Prev: Proof that consciousness is NOT in the brain
Next: When does Al's ignorance become stupidity? (was Re: Salt on Venus)
From: PD on 7 Jun 2010 16:15
On Jun 6, 8:21 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, PD wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 6:38 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, PD wrote:
> >>> On Jun 3, 6:57 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> I kinda followed a lot of what you wrote. Yes, I see some problems
> >>>> according to what you say. What it boils down to for me is that a lot of
> >>>> these "theories" or "explanations" are very non-intuitive. I like
> >>>> intuitive understandings, etc., but it bothers me that to "understand"
> >>>> some of this weird stuff, you have to accept non-intuitive intellectual
> >>>> "constructs" which seem to me to be full of intuitive sub-constructs.. The
> >>>> book I cited did not go into the semantic/intepretational level, but did
> >>>> accept that there were problems. I might type up a few quotes from the
> >>>> chapter on the wave-particle duality where the author was hedging what he
> >>>> wrote. Hope you are following what I'm saying.
>
> >>> I think you've nailed your own apprehensions on the head, and this is
> >>> not uncommon. Many people believe that a physical theory ought to make
> >>> intuitive sense FIRST and THEN if it also fits data well, it can be
> >>> considered successful. Or conversely, if you have a theory that fits
> >>> the data well but doesn't make intuitive sense, then there is
> >>> nonetheless something wrong with it.
>
> >> Yes, but there are other issues such as: can the data be explained by
> >> alternate models. Also, I was never all that satisfied with the "ether"
> >> model because it seemed like a "fudge".
>
> > I've answered this already in this string.
>
> Fine.
>
>
>
> >> Then, the whole idea of an expanding universe was something uncanny. How
> >> do you have a finite universe, expanding at the speed of light, and this
> >> infinite megazillion light-years size ball of galaxies all has to be
> >> "inside" an even bigger infinite box of, what, nothingness?
>
> > No. That's just it. Something that is finite does not need to have an
> > edge.
>
> That is beyond me. But you left out a lot, too.
>
> > The *surface* (and keep in mind I'm talking about the *surface*, not
> > the volume) is finite but has no edge.
>
> Still beyond me.
>
>   The edge to a surface is a
>
> > curve.
>
> Two dimensional, three dimentional, one dimentional?/?????
>
> > Where is the curve that represents the edge to that 2D surface?
> > When you get your head wrapped around that notion, then you can see
> > the same idea applies just as readily (though more hard for us as
> > humans to *visualize*) to 3D and 4D spaces.
>
> Lost me back in the beginning.

It's really not all that complicated. The boundary of a finite, 1D
curve is a 0D point, if it has one. For example, a straight line
segment will have two end-points. But an ellipse (the 1D curve, not
the 2D interior) doesn't have a boundary; there is no end-point to an
ellipse

The boundary of a finite, 2D curved surface, if it has one, is a 1D
curve. For example, the inner surface of a cooking bowl has a circular
rim for an edge. But a sphere (the 2D surface, not the 3D interior)
doesn't have a boundary; there is no edge to the surface of a sphere.

The boundary of a finite, 3D curved volume, if it has one, is a 2D
curve. For example, the volume of a cube has six 2D square tiles as a
boundary. And here, our intuition has a hard time thinking of any
examples of any finite 3D curved volumes that don't have a boundary.
But it's not too hard to grasp from the previous examples, that
there's no reason why such a thing wouldn't exist for 3D volumes, and
we can even suss out what would have to be true about such a thing.

>
>
>
> >> So, my short, frank answer is going to be: OK, I am incapable of
> >> understanding, accepting this non-intuititive knowledge. Almost a paradox.
>
> > You're not incapable. You just need to walk through it a little more
> > slowly and reshape a few ideas.
>
> Yeah, sounds like a fudge. Yeah, I read George Gamow's "1-2-3 infinity"
> and he talked about some of this, and, frankly, he did a better job, too.

Nah, there are lots of really good presentations. But they are also
tiered. There will be very accessible and still not-too-fruity
presentations that are good for the novice, and these will give you a
decent but shallow level of understanding. Then you repeat this with a
deeper presentation that will make use of some more involved tools and
rely on more principles taken from elsewhere, and this will give you a
much better level of understanding. Then you repeat this with an even
deeper presentation, making full use of ancillary skills and a
reshaped intuition that goes along with them.

>
>
>
> >> However, when I read the works of philosophers who went into interesting
> >> detail on Newton's laws (eg. that book I said I read: "Beyond the edge
> >> of certainty" by Colodney), I realized that one's thinking has to be
> >> much more careful. And, for the record, I _did_ follow what those guys
> >> wrote (and they were all professors at universities, too).
>
> >>> However, this approach is not the best one in science. Intuition is a
> >>> liar and a cheat.
>
> >> It also gives you that "gut feeling" that something ain't right.
>
> > Which is not necessarily something you should trust. In all cases, the
> > recourse to experimental comparison is a good way to be sure. In fact,
> > it's the ONLY way.
>
> Experimental findings can be misinterpretations and experiment design can
> have flaws.

This is why experimental results are reproduced by complementary
methods. The difficulty here is, if you don't buy into experiment
being the arbiter of which model is correct, then you really aren't
buying into the scientific method.

>
>
>
> >> _MAYBE_ intuition can _sometimes_ be a liar and a cheat, and I can think
> >> of examples where deeper study reveals a better picture.
>
> >>> PD
>
>

From: Peter Webb on 8 Jun 2010 10:46

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:805fa585-dd20-4001-8b1b-b9c7aaf303af(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 7, 3:43 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> __________________________________
>
> >> Yes, so? Are you claiming that the thousands of experiments that
> >> confirm
> >> SR all have flaws? How do you explain how particle accelerators that
> >> are
> >> built using SR work if SR is false?
>
> > No, only hedging my "position" to account for the two schools of
> > thought.
>

==============

> I am aware of only one "school of thought".
>
> I have heard zero - lets repeat that, zero - alternative theories to SR.

Indeed. I keep my pet-rock around for exactly
that reason. I have considered a dog might
be a good alternative, but they tend to pee
on the floor at the worst possible time and
place.


<< one of Einstein's two main reasons for
abandoning special relativity as a suitable
framework for physics was the fact that, no
less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity
is based on the unjustified and epistemologically
problematical assumption of a preferred class
of reference frames, precisely the issue raised
by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory"
exists only, aside from its historical
importance, as a convenient set of widely
applicable formulas for important limiting
cases of the general theory, but the epistemological
foundation of those formulas must be sought
in the context of the general theory.>>
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm

Sue...

The above is true if you unconditionally accept that GR is true. However,
its quite possible for SR to be true but GR to be false, hence me limiting
the argument to SR.



From: Me, ...again! on 8 Jun 2010 17:31


On Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote:

>
> "Me, ...again!" <arthures(a)mv.com> wrote in message
> news:Pine.BSF.4.61.1006070731290.16060(a)osmium.mv.net...
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote:
>>
>>> __________________________________
>>>>> Yes, so? Are you claiming that the thousands of experiments that confirm
>>>>> SR all have flaws? How do you explain how particle accelerators that are
>>>>> built using SR work if SR is false?
>>>>
>>>> No, only hedging my "position" to account for the two schools of thought.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am aware of only one "school of thought".
>>
>> Well, "Sue"....whomever she is.... brought out just a while ago this
>> wikipedia entry about "emergent gravity". I can't tell if its a giant April
>> Fools joke, a science fiction story, or what...but I've heard of some of
>> those names before.
>>
>>> I have heard zero - lets repeat that, zero - alternative theories to SR.
>>> What exist by the crank-case full are theories which claim to be different
>>> to SR, but are in fact mathematically identical in their predictions and
>>> so are the same theory dressed up in different verbiage.
>>
>> They sure sound different to me, but then I'm not claiming to be an expert.
>>
>
> Did they produce the same mathematical results as SR? Did they propose
> testable experiments which would differentiate their theory from SR?
>
> These are the basic tests that you use to see if they really are a different
> theory. Did you apply them?
>
>
>>> For you to demonstrate a second "school of thought", you have to produce
>>> an alternative theory which has more than one or two nutcases proposing it
>>
>> Well, the two dozen books I listed means at least two dozen nutcases.
>>
>
> No, this is not two dozen nutcases who belong to some "school of thought".

I will give this "school of thought" a name: I will call it "Those who
have some kind of reservations, misgivings, hesitations, or doubts, or
strong doubts" about E/R.

> These are two dozen different theories, with the only thing in common is they
> believe they are right and everybody else is wrong.

This is often the case in many fields of science and it is not unhealthy
since in encourages further study.

> So yes, there are two dozen nutcases and others (if you say so) published on
> Amazon, compared to ummm how many for 9/11 are there?

Far-out, fringe, weirdo, and "conspiracy theory" archetypes are difficult
and sometimes represent mental illness, fanaticism, mental error, or
simply lack of consistency with the dominant "fad" among interested
parties.

>
>> - a
>>> "school" as it were, and it has to be different to SR in that it makes
>>> testably different predictions, and it has to explain the huge body of
>>> experimental evidence.
>>>
>>> This does not exist.
>>>
>>> There is no "second school of thought" with respect to the predictions of
>>> Special Relativity, and there is no point on hedging yourself against SR
>>> being wrong.
>>
>> Once upon a time, everyone thought the Earth was the center of the universe
>> and nutcases that disagreed were burned at the stake.
>>
>
> Well, I am unaware of that happening, but I will take your word for it.

Let's see, was it Galileo who fought the Inquisition? Or, the guy who said
the planets revolved around the sun instead of vice versa. Pardon me if
I'm not so good at remembering names.

Joan of Arc, also burned at the stake, but that wasn't over science.

> What I can't understand is how this relates to what we are discussing. If you
> have a point to make, just say it, and don't resort to some abstrous and
> unclear metaphor.

I'm really sorry if you are bothered. You won't hurt my feelings if you
decide to ignore me or killfile me.

An indirect effect of all of this is the curiosity building inside me to
go and re-study E/R for my own benefit. So ... if you all can make me "mad
enough" I'll stop bothering everyone and spend a comparable amount of time
doing my "homework" ...but be aware that if I can find the anti-E/R story
stronger than it is, then you might be sorry I did this.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: Proof that consciousness is NOT in the brain
Next: When does Al's ignorance become stupidity? (was Re: Salt on Venus)