Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
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.
of course, the possibility that this happened is open to ongoing scientific examination.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Curious how YOU reconcile (a) the causal relations and (b) the causal reasoning that your own life no doubt is steeped in with the time-symmetric view of your physics that there is no causality (that there are "no causes in physics"). Compartmentalization?
Then there's this: Because a scientific discipline doesn't have a particular term for a concept/dynamic/arrangement in its vocabulary at present... doesn't necessarily mean its later inclusion wouldn't be useful for further thinking or clarifying.
...
This is or is not physics in action? expressed in the medium of electronics...
An antenna transmits a radio signal. The source causes (produces) the signal. Flipping a switch produces (causes) radio waves to diverge from the antenna. Tuning a receiver 1000 miles away causes (leads to) reception of this signal.
The science of cause and effect: First principle: Causes precede effects.
Perhaps physics needs another formal division. Or else the engineering discipline needs to broaden its conceptual foundation.
This world is steeped in causal relations. Not only should we learn about them (knowing better is doing better) but also we should celebrate them. Because they make good living possible.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
my main point, lately, has involved "context," the context of viewing the universe from a human perspective.
Interesting to imagine what a human perspective is in relation to any other perspective as the human perspective must be a direct outgrowth of the physical limitations and possibilities of our universe and in that sense a reflection of that universe with a perfect fit for knowing.
Wouldn't our perspective have to reflect with some accuracy our environment as that perspective has served us so well as a species?
We have figured out through reason and our senses how to gain knowledge and to question the validity and accuracy of that knowledge even questioning our "perspective." Hard to imagine our search is limited by the "human perspective" as long as we are aware of that possibility if it can even be said to be a possibility.
Or maybe by human perspective you're referring to the forms of sensibility but I think we over come those discrepancies through reason.
As for no cause and effect: "I refute it thus."
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
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.
More likely Chicxulub was perhaps part of a one-two punch that put many dinosaur species, already trending there, on the glide path to extinction.
The other was the Deccan Traps:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps
Work published in 2014 by geologist Gerta Keller and others on the timing of the Deccan volcanism suggests the extinction may have been caused by both the volcanism and the impact event.[10][11] This was followed by a similar study in 2015.[12][13]
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
That is just a story representing a theory that is almost surely wrong.
Oh yeah?
Though the statement I made really concerned first and foremost the use of "cause" in a sentence (regarding an event) as opposed to a claim of historical facts... I'd love to hear more. What else you got?
Have I been out of the loop, what have I missed?
...
re: causal relations
"...the extinction may have been caused by both the volcanism and the impact event."
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
the likelihood of an Earth-large-space-object is relatively rare, I'm thinking you can count the evidence for such collisions on one hand. It is a very improbable occurrence, but sh#t happens. Certainly nothing "caused" this to happen, just two bodies with intercepting trajectories. Those trajectories are due not to "cause" but to a similarly stochastic process.
As for "extinction," we hardly know what causes them, and this particular collision could have setup conditions on Earth very unfavorable to some species, but apparently not to all species. A good accounting is not yet available (as far as I know). There is certainly some physical evidence supporting collisions, isotopic abundance being one, but many other bits of evidence to follow up on, and not all of it points to the "standard narrative story."
So one can look at it as a chain of causal events, but the meaning of "cause" is unfortunately steeped in human experience, "I cause this to happen" or as Paul cheekishly put it "I refute it thus" which we all understand immediately.
I'm suggesting that it is not a productive way to think about the physical universe, that things are caused, because it sets one's thoughts along the path of what the "initial cause" was, and what we are pretty convinced of, in the modern narrative of the big bang, there wasn't.
"Sh#t happens" is a much better, if more vulgar way to put it, it's not a fatalistic surrender, rather a recognition of the truly random things that happen, it is a way of embracing probability.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
All right, guys, I get your points. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion. All the more to ponder over the weekend. :)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Using "Sh!t happens" is another way to prove cluelessness to the actual truth.
Cheap way to opt out and is what cheaters do.
There is a direct cause to everything in the material world.
The clueless gross materialists try very hard to cover their ignorance with word jugglery .....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I cheat whenever I can on this stuff...
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
So "go beyond human perspective" means look for similarities and differences between human perspective and the perspective of other species on earth?
I had to go back and look at the post where Ed mentioned, "viewing the universe from a human perspective."
I wasn't on that track. I was possibly off on a tangent: can humans view anything from an other than human viewpoint?
It seemed to me a version of trying to walk a mile in the other person's shoes, when the other may not be a person and has no shoes to walk in.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
Using "Sh!t happens" is another way to prove cluelessness to the actual truth.
Not if we have some good idea about the probability it's gonna happen. More often than not we're not certain about the outcomes we confront. We have to play the probabilities. Doesn't that make life interesting?
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
What is "probability?"
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's easy! A number between zero and one.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
A number between zero and one.
How do you play it?
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
"Sh#t happens" is a ..... recognition of the truly random things that happen, it is a way of embracing probability.
"Karma is a bi#tch" is another view emphasizing purpose in the universe even if the details elude humans.
These two sayings seemingly represent the basic divide of opinion on this thread.
After 20,000+ posts who could have known it was that simple?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Opinion is ultimately useless.
What is the actual truth is what really matters .....
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
How do you play it?
Here's one hypothetical way, made famous by Parade Magazine's Marilyn vos Savant (although it's really quite simple to solve if you think it through and for sure you can find the solution with Google, in this day and age). Monty Hall has three hidden rooms, hidden behind doors and tells you there's a prize behind one door (say 1,000,000 bucks, or something else you might want, to create interest) and old banana peels (or something else that doesn't interest you, to keep in the spirit of things) behind the other two doors. You pick Door Number 1. Then Monty Hall shows you a banana peel behind Door Number 2 and offers you the chance to switch doors. Your decision is "the play". There is a number associated with the occurrence of the 1.000,000 bucks behind each of the remaining doors called "the probability" it is there. In this case, it is a positive rational number less than one and the sum of the two probabilities is 1. If you make the right "play", in this case, you will have a better chance of winning. Empirically, you will not see that "better chance" in one play. You will win or you will lose. However, if you play the game 1,000 times the empirical reality of "the probability" will become more apparent. Even more so if you play the game 10,000 or 100,000 times.
Honestly MH2, sometimes I wonder if you just hang out here to troll, or maybe you're a little loopy.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
I wonder if you just hang out here to troll
No. Though I probably could not provide objective evidence of that.
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
By the way: the solution to the so-called Monty Hall problem entails that Monty knows where the two banana peels are and picks Door 2 accordingly (and not at random). Thus, by showing you one of the two places where banana peels are, he reveals new information that can be used to calculate the probability for the second "play".
Here was my "simple" solution from back when I heard the problem: Picking Door 1 (or any door on the first guess) you will be wrong 2 out of three times, so you should bet you are wrong. Now Monty Hall reveals that a banana peel is behind Door 2. That means you if you were wrong on your original guess, the prize has to be behind Door 3. In fact, every time you guess wrong on the original play, and a banana peel is revealed, the prize is behind the other door. The only way it's behind the door you picked first, is if you guessed right the first time. So switching doors is equivalent to betting your first guess was wrong, which happens two out of three times.
At the time this came out, I read about it in Parade Magazine in my parent's home (in their Sunday papers). I was a math graduate student. I recall being amused by all the PH.Ds writing in, announcing how important they were with their titles, to rail on Marilyn (who got the answer right) about how she was wrong and about how nonexperts shouldn't be writing in magazines. Probability should be left to the experts.
To "Sh#t happens" and "Karma is a bitch" I also might add "Mathematics is a harsh mistress". It doesn't matter how much of an authority you are, she can easily prove you wrong.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Who is "she"?
"She" (material nature) is NOT the ultimate authority.
Gross materialists still always ultimately clueless .....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!