Philosophy of Cosmology

[dennislmay]

If it is claimed that: (bolding mine).

The universe has always existed and will always continue to exist.

this implies that matter has 'always existed', and 'always existed' implies that there is no cause for its existence. So while our whole thinking rests on causality, to claim that the universe has always existed places non-causality at the basis.

The desire for a "first cause" for existence [which necessitates causality starting outside of existence] seems a common thread among the vast majority in the human thought process - hence the many creation myths. I seem to be missing that gene myself. Causality refers to the process of identity in action - which presupposes existence before identity or identity in action can occur.

I have no problem with the existence of real infinities - large and small sizes, past and future, and infinite number of real objects at every scale. I have met and discussed this issue with some in physics who absolutely cannot wrap their minds around this. If you get into enough detail almost everyone I've run into balks about infinities on some scale. They will accept large numbers at the scale they live every day - Avogadro's number for atoms - but won't if you try to use that kind of large number for the interactions at atomic scales. I find this curious blockage a serious impediment to progress in physics.

Dennis

[Peter]

I hope my lightheartedness has not offended anyone. For instance I was not implying anyone had the intellect of Chance The Gardner (Chauncey Gardner.)

Dennis wrote about *infinity:*

I find this curious blockage a serious impediment to progress in physics.

end quote

The inability to accept reality may be a human limitation but since Dennis is not so limited it is not a universal trait. Can the philosophy of a postulate, without the math, be scientific? I don’t think so. Without verifiable experimentation can anything be postulated as true? No. Therefore, isn’t the basic issue between In-deterministic QM and Deterministic QM, and the concept of Infinity, not the math or the experimentation which is correct and verifiable for those views, but the Philosophy associated with the math? In other words can the math be correct but the philosophy not describe the math or reality? Does that restate the argument?

I also wonder if the “Space Time Continuum” could be more “scientifically” labeled the “Space Causation Continuum?”

I am hoping someone has some input on these questions. I have strung some quotes below, and a few comments from me to help or hinder with the analysis.

Peter Taylor

Some basic definitions from Merriam Webster:

Space: a limited extent in one, two, or three dimensions : distance, area, volume. A boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction <infinite space and time> b: physical space independent of what occupies it —called also absolute space.

Time: The measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration b: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed another from past through present to future. The point or period when something occurs: occasion. Rate of speed: tempo b: the grouping of the beats of music : rhythm. Finite as contrasted with infinite duration.

Causation/Causality: a causal quality or agency. The relation between a cause and its effect or between regularly correlated events or phenomena.

Continuum: a coherent whole characterized as a collection, sequence, or progression of values or elements varying by minute degrees

From “The Universe in a Nutshell,” by Stephen Hawking:

“Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others. According to this way of thinking, a scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make. A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proven to be correct. On the other hand, if the observations disagree with the predictions, one has to discard or modify the theory. (At least, that is supposed to happen. In practice, people often question the accuracy of the observations and the reliability and moral character of those making the observations.) If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and say what predictions it makes.”

end quote

A contributor to Owl, Dawson Bethrick, Subject: RE: OWL: Objectivism and Time Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:23:52 -0800 wrote:

“I think what is important about integrating the concept of time is to understand its proper place in the knowledge hierarchy: time is not an irreducible primary, for it presupposes motion (action, causality, etc.), and thus it must presuppose existence (since you cannot have motion, action or causality without something which moves or acts). (See for instance the discussion between Rand and Professors A, B, and E in the Appendix of ITOE, pp. 256-260.) This is not how many philosophers employ the term, however. Many couple the term with space (you've probably heard of "the space-time continuum"), but I think this can be very misleading, at least so far as I have come to understand these terms. David Harriman published an interesting lecture recording called "Physicists Lost in Space," where he discusses the misuse of the concept 'space' (it may be there that he elucidates the distinction about the concept time that I mentioned above, but I'm not sure of that).”

end quote

In the Ayn Rand Lexicon, Leonard Peikoff wrote, “Time is a measurement of motion; as such it is a type of relationship.”

And Ayn Rand wrote in [iTOE, 2nd Ed., p. 56.]:

“The units of the concept ‘consciousness’ are every state or process of awareness that one experiences, has ever experienced, or will ever experience (as well as similar units, a similar faculty, which one infers in other living entities). The measurements omitted from axiomatic concepts are all the measurements of all the existents they subsume; what is retained, metaphysically, is only a fundamental fact; what is retained, *epistemologically*, is only one category of measurement, omitting its particulars (time) - i.e., the fundamental fact is retained independent of any particular moment of awareness.”

end quote

Stephan Hawking observed on page 22 of his tenth anniversary edition of “A Brief History of Time”:

“. . . . the theory of relativity put an end to the idea of absolute time! It appeared that each observer must have his own measure of time, as recorded by a clock carried with him, and that identical clocks carried by different observers would not necessarily agree.”

end quote

An aside from Me: Can we agree that the experience of time passing is Epistemological? It is a subjective measurement and personal feeling that describes events, differences, and changes. Yet, this personal measurement is “Objectively” identifying metaphysical events. “Time” is affected by gravity.

Stephan Hawking observed on page 31 of his tenth anniversary edition of “A Brief History of Time”:

“In general relativity, bodies always follow straight lines in four - dimensional space – time, but they nevertheless appear to us to move along curved paths in our three - dimensional space. (This is rather like watching an airplane flying over hilly ground. Although it follows a straight line in three – dimensional space, its shadow follows a curved path on the two - dimensional ground.)

end quote

From Me: To calibrate geo-synchronous positioning satellites in earth orbit, the differences in “the same time” in and out of heavier gravity are required to correctly position objects within feet of their true location. This is one very immediate and practical application of General Relativity.

We are affected by the past, which is the nature of Causality, and we can view the past in “our future” because light travels at a constant speed as the Universe expands. We cannot change the past. We cannot view the future.

[dennislmay]

What is the identity of a quantum?

In indeterministic QM there is no identity. In de Broglie-Bohm deBB like QM theories [deterministic] the particles involved are those of classical mechanics [may have to add the work of Gregory S. Duane to make that point clear]. Don't buy the many myths describing quantum mechanics - if it sounds like BS you are most likely hearing a convoluted explanation from indeterminism lacking identity and causality and not the whole story. Dennis

R. Feynman said that our being used to 'large-scale' behavior can make it difficult to understand why things seem to be so different in the quantum world. (transcribed from an interview shown on YouTube): http://www.objectivi...16 "There's still a school of thought that cannot believe that that the atomic behavior is so much different than large scale behavior. I think that's a deep prejudice. And it's a prejudice from being so used to large-scale behavior. And they are always seeking, to find, (and waiting?) for the day that we discover that underneath the quantum mechanic, there's some mundane, ordinary balls hitting each other and moving us on. I think they're gonna be defeated. I think nature's imagination is so much greater than man's - she's never gonna let us relax." (Richard Feynman) Whereas Davd Bohm speaks of hidden variables never really having been refuted:

http://www.spaceandm...-david-bohm.htm In the Fifties, I sent my book (Quantum Theory) around to various quantum physicists - including Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, and Wolfgang Pauli. Bohr didn't answer, but Pauli liked it. Albert Einstein sent me a message that he'd like to talk with me. When we met he said the book had done about as well as you could do with quantum mechanics. But he was still not convinced it was a satisfactory theory. Einstein's objection was not merely that it was statistical. He felt it was a kind of abstraction; quantum mechanics got correct results but left out much that would have made it intelligible. I came up with the causal interpretation (that the electron is a particle, but it also has a field around it. The particle is never separated from that field, and the field affects the movement of the particle in certain ways). Einstein didn't like it, though, because the interpretation had this notion of action at a distance: Things that are far away from each other profoundly affect each other. He believed only in local action. I didn't come back to this implicate order until the Sixties, when I got interested in notions of order. I realized then the problem is that coordinates are still the basic order in physics, whereas everything else has changed. (David Bohm, On Quantum Theory, Interview, 1987) Classical physics says that reality is actually little particles that separate the world into its independent elements. Now I'm proposing the reverse, that the fundamental reality is the enfoldment and unfoldment, and these particles are abstractions from that. We could picture the electron not as a particle that exists continuously but as something coming in and going out and then coming in again. If these various condensations are close together, they approximate a track. The electron itself can never be separated from the whole of space, which is its ground. (David Bohm, On Quantum Physics, 1987) Younger physicists usually appreciate the implicate order because it makes quantum mechanics easier to grasp. By the time they're through graduate school, they've become dubious about it because they've heard that hidden variables are of no use because they've been refuted. [bolding mine] Of course, nobody has really refuted them. At this point, I think that the major issue is mathematics. In supersymmetry theory an interesting piece of mathematics will attract attention, even without any experimental confirmation. (David Bohm, On Mathematics & Modern Physics, 1987)

You have to remember that Feynman - like Bohr before him - was pushing a particular view of physics based on an indeterministic philosophy. The various consequences of this philosophy and physics are left vague in many respects. Feynman in particular always seemed interested in leaving a mystery or magic in the mix with statements implying no one can understand quantum mechanics and that there are essential mysteries at root which cannot be understood by conventional philosophy. Implying those attempting to do so are knuckle dragging throwbacks who just can't understand the new brillance. I view this as carnival side show reasoning or what you might see in a revival tent on the road. There is a great deal of philosophical appeal for some in leaving essential mysteries [based in a psychological need for a religious substitute in my view]. I am no fan of Feynman's views on this matter and never was - seeing through the nature of it when I was a kid.

Bohm didn't live to see the work of Gregory S. Duane who outlined an explanation for his "fields" in Bohmian mechanics and how they would interact with the hidden variables of particles themselves - both of which can be solved in terms of classical physics particles [Duane only solves for the hidden variables]. Thus there is the particle and the field made of particles - and the interaction with other external particles. The work of Duane and its extension to the properties of the field seems to be what has been missing since 1925 to counter the Bohr/Feynman and related philosophies which have dominated since the beginning of QM. I will discuss this subject more in two papers I am writing up based on work I've done going back to 1990 and some to 1983-1984.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

Without verifiable experimentation can anything be postulated as true? No. Therefore, isn’t the basic issue between In-deterministic QM and Deterministic QM, and the concept of Infinity, not the math or the experimentation which is correct and verifiable for those views, but the Philosophy associated with the math? In other words can the math be correct but the philosophy not describe the math or reality? Does that restate the argument?

In the present non-relativistic models of QM there are no differences between the predictions of in-deterministic QM and deterministic QM. The relativistic version of deterministic QM is still in development. It is my view that in-deterministic QM already requires a great many ad hoc assumptions and will collapse under a growing list of assumptions and fixes once more phenomenon are discovered.

David Harriman published an interesting lecture recording called "Physicists Lost in Space," where he discusses the misuse of the concept 'space'...

I agree - since at least 1905 the error of confusing additional variables with additional spatial dimenions has lead to vast waste and errors in physics.

The round trip path of electromagnetic waves is the currency natures provides us to measure the passage of time. Moving fast affects the rate of exchanging this currency. Being in a strong gravitational field causes the currency to take a longer route during exchange - also affecting the rate of exchange. It is exactly that simple.

Keeping track of various currency exchanges is what confuses people when expressed in unfamiliar terms. Once you've gone through all the reasoning and boiled it down - without trying to shock people with the brilliance of your BS - it is at root an accounting problem.

Dennis

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Once you've gone through all the reasoning and boiled it down - without trying to shock people with the brilliance of your BS - it is at root an accounting problem.

Dennis,

I've hacked off some science people by saying that the Big Bang is nothing more so far than result of running some math backwards.

You observe expansion, measure it, then run the math on it backwards until you get to 0. Then you call that the Big Bang.

Voila.

Unless I really am missing something, this is what I have observed that happens.

But boy, does it piss some people off when you say it that way. And what's worse, I usually can't make heads or tails of where they say I don't get it.

(I can back that up with quotes, but it has been a long while since I have had those discussions and I would have to hunt through all kinds of stuff to find them, so I probably won't unless it becomes a real issue.)

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Once you've gone through all the reasoning and boiled it down - without trying to shock people with the brilliance of your BS - it is at root an accounting problem.

Dennis,

I've hacked off some science people by saying that the Big Bang is nothing more so far than result of running some math backwards.

You observe expansion, measure it, then run the math on it backwards until you get to 0. Then you call that the Big Bang.

Voila.

Unless I really am missing something, this is what I have observed that happens.

But boy, does it piss some people off when you say it that way. And what's worse, I usually can't make heads or tails of where they say I don't get it.

(I can back that up with quotes, but it has been a long while since I have had those discussions and I would have to hunt through all kinds of stuff to find them, so I probably won't unless it becomes a real issue.)

Michael

What you say is quite true. There is no way we can observe the Beginning assuming there was a Beginning. All we can do is posit a hypothesis that accounts for images of the Cosmos billions of light years out (therefore billions of years ago). Whatever best explains or describes what is seen is the theory most likely to be held. If the Cosmos is expanding now then it must have been smaller at some time in the past. The notion that Everything came from Nothing is purely hypothetical and not every buys it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

Once you've gone through all the reasoning and boiled it down - without trying to shock people with the brilliance of your BS - it is at root an accounting problem.

Dennis,

I've hacked off some science people by saying that the Big Bang is nothing more so far than result of running some math backwards.

You observe expansion, measure it, then run the math on it backwards until you get to 0. Then you call that the Big Bang.

Voila.

Unless I really am missing something, this is what I have observed that happens.

But boy, does it piss some people off when you say it that way. And what's worse, I usually can't make heads or tails of where they say I don't get it.

(I can back that up with quotes, but it has been a long while since I have had those discussions and I would have to hunt through all kinds of stuff to find them, so I probably won't unless it becomes a real issue.)

Michael

Hack them off some more and mention that even when you run the clock backwards for an expanding universe you still get the wrong answer. The angular size, luminosity and angular distribution of galaxies does not match the expanding universe model. What you are seeing is a slowly increase in the speed of time and a geometrically static 3-D universe. Big Bang advocates necessarily present their proof piecemeal in order for you to suspend disbelief one issue at a time instead of in full context. They can huff and bluff and feign superiority of understanding but they cannot answer the many dozens of observations indicating their model and the basics behind it are entirely wrong. Wrong answer 101 begins with General Relativity failing on the scale of galaxies. The dark matter fix does not pass introductory statistical mechanics. About this time last year Stacy McGaugh put the nail in the General Relativity coffin - it fails on the scale of galaxies and cannot be expanded to large scale cosmology. There is an attempt in the works to fix General Relativity with ad hoc extensions to match observation but it is not obvioius the exponentially growing pile of Band-Aids to fix Big Bang theory can work when it also fails basic angular size and luminosity observations [science 101].

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

Hack them off some more and mention that even when you run the clock backwards for an expanding universe you still get the wrong answer. The angular size, luminosity and angular distribution of galaxies does not match the expanding universe model. What you are seeing is a slowly increase in the speed of time and a geometrically static 3-D universe. Big Bang advocates necessarily present their proof piecemeal in order for you to suspend disbelief one issue at a time instead of in full context. They can huff and bluff and feign superiority of understanding but they cannot answer the many dozens of observations indicating their model and the basics behind it are entirely wrong. Wrong answer 101 begins with General Relativity failing on the scale of galaxies. The dark matter fix does not pass introductory statistical mechanics. About this time last year Stacy McGaugh put the nail in the General Relativity coffin - it fails on the scale of galaxies and cannot be expanded to large scale cosmology. There is an attempt in the works to fix General Relativity with ad hoc extensions to match observation but it is not obvioius the exponentially growing pile of Band-Aids to fix Big Bang theory can work when it also fails basic angular size and luminosity observations [science 101].

Dennis

General Relativity is so integrally constructed it cannot be "saved" by ad hoc fixes. If it doesn't work, it will have to be tossed and replaced.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

The desire for a "first cause" for existence [which necessitates causality starting outside of existence] seems a common thread among the vast majority in the human thought process - hence the many creation myths. I seem to be missing that gene myself. Causality refers to the process of identity in action - which presupposes existence before identity or identity in action can occur.

But this does not resolve the problem of existence presupposing cause.

Elxample: a dog chewing a bone is "identity in action". Cause exists both for the chewinig of the bone as well as for the existence of the dog.

The dog's existence can be traced back to other existence that caused it, and so forth.

So as for existence, it all results in an infinite regress in causality. Are you comfortable with that?

[dennislmay]

Hack them off some more and mention that even when you run the clock backwards for an expanding universe you still get the wrong answer. The angular size, luminosity and angular distribution of galaxies does not match the expanding universe model. What you are seeing is a slowly increase in the speed of time and a geometrically static 3-D universe. Big Bang advocates necessarily present their proof piecemeal in order for you to suspend disbelief one issue at a time instead of in full context. They can huff and bluff and feign superiority of understanding but they cannot answer the many dozens of observations indicating their model and the basics behind it are entirely wrong. Wrong answer 101 begins with General Relativity failing on the scale of galaxies. The dark matter fix does not pass introductory statistical mechanics. About this time last year Stacy McGaugh put the nail in the General Relativity coffin - it fails on the scale of galaxies and cannot be expanded to large scale cosmology. There is an attempt in the works to fix General Relativity with ad hoc extensions to match observation but it is not obvioius the exponentially growing pile of Band-Aids to fix Big Bang theory can work when it also fails basic angular size and luminosity observations [science 101].

Dennis

General Relativity is so integrally constructed it cannot be "saved" by ad hoc fixes. If it doesn't work, it will have to be tossed and replaced.

Ba'al Chatzaf

John Moffat leads one team and Philip Mannheim another which have both shown that dark matter + General Relativity fails and they are creating ad hoc fixes to General Relativity to make it give the right numbers where it presently fails. They are not tossing it and replacing it - they intend to give it epicycles as required to keep it alive.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

The desire for a "first cause" for existence [which necessitates causality starting outside of existence] seems a common thread among the vast majority in the human thought process - hence the many creation myths. I seem to be missing that gene myself. Causality refers to the process of identity in action - which presupposes existence before identity or identity in action can occur.

But this does not resolve the problem of existence presupposing cause.

Elxample: a dog chewing a bone is "identity in action". Cause exists both for the chewinig of the bone as well as for the existence of the dog.

The dog's existence can be traced back to other existence that caused it, and so forth.

So as for existence, it all results in an infinite regress in causality. Are you comfortable with that?

There is no problem with infinite regress in causality - as such here is no problem to resolve.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

John Moffat leads one team and Philip Mannheim another which have both shown that dark matter + General Relativity fails and they are creating ad hoc fixes to General Relativity to make it give the right numbers where it presently fails. They are not tossing it and replacing it - they intend to give it epicycles as required to keep it alive.

Dennis

That is bad news (in a way). And good news (in another way). Time to go back to the drawing board.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

John Moffat leads one team and Philip Mannheim another which have both shown that dark matter + General Relativity fails and they are creating ad hoc fixes to General Relativity to make it give the right numbers where it presently fails. They are not tossing it and replacing it - they intend to give it epicycles as required to keep it alive.

Dennis

That is bad news (in a way). And good news (in another way). Time to go back to the drawing board.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It is bad news that they are going the epicycle route. It is good news that mainstream researchers are admitting that General Relativity plus dark matter has failed which opens up the opportunity for real progress using other approaches.

Dennis

[Xray]

The desire for a "first cause" for existence [which necessitates causality starting outside of existence] seems a common thread among the vast majority in the human thought process - hence the many creation myths. I seem to be missing that gene myself. Causality refers to the process of identity in action - which presupposes existence before identity or identity in action can occur.

But this does not resolve the problem of existence presupposing cause.

Elxample: a dog chewing a bone is "identity in action". Cause exists both for the chewinig of the bone as well as for the existence of the dog.

The dog's existence can be traced back to other existence that caused it, and so forth.

So as for existence, it all results in an infinite regress in causality. Are you comfortable with that?

There is no problem with infinite regress in causality - as such here is no problem to resolve.

Dennis

Positing an infinite regress in causaltiy as a universal principle implies that all existence is subjected to this principle as well.

So you see no problem in adding 'infinite regress in causality' to the axiom "Existence exists"?

[dennislmay]

The desire for a "first cause" for existence [which necessitates causality starting outside of existence] seems a common thread among the vast majority in the human thought process - hence the many creation myths. I seem to be missing that gene myself. Causality refers to the process of identity in action - which presupposes existence before identity or identity in action can occur.

But this does not resolve the problem of existence presupposing cause. Elxample: a dog chewing a bone is "identity in action". Cause exists both for the chewinig of the bone as well as for the existence of the dog. The dog's existence can be traced back to other existence that caused it, and so forth. So as for existence, it all results in an infinite regress in causality. Are you comfortable with that?

There is no problem with infinite regress in causality - as such here is no problem to resolve. Dennis

Positing an infinite regress in causaltiy as a universal principle implies that all existence is subjected to this principle as well. So you see no problem in adding 'infinite regress in causality' to the axiom "Existence exists"?

I see no problem to adding it as a statement somewhere in the logical structure. Perhaps a lemma of causality. I don't have strong feelings cocerning statements of logical structure as long as they form a consistent whole.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

It is bad news that they are going the epicycle route. It is good news that mainstream researchers are admitting that General Relativity plus dark matter has failed which opens up the opportunity for real progress using other approaches.

Dennis

My point precisely. Physics should have a Crisis about once every century to keep it fresh and lively.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Peter]

Answer to Shocking 'Faster-Than-Light' Particles Expected Soon

Say it ain't so, Albert.

[BaalChatzaf]

Answer to Shocking 'Faster-Than-Light' Particles Expected Soon

Say it ain't so, Albert.

Answer to Shocking 'Faster-Than-Light' Particles Expected Soon

Say it ain't so, Albert.

A confirming or refuting experiment has yet to be done. Stay tuned.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[SoAMadDeathWish]

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/what-happened-before-the-big-bang-the-new-philosophy-of-cosmology/251608/

"Look, physics has definitely avoided what were traditionally considered to be foundational physical questions, but the reason for that goes back to the foundation of quantum mechanics. The problem is that quantum mechanics was developed as a mathematical tool. Physicists understood how to use it as a tool for making predictions, but without an agreement or understanding about what it was telling us about the physical world. And that's very clear when you look at any of the foundational discussions. This is what Einstein was upset about; this is what Schrodinger was upset about. Quantum mechanics was merely a calculational technique that was not well understood as a physical theory. Bohr and Heisenberg tried to argue that asking for a clear physical theory was something you shouldn't do anymore. That it was something outmoded. And they were wrong, Bohr and Heisenberg were wrong about that. But the effect of it was to shut down perfectly legitimate physics questions within the physics community for about half a century. And now we're coming out of that, fortunately."

Have you ever actually had any experience with modern physics or mathematics beyond the highschool level? The mathematics of even the simplest physical systems in GR and QM goes WAY beyond present human understanding very very quickly.

I can't really explain how my computer works in everyday language, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a computer or that it doesn't work.

[dennislmay]

Yes, did you have anything to add to the discussion?

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

So what? QM and its extensions still crank out correct predictions. What is more important than that? Engineers and applied physicists use it to create more and better technology. What is more important than that?

What is more important: philosophical purity or practical results?

Ba'al Chatzaf

From the article:

"the effect of it was to shut down perfectly legitimate physics questions within the physics community for about half a century."

For me "shutting down debate" was the issue in college, graduate school, and when attempting to publish. As I am active from time to time in various discussion groups and I still find physics students and graduate students being fed disinformation concerning quantum mechanics and to a lesser extent Special Relativity. Shutting down debate is what we expect in partisan politics and zero sum game schemes - not science.

Dennis

And still the applications and the gadgets flow out. When that stops, then I will worry.

Philosophy and $1.67 will get me a small coffee at the local Dunkin' Donuts ™.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Peter]

Ba’al wrote:

And still the applications and the gadgets flow out. When that stops, then I will worry.

end quote

The flow of gadgets won’t stop if there is a market for them but the original science may slow.

On another thread I mentioned “Cosmos” was returning to network TV on Fox and other platforms. The interview for the show, with four participants, was at Comic Con, and too unrehearsed and not very eloquent. The main scientist, Tyson, said they will not dumb it down. A ‘bridge’ between the gadget makers and users is needed, as is a bridge between young people inundated with fantasy (as at comic con) and hard science. Perhaps this show will help bridge the gap.

On the plus side, the science taught in schools may be truer science than what was taught in schools twenty, forty or sixty years ago. The glaring omission would be propaganda about global warming taught without the hard scientific evidence. At least creationism has been relegated to the “quaint.” Years ago science teachers in Maryland, nearly unanimously signed a document saying they would not teach biblical versions of pseudo science.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yes, did you have anything to add to the discussion?

Dennis,

That was pretty obnoxious, wasn't it?

I'm cutting a little slack right now because this person is new and just a few years removed from high school herself. (Ah, to be young and full of piss and vinegar again--one can dream. )

Let's wait until she reads some of your other stuff and see what she does when she discovers what a colossal screw-up she just did.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Yes, did you have anything to add to the discussion?

Dennis

My point is that, just because no one understands some equation or other on an intuitive level, it doesn't mean that QM is a bad theory. Which is what I think you were trying to say in the OP.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My point is that, just because no one understands some equation or other on an intuitive level, it doesn't mean that QM is a bad theory. Which is what I think you were trying to say in the OP.

SoAMadDeathWish,

What does understand "some equation or other on an intuitive level" mean?

I've got nothing against equations and nothing against intuition, but I'm having trouble groking this.

MIchael