Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 17321 - 17340 of total 23155 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 21, 2013 - 11:40am PT
jstan is just wrong about everything these days

I have Never asked or said that Werner should be Banned

All I said is that we CAN STILL Give him the Sh#t he deserves
You guys are the ones saying we should back off, I say don't back off, that's all.

I want him to step up to the plate, rather than just be a lame ass carnival barker

either step up, or step down


I have never wanted people banned just because I disagree with them, NEVER

The only people that I said that should be banned were The Chief, SkipT, LEB and SUAP. I even opposed the banning of BlueRing, I enjoy the entertainment of the truly delusional.

jstan

climber
Nov 21, 2013 - 11:41am PT
Another proposition. We ban authors of good posts. We can start with Randisi.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Nov 21, 2013 - 11:56am PT
Banning Werner really is a stupid idea. Kind of like cutting off your foot, so to say.

I dunno. When I discuss things such as religion with friends, who I often disagree with, we mutually respect each other. That makes it so much easier to communicate. Acting out and calling people stupid every post just isn't productive. For me, anyway.

I owe Werner for keeping me out of the slammer once, so yeah, I still like him as a person. Maybe it is the internet. It is so easy to be an ass on the internet.

The low number of hurled insults made this thread very fun. My guess is that without Largo poking the fire, it will die out.

Go over to the climate change thread and read the insults excreted by that guy, The Chief. Hands down the most unpleasant person I've encountered on the web.
FortMentäl

Social climber
Albuquerque, NM
Nov 21, 2013 - 11:57am PT
We really do live in separate realities...


Largo isn't poking the fire, he just keeps trying to piss on it. Then it became a couple of guys (he, ML, GB) just pissing on a few smoldering coals as many others just walked away.

They should start the "Emptiness, Nothing, and Non-Content" thread....see how long that lasts.
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 21, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
werner's antics are Not confined to this thread, he pops in the Politcal threads every so often to call us all stupid,
then he can't understand why the parks are being closed and there are no jobs
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Nov 21, 2013 - 12:08pm PT
Yes dr f! Totally on route to give Werner the sh#t he deserves! I like your cull list too.

And I too like the great randisi!

DMT
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Nov 21, 2013 - 12:15pm PT
"law enforement groupies deserve their fate"

Is that one of rSin's laws?
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 21, 2013 - 12:17pm PT
If I couldn't take all the abuse that I get, or didn't like opposing voices, I would have deleted these threads long ago

Obviously, it doesn't affect me
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Nov 21, 2013 - 01:28pm PT
This thread has now drooped into the pathetic range. jstan, say something about physics, please. How about that quantum entanglement . . .
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Nov 22, 2013 - 02:12pm PT
I won't toss any of my own ideas onto this thread anymore, or "piss on the fire" of scientism, as Fort mentioned, but per John's question on quantum entanglement, I just got this quote from my chemist friend who works over at Caltech, followed by her comments, that some may find interesting. The quote runs:
-

When the new ideas of quantum mechanics spread through science like wildfire in the first half of the 20th century, one of the first things physicists did was to apply them to gravity and general relativity. The result were not pretty.

It immediately became clear that these two foundations of modern physics were entirely incompatible. When physicists attempted to meld the approaches, the resulting equations were bedeviled with infinities making it impossible to make sense of the results.

Then in the mid-1960s, there was a breakthrough. The physicists John Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt successfully combined the previously incompatible ideas in a key result that has since become known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. This is important because it avoids the troublesome infinites—a huge advance.

But it didn’t take physicists long to realise that while the Wheeler-DeWitt equation solved one significant problem, it introduced another. The new problem was that time played no role in this equation. In effect, it says that nothing ever happens in the universe, a prediction that is clearly at odds with the observational evidence.

This conundrum, which physicists call ‘the problem of time’, has proved to be thorn in flesh of modern physicists, who have tried to ignore it but with little success.

Then in 1983, the theorists Don Page and William Wootters came up with a novel solution based on the quantum phenomenon of entanglement. This is the exotic property in which two quantum particles share the same existence, even though they are physically separated.

Entanglement is a deep and powerful link and Page and Wootters showed how it can be used to measure time. Their idea was that the way a pair of entangled particles evolve is a kind of clock that can be used to measure change.

But the results depend on how the observation is made. One way to do this is to compare the change in the entangled particles with an external clock that is entirely independent of the universe. This is equivalent to god-like observer outside the universe measuring the evolution of the particles using an external clock.

In this case, Page and Wootters showed that the particles would appear entirely unchanging—that time would not exist in this scenario.

But there is another way to do it that gives a different result. This is for an observer inside the universe to compare the evolution of the particles with the rest of the universe. In this case, the internal observer would see a change and this difference in the evolution of entangled particles compared with everything else is an important a measure of time.

This is an elegant and powerful idea. It suggests that time is an emergent phenomenon that comes about because of the nature of entanglement. And it exists only for observers inside the universe. Any god-like observer outside sees a static, unchanging universe, just as the Wheeler-DeWitt equations predict.

Of course, without experimental verification, Page and Wootter’s ideas are little more than a philosophical curiosity. And since it is never possible to have an observer outside the universe, there seemed little chance of ever testing the idea.

Until now. Today, Ekaterina Moreva at the Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRIM) in Turin, Italy, and a few pals have performed the first experimental test of Page and Wootters’ ideas. And they confirm that time is indeed an emergent phenomenon for ‘internal’ observers but absent for external ones.

-

She said:

What's interesting here is to look at the what Page and Wootters were saying about changing perspective from a so-called objective viewpoint, outside a phenomenon and supposedly independent of the universe, to one inside the universe. And how reality is different according to an inside or an outside view.

Meaning how we observe the universe, including ourselves, radically effects what we discover. And what we see from inside is in this case not visible from the outside.

It is an interesting thought experiment to take these findings from my own peeps and apply them to the subjective/objective dynamic we're always discussing with you. Not that the findings in quantum entanglement inform us about subjectivity, but that changing the mode of observation (inside/outside) renders different versions of reality, and that the "inside" path holds it's own secrets entirely lost on the objectifier measuring on the outside.

Perhaps there is nothing "independent" of anything else, including observation. Most of us abhor any suggesting that an observer creates or effects anything observed, let alone that the position of the observer (inside or outside) effects experimental results. But now one wonders.

JL

By the way, my Caltech friend is one hell of a mountain unicyclist.
By the way, my Caltech friend is one hell of a mountain unicyclist.
Credit: Largo
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Nov 22, 2013 - 02:15pm PT
Found this this morning…

Felt that it might be nice to share with others on my minor hang out…




Maybe it will do someone some good

Cheers all
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 22, 2013 - 02:15pm PT
Can you still unicycle John?
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Nov 22, 2013 - 02:34pm PT
Great post, John! Thank you

I wasn't familiar with that idea


;>)
FortMentäl

Social climber
Albuquerque, NM
Nov 22, 2013 - 03:11pm PT
Most of us abhor any suggesting that an observer creates or effects anything observed, let alone that the position of the observer (inside or outside) effects experimental results. But now one wonders.

Seriously?

There's this thing called "the scientific method". When properly executed, it removes observer bias.
PSP also PP

Trad climber
Berkeley
Nov 22, 2013 - 03:31pm PT
when there is notoriety and money to be gained for science then the scientific process is always under assault.

Alot of scientists at universities can't keep their jobs unless they drum up funding. Probably a good reason for tenure.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Nov 22, 2013 - 05:02pm PT
Most of us abhor any suggesting that an observer creates or effects anything observed, let alone that the position of the observer (inside or outside) effects experimental results. But now one wonders.

Seriously?

There's this thing called "the scientific method". When properly executed, it removes observer bias.
-

I would never feign to say what a JPL researcher is thinking per scientific methodology, but my sense of her drift is that she wasn't talking about a scientific bias - meaning she does or does not have "an inclination or prejudice for or against someone or something." This is merely a cognitive predisposition, and the scientific method mentioned is fashioned to side step such things and derive conclusions from empirical evidence. What my friend was saying, I believe, is that she abhored the idea that the observer, through the act of observing, could change the person, place or thing that is being observed. If I understand it correctly, the Copenhagen interpretation of QM said as much BITD, and now these new folk are adding an inside and an outside into the equation and suggesting point of view can likewise fashion, in part, the nature of the observed. The effect of the observer in this regards has little if nothing at all to do with any biases, one way or the other, and is rather an empirical take on what really and truly is.

JL
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Nov 22, 2013 - 05:34pm PT
"Abhor" is such a loaded term.
FortMentäl

Social climber
Albuquerque, NM
Nov 22, 2013 - 06:45pm PT
What my friend was saying, I believe, is that she abhored the idea that the observer, through the act of observing, could change the person, place or thing that is being observed.

I think everyone here understands the difference between measuring the position of an electron and measuring intelligence in another's culture. One is prone to weird physics, the other - weird culture. The fact that we've come such a long way in measuring both means that the scientific method DOES work and that every good 'scientist' implements it effectively. Over time, resolution improves and observer effects are whittled down until "truth" is measured....'abhor' is a loaded term indeed.
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Nov 22, 2013 - 10:18pm PT
JL, I wouldn't take your friend's comments as an avenue back to zen meditation. I don't think that's what she means. Meditation puts a different spin on things but it probably has nothing to do with reality. You are not going to be able to meditate your way outside the universe and witness time as a frozen block.

Too bad Ed has departed, but jstan is here and maybe he could comment on these strange experiments.

I would be curious as to how many actual scientists post on this thread and how many other serious professionals who work in the areas of the thread do as well. Not that it makes a difference - just curious. Some of us are open about our careers/specialties and others not so forthcoming. Ed and jstan are of course respected physicists, MikeL is a management professor, MH2 was a neurophysiologist, JL is well known as an author and adventurer, Base104 a geologist, oilman and adventurer, Jan a retired anthropology professor. But Dr F has commented he is the only one working in the nexus of these areas, and hasn't been forthcoming with further info. Well, that's his prerogative and as I said it doesn't make much difference. Speak up if you wish . . . or not.
PSP also PP

Trad climber
Berkeley
Nov 23, 2013 - 01:38am PT
JG said "You are not going to be able to meditate your way outside the universe and witness time as a frozen block."

Check out Dogen's 11th century writings on time in "moon in a dew drop"

regarding our relationship to to time.


Messages 17321 - 17340 of total 23155 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews