Seeing Black Holes

[WinterLight]

If he’s a big enough boy to think that he has something worth posting on a public philosophy forum which has known to get fairly intense and impersonal, he’s big enough to defend himself or not. He can learn from that…

If he pursues physics and actually gets out in the real world to work in any physics-related field, he will soon find (as I did) that comments like mine are merely gentle reminders to learn what you are talking about before opening mouth or putting words to screen.

Indeed, but there’s no need to be rude. Is this how you would teach a struggling student or convince a skeptical colleague? If you insulted their English skills, then you’d quickly find yourself in trouble.

Remember, he addressed me first. As I’ve learned and relearned here on CAF, there is never any value in trying to employ logic or data to explain anything to a dogmatist. Such people live entirely within the context of their illogical and unfounded beliefs.

Millions of people would object. I grant you that truth is not determined democratically, but still it requires nothing short of hubris to think that the technical knowledge of a few highly-skilled specialists matches the the mundane knowledge of generations.

Ideally, this being a philosophy forum, it could be expected to engage more logic than belief. I really don’t care what someone’s beliefs happen to be, but I do hate to see beliefs dragged into any area related to physics.

Do you not recognize that physics too is founded upon assumptions and primitive notions? If you think otherwise, then consider a few questions. What are you assuming when you use calculus in physics? Similarly, what is a string? Or less controversially, what is spacetime?

As for his associates and whatever passes in them for minds, I can only guess, from his remarks, that they are all high school level theology students required to take a basic, non-calculus level “physics” course.

I’m sure theologists that feel the same about physics majors.

I thought that “quite a lot” was a legitimate phrase independently of any comparisons to the soft sciences. It could be fairly applied to our physics knowledge of 1900, before Planck and Einstein set to work, or to 1990, which did not include even the knowledge that dark energy existed.

While I understand where you are coming from, your final sentence is based upon your limited knowledge, presumably an expression of physics orthodoxy, and is entirely incorrect.

Perhaps limited compared to your knowledge of physics, but as an undergrad I did take a substantial number of courses in physics. I don’t want to get into credential slinging–that’s never productive–but really don’t presume what other people know.

I have used physics to explain the origin of the human soul, the origin of God, consciousness, behavioral aspects of the “soul”-brain dichotomy, the nature of dark energy, and the mysterious property of “handedness” in human beings. Plus a few other things which seemed interesting to me.

Have you now? Which journals have published your results? I have access to many of them, so don’t worry about putting me out.

 

[Andre1000]

I know that my English is sometimes not the best and I keep practice. Actually, I see that this was one of my worst comments. Also, I should have made a “proof”, because these are difficult and not easy to understand statements.
However, my arguments are not absurd only how I presented them was poor.

 

[greylorn]

This sounds a bit like Antony Flew’s recent conversion to Theism.

Nope. Flew did not know any physics and therefore did not use it to integrate physics and theology, as I’ve done. Also, I never converted to theism.

IMO Flew, realizing that he was getting old and approaching his death, recalled the argument from “Pascal’s Wager,” and converted primarily to cover his bets. A similar phenomenon to old people’s frequent appearances at daily mass.

 

[dandingo]

Nope. Flew did not know any physics and therefore did not use it to integrate physics and theology, as I’ve done. Also, I never converted to theism.

IMO Flew, realizing that he was getting old and approaching his death, recalled the argument from “Pascal’s Wager,” and converted primarily to cover his bets. A similar phenomenon to old people’s frequent appearances at daily mass.

I find it extremely presumptuous that you would assume to know why Flew became a Theist, considering he’s studied the sciences and philosophy his entire life. It couldn’t be that he came to a common sense conclusion.

youtube.com/watch?v=X1e4FUhfHiU

 

[greylorn]

Indeed, but there’s no need to be rude. Is this how you would teach a struggling student or convince a skeptical colleague? If you insulted their English skills, then you’d quickly find yourself in trouble.

In the course of my life I’ve been taught in a variety of styles. I normally learn via the customary methods, course work, books, discussions, etc., but these do not work for all things. For example, upon entering college I stuttered horribly. An upperclassman in my dorm teased me unmercifully, always in front of others, I stopped stuttering. In the course of the school year I took a serious liking to this young man, who went on to teach me piano, style, and attitude.

Upon graduating and going to work with a gang of astronomers and engineers, I got lots of opportunity to experience ridicule when I expressed my then-Catholic beliefs. The opportunity— privilege, really— to argue theology and metaphysics with men much smarter and more knowledgeable than myself was of inestimable value. Ridicule is a cheap price to pay for insights.

In the process of raising offspring, I used ridicule as sparingly as a good spanking, and only when really necessary. It worked; the kids are all right, and more successful than their father. You might want to check out Andre’s latest post. IMO there could be hope for him yet.

BTW, I’m beginning to appreciate your upfront style and willingness to pick a fight. Scorpio?

Millions of people would object. I grant you that truth is not determined democratically, but still it requires nothing short of hubris to think that the technical knowledge of a few highly-skilled specialists matches the the mundane knowledge of generations.

Hubris is not required to reach my conclusions— only the ability to pay attention. Look around at how the world works. In the last few centuries, ideas developed by a handful of extremely brilliant men have totally changed the world. Without men like Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Planck, Pasteur, Einstein, etc. we would still be living in the dark ages, and human thought would be suppressed by Inquisitors.

Average people don’t do science, and don’t even want to understand it. Few of the professors in our universities could solve a quadratic equation to save the world, and spend their days teaching garbage to people who will be able to get easy, high paying jobs pushing papers around because of science.

BTW you should not lump hard science and technology together in your argument against hubris. Technologists merely implement science, rarely discovering any of it.

Do you not recognize that physics too is founded upon assumptions and primitive notions? If you think otherwise, then consider a few questions. What are you assuming when you use calculus in physics? Similarly, what is a string? Or less controversially, what is spacetime?

Your stock skyrocketed with these excellent questions. Lucky you! I retract and apologize for the snarky comment I made in my previous post to you.

I’ve been interested in fundamental assumptions since changing my own, long ago. I know at least one which I’ll wager you do not, an identical common error inherent in both theology and physics, which led me to reinvent some physics and theology in accordance with a corrected core hypothesis.

I’ve examined the assumptions you noted long ago, except for strings. String theory is a really stupid idea, and only exists to compensate for other mistaken assumptions in atomic physics, and will go away of its own as a better understanding of matter is developed.

I see spacetime as a purely artificial (but useful and effective!) mathematical construct. It is a handy shortcut to calculations involving event sequences. IMO time does not exist in the way that we understand it. I think that the regular-matter in the universe comprises an asynchronous state-machine, for which time is internally irrelevant. Ingenious engineering.

Now calculus is another matter entirely. The assumption we make when using it is that Newton’s fundamental theorem is applicable to the problem being solved. That theorem assumes that time flows in some manner of continuum. In other words, calculus is only appropriate for the solution of analog problems.

This means that when applied to state-changes within the machine, calculus is the wrong tool. When applied to quantum phenomena it can only yield approximate results.

I’m surprised that your list neglected space-time invariance of physical laws and constants.

I’m sure theologists that feel the same about physics majors.

That’s been my experience. And it figures. Anyone capable of learning a modicum of physics can easily learn all the theology and philosophy he can abide, but the converse is untrue.

Perhaps limited compared to your knowledge of physics, but as an undergrad I did take a substantial number of courses in physics. I don’t want to get into credential slinging–that’s never productive–but really don’t presume what other people know.

Got that. I’ve already bumped up my appreciation because you ask good questions. My credentials are inconsequential, just a B.S. plus work and study.

Have you now? Which journals have published your results? I have access to many of them, so don’t worry about putting me out.

My only publications were in astronomy, not relevant to any of this stuff. I doubt that there is a journal which would accept excerpts of my ideas, which involve an integration of physics and theology which only makes whatever sense it makes in context of one another. You’ll be able to buy my book by February, if I can figure out how to convert HTML into PDF.

 

[WinterLight]

In the course of my life…

It’s one thing to Socratically engage someone and lead them to their errors and consequently but unintentionally shame or embarrass them; it’s another thing entirely to ridicule the person making the argument–that’s just intellectual bullying, which I respect even less than physical bullying.

Without men like Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Planck, Pasteur, Einstein, etc. we would still be living in the dark ages, and human thought would be suppressed by Inquisitors.

This is largely myth. Read, for starters, Devil’s Delusion by David Berlinski, an agnostic Princeton PhD, and Those Terrible Middle Ages by Regine Pernoud, a French historian.

Average people don’t do science, and don’t even want to understand it. Few of the professors in our universities could solve a quadratic equation to save the world, and spend their days teaching garbage to people who will be able to get easy, high paying jobs pushing papers around because of science.

Solving quadratic equations isn’t that important of a skill, nor is it hard to learn. Proving theorems, while hard to learn (probably accessible to less than 1% of the population), is also not that important of a skill. I’m increasingly humbled by those who possess the skills that really make things happen in this world, and decreasingly amazed by those who possess a skill not much different than the ability to play chess or the piano.

I see spacetime as a purely artificial (but useful and effective!) mathematical construct. It is a handy shortcut to calculations involving event sequences. IMO time does not exist in the way that we understand it. I think that the regular-matter in the universe comprises an asynchronous state-machine, for which time is internally irrelevant. Ingenious engineering.

You’re approaching the correct conclusion. The point is that strings, spacetime, or any modern scientific concept is a mathematical construct. A scientific theory is a mathematical model of reality, not reality itself. We don’t confuse the model airplane with the airplane itself; likewise, we shouldn’t confuse science with reality itself. What distinguishes the hard from the soft sciences, is that the objects of the former are more readily mathematized than the objects of the latter; since mathematics is the art of exact reasoning, it is no surprise that the mathematical sciences are better able to approximate reality than the non-mathematical sciences. Still, it’s important to remember that no matter how good the approximation is (and we really have no way of knowing that, otherwise we wouldn’t need to approximate) it is still only an approximation.

Now calculus is another matter entirely. The assumption we make when using it is that Newton’s fundamental theorem is applicable to the problem being solved. That theorem assumes that time flows in some manner of continuum.

To be honest, I’m surprised you’ve even come close to the right answer–most people (even those who should know) don’t get this answer. A function is differentiable only if it is continuous. In physics, we assume that we’re continuous (if not everywhere, then at least locally). Basically, we’re assuming that reality (spacetime, for physical purposes) is not discrete. (They’re may be mathematical ways around this–actually there are–but that doesn’t mean that the assumption of smooth surfaces (i.e., continuua, or more generally, manifolds) is justified.)

On a related note, I’m sure that in one of your calc courses, you heard about Zeno’s paradox. It’s rarely taught correctly. Zeno knew full well (though not like we do) that his argument did hold mathematically. That wasn’t his point: rather his point was that there’s something wrong with our models of reality. It’s a dilemma we still haven’t resolved. Read up on this.

I’m surprised that your list neglected space-time invariance of physical laws and constants.

I only wanted a couple of examples to illustrate my point about foundations (assumptions and primitives). But, now that you mention it, the heart of science and mathematics is the discovery of invariants and variants (what doesn’t change and what does). For example, topology is essentially the study of topological invariants, i.e., properties preserved across homeomorphic spaces. I’ll stop: too much jargon for now.

Anyone capable of learning a modicum of physics can easily learn all the theology and philosophy he can abide, but the converse is untrue.

I used to think the same way. Now I feel humbled by those who can do theology or philosophy and do it well.

I doubt that there is a journal which would accept excerpts of my ideas, which involve an integration of physics and theology which only makes whatever sense it makes in context of one another.

That’s all well and good, and I do wish you success in your endeavors (by the way, if you’re typing math, then you probably should learn LaTeX: the math will be prettier and it’s easy to create PDF’s with it). It’s irrelevant, however, to my admittedly snakry question: you suggested that anything of scientific import will bubble to the surface via peer-review despite that process’ shortcomings. If you’ve got something of scientific import (and surely a mathematical rendering of theology would be), then you should have no problem finding an academic publisher. But you will have a hard time even if (and especially if) you’ve accomplished what you claim.

 

[greylorn]

I find it extremely presumptuous that you would assume to know why Flew became a Theist, considering he’s studied the sciences and philosophy his entire life. It couldn’t be that he came to a common sense conclusion.

youtube.com/watch?v=X1e4FUhfHiU

The acronym with which I carefully prefaced my guess, IMO, means only, In My Opinion. That is a far cry from “assume to know.”

Thousands of overpaid university perfessers have studied philosophy (and some make the dubious claim to have studied science as well) their entire lives, making no significant contributions. So that particular credential is unimpressive.

Anyone with a three digit I.Q. who managed to study the structure of a daisy or a toad, or who bothered to perform the trivial calculation for the probability that the nucleotides for one small 900 base-pair human gene could have been assembled in a correct sequence by random events, should have concluded that we live in a created universe. Any competent philosopher could have figured this out by the age of 25, going slowly, but it took Flew what, 80 years or thereabouts? I remain unimpressed.

Finally, had he used his fine knowledge and wide ranging education to devise a God-concept that made sense (for example, by not violating the Laws of Thermodynamics), I’d be in full blown admiration. But all he did (to the best of my current knowledge) was to convert back to garden variety theism, which had not become inherently more logical as Flew grew older.

The combination of suspicious timing and lack of imagination led to my disparaging opinion, which I see no immediate reason to change.

 

[greylorn]

It’s one thing to Socratically engage someone and lead them to their errors and consequently but unintentionally shame or embarrass them; it’s another thing entirely to ridicule the person making the argument–that’s just intellectual bullying, which I respect even less than physical bullying.

It is okay that you do not respect me. Personally, I regard a post like Andre’s to which I responded as a much nastier form of intellectual bullying. In it he asserts dogma as if it was truth.

Any attempt to use logic in a counter argument will be met with the same mindless assertions of dogmatic truth. I have no respect for dogmatists of any stripe, and IMO their opinions have no good place in a legitimate philosophy section. There are places on CAF for their ilk, where they will be in welcome agreement with like minded believers, exchanging their beliefs like baseball cards.

Note that he posted me first. I would not reply independently to a post of his otherwise, mindful of Christ’s instructions about the best use of pearls.

This is largely myth. Read, for starters, Devil’s Delusion by David Berlinski, an agnostic Princeton PhD, and Those Terrible Middle Ages by Regine Pernoud, a French historian.

It cannot be myth, since I just made it up. Thanks for the references, but I’m using my free mental time on physics and math.

Solving quadratic equations isn’t that important of a skill, nor is it hard to learn. Proving theorems, while hard to learn (probably accessible to less than 1% of the population), is also not that important of a skill. I’m increasingly humbled by those who possess the skills that really make things happen in this world, and decreasingly amazed by those who possess a skill not much different than the ability to play chess or the piano.

You’ve missed the point. Maybe you could reread that section of my post? I too am impressed by those who can make things happen— engineers, technicians, machinists, capitalists, etc… However, exactly what they can make happen is entirely dependent upon fundamental physics.

Tesla would not have invented the radio or any of his other electrical marvels without Maxwell’s equations. Semiconductors would not exist without Max Planck. GPS devices and nuclear technology would not exist without Einstein.

The world if full of nits who claim that these powerful ideas would have been invented by someone else. I’ve even encountered a simple-minded NASA tech who claimed that he would have devised General Relativity had Al not beaten him to it. Nonsense!

You’re approaching the correct conclusion. The point is that strings, spacetime, or any modern scientific concept is a mathematical construct.

Approaching?

If you take the trouble to read what I wrote, “I see spacetime as a purely artificial …mathematical construct,” you may recognize it as identical to your correction. Is your ego so bloated that you need to reiterate another’s words and present them as your own?

You lost points with that.

A scientific theory is a mathematical model of reality, not reality itself. We don’t confuse the model airplane with the airplane itself; likewise, we shouldn’t confuse science with reality itself.

Was there any point to this unnecessary lecture excerpt other than to present yourself as a valid philosopher of science? Maybe you read T. Kuhn, who is good.

You’ve clearly not personally engaged in the work and practice of hard science, else you’d not have felt compelled to lecture to someone who has.

You may not be aware of the relationship between science and engineering, and if you are I apologize for restating what every engineer knows. Scientific theory is not validated by scientists-- it is validated by engineers who put theory to work. Lousy theories cannot be put to work.

 

[greylorn]

What distinguishes the hard from the soft sciences, is that the objects of the former are more readily mathematized than the objects of the latter; since mathematics is the art of exact reasoning, it is no surprise that the mathematical sciences are better able to approximate reality than the non-mathematical sciences. Still, it’s important to remember that no matter how good the approximation is (and we really have no way of knowing that, otherwise we wouldn’t need to approximate) it is still only an approximation.

Nonsense! If math is the art of exact reasoning, phlogiston theory would never have been taught in universities, The non-math “sciences” are incompetent because their practitioners are inept dolts of mostly average intelligence who rarely apply the scientific method (theorize, experiment, correct) to their beliefs.

Darwinism is a fine case in point. A trivial calculation of the probability for the random assembly of a single, small, human gene is enough to put the lie to Darwinist theory. You won’t find that calculation in any textbook, or in any of Dawkins’ scribbles, but you will find it in Chapter 12 of my book. Why is it suppressed? Because Darwinists are not competent scientists. The math is available to them but they will not use it.

To be honest, I’m surprised you’ve even come close to the right answer–most people (even those who should know) don’t get this answer.

That is because you mistake your emotions for thought, as women commonly do. Having realized that:

• I am not a nice person,
• I am not a liberal,
• I disagree with you on several things, etc.
• and you therefore dislike me (happens a lot),

you assumed that I am therefore stupid. You have my permission to rethink that final conclusion.

I’ll wager that your insight about the limitations of calculus came from a professor in some advanced theoretical math class. I was unqualified for anything beyond applied math, so had to figure out the same thing for myself.

A function is differentiable only if it is continuous. In physics, we assume that we’re continuous (if not everywhere, then at least locally). Basically, we’re assuming that reality (spacetime, for physical purposes) is not discrete. (They’re may be mathematical ways around this–actually there are–but that doesn’t mean that the assumption of smooth surfaces (i.e., continuua, or more generally, manifolds) is justified.)

Yes. QM offers plenty of evidence for a digital form of reality.

On a related note, I’m sure that in one of your calc courses, you heard about Zeno’s paradox. It’s rarely taught correctly. Zeno knew full well (though not like we do) that his argument did hold mathematically. That wasn’t his point: rather his point was that there’s something wrong with our models of reality. It’s a dilemma we still haven’t resolved. Read up on this.

I only studied applied math, so was not exposed to Zeno’s paradox (actually, I believe that there are several, and assume from the context of this discussion that you are referring to the same one that I learned,) until a young female philosopher person challenged me with it at a faculty party (back in the ancient days when I was invited to such affairs). I do not know if she explained it properly by external standards, but the logic of it made perfect sense and seemed beyond my ability to honestly dispute.

I concluded the obvious: that Zeno had proved the impossibility of motion. Ever since then I’ve relied upon the validity of this conclusion, to positive effect, But I’d forgotten the roots of that conclusion, and thank you for the reminder.

I only wanted a couple of examples to illustrate my point about foundations (assumptions and primitives). But, now that you mention it, the heart of science and mathematics is the discovery of invariants and variants (what doesn’t change and what does). For example, topology is essentially the study of topological invariants, i.e., properties preserved across homeomorphic spaces. I’ll stop: too much jargon for now.

I know the jargon and concepts, but not the math. Is mathematics your field?

I used to think the same way. Now I feel humbled by those who can do theology or philosophy and do it well.

Let me know when you find any of them— I’d be especially interested in a theologian who could derive his beliefs in the creator from physics and logic, eschewing scripture and dogma.

 

[greylorn]

That’s all well and good, and I do wish you success in your endeavors (by the way, if you’re typing math, then you probably should learn LaTeX: the math will be prettier and it’s easy to create PDF’s with it).

Good advice. I’ve been using TeX (and sometimes LaTeX for convenience) for better than 20 years, but don’t know how it would work for my current project. When I undertook this work I chose to put my material up on a website, for mostly poor reasons. This proved to be an effective way for me to review my material in a nicely formatted style (thus easier to find problems) and to pass it along to my editor and a few other reviewers for criticism.

TeX’s mathematical prowess is unnecessary to my material, which is written for the intelligent non-scientist. Only a few classical physics formulas are used in an attempt to illustrate the flexibility of energy.

I also figured that there would be plenty of commercial printers who could go directly from LaTeX to book, and knew that I could easily write some code that would convert my HTML markup instructions into LaTeX or TeX.

However when the book was finished, I discovered that TeX has been replaced by PDF in the publishing industry. Also, my taste for writing computer code has soured over the last decade, and I want to find some software that someone else has written that will translate my material into PDF. So far, this appears to be a cumbersome, multi-step process (HTML to Word, manual paragraphing, then Word to PDF). i detest Bill Gates, and IMO, Adobe software is horrid. What happened to TeX?

I’d not considered going from HTML to TeX to PDF and have not considered the possibility that adding an additional step would be helpful to the process. I’m already frustrated enough, and am tired of learning more software. I want to believe that there is a piece of software that does what I need without intermediate fuss and manual intervention, and which actually works (I’ve tried at least 10 so far). Nonetheless I appreciate your suggestion and will keep it in mind.

It’s irrelevant, however, to my admittedly snakry question: you suggested that anything of scientific import will bubble to the surface via peer-review despite that process’ shortcomings.

I don’t believe that I suggested anything of the sort, inasmuch as my experience with academia predicts that neither a secular nor religious academic unit would regard my work with anything other than absolute disdain. (I’ve been working on this for awhile, and actually managed to get something successfully published, decades ago, by converting a subset of the ideas into fictional form, in the style of Ayn Rand.)

Even for established scientists and mathematicians, it is difficult to get anything published which is askew of mainstream thinking.

If you’ve got something of scientific import (and surely a mathematical rendering of theology would be), then you should have no problem finding an academic publisher. But you will have a hard time even if (and especially if) you’ve accomplished what you claim.

I do not have a mathematical rendering of theology. My ideas could be expressed in mathematical form, but that would require a good mathematician with the interest in doing so. Might happen after I’m dead. At the moment, I’ve chosen to write to a mixed but intelligent potential readership. I deliberately chose an editor who did not believe in God and had not taken so much as a basic science class. Good choice.

I believe that I’ve accomplished what I claim, else would not have made the claim. At the outset of writing I was alone in this exalted opinion, but since then two people have read the complete material. One reviewer, a mathematician with considerable physics knowledge, likes the ideas, as does my editor. However, the ideas do require a major shift in thinking of the sort which few people with an investment in their current beliefs are willing to make.

I have no delusions about the acceptance of these ideas, and agree with your assessment of difficulty. It has already been a struggle, and I’ve yet to publish them in complete form, an event likely to insure a brief and unpleasant remaining life.

 

[WinterLight]

It is okay that you do not respect me. Personally, I regard a post like Andre’s to which I responded as a much nastier form of intellectual bullying. In it he asserts dogma as if it was truth.

Any attempt to use logic in a counter argument will be met with the same mindless assertions of dogmatic truth. I have no respect for dogmatists of any stripe, and IMO their opinions have no good place in a legitimate philosophy section. There are places on CAF for their ilk, where they will be in welcome agreement with like minded believers, exchanging their beliefs like baseball cards.

Note that he posted me first. I would not reply independently to a post of his otherwise, mindful of Christ’s instructions about the best use of pearls.

I didn’t say that I don’t respect you; I just don’t respect your tactics.

Others and I have responded to you by using reason. It’s not entirely unreasonable that you object to some of the premises, but it is unreasonable to claim that we’re dummies for not getting it.

Why the hostility toward dogma?

It cannot be myth, since I just made it up. Thanks for the references, but I’m using my free mental time on physics and math.

You didn’t just make it up. We all know it. Don’t be dishonest.

You’ve missed the point. Maybe you could reread that section of my post? I too am impressed by those who can make things happen— engineers, technicians, machinists, capitalists, etc… However, exactly what they can make happen is entirely dependent upon fundamental physics.

These aren’t the people who make things happen; the sooner you realize this the better. There is life beyond physics, trust me.

Tesla would not have invented the radio or any of his other electrical marvels without Maxwell’s equations. Semiconductors would not exist without Max Planck. GPS devices and nuclear technology would not exist without Einstein.

These things have improved our quality life and simultaneously worsened it.

The world if full of nits who claim that these powerful ideas would have been invented by someone else. I’ve even encountered a simple-minded NASA tech who claimed that he would have devised General Relativity had Al not beaten him to it. Nonsense!

A “simple-minded NASA tech”. That’s one for the archives! In any case, if you read the history of major scientific discoveries, then you’ll notice that often the idea behind the discovery was in the air and someone was insightful or lucky enough to articulate it in a compelling way. As was the case with Einstein and Special Relativity: if he didn’t do it, someone else would’ve done it. The math is basic–any good differential calc student could do it–and the essential idea was “in the air”. General relativity is a different story: the math is sophisticated (you need to know about tensor analysis and differential geometry), and that (along with his conceptual difficulties regarding “coordinate-free” physics) impeded Einstein’s own progress.

Approaching?

If you take the trouble to read what I wrote, “I see spacetime as a purely artificial …mathematical construct,” you may recognize it as identical to your correction. Is your ego so bloated that you need to reiterate another’s words and present them as your own?

You lost points with that.

My point was that physics is merely a model of reality, not reality itself.

Was there any point to this unnecessary lecture excerpt other than to present yourself as a valid philosopher of science?

Yes, to clarify the pervasive confusion between science and reality: they’re not the same thing (at most, they’re isomorphic to each other, but I’m not sure that I should concede even that much).

You’ve clearly not personally engaged in the work and practice of hard science, else you’d not have felt compelled to lecture to someone who has.

Again, I think it would be counterproductive to start slinging credentials. Let’s just say that I’m no stranger to pure mathematics.

 

[WinterLight]

Nonsense! If math is the art of exact reasoning, phlogiston theory would never have been taught in universities.

Mathematics is the art of exact reasoning. Scientists usually aren’t trained in pure mathematics. Mathematics can’t be blamed for bumps on the scientists’ road.

The non-math “sciences” are incompetent because their practitioners are inept dolts of mostly average intelligence who rarely apply the scientific method (theorize, experiment, correct) to their beliefs.

I don’t know what else to say besides “see my last post.” Also, it is not impossible to disagree with someone without insulting them.

Darwinism is a fine case in point. A trivial calculation of the probability for the random assembly of a single, small, human gene is enough to put the lie to Darwinist theory. You won’t find that calculation in any textbook, or in any of Dawkins’ scribbles, but you will find it in Chapter 12 of my book. Why is it suppressed? Because Darwinists are not competent scientists. The math is available to them but they will not use it.

That is a central problem in Darwinism: it does not involve exact reasoning. It’s woefully inexact. (Be careful with the words like “trivial” or “clear”. Use them when you have the letters “P”, “h”, and “D” at the end of your name, and then only sparingly.) Darwinists don’t necessarily “suppress” ideas because there incompetent (although I wouldn’t rule it out), but rather because it doesn’t fit in with their ideology.

That is because you mistake your emotions for thought, as women commonly do. Having realized that:

• I am not a nice person,
• I am not a liberal,
• I disagree with you on several things, etc.
• and you therefore dislike me (happens a lot),

you assumed that I am therefore stupid. You have my permission to rethink that final conclusion.

Do you really think that I’m a woman or a liberal?

I’ll wager that your insight about the limitations of calculus came from a professor in some advanced theoretical math class. I was unqualified for anything beyond applied math, so had to figure out the same thing for myself.

It’s not about the limitations of calculus (not sure what that means) but rather the implicit assumptions of physics. I don’t remember from where the insight came; after having done so much mathematics, it’s not always easy to remember these things. I wouldn’t be ashamed, however, of the source: after all, wasn’t it Einstein who recognized that he saw as far as he did only because he was standing on the shoulders of giants?

QM offers plenty of evidence for a digital form of reality.

I have no idea what that means. Also, a common mistake is to conflate quantum mechanics with quantum theory: the former describes the mathematical techniques involved in physical theory described by the latter.

Is mathematics your field?

For practical purposes, yes. But, as they say, it’s complicated.

Let me know when you find any of them— I’d be especially interested in a theologian who could derive his beliefs in the creator from physics and logic, eschewing scripture and dogma.

Again, there’s life beyond physics. And, in any case, no theologian worth his salt would eschew scripture or dogma: his work is to unfold it, not to throw it out.

With that said, there’s an excellent text on the existence of God, written not by a theologian but by a mathematical logician: Melvin Fitting’s Types, Tableaus, and Godel’s God. Only Part III of the book is relevant to the question, and it is independent from the rest of the book (although you’ll find it helpful to use the rest of the book). Fitting, I should warn you, is about as sophisticated as they come. A modern Christian theologian (albeit Protestant) is Alvin Plantinga: he is the preeminent analytic philosopher today. You might began with his God, Freedom, and Evil.

 

[bmonk]

IMO Flew, realizing that he was getting old and approaching his death, recalled the argument from “Pascal’s Wager,” and converted primarily to cover his bets. A similar phenomenon to old people’s frequent appearances at daily mass.

Actually, the old people’s frequent appearances at daily mass, in my experience, usually reflects one or more of several possibilities:

1. They now are retired, and have the time to attend more frequently, even daily.
2. They appreciate the community and the social interaction, both at the liturgy, and afterward, either on the way out of Church or at the local cafe.
3. They discover that their life is missing something, and find it in a more dedicated spirituality.

It may be that some are “covering their bets”, but unless they find some other reason or fulfillment to go, they tend not to last very long.

 

[greylorn]

Actually, the old people’s frequent appearances at daily mass, in my experience, usually reflects one or more of several possibilities:

1. They now are retired, and have the time to attend more frequently, even daily.
2. They appreciate the community and the social interaction, both at the liturgy, and afterward, either on the way out of Church or at the local cafe.
3. They discover that their life is missing something, and find it in a more dedicated spirituality.

It may be that some are “covering their bets”, but unless they find some other reason or fulfillment to go, they tend not to last very long.

Then we have different experiences. Mine first came as an altar boy willing to serve 7am daily mass, and later on miscellaneous occasions.

The old folks there were typically in their late seventies, eighties, or worse, well past retirement age. Of course they could have been coming since age 65 and I’d not have known about it. Nonetheless if your notion is valid I’d expect to have seen lively representatives of the 65-75 crowd,

They did not socialize, unless they did it telepathically. After mass I’d be out of the church in two minutes to run home for breakfast before school began, and the old folks were going or gone. Nearest cafe would have been a mile or two away, but since I did not eat at cafes, the entire gang could have spent the rest of their morning at one without my knowing.

However, later in life I learned that old folks prefer cafes for lunch, not breakfast. It takes most of the morning to clear their pipes, which does not make for a convivial breakfast. (How did I learn that? By getting way too old myself.)

I can empathize with the “missing something,” as most attendees were unaccompanied females. Whether they found it in church or were still looking, I cannot guess. None appeared happy, not even when receiving the Eucharist, and I never saw a smile.

In the course of a longish life, dealing with people, I have come to expect the most trivial and selfish of motives behind all human beings, including some who I have loved. When I’ve erred in my estimation of a person, I was expecting better. Cynical as it may be, the CYA explanation is a widely applicable motive, right up there with sensual gratification, power, and money.

(Not implying better or different.)

 

[greylorn]

I didn’t say that I don’t respect you; I just don’t respect your tactics.

Of course you didn’t say such a thing. However, your opinion is obvious in other comments, such as being surprised by my calculus answer. It doesn’t matter; I’ve worked enough in academia to have become accustomed to the subtle manifestations of intellectual arrogance. .

Others and I have responded to you by using reason. It’s not entirely unreasonable that you object to some of the premises, but it is unreasonable to claim that we’re dummies for not getting it.

Who exactly are these mysterious “others?” You couldn’t be referring to Andre’s recitation of dogma as “using reason,” or could you?

I do not set much store by reason. Common to most human beings is their consistent ability to make up absurd reasons for most everything. I am personally very good at this, one of the best, in my exalted opinion. And out of watching myself invent reason after reason after reason to answer the same embarrassing question, repeated and repeated and repeated, I devised my primary law of human communication.

The first reason is caca.

With your skills you can easily derive the 2nd and 3rd laws for yourself.

Reason is the foundation of philosophy, which has accomplished nothing of value. Reason is used to bridge the gap between religious beliefs and reality. Its primary use in human discourse is to fulfill the brain’s I’m always right directive.

I regard general “reason” as the worst property of the human mind, the pumpkin-sized wart on the posterior of understanding.

Reason is Dogma’s evil henchman.

Did I call you a dummy? Probably not, since after our first round of squabbling I’ve come to regard you as a bright and overtly kind person— but not someone I’d want anywhere near my backside in a fight.

We might want to stop here and define the meaning of dummy. I do not apply it to someone who is simply ignorant, or who has been misinformed. I do think that people who have the wit and wherewithal to know better, have a responsibility to either know better or shut up. Those who have not applied their wit and abilities to the subjects they discuss, failing at the task of critical thinking, are IMO “dummies.”

Smart people tend to isolate their dumminess. Many intelligent people are stupid on certain subjects, mainly because they have allowed their brains to be programmed by someone else.

I have spent most of my life in this confused state and know it well. At one point I was a dogmatic Catholic, desperately trying to reconcile my beliefs with physics, but no one could tell (until I opened my mouth to defend my beliefs), because outwardly I did useful things involving physics, math, and logic.

Most humans are IMO similarly confused, believing one form of religious ideas or the other despite considerable evidence and logic to the contrary. It is impossible for someone in this dogmatically divided state of mind to recognize that state of mind, like a hypnotized subject does not (normally) recognize that he is hypnotized. The state can be recognized only when one manages to emerge from it.

Unhappily, most people living in a state of dogmatism can emerge from it only by being reprogrammed into a different form of dogmatism. Thus, Christians see the truth and become atheists, or Muslims, or Buddhists. Atheists see the light and become Christians, or whatever.

My finding of the light was of a different sort, and because it is mine I think that it is absolutely the best way to go, and everyone should agree with it. I first learned some programmed religion, and then learned some programmed physics. It was obvious that the two could not logically coexist. But rather than choose one over the other (like my contemporaries), I realized that, with respect to the most fundamental ideas about the nature of reality, religion and science were both wrong.

I’ve been ornery ever since.

Why the hostility toward dogma?

Dogma is brain programming. It is always wrong. It is deliberately inculcated into the brain when the person is young, and unprepared for critical thinking, still trusting that the stuff it is memorizing is truth because it comes from parents, teachers, and is agreed upon by other kids. Later in life, authority figures and agreement are enough to program the brain, because those were the forces that trained it during youth.

Whatever form it takes, dogma is proof that whoever holds it has neglected some aspects of critical thinking. Makes no difference whether it comes from a Jehovah’s Witness, Catholic theologian, Democrat, Darwinist, or Big Bang believer. When the facts don’t fit, the dogmatist makes them fit, by spinning, warping, or ignoring the facts. In a pinch the dogmatist will use torture, coercion, or death to have his way. (E.g: Islam, and in earlier times, the Church itself.)

The worst characteristic of dogmatists is that they want to shape the world in accordance with their beliefs, whether at the level of town and parish, political philosophy, or religious conversion. That would be fine if their beliefs were right. Burning Giordano Bruno at the stake and threatening Galileo with the Inquisition are typical acts of organized dogmatists, just like the Holocaust.

Do I need better reasons to regard dogmatists in the poorest possible light?

You didn’t just make it up. We all know it. Don’t be dishonest.

I’d hoped to inject a touch of levity into the conversation with a statement that you would know is false, expecting you to know that I also knew it to be false. I apologize for thinking that you might have a sense of humor. Sure won’t do that again!

 

[greylorn]

These aren’t the people who make things happen; the sooner you realize this the better. There is life beyond physics, trust me.

Who then, are the people who make things happen? Politicians? Lawyers? Government bureaucrats?

Of course there is life beyond physics, but without physics there would not be life.

I will never, never again, trust someone who has no sense of humor. Nor will I fully trust a dogmatist. I can easily trust someone with whom I totally disagree, if his ideas are his own.

These things have improved our quality life and simultaneously worsened it.

Have the things themselves worsened our lives, or the way we utilize them?

A “simple-minded NASA tech”. That’s one for the archives!

You must not have worked for NASA. You’d have been impressed by the utter dolt who was NASA’s chief astronomer when I worked there as a contractor. I get along well with dolts because I hung around with hoodlums in high school and worked my way through college on construction crews, Talked to him when he was drunk at a party. He graduated with a C average and got his PhD at a third rate college through political favors and thuggery (he was a big, mean guy).

When NASA fired up it was run by ignorant bureaucrats who had no idea how to determine scientific competency, who gave jobs to anyone with papers who applied, so long as they did not drool on their application forms. Back then, few academics even knew about the job openings, and those who did felt that NASA was beneath them. This clown was near the head of the line and used his bullying techniques to get rid of competitors.

The chief astronomer/dolt arranged for the premature termination of our experiment (more behind the scenes thuggery) to make room for the launch of his experiment, which failed to deliver any useful data during its brief lifetime.

This was at Goddard Space Flight Center, not Houston, where human lives raised the standards.

In any case, if you read the history of major scientific discoveries, then you’ll notice that often the idea behind the discovery was in the air and someone was insightful or lucky enough to articulate it in a compelling way. As was the case with Einstein and Special Relativity: if he didn’t do it, someone else would’ve done it. The math is basic–any good differential calc student could do it–and the essential idea was “in the air”. General relativity is a different story: the math is sophisticated (you need to know about tensor analysis and differential geometry), and that (along with his conceptual difficulties regarding “coordinate-free” physics) impeded Einstein’s own progress.

The only history of science I’ve read came from Thomas Kuhn, who, I understand, has been discredited by subsequent pseudo-intellectuals. Working in science, I saw Kuhn’s principles demonstrated time and again.

Your “in the air” assertion sounds to me like nonsense. Can you back it up with papers written around that time, that might have been sniffing at the edges of relativity? So far, you come across to me as someone whose head is wafting in that thin air, and likes it there overmuch.

I love theory, but if the theory cannot be demonstrated, it is simply invented nonsense that fulfills some intellectual’s need for self-assertion.

I was an A+ differential equations student, and know that there is no way in hell that I could have derived Special Relativity.

There are some serious problems in physics needing a mathematical solution, many worthy of a Nobel Prize. Are you solving any of them, or sitting around ready to claim that you “could have,” if you had troubled to set your grand mind to it?

I know of nothing sillier than to attribute reality to an event that “would have” happened. You sound like B.O., claiming that without his imbecilic policies, things would be worse.

It is, IMO, intellectually incompetent to assert a theory that cannot be disproved. If I did the same thing you’d be on my case like flies on poo.

 

[greylorn]

My point was that physics is merely a model of reality, not reality itself.

And my point was that you ought to know that I already knew that. I think that the notion that there might be a difference between engineering physics and theoretical physics is only regarded as an intellectual “insight” by people who’ve not tried to apply physics to reality.

The difference is obvious to anyone who has ever used physics principles to make something that actually works. (NASA and artillery engineers deal with the third and fourth derivatives of motion by throwing in fudge factors.)

Yes, to clarify the pervasive confusion between science and reality: they’re not the same thing (at most, they’re isomorphic to each other, but I’m not sure that I should concede even that much).

Its okay if you concede it, since I’ve not a clue as to what you mean. My fuzzy grasp of the paradigm-blowing paper, Isomorphisms of hyperbolic systems and the aether, came about by my bringing a couple of six-packs of good beer and a half dozen Cuban cigars to its author’s house one afternoon, and after a while, asking him to explain it. The plan might have worked even better had I not been trying to imbibe an equal share of the condiments, and if he’d had a blackboard and chalk instead of some backyard desert sand and a stick,

Again, I think it would be counterproductive to start slinging credentials. Let’s just say that I’m no stranger to pure mathematics.

I like that. Abstract mathematics is, IMO, God’s first language. I have always admired those who have mastered mathematics at any level of abstraction.

I’ve not enough formal credentials to waste by slinging them, so I concede that game. (A cop with six bullets in his .38 knows better than to fire a warning shot at guys carrying Mac-10s and Kalishnikovs.) I am certain that there are things which you know which I would love to understand. I am equally certain that I have some ideas which are of value to anyone searching for a theology which is consistent with physical reality.

The small number of such individuals will guarantee that I’ll not become rich and famous explaining these ideas. Alas. I’m keeping my day job awhile longer.

 

[Peggy_in_Burien]

Now it’s getting interesting…

Someone mentioned artillary engineers throwing things. Just glad I don’t have to study ballistics tables anymore.

 

[WinterLight]

Of course you didn’t say such a thing. However, your opinion is obvious in other comments, such as being surprised by my calculus answer. It doesn’t matter; I’ve worked enough in academia to have become accustomed to the subtle manifestations of intellectual arrogance.

No, I was surprised because most people (who should know better) don’t realize this. It’s really easy, just not obvious (like many underlying assumptions).

Who exactly are these mysterious “others?” You couldn’t be referring to Andre’s recitation of dogma as “using reason,” or could you?

I didn’t want to take all the credit. Although I wasn’t referring to anyone in particular, I’m sure that “others” aren’t as dim as you suggest.

The first reason is caca.

With your skills you can easily derive the 2nd and 3rd laws for yourself.

I have no idea what you mean by “first reason” and “2nd and 3rd laws.”

Reason is the foundation of philosophy, which has accomplished nothing of value. Reason is used to bridge the gap between religious beliefs and reality. Its primary use in human discourse is to fulfill the brain’s I’m always right directive.

I regard general “reason” as the worst property of the human mind, the pumpkin-sized wart on the posterior of understanding.

Reason is Dogma’s evil henchman.

What you describe is not reason itself, but the improper use of reason.

Many intelligent people are stupid on certain subjects, mainly because they have allowed their brains to be programmed by someone else.

I agree with your observation but not your explanation. I also think that “ignorance” is a more accurate description than “stupid”. People (you and me included) are ignorant because we have finite resources–we just don’t have the time, ability, or desire to acquire the painfully earned knowledge and skills particular to every endeavor. This fact of life is, of course, exacerbated by the modernist tendency toward specialization.

I’ve been ornery ever since.

No, the irony is that you’ve been dogmatic every since.

Dogma is brain programming. It is always wrong.

Surely, the irony of this is clear?

Burning Giordano Bruno at the stake and threatening Galileo with the Inquisition are typical acts of organized dogmatists, just like the Holocaust.

If you read my recommendations, then you would see that this statement is just plain false.

I’d hoped to inject a touch of levity into the conversation with a statement that you would know is false, expecting you to know that I also knew it to be false. I apologize for thinking that you might have a sense of humor. Sure won’t do that again!

It might be that your humor falls flat.

 

[WinterLight]

Who then, are the people who make things happen? Politicians? Lawyers? Government bureaucrats?

Hint: it’s not the educated elite.

Have the things themselves worsened our lives, or the way we utilize them?

Good point. Although it depends on the “thing” itself, it’s usually the way that use them that determines its effect. Some things, however, are irredeemable (e.g., television).

He graduated with a C average and got his PhD at a third rate college through political favors and thuggery (he was a big, mean guy).

If it’s a PhD in the sciences, I don’t believe you. You can’t fake your way through even a third-rate PhD program in the sciences. You need at least a UGPA of B. Maybe connections can help at that stage, but it ends there. Your first two or three years of coursework is, to understate it, demanding. Then you have to pass the qualifying exams. Finally, you get to do research, which hopefully culminates in a dissertation. But that’s the most unsettling part, and many lose it at this stage for various reasons (including lack of creativity, lack of structure, or burnout from the previous three years of intense work). During this time you’ve held another “part-time” job as a teaching or research assistant. The attrition rate for PhD programs in general is about 50%; science and engineering have a slightly better rate.

As for the bureaucracy you mention, I don’t doubt that at all.

The only history of science I’ve read came from Thomas Kuhn, who, I understand, has been discredited by subsequent pseudo-intellectuals. Working in science, I saw Kuhn’s principles demonstrated time and again.

I know of Kuhn and his principles, but I haven’t read his Structure of Scienctific Revolutions. I don’t disagree with what I do know of him and his work.

You say that you work in science, but apparently you don’t have a PhD. I’d like to know what you mean by stating that you “work in science.” Do you teach or research? In what capacity? If you’re not teaching (at some level) or performing publishable research, then you’re not working in science.

Your “in the air” assertion sounds to me like nonsense. Can you back it up with papers written around that time, that might have been sniffing at the edges of relativity?

Do you think that Special Relativity or any theory is constructed in vacuo? If so, then you really have know idea of how science works.

I was an A+ differential equations student, and know that there is no way in hell that I could have derived Special Relativity.

Then you should not have received an “A+” in differential equations. Special Relativity doesn’t even require that much. In any case, there’s nothing to “derive”; rather there are principles to formulate, consequences to derive, and results to test. Einstein recognized these principles; that required a certain special cleverness. But any competent science undergrad could derive the consequences, and any good physicist could design suitable experiments to test it.

There are some serious problems in physics needing a mathematical solution, many worthy of a Nobel Prize. Are you solving any of them, or sitting around ready to claim that you “could have,” if you had troubled to set your grand mind to it?

No, of course not. I haven’t made the claim that I could’ve discovered any of pivotal scientific or mathematical results, but only that it is conceivable that someone else could have.

I know of nothing sillier than to attribute reality to an event that “would have” happened. You sound like B.O., claiming that without his imbecilic policies, things would be worse.

It’s bizarre that you continue to regard me as a liberal. If you read my other posts, then you’ll observe that others find me offensively traditional.

It is, IMO, intellectually incompetent to assert a theory that cannot be disproved.

I hope that you mean “falsifiable” instead of “disproved”. Otherwise, what you said is just plain silly.