"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Wayne Throop on 7 Mar 2010 23:11 :: But in many cases, in order to progress, you have to depart from the :: conventional wisdom and add something new and original. : Mike Ash <mike(a)mikeash.com> : 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. Specifically, if you don't understand the current system, how will you know when you've got something better? And no, "I will have fixed all the things I don't like about it, like QM having no hidden variables" won't but it, because if you don't understand *why* QM has no hidden variables, you won't know if your version with hidden variables is a better idea. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Wayne Throop on 7 Mar 2010 23:16 : Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> : Again, my ideas cannot and should not be explained here in full, but : ultimately my ideas do offer explanations for observations that are : not yet explained, such as the acceleration of the expansion of the : universe, and possibly the nature of gamma ray bursts, and a new set : of laws for "quantum determinism" which will make the world make a lot : more sense YOu don't know if the current laws of QM make sense, and you are neglecting the fact that there are *alread* explanations for expansion and gamma bursts, so you will have to not only explain them, but show why the explanation is better. And without understanding the cu rrent theories and the current explanations, you'll never be able to tell whether yours is better. : 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. Yes. Yes it does. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Wayne Throop on 7 Mar 2010 23:20 : Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> : For the third time, I believe I understand enough, or soon will. You show less than zero evidence that this is true. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Mike Ash on 8 Mar 2010 00:06 In article <5d3fa520-4dd5-4f84-8bee-b5e9367ad48e(a)t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'm going to snip a bunch of stuff and just respond to a couple of interesting points, I hope you understand. > > > 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. > > I refuse. Even if there is no antecedent, there is no rule that says > that something that hasn't happened before, can't happen now. If you > subscribe to "nothing new under the sun", then I am not going to be > able to reason with you anyway. Fair enough. Even if it hasn't happened before, then that's not to say that it *can't* happen now. However, you're going beyond saying that it can happen. You have stated your belief that your ignorance is an *asset*. If it's actually *helpful* to be ignorant of the established order, then why hasn't anyone taken advantage of it before? > > > 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. > > It would affect everything - I would have thought that was fairly > obvious. Among other things, it would affect what I need to understand > in order to create a useful theory. But that is happenstance. If the > macro-scale governs the micro-scale, everything small is subject to > the large. But I am going to decline further elaboration, as it would > do neither of us any good. Nothing I could say would convince you I'm > not a kook. Certainly this paragraph hasn't done it. It's just a bunch of nonsense words strung together with no meaning. "If the macro-scale governs the micro-scale"? What does that mean, concretely? "Everything small is subject to the large"? These words do not actually make sense when put into this order. > > 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? > > Because my avenue of arriving at them is not mathematical, and I would > need a lot of assistance in order to make them so. Can't be helped. You can describe those laws without any math on a napkin even so. Why are your ideas so complex? > > 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_. > > Sounds exhausting. I am using other books. I think you misunderstand: _A New Kind of Science_ is a gigantic book filled with nonsense (or so I am given to believe, I have not actually read it myself), an example of the principle that enormous books that claim to overthrow the established order are just BS. > > > 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. > > Nah, I don't think so. Shakespeare, for instance, produced many > fertile ideas in others. You might say that Shakespeare isn't science, > but ultimately everything is science. The context here was producing some fertile ideas in ignorance of the established order. Thus, Shakespeare, who was extremely familiar with the state of English literature and stage at the time, does not prove your point in any way. If Shakespeare were completely ignorant of these, and if that ignorance had somehow helped him become the most famous playwright ever to have lived, then that would be evidence for your position. But he wasn't. > >, but I sincerely doubt that you'll be the first. > > Who better than me? :-) And don't be snide. You don't know me. I know by your own admission that you're bad at math, the greatest analytical tool ever created by Man. So to take your question seriously: who better than you? Anyone who is actually good at math would be better than you. > > > > 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? > > :-) I don't know! Force of habit? Because people are criticizing it > without knowing very much about (the full range of) it? Actually, people are criticizing what you've put forth so far, because it's meaningless twaddle. And they're criticizing your frankly outrageous claims about the rest. But I haven't seen anyone actually criticize the stuff you haven't talked about. > > > > 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? > > It's the revised world-view on the premise of which the testable > experiment is to take place that will take that long to explain. So make the predictions, and elaborate on the revised world-view later. If I say that the Sun's gravity will bend the light of stars, and that this alteration will be visible during a Solar eclipse, that's a testable prediction that doesn't *need* underpinning theory. Now, nobody is going to mount an expedition to the other side of the planet without it, but it at least places me in a realm where I've put something at stake, and provided a way, at least in principle, for my claims to be disproven. Compare these two statements: "I have a wondrous new theory which makes many new predictions. One is that light is bent by gravity, which can be observed during a solar eclipse by looking at stars near the Sun." "I have a wondrous new theory which will change the way we look at the world." The former is a bit empty without the backing theory, but it has some substance, and is a decent start. It's a way to make people curious. The latter is just foolishness and nobody will take it seriously. You're doing the second one. > > "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. > > If I put it like that, it would implicate a lot of previous > assumptions that would need to be expounded on first. And without the > exposition, I look like a kook. You'd look like much *less* of a kook with testable predictions than without. "I have a wonderful new theory which erases my personal philosophical objections to quantum mechanics" is kook-worthy. "I have a wonderful new theory which explains the Pioneer Anomaly and makes predictions about the trajectories of space probes in the outer solar system in general" is something people may actually give you the benefit of the doubt on. > > 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. > > Thanks, that's actually extremely encouraging! :-) Of course, you > wouldn't sit through them until established scientists had told you > they were good, but that's OK. I'm not asking for more. This kind of condescending attitude does not help your case at all. > > > > 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. > > Hurm, did I? Yes. Not in those precise words, but you keep talking about how the establishment is too close-minded to see new ideas, and how you're going to crack them open. > > 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. > > Yeah, I understand that. And it's true (not that I'm a kook, but that > I can sound like one). But these are all just tiny snippets of big > ideas that I hope to publish at some point, in a very detailed manner. That's fine. But you can't complain when you present an incomplete picture and then people say that it makes no sense. What you've presented so far is complete nonsense. It's semantic word games with absolutely zero physical meaning. If you have something with more substance, we haven't seen it. > I don't know all the details necessary to connect my ideas with the > established ideas, but I don't understand why I should have to. You don't have to connect your ideas with established ideas. But being unfamiliar with established ideas means that you have no grounds for the insufficiencies you keep saying the established ideas have, and it means you have virtually no chance of making any sort of useful contribution. > If the > ideas have something useful to offer, then surely it is in everyone's > interest if different researchers combine their various kinds of > expertise to help each other develop new and better theories. That's > all I want. Is it really such a great sin to believe that one is > capable of advancing human knowledge? Not at all. But you've put forth no evidence that you are so capable, and thus people are going to call you on that. > Current branches of science are > too isolated from each other, and the researchers too over- > specialized. In order to advance we need thinkers who can combine the > branches, and this is only possible from a more general, less detailed > perspective. If I am to combine seven branches, I can't have the same > expertise in each one as someone who's specialized in each. Scientists > from Schroedinger to Wilson have stressed the importance of confluent > thinking and synthesizing different fields of knowledge. That's the > path I'm on. The idea of combining branches is a wonderful one. But this is not what you're doing. You don't possess significant knowledge about the established order. What fields, exactly, are you combining? You don't know math. You don't know physics. These scientists are talking about getting together people *who actually have expertise*. What's your expertise? So far we have seen none. The fact that you're an outsider with original ideas has no merit on its own. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
From: Remus Shepherd on 8 Mar 2010 09:43
In rec.arts.sf.science Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 Mar., 18:03, Remus Shepherd <re...(a)panix.com> wrote: > > ? ?But some of the laws appear to be, 'Do whatever you want'. ?:) ?A particle > > in a superposition of quantum states ends up in one chosen at random. ?There > > may be a means by which consciousness forces quantum states into a directed > > collapse. ?(See the Quantum Zeno effect.) > Don't believe in that. Okay, but now you're disbelieving in things that actually exist, which will make it difficult to enlighten you further. :) > I believe in determinism and also in free will. ...which are contradictory principles, unless you're using definitions that I haven't heard of. > > ? ?When particles annihilate, they turn into particles (mass) with some > > kind of velocity (kinetic energy). ?There's no such thing as 'free floating > > energy'. > Isn't that exactly what EMR is, though? Superpositional lightspeed > waves that only rarely, under certain circumstances, act as particles? Other people have tried to answer this for you, but: Not quite. EMR is made of photons, which are waves that under certain circumstances act as particles, or vice versa. That's a flaw in our language, not our understanding. .... ... Remus Shepherd <remus(a)panix.com> Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/ |