Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
By the way, Ed is starting to sound rather Kantian with this remark:
is it possible, I wonder, that what we think of as order is just how we've ordered it?
I wonder: has too much exposure to philosophy been a bad influence?
Kantian? Philosophy?
Oh, please.
...
"Chaos is order undeciphered."
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Yes. I would like to know what this means.
Can we devise a test?
Or are we lost in a thicket of words and philosophical issues?
How about if we had the technology to record activity in one human brain and use it to stimulate activity in another, with sufficient fidelity that the recipient could report an experience of the sender? Krista and Tatiana Hogan seem to be wired up this way biologically.
Then try the same between human and other species.
|
|
Norton
climber
The Wastelands
|
|
Think of it. All that order, all that inviable law, all that inevitable order and all that understanding, knowing written into the first instance of the universe. Sure makes you wonder...
^^^ many people would read Paul's words and find confirmation of their belief in a creator
far fewer people find no necessity of a creator
-------------
In the very weird world of quantum mechanics, which describes action on a subatomic scale, random fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness. And this can lead to very big things indeed, researchers say.
"The question, then, is, 'Why are there laws of physics?'" "And you could say, 'Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.'"
But that answer just continues to kick the can down the road, because you still need to explain where the divine creator came from. The process leads to a never-ending chain that always leaves you short of the ultimate answer.
https://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
Then try the same between human and other species.
So "go beyond human perspective" means look for similarities and differences between human perspective and the perspective of other species on earth? Somehow I didn't get that from Ed's post. How would this help us formulate or understand the principles of physics?
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
Oh, please.
Your welcome
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
my point is that we see many of these processes as "cause and effect" largely because it is the way we, humans, interact with the environment. Seeking the "first cause" of the universe is part of the program of the scholastics, though originating with the Greeks and perhaps even earlier, but if there are no causes in nature, we are looking for the wrong thing.
There are no "causes" in physics, though we can interpret many things as such.
The very idea of a "force" is tied up with our own experience, relativity dispensed with the whole notion, yet we maintain that perspective because it is familiar, and even useful to an extent.
I have read Kant, but I don't think I'm a believer... in particular, I deeply suspect work from a single "deep thinker" on anything, why is Kant any different than anyone else? Instead, consider physics as certainly accessible to anyone putting the effort into understanding it, and able to independently reach the same conclusions.
But to my point, the division between "chaos" and "order" has to be a largely human perspective, our aesthetic of order, the idea of "cause and effect" and the application of "force" are all motivated by that perspective.
The ants crawling on my kitchen counter top finding their way to a source of food is exquisite, but the chaos that ensues in the household and the demand for "order" can only be seen from the outrage of a human demanding its entitlement, even if to deny some "pest" the "waste" of a meal.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Ed and healyje,
How a thing supposedly works is not an understanding of what it is. The difference is fundamentally qualitative. It may look as though something is not amenable to change, but most things look like that to folks. Laws as such are forever being amended with this or that little fix. ("Here, let me fix that for ya.") They all seem to operate instrumental heuristics that make things tidy (or predictable) for us; they seem to allow us to order or direct perceived outcomes.
Pragmatically, I have no problems with any of them. They are truly a part of our lives. They help to construct our realities, just like any tool might.
More often than not, imo, a law ends up to be an axiom, because not all instances can be observed. Werner might say they are speculations.
It's a big step, imo, to go from "here's what we think and have observed" to "here's what is." I cannot even begin to say what the latter is. (I'm reminded of the allegory of the cave.)
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
Actually, I pretty much agree with that, Ed. We can maybe do our part to tweak what's come before, in terms of a social context: for a scientist this involves stuff like teaching, publishing results, giving talks, communicating with colleagues, working on shared problems, etc. But all this takes place in a preexisting context of "human perspective". I think it's pretty much impossible to totally step out of the box and create something of value.
Also: IMO, Kant had a few interesting things to say in the Critique of Pure Reason, which (again, IMO) aren't so far from what you're saying. But I'd have a hard time recommending the book to most anyone: it's very long winded, cumbersome and full of (IMO) unnecessary and overly technical distinctions. I'm not sure reading it would help clear up much of anything for most people. On the other hand, it does play a certain pivotal historical role. Maybe like reading Newton's Principia Mathematica. Not the best way to learn calculus and classical mechanics, but still of some historical value, if you have the time and desire.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
How a thing supposedly works is not an understanding of what it is.
that is a confused statement.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
that is a confused statement.
That is exactly why I've been saying for years gross materialists have no real clue the differences between life itself and the material energies
and how life itself interacts with the inferior material manifestation.
You guys have been clueless for years now along with 20,000 posts all while masquerading as authority by the way of your so-called scientific methods.
You stubbornly refuse to do the actual work and experiment to verify these truths.
Instead, you cheaply google around and never actually achieve any real self realizations.
Instead, you stubbornly lock yourselves to only the inferior material manifestations which are completely controlled by the superior spiritual manifestation
which are completely outside of your material self made instruments.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
"...which are completely outside of your material self made instruments."
indeed, and completely outside the realm of physical.
I do not disagree at all.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
There are no "causes" in physics...
Insofar as this is correct, it shows the limitations of this physics - as causal relations (edit: undeniably) abound in nature.
Sadly, there is no "science of cause and effect" in the Science world. If only there were much could be investigated from its perspective - in causal terms. General engineering, however, comes close.
Also, we have no single name in the English speaking world for the science of systems (systems science). Another shortcoming.
Perhaps in time, we will get these improvements, and together with them new perspectives and new ways of talking.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
that is as you see it, HFCS
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
I know you don't deny "causal relations" everywhere in nature and everywhere in our experience, so you should at least be able to see that your earlier statement is context dependent if not ambiguous.
Here it is...
There are no "causes" in physics, though we can interpret many things as such.
Compare...
There are no "causes" in physics, though we can (interpret) (view) (explain) (describe) many things as such (that is, in terms of cause and effect).
Confusing to say the least. No wonder there's so much public confusion regarding autism/vaccines, climate change, evolution, etc..
It's hard to flip a light switch or operate the tv remote and at the same time claim there are no causes in physics (e.g., electronics physics, optical physics, etc.)
I know you have unique views concerning truth and belief, too. So I think I get it.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
There are no "causes" in physics...
This is not True at all.
There is the "Cause of all causes".
The gross materialists will say there is no need for the "Cause of all causes".
Such an ignorant statement doesn't depend on a subordinate part parcel living entity to make who is directly controlled by duality and cause and effect in their materially conditioned state ......
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
my main point, lately, has involved "context," the context of viewing the universe from a human perspective.
That perspective guides a lot of our thinking about the universe, and is not necessarily helpful in understanding it.
On the other hand, if you are creating technologies for humans, the human perspective is important, that is what engineering does, creates technologies.
Those technologies rest on the foundations of scientific understanding.
Human action can be thought of as "caused," and I guess you can say that humans are "created in the image of the universe" and leave it at that.
[Werner, rewrite you last sentence, it is confusing, I have no idea what you are trying to say]
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
What is the public to gather when physicists themselves cannot agree over the roles of causal powers and causal reasoning in our lives, the importance thereof?
my main point, lately, has involved "context," the context of viewing the universe from a human perspective.
That perspective guides a lot of our thinking about the universe, and is not necessarily helpful in understanding it.
I'm 100 per cent with you here. My usual term: framing, or contextual framing. I've been giving it a great deal of thought myself the last 12 months or so. Esp in regard to biological bias, for better or worse.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
the public is informed on the musings of physicists?
I think not...
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Let me remind the nonscience types here. All engineering operates off of physics. As much as I was an engineer, I was a physicist. Certainly not in Ed's particle physics. But in electronics physics and systems physics.
"Cause" is a word, an English word. As a verb, it's got synonyms: to produce, to make, to lead to. Taking this into account, it's more than fair to say the interaction of an asteroid and the Earth 65Mya caused (produced, led to) the extinction of the dinosaurs.
the public is informed on the musings of physicists?
It's essential in these times, arguably more than ever, for the physics community to inform the public... and for the public to know that physics and physicists by and large are united in their basic methods and knowledge.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!