)
Will ull due respect, no. It's like saying physics had only one Idea "hey, there is stuff!" My, the whole point of Descartes was to show we can be sure of at leat one thing in order to proove to the Chruch empirical and scientific truth was perfectly sound!
And that's the foundation of the Scientific method. To be honest I don't know what's philosophy good for nowadays, it has been fagocited by Physics and now gets fancy names like metaphysics (which is obviously claimed to be a kind of philosophy).
The important point being, you dont know. And sorry, but it shows. A fancy name lite metaphysics has been arout since Andronicus of Rhodes, around 60 BC. So it's certainly nothing new. Descartes main philosophical writing is called The Metaphysical meditations... please, try to inform yourself before posting.
But knowing existing philosophies is useful, shows the proper way to argue a complex point without waging a holly war, and teachs how to think out of the box.
At least, yes. But it's more usefull that that. We also tackle actual problems and propose actual solutions for science to test.
Whenever someone says "It's only a theory" it makes me cringe.
A law is no more valid than a theory. They're just labels.
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is a special case of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
Just like how the "Fundamental Theorem of Algebra" is neither fundamental, nor a theorem of algebra. It's just a name. That's all.
I will explain it in another way for the semantics guys:
When scientist (and some philosophers) say that you can't know for sure, they are saying that they can explain observable effects, but they can't guarantee that foreseen yet unobserved effects will happen, neither can they guarantee that the Universe doesn't implode tomorrow or that everyone isn't living in The Matrix.
This is how the philosophy of science crowd does it. The reality is that people studying aerodynamics will risk getting on a plane without fear that the laws of aerodynamics will suddenly change and cause the plane to plummet out of the sky.
Scientists really shouldn't be forced to talk like this.
Biologists will positively state that animals have evolved to... without launching onto a convoluted explanation or putting up 15 asterixes (asteri?) stating that this is true only if evolution is true , and evolution is true if the fossils are actually dead animals, and thats only true if the light being bounced off the fossils isn't being misdirected by our field mice overlords.
Science needs to move forward. You need to take knowns and use them to advance. If you hit something you can't explain by all means, question everything up to that point and try to work it out, but unless you have some overwhelming evidence its nonsensical if not insane to try to question everything without reason.
You have to draw a line somewhere and say "we're sure enough" or "thats as good as its going to get". That's a very hard thing to do objectively and philosophy doesn't handle it well.
Philosophers insist this is necessary... necessary to do what? Conform to philosophical standards that have done nothing to advance knowledge or understanding of anything but philosophy?
It's pointless and unworkable. It took 1800 years for people to figure out "I am" Exactly when should we be getting philosophical confirmation that eating arsenic isn't a great idea?
You are wrong, specially about science.To begin with, inform yourself about things like the Uncertainty principle and what it implies ( apart from some equations ) if you haven't yet. If you had, do it again. Then demonstrate beyond any doubt that we can know something for sure, Einstein died waiting for someone to do it, I would want to get the answer before I get old.
You totally missed my point. I never said we can know something for "sure" (and I find this term to be really foggy - certainty is a complex problem in itself). All I said is that even the uncertainty principle requires we know some facts about reality.
A lot of people seems to think quantum physics is a proof that we can't know nothing "sure" about reality. It's not true. I would say the same thing you said : inform yourself.
About science, in Science an idea is wrong until it proves correct in a context, and once that happens that idea is considered to be a temporal solution to a problem until somebody comes with a better explanation, because there is no way you can be sure that the current explanation works in every corner of the universe in every case. Only stupid scientist say "I hold the universal truth" or "What we know isn't questionable". The way the scientific method is handled specifically states that we can't know, we can just describe an event in certain conditions. Science says how the universe SEEMS to work, not why or how it actually works.
That is exactly what I wrote a couple of posts back. Please, read what I wrote before jumping to conclusions. My whole point was to say exactly that, and the distinction I made between fact and theory was aimed at showing WHY science is that way.
I will explain it in another way for the semantics guys:
When scientist (and some philosophers) say that you can't know for sure, they are saying that they can explain observable effects, but they can't guarantee that foreseen yet unobserved effects will happen, neither can they guarantee that the Universe doesn't implode tomorrow or that everyone isn't living in The Matrix. They are not saying that you can't describe an event. Obvious difference that I shouldn't be explaining to someone calling himself a philosopher....As I said Descartes explains it in a very simple but sistematic way (taking it mind that he was born in the XVI century) why you can't know for sure, I don't care that he was trying to find a way to demonstrate the existence of God or what you have to say in his name, he only mentions something similar god in one of the options he gives to explain the Universe (funny how some scientists today try to get God into science), and his way to approach the problem is absolutely correct.
That was not Descartes, that was Hume. He came with the explanation of causality as impossible to prove regularity. The whole argument of Descartes was to assert there is a undubitable truth. And you jumped from a discussion about the uncertainty principle to a discussion about universal truth and causation. Sure, shifting the discussion is a good way to tell the other he did not undertand you. Maybe it would not happens if you stayed on topic.
I also never said anything about Descarte's take on god. You are right to say for him, got is only a way to explain something. Not the existence of the universe, but the fact reason can apply to reality. God is an epistemic principle, not a ontological one for Descartes. Maybe you should read the Meditations again?
As for calling myself a philosopher. Seriously. I'm working in the field everyday, and I am a philosophy teacher.
What's your point aside from bashing me? Why do you think that it is claimed to be part of philosophy while others claim it to be science? Your info doesn't change the fact that for many scientists, metaphysics is just a part of physics today (i.e. not philosophy).
Seriously guys, relax a bit.
My point was not bashing you, only to show you what you though to be a new term was in fact a very old one. Correcting someone is not bashing him. But for a strange reason, seems only science guys can correct people, and all philosophers do is bashing, because, you know, they are just philosophers who knows nothing about nothing...
As for metaphysic being part of physics : it's exactly what I've been saying since the very beginning of this thread! Philosophy is an integral part of science.
The problem is that the line between science and philosophy is getting so thin that most people can't see it, when a scientist talks about physics he often enters in the terrain of philosophy too, and whoever who uses philosophy to address a problem related to physics is going to have a hard time doing that without actually doing science.
I can only thing about social sciences as one field of study where philosophy and science clearly don't overlap.
Again : that is exactly my point!
Yes, a philosopher can do that without knowing all about science. As a scientist can cleary use maths without knowing all about maths, and a scientist can do philosophy in his own field without knowing all about epistemology and ontology.
The philosopher will have a hard time, sure, that is why we do research and work a lot. Like a physicist works a lot in order to grasp maths, or ontology, or logic. It's not impossible, just difficult and takes years. I know, I do it every day.
They overlaps. Exactly my point.
This is how the philosophy of science crowd does it. The reality is that people studying aerodynamics will risk getting on a plane without fear that the laws of aerodynamics will suddenly change and cause the plane to plummet out of the sky.
Physicits who know there is a chance (really really tiny, but existing chance) that the plane's quantum wave will not collapse still take it. People goes on with their live for practical reasons. What's your point?
Science needs to move forward. You need to take knowns and use them to advance. If you hit something you can't explain by all means, question everything up to that point and try to work it out, but unless you have some overwhelming evidence its nonsensical if not insane to try to question everything without reason.You have to draw a line somewhere and say "we're sure enough" or "thats as good as its going to get". That's a very hard thing to do objectively and philosophy doesn't handle it well.
Yeah, I get it, you're a technocentrist guy.
Just know that if it was "good enough" we would still be living in caves. That was good enough for thousands of years.
Like it or not, your technological advances came from people (philosophers and scientists) who said : wait, we are not sure enough! Let's rework this!
I would like to agree with you, but I can´t, seems to me that philosophers did not do much stuff, at least good stuff
Like it or not, your technological advance came from people (philosophers and scientists) who said : wait, we are not sure enough! Let's rework this!
Mmmm. Ok, what about trying to explain nature in natural terms instead of religious terms? Philosohpy, 700 BC. The greek miracle.
What about the problem of understanding how a mind can have perception of the world - Leibniz, leaded him to infinetesimal calculus.
What about philsophical though experiments of modern philosophy (Descartes, Leibniz) about time and space - influenced Newton, and Einstein later. Leading to modern physics.
What about formal logic? You know, the principles behind computer sciences? Philosophy, around 1900.
What about the problem or relation between sytax and semantic? Philosophy, around 1950-1970. Huge advances in AI research.
What about modal logic and possible world ontology - still going on - now seriously considered to be one of the best explanation of quantum physics and leading to new way to understand the Big Bang? Still philosophy - Saul Kripke and David Lewis.
I mean, it just shows, no disrespect intended, you lack the historical knowledge to see what good stuff philosophers did.
Yes, there is also a lot of junk in philosophy. As there is in science. Only time and advances in technology will judge what the good ideas were and are.
Physicits who know there is a chance (really really tiny, but existing chance) that the plane's quantum wave will not collapse still take it. People goes on with their live for practical reasons. What's your point?
This is where equating the philosophy with the reality can get you in trouble. Schrodinger's cat is not actually both dead and alive, the observation doesn't actually cause the event, thats just an explanation for some of the things we haven't figured out yet.
Yeah, I get it, you're a technocentrist guy.
I'm fine with pure research... of reality. Philosophy is more about codifying things for itself.
Just know that if it was "good enough" we would still be living in caves. That was good enough for thousands of years.
Quite the opposite.
Og: Hey, I think i can make a cave outside.
Grolm: A cave outside? Are you sure?
Og: Well, I'm pretty sure if i lean a bunch of stuff against each other like a birds nest it will keep the rain off.
Grolm: But you can't KNOW it will work. Do you know why the branches won't fall through each other? Do you know whats holding them up? How do you know the hole thing won't collapse? Do you know...
Og: Keeps building.
Grolm .... "and Just because one branch stays up doesn't mean they all will"
Og: Hey Hut, what do you think we should call this thing?
Like it or not, your technological advances came from people (philosophers and scientists) who said : wait, we are not sure enough! Let's rework this!
Because they came accross something new or something old doesn't make sense, not because an impossible epistemic measuring stick wasn't reached.
|
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is mainly just what the spacetime between the pixels of reality look like. It is the digitized distance/framerate between pixels, and is a required consequence of being unable to define precisely where one ends and the next begins, because that requires a boundary smaller than the universe holds.
It is proof that there is no such actual thing as infinity within the confines of the universe.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is mainly just what the spacetime between the pixels of reality look like. It is the digitized distance/framerate between pixels, and is a required consequence of being unable to define precisely where one ends and the next begins, because that requires a boundary smaller than the universe holds.
It is proof that there is no such actual thing as infinity within the confines of the universe.
No, that would be Plank lenght, not the uncertainty principle.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, that would be Plank lenght, not the uncertainty principle.Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is mainly just what the spacetime between the pixels of reality look like. It is the digitized distance/framerate between pixels, and is a required consequence of being unable to define precisely where one ends and the next begins, because that requires a boundary smaller than the universe holds.
It is proof that there is no such actual thing as infinity within the confines of the universe.
It's both. The relation between distance and velocity must be quantized as well.
This is where equating the philosophy with the reality can get you in trouble. Schrodinger's cat is not actually both dead and alive, the observation doesn't actually cause the event, thats just an explanation for some of the things we haven't figured out yet.
No, it's not. As I've been saying a lot, the best framework now is possible worlds, not the psycological mumbo jumbo of observation having causation power. Heiseinberg was wrong (about that, mind you). He did bad philosophy. It got physics in bad discussions for over 50 years until philosophers made the point this was stupid, leading to the alternate universe theory now widely accepted as the best we have. (in competition with Feynman's)
Good example of a fruitfull philosophical rework of bad philosophy done by scientists, thanks!
It's both. The relation between distance and velocity must be quantized as well.No, that would be Plank lenght, not the uncertainty principle.Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is mainly just what the spacetime between the pixels of reality look like. It is the digitized distance/framerate between pixels, and is a required consequence of being unable to define precisely where one ends and the next begins, because that requires a boundary smaller than the universe holds.
It is proof that there is no such actual thing as infinity within the confines of the universe.
In that sense you are right.
But, has I understand it, it's an indirect application of the uncertainty principle, not a direct conclusion. Meaning that is not what the principle is about, directly, and it's not only about that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's both. The relation between distance and velocity must be quantized as well.No, that would be Plank lenght, not the uncertainty principle.Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is mainly just what the spacetime between the pixels of reality look like. It is the digitized distance/framerate between pixels, and is a required consequence of being unable to define precisely where one ends and the next begins, because that requires a boundary smaller than the universe holds.
It is proof that there is no such actual thing as infinity within the confines of the universe.
In that sense you are right.
But, has I understand it, it's an indirect application of the uncertainty principle, not a direct conclusion. Meaning that is not what the principle is about, directly, and it's not only about that.
Indirect and direct are functions of trying to prove a point, and not extant independent of argument. The principle might not only be about the quantization of spacetime relations, but it is accurately about them, among other things.
Now, this by the other hand, just seems so presumptuous, widely accepted by who?
According to those guys : The Grand Design
I believe what they say when they judge it's widely accepted by physicists.
Oh, and about Philosophy, Lewis and quantum theory : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/
Indirect and direct are functions of trying to prove a point, and not extant independent of argument. The principle might not only be about the quantization of spacetime relations, but it is accurately about them, among other things.It's both. The relation between distance and velocity must be quantized as well.No, that would be Plank lenght, not the uncertainty principle.Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is mainly just what the spacetime between the pixels of reality look like. It is the digitized distance/framerate between pixels, and is a required consequence of being unable to define precisely where one ends and the next begins, because that requires a boundary smaller than the universe holds.
It is proof that there is no such actual thing as infinity within the confines of the universe.
In that sense you are right.
But, has I understand it, it's an indirect application of the uncertainty principle, not a direct conclusion. Meaning that is not what the principle is about, directly, and it's not only about that.
The "mainly just" clause of your first statement was misleading. I agree with you on everything else.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is mainly just what the spacetime between the pixels of reality look like. It is the digitized distance/framerate between pixels, and is a required consequence of being unable to define precisely where one ends and the next begins, because that requires a boundary smaller than the universe holds.
It is proof that there is no such actual thing as infinity within the confines of the universe.
How is the uncertainty principle proof that there is "no actual thing as infinity within the confines of the universe"?
The uncertainty principle just states that we cannot simultaneously measure the eigenvalues of operators which do not commute.
Now, this by the other hand, just seems so presumptuous, widely accepted by who?
According to those guys : The Grand Design
I believe what they say when they judge it's widely accepted by physicists.
To my knoledge, no is not.
Hawking came to the many worlds, to solve the problem of information and black holes. In fact he have recived a lot of criticism for that.
Surely that thory will have it fans but, say that is widely aceptes is too much
I'm not a Hawking's fan myself. But Brian Greene also state so in his last book.
I know the possible worlds is competing against other interpretations, like Feynman's.
"Widely accepted" does not mean there is no other theories aroud, or that it is conclusive. Widely accepted as a possible explanation, as a good hypothesis worth testing is what I meant.
That is why I gave it as an example of a work in progress. Philosophers are still testing the logical soundness and ontological value of this theory, and I'm sure physicists, fans or not, are trying to find a way to conclude about it.
No, it's not. As I've been saying a lot, the best framework now is possible worlds,
Does possible worlds have a different name in physics? I don't want to get it mixed up with the many worlds interpretation if they're not the same thing. Not to mention the interpretation of many worlds, the many worlds of judea or the judean's many worlds.
not the psycological mumbo jumbo of observation having causation power. Heiseinberg was wrong (about that, mind you). He did bad philosophy. It got physics in bad discussions for over 50 years until philosophers made the point this was stupid, leading to the alternate universe theory now widely accepted as the best we have. (in competition with Feynman's)
Philosophers make the point that everything is stupid.