The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics


Recommended Posts

So your point is that in this case you are emotionally incapable of reducing your abstraction to its concretes? Come on, man, pull yourself together.

...

God, you are emotionally crippled.

This from the guy who wants to define how OL should be moderated.

Ted, is you really so bereft of imagination that the only possible interpretation you can give to "don't get me started" is the one above? I didn't come to OL to observe human stupidity, I can get that by reading any major newspaper.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, I do seriously think, based on your constant and continued unprovoked hostility, towards me and everyone else, and your suspicion that you are constantly being attacked, that you are either a borderline paranoid schizophrenic, or were abused as a child, or have some other organic disorder that makes you incapable of understanding the intentions of others. But I might be wrong. Please just ignore what you think my opinion of you is, and stop trying to discern hidden hostility where it does not exist.

You said you had a point about statism and the quote function.

If that wasn't an idle boast, please explain. I am interested in what you have to say about the relation of computer functionality to statism.

Edited by Ted Keer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Ted, when you say "you are emotionally incapable of reducing your abstraction to its concretes", then I should not take it as an attack. Nor I suppose should I take all those other things you said as an attack. Nor should I think you are an idiot because of your incessant idiotic misinterpretations.

And your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Many posts back you're telling me this story about how Rand answers a rude questioner. And here we are now, with you asking me a question in the most crudely uncivil manner possible. And you lecture me about psychology.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Ted, when you say "you are emotionally incapable of reducing your abstraction to its concretes", then I should not take it as an attack. Nor I suppose should I take all those other things you said as an attack. Nor should I think you are an idiot because of your incessant idiotic misinterpretations.

And your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Many posts back you're telling me this story about how Rand answers a rude questioner. And here we are now, with you asking me a question in the most crudely uncivil manner possible. And you lecture me about psychology.

Don't misquote me. I did not say that you are emotionally incapable. I said:

You might be saying something interesting here. Could you please explain yourself explicitly?

I'm an engineer and this is a "don't get me started" issue.

So your point is that in this case you are emotionally incapable of reducing your abstraction to its concretes? Come on, man, pull yourself together.

George has suggested that you answer this question as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't misquote me. I did not say that you are emotionally incapable. I said:

Whatever. You've said enough. In your image of me, you think I might have been abused as a child, and yet you are a relentless asshole toward this poor abused bloke of your imagination. Which tells me you are a vile individual. Further, you lecture me about why *you* won't answer my question because of its alleged rudeness, and yet you're a complete and total asshole when asking me to explain something. Which tells me that you are a contemptible hypocrite. So again, you've said enough. You've said more than enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did insult me. Your response to my saying that I was not alarmed by Bell's theorem was that only a baby or a fool could hold my opinion.

You have provided plenty of evidence of your emotional issues, here and elsewhere, towards me and on others, on this forum and others.

Your hysteria:

relentless asshole . . . total asshole
Ted, is you really so bereft of imagination . . .

speaks for itself.

I did not insult you gratuitously - I note you still can't even quote what I actually said - or make any comment for which I don't have more than enough evidence.

I am not responsible for your mental well being. You chose to stay here, and so I reserve the right to question you as if you can handle it.

I am still interested in your point, if you have one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not insult you gratuitously - I note you still can't even quote what I actually said - or make any comment for which I don't have more than enough evidence.

So your point is that on top of "hypocrite" and "vile," I need to add "dishonest weasel" and "troll" as well. I see your game. You come up and spew your vicious bile, and then when someone responds in a causal manner you whine and cry and say somebody needs to be moderated and is paranoid and delusional etc. You're like the little brat who keeps getting his big brother in trouble by quietly poking and poking and poking until he gets what everyone would expect and then whines and cries to mommy and daddy that he's being maltreated. What a bastard you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not insult you gratuitously - I note you still can't even quote what I actually said - or make any comment for which I don't have more than enough evidence.

So your point is that on top of "hypocrite" and "vile," I need to add "dishonest weasel" and "troll" as well. I see your game. You come up and spew your vicious bile, and then when someone responds in a causal manner you whine and cry and say somebody needs to be moderated and is paranoid and delusional etc. You're like the little brat who keeps getting his big brother in trouble by quietly poking and poking and poking until he gets what everyone would expect and then whines and cries to mommy and daddy that he's being maltreated. What a bastard you are.

Oh, my. Can I quote you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not insult you gratuitously - I note you still can't even quote what I actually said - or make any comment for which I don't have more than enough evidence.

So your point is that on top of "hypocrite" and "vile," I need to add "dishonest weasel" and "troll" as well. I see your game. You come up and spew your vicious bile, and then when someone responds in a causal manner you whine and cry and say somebody needs to be moderated and is paranoid and delusional etc. You're like the little brat who keeps getting his big brother in trouble by quietly poking and poking and poking until he gets what everyone would expect and then whines and cries to mommy and daddy that he's being maltreated. What a bastard you are.

Wow. I don't even think beer would help with this flamewar.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "particle" is rationally used to refer to something that is not actually a particle in the usual sense of the word. It's just meant to conceptually contain what is being talked about, it doesn't mean there's a literal particle there.

Your point being? Nobody made any claim about the term "particle" in QM referring to a literal particle, like something very small and compact, e. g. grain of sand.

I didn't make the remark attributed to me. Maybe you were indicating that it would have been a reasonable comeback to the remark George made.

I just went back and checked. You're right, Ellen: my mistake, sorry, due to fast typing and not paying enough attention to embedded posts. The quote was actually from George himself, so the joke is on me. :D

Here's what he wrote in his #1302 reply to you: :

Need I remind you yet again that after I repeatedly said that physicists have no special expertise in the realm of philosophy DF denied this, claiming that physicists do indeed have a special expertise when it comes to drawing philosophical conclusions from the experimental findings of physics.

That is a straightforward appeal to authority in the realm of philosophy. Got it?

Imo George misunderstood DF. For their experimental findings can well lead physicists to profound philosophical reflections.

Niel's Bohr's fascinating thoughts on QM for example have a deep philosophical impact.

And what would a 'correct' philosopical conclusion be anyway? One that fits a certain weltanschauung?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ghs: Imagine an electron-elf who could reflect on the subatomic world and rejected the idea of macroscopic life outside that world as being possible on the ground that it does not match the elf's idea of "objective reality."

[quoting Xray]: Now we are getting there, George: Can you answer the question as to whose idea of life is the "objective" one?

Both are objective, each from its own perspective. The subatomic world of the physicist is no more real or objective than the world of everyday life. Nor is it inherently more fundamental.

Ghs

So objectivity is "contextual", and there exists no such thing as absolute objectivity?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ghs: Imagine an electron-elf who could reflect on the subatomic world and rejected the idea of macroscopic life outside that world as being possible on the ground that it does not match the elf's idea of "objective reality."

[quoting Xray]: Now we are getting there, George: Can you answer the question as to whose idea of life is the "objective" one?

Both are objective, each from its own perspective. The subatomic world of the physicist is no more real or objective than the world of everyday life. Nor is it inherently more fundamental.

Ghs

So objectivity is "contextual", and there exists no such thing as absolute objectivity?

I apply the term "contextual" to knowledge and judgments, not to perceptions per se.

Ideally, judgments made from the perspective of the subatomic world will not be incompatible with judgments made from the perspective of the macroscopic world. Both perspectives are "objective" in the sense that both describe a reality that is really "out there" and not merely a subjective construction of our minds. You can walk around a building and view it from different sides. All such viewpoints are "objective."

I don't know what you mean by "absolute objectivity." I see no point in the qualifier "absolute." If a judgment meets certain epistemological criteria, then it qualifies as objective.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shayne,

You cross-posted with my long reply to George in post #1329. If you missed that, please read it. I think it might be helpful to you in understanding why a lot of physicists place Bohm's theory in the category of medicine that's worse than the disease.

Ellen

I don't find any physicist who throws metaphysics out the window as credible. To me the fundamental issue here is whether we can comprehend reality or whether we must be satisfied with merely describing it. Bohm is trying. In other words he's actually doing physics.

Shayne,

So you agree with Bohm's thoughts outlined in the excerpt Ellen posted in # 1329?

sjw: Ironically I think Einstein helped get the whole enterprise off track, as relativity is an ametaphysical theory.

What is an "ametaphysical" theory?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shayne,

You cross-posted with my long reply to George in post #1329. If you missed that, please read it. I think it might be helpful to you in understanding why a lot of physicists place Bohm's theory in the category of medicine that's worse than the disease.

Ellen

I don't find any physicist who throws metaphysics out the window as credible. To me the fundamental issue here is whether we can comprehend reality or whether we must be satisfied with merely describing it. Bohm is trying. In other words he's actually doing physics.

Shayne,

So you agree with Bohm's thoughts outlined in the excerpt Ellen posted in # 1329?

sjw: Ironically I think Einstein helped get the whole enterprise off track, as relativity is an ametaphysical theory.

What is an "ametaphysical" theory?

On a certain level I agree with Bohm but don't think he has nailed it.

An "ametaphysical" theory does not attempt to provide a coherent view on the nature of the underlying substance/structure of the universe that gives rise to the features we observe, it just asserts behavior as a brute inexplicable fact. So an ametaphysical theory in this sense is an acausal theory; a metaphysical theory would posit substance of a nature giving rise to effects, it would infer this substance from the effects.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry Martin, but you cannot actually imagine infinity, and its absurd to say so. You can actually imagine until you die of sleep but you will only have imagined a finite amount of things, vast black reachs of space or a string of eights lying on their sides - but they will be a finite number of black spaces and lemniscates.

Here you appear to be equating imagining with counting or visualizing. They are not the same thing. It would take me infinitely long to count an infinite number of entities in an infinite universe, but that doesn't mean that I can't imagine such a thing, only that I can't count it or visualize it. Then again, according to the BBT, the universe is finite but at least several hundred billion light years in size. Can you visualize an unbounded universe several hundred billion light years across, with untold billions of galaxies, each with billions and billions of stars? Can you count all these stars? Of course not. But you can certainly imagine it.

But can the human mind really imagine infinity? Can we, as finite beings, actually grasp infinity? I don't think we can. But this does not mean infinity can't exist merely because we can't imagine it.

Ghs: : Imagine an electron-elf who could reflect on the subatomic world and rejected the idea of macroscopic life outside that world as being possible on the ground that it does not match the elf's idea of "objective reality."
[Xray]: Now we are getting there, George: Can you answer the question as to whose idea of life is the "objective" one?

Both are objective, each from its own perspective. The subatomic world of the physicist is no more real or objective than the world of everyday life. Nor is it inherently more fundamental.

Ghs

So when experimental findings in the miscroscopic world like quantum entanglements contradict the 'cause and effect' perspective of the macroscopic world, you have no difficulty with that?

My point being that kicking a ball is a clear example of causation. You said, or at least implied, that it is not.

No, I did not imply it was not. My point was that the "cause and effect" pattern we can observe in the (macroscopic) world of our everyday experience can't be transferred to the microscopic world of quantum mechanics, and that it would be naive to believe that an "objective" idea of "reality" has to be based exclusively on what we can observe and describe on the macroscopic level.

So the philosophical question is: Can a theory of "objective" reality be established at all by humans, who are themselves elements of the system and therefore can't be in the position of an "outside" observer?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point being that kicking a ball is a clear example of causation. You said, or at least implied, that it is not.

No, I did not imply it was not. My point was that the "cause and effect" pattern we can observe in the (macroscopic) world of our everyday experience can't be transferred to the microscopic world of quantum mechanics, and that it would be naive to believe that an "objective" idea of "reality" has to be based exclusively on what we can observe and describe on the macroscopic level.

So the philosophical question is: Can a theory of "objective" reality stand up to scrutiny at all?

Here is what you wrote in post #1228 .

Your attacks on DF portray you as downright naive regarding your idea of reality. Like someone who kicks a ball, the ball rolls, and who says: "Here we have a clear cause and effect-relationship".

If I kick a ball and the ball rolls, then this macroscopic event is a clear example of a cause-effect relationship. Savvy?

Didn't think I would go to the trouble of finding your original post, eh?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point being that kicking a ball is a clear example of causation. You said, or at least implied, that it is not.

No, I did not imply it was not. My point was that the "cause and effect" pattern we can observe in the (macroscopic) world of our everyday experience can't be transferred to the microscopic world of quantum mechanics, and that it would be naive to believe that an "objective" idea of "reality" has to be based exclusively on what we can observe and describe on the macroscopic level.

So the philosophical question is: Can a theory of "objective" reality stand up to scrutiny at all?

Here is what you wrote in post #1228 .

Your attacks on DF portray you as downright naive regarding your idea of reality. Like someone who kicks a ball, the ball rolls, and who says: "Here we have a clear cause and effect-relationship".

If I kick a ball and the ball rolls, then this macroscopic event is a clear example of a cause-effect relationship. Savvy?

Didn't think I would go to the trouble of finding your original post, eh?

Ghs

Of course I did. I certainly expected you to remember that post of mine.

Since I myself "go to the trouble of finding original posts" all the time, I have no reason to assume you won't do the same.

My original post illustrates what I pointed out in my recent reply to you, where I stated that the "cause and effect" pattern we can observe in the (macroscopic) world of our everyday experience can't be transferred to the microscopic world of quantum mechanics, and that it would be naive to believe that an "objective" idea of "reality" has to be based exclusively on what we can observe and describe on the macroscopic level.

The philosophical question arising from that is: Can a theory of "objective" reality be established at all by us humans, who are themselves elements of the system and therefore can't be in the position of an "outside" observer?

What are your thoughts on that, George?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now