"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Mike Ash on 7 Mar 2010 21:00 In article <01dd8c2f-3bb4-4b2b-9202-c0561fa440f9(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7 Mar., 14:43, Mike Ash <m...(a)mikeash.com> wrote: > > In article > > <32815007-fab2-471f-9fc5-420fb33a9...(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > �Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I've discussed my ideas with (admittedly not world class) astronomers > > > and physicists, and when we use plain language they end up saying that > > > they don't know enough to say whether my ideas could be correct. > > > > "Plain language" is the key. In science, plain language doesn't mean > > jack. Precise terminology exists for a reason: if you use plain > > language, you end up being extremely vague. Vagueness results in not > > being able to say whether it's correct or not. Surprise! > > No surprise there. Yes, precision is called for. However, sometimes > innovations have to come from radically different approaches, because > current paradigmatic thinking has painted itself into a corner. One of > the things I'm banking on is that I can present some good ideas (not > here, of course, but in forthcoming books), and then people who know > math can translate the substance of the ideas into a mathematically > useful form. I believe we are at a point where this sort of > collaboration between different kinds of expertise is necessary for > significant progress. At least in the areas I'm interested in. And I > also have enough faith in my ideas to believe that they will cause > some kind of splash upon publication. But of course I also have grave > doubts, considering my ignorance of most matters mathematical. You sure use a lot of words to say, essentially, nothing at all. Seriously, I can only find two or three actual things that you stated in this monster paragraph above: you're not surprised, precision is important, and you're pretty full of yourself. > > For example: "what goes up, must come down." Is that correct or not? > > It's hard to say for sure. It's mostly true, but how do you count things > > like satellites? You end up getting mired in a semantic debate which > > tells you absolutely nothing about the world. > > I don't think that's a very complicated example. It is easily > answered: the statement is correct in some cases and not in others. The point is not that it's hard to answer. The point is that both the question and the answer are completely useless, because it's extremely imprecise. > > In precise terminology: "the gravitational force between any two point > > masses is equal to the gravitational constant, multiplied by the product > > of their masses, and divided by the square of the distance between > > them". Is this true? Strictly speaking, no, but it's very close in > > situations where relativistic effects are not important. Close enough > > that your astronomer and physicist friends learned it early on and use > > it fairly regularly. This statement gives you an enormous amount of > > information about how the world works, and even the discussion about > > where it falls short is extremely informative. > > Sure. But there are multiple ways of working with logical > relationships. If you understand/have discovered certain overarching > principles, then it may not be necessary to understand the nitty- > gritty details in order to see new patterns that are actually there. If it's not necessary to understand the details of existing theory to postulate useful new theory, then please name at least one case where it has happened in the past. > My ideas, among other things, strike at the heart of our paradigmatic > assumptions, and some of those may be very wrong. For instance, if the > laws of nature do not begin on the quantum level, but are in fact > based on macrocosmic structural principles - in other words, if they > work from the top-down instead of from the bottom-up - then a lot of > the alleged foundational, fundamental and basic tenets upon which much > of physics is based is not really necessary in order to develop a > broad understanding of the major mechanisms of the laws of the > universe. Because in that case the quantum world does not give rise to > the macrocosmic world, but vice versa. Another monster paragraph which conveys no meaning. I have not the slightest idea what you think top-down versus bottom-up would affect in any way. > > To use plain language: if you can't put your ideas in precise > > terminology, then they aren't worth the electrons they're encoded with. > > I diasgree vehemently. If it says something new, explains things that > have not been explained before, and describe testable experiments, > then I don't think that a theory necessarily requires mathematical > expression in order to be picked up and developed further by the > scientific community (who will naturally mathematicalize it and fit it > into whichever parts of the Standard Model it may fit into in that > form). But, FYI, precisely because they lack "precision", I have > become accustomed to calling my ideas "ideas" instead of "theories", > which is the word I would ideally prefer to use. It's good that you don't use the word that you prefer, because the word you prefer is completely inappropriate for something as imprecise as what you have. > > > Admittedly, when we go into math, there are all sorts of ways in which > > > my ideas are either wrong or inexpressible. However, I choose to > > > believe that this is because the current theories are too constrained > > > in their mathematical conventions to be open to the new theoretical > > > strides that I'm introducing. Properly, who are you to say that that's > > > not the case? > > > > So far, I haven't seen any evidence that you have even the most basic > > comprehension about the current theories, so who are YOU to say anything > > about your "new theoretical strides"? > > My purpose in being here is to pick your brains. I have a certain > (admittedly sometimes vague) understanding of things, and I ask > specific questions in order to find out what *your* (and the general) > understanding is, for the purpose of both increasing my own knowledge > and find ways to formulate my own ideas better. Obviously, what I > actually mention about my ideas here is only a few bits and hints. > Their proper formulation will require a whole book at least. Newton's Laws can be written on a napkin with plenty of room left over for pizza sauce. (Especially if you use that mathematical notation you're so insistent at avoiding.) Maxwell's equations which describe electromagnetism are hardly any longer. Why must your ideas take up so much space? If you need an entire book to describe your "theories", then that's a bad sign in and of itself. See for example, Wolfram, Stephen, _A New Kind of Science_. > > To put it another way: please provide at least one historical example of > > somebody overthrowing the established order of science who did not > > understand that same established order. > > I think I understand, by and large, very significant parts of the > established order. Just not in mathematical terms. See, here's the thing: that second sentence completely contradicts the first one. The established order is so heavily based on mathematics that it is simply impossible to understand it without understanding the math. If you go for a physics major, guess what you'll be studying the very first semester there? Calculus. And the second semester, and the third, and probably several semesters after that. Mathematics is the foundation that underlies all of modern physics. You simply *cannot* understand *anything* significant about modern physics unless you understand the math involved. I understand calculus well, and how it relates to Newton's Laws and Maxwell's equations, so I claim to have a good fundamental understanding of those. I grasp the basic concepts of relativity and quantum mechanics, but I do not know almost all of the math that underlies them. Thus, I do not truly understand either one. I know about stuff like lorentz contraction, relativity of simultaneity, wave/particle duality, etc., but I don't know the math well enough to actually do any work with these things, thus I don't truly *understand* them. If you don't know the math, you don't understand the science, period. You may grasp concepts, but that's not even remotely similar. > Whether it is > enough to produce some fertile ideas, well, that remains to be seen. If it's enough to produce some fertile ideas, it will be the first time in the history of the world that it has ever happened. I'm not going to say that it's impossible, but I sincerely doubt that you'll be the first. > > > If we are to progress, the existing theories and the > > > math too must eventually be reinterpreted in order to allow any > > > possibility for advances. My only option is to work with things I > > > understand. My understanding tells me that my ideas (which of course > > > have only been cursorily touched upon here) have something radically > > > new and improved to offer, and as long as I haven't been persuaded of > > > the contrary, I'm naturally going to stick with them. > > > > Your understanding, as demonstrated so far, doesn't mean squat. > > I know. I basically have not demonstrated it. So why are you getting into big arguments about your level of knowledge? Put up or shut up. We're not going to take your word for it, so if you care what we think, then show us that you know what you're talking about. (This will, however, be impossible because you have admitted that you don't know the math.) If you don't care what we think, then why argue about it? > > If you > > want us to take you seriously, give us some actual predictions that can > > be tested, at least in theory. > > Working on it. It may not be possible without a lengthy (like 100-200 > pages) description which nobody here is going to sit through anyway. Why would a testable prediction take so long to explain? "Gravity bends light enough to visibly alter the position of stars near the Sun as observed during a solar eclipse." "Clocks in orbit run faster than clocks on the ground." "Particles, such as electrons, will exhibit an interference pattern when fired through a grating, even when fired one by one." It should not take so many pages to give a testable prediction, at least the general outlines of one, especially if you're not going to be quantitative about it, which you clearly aren't. On the other hand, if your ideas really are as revolutionary as you claim, then you can bet that every one of us will sit through your 200 pages to understand them, because revolutionary ideas in science are extremely rare and exciting. Of course, the chances of this actually being the case are very, very low. > > Until and unless you do that, you're just a crackpot, plain and simple. > > I have met few people here who neglect the opportunity to tell me so. Well, you see.... You come in talking about how your incredible new ideas will change the world. You exhibit no real understanding of the current scientific view of the world. Your ideas as presented so far are simply word games with no actual meaning. When all of these things are mentioned to you, you start talking about how scientists are close-minded and require someone from outside the field to break things open (something which, by the way, has never, ever occurred). In short: if you walk like a kook, swim like a kook, and quack like a kook, we're going to call you a kook. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
From: Tue Sorensen on 7 Mar 2010 21:04 On 8 Mar., 02:46, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: > Tue Sorensen wrote: > > On 8 Mar., 01:46, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: > >> Your commentary so far has indicated just the opposite. That's not > >> intended as an insult, it's just a statement of fact. > > > Of course it's an insult. I come here trying to learn things. And > > because I'm asking a few questions and making a few statements, but > > not presenting 500 pages of coherent thought (which you'd never go to > > the trouble of giving a fair read-through anyway, at least not in this > > forum), you immediately pronounce me guilty of extreme ignorance and > > crackpottery. > > It's not an insult. So far you've indicated profound ignorance of > current theory (and have _admitted it_ multiple times when called on > it). Your ideas are solidly in the category of "not even wrong" I am forced to repeat myself. Since you have heard nothing but a few disjointed mentions of my ideas, you can say no such thing about them. You are what I call an absolutist; someone who immediately jumps to absolute opinions of something, not understanding that such a thing in cases like this (where you are ignorant of what it is you're forming an opinion about) isn't logically possible. Oh well, whatever floats your boat. > -- they > are not even coherent enough to judge as meaningful ideas that can be > analyzed in terms of science. Case in point is your recent arguments > where you're deliberately using terminology in non-standard ways, or > just sticking together words to make new ones and pretending that's > anything other than mental masturbation. Another non-insult? I am in the process of finding out how I should define various terms so that I might ultimately make myself understood. Could there be a nobler purpose? > You're free to do that if you want, but we're also free to conclude that > you're a crank because of it. Because you're behaving exactly like one.. I shall endeavor to be more careful. > > I do have some off-beat ideas, but I'm not telling you > > enough about them for you to draw any reasonable conclusions about > > them. > > Then why the hell are you talking about them? The fault in poor > communication is yours, not others'. Well, maybe. > >> But you ignored his (very important) question: Can you name an example > >> of someone overthrowing the established scientific order without already > >> understanding it? The answer should be no, because there won't be any. > > > If I *can* overthrow the estabslished order, it will be proof that I > > understood it *well enough* to do so. Wait and wonder. > > We've heard this before. Yawn. Better to wonder than to yawn. > >>>> Until and unless you do that, you're just a crackpot, plain and simple. > >>> I have met few people here who neglect the opportunity to tell me so. > >> You might want to consider for a moment that there might be a good > >> reason for that. When your behavior is indistinguishable to numerous > >> others as that of a crank, perhaps you should consider that the common > >> element to all of those conclusions is you. > > > That's certainly the neatest and easiest conclusion for you. Verily, > > the world of newsgroups is a simple one. > > Might want to read that again to understand the point I was trying to > make. You're admitting you're not explaining yourself well. You're > coming off as a crackpot, repeatedly, on several occasions, on multiple > topics, to numerous people who actually know what they're talking about. > Whose fault is that, now? Yes, yes, granted, you have a point. I should get out of the kitchen if I can't stand the heat. I know I will convince no one here of anything that goes against established ideas, nor is that my purpose in being here. I just came here to ask for some conceptual elucidation, and my original question has been answered, more or less. I will try not to stray too much next time. - Tue
From: Erik Max Francis on 7 Mar 2010 21:25 Tue Sorensen wrote: > On 8 Mar., 02:46, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: >> Tue Sorensen wrote: >>> On 8 Mar., 01:46, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: >>>> Your commentary so far has indicated just the opposite. That's not >>>> intended as an insult, it's just a statement of fact. >>> Of course it's an insult. I come here trying to learn things. And >>> because I'm asking a few questions and making a few statements, but >>> not presenting 500 pages of coherent thought (which you'd never go to >>> the trouble of giving a fair read-through anyway, at least not in this >>> forum), you immediately pronounce me guilty of extreme ignorance and >>> crackpottery. >> It's not an insult. So far you've indicated profound ignorance of >> current theory (and have _admitted it_ multiple times when called on >> it). Your ideas are solidly in the category of "not even wrong" > > I am forced to repeat myself. Since you have heard nothing but a few > disjointed mentions of my ideas, you can say no such thing about them. > You are what I call an absolutist; someone who immediately jumps to > absolute opinions of something, not understanding that such a thing in > cases like this (where you are ignorant of what it is you're forming > an opinion about) isn't logically possible. Oh well, whatever floats > your boat. Sorry, but that's bullshit. You're the one who has these ideas; if you attempt to communicate them and come off sounding as a crank, then that's _your_ fault. If you know they sound cranky but for some reason need hundreds of pages to explain how they're non-cranky (which, as Mike Ash points out, doesn't make a lick of sense), then either don't mention them, or don't complain when you when someone inevitably says that you're sounding like a crank. Because you are. Again: You're free to act like a crank, but we're free to point out that you're acting like a crank. Further, you're also kind of skipping over the fact that you've said plenty of cranky things in the past on unrelated subjects, so we're not making this up out of nowhere, here. >>> I do have some off-beat ideas, but I'm not telling you >>> enough about them for you to draw any reasonable conclusions about >>> them. >> Then why the hell are you talking about them? The fault in poor >> communication is yours, not others'. > > Well, maybe. _Maybe_? You _just said_ was that you haven't explained yourself fully and it's no fair for people to judge your "off-beat," incomplete ideas (but the only ideas they have access to). And _maybe_ the communication problem is with you? >>>> But you ignored his (very important) question: Can you name an example >>>> of someone overthrowing the established scientific order without already >>>> understanding it? The answer should be no, because there won't be any. >>> If I *can* overthrow the estabslished order, it will be proof that I >>> understood it *well enough* to do so. Wait and wonder. >> We've heard this before. Yawn. > > Better to wonder than to yawn. Plenty of us wonder at the world. We just like wondering at the way science has revealed the world to work so far, rather than just making up our mind beforehand and then griping that the science doesn't appear to have revealed the world to work that way. >>>>>> Until and unless you do that, you're just a crackpot, plain and simple. >>>>> I have met few people here who neglect the opportunity to tell me so. >>>> You might want to consider for a moment that there might be a good >>>> reason for that. When your behavior is indistinguishable to numerous >>>> others as that of a crank, perhaps you should consider that the common >>>> element to all of those conclusions is you. >>> That's certainly the neatest and easiest conclusion for you. Verily, >>> the world of newsgroups is a simple one. >> Might want to read that again to understand the point I was trying to >> make. You're admitting you're not explaining yourself well. You're >> coming off as a crackpot, repeatedly, on several occasions, on multiple >> topics, to numerous people who actually know what they're talking about. >> Whose fault is that, now? > > Yes, yes, granted, you have a point. I should get out of the kitchen > if I can't stand the heat. I know I will convince no one here of > anything that goes against established ideas, ... You have no basis for concluding this is the case. Having a knee-jerk reaction to accusing the people who point out the incoherence of your statements of being closed-minded earns you more points on the crackpot index, though. -- Erik Max Francis && max(a)alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis The woman's movement is no longer a cause but a symptom. -- Joan Didion
From: Mike Ash on 7 Mar 2010 21:26 In article <237812cc-e4de-468e-8ad2-c03279d7bbdf(a)y11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> wrote: > And I also do believe that it is precisely my lack of training that > enables me to think outside of the narrow box that trained physicists > are typically taught to think inside of, though I understand that this > probably seems silly to a lot of people. The sad thing is that this sort of idea does *not* sound silly to a great many people. But that doesn't change the fact that it is, in fact, extremely silly. If it's not silly, then you'll be able to point out at least one instance in the past where a person who did not understand the established order was still able to overthrow it. Just one example. You've been asked repeatedly, and you've yet to provide one. How hard can it be? If coming from the outside is so important, you'd think that all the great paradigm shifters would have done so, so it ought to be super easy for you to give us a name. > But in many cases, in order > to progress, you have to depart from the conventional wisdom and add > something new and original. This is completely true. Your fallacy is not in thinking that you need to be new and original, because that's absolutely the case. Your fallacy is in thinking that not having a firm grasp of the current system is somehow an asset when it comes to being new and original, when in fact it is precisely the opposite which is the case. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
From: Darwin123 on 7 Mar 2010 21:41
On Mar 7, 8:04 pm, Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7 Mar., 01:42, Darwin123 <drosen0...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 4, 8:37 pm, Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> I have a few questions that I would like people's expert input on... > Free > will, in my view, can be explained scientifically once we understand > the processes in greater detail. I keep the word "will" far away from the words "causality" and "determinism." I can link both causality and determinism to quantitative discussions. I have seen a mathematical derivation connecting "causality" to "the Kramers Kronig" relation. No intelligence, or lack of same, was implied in the derivation. Moreover, I have seen chaos theory discussed in terms of determinism. Again, the systems involved had no intelligence. To me, "free will" is a term related to morals and ethics. "Free will" has more to do with law and justice than it has to physics. I conjecture that most physical scientists avoid connecting "determinism" or "causality" to free will. In quantitative discussion, the meanings of "determinism" and "causality" have to be tightened up a bit. The common meaning of the words is useful as a guide, but special qualifiers are appropriate when discussing a system. However, the moral implications do nothing for understanding the physical reality of what is going on. I think there is a clear connection between causality and determinism in physical discussion. In physics, one usually goes hand in hand with the other. However, there is no real connection between "causality" and "free will", or "determinism" and "free will". I am not a lawyer. Yet, I have read enough and seen enough TV shows to realize that "cause" and "will" are not related. Legal jargon are sometimes closer to common use than physics jargon. In legal jargon, "free will" has a definite meaning. In legal jargon, "sanity" has a definition. If you look at some court cases, real as well as fictional, you will see that "determined" has very little to do with "free will." "Cause" has a legal meaning. However, examination indicates that "cause" has little to do with "free will." Suppose you decide to murder A by using person B. You grab person B, knock him out, and drop him on top of person A from a significant height. Person B was rather fat, so survived the fall even though person A died. A physicist can make a boring analysis on whether the fall was determined or not. According to quantum mechanics, it is not determined. According to classical physics, it was. It is clear that person B (or is body) is the cause of person A's demise. The legal question is whether person B or you get the needle. However, it seems clear that person B was not acting of his own free will. Or was he? If he hadn't eaten so much, then he wouldn't have been heavy enough to kill person B. Were you acting under your own free will? Maybe you didn't mean to kill A, you just wanted to scare him. But person B had gained so much weight. You see, the cause isn't so important. "Will" could have a cause, but only the context connects "will" and "cause." The ability to predict is not so important, so determinism is not so important. This is because "free will" is not a physical property. "Cause" and "determined" are physical properties. I have taken courses in philosophy, and partaken in many discussions of philosophy with other scientists. I think one of the few things we can agree on is that "free will" is not the opposite of "determinism." Even if what you say is right, and physics is shown to relate to "will," the two can't be directly connected. The structure of will is more complicated than the structure of time. In any case, I answered your question concerning "determinsim" and "causality." I hope it helps you solve some interesting physics problem. However, you are on your own concerning "free will." |