No such thing as a dumb question?

[caroljane]

No, I am not posting in S&M by mistake. I just watched a show on Discovery hosted by Morgan Freeman. It seemed to be about quantum physics and how understanding the behaviour of the smallest particles is currently impossible. A scientist called Max said that if we can't understand the universe mathematically we might as well give up (I am paraphrasiing). This show was very interesting although I did not understand any of it. I only watched because I can't bear to watch the hockey game in case we lose. Even so, if anybody (Baal or Dennis say) could give a very simple background or frame for this, I would be grateful.

I know I should read all the old threads on this but life is too short.

Thanks.

(Remember, I cannot play chess beyond 2 moves)

[dennislmay]

Definitely not a dumb question - really the most important question in physics.

It is my view that the scale of smaller and smaller particles continues on indefinitely into the smaller and smaller - but mine is a minority view in current times. That implies we will never understand the smallest particles since they continue to get smaller and smaller beyond our ability to observe them.

The majority view is that at some very small but finite size space and time become granular and smaller objects do not exist. I would however point out that every observation predicted to exist based on granular space has to this date been observed to be wrong. Thus the theory of granular based space-time is a hypothesis so far without evidence.

There are many nearly equivalent QM theories and only a few predict granular space time. I view most of them as wildly incorrect and since they have no evidence to support themselves the question remains wide open.

Dennis

[caroljane]

So smallness is infinite, like largeness? There is no point of nothingness?

[dennislmay]

So smallness is infinite, like largeness? There is no point of nothingness?

At every scale there is still smaller, at every scale there is still larger.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

No, I am not posting in S&M by mistake. I just watched a show on Discovery hosted by Morgan Freeman. It seemed to be about quantum physics and how understanding the behaviour of the smallest particles is currently impossible. A scientist called Max said that if we can't understand the universe mathematically we might as well give up (I am paraphrasiing). This show was very interesting although I did not understand any of it. I only watched because I can't bear to watch the hockey game in case we lose. Even so, if anybody (Baal or Dennis say) could give a very simple background or frame for this, I would be grateful.

I know I should read all the old threads on this but life is too short.

Thanks.

(Remember, I cannot play chess beyond 2 moves)

That would be Max Tegmark who is a Platonist.

[GALTGULCH8]

Deleted

[caroljane]

No, I am not posting in S&M by mistake. I just watched a show on Discovery hosted by Morgan Freeman. It seemed to be about quantum physics and how understanding the behaviour of the smallest particles is currently impossible. A scientist called Max said that if we can't understand the universe mathematically we might as well give up (I am paraphrasiing). This show was very interesting although I did not understand any of it. I only watched because I can't bear to watch the hockey game in case we lose. Even so, if anybody (Baal or Dennis say) could give a very simple background or frame for this, I would be grateful.

I know I should read all the old threads on this but life is too short.

Thanks.

(Remember, I cannot play chess beyond 2 moves)

That would be Max Tegmark who is a Platonist.

Oh, Lord. I looked up Platonism and mathetmatics. Who knew math had its own philosophy? Now I am wondering if anything is real.

[caroljane]

So then Baal, would you describe yourself as a formalist? How would you describe Dennis? (Keep it clean)

[dennislmay]

So then Baal, would you describe yourself as a formalist? How would you describe Dennis? (Keep it clean)

I am a billiard balls clockwork hard determinist in the same sense as Laplace and other classical

physics hard determinists.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

So then Baal, would you describe yourself as a formalist? How would you describe Dennis? (Keep it clean)

Since Dennis has not published a word, I have no way of describing him. (Is that clean enough for you).

As for me I am a Meyer Briggs IN\TJ which means I look for what works.; I am a born pragmatist and and empirical person. Theories are nice, and even useful at times. but facts ARE the universe.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

So then Baal, would you describe yourself as a formalist? How would you describe Dennis? (Keep it clean)

Since Dennis has not published a word, I have no way of describing him. (Is that clean enough for you).

As for me I am a Meyer Briggs IN\TJ which means I look for what works.; I am a born pragmatist and and empirical person. Theories are nice, and even useful at times. but facts ARE the universe.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf finds value in peer review - I do not since about 1991.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al Chatzaf finds value in peer review - I do not since about 1991.

Dennis

I assume that is because you are peerless and a legend in your own mind.

If peer review was good enough for Richard Feynman it is good enough for me.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

Ba'al Chatzaf finds value in peer review - I do not since about 1991.

Dennis

I assume that is because you are peerless and a legend in your own mind.

If peer review was good enough for Richard Feynman it is good enough for me.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Feynman was part of the problem - not the solution.

There are plenty of sources and outlets of and for information that don't require a government funded university sanctioned publication. Stealing my tax money for unconstitutional purposes is only the first insult on the way to government approved peer review.

Dennis

[BaalChatzaf]

Feynman was part of the problem - not the solution.

Dennis

Somehow I knew you were going to write that.

[Brant Gaede]

Peer review is better than no peer review. Government money injected into science, however, destroys science making peer review very problematical. Now imagine you are the world's greatest scientist and you need money for your work. How long are you going to remain the world's greatest scientist filling out government grant applications instead of doing science?

--Brant

[dennislmay]

Feynman was part of the problem - not the solution.

Dennis

Somehow I knew you were going to write that.

Probably because I've said it before.

Feynman was proponent of indeterminism [perhaps a change of heart just before his death according to Carver Mead] and never seemed to appreciate the damage done helping the assertion of the arbitrary - leading to the mess physics and cosmology is today. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Sting theory with 10**500 solutions, unseen dimensions, the mind affecting QM - all assertions of the arbitrary. I have not been a fan of Feynman since the late 1970's.

There is only one non-government college in the last partially free nation in the world - Hillsdale College - not exactly known for physics.

I don't know of any physics journal Ba'al Chatzaf would approve of that is not directly or indirectly a government journal.

I do not seek government approval nor would I accept it. I've been there done that.

The government journals and government approved peer review are dead to me. They are more often than not 35+ years behind the times. Sometimes as much as 100+ years behind in their assertions because they don't read history and cannot understand the mistakes made before. What doesn't fit the narrative of today is all the journals are concerned with.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

Peer review is better than no peer review. Government money injected into science, however, destroys science making peer review very problematical. Now imagine you are the world's greatest scientist and you need money for your work. How long are you going to remain the world's greatest scientist filling out government grant applications instead of doing science?

--Brant

Private peer review is the only solution. Who is left in science not on the government teat?

Dennis

[Brant Gaede]

Arthur Robinson & co.?

--Brant

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

[BaalChatzaf]

Peer review is better than no peer review. Government money injected into science, however, destroys science making peer review very problematical. Now imagine you are the world's greatest scientist and you need money for your work. How long are you going to remain the world's greatest scientist filling out government grant applications instead of doing science?

--Brant

Private peer review is the only solution. Who is left in science not on the government teat?

Dennis

Fine. let it be private. But people who publish (apparently this does not apply to you) at the very least should have their work checked for mistakes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

Arthur Robinson & co.?

--Brant

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

The second one is a small medical research outfit, not sure if the first one is a lawyer/investment banking group or you intended something else?

Dennis

[Brant Gaede]

Naw, OISM is his baby.

--Brant

[dennislmay]

Naw, OISM is his baby.

--Brant

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=15551

OK I found the person you referred to.

Dennis

[dennislmay]

Peer review is better than no peer review. Government money injected into science, however, destroys science making peer review very problematical. Now imagine you are the world's greatest scientist and you need money for your work. How long are you going to remain the world's greatest scientist filling out government grant applications instead of doing science?

--Brant

Private peer review is the only solution. Who is left in science not on the government teat?

Dennis

Fine. let it be private. But people who publish (apparently this does not apply to you) at the very least should have their work checked for mistakes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Part of my disgust with the system resulted from having professors who were also journal editors, plus corresponding with other journal editors and knowing people who were the victims of bad journal editors. Private is the only way to go - with the gun of government and stolen cash behind all the major physics journals you end up with a good-ole-boys rewards network with no incentive to "journal" actual progress in physics.

I am happy to publish in private places and have done so. I have received no notice to correct mistakes to date. I have however been known to find errors in journals, on-line encyclopedias, government research, government publications, books, and textbooks and found that they are not interested in being told of their mistakes with the exception of Wikipedia.

Dennis

[PDS]

So then Baal, would you describe yourself as a formalist? How would you describe Dennis? (Keep it clean)

Since Dennis has not published a word, I have no way of describing him. (Is that clean enough for you).

As for me I am a Meyer Briggs IN\TJ which means I look for what works.; I am a born pragmatist and and empirical person. Theories are nice, and even useful at times. but facts ARE the universe.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I refuse to believe you are an INTJ, mainly because I am an INTJ.

Name one intuitive thing you have ever done in your entire life. If you have to think very long then it probably wasn't so intuitive.

[BaalChatzaf]

I refuse to believe you are an INTJ, mainly because I am an INTJ.

Name one intuitive thing you have ever done in your entire life. If you have to think very long then it probably wasn't so intuitive.

I've test three ways. It comes out INTJ. Sometimes I have a nightmare and I dream that I am an INTP.