Brant Gaede Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Oh, you can separate them. You'll be left with ignorance. Put them together and you'll have the conceit of knowledge until the conceit is destroyed by the actual physics and a new conceit is born (made). The only salvation for this scientific vanity is making stuff that doesn't bump into the actual physics, whatever that really is. We commonly confuse the tentativeness of epistemology with the absolutism of metaphysics (physics) by mixing them up, which we have to do if we are scientists--I'm not--creating the current, dominant, conceit, which is Einsteinian physics. That may be a conceit that will never be invalidated and replaced, but it will always be a conceit.--Brantmetaphysics is not philosophical metaphysics which is what different philosophers say it is and who are all wrong unless it's a correct axiomatic statement ("A is A and . . . .")I said not one thing here that contradicted what Bob said above, however it might appear, for his separation and mine are not the same separations; his is one step higher while mine is more basic, only involving the axiomatic relationship, and insofar as I understand him I agree with his post, and the conceit of knowledge is my add on which he did not discuss and may object to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlashead Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 I suggest things CAN move faster than light. Light may be a hardly interacting particle, that when viewed on a greater scale is actually interacting most with other powerful objects perhaps outside of the visible universe, and since it's speed is so fast, we cannot measure discrepancies due to gigantically powerful force sources here's a thought experiment: you are traveling in space next to a source of energy that sucked into a converter which accelerates you. what happens when you get to that particle that accelerates you to or past the speed of light? if you don't accelerate to or past it (I forget which one is said to be the limit), haven't you broken the law of thermodynamics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 On 6/20/2015 at 11:20 AM, Brant Gaede said: Oh, you can separate them. You'll be left with ignorance. Put them together and you'll have the conceit of knowledge until the conceit is destroyed by the actual physics and a new conceit is born (made). The only salvation for this scientific vanity is making stuff that doesn't bump into the actual physics, whatever that really is. We commonly confuse the tentativeness of epistemology with the absolutism of metaphysics (physics) by mixing them up, which we have to do if we are scientists--I'm not--creating the current, dominant, conceit, which is Einsteinian physics. That may be a conceit that will never be invalidated and replaced, but it will always be a conceit. --Brant metaphysics is not philosophical metaphysics which is what different philosophers say it is and who are all wrong unless it's a correct axiomatic statement ("A is A and . . . .") I said not one thing here that contradicted what Bob said above, however it might appear, for his separation and mine are not the same separations; his is one step higher while mine is more basic, only involving the axiomatic relationship, and insofar as I understand him I agree with his post, and the conceit of knowledge is my add on which he did not discuss and may object to No objection. All theory is subject to verdict of fact. In physical science Facts Rule and Theories Serve (sometimes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now