A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

[BaalChatzaf]

10 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

It's a given we're stuck with two theories when it seems we ought to have one.

1) Why one instead of two?2

How many realities are there?

Besides that, the trend in development of scientific theories is finding a single theory that can account for multiple effects or processes.  In the early 19 th century Oersted discovered that the flow of electric current through a wire produces a magnetic field around the wire.  This ultimately lead Michael Faraday to do experiments showing that electric flow and magnetism are are part of one process.  The phenomena of electricity and magnetism  were completely accounted for by a unified theory developed by  Maxwell and Faraday. This was the first major unification in physics.  Later on the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear forces were accounted for by a unitary theory.  So the physicists have the urge to explain diverse phenomena and effects  with a unitary or unified theory. 

Strictly speaking  no one has shown it to be logically necessary or axiomatic that there be a unitary theory,  but the physicists like the idea so they pursue it.

[anthony]

16 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The idea is to have one theory explain all known interactions:  electromagnetic,  strong force, weak force and gravity.   The two interactions humans perceive the most are the electromagnet force, which hold  matter together and which makes  electromagnetic radiation (including visible light),  and gravitation which keeps us on the ground. Every kid learns gravitation the hard way when he falls and skins his knees. 

Usually a bit earlier than that. A toddler falls on his bottom and has his first sensory experience with 'gravity'. ;) Like dogs who see and quickly gain a perception of the arc of a thrown frisbee and anticipate where it will drop, person and dog each gain a perception of gravity. Things "fall" "down". In O'ist epistemology one integrates further percepts inductively into concepts based on these concretes - and, also - one learns from previously discovered (scientific) knowledge, based on concrete facts too. Gravity is a great case for studying "how we know". There aren't 'two realities', one where things "fall down", and one where bodies exert a force on each other universally. My take is, the second becomes a higher level of concept integrated onto the earlier concepts. They are the same existent. Things carry on falling down.

Other acquired knowledge, such as electromagnetic force isn't as directly perceived as is gravity.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Usually a bit earlier than that. A toddler falls on his bottom and has his first sensory experience with 'gravity'. ;) Like dogs who see and quickly gain a perception of the arc of a thrown frisbee and anticipate where it will drop, person and dog each gain a perception of gravity. Things "fall" "down". In O'ist epistemology one integrates further percepts inductively into concepts based on these concretes - and, also - one learns from previously reasoned knowledge, based on concrete facts too. Gravity is a great case for studying "how we know". There aren't 'two realities', one where things "fall down", and one where bodies exert a force on each other universally. My take is, the second becomes a higher level of concept integrated onto the earlier concepts. They are the same existent. Things carry on falling down.

Other acquired knowledge, such as electromagnetic force isn't as directly perceived as is gravity.

Just about every kid in the West  gets to play with magnets.  All magnetic fields are produced by electrically charged particles in motion.   There is no knows magnetic monopole so the only way we can produce a magnetic field is by moving electrically charged bodies (primarily electrons).  

Everyone who has ever shuffled over a carpet on a dry winter day has had a first person introduction to electrical charges. 

[anthony]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Just about every kid in the West  gets to play with magnets.  All magnetic fields are produced by electrically charged particles in motion.   There is no knows magnetic monopole so the only way we can produce a magnetic field is by moving electrically charged bodies (primarily electrons).  

Everyone who has ever shuffled over a carpet on a dry winter day has had a first person introduction to electrical charges. 

You have a point, though minor compared with the direct, sense perception of the force of gravity on one's body and on objects, from really young.

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

You have a point, though minor compared with the direct, sense perception of the force of gravity on one's body and on objects, from really young.

Riddle:  What is the hardest thing about learning to ride a bike?  Answer:  the ground.

[anthony]

On 7/24/2017 at 1:46 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

The idea is to have one theory explain all known interactions:  electromagnetic,  strong force, weak force and gravity.   The two interactions humans perceive the most are the electromagnet force, which hold  matter together and which makes  electromagnetic radiation (including visible light),  and gravitation which keeps us on the ground. Every kid learns gravitation the hard way when he falls and skins his knees. 

As with gravity, so for electromagnetic radiation. In rough, every individual starts first with seeing objects, then seeing light, then seeing  light sources which make vision possible (and lack of, impossible). His sense data and perceptions he integrates and forms into his concepts : "entities" - "light". Later on he's taught the empirically discovered knowledge that visible light is part of a greater continuum of electromagnetic radiation. Not a contradiction or dichotomy. Simply, more complex concepts to integrate. If he later learns any future acquired knowledge that a Unified Theory combines the forces? Again, further knowledge for his advancing conceptual structure, grown from the original concrete base . There isn't some break in his knowledge by learning from science - it's additional, hierarchical knowledge of (one) reality .

Put another way, the mind can conceptually comprehend "electromagnetic radiation" after seeing, perceiving and having the concept "light". You "know" the force of gravity by way of the senses, seeing falling objects and feeling "weight", before understanding its universality.

 Going back to: "Human beings are constrained by the physical laws". You may see now, they do not. Physical reality and our physical nature - are what may limit us. Laws of physics inform, they don't constrain. 

[BaalChatzaf]

On 7/25/2017 at 0:29 PM, anthony said:

As with gravity, so for electromagetic radiation. Every individual starts first with seeing objects, then seeing light, then seeing that a light source makes vision possible (and lack of it, impossible) from which perceptions he integrates and forms his concepts : "entities" - "light". Later on he's taught the empirically discovered knowledge that visible light is part of a greater continuum of electromagnetic radiation. No contradiction or dichotomy. Simply, more concepts to integrate. If he later learns any future acquired knowledge that a Unified Theory combines the forces? Again, further knowledge for his advancing conceptual structure. There isn't a break in his knowledge by learning from science - it's additional, hierarchical knowledge.

Put another way, it is a conceptual impossibility for a mind to comprehend "electromagnetic radiation" before seeing, perceiving and having the concept of light.

 "Human beings are constrained by the physical laws". You may see now, they are not. Physical reality and our physical nature limit us. Laws of physics inform, they don't constrain. 

Human beings are constrained by Nature.  The (so-called)  physical laws of Nature are the most general principles of operations of Nature that we know which are well corroborated by experience and experiment.  In modern times the physical laws of nature are constantly challenged by new experiments using improved technology.  Even so, there are physical phenomena for which no theoretical description or explanation exists.  Examples: "dark"  matter and "dark"  energy.  The term "dark"  is a placeholder for our ignorance.  

There are also phenomena where the laws are well known and established, but do not yield certain predictions  because of the sensitivity of the laws to initial and boundary condition is so great we cannot determine the initial conditions exactly so the consequential actions will be very varied.  Look at a compound pendulum sometimes.  If you give it a big enough swing the end of the pendulum bobs about in a seeming random pattern.   Weather is like that also.  We can never measure current conditions accurately enough to make accurate predictions more than ten days (or so) out.

Have a look at this:  

 

or this (even better):  

 

The differential equations of the motion are completely known, but exact solutions are not possible since the initial conditions can only be established approximately.

Einstein himself could not predict the trajectory of the pendula over time.  If two initial positions of the pendulum differed by even the width of an air molecule  the course of the swings  would be different.

[anthony]

Me and Bob - Bob and me. Ho-hum. Back and forth.

Don't get me wrong, to a point I fully respect Bob's enthusiasm and learning about science and scientists.

After which point I will criticize the hell out of his ideas, which I know are widespread.

 I can't be the only one who observes around me personally and worldwide, a slump into skepticism: fundamentally, skepticism of one's mind and skepticism of values. Does anyone care, and consider how this came about?

I'd think that this topic is so critical as to deserve more interest and responses by others, but I won't hold my breath, as Bob says.

[Peter]

That was a great tribute to Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly. But why didn't they keep shooting until the legs stopped moving? I really wanted to see if they would start up again after they came to rest. 

[BaalChatzaf]

they could restart only if they were pushed or pulled.  A self restart would violate the first law of thermodynamics. 

[Peter]

Some think self replicating robots will be the end of humanity. How long could a robot live anyway, if we define the robot as exhibiting true A.I. and if it is self aware then isn't it alive? All contrary views will be sent to the Robot Defamation League.

[BaalChatzaf]

28 minutes ago, Peter said:

Some think self replicating robots will be the end of humanity. How long could a robot live anyway, if we define the robot as exhibiting true A.I. and if it is self aware then isn't it alive? All contrary views will be sent to the Robot Defamation League.

If a robot were equipped with programs  for  finding raw materials and creating copies of its parts,  then it could self repair.  As long as there were material in the environment to make parts and sufficient energy to recharge itself,  it could live a long time (but not forever).  

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is a motion picture of some of the smartest people who ever lived.  Play with closed caption. It is a 1927 movie and it has no sound.

This is the one with no sound  from the Solvay Conference of 1927

[Peter]

What is weird is the number of savants who were smoking deadly tobacco products. What did they know and what should these geniuses have been able to conjecture?

They knew first hand, the loss of breathe, the coughs, the tobacco sacks under the eyes of smokers, and the fact that tobacco is addictive. Very addictive. They knew. So, along with thanking them for their contributions to humanity, I can also say, “What morons.”

Peter

[BaalChatzaf]

8 hours ago, Peter said:

What is weird is the number of savants who were smoking deadly tobacco products. What did they know and what should these geniuses have been able to conjecture?

They knew first hand, the loss of breathe, the coughs, the tobacco sacks under the eyes of smokers, and the fact that tobacco is addictive. Very addictive. They knew. So, along with thanking them for their contributions to humanity, I can also say, “What morons.”

Peter

Many of them were pipe smokers.  Not as deadly as cigarettes or cigars.   Einstein smoked a pipe.

[jts]

12 hours ago, Peter said:

What is weird is the number of savants who were smoking deadly tobacco products. What did they know and what should these geniuses have been able to conjecture?

They knew first hand, the loss of breathe, the coughs, the tobacco sacks under the eyes of smokers, and the fact that tobacco is addictive. Very addictive. They knew. So, along with thanking them for their contributions to humanity, I can also say, “What morons.”

Peter

Ayn Rand smoked. Ayn Rand was a moron.

 

[Brant Gaede]

19 hours ago, Peter said:

What is weird is the number of savants who were smoking deadly tobacco products. What did they know and what should these geniuses have been able to conjecture?

They knew first hand, the loss of breathe, the coughs, the tobacco sacks under the eyes of smokers, and the fact that tobacco is addictive. Very addictive. They knew. So, along with thanking them for their contributions to humanity, I can also say, “What morons.”

Peter

You can say whatever you want.

Tobacco wasn't that addictive to me. I just stopped with hardly any withdrawal. Different for different folks.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

9 hours ago, jts said:

Ayn Rand smoked. Ayn Rand was a moron.

 

She was stubborn too.  She must have suffered from the effects for years (cancer does not happen overnight).  But she had her Romantic Vision of burning tobacco.  Fire at Man's Fingertips.   Principles and Romantic Notions can kill one deader than dust.  And people who put philosophy before facts are in particular danger.

Fact First,  Principles Second (maybe...). 

[anthony]

8 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

She was stubborn too.  She must have suffered from the effects for years (cancer does not happen overnight).  But she had her Romantic Vision of burning tobacco.  Fire at Man's Fingertips.   Principles and Romantic Notions can kill one deader than dust.  And people who put philosophy before facts are in particular danger.

Fact First,  Principles Second (maybe...). 

Ha, only you could set fact against principle. You are surely consistent. At least, get the definition straight. "A principle is a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend. Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes[facts]". {The Anatomy of Compromise, CUI.} "When men abandon principles (i.e. their conceptual faculty), two of the major results are : individually, the inability to project the future; socially, the impossibility of communication". {Credibility and Polarization, Ayn Rand Letters} (Look on your works, ye mighty... )

Fire at man's fingertips etc., was supposed to be symbolic I gathered, where do you see a principle?

 

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Ha, only you could set fact against principle. You are surely consistent. At least, get the definition straight. "A principle is a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend. Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes[facts]". {The Anatomy of Compromise, CUI.} "When men abandon principles (i.e. their conceptual faculty), two of the major results are : individually, the inability to project the future; socially, the impossibility of communication". {Credibility and Polarization, Ayn Rand Letters} (Look on your works, ye mighty... )

Fire at man's fingertips etc., was supposed to be symbolic I gathered, where do you see a principle?

 

A principle is an abstract supposition.   The only a priori true statements are those equivalent to the law of non-contradiction.  

[Ellen Stuttle]

37 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

A principle is an abstract supposition.   The only a priori true statements are those equivalent to the law of non-contradiction.  

LOL.  How many a priori facts are there?  And how do you know if you have a fact without using epistemological principles?  Or what a fact is without using metaphysical principles?

And "Principles and Romantic Notions can kill one deader than dust" (quoting you from here) is a principle, although not a well-formulated one.

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

LOL.  How many a priori facts are there?  And how do you know if you have a fact without using epistemological principles?  Or what a fact is without using metaphysical principles?

And "Principles and Romantic Notions can kill one deader than dust" (quoting you from here) is a principle, although not a well-formulated one.

Ellen

Facts are synthetic particular propositions and come -after- perception- and cogitation,  not before.  Kant's greatest error was presuming the existence of synthetic a priori propositions, propositions about the actual real world that are true necessarily and a priori.  There is no such thing.  The only a prior proposition we believe to be necessarily true are formal propositions such as the law of noncontradiction or the tertium non datur   A or not A  is true.  This is a formal law and has nothing to do with what A is.  Rand's favorite version of the logical a priori was A is A.  It turns out the not (A and  not-A),  A or not A  and A is A  are all logically equivalent into logic based on the modalities  True and False.  That is only one problem with the necessarily true a priori assertions.  They tell you nothing particular or specific about the world. 

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

 

[Brant Gaede]

9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Facts are synthetic particular propositions and come -after- perception- and cogitation,  not before.  Kant's greatest error was presuming the existence of synthetic a priori propositions, propositions about the actual real world that are true necessarily and a priori.  There is no such thing.  The only a prior proposition we believe to be necessarily true are formal propositions such as the law of noncontradiction or the tertium non datur   A or not A  is true.  This is a formal law and has nothing to do with what A is.  Rand's favorite version of the logical a priori was A is A.  It turns out the not (A and  not-A),  A or not A  and A is A  are all logically equivalent into logic based on the modalities  True and False.  That is only one problem with the necessarily true a priori assertions.  They tell you nothing particular or specific about the world. 

Then what is useful? Rand or not Rand?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

21 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

She was stubborn too.  She must have suffered from the effects for years (cancer does not happen overnight).  But she had her Romantic Vision of burning tobacco.  Fire at Man's Fingertips.   Principles and Romantic Notions can kill one deader than dust.  And people who put philosophy before facts are in particular danger.

Fact First,  Principles Second (maybe...). 

Her moronity was compartmentalized.

--Brant

and we all have some

[BaalChatzaf]

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Her moronity was compartmentalized.

--Brant

and we all have some

As is mine and that of most people.  Some people are complete unbroken and whole morons.