APS and the Global Warming Scam

[BaalChatzaf]

7 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Okay, but why didn't other people have this notion? Was his metaphysics so dominant in his day? And prior?--Cro-Mag man had been around and about 40,000 years and building cities for 10,000.

--Brant

Cities for 10,000 years lit up at night by electricity  for only 150 years. All beginnings are hard.....

The story of progress --- low hanging fruit gets picked first. 

[anthony]

"Low hanging fruit" is apt, but for advances in science, not for metaphysics. Proper metaphysics will take into account the tree and the entire forest, I believe.;)

Thank you for your long explanation, Bob. I'm amused that it is always Aristotle's scientific errors which you inveigh (as if he should have known better). 

All in all you only confirm my sense that science and scientists have for long arrogated to themselves what is the preserve of metaphysics. It has to be the fault of that strange hybrid, "philosophy of science", brought about I suspect by scientists chafing at the bit for being subordinate to metaphysicians - and so we've arrived at the primacy of science, in all fields.

Science is a discipline, and only that.  "What is *there*?" and "How do we know?" - an identity metaphysics and an objective epistemology - pre-empt and precede scientific disciplines i.e.: "What do we know about 'what is there'?" -- I reckon.

I'm broadly suggesting that Climate Science is starting to show its limitations and scientists have no idea where to turn next, because it has no philosophical base. The endless collection of data only piles up, momentarily validating this or disproving that - ad infinitum. So scientists are reduced to rationalistic speculations with "climate models", reminiscent of the Wiki article I posted earlier:

"The weaker [theory of metaphysics] more modern view assumes that the objects studied by metaphysics exist inside the mind of the observer, so the subject becomes a form of introspection and conceptual analysis". (Primacy of consciousness, Objectivists call that).

Overdue now I think is a "Climate Philosophy": A system of climate metaphysics, climate epistemology, climate ethics and climate politics (which is, preferably non-politics).

[BaalChatzaf]

1 minute ago, anthony said:

"Low hanging fruit" is apt, but for advances in science, not for metaphysics. Proper metaphysics will take into account the tree and the entire forest, I believe.;)preferably non-politics).

"Proper metaphysics"  held up physical science for over a thousand years.  That is why most physical scientists do not even say the word.  They sort of spit out the word.  Metaphysics  (either Platonic or Aristotelian or Cartesian)  has been an impediment to physical science.  Even today, our study of mind is still burdened with Descartes   dualism and his notion of non-physical substances. 

[BaalChatzaf]

7 minutes ago, anthony said:

"Low hanging fruit" is apt, but for advances in science, not for metaphysics. Proper metaphysics will take into account the tree and the entire forest, I believe.;)

Thank you for your long explanation, Bob. I'm amused that it is always Aristotle's scientific errors which you inveigh (as if he should have known better). 

All in all you only confirm my sense that science and scientists have for long arrogated to themselves what is the preserve of metaphysics. It has to be the fault of that strange hybrid, "philosophy of science", brought about I suspect by scientists chafing at the bit for being subordinate to metaphysicians - and so we've arrived at the primacy of science, in all fields.

Science is a discipline, and only that.  "What is *there*?" and "How do we know?" - an identity metaphysics and an objective epistemology - pre-empt and precede: "What do we know about 'what is there'?"(science) - I reckon.

I'm broadly suggesting that Climate Science is showing its limitations and scientists have no idea where to turn next, because it has no philosophical base. The endless collection of data only piles up, temporarily validating this or disproving that - ad infinitum. So scientists are reduced to rationalistic speculations with "climate models", reminiscent of the Wiki article I posted earlier:

"The weaker [theory of metaphysics] more modern view assumes that the objects studied by metaphysics exist inside the mind of the observer, so the subject becomes a form of introspection and conceptual analysis". (Primacy of consciousness, Objectivists call that).

Overdue now I think is a "Climate Philosophy": A system of climate metaphysics, climate epistemology, climate ethics and climate politics (which is, preferably non-politics).

I think I made the point that he could not have known better.  What he should have known  but did not is that all statements pertaining to the material physical world have to be subject to empirical  test.   Very few a priori principles can be safely accepted on faith or on being "self-evident".  I do not burden Plato with this fault, since Plato regarded the physical material world as a bent illusion,  a bad imitation of The Forms. 

Metaphysics has not advanced for 2500 years and is unlikely to advance in the next 10,000 years. 

[anthony]

6 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

"Proper metaphysics"  held up physical science for over a thousand years.  That is why most physical scientists do not even say the word.  They sort of spit out the word.  Metaphysics  (either Platonic or Aristotelian or Cartesian)  has been an impediment to physical science.  Even today, our study of mind is still burdened with Descartes   dualism and his notion of non-physical substances. 

"An impediment..." As you aver - continuously.

But you make a false equivalence of three distinct philosophers in order to invalidate all metaphysics.

[BaalChatzaf]

7 minutes ago, anthony said:

"An impediment..." As you aver - continuously.

But you make a false equivalence of three distinct philosophers in order to invalidate all metaphysics.

All these flavors of metaphysics have one thing in common.  They are smoke and fog.

David Hume was  among the first philosophers who wrote in English to have a sane approach.  Two cheers for English Empiricism... Hip, Hip....

[anthony]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 

Metaphysics has not advanced for 2500 years and is unlikely to advance in the next 10,000 years. 

 

Precisely put. You've got it!  In there is the truth and beauty of metaphysics! The metaphysical nature of existence cannot "advance".

 

[BaalChatzaf]

1 minute ago, anthony said:

 

Precisely put. You've got it!  In there is the truth and beauty of metaphysics! Reality cannot "advance".

 

Metaphysics has never addressed the Real reality properly,  the natural physical world.  All there is is matter and energy  in space and time.  Everything else is illusion. 

[william.scherk]

5 hours ago, anthony said:

Science is a discipline, and only that. 

Discipline is useful term.  But one must be aware that science contains multitudes (of disciplines).

5 hours ago, anthony said:

Overdue now I think is a "Climate Philosophy": A system of climate metaphysics, climate epistemology, climate ethics and climate politics

Philosophical type people have been using their time to elaborate on "Climate Philosophy."  It looks to be a prickly field, with little central discipline, and few hard disciplinary boundaries. From Academia.edu: "Philosophy of Climate Change," which contains a list and links of papers and chapters and books. Eg,

Quote

Epistemic Corruption and Manufactured Doubt: The Case of Climate Science

Criticism plays an essential role in the growth of scientific knowledge. In some cases, however, criticism can have detrimental effects; for example, it can be used to ‘manufacture doubt’ for the purpose of impeding public policy making on issues such as tobacco consumption and greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., Oreskes & Conway 2010). In this paper, we build on previous work by Biddle and Leuschner (2015) who argue that criticism that meets certain conditions can be epistemically detrimental. We extend and refine their account by arguing that such criticism can be epistemically corrupting—it can create social conditions that are conducive to the development of epistemic vice by agents operating within them.

• DOWNLOAD
• • Philosophy Of Climate Change, Social Epistemology, Virtue Epistemology, Science and values

-- how might Climate Change Philosophy equip us mentally to better read and interpret scientific findings and hypotheses? 

What kind of philosophy aids in understanding climate processes ... ?

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That said, I hope an Objectivish philosophy would help out with one problem of the "Climate Wars," tendencies to think with a group. Ie,

 

Edited March 25, 2017 by william.scherk
Epistemic fudge ... silo cartoon.

[anthony]

What kind of philosophy? I'd thought that was obvious*, and it's not an anti-conceptual and metaphysics-averse one.

Any major role which the philosophy of Humean empiricism has played in climate science can be superseded in that case.

It all really boils down to the metaphysically given contra the man made. Not new. The tall order is one must first know what IS - to know what is artificial(man made). Again not new, though I suppose it has not been worded that way. And how would an individual scientist, himself, understand what he is uncovering from amongst masses of data without conceptualizing and integrating that data into his knowledge to expose the primary drivers, and without hierarchicalizing potential (dis)values or disruptions in store for the world? Then scientists need to be able to communicate their semi-conclusions to we laymen, conceptually also, so we can gain some idea and choose what to do with that knowledge. Not in factoids and dire predictions with which to manipulate whole societies of the less knowledgeable or ignorant.

I am impressed by the quantity of works on "Philosophy of Climate Change" you've found. (I must have thought I was being original in my suggestion - ha)

At a quick glance, it seems more of that kinda oxymoron, "philosophy of science"  I've been slating. If there is 'epistemic corruption', it is "the philosophers of science" (one essay names several as such, I saw Karl Popper there) that it probably comes from. "Manufacturing doubt" is a pressing concern for 'social metaphysicians'.

*Objectivism.

 

[william.scherk]

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

-- how might Climate Change Philosophy equip us mentally to better read and interpret scientific findings and hypotheses? 

Not a clue, and I have plowed through one of the tiresome papers I found at the list cited. I will do more diligence with four others I forked up, but so far I am discouraged: the ideological issues are smudged, in that it a broad range of assumptions are simply deemed a given. In other words, the 'alarmists' might be right, now what?  What can we know about ethics under uncertainty ... might be promising, but my stomach feelings tell me no.  I am not a fan of academic philosophy except for the greatest living philosopher Susan Haack.

I think that Objectivist epistemology is as good as any for approaching a scientific discipline. One does have to understand the hierarchies of science and some of its production facilities.   For example, I might call Person X a climate scientist,  correctly, but that doesn't tell anyone what Person X actually studies -- she might be rooted in geology, he might be rooted in atmospheric physics, he might be in the field of radiative transfer, she might be (like Curry) a specialist in one region or other -- an expert in the subfield of Arctic sea-air circulation. Where do they publish, when do they give public talks, under what conditions do they testify to 'the state of knowledge' in fields slightly beyond their focus?

Quote

What kind of philosophy aids in understanding climate processes ... ?

Epistemology is my best guess.  It allows one to be re-acquainted with how a 'fact' gets by the gate. It also allows us to decompose claims to their constituents.  I allows us to trace a claim or hypothesis or experimental finding back to its source. It gives us a good framework for understanding which 'facts' rest under a superstructure of speculation (or disinformation) and political-ethical process.

1 hour ago, anthony said:

What kind of philosophy? I'd thought that was obvious*, and it's not an anti-conceptual and metaphysics-averse one.

Any major part which Humean empiricism has played in climate science can be superseded in that case.

Can we narrow our scope for discussion, as I suggest above?

Quote

It all really boils down to the metaphysically given contra the man made. One must first know what IS - to know what is artificial (man made).

That is an interesting angle.  Boiling (or decomposing) claims and 'facts' down.  And perhaps one could use 'metaphysical' as one-step-beyond physics, which is otherwise viewed as foundational to the larger scientific enterprise.

If humankind were presently still at the same level of development, say the 12th century, we can probably agree that the sum total of human influence on climate was tiny, if measurable at all (ie, did agriculture alter regional climates?). It could be said to be metaphysically given that humankind has had an extremely negligible effect on global climate ... at least until an imagined or recorded or postulated point in our recent history. 

Grounding the narrow-focus epistemological queries on 'what is more or less known with confidence' in the physics also has the benefit of keeping us both on the same footing of reality, talking about the same processes and inquiries.

Quote

[H]ow would an individual scientist, himself, understand what he is uncovering from amongst masses of data without conceptualizing and integrating that data into his knowledge, and hierarchicalizing its potential (dis)value?

Well, to follow my focus for the moment, I'd say name real and consequential scientific inquirers who introduced new findings or concepts to their peers -- say Fourier, Tyndall, Callender, Arrhenius ... I think it would help situate the concept 'philosophy of science' by attachment. What kinds of philosophy guided Tyndall? How did he know that he had 'discovered' something interesting and important (about 'carbonic acid'), as you suggest. 

-- or this could be too boring, specifics of history.  Still, if one situates a 'philosophy of science' in an individual, we can then compare and contrast with the undergirding philosophy of the next inquirer we look at. 

Quote

Then scientists need to be able to communicate their semi-conclusions to the rest of us, conceptually also, so we can know what we choose to do with that knowledge.

I am going to disagree, if only for form or dialectic.

Look at it this way, if you would: most if not all scientific disciplines have a tradition of scholarship -- in the sense that they publish in "the literature."  A research scientist like Judith Curry, for example, would have as her primary "product" her publications, even if she were a tireless professor and talk-giver or advocate.  

But I do agree that there is broad boundary area between the literature and public dissemination of scientific findings in the largest sense.  

Here we cannot expect every practitioner to operate with the same SOP.  Some will take up a public face outside of the literature, perhaps as a go-to specialist to 'science journalism,' perhaps as a half-time evangelist for her own political imperatives, imperatives she finds compelling in their own and others' data.

If I have learned one thing discussing with OLers on these issues it is that politics can sometimes lead comprehension.  In other words, the politics of 'climate change' in the Objectivish context allows a perfect ethical-moral-political position: for untrammeled free enterprise, for the smallest footprint of government necessary, a minarchy, for a renunciation of any collective 'altruist' policy that undermines human industry and freedom.

That framework can supply some incoming assumptions -- that conservationism is morally vacuous, that the gaining of reliable knowledge can be tainted by ideology, that suspect motives (anti-life environazi feminist gaia Soros NWO control) will poison the well of knowledge, that 'nobody can know' enough to predict complex behaviour.

Quote

Not in factoids and dire predictions with which to manipulate whole societies of the less knowledgeable and ignorant.

Yeah.

 We each are trying to assess the grounds of 'belief,' maybe, the very foundations of knowledge. The dire predictions are not necessarily a function of science, but of the Hoopla industry and well-funded vested interests -- as well as misinformation, lousy arguments and worse.  It is one of those boundary areas between expertise and the public. In this boundary area are 'science communications,' and the octopus farms that are The Media.  Not to mention an outgrowth of the Climate Wars as game of persuasion, in the high-traffic blogs and news cascades.  

I change the subject here and drag in poor Stefan Molyneux with his guest Michael Shermer. Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine, and a libertarian fairly well-known to Objectivish folk.  He changed his mind about climate change some while back, on what I consider emotionalist grounds, but hey. It is interesting to consider these two actually discussing the very items I raise here.   

Back to metaphysics, briefly.  I recall without checking some discussion on the old SOLO (now RoR) where a neat metaphysical argument was made about humankind and global warming. It essentially said that yes, Man could now be mighty and consequential enough to affect the climate via greenhouse gases. Yes, but. But Man is mightier still -- Man will solve the problem with technology, with human purpose and genius. This was from a guy who was neutral to the party line.

I thought his was an optimistic stance, and it influenced my general 'meta-take' take on the controversies still raging.  It is that If If If underlying physical expectations come to pass, then at some point the evidence will be more than overwhelming.  At that physically real future, Humankind is a metaphysical factor in itself, destabilizing an otherwise "hands-off" aspect of the world once beyond human control.

To follow this imaginary line, think of it as a triumph of Objectivism when Objectivism says, "We will be able to make and unmake planets fit for human life.  We are becoming gods."  

As before, Tony, we may be on different flights to the same destination: reliable knowledge.

Edited March 25, 2017 by william.scherk
Finicks.

[BaalChatzaf]

Curry's publication is solid.  She is as good as climatologist and meteorologists get. 

The problem is the problem.  The thermodynamics  of the earth climate system is too complicated for our current mathematical  models to handle.  Intractability is one of the characteristics of chaotic dynamic systems.   All we need now is a way of generating  good numerical solutions for the Navier Stokes equations at all scales.  We don't have that yet.  There is a million dollar prize being offered to anyone who can bring that home.

 

[anthony]

19 hours ago, william.scherk said:

If I have learned one thing discussing with OLers on these issues it is that politics can sometimes lead comprehension.  In other words, the politics of 'climate change' in the Objectivish context allows a perfect ethical-moral-political position: for untrammeled free enterprise, for the smallest footprint of government necessary, a minarchy, for a renunciation of any collective 'altruist' policy that undermines human industry and freedom.

 

 

William,

You've seen the crux of the matter, why Objectivists are critical and questioning of the "anthropogenic" in AGW. If not most suspicious. The "ethical-moral-political position".

To pose altruism-collectivism simply, it is that each person is responsible to and for every other person, during our lifetimes - and even on, into future humanity. That applies for everyone else in general, regardless of one's specific judgments and choices to value this individual, be neutral to most or to not value that one. In fact, better - much more 'moral' - to take (a superficial) 'responsibility' for those for whom one doesn't care. Therefore each is chained to all others in mutual sacrifice. To say the least, a morality that flies in the face of reality and the reality of man.

Take it to the AGW arena, where each individual living now has been indoctrinated with and been pressured to accept the responsibilities of 'a troubled Earth', so to speak. Have you done your part to save it? Not enough. You must do more. "We are all in this together (for the sake of our children, etc.etc.)" Here's the 'lifeboat scenario' in which life is touted as an ongoing emergency. Nobody can point to a specific wrong you or anyone has commited, but just man being alive may carry sufficient guilt. Isn't it all very ~convenient~ for the large proportion of implicit and explicit altruistic types? Made to order. It's that much harder for those without the intellectual tools and objective morality to proclaim one's independence and self-interest in front of this barrage of selfless sacrifice. And how does one challenge the false dichotomy put out, that the future of the world and mankind doesn't matter to you, the selfish guy (when you know it does)?

I don't say for a moment that AGW is a contrived scam and conspiracy, but it plays well into the hands of those who wish it to be true. They, and through their governments who are only too happy to gather power, clamp down on every little human act and be seen to be 'doing good', have been gifted with a perfect opportunity to bring the minds and, so, the bodies of everybody else under collective control and subjugation. I think that's the source of the irrational unpleasantness one gets for daring to bring one's own mind to the issue and even mildly question AGW.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

William,

You've seen the crux of the matter, why Objectivists are critical and questioning of the "anthropogenic" in AGW. If not most suspicious. The "ethical-moral-political position".

The CO2 in the atmosphere inhibits the radiation of energy in some of the IR ranges into space.  The CO2 does not care how it got into the atmosphere.  It does not care whether it was put there by people or by nature.   The "A"  in "AGW"  is a propaganda point  not a scientific point.  The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere pushes the equilibrium temperature up a bit.   Without CO2 the surface of the Earth would be at a temperature below freezing of water. 

[william.scherk]

To briefly re-iterate where I think Tony and I mostly agree:

On 3/25/2017 at 1:46 PM, william.scherk said:

I think that Objectivist epistemology is as good as any for approaching a scientific discipline. [...] It allows one to be re-acquainted with how a 'fact' gets by the gate. [...] It gives us a good framework for understanding which 'facts' rest under a superstructure of speculation (or disinformation) and political-ethical process.

That was in answer to 'which philosophy can help?' ...

9 hours ago, anthony said:

On 3/25/2017 at 1:46 PM, william.scherk said:

If I have learned one thing discussing with OLers on these issues it is that politics can sometimes lead comprehension.

You've hit on the crux of the matter, which is why Objectivists are critical and questioning of the 'anthropogenic' in global warming. 

If you accept but one other suggestion from above, I think we can establish a firm footing under our inquiries. 

9 hours ago, anthony said:

Take it to the AGW arena, where each individual living now has been indoctrinated with and been pressured to accept the responsibilities of 'a troubled Earth', so to speak.

My strongest suggestion was to choose from among the immensity of individuals a few inquirers of consequence (to today's continuing debate). To take a name or two from the history of climatology and objectively assess a claim or "discovery"-- strengthening our conceptual grasp step by step. 

Quote

I don't say for a moment that AGW is a contrived scam and conspiracy, but it plays well into the hands of those who wish it to be true.

Consider the varied classification schemes for opinion,  all sticky labels like 'alarmist' and 'denier' and so on, and consider what is well-meant by "lukewarmer."  Consider how rationally Bob lays out the grounds for his somewhat skeptical position -- as a lukewarmer.   That brought out "Whose side are you on?" from Peter Taylor and a persistent critique from Brant Gaede which seemed to take the same tribal position.

OL is one of my 'tribes,' Rand is one of the North Stars, rational inquiry is a mutual interest. Seems ready-made to thrash out foundational issues.

One last suggestion: if you haven't watched any of the Shermer-Molyneux dialogue, listen to the first half-hour or so, in which they do touch on issues raised on this very page. Molyneux is at his best, and in that short half-hour you will come to understand what each man 'believes' (in, as you would put it, AGW) -- and where they may disagree politically-morally-ethically (surprise, surprise, they don't).

Going just by the dialogue, Molyneux's opinions do not essentially diverge from Shermer's. 

Quote

They, and through their governments who are only too happy to gather power and clamp down on every little thing, have been gifted with a perfect opportunity to bring the minds and, so, the bodies of everybody else under collective control and subjugation. I think that's the source of the irrational unpleasantness one gets for daring to bring one's own mind to the issue and even mildly question AGW.

Yeah.

But we are in a safe space here.  If you bring focus to objective inquiry as I propose, at worst a Peter or Brant would say, "Whose side are you on, Tony?" 

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by william.scherk
Grrrammar, precision. Apostrophe.

[Peter]

Ba’al asked, “How much warming is the result of natural drivers and how much is due to human activity?”

It is possible humans can change the planet. We do it in limited ways when a dam is created, or we build concrete and asphalt structures. Remember my fake news story?

AP Wire March 26, 2017. Under a joint agreement with Somalia and Ethiopia, Israel yesterday began an engineering project connecting the Red Sea with the Great Rift Valley. Large portions of Ethiopia will be submerged into one large lake yet to be named. The project will take a year and is expected to change the climate in that portion of Africa making it more temperate and rainy. The range of crops that could then be grown in Ethiopia are expected to contribute to that country’s being able to feed its entire, growing population with corn, wheat, and vegetables. The chain of connected lakes that will result are under plans for development as tourist attractions. Gambling resorts and homes for the rich are projected, which will boost Ethiopia’s basic marginal income to those levels found in Europe. 

The Project is not without controversy because Israel will be using 36 underground nuclear explosions, 12 which were set off yesterday, to create the link to the Red Sea. Israeli scientists project that though the radiation will last for years, its newest techniques and nuclear materials have a much shorter atomic half-life. Little radiation should reach the atmosphere, and the water rushing in will further dampen any nuclear radiation to acceptable levels for human habitation, even immediately next to the shore. A ban will be placed on fish for one year as the radiation levels in them are monitored. The World’s Sea Level is expected to drop by several inches to a foot, which is an added bonus to low lying countries like the Netherlands, Pacific atoll nations and even some American cities like New Orleans.

The United Nations was never consulted about the project but the UN in an emergency session is now debating the effects of the blasts. Iran is claiming this is harassment and a threat to their well-being and peaceful exploration of atomic energy. Israel is once again asking the UN and the United States to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is quoted as saying, “Iran’s time is up. They will either cease nuclear research and open their doors for Israeli verification or we will destroy their facilities and ability to make conventional or nuclear war, against Israel.”     

President Trump has called a meeting of his cabinet for tomorrow, Monday Sunday March 27^th along with his Joint Chiefs of Staff and members of Congress.

[Peter]

Is time composed of matter and energy? Is time an illusion? Does it slow down and speed up? Is it a product of our senses or our imagination? Is there a law of the universe which keeps future, more scientifically advanced generations from visiting us *now*? Doesn’t our consciousness exist as a biological time machine? I think - I thought - I will think - I will remember. I typed in “what is time” in a search engine and got some of the following. I tried to delete some of the many graphs and quotes but lost some of the text, but it still gives you food for thought, from this guy who has broken English. Questions are to be directed to the guy below: mkhan and the site is the other one.

Peter

mkhan@timephysics.com. www.timephysics.com

 

Present is special, it is the gift of living and feeling the reality of existence. Our interaction with the world in the present creates our memories which then immediately become part of the past. We live in the changing present in which the future continuously unfolds. The present is a fleeting moment; whatever is happening now (present) is confined to an infinitesimally narrow point on the time line which is being encroached upon by the past and the future.
                                              
Present resembles the sharp point of a recording laser or needle; it may be the mental awareness of recording of memory as it is being perceived and inscribed into our neurons. Unlike the present we see past and future as measurable durations of time. Past historical events, a meeting, or a wedding reception are all measurable durations or extensions in time, just like a recorded material on tape. This similarity suggests that past is more like a recorded memory, while future can be compared to an unrecorded tape. Another interesting observation pointed out by philosopher Mc Taggart was that historical events also have the same time characteristic as stories that are creations of the human imagination. Both stories and historical events contain the time concepts of earlier, the later, the past the present and the future suggesting that past is nothing more than memory of events.

Future appears to be a projection created by our past experiences stored in our memory. The fact that the present which gives us the most real feel of time cannot be measured while the inaccessible past and future can be measured as durations suggests that our perception of time as a place where we could possibly go i.e. the dimensional view of time is an illusion . . . . .  or possible future event also has a place like feeling to it. Time-scape feels like it is a place where it may be possible to go.  This dimension like view of time has spawned numerous science fiction stories and movies on time travel. This view of time suggests that dinosaurs are still alive and roaming the earth in some other time dimensions; it also suggest that there are multiple copies of us and the whole universe smeared across multiple dimensions of time.

In Special Relativity (SR) the block universe view of time arises from an interpretation of the Lorentz transformation equation known as the Rietdijk– Putnam argument (or the Andromeda paradox.) By this innovation of SR just walking on the earth toward or away from the Andromeda galaxy which is 2.5 million light years away we can shift our line of simultaneity so that our time can be in sync with either past or future of beings living in Andromeda. This interpretation of SR suggests that past and future exists as a part of the block universe. Lorentz transformation is interesting but has not been proven experimentally and this interpretation of SR cannot be verified.  All of other SR’s predictions of slowing of time, length contraction and gain in mass with motion can be derived without Lorentz transformation and are experimentally verifiable.

In the block universe time is laid out as a time-scape similar to landscape and it is obvious that there cannot be a free will. This has led to some innovations or variations in the theme of the block universe in which the future is changeable.  If time-scape is already laid out then what causes our conscious experience to move through this time-scape and why we cannot willfully move our consciousness anywhere anytime?

The time of the block universe leads to some interesting conclusions. The universe in its time dimensions should have numerous future civilizations millions or billions of years more technologically advanced then us. At least some of these civilizations should be capable of travelling through the block universe and we should have seen some evidence for that, unless there is some law of the universe which prohibits time travel. Block universe also leads to the possibility of time travel paradoxes like the grandfather paradox in which a person travels to the past and kills his grandfather thereby changing the future so that the time traveler would not exist and thus not travel to the past to kill his grandfather.

Imagine two objects one moving in orbit around the other in space. Now suppose from our distant observation point of a fixed time we observe time to get slower in the area where these two objects are moving. We expect to see slower motion? We also should observe proportionally weaker gravitational force; otherwise the objects will get pulled together. If we observed faster time, we expect to see faster motion and stronger gravity to keep the objects from flying apart. While with zero time motion will freeze and gravity will become zero. As this thought experiment also can be extended to particles held together by electromagnetic forces we can say that time involves both motion and forces. Next time you look at a tall building or a mountain try to visualize that time is running more slowly even slightly so near the bottom of these structures then at the top. The stability of these structures depends on the fact that space-time is continuous; being slow in time does not lead to lagging behind and disappearing into the past. Imagine if the bottom of a mountain or a building vanished into the past.

Theory of relativity predicts slowing of time with motion and gravity. These predictions have been confirmed in particle accelerators as well as gravity experiments. If there is a block universe why particles and masses with slower time do not disappear into the past? In gravitational fields space is clearly continuous between areas of slower and faster time, going against the concept of a persistent past dimension. Black holes with their intense gravity that bring time to a screeching halt do not disappear from our present into the past. We need to have clarity in our minds as to what the slowing of time means in a block universe. Does passage of time mean our consciousness is moving across time dimensions? Slowing of time without sliding into the past or the future suggests that time is a process and not a dimension. This may be a significant point against the block universe view of time when taken together with other aspects of time described above.

The universe is thought to have originated in an event called the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago. We live in an expanding universe and the galaxies are receding from each other as a part of the universal expansion. Microwave back ground radiation which is a relic from the Big Bang has been studied by many NASA and European satellites. There is no doubt in the minds of physicists and astronomers that Big Bang occurred.

Similarly the concept of time being a block universe is considered a natural outcome of the Lorentz transformation. However we seem to have overlooked that the concept of a block universe in which past, present and all of the future is laid out as a time-scape maybe at odds with the origin of the universe in the Big Bang.  In the block universe view of time everything, every event exists simultaneously. If the universe from its beginning to its distant infinite future exists as a part of time-scape of the block universe then all of the time-scape from big bang to infinite future should have begun in the Big Bang.  This basically means that all of the history leading to the infinite future was created in an instant at the time of the big bang. There is no escape form this unless we discard the block universe view of time or the origin of the universe in Big Bang.  These two concepts appear to be mutually exclusive.


Arrow requires two points in time that can exist only in the block universe. The time-scape in the block universe is already laid out and our conscious experience of time is only toward the future. The question therefore remains why arrow of time does not point toward the past? If future and past already exist why we only remember the past and not the future? Unrestricted by the block universe view of time we are free to consider time as a process so that every event is occurring in the present where it is being perceived. If time is the presence of motion as well as forces then forces provide the necessary gradient for the direction of time. There is also a statistical touch to this argument; smashing a glass with a hammer means application of force at one point while to assemble it back in reverse would require coordinated application of multiple tiny forces in a reverse and continuous manner which is statistically unlikely. Similarly throwing a stone into a pond creates ripples which then travel to the edge of the pond. To reverse this process it would require simultaneous application of multiple tiny forces at the edge of the pond to produce multiple synchronized waves moving backward to the area of splash where the stone pushed up by the ground at the bottom of the pond will be waiting to be thrown out into the hand of the thrower…. a statistical impossibility. Direction of time in a block universe is difficult to explain as times-scape is already laid out and our conscious experience could have run in any direction. Without the burden of the block universe arrow of time is no enigma as it is just a process and it is a natural outcome of cause, effect and probability.                                                                                                      SUMMARY

1. We measure time by comparing one standard motion like the suns movement across the sky against another motion like that of a car. Clocks are used as intermediaries for convenience. Time may not have any independent existence, the motion could have been compared directly suggesting that time is a process that is linked to motion.

2. Motion alone is not enough to explain time. Forces also appear to be part of time. Arrow of time is difficult to explain in the block universe where every event is already laid out. Arrow of time is however easily explained if we consider time as a process which includes motion as well as forces.

3. Perception of time as past present and future gives us the feeling of passage of time, as well as the block universe view of time. Time can be compared to recording devices, the present is just where the events and their perception is being recorded into our memory. The perception of time as a record is also apparent in the similarity of time characteristic of past present and future that exists in historical events as well as stories. The fact that the present which gives us the most real feeling of time cannot be measured while the inaccessible past and future can be measured as durations suggests that the way we perceive time is an illusion.

4. Slowing of time in motion and gravity does not lead to disappearance into the past as should happen in a block universe. Absence of time travelers from futuristic advanced civilizations is also against the concept of the block universe.

5. The concept of origin of the universe in the Big Bang is at odds with the block universe view of time. If the block universe which is supposed to be laid out as a time-scape (from the past to the present to the infinite future) exists and began in big bang then it would mean that all of the time up to the infinite future would come into existence in the instant of the big bang. To truly comprehend this, big bang should be renamed "Instantaneous big bang origin of the whole block." This idea is truly preposterous.

6. Slowing of time in gravity and in motion as well as the ultimate speed limit c provides the necessary clues to understanding the cause of time however we need to first convince ourselves that time is a process that is linked to motion and forces and the block universe view of time is not correct.

For thousands of years philosophers and scientists have struggled to understand the phenomenon of time. We have known for the last one hundred years about time dilation or slowing of time with motion and in gravity yet true understanding of time has evaded us. I am presenting here a clear solution to the enigma of time which brings to light the reason behind many predictions of Special and General Relativity such as why time slows with motion and in gravity?  What is the cause of gravity and why it is only attractive? Why space is curved by gravitational fields? Why objects gain mass when accelerated by a force but do not gain mass when falling in gravity? What is the cause of inertia and length contraction and why there cannot be a twin paradox?

[william.scherk]

Spoiler

41 minutes ago, Peter said:

Remember my fake news story?

AP Wire March 26, 2017. Under a joint agreement with Somalia and Ethiopia, Israel yesterday began an engineering project connecting the Red Sea with the Great Rift Valley.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by william.scherk

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

Is time composed of matter and energy? Is time an illusion? Does it slow down and speed up? Is it a product of our senses or our imagination? Is there a law of the universe which keeps future, more scientifically advanced generations from visiting us *now*? Doesn’t our consciousness exist as a biological time machine? I think - I thought - I will think - I will remember. I typed in “what is time” in a search engine and got some of the following. I tried to delete some of the many graphs and quotes but lost some of the text, but it still gives you food for thought, from this guy who has broken English. Questions are to be directed to the guy below: mkhan and the site is the other one.

Peter

mkhan@timephysics.com. www.timephysics.com

 

Present is special, it is the gift of living and feeling the reality of existence. Our interaction with the world in the present creates our memories which then immediately become part of the past. We live in the changing present in which the future continuously unfolds. The present is a fleeting moment; whatever is happening now (present) is confined to an infinitesimally narrow point on the time line which is being encroached upon by the past and the future.
                                              
Present resembles the sharp point of a recording laser or needle; it may be the mental awareness of recording of memory as it is being perceived and inscribed into our neurons. Unlike the present we see past and future as measurable durations of time. Past historical events, a meeting, or a wedding reception are all measurable durations or extensions in time, just like a recorded material on tape. This similarity suggests that past is more like a recorded memory, while future can be compared to an unrecorded tape. Another interesting observation pointed out by philosopher Mc Taggart was that historical events also have the same time characteristic as stories that are creations of the human imagination. Both stories and historical events contain the time concepts of earlier, the later, the past the present and the future suggesting that past is nothing more than memory of events.

Future appears to be a projection created by our past experiences stored in our memory. The fact that the present which gives us the most real feel of time cannot be measured while the inaccessible past and future can be measured as durations suggests that our perception of time as a place where we could possibly go i.e. the dimensional view of time is an illusion . . . . .  or possible future event also has a place like feeling to it. Time-scape feels like it is a place where it may be possible to go.  This dimension like view of time has spawned numerous science fiction stories and movies on time travel. This view of time suggests that dinosaurs are still alive and roaming the earth in some other time dimensions; it also suggest that there are multiple copies of us and the whole universe smeared across multiple dimensions of time.

In Special Relativity (SR) the block universe view of time arises from an interpretation of the Lorentz transformation equation known as the Rietdijk– Putnam argument (or the Andromeda paradox.) By this innovation of SR just walking on the earth toward or away from the Andromeda galaxy which is 2.5 million light years away we can shift our line of simultaneity so that our time can be in sync with either past or future of beings living in Andromeda. This interpretation of SR suggests that past and future exists as a part of the block universe. Lorentz transformation is interesting but has not been proven experimentally and this interpretation of SR cannot be verified.  All of other SR’s predictions of slowing of time, length contraction and gain in mass with motion can be derived without Lorentz transformation and are experimentally verifiable.

In the block universe time is laid out as a time-scape similar to landscape and it is obvious that there cannot be a free will. This has led to some innovations or variations in the theme of the block universe in which the future is changeable.  If time-scape is already laid out then what causes our conscious experience to move through this time-scape and why we cannot willfully move our consciousness anywhere anytime?

The time of the block universe leads to some interesting conclusions. The universe in its time dimensions should have numerous future civilizations millions or billions of years more technologically advanced then us. At least some of these civilizations should be capable of travelling through the block universe and we should have seen some evidence for that, unless there is some law of the universe which prohibits time travel. Block universe also leads to the possibility of time travel paradoxes like the grandfather paradox in which a person travels to the past and kills his grandfather thereby changing the future so that the time traveler would not exist and thus not travel to the past to kill his grandfather.

Imagine two objects one moving in orbit around the other in space. Now suppose from our distant observation point of a fixed time we observe time to get slower in the area where these two objects are moving. We expect to see slower motion? We also should observe proportionally weaker gravitational force; otherwise the objects will get pulled together. If we observed faster time, we expect to see faster motion and stronger gravity to keep the objects from flying apart. While with zero time motion will freeze and gravity will become zero. As this thought experiment also can be extended to particles held together by electromagnetic forces we can say that time involves both motion and forces. Next time you look at a tall building or a mountain try to visualize that time is running more slowly even slightly so near the bottom of these structures then at the top. The stability of these structures depends on the fact that space-time is continuous; being slow in time does not lead to lagging behind and disappearing into the past. Imagine if the bottom of a mountain or a building vanished into the past.

Theory of relativity predicts slowing of time with motion and gravity. These predictions have been confirmed in particle accelerators as well as gravity experiments. If there is a block universe why particles and masses with slower time do not disappear into the past? In gravitational fields space is clearly continuous between areas of slower and faster time, going against the concept of a persistent past dimension. Black holes with their intense gravity that bring time to a screeching halt do not disappear from our present into the past. We need to have clarity in our minds as to what the slowing of time means in a block universe. Does passage of time mean our consciousness is moving across time dimensions? Slowing of time without sliding into the past or the future suggests that time is a process and not a dimension. This may be a significant point against the block universe view of time when taken together with other aspects of time described above.

The universe is thought to have originated in an event called the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago. We live in an expanding universe and the galaxies are receding from each other as a part of the universal expansion. Microwave back ground radiation which is a relic from the Big Bang has been studied by many NASA and European satellites. There is no doubt in the minds of physicists and astronomers that Big Bang occurred.

Similarly the concept of time being a block universe is considered a natural outcome of the Lorentz transformation. However we seem to have overlooked that the concept of a block universe in which past, present and all of the future is laid out as a time-scape maybe at odds with the origin of the universe in the Big Bang.  In the block universe view of time everything, every event exists simultaneously. If the universe from its beginning to its distant infinite future exists as a part of time-scape of the block universe then all of the time-scape from big bang to infinite future should have begun in the Big Bang.  This basically means that all of the history leading to the infinite future was created in an instant at the time of the big bang. There is no escape form this unless we discard the block universe view of time or the origin of the universe in Big Bang.  These two concepts appear to be mutually exclusive.


Arrow requires two points in time that can exist only in the block universe. The time-scape in the block universe is already laid out and our conscious experience of time is only toward the future. The question therefore remains why arrow of time does not point toward the past? If future and past already exist why we only remember the past and not the future? Unrestricted by the block universe view of time we are free to consider time as a process so that every event is occurring in the present where it is being perceived. If time is the presence of motion as well as forces then forces provide the necessary gradient for the direction of time. There is also a statistical touch to this argument; smashing a glass with a hammer means application of force at one point while to assemble it back in reverse would require coordinated application of multiple tiny forces in a reverse and continuous manner which is statistically unlikely. Similarly throwing a stone into a pond creates ripples which then travel to the edge of the pond. To reverse this process it would require simultaneous application of multiple tiny forces at the edge of the pond to produce multiple synchronized waves moving backward to the area of splash where the stone pushed up by the ground at the bottom of the pond will be waiting to be thrown out into the hand of the thrower…. a statistical impossibility. Direction of time in a block universe is difficult to explain as times-scape is already laid out and our conscious experience could have run in any direction. Without the burden of the block universe arrow of time is no enigma as it is just a process and it is a natural outcome of cause, effect and probability.                                                                                                      SUMMARY

1. We measure time by comparing one standard motion like the suns movement across the sky against another motion like that of a car. Clocks are used as intermediaries for convenience. Time may not have any independent existence, the motion could have been compared directly suggesting that time is a process that is linked to motion.

2. Motion alone is not enough to explain time. Forces also appear to be part of time. Arrow of time is difficult to explain in the block universe where every event is already laid out. Arrow of time is however easily explained if we consider time as a process which includes motion as well as forces.

3. Perception of time as past present and future gives us the feeling of passage of time, as well as the block universe view of time. Time can be compared to recording devices, the present is just where the events and their perception is being recorded into our memory. The perception of time as a record is also apparent in the similarity of time characteristic of past present and future that exists in historical events as well as stories. The fact that the present which gives us the most real feeling of time cannot be measured while the inaccessible past and future can be measured as durations suggests that the way we perceive time is an illusion.

4. Slowing of time in motion and gravity does not lead to disappearance into the past as should happen in a block universe. Absence of time travelers from futuristic advanced civilizations is also against the concept of the block universe.

5. The concept of origin of the universe in the Big Bang is at odds with the block universe view of time. If the block universe which is supposed to be laid out as a time-scape (from the past to the present to the infinite future) exists and began in big bang then it would mean that all of the time up to the infinite future would come into existence in the instant of the big bang. To truly comprehend this, big bang should be renamed "Instantaneous big bang origin of the whole block." This idea is truly preposterous.

6. Slowing of time in gravity and in motion as well as the ultimate speed limit c provides the necessary clues to understanding the cause of time however we need to first convince ourselves that time is a process that is linked to motion and forces and the block universe view of time is not correct.

For thousands of years philosophers and scientists have struggled to understand the phenomenon of time. We have known for the last one hundred years about time dilation or slowing of time with motion and in gravity yet true understanding of time has evaded us. I am presenting here a clear solution to the enigma of time which brings to light the reason behind many predictions of Special and General Relativity such as why time slows with motion and in gravity?  What is the cause of gravity and why it is only attractive? Why space is curved by gravitational fields? Why objects gain mass when accelerated by a force but do not gain mass when falling in gravity? What is the cause of inertia and length contraction and why there cannot be a twin paradox?

Time has two aspects.  First order.  Event A happens before event B.  This is not relativistically invariant.   If  A and B  are simultaneous in on frame of reference then A may be seen to precede B in another from and B may be seen to precede A in yet another from.   But if A causes B  A precedes B in all frames of reference

Second aspect.  Interval.  If a A precedes B  the interval of time from A to B  depends on the frame of reference in which the determination is made.  Clocks do not all run at the same rate.  The rate depends on the motion of the clock and in which from of reference it is observed.  If I am in my from of reference and a clock is moving relative to me,  it is seen as ticking slower  than the clock in my pocket. Clocks on the ground move slower than clocks  in orbit.  That is the principle on which GPS works.

[anthony]

7 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Yeah.

But we are in a safe space here.  If you bring focus to objective inquiry as I propose, at worst a Peter or Brant would say, "Whose side are you on, Tony?" 

 

I don't know any sides, I haven't been paying that much attention here and can't see the need to pick one. I am not going to oppose AGW, simply on principle, but I'm definitely not going to grant it support, either. I simply do not know enough. I am distrusting of the objectivity of many scientists too, but to educate myself deeply in the science is too consuming for my little brain and my time. I was very interested some years ago to run down theories and opinions from a slew of climatologists on several sites and I learned then about the fundaments of earth temperature. I am somewhat less interested now, but am ~always~ absorbed by the epistemologies, the ethics and the politics which AGW has been cause of (and exposed).

The very worst that I can envisage if I get fanciful, is it will turn out that Climate Change on a runaway scale has started  -- and that man (it turns out) could have had nothing/little to do with it. Now THAT extreme scenario would push mankind and its ingenuity to their limits. I could just about imagine the effects of temperature fluctuations - way up and down - for a long while before the Earth reaches some equilibrium again. That's my most "way-out" scene.

So we are vanishingly short of that stage, and we'd better consolidate, keep our resources available, and our powder dry and not go off half-cocked, willingly giving up freedoms and wealth to bad nerves. Most optimistic, considering how tenths of a degree change is affecting people now, but what do they think? The Earth was made to accomodate us and designed to never change?

 

 

[anthony]

William, thanks for the Shermer video. I watched half earlier, and it is a worthwhile discussion.

[anthony]

I have to say though, this level of "skepticism" discussed has nothing whatsoever to do with philosophical skepticism. It's concerning that they should be mistaken for each other. I think the skepticism above has followed from a single element - atheists' disbelief in God. Thus, "skepticism".

Except, you may be skeptical about a hundred things - until seen, experienced and validated - but not be skeptical about your capability *to know* what is true. To hold knowledge and morality by conviction. And its polar opposite, philosophical skepticism we can mainly thank David Hume for: He as much as stated that skepticism (nothing is knowable) is the end result of his Empiricism (in which all that counts are facts of reality, without recourse to the abstract concepts of a mind).

More confusion, is here on this topic - the "skepticism" by which anti-AGW types are called. Conversely I think they largely tend to be conceptualists and therefore not philosophically skeptical. There is more genuine skepticism about and rejection of the conceptual mind and ability of man, in the AGW camp it would seem.

[BaalChatzaf]

50 minutes ago, anthony said:

I have to say though, this level of "skepticism" discussed has nothing whatsoever to do with philosophical skepticism. It's concerning that they should be mistaken for each other. I think the skepticism above has followed from a single element - atheists' disbelief in God. Thus, "skepticism".

Except, you may be skeptical about a hundred things - until seen, experienced and validated - but not be skeptical about your capability *to know* what is true. To hold knowledge and morality by conviction. And its polar opposite, philosophical skepticism we can mainly thank David Hume for: He as much as stated that skepticism (nothing is knowable) is the end result of his Empiricism (in which all that counts are facts of reality, without recourse to the abstract concepts of a mind).

More confusion, is here on this topic - the "skepticism" by which anti-AGW types are called. Conversely I think they largely tend to be conceptualists and therefore not philosophically skeptical. There is more genuine skepticism about and rejection of the conceptual mind and ability of man, in the AGW camp it would seem.

quote me line and verse from any  of Hume's work where he said knowledge is impossible  or that nothing is knowable.  Title, page number and line please. 

And yes,  critical judgement is sometime called skepticism,  which is somewhat of a misnomer.   Many things that we claim to "know"  are subject to various doubts or reservations.   That is not a denial of knowledge by a judgement of just how certain the knowledge is (or is not). 

[BaalChatzaf]

On 3/25/2017 at 4:46 PM, william.scherk said:

.

To follow this imaginary line, think of it as a triumph of Objectivism when Objectivism says, "We will be able to make and unmake planets fit for human life.  We are becoming gods."  

 

Such a belief is  akin to madness.  There are no facts  to support this claim.  Talk about narcissism! 

[anthony]

We have been over this, Bob. I quoted a few scholars and Hume's own quotes, months ago in another thread. Sorry, but I'm not into digging it up and copy-pasting it again.

Look it up: 'Hume and Skepticism' will find you several results, I'm sure.