Does antimatter weigh more than matter? Lab experiment to find out the answer

Jan 26, 2012
This photo shows Allen Mills, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California, Riverside, in the lab. Credit: Mills lab, UC Riverside.

Does antimatter behave differently in gravity than matter? Physicists at the University of California, Riverside have set out to determine the answer. Should they find it, it could explain why the universe seems to have no antimatter and why it is expanding at an ever increasing rate.

In the lab, the researchers took the first step towards measuring the free fall of "positronium" – a bound state between a positron and an electron. The positron is the antimatter version of the electron. It has identical mass to the electron, but a positive charge. If a positron and electron encounter each other, they annihilate to produce two gamma rays.

Physicists David Cassidy and Allen Mills first separated the positron from the electron in positronium so that this unstable system would resist annihilation long enough for the physicists to measure the effect of on it.

"Using lasers we excited positronium to what is called a Rydberg state, which renders the atom very weakly bound, with the electron and positron being far away from each other," said Cassidy, an assistant project scientist in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, who works in Mills's lab. "This stops them from destroying each other for a while, which means you can do experiments with them."

Rydberg are highly excited atoms. They are interesting to physicists because many of the atoms' properties become exaggerated.

In the case of positronium, Cassidy and Mills, a professor of physics and astronomy, were interested in achieving a long lifetime for the atom in their experiment. At the Rydberg level, positronium's lifetime increases by a factor of 10 to 100.

"But that's not enough for what we're trying to do," Cassidy said. "In the near future we will use a technique that imparts a high angular momentum to Rydberg atoms," Cassidy said. "This makes it more difficult for the atoms to decay, and they might live for up to 10 milliseconds – an increase by a factor of 10,000 – and offer themselves up for closer study."

Cassidy and Mills already have made Rydberg positronium in large numbers in the lab. Next, they will excite them further to achieve lifetimes of a few milliseconds. They will then make a beam of these super-excited atoms to study its deflection due to gravity.

"We will look at the deflection of the beam as a function of flight time to see if gravity is bending it," Cassidy explained. "If we find that antimatter and matter don't behave in the same way, it would be very shocking to the physics world. Currently there is an assumption that matter and antimatter are exactly the same – other than a few properties like charge. This assumption leads to the expectation that they should both have been created in equal amounts in the Big Bang. But we do not see much antimatter in the , so physicists are searching for differences between matter and to explain this."

Study results appear in the Jan. 27 issue of Physical Review Letters.

Cassidy and Mills expect to attempt the next step in their gravity experiments this summer.

Explore further: New study refines biological evolution model

Related Stories

New way to produce antimatter-containing atom discovered

Jul 11, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Physicists at the University of California, Riverside report that they have discovered a new way to create positronium, an exotic and short-lived atom that could help answer what happened ...

Positronium scatters like an electron

Nov 05, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Positronium atoms have been found to scatter off gas particles in the same way as lone electrons, a finding which could help astronomers interpret some of their more puzzling observations, ...

Recommended for you

A new multi-bit 'spin' for MRAM storage

17 hours ago

Interest in magnetic random access memory (MRAM) is escalating, thanks to demand for fast, low-cost, nonvolatile, low-consumption, secure memory devices. MRAM, which relies on manipulating the magnetization ...

New study refines biological evolution model

Jul 21, 2014

Models for the evolution of life are now being developed to try and clarify the long term dynamics of an evolving system of species. Specifically, a recent model proposed by Petri Kärenlampi from the University ...

User comments : 343

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

AWaB
4.4 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2012
It had never occurred to me that a positron might behave differently in a gravitational field than an electron.
Henrik
Jan 26, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
javjav
4.8 / 5 (35) Jan 26, 2012
Henrik what are you doing in a science site? don't you have to go the church or something?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (41) Jan 26, 2012
Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.
And you have a compulsion to post religionist crap which means your brain has a chemical imbalance of some sort. See how these things all tie together?

Religion = pathology = defective brains = you.

-There I did some word calculating for you. This may be validated in a laboratory and also a court of law. Care to submit?

We will do a monkey trial with you and a real monkey. Would you be offended? Would god be offended? After all he created you in a monkeys image so maybe not.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (30) Jan 26, 2012
Hey henrik

"18 I also said to myself, As for human beings, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; henrik has no advantage over animals. Everything henrik says is meaningless." ecc3

-Buy it. Read it. Use it.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (79) Jan 26, 2012
Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.


There is no substance in hope, as it is an illusionary emotional state created by the mind to cope with what it does not understand, or is not willing to understand, or cannot in principal understand.
dschlink
3.8 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2012
CPT (charge, parity, and time) symmetry would require that some aspect of anti-matter change in addition to charge. It is possible that gravity changes, making matter and anti-matter gravitationally repulsive.

http://www.physor...ion.html
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (70) Jan 26, 2012
CPT (charge, parity, and time) symmetry would require that some aspect of anti-matter change in addition to charge. It is possible that gravity changes, making matter and anti-matter gravitationally repulsive.

http://www.physor...ion.html


Speculative, but interesting. (Why did you rate me a 1, dschlink ?)
Cynical1
4.2 / 5 (15) Jan 26, 2012
Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.


Silly wabbit, theism is for kids (sorta like Santa claus)...

Why would one idea have any different "weight" than another? Is gravity differentiating between the amount of charge? If that's the case, then theism weighs less than atheism due to the fact that there is less actual thought involved...
Agnosticism might even weigh more than BOTH of them together, now that I think about it... (At least, I'm DOING some thinking..)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (28) Jan 26, 2012
Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.


There is no substance in hope, as it is an illusionary emotional state created by the mind to cope with what it does not understand, or is not willing to understand, or cannot in principal understand.
No, hope is a survival mechanism based on an organisms self-perception of its ability to cope with its environment. In humans it is a process of synthesizing possible futures based on this perception, and acting to facilitate the most favorable of them.

We hope that good things will happen because we can imagine what those good things might be; and we can then choose to work toward making those good things happen.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (73) Jan 26, 2012
Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.


There is no substance in hope, as it is an illusionary emotional state created by the mind to cope with what it does not understand, or is not willing to understand, or cannot in principal understand.


No, hope is a survival mechanism based on an organisms self-perception of its ability to cope with its environment.


Why are you arguing about this, when I was making a point against theism.

Self-perception of ones ability, is KNOWLEDGE of ones ability to effect their environment. Hope is merely a WISH for good things to occur, without knowledge of how such good things can be made to come about, and thus not requiring hope. That is the definition.

The above context is about theism vrs atheism, not the practically of the use of "hope", i.e Henrik "hopes" for God's salvation.
GDM
4.8 / 5 (20) Jan 26, 2012
People, stop with the religious posts - it is contrary to the PhysOrg rules and only serves to feed the Henrik troll. This is an article about matter and antimatter, please try to stick to the subject.
Telekinetic
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2012
"Should they find it, it could explain why the universe seems to have no antimatter and why it is expanding at an ever increasing rate."- Lead-in to the article
" But we do not see much antimatter in the universe, so physicists are searching for differences between matter and antimatter to explain this."- Physicist Cassidy from article.
I'm a bit confused that the lead-in states no antimatter in the universe and the researcher says not much antimatter, and I've read you get plenty of antimatter shooting into space during a good old lightning storm. What's the matter here?
Callippo
1 / 5 (13) Jan 26, 2012
IMO the difference between gravitational weight of matter and antimatter would strongly depend on the rest mass of particles involved in it - for tiny neutrinos this symmetry would be broken a much more, than for leptons and hadrons. If AWT model is correct, then the CPT symmetry of all particles will be broken in the ratio, in which their rest mass differs from the rest mass of gravitons, i.e. from the energy of CMBR photons. For example the mass of neutrino is roughly 10.000x higher than the mass of CMBR photons, so that the mass of neutrinos will differ from antineutrinos with only 0.01%. It's still relatively large difference though, at the case of electrons and positrons this difference will be lower than 10-7 percent, i.e. barely detectable.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (27) Jan 26, 2012
Why are you arguing about this, when I was making a point against theism.
Because I felt like it? Because you gave a lyrical interpretation of something biological?
Hope is merely a WISH for good things to occur, without knowledge of how such good things can be made to come about
Here we go. Define 'wish'. Is this a prayer, a missive, an entreaty, a petition? Is it something you do upon a star perhaps?

In order to hope for something we must have a inkling what that something might be. We want better conditions; comfort, security, resources. We have a picture in mind of what these things are, and so we can conceive of ways to get them ourselves.
i.e Henrik "hopes" for God's salvation.
Henrik believes in a higher power who will magically give him what he wants if he just asks in the right manner; rather than making the effort to get these things for himself.

Relying on magic is not a viable survival strategy and so is non-biological except in a pathological sense.
bewertow
2.7 / 5 (23) Jan 26, 2012
Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.


Mods, do your damn job and ban this idiot. He's trying to troll yet another science article. Get him out of here or I will stop visiting your website.
Sean_W
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2012
There have been some interesting theories about anti-matter recently including, I recall, one requiring anti-matter to be self-attracting but repelling to ordinary matter. Another suggested that the spinning of galaxies and maybe the universe at large or parts of it, cause the probabilities of certain forms of particle decay to be altered which would, according to the theorist, explain the excess of matter in the early universe. Hopefully, experiments like these will help clear up some things.
Sean_W
4.1 / 5 (13) Jan 26, 2012
"Atheism weighs less than theism"

How much does polytheism weigh? Does a Hindu's head weigh more than a skeptic's skull.
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (13) Jan 26, 2012
There is no substance in hope

mind to cope with what it does not understand, or is not willing to understand, or cannot in principal understand.
That sounds profound. For just a moment. The people in this article HOPE to measure how gravity effects positrons. You are using a specious definition to make a point while ignoring an article that implies an entirely different one.

Why are you arguing about this, when I was making a point against theism.
Does that mean you should get free pass?

That is the definition.
That is YOUR definition. No one else is beholden to it nor is it used by many.

I HOPE Henrik starts thinking. That is something I understand, am willing to understand and principle isn't involved since I clearly understand it is unlikely that he will do so.

I really find argument by definition silly. Try using facts instead of dubious definitions.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (15) Jan 26, 2012
Get him out of here or I will stop visiting your website.
I quake in terror at you rage. I am sure the imoderators are shaking with fear. Or is it laughter? Sometimes its hard to tell.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2012
Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist.
Why do you need to lie so much? And such petty stupid lie at that.

Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.
Since it usually entails greater knowledge and thought than simply saying goddit, and an increase in information is an increase in energy, wrong or not, it must weigh slightly more.

Even more so for us Agnostics who do not simply say goddin't.

Ethelred
Telekinetic
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2012
"Does a Hindu's head weigh more than a skeptic's skull?"-Sean W

I thought I was reading Shakespeare for a second.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2012
Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.
Ergo theism sinks, atheism floats away. So I guess that just leaves only us agnostics to hang around.
Telekinetic
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 26, 2012
Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.
Ergo theism sinks, atheism floats away. So I guess that just leaves only us agnostics to hang around.

Agnostics are just hedging their bets.
Seeker2
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 26, 2012
CPT (charge, parity, and time) symmetry would require that some aspect of anti-matter change in addition to charge.
Yes. I believe that would be the energy density (but same energy). Ergo spacetime volume is conserved on pair creation, and spacetime remains flat.

It is possible that gravity changes, making matter and anti-matter gravitationally repulsive.
I think matter sinks and antimatter floats away, something like the parable about theists and atheists above.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2012
There is no substance in hope,...
Hope you're right (just kidding of course).
Seeker2
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2012
We hope that good things will happen because we can imagine what those good things might be; and we can then choose to work toward making those good things happen.
So maybe there is hope afterall.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2012
you get plenty of antimatter shooting into space during a good old lightning storm. What's the matter here?
I never thought about lightning. Very good. In fact it doesn't always float away like I said because some of it apparently gets trapped by the magnetic field in the inner Van Allen belt.
Seeker2
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2012
Relying on magic is not a viable survival strategy and so is non-biological except in a pathological sense.
Yes but there may be some biological relevance here. My guess is that during eclipses of the sun our ancestors were split into two groups - ones who looked up and saw something of religious significance and the rest. This caused dissension in the tribes (still does) and the tribes split up into believers and non-believers. Through inbreeding this distinction became stronger and stronger until you eventually had separate species, affecting evolution. So the root cause of man's evolution may be the unique ratio of the sun-moon-earth orbit geometry, allowing the corona to be viewed and causing much consternation among the tribes. So we continue to look up and ask deeper and deeper questions.
Seeker2
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 26, 2012
There have been some interesting theories about anti-matter recently including, I recall, one requiring anti-matter to be self-attracting but repelling to ordinary matter.
Until we have more evidence, I would say antimatter repels antimatter as long as its energy density is less than that of spacetime. However in the latter days as space expands the energy density of antimatter may be greater than that of spacetime, in which case it begins to be attractive. In the meantime I think matter and antimatter are gravitationally neutral.
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2012
Agnostics are just hedging their bets.
Nonsense. It is the most rational position. Many Christians say we SHOULD hedge our bets. I don't. If I was I would go to church and try to real hard to believe the unbelievable. Go with Pascal's Fraud um Wager which isn't a wager and has bad logic.

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2012
Nonsense. It is the most rational position.

Are you agnostic on rainbow colored unicorns, then? Or the flying spaghetti monster?

What's so fifferent that one then should be agnotic on the (non)issue of god(s)?
Ethelred
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2012
Are you agnostic on rainbow colored unicorns, then?
I find them highly unlikely since there is scant evidence for unicorns of any sort and rainbow colored strains credulity due to unicorns allegedly being mammalian and thus somewhat constrained in color.

Are you agnostic on rainbow colored unicorns, then?
A pernicious upstart. The Giant Invisible Orbiting Aadvark preceeded it by several years.

What's so fifferent that one then should be agnotic on the (non)issue of god(s)?
That is an assumption that is not based on anything I have written.

Now if you actually have evidence that ALL possible gods cannot exist or evidence that some sort of god actually exists then I am willing to take that evidence into account.

If you find your possibly unwarranted beliefs to be disturbed by this I do apologise but I must be true to myself

Oh yes. Antimatter has positive energy and thus should behave much like matter in a gravity field

Orac has a religious belief

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2012
Now if you actually have evidence that ALL possible gods cannot exist or evidence that some sort of god actually exists then I am willing to take that evidence into account.

Just saying: Since the the christian (or hebrew, or msulim, or ... ) god is based on the exact same premise as the IPU* or the FSM** (hear-say) I find no difference in being atheist and a-FSM or a-IPU.

Just because the notion of godS is a bag of such entities doesn't up the probability. A million times zero is still zero.

* IPU = Invisible Pink Unicorn (MHHNBS)
** FSN = Flying Spaghetti monster
rawa1
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2012
Atheism weighs less than theism.. Ergo theism sinks, atheism floats away.
What I don't understand is, why the only comment which deals with subject seriously (Callippo above) is downvoted heavily - whereas the other senile off topic blurbs are upvoted here? Are the readers here really so imbecile, they cannot recognize, what belongs into discussion here and what not? How do you want to understand something, if you cannot think coherently and concentrate to subject? The meaning of most of posts here is apparently not to understand subject, but to publicize itself. But unfortunately it's just a stupidity of readers, what becomes apparent and public.
Eoprime
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2012
IMO ...

who cares?
the difference ... If AWT model is correct ... differs from the rest mass of gravitons ... neutrino is roughly 10.000x higher than the mass of CMBR photons ... neutrinos will differ from antineutrinos with only 0.01% ... at the case of electrons and positrons this difference will be lower ... barely detectable.


Alot of big words with no background, tell me the restmass of a Graviton. :) or even better the restmass of a CMBR Photon. make me roll on the floor.

If positrons weight the same like electrons would you mind leaving this site forever or at least stop posting crap?
the sooner the better.

roboferret
5 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2012
Heinrik is clearly trolling and his idiotic off topic comments have derailed another thread. He also breaches all the first 5 comment guidelines, so I suggest we all report his comment as abuse and get back on topic.
Eoprime
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2012
RAWA
Atheism weighs less than theism.. Ergo theism sinks, atheism floats away.
What I don't understand is, why the only comment which deals with subject seriously (Callippo above) is downvoted heavily


Because Callippo aka YOU spams every thread with AWT.
Not enough? Because you state nonesense to be a fact.

Oh and maybe because of this guideline:
Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted


Or thisone:
Do not 'crosspost': Do not keep posting the same message, or very similar messages.


I for one, would also delete all theism vs atheism vs agnostic discussion, but iam not the mod so a lean back and watch the show. :)

rawa1
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2012
tell me the restmass of a Graviton. :) or even better the restmass of a CMBR Photon.
In AWT the rest mass of graviton is energy dependent and its upper bound is the same, like lower bound of mass of the photons, i.e. the mass of CMBR photons which can be computed easily E=mc2=hn. I didn't talk about rest mass of CMBR photons, which is just zero in AWT (with compare to rest mass of photons of shorter wavelengths). In AWT everything is distance scale/wavelength/energy density dependent.
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2012
Because you state nonsense to be a fact.
You didn't prove it's a nonsense - with compare to the demonstrative off-topicity of the posts about religion here. It would be so easy to refuse everything just with remark, it's a nonsense. But such remark doesn't mean nothing less or nothing more, you just didn't understand the subject. You should prove logical inconsistency of nonsense to be able to tell, it's a nonsense. For example silly dogs everything what we are doing is just a nonsense.
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2012
It was my feeling, seeker2 pointed here to some analogy of believers and rationalists as an analogy of gravitational attraction of matter and antimatter. IMO this analogy has a good meaning in dense aether model (which is why he probably deleted his comment during the three minute timespan), but he didn't interpreted correctly. As Henrik proved with his first dull OT post in this thread, the rationalists are actually attracted to believers from distance in an effort to fight with them. Their repulsive nature manifests just at short distance. The people, who prefer the rational thinking can serve as a model of particles, composed of deterministic transverse waves, whereas the instinctive behaviour of believers is driven with indeterministic longitudinal waves. And this model describes the real interactions inside of particle-antiparticle system more exactly. We could say, they're behaving like antiparticles inside rationalistic human society, being stuffed with their emotions.
roboferret
4 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2012
Just my two cents on the agnosticism/atheism debate.
The two views are not incompatible, agnosticism is a knowledge claim, atheism is a belief claim. I am an agnostic atheist. I cannot prove there are no gods (one cannot prove a negative) I can only say that it is highly improbable. It's not a 50/50 pascals wager kind of agnosticism, more a 6-sigma figure on the spectrum of theistic probability. Its the only intellectually honest position to have from a rational scientific perspective. To paraphrase Dawkins, I am agnostic about god in the same way I am agnostic about santa claus.
Pkunk_
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2012
So does this mean that most black holes are made of anti-matter ?

And what happens when matter falls into a black hole thats already chock full of anti-matter stuffed into a singularity ? Or does matter transform into something else when it falls into a black hole ?
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2012
Just my two cents on the agnosticism/atheism debate.
As famous conservative physicist (and an active aetherist and Christian, btw) Robert Millikan once said, "were confronted with a choice between these two types of dogmatic religion, fundamentalism, and atheism I should choose fundamentalism as the less irrational of the two and the more desirable, for atheism is essentially the philosophy of pessimism, denying, as it does, that there is any purpose or trend in nature, or any reason for our trying to fit into and advance a scheme of development"
Ethelred
4 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2012
Just saying: Since the the christian (or hebrew, or msulim, or ... ) god is based on the exact same premise as the IPU* or the FSM**
What does those have to do with a generic god. Deism is completely within the bound of experimental evidence. Quite unlike the Abrahamic religions which are saddled with an impossible universe. The GIOA and upstart FSM are not actual gods, they are intended to show how silly some attempts to prove the existence of Jehovah really are. Which is why I sometimes bring up the Giant Cow and block ice because that is a real myth not an artificial one.

Just because the notion of godS is a bag of such entities doesn't up the probability. A million times zero is still zero.
Sorry but you can't asign a probability to the god of Deists. Not honestly anyway. Heck our universe could be the result of a quantum experiment in another universe. That would have a creator that isn't a god of any sort.

Ethelred
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2012
So does this mean that most black holes are made of anti-matter ?
This idea is not bad, because black holes are something, which actually shouldn't belong into our universe, they're an extensions of observable reality in the same way, like the sparse clouds of dark matter. For example, most of objects will evaporate in contact with black holes in the similar way, like after contact with antimatter. I don't think, the black holes are made of anti-matter, but they're probably richer of antimatter more, than the other massive bodies.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (65) Jan 27, 2012
Sorry to see Ethelred and Otto over analyze the use of the word Hope in the context in which I used it against Henrik,.. .

Roboferret & Ethelred are correct wrt to atheism vrs agnosticism. Atheism, as defined by saying "god does not exist" is as irrational as theism because it purports to make statements about metaphysics which has been shown (Kant) cannot be a source of knowledge.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2012
And what happens when matter falls into a black hole thats already chock full of anti-matter stuffed into a singularity ?
I don't think anti-matter is going to hang around black holes for very long. As matter is split up into its constituents on entry to the BH, anti-matter likely gets ejected.
Seeker2
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2012
seeker2 pointed here to some analogy of believers and rationalists as an analogy of gravitational attraction of matter and antimatter.
Please don't associate me with gravitational attraction of matter and antimatter, as I think spacetime causes anti-matter to float away.
rawa1
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2012
I think matter sinks and antimatter floats away, something like the parable about theists and atheists above... I think spacetime causes anti-matter to float away..
How it differs from gravitational repulsion of matter and antimatter? It doesn't matter, how you interpret it, the observable result is what matters in physics.
As matter is split up into its constituents on entry to the BH, anti-matter likely gets ejected.
IMO it remains attracted to them at distance, to the gravity field of negative space-time curvature in particular.

http://orbitingfr...xplained

http://www.aether...ion3.gif
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2012
I didn't talk about rest mass of CMBR photons, which is just zero in AWT (with compare to rest mass of photons of shorter wavelengths).
Like gamma rays I presume. I didn't know they were at rest though.
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2012
Like gamma rays I presume. I didn't know they were at rest though.
The rest mass of photons has its physical meaning in mutual coalescing of gamma ray photons due their own gravity, which manifest during their travel at cosmological distances. I do believe, such photons travel like dense swarm similar to vortex ring. because they attract mutually. It explains, why distant gamma bursts are so "intensive", despite of distance of their origin.

http://aetherwave...rsy.html

http://en.wikiped...ophysics

We should realize, during gamma ray burst the matter corresponding of whole mass of Sun is radiated during brief moment in form of gamma ray photons. These photons therefore are massive and they interact gravitationally during their flight like every other massive bodies.
Seeker2
4 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2012
The meaning of most of posts here is apparently not to understand subject, but to publicize itself.
aka AWT theory?
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2012
The meaning of most of posts here is apparently not to understand subject, but to publicize itself.
AKA AWT theory?
I'm promoting here the AWT, i.e. the particular system of coherent thinking about observable reality - not mine. But the people, who are initiating neverending religious flamewars here again and again have no such motivation - they don't spread any deductive ideas here, but their personal subjective stance only. The validity of AWT is independent of mine and my person will become quite insignificant at the moment, when someone will understand it.

You should always use the inductive reasoning in your posts, i.e. implications. The assumptions and interpretation of deductions aren't important - the logics of deduction itself is, because it can be reproduced independently. Don't spread religion - spread the way of deductions.
Seeker2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2012
Antimatter has positive energy and thus should behave much like matter in a gravity field
Watch out for conventional wisdom masquerading as logic.
roboferret
5 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2012
Photons don't have rest mass. They only interact gravitationally due to mass-energy equivalence.
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2012
Photons don't have rest mass. They only interact gravitationally due to mass-energy equivalence.
Intuitively it's evident, the more lightweight the photons will be, the lower gravity they will exhibit at distance. The lower limit of this dependency is the wavelength/frequency/energy density of CMBR photons, because every photon of this wavelength will become indistinguishable from CMBR field. The photons of lower energy/longer wavelength will be dispersed in this field, in this sense they're of negative rest mass, like the tachyons. And they should move faster than the CMBR photons. It means, the wavelength dependence of speed of photons in AWT is linear and it intersects the axis at the CMBR wavelength with speed of light c. Just at this wavelength the light follows the special relativity, the photons of all other wavelengths are violating it in smaller or greater extent.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2012
You should always use the inductive reasoning in your posts,...Don't spread religion - spread the way of deductions.
I think I got lost somewhere here between inductive and deductions. And BTW where does intuition fit in here?
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2012
The lower limit of this dependency is the wavelength/frequency/energy density of CMBR photons, because every photon of this wavelength...
I've been asking for I can't remember how long what is the wavelength of a CMBR photon? And still no answer.
rawa1
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2012
You should always use the inductive reasoning in your posts,...Don't spread religion - spread the way of deductions.
I think I got lost somewhere here between inductive and deductions.
In AWT we are living in gradient driven reality. Both induction both deductions define the causality time arrow and as such they're atemporal and they can survive the ages. The facts itself are temporal and destined to change. So that the people should not remember the facts, but the logical connections between the facts. You're not required to know individual trees for being able to navigate trough large forest of facts - you should understand the routes between the facts. Such knowledge will help you with this navigation anytime later.
rawa1
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2012
I've been asking for I can't remember how long what is the wavelength of a CMBR photon?
You should know it quite well, because the age of observable Universe (13.7 GYrs) is derived from it in straightforward way. We know the age of Universe just as exactly, as we can measure the wavelength of these photons (1,873 mm). In AWT this distance is very important, as it defines the middle of dimensional scale for human observers. Bellow this wavelength we are observing the Universe from inside with perspective of general relativity, above this scale we are observing it from outside with perspective of quantum mechanics.
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2012
Photons don't have rest mass. They only interact gravitationally due to mass-energy equivalence.
This is semantically equivalent. How can we recognize, something has a mass without gravitational interaction? Of course, such massive photons have inertia too. For example, for being able to follow the cluster of gamma ray photons, they should exhibit the Kepler's law, while revolving the center of cluster. This behaviour fooled the physicists, LQG theorists in particular, who just believed, if the gamma ray photons are moving slower (being massive), they should exhibit some time difference (i.e. delay) during distant gamma ray flares behind the photons of visible light. But none such a significant delay has been found. It can be explained paradoxically just with their massive behaviour: the heavier photons are forming the core of the cluster, so they move along shorter paths across cosmic space, than the lightweight visible light photons.
rawa1
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2012
Of course, because all photons arrived at Earth at the single moment, for relativists such result simply means, all photons are moving with the same speed from macroscopic perspective and the special relativity, the Lorentz symmetry postulate in particular remains valid. Although these photons are probably moving with very different speed, which just depends on their wavelength. Such dual behaviour indeed fooled both the physicists, who are looking for violations of Lorentz symmetry (Kostelecky, LQG theorists), both the physicists, who do want to keep the Lorentz symmetry as intact as possible (string theorists in particular, because the (derivation of) string theory relies on the validity of Lorentz symmetry. As usually in AWT, both sides of this controversy have their own piece of truth.
Seeker2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2012
spacetime causes anti-matter to float away..

How it differs from gravitational repulsion of matter and antimatter?
Only when spacetime is there to mediate the repulsion. I realize this idea may be a bit unfamiliar.
It doesn't matter, how you interpret it, the observable result is what matters in physics.
Bingo. Until such results materialize go with what you think makes the most sense. Intuition, deduction, induction, the golden half-bearded unicorn, or whatever. Actually I just made that up so you should probably also include imagination.
rawa1
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2012
spacetime causes anti-matter to float away
But this is just a conjecture of yours. How did you get into it? Why the space-time should ignore the normal particles and the antimatter particles not? Why it should cause to blow them away instead of attract them? Many people here (including you) are saying essentially correct things, but they're using very shallow deductions for it. They merely guessing what should happen there. This is what I'm calling the fuzzy incoherent thinking. Like I've said, what you think is irrelevant in matter of fact discussion, because it cannot be reproduced it. How did you got into such thinking is what matters here.
Seeker2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2012
Although these photons are probably moving with very different speed, which just depends on their wavelength.
Aha. The speed of light depends on its wavelength. I should have guessed.
Such dual behaviour indeed fooled both the physicists, ..
Sure fooled me anyway.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (22) Jan 27, 2012
Sorry to see Ethelred and Otto over analyze the use of the word Hope in the context in which I used it against Henrik,..
Sorry to see you use philobabble for anything whatsoever...
Seeker2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2012
spacetime causes anti-matter to float away
But this is just a conjecture of yours. How did you get into it?
Connect the dots. We're working on it.

Why the space-time should ignore the normal particles and the antimatter particles not? Why it should cause to blow them away instead of attract them? Many people here (including you) are saying essentially correct things, but they're using very shallow deductions for it. They merely guessing what should happen there. This is what I'm calling the fuzzy incoherent thinking. Like I've said, what you think is irrelevant in matter of fact discussion, because it cannot be reproduced it. How did you got into such thinking is what matters here.
It's all connected to the energy density and flatness of spacetime. Matter and its antimatter counterpart have equal energy but unequal energy density. The total volume of spacetime is conserved on pair production. Ergo spacetime is flat.
rawa1
1 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2012
In AWT the gravity field arises from shielding of gravitational waves with massive objects. These waves are longitudinal, so this shielding increasing the density of matter of vacuum around massive objects into account of energy density. From this model follows, the gravity field should cease to zero exponentially around massive objects and no place for negative curvature of space-time exists here.

The above assumption is valid only when the gravity field of isolated object is considered. But the the neighbouring material objects are shielding the gravitational waves too, so that they're effectively shielding the shielding of the gravitational waves each other. This leads into negative curvature of space-time around massive objects, which gets a bell shape profile here.

http://www.aether...nses.gif

The particles of antimatter are naturally attracted to such a places, because they're of negative curvature of space too.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (19) Jan 27, 2012
Heinrik is clearly trolling and his idiotic off topic comments have derailed another thread
Perhaps you have not met the enemy?

"The Discovery Institute...aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories...the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis", through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community...the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"."

Religionists pose a clear and present danger to science and the world. WHEN they appear they must be addressed. This is a fine place to do it.

The thread seems to be doing ok otherwise?
rawa1
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2012
The speed of light depends on its wavelength. I should have guessed.
The speed of light doesn't correspond the speed of photons in similar way, like the speed of (Russel's) solitons at the water surface is not directly related to the speed of surface waves. Intutivelly speaking, these two concepts are different, so they're not guaranteed to share the same properties.
http://www.aether...tons.gif
These solitons are usually slower than the speed of surface waves, so that the positive rest mass of every photon must be balanced with negative space-time curvature somewhere else.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2012
I've been asking for I can't remember how long what is the wavelength of a CMBR photon?
we can measure the wavelength of these photons (1,873 mm).
AHA! I finally got an answer. But I thought the CMBR was blackbody radiation. Where did I go wrong? Maybe this is just the wavelength of blackbody radiation.
rawa1
1 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2012
Religionists pose a clear and present danger to science and the world.
Nope, the fundamentalists do. Atheists can behave in the same fundamentalist way, like the people who can see the God everywhere. So far we have no physical evidence of God absence and mainstream physics tend to ignore most of phenomena mediated with longitudinal waves, i.e. in indeterministic way, because it cannot derive math based deterministic description for it so easily.
rawa1
1 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2012
But I thought the CMBR was blackbody radiation. Where did I go wrong? Maybe this is just the wavelength of blackbody radiation.
Why not, if you can derive something useful from it. Why yes, if you cannot. As I said already, it doesn't matter, what we think about it, but which induction/deduction we can construct with it. AWT thinking is oriented to logical connections, i.e. the causal gradients between facts, not to the facts itself. We cannot see the individual particles of the gas, we can see only the density gradients of this gas.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2012
photons are forming the core of the cluster, so they move along shorter paths across cosmic space, than the lightweight visible light photons.
So gravitational lensing depends on the wavelength of light. I never thought about that.
rawa1
1 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2012
Get him out of here or I will stop visiting your website.
LOL, he is probably enjoying the way, in which you cannot resist his provocations. Why not to simply ignore the posts, which are OT? Their authors just wait for you reactions, nothing else. The incoherence of this thread is the failure of all posters here.
Seeker2
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2012
AWT thinking is oriented to logical connections, i.e. the causal gradients between facts, not to the facts itself.
Yes. Don't let those nasty facts get in the way of a good theory.
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2012
we can measure the wavelength of these photons (1,873 mm).

AHA! I finally got an answer
That is given as a single wavelength which is wrong. It is a range of of wavelengths.

You really need to learn how to use Google. It only took a moment to look it up.

http://en.wikiped...adiation
The CMBR has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.725 K,[3] which peaks at the microwave range frequency of 160.2 GHz, corresponding to a 1.873 mm wavelength.


But I thought the CMBR was blackbody radiation. Where did I go wrong?
You mean besides listening to Zephir? You didn't. Its blackbody for a bit below 3K,

Maybe this is just the wavelength of blackbody radiation.
It was the peak wavelength only and the notation was European so to many here it would look like it was nearly two meters long.

Ethelred
rawa1
1 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2012
So gravitational lensing depends on the wavelength of light. I never thought about that.
The microwave light is not refracted and deflected with gradient of vacuum density, so it can escape from event horizon of black holes in form of Hawking radiation, whereas the visible light is blocked instead. The rotating black holes are behaving like prism: the short wavelength light is emanated from their poles only, because the gradient of space-time density is more subtle here.

http://www.aether...refl.gif
rawa1
1 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2012
That is given as a single wavelength which is wrong. It is a range of of wavelengths.
But the age of Universe in the Big Bang theory is computed just from this mean value - nothing else. It would mean (between others), that the age of Universe is not universal at all - it exhibits whole range of ages, which would make the notion of initial singularity pretty fuzzy. As you may guess it, I'm even convenient with this view. So if you provide some objection, you should be prepared, I've always application for this objection from perspective of AWT.
It only took a moment to look it up.
The only question is, why seeker2 begged for such answer so long.
baudrunner
3.4 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2012
The real problem that I see is that the anti-matter collected for experiements is invariably manufactured for the purpose. To explain, the annihilation of an up quark and an up antiquark produces a very energetic gluon, which is transformed into a top quark and a top antiquark. Now, do these particles represent their exact counterparts precisely? If so, then the experiment isn't worth doing. One could argue against it on the basis that some energy losses are expected in the process, since a gluon needs to mediate the transformation. I have always found it too convenient to simply subtract kinetic losses from the W boson to come up wth the difference. Those losses could be accounted for when comparing the product to their naturally occuring state.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2012
Deism is completely within the bound of experimental evidence.

It is? I was not aware that there is a possible, unambiguous test for the existence of a god or gods (or any one particular god). Could you provide one? if not then deism isn't within the bounds of exprimental evidence.

How would we even test for omniscience or omnipotence if a 'godlike' creature appeared?
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2012
To explain, the annihilation of an up quark and an up antiquark produces a very energetic gluon, which is transformed into a top quark and a top antiquark. Now, do these particles represent their exact counterparts precisely?
Yes and it is irrelevant in any case. They are using positrons and electrons.

No quarks were harmed in this experiment. Only vile and pernicious leptons that deserve whatever they get.

Ethelred
baudrunner
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2012
Annihilation of an up quark and an up antiquark produces a very energetic gluon (for about a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second), which is transformed into a top quark and a top antiquark. Are the top quark and the top antiquark products of the reaction similar in every respect to their naturally occurring counterparts? In my opinion, the manufactured product never resembles exactly the naturally occurring one. That is the case with antimatter particles used for research. Are naturally occurring antimatter particles used for the experiment? After all, fresh particles might have more mass. Studies have shown that the hydrogen atom has shrunk somewhat over the history of the Universe.

On the other hand, there may be a net loss of energy, however miniscule, which could be rationalized as the losses incurred during the transformation of the quarks for the work done in producing them.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2012
It is?
Yes.

I was not aware that there is a possible, unambiguous test for the existence of a god or gods
Where did I claim there was such a thing. I said it fit the evidence. Any evidence you care to use. It isn't exactly a well defined god. Barely even a concept.

Could you provide one?
Sure. For a specific god. IF the world is 6000 years old, there was a Great Flood, and we all descended from one man 4400 years ago AND all life that was on the Ark has only either 2 ancestors or 7 ancestors, except humans with 8 ancestors THEN it is highly likely that Jehovah exists.

However that is not the case so that particular god does not exist.

if not then deism isn't within the bounds of exprimental evidence.
Certainly is. Isn't in bound of falsifiability. Don't mistake the two. The Deist fits all known evidence. ALL. It would even fit the evidence for Jehovah as there is no way to prove that the Deist god didn't create the psycho god.>>
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2012
How would we even test for omniscience or omnipotence if a 'godlike' creature appeared?
Type Google onto its forehead. Everything will appear. Even a clay golem.

The deist god need not be either of those.

And Orac is a illiterate Atheist sockpuppet that became an Atheist to piss off his parents rather than because he can think and hasn't a clue about Agnostics so I will respond as I do with other such ranking sockpuppets.

Ethelred
Seeker2
1.3 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2012
The only question is, why seeker2 begged for such answer so long.
Also why it took so long to get the answer.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (16) Jan 27, 2012
Nope, the fundamentalists do. Atheists can behave in the same fundamentalist way, like the people who can see the God everywhere.
Nope, ANYONE who ascribes to a religionist explanation of the world enables others to take this belief to whatever extremes they feel necessary. We are well aware what those extremes can entail.

Religionists support the belief that a superbeing can give them eternal life and grant all their wishes; atheists do not. To religionists these are things worth killing and dying for, not to mention denying reality and seeking to halt scientific research.

Many people thought a little bigotry was a good thing and fashionable as well. This enabled others to construct death camps. Sunday schools and church suppers DO enable groups like FLDS and boko haram and the lords resistance army to exist. There IS no dividing line, no threshold.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2012
I said it fit the evidence.

So does the IPU and the FSM. Where exactly is the difference?

Evidence is only worth anything if it can delineate between two competing theories. But all the evidence fits "gods are there" AND "gods are not there". So it's not 'evidence', now, is it? (i.e.: it makes nothing evident)

Don't confuse 'observation' with 'evidence'

While god(s) fit all observations none of that lends the god(s) hypothesis any credence.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2012
Also why it took so long to get the answer.


That one is easy. You didn't look. You made no effort.

All you needed to do was go a decent search engine and type in

Wavelength Cosmic Background Radiation or maybe even just

Wavelength CMBR

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2012
So does the IPU
No. There is only so much land surface on Earth. In principle the IPU must be observable, somewhere.

the FSM
Yes.

Evidence is only worth anything if it can delineate between two competing theories.
Nonsense. False dichotomy.

But all the evidence fits "gods are there" AND "gods are not there".
Nonsense. SOME gods.

I never claimed you would like it. Some people just don't like reality. It matters not whether you think the evidence is useful. The Deist god fits all evidence. That it is not falsifiable does not change that.

So it's not 'evidence', now, is it? (i.e.: it makes nothing evident)
Evidence does not always do that for the items you are interested in. That is your problem.

Don't confuse 'observation' with 'evidence'
Don't' confuse your desires for what evidence can do with what it can actually do.

While god(s) fit all observations none of that lends the god(s) hypothesis any credence.
Nor does it remove any.>>
rawa1
1 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2012
Also why it took so long to get the answer.
I just missed previous alleged questions. I don't read everything here - if nothing else, it would be a sign of mental pathology.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2012
You seem to be having difficulty with the concept that not everything is amenable to testing. Like or not that is the case.

And no I am not claiming this is science. I am pointing out that there is nothing that is going to prove things one way or the other about sufficiently un-defined deities. I am not going to take a stand on the existence of things that can't be proven. I am willing to discuss them up to a point. If you insist on acting as if something is proven when it isn't that is your problem. I like the idea of multiple universes but I don't insist on it being true just a useful concept for dealing with the question of fine tuning that is compatible with the actual math of present theory even if some people don't want to accept its mathematical validity.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 27, 2012
Evidence is only worth anything if it can delineate between two competing theories.
Evidence is used to CREATE theories not the other way around. It can fit both or either or neither. Yes?

-And the surefire way of finding out whether a god is omniscient or not, is by asking him. With all your soul and all your heart and all your everything. You will be sure to get the right answer.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2012
Also why it took so long to get the answer.

That one is easy. You didn't look. You made no effort.
Right. I've known about blackbody radiation since before Wiki came along. So why did I raise the issue? Thought is was relevant. Wondered how long it would take to get there. Devious as charged. Guilty as usual.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2012
Also why it took so long to get the answer.

That one is easy. You didn't look. You made no effort.
Right. I've known about blackbody radiation since before Wiki came along. So why did I raise the issue? Thought is was relevant. Wondered how long it would take to get there. Devious as charged. Guilty as usual.
Maybe thought it was relevent. Also devious might not be the word. Maybe manipulative. Even dangerous? Maybe in certain circles.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2012
But all the evidence fits "gods are there" AND "gods are not there".
Nonsense. SOME gods.
For example the golf gods. The more improbable golf shots I make the more I'm beginning to become a believer. Unfortunatly however it seems the clubs I use to make the shots mysteriously disappear, at least out of my bag. Friends everywhere I guess.
Tachyon8491
3 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2012
The pathetically infantilistic and regressive minds (excuses for minds) of religionists could not possibly have evolved - they had to have been "created" - it's the only empirically observable evidence for the existence of a classically defined "god." Religionism is a dangerous and pandemic mental virus that has catalysed more death and destruction of individuals, tribes and nations, of cultural heritage and suppression of evolutionary innovation, has caused more disenfranchisement and unrestrained cruelty, than pandemic disease. It's time for its severely retardative anchoring in obsolete paradigm to come to a definitive end. And that end, too, can be created.
Deathclock
4 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2012
Nonsense. It is the most rational position.


Agreed, agnostic atheism is the most rational position concerning god, and skepticism in general is the most rational position concerning anything.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2012
It's time for its severely retardative anchoring in obsolete paradigm to come to a definitive end. And that end, too, can be created.
You've got my attention, at least. Now how might that definitive end come to pass?
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2012
An hypothesis "fitting the evidence" does not necessarily mean that the evidence confirms the hypothesis, or indeed has anything at all to say about the hypothesis. Logically, either there is a deist-type god or not. Thus, the a priori probability that a deist-type of god exists is 1:2 or 50%. No evidence or observation can occur in a universe where a deist-type god exists that can not also occur at the same rate in a universe where no deist-type of god exists, therefore, no evidence or observation can affect the a priori probability that a deist-type god exists. In short, there is, and can be, no evidence either for or against the existence of a deist-type god.

And because concept of a deist-type god is not obviously self-contradictory, as it does not necessarily contain the omni-properties that typically generate defeating absurdities surrounding the idea of a god, logic cannot tell us that this type of god cannot exist, as it does with the omnipotent, omniscient varieties.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2012
With that said, as there can be no evidence or observation that can either increase or decrease the probability that a deist-type god exists, there is no practical meaning to the statement that a deist-type of god exists. The concept will never help you design an experiment, or construct a new and useful technology. Therefore, about gods in general, we can say that there are three possibilities: 1.)The existence of a god is logically impossible (the omniscient, omnipotent varieties). 2.)The existence of a god is definitely false (the Greek/Hindi gods, Allah, Jehovah, etc.), or 3.)The existence of a god is irrelevant. It makes no difference to anybody or anything whether such a god exists. (the deist variety of god)
Urgelt
4.7 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2012
Is it correct to refer to a positron-electron pair as an "atom?"

Color me mystified.

Wouldn't the experiment be more useful - with respect to measuring gravitational effects on antimatter - if actual antimatter atoms were used (antiproton plus positron), instead of matter-antimatter hybrids lacking a nucleus and possessing only low-mass electrons and positrons?

Not to say that something interesting might not be learned. It's just a strange way to look for the effects of gravity on antimatter - and a hard place, since there's so little mass in a positron-electron pair, implying a tougher measurement challenge.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2012
They seem to think they can do something with a Rydberg positronium. I don't get it either, since they will still have an electron involved. Somehow it makes sense to them and they may actually have a clue.

Then again, they may have gotten interested in playing with the toys and getting them to do what they want and lost site of the target. Sometimes people have a project with multiple steps and, while working on a step, forget that they once had an actual goal in mind.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (18) Jan 27, 2012
Thus, the a priori probability that a deist-type of god exists is 1:2 or 50%.
Uh I think you are using a philo term wrong? Unless you used it in a wholly pretentious way, then I guess it would be correct.

"A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience"

A priori knowledge of the existence of something is possible; a thing called 'A priori probability' is not.
Henrik
2.8 / 5 (16) Jan 27, 2012
Science is a human invention. Before humans, there was no science. Science is based on the belief that human observation and reasoning is both reliable enough and sufficient to understand the universe.

But that is self-defeating, because humans are also part of the universe, and a system cannot explain itself.

To answer the fundamental questions, one must step outside the system and follow the evidence. Only theism can explain the system by following the evidence based on a belief in God. Even an atheist will affirm that God could exist without humans, but science cannot.

Ultimately, truth can only be discovered through faith, both in science and in God. Like Einstein said, science without faith is lame, faith without science is blind.
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2012
Like Einstein said, science without faith is lame, faith without science is blind.
You (and Einstein) are right and local voting trolls recognized it immediately. Actually, even in science the ratio of belief and logics remains balanced, because the more rational theory is, the more abstract and difficult to imagine postulates it assumes as a subject of belief (extradimensions of string theory or Big Bang theory with its mysterious formation of the whole Universe from nothingness - this is really something).
Thrasymachus
3.3 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2012
Perhaps, otto, you would care to study up on Bayesian reasoning. http://yudkowsky....al/bayes

The a priori probability of a thing is the initial probability of an observation or object's occurrence. It is determined either by determining the rate at which the observation has occurred in previous experience, or by counting the logical alternatives to its existence. For example, if no one had ever seen a 6-sided dice before, I could define the concept as a cube, one who's faces are inscribed the numerals 1-6, and who's center of mass is equidistant from the vertices of the cube, and which has a mass of 5 grams. I can then ask what the probability is that if I throw that dice with a random speed, angle, and angular momentum, that it will land showing the face with the numeral 6. A priori, that probability is 1:6, by definition of the object in question. "A priori" does not mean what you think it means. It just means "before."
Thrasymachus
2.7 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2012
But that is self-defeating, because humans are also part of the universe, and a system cannot explain itself.


Put you propose an object that does just that? Your god is an object that justifies (i.e. explains) itself. It is its own cause. You complain that, because we are "inside" the universe, we can't fully explain it, so in order to explain it, you propose something else we can't explain?
Henrik
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 27, 2012
you propose something else we can't explain?


A good explanation for something does not stop being an explanation because it also can be explained. A suburn can be explained by sunrays damaging the skin. But does the fact that the sun itself needs an explanation negate its explanatory power for sunburn?

Besides that, the human mind can understand God through faith, but this understanding works on a spiritual level rather than an intellectual. Just like humans experience love, music, beauty etc. on a spiritual level rather than by science.
Seeker2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2012
Even an atheist will affirm that God could exist without humans, but science cannot.
To what end would God exist without humans? It would be interesting to watch dinos, but their world was rather limited. So God said enough of this - let's make some creature to look out to the U. So how did He get this creature to look up? He created a sun god - the observable corona. Now I realize I may have the timeline sort of screwed up here but I think you get what I mean.

Ultimately, truth can only be discovered through faith, both in science and in God.
Yes well sometimes it can come down suddenly crashing on your head when you least expect it. Or something like that. I don't think we're here so much to discover the truth as just sit back and enjoy the show. A great show it is, but without an audience to what end?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2012
BTW watch out for the god of the underground! http://www.facebo...;theater
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2012
Actually coming up for a breath of fresh air, I suppose.
Anda
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2012
We'll wait for the results of this interesting experiment to learn more, as always.
In the meantime all I can say is that Henrik' theism sinks as well as Calippo's_Rawa1's aether...
jsa09
5 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2012
@Henrik
To answer the fundamental questions, one must step outside the system and follow the evidence. Only theism can explain the system by following the evidence based on a belief in God. Even an atheist will affirm that God could exist without humans, but science cannot.


All I can say is this argument leaves me completely cold.
Step outside the system and follow the evidence
for example:

If you are inside the system then you will have to just follow the evidence the best you can. Stepping outside the system implies an inside and an outside that may not exist.

Only theism can explain...
I bite by saying I cannot see how theism can explain anything at all.
Even an atheist ...
What has this got to do with anything? I think that science can exist without humans. All tool using animals have used reason and some could have used science to work out which tools to use for which purpose. All that without humans.
enigma13x
1 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2012
lets just face it everyone the universe is just one big bar magnet called god and all the anti matter is heading to the end called hell and all the matter is going to heaven. I think that covers everyone`s comments lol
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2012
There is only so much land surface on Earth. In principle the IPU must be observable, somewhere.

The 'I' in IPU stands for 'invisible'. (and we know she's godlike because she can be invisible AND pink at the same time)

Nonsense. False dichotomy

Proof: If we observed the universe till the end of time then the probability of gods/no-gods would not have changed (unless a god came along and made himself...evident)
EVIDENCE changes probability of a theory (it makes it more likely in the case of positive evidence or less likley in the case of conflicting evidence...as in your 6000 year-old-Earth example)
OBSERVATION alone without any delineation power does not change probabilities.

Nor does it remove any.

It does not need to. When starting a hypothesis (like the god hypothesis) the probability is zero until evidence (not observation - EVIDENCE) is presented. It doesn't jump to 50/50 just because someone states an unsupported premise.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2012
To illustrate the difference between observation and evidence:
Hypothesis: Stars are mainly made up of chocolate (or: there are god(s))
Antithesis: Stars are not mainly mad up of chocolate (or: there are no god(s))

Observation: My car is red.

This observation fits with both the thesis and the antithesis - but it is not evidence of either.
Callippo
1 / 5 (7) Jan 28, 2012
This observation fits with both the thesis and the antithesis - but it is not evidence of either.
The similar logics is relevant for alleged disapproval of dense aether model with Michellson-Morley experiment. This experiment is not relevant for luminiferous aether drag model, because the light is spreading in transverse waves and the sparse aether model is using the longitudinal waves. In this way the M-M experiment cannot disprove the sparse aether model and it serves as a confirmation for dense aether model instead.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (61) Jan 28, 2012
When starting a hypothesis (like the god hypothesis) the probability is zero until evidence (not observation - EVIDENCE) is presented.


This is false. A probability of zero by definition means 'not possible'. So you would be making a statement about something you haven't observed. Statistics is not applicable to ontological questions. Probability is a measure, therefore it is not applicable wrt metaphysics (god stuff), so it would be undefined in this case.

Even with things that obviously could exist in principal but otherwise has not been observed yet, it is meaningless to assign a probability to its ontological existence. Once something is known to exist, you can assign probabilities such as, what is the likelyhood of finding 100 such things in a square mile, etc.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (60) Jan 28, 2012
It doesn't jump to 50/50 just because someone states an unsupported premise.

Nor does it default to zero for the same reason. The probability of gods existence is undefined because metaphysical things can't be a source of positive knowledge, and therefore are not statistically measurable.

You can not make rational statements about the non-existence of something, including 'it does not exist'. Even wrt scientific method of induction, at best one can only ascertain knowledge to a high degree of probability, and not absolute certainty.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (58) Jan 28, 2012
I like the idea of multiple universes but I don't insist on it being true just a useful concept for dealing with the question of fine tuning that is compatible with the actual math of present theory even if some people don't want to accept its mathematical validity

This is reasonable. Ascribing a reality to the 'wavefunction' describing a system is not IMO rational as it is not observable in such form. We've discussed this before though.

The point is, for quite similar reasons wrt agnosticism being the more rational stance to atheism, ... scientific positivism is the more rational stance to scientific realism.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (61) Jan 28, 2012
One further comment, the whole spaghetti monster non-sense (Russell), was latched onto by rather immature atheist imo. It attempts to equate, basically word-salad, to the notion of a god. The idea of a god is not arbitrary word-salad, so the logical is weak. The notion of a god apparently manifested independently in different areas of the earth in different forms. But the central idea is, 'things exist-> humans can make things-> who made natural things (arranged for them to come about)?'. This is not word-salad, this is a reasonable question.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2012
Ascribing a reality to the 'wavefunction' describing a system is not IMO rational as it is not observable in such form.
It can be measured http://www.nature...120.html
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (60) Jan 28, 2012
Ascribing a reality to the 'wavefunction' describing a system is not IMO rational as it is not observable in such form.
It can be measured http://www.nature...120.html


No it can't. They use 'quantum tomography' which requires a multitude of measurements to reconstruct a probability distribution. This in no way invalidates the projection postulate, nor validates the realism of the wave-function representing a system.
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2012
No it can't. They use 'quantum tomography' which requires a multitude of measurements to reconstruct a probability distribution.
After then we should deny the existence of electron, photons and many other stuffs, which cannot be observed directly - just reconstructed from sequences of measurements. And there is a falsifiability and predictability question too - what we could get, if we would accept the nonexistence of wave function? Will it help us with some new testable predictions?
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (60) Jan 28, 2012
The electron is represented as a zero volume entity that imparts momentum, and then can be refracted as a wave depending on experimental arrangement. Of course no one knows what an electron really 'is' apart from observation. It is meaningless to ascribe an independent reality to entities who known attributes are dependant on observation. Where does the wave-function go after a measurement? With many-worlds, we see how far one has to sink into metaphysics to maintain realism if the wave-function is thought of as a thing,... and yet still cannot escape the requirement of a conscious observer in defining a particular 'world'.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2012
Where does the wave-function go after a measurement?
It gets synchronized with observer, so it "collapses" from perspective of observer. And it's not wave INSIDE OF electron, but the wake wave of vacuum density, which is created AROUND IT with its motion. The internal electron geometry is irrelevant with respect to such a measurement and it exists under much higher energy density, which cannot be affected with normal observation at all. http://aetherwave...-of.html
Thrasymachus
0.5 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2012
Thank you, anitalias, you're quite right in pointing out that the a priori probability I assigned for the existence of a deistic type of god is the weakest point. However, you are wrong to assign the a priori probability of an hypothesis to 0. For one thing, it violates the principle of charity, which is to start with the assumption that the idea under analysis is at least a meaningful possibility, P(x)>0, unless it can be shown to be logically impossible. For another thing, it mucks up the bayesian formula that decides whether something (the existence of the universe, y) is evidence for something else (the existence of a deistic type of god, x). If you start with P(x)=0, then P(x|y)= P(y|x)* P(x)/(P(y|x)*P(x) plus P(y|~x) * P(~x)) will always be 0, regardless of the rate of y. This is arguably not problematic when talking of gods and universes, but becomes so when talking of other things, like a theory of gravity and positions of particles.
Thrasymachus
0.5 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2012
As for the determination of the a priori probability of the existence of a deistic-type of god, I don't think anyone has established the logical impossibility of such a god, since a deist conception does not require the god to possess omniscience, omnipotence nor omnibenevolence, and it is these qualities that are typically responsible for the absurdities that postulating their existence generates. Since a deist conception is not obviously logically contradictory, then by the principle of charity I agree to assign the a priori probability of the truth of the claim to be greater than 0. I assigned it an a priori probability of 1:2 simply because there is no way to otherwise determine its a priori probability. And it really doesn't matter because the whole point was that "evidence" one way or another doesn't change that a priori probability, so doesn't count as evidence. Believing in a deistic god is pointless because it literally doesn't matter, whatever its likelihood.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2012
I agree to assign the a priori probability of the truth of the claim to be greater than 0. I assigned it an a priori probability of 1:2

That's just not how probabilities work in math. There's a whole science behind it (stochastics and information theory)

To assign a priori probabilities you have to have the following prerequisite:
A KNOWN alphabet of POSSIBLE outcomes. (Like in a coin flip. You KNOW that there are two sides the coin can come up so you can assign an apriori possibility to the next coin flip. KNOW is in this context the same as "you cab test that the coin has two sides a priori (before) you make an experiment")

Just postulating that "there MAY be gods" is not enough to elevate this to the status of a KNOWN outcome (whereas "there may be no gods" is - since we observe that state constantly. No gods have so far been forthcoming with their credentials.)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (19) Jan 28, 2012
Perhaps, otto, you would care to study up on Bayesian reasoning.
No thanks I just ate. I will cede the rare lapse:

"The a priori definition of probability allows probabilities to be computed in special cases without experimentation. Most notably, probabilities can be computed in games of chance."

-So you are playing a game of chance here? A little slight of hand? Stacking the deck?

-I will raise you one philo who further discredits the field of philosophy:
http://www.youtub...pp_video

-Your word calcs are worthless. They are allowing theologians to sustain their intellectual support for religion. The discipline ASSISTS with superstitious deception.

So obviously it can be used to prove anything whatsoever either true or false depending on whichever wizard or cardshark is dealing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (18) Jan 28, 2012
Let me try a little ottonian a priori probability word calculating...

I know you are rehashing the word calcs of some long-dead philo here. What is the probability of me finding another equally astute (and also thoroughly dead) philo who convincingly refutes your (I mean your dead philos) arguments? Somewhere near 100 pct?

See I dont have to be familiar with your bayesian spaghettispeak to know that this is a pretty good bet. Yes?
Sanescience
5 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2012
Even though it is unlikely, I really hope it turns out antimatter is repulsed by gravity. How awesome would that be to be able to make things that float on gravity... besides the unfortunate side effect of being able to obliterate whole countries at a time if an accident mixes a large amount of it with regular matter.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2012
CPT (charge, parity, and time) symmetry would require that some aspect of anti-matter change in addition to charge.
Yes. I believe that would be the energy density (but same energy). Ergo spacetime volume is conserved on pair creation, and spacetime remains flat.
That leaves space flat, but we need to leave spacetime flat. So in pair creation whatever travels forward in spacetime has to have a counterpart travelling in reverse spacetime. Looking at it from our perspective negative charge moving away looks like positive charge. Also matter moving away looks like antigravity. Seems like the same effect though.

Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2012
Even though it is unlikely, I really hope it turns out antimatter is repulsed by gravity. How awesome would that be to be able to make things that float on gravity... besides the unfortunate side effect of being able to obliterate whole countries at a time if an accident mixes a large amount of it with regular matter.
Maybe we could build something like that on the backside of the moon? Or maybe on another planet.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2012
The a priori definition of probability allows probabilities to be computed in special cases without experimentation. Most notably, probabilities can be computed in games of chance

Yes. The differnce is that in games of chance you know (a priori) all the possible outcomes. This is aa prerequisite. You must know which cards are in the deck to make a prediction.

With the god hypothesis we don't know whether the "there is a god" card is even in the deck. So no a priori possibility can be assigned. Simply stating that it might be in the deck is not enough.

Otherwise you would have to concede that in a game of 52 card rummy the a priori probability is 1/52 you draw a green card - just because I said one was in the deck without showing you that there is and with you only ever haveing seen red and black cards being played in previously observed games.
See how this doesn't follow?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2012
Atheism weighs less than theism.. Ergo theism sinks, atheism floats away.
What I don't understand is, why the only comment which deals with subject seriously (Callippo above) is downvoted heavily - whereas the other senile off topic blurbs are upvoted here? Are the readers here really so imbecile, they cannot recognize, what belongs into discussion here and what not? How do you want to understand something, if you cannot think coherently and concentrate to subject? The meaning of most of posts here is apparently not to understand subject, but to publicize itself. But unfortunately it's just a stupidity of readers, what becomes apparent and public.


It's because many of them don't know much science, or need a sliderule to project what little knowledge they have of it. It's about the same as the mental giantism of the rantings one reads about in all those holy books that make no sense.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2012
In brief: "If you don't know, what to say, don't say it here."
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2012
of surface waves, so that the positive rest mass of every photon must be balanced with negative space-time curvature somewhere else.


Photons don't have "rest mass", they can only exist at lightspeed where nothing can have "rest mass". I learned this in 2nd semester college physics class.
Musashi
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2012
Atheism is a chemical illusion in the brain. It does not really exist. Atheism weighs less than theism, since it is an absence of substance of things hoped for.
Ergo theism sinks, atheism floats away. So I guess that just leaves only us agnostics to hang around.


Agnosticism is merely the lack of courage to commit to one's beliefs or lack thereof... an agnostic is still a theist or an atheist, just a cowardly one. Belief or disbelief has never been a matter of choice.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2012
Agnosticism is merely the lack of courage to commit to one's beliefs or lack thereof... an agnostic is still a theist or an atheist, just a cowardly one.
Your stance considers, we always have sufficient amount of information for qualified decision of problem. The dual and probably more realistic stance could be, the agnostic is brave enough to admit, he is still not qualified to decide, whether the existence or nonexistence of God is more correct. My experience is, many people do occupy the ultimate stances just from fear, they could be accused of incompetence.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2012
Another motivation for well decided stance can be simply gregarious instinct, i.e. the fear from excommunication. For example, I'm pretty sure, many opponents of dense aether model tend to oppose it just because the refusal of aether model currently belongs into intersubjectivelly accepted opinions of physical authorities from historical reasons. It manifests with many subtle ways - for example, the people are asking me for my name and/or qualification often. Their decisions are apparently driven with intersubjectively accepted authorities, not by individual rational stance - which is what the meritocracy is called.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2012
I'm pretty sure, many opponents of dense aether model tend to oppose it just because the refusal of aether model currently belongs into intersubjectivelly accepted opinions of physical authorities from historical reasons. It manifests with many subtle ways - for example, the people are asking me for my name and/or qualification often. Their decisions are apparently driven with intersubjectively accepted authorities, not by individual rational stance - which is what the meritocracy is called.


No Cal, it's because of AWT references to "infinite densities" & other "infinite" things which can only exist in a "perpetual motion universe". Those of us who do the real world math for a living, realize "infinity" exists only in the eschalogical universe of theism.
Musashi
1 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2012
Your stance considers, we always have sufficient amount of information for qualified decision of problem. The dual and probably more realistic stance could be, the agnostic is brave enough to admit, he is still not qualified to decide, whether the existence or nonexistence of God is more correct.


I don't think the matter is one of "decision". One is wise to be informed, yet belief will not be a decision, it will emerge or not emerge from the information we possess.

As per Merriam Webster:
"1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

In my view, based on these definitions, the issue is always commitment, not "knowability".
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2012
..realize "infinity" exists only in the eschalogical universe of theism...
Interestingly enough the Big Bang cosmology and whole the idea of the finite age Universe had been opposed by Fred Hoyle and other "materialistic" scientists as an invention of Catholic priest Lamaitre, just because of its apparent notion of creation. We are apparently living in dual epoch, where former conservative ideas are considered liberal and vice-versa.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2012
See how this doesn't follow?
No. The thing that to me 'doesn't follow' is insisting on using WORDS to try to ascertain whether fantasy exists or not. And if I employ sarcasm in order to press that point then you should at least be entertained.

I spent some hours yesterday roaming around YouTube listening to Dawkins, hitchens, dennett and others arguing the case against god. None of them evoked Kant or Hume or Russell or any philosophy whatsoever except to deride it in the same context.

Had philosophy EVER been able to generate a useful argument for or against the existence of god, I would think they would all have been citing it. I would have read about it in the news. But it never has, nor has it ever generated meaningful insight into the existance of ANYTHING. It only SAYS it does in authoritative but indecipherable ...crap. Which rarely ever survives the next generation of shovelers.

Word calcs only ever produce more word calcs. Never anything useful.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2012
Had philosophy EVER been able to generate a useful argument for or against the existence of god

Philosophy isn't a rigorous science for the most part.

[]nor has it ever generated meaningful insight into the existance of ANYTHING
I wouldn't go that far. In the beginning all sciences were unified in the field of philosophy (yes: maths, biology, chemistry, physics, ... are all subsets of philosophy as the greeks understood it). But after all the 'useful' sciences had split off into their own special niches there wasn't much left to 'pure' philosophy except to round in circles and missing the point.
Musashi
1 / 5 (1) Jan 29, 2012
No. The thing that to me 'doesn't follow' is insisting on using WORDS to try to ascertain whether fantasy exists or not. And if I employ sarcasm in order to press that point then you should at least be entertained.


By definition, fantasy doesn't exist. No more words are required. There is, however, something to be argued about when it is said something is NOT fantasy, when a myriad similar concepts are adamantly deemed as such.

I spent some hours yesterday roaming around YouTube listening to Dawkins, hitchens, dennett and others arguing the case against god.


I'm reasonably sure they focus on arguing that belief in gods is unreasonable, and they are not simply "making a case against god" as you would make that sound. They don't set out to prove gods don't exist, just as they don't set out to prove unicorns don't exist. These people aren't anti-theists, they are atheists. They know the difference.
Dmitri_Martila
1 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2012
I'm Young Earth Creationist. So I believe, that the Big Bang did not happen in reality. But the Holy Trinity had the Plan to create Universe at 5508 B.C. And as that it can be studied by Young Earth Creationists. The AEGIS-kind experiments want to get antigravity for explaining the matter domination over antimatter in Virtual Big Bang. But why must there be antimatter at all? I red in Wiki, that there was hot plasma of all kinds of fundamental particles. The sum of all electrical charges can be zero without need of antimatter.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (60) Jan 29, 2012
Philosophy isn't a rigorous science for the most part.

Logic is a branch of philosophy. The very foundations of scientific method are philosophical notions; deduction, induction, synthetic and analytic propositions, etc. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy, which concerns knowledge itself. Interpretations of qm are philosophical. There are entire branches of philosophy that deal with physics and mathematics.

@GhostOtto, Read Kant's 'A Critique of Pure Reason' eight times, and then you can mention his name, otherwise, your ignorance of philosophy is not an argument against it. Your immaturity causes you to imagine a competition between mathematics and philosophy where none exists. Mathematics by itself is not the entirety of science. Mathematics is deductive and doesn't in itself discover anything new that isn't already based on axiomatic definitions. If you truely understood what philosophy IS you would see it all over the place in science.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2012
But the Holy Trinity had the Plan to create Universe at 5508 B.C.
Such plan would seriously limit the size of observable part of Milky Way galaxy, which has a diameter 70000 to 100000 light-years (20 to 30 kpc).
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (61) Jan 29, 2012
.. Dawkins, hitchens, dennett and others arguing the case against god. None of them evoked Kant or Hume or Russell or any philosophy whatsoever except to deride it in the same context.

It could be that they are ignorant of Kant, or obviously don't find him useful in support of their intellectually underdeveloped atheism. Kant showed conclusively imo, that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge, which means you can't prove nor disprove existence of god.

Had philosophy EVER been able to generate a useful argument for or against the existence of god, I would think they would all have been citing it.


Kant isolated himself for over a decade to write the above referenced book that rationally shows that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge. This means that no one can prove the non-existence of God. This means science cannot disprove the existence of God either. This is why such thoughts are a matter of faith.
Thrasymachus
1.7 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2012
Yes. The differnce is that in games of chance you know (a priori) all the possible outcomes. This is aa prerequisite. You must know which cards are in the deck to make a prediction.

With the god hypothesis we don't know whether the "there is a god" card is even in the deck. So no a priori possibility can be assigned. Simply stating that it might be in the deck is not enough.

It certainly is enough, providing we are extending the principle of charity to the hypothesis that a deistic god exists. If you tell me you put a green card in the deck, then I can either give you the benefit of the doubt, which will allow me to address your hypothesis with experiment, or I can deny you that benefit, in which case the investigation is over, and if you continue to assert the existence of the green card, we will be at an impasse, we would be unable to agree to what constitutes evidence. In any event, it is irrelevant. (cont.)
Thrasymachus
1.8 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2012
It is irrelevant because the existence of the universe or anything in the universe does not alter the posterior probability from the a priori probability that a deistic god exists, whatever the a priori probability that such an entity exists. No observation or measurement would be different in the case of a deistic god's existence than would occur in the case of a deistic god's absence. Because we cannot know whether such a god exists to any degree of certainty, it won't make any bit of difference to us whether such a god exists. The only choices for a hopeful deist is to believe in something that is logically impossible, something that is as certainly false as anything can be that's empirically known, or something that's completely irrelevant and absolutely useless as an idea or aid to anything human beings can possibly do.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (19) Jan 29, 2012
intellectually underdeveloped atheism.
AHhaahaahha. Dont you think if some suitably overdeveloped intellectual had discovered a useful and convincing argument then then the 4 Horsemen would have been more than happy to use it? Or even Nightline?
does not alter the posterior probability
AHhaahaaahaa you said posterior.
Kant isolated himself for over a decade to write the above referenced book that rationally shows that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge. This means that no one can prove the non-existence of God.
What do you mean that BECAUSE kant isolated himself or BECAUSE he wrote a book which YOU seem to think was the ultimate textbook on the subject? I reject either such posterior conclusivisms.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2012
-And so does the currently living and breathing philo who I am very surprised you are not familiar with:

"My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless--a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors trapped in the seductively lucid amber of tradition: "obvious truths" that are simply false, broken-backed distinctions, and other cognitive illusions."
http://en.wikiped..._Dennett

-And so, with Dr Dennetts learned perspective in mind we can look at the word calc

P(x)=0, then P(x|y)= P(y|x)* P(x)/(P(y|x)*P(x) plus P(y|~x) * P(~x)) will always be 0

-And further figurate, that if any of the terms P, y, or x happen to be WORDS, especially official philo-approved terms, then said word calc is rendered Unsinn and void.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2012
The sum of all electrical charges can be zero without need of antimatter.
So where do you get your positive charges?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2012
But the Holy Trinity had the Plan to create Universe at 5508 B.C.
Such plan would seriously limit the size of observable part of Milky Way galaxy, which has a diameter 70000 to 100000 light-years (20 to 30 kpc).
Well yes assuming creation started from one point. However maybe it was all created from everywhere all at once. Including fossils, of course, only put here to test our faith in creationism.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (20) Jan 29, 2012
@GhostOtto, Read Kant's 'A Critique of Pure Reason' eight times, and then you can mention his name, otherwise, your ignorance of philosophy is not an argument against it.
Why should I do that? I only have to read Dennett once to know that "the standard philosophical terminology [is] worse than useless--a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors trapped in the seductively lucid amber of tradition: "obvious truths" that are simply false, broken-backed distinctions, and other cognitive illusions."

-Or hawking, or dawkins, or krause, or Harris, or sagan et cetera et cetera and save some time. Because I know that ALL these gentlemen know far more about these things than you dear sir, and that they have no peculiar infatuation with rotting dusty philos to cloud their judgment.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2012
Well yes assuming creation started from one point. However maybe it was all created from everywhere all at once. Including fossils, of course, only put here to test our faith in creationism.
Right. God put every photon and cosmic ray and gravity wave in its place and sent them all on their way to make it all look thus and so.

God could do this. And he would do so in order to test our faith of course.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2012
No observation or measurement would be different in the case of a deistic god's existence than would occur in the case of a deistic god's absence.

Not quite. A deistic god could manifest himeself (presumably unambiguously). That (and only that) would be a conclusive measurement.

It certainly is enough, providing we are extending the principle of charity to the hypothesis that a deistic god exists.
It still doesn't allow you to assign a probability (much less a 50/50 one).
Making a statement does not increase the probabilty of that statement being true UNTIL evidence of that statement comes rolling in. Simply stating that there may be gods does not increse the probability from zero to 50%.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 29, 2012
Kant the physicist:
"Kant gives two expositions of space and time: metaphysical and transcendental. The metaphysical expositions of space and time are concerned with clarifying how those intuitions are known independently of experience. The transcendental expositions attempt to show how the metaphysical conclusions might be applied to enrich our understanding."

-Enrich our understanding... I thought you said that "metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge" -so 'enriching' is not sourcing exactly, but 'enhancing' or 'colorizing' in some fashion without actually 'adding' anything that wasnt already there to begin with?

Oh I get it. 8-P
Thrasymachus
1.3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2012
A deistic god that could manifest itself would not be a deistic god. That's sort of the definition of a deistic god. If a god were capable of manifesting itself, or some aspect of itself, and it still lacked the omniscient, omnipotent properties that would make it a logical impossibility, then it would be the same kind of god as the members of the Greek or Hindi pantheon, Yahweh/Jehovah, etc. In other words, it would be the kind of god we know empirically does not exist with the same level of certainty that we can know anything empirically.

My point, and I will repeat it again, is that there are only three kinds of deity the faithful can appeal to: a logically impossible god, a certainly false god, or a completely irrelevant and useless god.
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2012
When you make a statement, and you don't know whether or not that statement is true, then when you go looking for evidence of whether or not that statement is true, you must assign the a priori probability that the statement is true to be greater than zero. If you don't, then you will have already determined that nothing can count as evidence for or against the truth of that statement. The posterior probability, that is, the adjusted probability that the statement is true in light of any other observation or true proposition, will remain zero, because when you multiply by zero, you get zero.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2012
But the Holy Trinity had the Plan to create Universe at 5508 B.C.
Such plan would seriously limit the size of observable part of Milky Way galaxy, which has a diameter 70000 to 100000 light-years (20 to 30 kpc).
Well yes assuming creation started from one point.
Nope, we would live inside of sphere of 11016 light-years diameter even if the Universe would appear homogeneously.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (59) Jan 29, 2012

Kant isolated himself for over a decade to write the above referenced book that rationally shows that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge. This means that no one can prove the non-existence of God.

What do you mean that BECAUSE kant isolated himself or BECAUSE he wrote a book which YOU seem to think was the ultimate textbook on the subject? I reject either such posterior conclusivisms.


You may reject it, but you don't based on reasoned argument, that is certain.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (59) Jan 29, 2012
Kant the physicist:
"Kant gives two expositions of space and time: metaphysical and transcendental. The metaphysical expositions of space and time are concerned with clarifying how those intuitions are known independently of experience. The transcendental expositions attempt to show how the metaphysical conclusions might be applied to enrich our understanding."

-Enrich our understanding... I thought you said that "metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge" -so 'enriching' is not sourcing exactly, but 'enhancing' or 'colorizing' in some fashion without actually 'adding' anything that wasnt already there to begin with?

Oh I get it. 8-P


Um, no, you don't. intuitional understanding can be synthetc a-priori, as distinct from knowledge gained through experience.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2012
However maybe it was all created from everywhere all at once.
I forgot it took 6 days. Maybe they were paying double overtime.
Seeker2
2 / 5 (4) Jan 29, 2012
In brief: "If you don't know, what to say, don't say it here."
Say what? If you don't know what to say use your imagination.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (60) Jan 29, 2012
@GhostofOtto, I'm not going to argue with random quotes you pick off the Internet, because I don't know the context. I tried to engage you about physics in the quantum thread but you were stuck on 'I hate philo'. You seem to get distracted and end up not discussing the actually subject,.. i.e. the reasonableness of atheism as compared to agnosticism.

In order to demonstrat that God does not exist, YOU have to engage on metaphysical discussions,.. while I put forth that such speculations can not be a source of knowledge , thus YOU cannot have knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God.

Probability is inapplicable here.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2012
Henrik what are you doing in a science site? don't you have to go the church or something?
I guess he did. I can't find him anywhere now.
Benni
2 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2012
@GhostofOtto,

In order to demonstrat that God does not exist, YOU have to engage on metaphysical discussions,.. while I put forth that such speculations can not be a source of knowledge , thus YOU cannot have knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God.

Probability is inapplicable here.


Great post: Einstein's writings about GR & QM is a far different issue than Kant's writings about meta-physics, etc. Einstein's writings QM & GR can be proven (or disproven)by a mathematical model. The writings of Kant is more like trying to prove a negative.

I still remember the morning summer session I took that philosophy course, I walked into the mostly filled classroom muttering; "I can't (kant), I can't (kant), I kant take it anymore", all the while not realizing my professor was already in the classroom. Everybody but the prof laughed, he was known for not liking engineering majors very much, the grade he gave me proved it.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (60) Jan 29, 2012

Great post: Einstein's writings about GR & QM is a far different issue than Kant's writings about meta-physics, etc. Einstein's writings QM & GR can be proven (or disproven)by a mathematical model. The writings of Kant is more like trying to prove a negative.


Philosophy can not replace science, and I have never claimed such a thing. However, when physics establishes a theory, like QM, which is proven accurate, yet is intuitively incomprehensible, it is entirely rational to philosophize about interpretations of what that theory is saying in terms of our knowledge of reality and how our a-priori concepts are effecting that knowledge. This is epistemology which Kant wrote about.

I posted about my use of Kant's epistemology and QM here.

http://www.physor...ard.html
StarGazer2011
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2012
Bravo @GhostOfOtto, your feeding the trolls has trashed this comment thread. People are allowed to be wrong, please afford them this right in silence.
StarGazer2011
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2012
Noumenon: At the risk of becomming what I beheld...
Science is a subset of philosophy, so clearly just as calculus cant replace mathemactics, neither can science replace philosophy as the highest order phenomenon. Specifically science is a belief forming mechanism. The application of the scientific method combined with the principle of falsification is what differentiates scientific beliefs from other types of beliefs. And generally as long as falsification and observations hypothesis experiment have been maintained the results are useful.
StarGazer2011
3.6 / 5 (9) Jan 29, 2012
The primary difference between religous thought and scientific thought is falsification. Religous people observe the world, and then hypothesise that 'God Did it' but provide no ability to falsify this hypothesis, quite the opposite, they purposefully construct un-falsifiable theories (similarly to Post Normalism).
The abandonment of falsification is the abandoment of exactly that which separated scientific beliefs from religious beliefs and other catagories of 'just so stories'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (18) Jan 29, 2012
you must assign the a priori probability that the statement is true to be greater than zero.
Uh unless youre pretty sure its false and are trying to confirm this?
you don't based on reasoned argument, that is certain.
I MOST CERTAINLY do. Ive given you links to those arguments, posted excerpts from them, and identified the authors of them. I rely on experts such as Dr Dennett, currently the Co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and a University Professor at Tufts University.
@GhostofOtto, I'm not going to argue with random quotes you pick off the Internet, because I don't know the context.
I reference what I post. And you SHOULD know the context as they are directly relevent to your misperceptions.
I tried to engage you about physics in the quantum thread
Because you tend to invoke "obvious truths" that are simply false, broken-backed distinctions, and other cognitive illusions."

-What can I say?
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (60) Jan 29, 2012
Noumenon: At the risk of becomming what I beheld...
Science is a subset of philosophy, so clearly just as calculus cant replace mathemactics, neither can science replace philosophy as the highest order phenomenon. Specifically science is a belief forming mechanism. The application of the scientific method combined with the principle of falsification is what differentiates scientific beliefs from other types of beliefs. And generally as long as falsification and observations hypothesis experiment have been maintained the results are useful.


Correct, Good luck explaining that to GhostOfOtto.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (22) Jan 29, 2012
Bravo @GhostOfOtto, your feeding the trolls has trashed this comment thread. People are allowed to be wrong, please afford them this right in silence.
And I am allowed to dispute them and revel in their wrongness. Oh, and bite me.
Science is a subset of philosophy
Philosophy may have been the egg from which science emerged. It now lies broken and useless and stinky.
neither can science replace philosophy
According to leading scientists, IT ALREADY HAS. Long ago.

"philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." -Hawking

-And you must realize that this is a consensus within the scientific community. Philosophy is not MERELY irrelevant. It is a bother and a nuisance to scientists whenever they stumble over it.
http://www.youtub...hf1Olnj0

-A standard gagline. Re Krause, Feynman, etc.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (62) Jan 29, 2012
Philosophy is integral to science despite your ignorance. The philosophy of physics is a major field of study.

http://en.wikiped..._Physics

And as I mentioned to you, Penrose uses the phrase "philosophy of" many times in his "Road to Reality" tomb.

Abraham Pais, a well known physicist, speaks of Kant when discussing physics.

I already named many mathematicians and physicists that are also known as philosophers proper, in the quantum thread referenced above.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (62) Jan 29, 2012
Another excellent book, of many, on 'philosophy of physics', with many equations;

http://www.amazon...p;sr=8-4

Here is another statement by a scientist in a recent book;

"[regarding inequality tests devised by A. Leggett and performed by A. Zeilinger] These experiments tells us rather emphatically that we can never perceive reality 'as it really is'. We can only reveal aspects of an empirical reality that depend on the nature of the instruments we use and the questions we ask. Quantum Physics, it seems, has completed it's transformation into experimental philosophy. . . . Quantum theory pushed us to the edge of an epistemological precipice " - J. Baggott (2011)

You quote a few opinions, but ignore the fact that not all physicists feel that way, thus invalidating your rediculous claim.

Again you side step the present discussion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (20) Jan 29, 2012
science is a belief forming mechanism.
No its not.
The application of the scientific method combined with the principle of falsification is what differentiates scientific beliefs from other types of beliefs.
When the people who called themselves philosophers at the time devised or discovered these concepts, they were doing science and not philosophy.

When the Power of the scientific method was realized, experiment began to replace speculation. Numbers began to replace words. Scientists found they could explain things like morality, pathology, cognition; and further, those explanations differed completely from what people like schopenhauer and hegel and kant had tried to sell.

Scientists slowly began to realize that philos were Novelists and sociopolitical propagandists, not truth-seekers. Most were merely exploiting a vacuum. This becomes more obvious with every new discovery.

"I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith" Kant
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (64) Jan 29, 2012
Bravo @GhostOfOtto, your feeding the trolls has trashed this comment thread. People are allowed to be wrong, please afford them this right in silence.


A troll is one who goes after who they perceive as an easy target, over and over again.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 29, 2012
You quote a few opinions, but ignore the fact that not all physicists feel that way, thus invalidating your rediculous claim.
Jim Baggett doesnt seem to be of quite the same caliber as Dawkins or hawking or dennett, does he?
http://whyscience...ott.html

"These experiments tells us rather emphatically that we can never perceive reality 'as it really is'."

-And you do know that this is standard philo/religionist pap for "I want you to listen and buy my book/god so I will evoke the 'mystery and grandeur of the universe' for after all I have a family to support"

Feynman on philosophy
http://www.youtub...WBcPVPMo
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (59) Jan 29, 2012
Jim Baggett doesnt seem to be of quite the same caliber as Dawkins or hawking or dennett, does he?


Your opinion based on zero. He is a scientist and wrote a good history of quantum theory.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 29, 2012
Jim Baggett doesnt seem to be of quite the same caliber as Dawkins or hawking or dennett, does he?


Your opinion based on zero. He is a scientist and wrote a good history of quantum theory.
Well actually my opinion is based in part on your excerpt in which he says "These experiments tells us rather emphatically that we can never perceive reality 'as it really is'." -thereby convincingly simulating a hack.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (60) Jan 29, 2012
Jim Baggett doesnt seem to be of quite the same caliber as Dawkins or hawking or dennett, does he?


Your opinion based on zero. He is a scientist and wrote a good history of quantum theory.
Well actually my opinion is based in part on your excerpt in which he says "These experiments tells us rather emphatically that we can never perceive reality 'as it really is'." -thereby convincingly simulating a hack.


That is an absolute true statement. As I mention above (you seem to skip over posts), an electron is observed as a wave or as a particle depending on experimental arrangement. This of course means that our knowledge of reality is coloured as it were, by our concepts and experimental apparatus.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (59) Jan 29, 2012
We cannot know reality, as it is in itself, that is, apart from observation. Our conceptualization of reality differs from Reality as it is in itself, because it was subjected to a-priori concepts that are dependent on mind.

What is an "electron" as it is apart from conceptualization as such and observation? It is a "something" to be sure, but without adding some concepts it is unknowable. To have knowledge of some aspect of reality, we must disturbed it by conforming it within concepts we supply.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (59) Jan 29, 2012
Why don't you look up the Leggett/Zeilinger experiment?
Seeker2
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2012
Philosophy may have been the egg from which science emerged. It now lies broken and useless and stinky.
Strange. I took two phil courses taught by a former president of Union Theological Seminary. The first semester was logic and the second was ethics. Probably obsolete in modern science though.
Seeker2
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 30, 2012
I remember Kant - something about a moral imperative. There was also a book by Rheinhold Niebuhr, I think it was. Moral Man and Immoral Society or something like that. All obsolete now, I suppose.
Seeker2
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2012
Also I remember missing one point in the logic course. I guess we're all human.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (18) Jan 30, 2012
That is an absolute true statement. As I mention above (you seem to skip over posts), an electron is observed as a wave or as a particle depending on experimental arrangement. This of course means that our knowledge of reality is coloured as it were, by our concepts and experimental apparatus.
...and so -? The dual nature of an electron is reality is it not? Your attempts at coloring it with unnecessary metaphysical philo terms is not.
We cannot know reality, as it is in itself, that is, apart from observation. Our conceptualization of reality differs from Reality as it is in itself, because it was subjected to a-priori concepts that are dependent on mind.
Pure, utter, absolute, worthless, tripe. Feynman said as much in the vid I posted. He should know, he and his collegues were more successful at defining reality than any philo ever was. Nor will ever be.

This babble never got anyone anywhere, except into cushy university jobs. You all slow reality down.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 30, 2012
You guys are just as bad as Religionists in this respect.
We cannot know reality, as it is in itself, that is, apart from observation. Our conceptualization of reality differs from Reality as it is in itself
Ding an sich oh christ. 'We can never know everything about a thing and so this means that it must contain metaphysical things best explored by philos who are experts in such non-things and pseudo-things etc.'

-You even promise an afterlife of sorts. 'Since everything contains non-things and pseudo-things and unknowable things this must mean there IS a metaphysical realm to which our intellects, if not a thing called a spirit as such, can retire to intact and functional after our corporeal containers have failed us.'

Your insistence that unknowable things exist and that somehow they can influence the real world is pure religionism. Intellectual superstition. And dangerous because it involves immortality and cushy university jobs.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (60) Jan 30, 2012
The dual nature of an electron is reality is it not? Your attempts at coloring it with unnecessary metaphysical philo terms is not.

The dual wave-particle nature of the electron is phenomenal reality, yet, but there is a component of 'phenomenal reality' that is subject dependent. What the 'electron' IS apart from such conceptualizations is entirely unknowable.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (59) Jan 30, 2012
We can never know everything about a thing and so this means that it must contain metaphysical things best explored by philos who are experts in such non-things and pseudo-things etc.


I've never said that. Of course QM is the most accurate physical theory every devised. I've only pointed out, as of now, undeniable facts about the nature of QM,.. that is that it is not a classical theory, that it is not intuitively consistent,.. and offered an explanation as to why at some level of reality, it cannot be.

Again, i'm a positivist (please look this up), as opposed to a realist. Scientific realism purports to say things about unobservable, while positivist (me), say this is metaphysical speculation and one should only stick with observables and theory as providing knowledge.
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (58) Jan 30, 2012
Your insistence that unknowable things exist and that somehow they can influence the real world is pure religionism. Intellectual superstition. And dangerous because it involves immortality and cushy university jobs.


It's not that I'm saying 'unknowable things exist', rather, what I am saying is that reality cannot be intuitively understood except by introducing concepts, that is, subjecting reality to forms dependent on mind. We are in our own way, in terms of acquiring knowledge of reality, 'as it is in itself'.

This does not conger-up 'things that are unobservable',.. it merely says that the true nature of reality cannot be conceptualized intuitively and remain consistent. This is a fact as revealed by qm. I'm only stating this fact and rationalizing as to why by invoking epistemology. This is rational, and is not anti-science, not 'religionists' in any way.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (59) Jan 30, 2012
You even promise an afterlife of sorts. 'Since everything contains non-things and pseudo-things and unknowable things this must mean there IS a metaphysical realm to which our intellects, if not a thing called a spirit as such, can retire to intact and functional after our corporeal containers have failed us.'


What you need to understand is that Kant was a believer, and I am not. I probably reject more 'Kant' than accept. I only make use one aspect of his epistemology.

Please do not quote anyone (it appears you are quoting an unknown person with use of '..'), because someone who is anti-philosophy, is not going to reproduce context properly. Speak in your own words. I get bored of quote contests.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 30, 2012
I've never said that.
What do you think THIS is?
What the 'electron' IS apart from such conceptualizations is entirely unknowable.
-Besides being utter bullshit? What is 'that which is forever unknowable' that is NOT metaphysical? What exactly IS it about an electron that metaphysicians think they can address, that physicists cannot?

Whatever we know about electrons was discovered by physicists. Whatever we WILL know about electrons, will be discovered by physicists. NOTHING of what we know about particle physics was ever discovered by philosophers.

There is nothing that philos can ever teach us about the physical world. Indeed, like religionists, they misrepresent reality for their own selfish ends, thereby retarding ongoing efforts to understand it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (17) Jan 30, 2012
Please do not quote anyone (it appears you are quoting an unknown person with use of '..'), because someone who is anti-philosophy, is not going to reproduce context properly. Speak in your own words. I get bored of quote contests.
This is called 'paraphrasing'. When you see '___' simply preface the enclosed content with 'in other words...'
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 30, 2012
Logic is a branch of philosophy. The very foundations of scientific method are philosophical notions; deduction, induction, synthetic and analytic propositions, etc.
No, any logic of any use whatsoever is a branch of mathematics and can be reduced to calculations using exclusively numbers. Further your 'notions'(?)- deduction, induction, synthetic and analytic propositions can all be reduced to numbers for the purpose to doing science and mathematics.

The philos who were devising useful logic were doing math at the time, not philosophy. They were able to suspend their typical illogic just long enough to admit that numbers were much better at describing the world than words.

Conversely,

"the rational being, as by its nature an end and thus as an end in itself, must serve in every maxim as the condition restricting all merely relative and arbitrary ends"

-Cannot be reduced to numbers as it is composed entirely of fuzzy and inexplicit words without useful content or value.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 30, 2012
-Cannot be reduced to numbers as it is composed entirely of fuzzy and inexplicit words without useful content or value.
Forgive me. '...without value or useful content.' There, that phrasing has a better cadence and is thus more meaningful in a wholly philosophical and/or lyrical and/or poetic, uh, way.
@GhostOtto, Read Kant's 'A Critique of Pure Reason' eight times, and then you can mention his name, otherwise, your ignorance of philosophy is not an argument against it.
Jeez I would think that after the 3rd or 4th time you would have realized that there was NOTHING in THERE.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (60) Jan 30, 2012
As pointed out by StarGazer (though I don't know why he was telling me),.. 'Science is a subset of philosophy'. Logic is also philosophy.

"In philosophy, Logic is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning. Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, semantics, and computer science. - Wiki"

You're misunderstanding of what philosophy IS is causing you problems.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (59) Jan 30, 2012
I've never said that.
What do you think THIS is?
What the 'electron' IS apart from such conceptualizations is entirely unknowable.
-Besides being utter bullshit? What is 'that which is forever unknowable' that is NOT metaphysical? What exactly IS it about an electron that metaphysicians think they can address, that physicists cannot?


I never said that anyone can 'address aspects of the electron that physicists cannot'. In fact, I said no one else can. That is the point that continues to escape you. Physicists can only observe the electron as a particle Or as a wave, so how the electron is perceived is dependent on experimental arrangement and conceptual form. It's true nature, independent of experimental observation and conceptual form, is unknowable by anyone, simply by factual definition.

Now back to the atheism vrs agnosticism. If you think you can demonstrate the non-existence of a metaphysical entity, it is YOU that must partake of metaphysics.
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (60) Jan 30, 2012
@GhostOtto, Read Kant's 'A Critique of Pure Reason' eight times, and then you can mention his name, otherwise, your ignorance of philosophy is not an argument against it.

Jeez I would think that after the 3rd or 4th time you would have realized that there was NOTHING in THERE.


Cute, but it would take you that many times.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 30, 2012
It's true nature, independent of experimental observation and conceptual form, is unknowable by anyone, simply by factual definition.
What does this mean? It MEANS nothing. What is it about 'true nature' that is in the least unknowable?? You want to grok things? 'See' things as casteneda did on peyote??

Youre saying that there is something left of a car after you have disassembled it down to its smallest disassemblable parts. Farvergnugen I suppose? THERE IS NOTHING ELSE. Your claiming that there is, is pure religionism. It is an attempt to preserve a discipline which is not worth preserving because it doesnt WORK and never DID.

Scientists will one day know everything there is to know about the electron. Because everything which composes an electron is knowable. Because it is a wholly physical THING. IRRESPECTIVE of whatever metaphysical crap metaphysicians or theologians want to try to squeeze out of QM or out of that which is not yet known.
Deathclock
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2012
Logic is a branch of philosophy. The very foundations of scientific method are philosophical notions; deduction, induction, synthetic and analytic propositions, etc.
No, any logic of any use whatsoever is a branch of mathematics and can be reduced to calculations using exclusively numbers.


Mathematical Logic:
http://en.wikiped...al_logic

Philosophical Logic:
http://en.wikiped...al_logic

We distinguish between the two today, we didn't always but we do today. Philosophy has largely been consumed by science. Many questions that were once impossible to answer through the scientific method are now within our ability to investigate empirically.
Deathclock
4.3 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2012
Now back to the atheism vs. agnosticism. If you think you can demonstrate the non-existence of a metaphysical entity, it is YOU that must partake of metaphysics


What? What do you mean "Atheism vs. Agnosticism"? These two stances are not contradictory, they do not oppose each other...

"I do not believe in god" -Atheism.
"I have no knowledge of god" -Agnosticism.
"I believe in god" -Theism.
"I have knowledge of god" -Gnosticism.

Atheism and Theism are opposed, Gnosticism and Agnosticism are opposed... but Atheism and Agnosticism are not opposed, and an individual can claim both.
Deathclock
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2012
For example, I consider myself an Agnostic Atheist, in that I do not believe in God but I do not claim to have any knowledge about God (for or against his/her/its existence).

The "Agnostic" part leads me to accept the possibility of any God that is not defined to be self-contradictory.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (60) Jan 30, 2012
Then we hold the same position. But there are different levels of atheism.

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities" - WIKI

So, some atheists claim there are no gods. This is a positive assertion. Agnostics like me, say it is not possible to make such assertions about metaphysics as metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge either way, and so is unknowable.
Deathclock
5 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2012
There are different scopes of atheism.

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities" - WIKI

So, some atheists claim there are no gods. This is a positive assertion. Agnostics like me, say it is not possible to make such assertions about metaphysics as metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge either way.


Oh okay, it seems we believe the same thing then we just define it using different words. That's fine, labels are arbitrary, and what matters is that we can express what we are in more words, if not in fewer.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (59) Jan 30, 2012
Logic is a branch of philosophy. The very foundations of scientific method are philosophical notions....
No, any logic of any use whatsoever is a branch of mathematics and can be reduced to calculations using exclusively numbers.


Mathematical Logic:
http://en.wikiped...al_logic

Philosophical Logic:
http://en.wikiped...al_logic

We distinguish between the two today, we didn't always but we do today. Philosophy has largely been consumed by science. Many questions that were once impossible to answer through the scientific method are now within our ability to investigate empirically.


You are exactly correct. Also, "philosophy of physics" and "philosophy of mathematics" are distinct from physics and mathematics. GhostOfOtto is trying to arguing that philosophy is invalid as a subject matter, which is factually false.

http://en.wikiped..._physics

http://en.wikiped...hematics
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 30, 2012
Philosophy has largely been consumed by science.
Yes consumed and shat out. And I would be leery of any definitions I found which attempted to legitimize whats left of philosophy.
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy, which concerns knowledge itself
But which never generated much insight at all on the subject. Because it relied on juggling words instead of investigating reality scientifically.
Your immaturity causes you to imagine a competition between mathematics and philosophy where none exists.
Not much of a contest is it? Math works, philo doesnt. You can stomp your feet and turn blue - this wont change the failed nature of your little hobby. Why not collect hotwheels instead?
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (59) Jan 30, 2012
... When I mention epistemology in context of interpretations of qm, or in this case atheism/agnosticism, which should be obviously relevant, ...he goes on a irrelevant anti-philo rant,.. He argues that philosophy as a subject matter is meaningless non-sense. This stance is immature and absurd.
Deathclock
5 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2012
My notion of philosophy is that it is what we have when we cannot use the scientific method to gain knowledge. It is better than nothing but not as good as empirical study. Historically, philosophy has lead us to ask the questions that we are just now beginning to investigate scientifically.

I wouldn't call it worthless. I would liken it to alchemy. We now practice chemistry and consider alchemy to be ancient and flawed... but chemistry didn't just replace alchemy, chemistry was born from alchemy. We call them different things but one is the natural evolution of the other. I feel that is also the case with philosophy and science, the one leads to the other. While the latter produces demonstrably more useful results it wouldn't have existed without the former.

Philosophy is what we think is the case absent of physical evidence, absent of empirical study... It is useful if you respect that limitation, and if you give way to proper science when it becomes possible.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (58) Jan 30, 2012
That's correct Deathclock, physics is physics and philosophy is more or less reflection and interpretations of physical results, or the scope of attained knowledge science obtains or claims to obtain.

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy, which concerns knowledge itself

But which never generated much insight at all on the subject. Because it relied on juggling words instead of investigating reality scientifically.


Are you not using worlds right now? Of course, wrt qm history you must be ignorant of it if you think it never generated much insight, because Bohr's core argument against those seeking a classical 'explanation', was an analysis of knowledge. Further the history of qm is full of various (philosophical) 'interpretations' of what the theory was and is saying,... iow, what knowledge is acquired from the theory about reality.

http://en.wikiped...temology
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 30, 2012
You are exactly correct. Also, "philosophy of physics" and "philosophy of mathematics" are distinct from physics and mathematics. GhostOfOtto is trying to arguing that philosophy is invalid as a subject matter, which is factually false.
Distinct as in scifi is distinct from science? Fact is, I have shown that many scientists regard it as such. You offer roger penrose who seems to think 'consciousness' is something otherworldly.

Did you check out my refs to dan dennett, physics philo? He seems to be more clever and useful atheist pundit, the sort of politically useful qualities which can excuse less than stellar production in your official field.
roboferret
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2012
I think there may be some confusion here between philosophy and metaphysics. Metaphysics by and large gives the rest of philosophy a bad name. Philosophy is simply a rigorous framework for thought. The scientific method - empiricism - IS a philosophy, one that has been proven to work. Philosophy has given us formal logic, and concepts such as falsifiability and burden of proof, important tools in combating woo and the vague thinking that is responsible for a lot of the crap on this site.
I recommend reading some Bertrand Russell, one of the foremost mathematicians, logicians and philosophers of the past century (and more), and champion of empiricism and free thought.
Mug_Z
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2012
If this article is plagued with such theistic dogma and debate I'm hesitant to even look at the article concerning the new clue to the chemical origins of life. Trolling by religious fanatics on this physics website is starting to become actually bothersome rather than funny as it initially was.
Callippo
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Henrik
2.8 / 5 (16) Jan 30, 2012
There would be no physics without metaphysics. Physics works because it rests on a metaphysical foundation of thought.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 30, 2012
Bertrand Russell...
"He now started an intensive study of the foundations of mathematics at Trinity during which he discovered Russell's paradox which challenged the foundations of set theory. In 1903 he published his first important book on mathematical logic, The Principles of Mathematics showing that mathematics could be deduced from a very small number of principles, and contributing significantly to the cause of logicism."

-Which demonstrates my point. In the above, Russell was clearly doing math not philo. While here:

"analytic philosophy is identified with specific philosophical commitments (many of which are rejected by contemporary analytic philosophers)" -?

-He was clearly wasting his time. One of ALs precepts:
"The principle that the logical clarification of thoughts can only be achieved by analysis of the logical form of philosophical propositions."

-Anyone recognize the circular reasoning here? 'In order to think clearly you have to know how to think philosophically.'
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 30, 2012
"the overwhelming majority of university philosophy departments identify themselves as "analytic" departments."

-Of course they do. The Soup du Jour. And before this it was logical positivism perhaps? And before this it was -what? Nou help me out here. Some form of idealism? Rationalism? Nativism?

Dont worry theyll all be back in some form or another. Thats the problem with fashion. And its advantage. You dont have to be original ALL the time. Only timely.
TheGhostofOtto1923
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Cynical1
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Cynical1
Jan 30, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Cynical1
3 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
So, yes Otto - Observation trumps interpretation.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2012
There would be no physics without metaphysics. Physics works because it rests on a metaphysical foundation of thought.
So actually it works because we think it works. Ok.
Henrik
Jan 31, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2012
I still remember the opening statement of the professor on that first day of Philosophy class in college:

"Philosophy is an exact science".

As a junior year engineering student, I almost fell out of my chair at that statement. He went on a rant (at least that's the way it sounded to me) why his professorship as head of the Philosophy Dept made him a "scientist", but we could never discern from his long list of degrees if he had even had a college level algebra course.

Everyday for a month during that summer session I listened to this guy's tripe, I came to the logical conclusion that this guy's kind of science will never garner me a job in the "real world".

I had half a dozen job offers before graduation with my BS in Engineering, none of the students from his curriculum had a single one, but they sure could quote unintellible rhetoric a lot better than I could; I got a "C" grade, the philo majors all got "A", but no jobs.



Cynical1
3 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
I still remember the opening statement of the professor on that first day of Philosophy class in college:

"Philosophy is an exact science".


I think it's a pretty exact to say "Avoid falling rocks" and a lot less ephemeral of a "philosophy".(translated- interpretion).
Is it possible rocks contain anti-matter and therefore fall harder on your toes than plain matter? I guess thats what these guys are going to test for...
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Jan 31, 2012
I still remember the opening statement of the professor on that first day of Philosophy class in college:

"Philosophy is an exact science".

As a junior year engineering student, I almost fell out of my chair at that statement. He went on a rant (at least that's the way it sounded to me) why his professorship as head of the Philosophy Dept made him a "scientist", but we could never discern from his long list of degrees if he had even had a college level algebra course.


Could it be that since you were a student unknowledgable of philosophy that you misapprehended the Ph.D speaking to you?

A professor of philosophy is unlikely not to know about the principals of scientific method, and what differentiates philosophy from science.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2012
You offer roger penrose who seems to think 'consciousness' is something otherworldly.
Penrose thinks consciousness is a result of quantum effects. This world not another. And so far his ideas for the source of the quantum effects have not fit the evidence.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (17) Feb 01, 2012
" Marvin Minsky...was particularly critical, stating that Penrose "tries to show, in chapter after chapter, that human thought cannot be based on any known scientific principle." Minsky's position is exactly the opposite - he believes that humans are, in fact, machines, whose functioning, although complex, is fully explainable by current physics."

Penrose: "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance"

"The most compelling argument for the existence of consciousness is that the vast majority of mankind have an overwhelming intuition that there truly is such a thing. Skeptics argue that this intuition, in spite of its compelling quality, is false, either because the concept of consciousness is intrinsically incoherent, or because our intuitions about it are based in illusions."

-I'm one of those skeptics who thinks that consciousness is the same sort of Wünschtraum as the soul which would also require new physics, yes?
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 01, 2012
I've seen knats take a straighter path then the conversation here.

@GhostofOtto, A soul has spiritual connotations while consciousness does not, it has a real meaning; self-awareness. No one knows how to explain it, but obviously it is a real thing, that should be explainable by discoverable laws of physics. Whether this will involve the quantum realm, or some new yet undiscovered laws remains to be seen. What is certain is that the old outdated idea that algorithms as currently understood, will never magically manifest an actual consciousness, and merely represents profound nievete on the part of such AI enthusiasts. It will require real understanding, modeling what the mind does,.. not just starting an app and crossing fingers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (17) Feb 02, 2012
@GhostofOtto, A soul has spiritual connotations while consciousness does not
I say the origins of the need for either are the same and both are exploited in similar fashion by Religionists and philo-Religionists.
it has a real meaning; self-awareness.
You must realize that you guys want to make it FAR more complicated than that, and have.
No one knows how to explain it, but obviously it is a real thing
Yah and if you take off your rosy glasses and do a little research you see a preponderance of opinion that it is an ILLUSION borne of wishful thinking and egocentricity. It cannot be anything else than the sum total of physical processes available to the human brain and the senses. It is a mechanical thing. It cannot be anything else and we need no new meta-physics to explain it. Minsky is right.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2012
"Philosophy is an exact science".

Only in the way that it tries very hard to rigidly define its terminology and methodology.

The problem of philosophy is not a lack of rigor in execution - it's a lack of rigor in its context (sometimes even a total lack of context).
You can be very exact if you have a rigorously defined context WITHIN which you work (e.g. maths with a rigidly defined set of axioms). But philosophy often has no context at all (e.g. when talking about existence, truth, knowledge, etc.) or a very subjectively/ambiguously defined context (e.g. social philosophy). In both cases even rigorously executed deductions contain no objective information.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (18) Feb 02, 2012
Penrose sees mystery in how humans think and believes this is an indication of qualities unique to our brains? He ignores their flawed haphazard nature due to the FACT that our brains have been pushed to evolve far beyond the capacities of their natural structural limitations.

They don't work well at all. Our memories are unreliable, our thoughts are plagued with misperceptions and intermittent concentration, and we are prone to fault from disease, metabolic fluctuations, hormonal urges, age, genetic defect, etcetc.

The fact that this all makes our thinking processes hard to assess does not mean they are superior in any way. This is why we are trying so hard to create machines to REPLACE them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (18) Feb 02, 2012
The problem of philosophy is not a lack of rigor in execution - it's a lack of rigor in its context (sometimes even a total lack of context).
THIS is a major problem and indicates the root:

"[Others] note that my 'avoidance of the standard philosophical terminology for discussing such matters' often creates problems for me; philosophers have a hard time figuring out what I am saying and what I am denying. My refusal to play ball with my colleagues is deliberate, of course, since I view the standard philosophical terminology as worse than useless a major obstacle to progress since it consists of so many errors."
Daniel Dennett, The Message is: There is no Medium

-Philosophy is not a discipline. Dennett is not the first, and he himself is off chasing gooses with his philosophy of the mind nonsense. There was even a philo 'ism' which sought to replace all the nonsense philo terms with normal words. It failed - too revealing? They uncovered a naked emperor perhaps?
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 02, 2012
It cannot be anything else than the sum total of physical processes available to the human brain and the senses. It is a mechanical thing. It cannot be anything else and we need no new meta-physics to explain it. - Otto


Obviously. I never said other wise, nor has Penrose. I just stated "it is a real thing, that should be explainable by discoverable laws of physics.". I never invoked metaphysics here, so what are you talking about.

It's rather astonishing that someone with zero knowledge of a subject feels compelled none the less to assert that that subject is "not a discipline" or is invalid in anyway.

Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (17) Feb 02, 2012
As I said multiple times, it doesn't matter that you can find a few people to quote saying philosophy is dead or is invalid,.. all I have to do is demonstrate that it exists as a matter of fact and is pursued by some physicists and mathematicians, to prove it is a legitimate field of study.

You simply do not understand what philosophy is.

http://en.wikiped...ki/Logic

http://en.wikiped...ilosophy

http://en.wikiped...ilosophy_of_physics

http://en.wikiped...ilosophy_of_mathematics

No one is saying that it can replace mathematics or physics. You make up such nonsense and then commence to argue about it.
Cynical1
4 / 5 (4) Feb 03, 2012
Penrose sees mystery in how humans think and believes this is an indication of qualities unique to our brains? He ignores their flawed haphazard nature due to the FACT that our brains have been pushed to evolve far beyond the capacities of their natural structural limitations.


The "flaws" are what drive the system (evolution). We might do well to focus on the prefection of the system vs. what is being produced by the system.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (19) Feb 04, 2012
I never invoked metaphysics here, so what
Minski seems to think that penrose is full of metapoop. Funny how you attack me for their obviously extremely qualified opinions?
It's rather astonishing that someone with zero knowledge of a subject feels compelled none the less to assert that that subject is "not a discipline" or is invalid in anyway.
Rather astonishing how someone with zero objectivity could say that? Youre not even objective enough to acknowledge the superior opinions of pros who I source, nor the obvious flaws in your 'discipline' which they point out.

"Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner ... the object of this idea", but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good"."

His apologetics taint ALL of his work and render it suspect.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (18) Feb 04, 2012
-That and the fact that it is indecipherable. Just think - some day soon a computer will exist which can analyze the critique of pure reason by tracing all the spaghetti words and meatball concepts back to their roots, figuring out EXACTLY what they mean or if they mean anything at all, and tell us conclusively whether it contains any coherent thought at all, or if it simply needs a little more oregano.

I think it will confirm that the whole concoction is inedible and of no nutritional value whatsoever. But due to the talents of food stylists through the ages, it still LOOKS very tasty.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (18) Feb 04, 2012
that it exists as a matter of fact and is pursued by some physicists and mathematicians, to prove it is a legitimate field of study.
Some physicists and mathematicians pursue beliefs in sky fairies and their earthly extensions. Does this make sky fairies any more real? Of course not. Does this make philo any more useful in the work of scientists? Of course not. I say it quite possibly hinders it by sidetracking them and wasting their resources.

Of course you would have to provide specific examples, perhaps at least testimony from named scientists and we could go from there. Or we could just settle for this quote:

"...philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."

-as well as all the many many others I have posted, and get on with more important things.
Henrik
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2012
Of course you would have to provide specific examples


There is actually a resurgence in the use of philosophy and science in Christian apologetics. Well know scholars like Alvin Platinga, Richard Swinburne, John Polkinhorne, Alistar McGrath, William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Robert Spitzer, Gary Habermas, Freeman Dyson and many others defend the Christian faith from a scholarly perspective.

Precisely the latest insights of physics, biology and cosmoloy have reignited a fresh debate on the role science and religion. Most of the above mentioned scholars have debated well know atheists like for instance Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and former atheist Flew.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 05, 2012
Some physicists and mathematicians pursue beliefs in sky fairies and their earthly extensions. Does this make sky fairies any more real? Of course not. Does this make philo any more useful in the work of scientists?


You really appear to have problems with logic, so maybe you should study philosophy;

Again, all I have to do is demonstrate that 'philosophy of physics' and 'philosophy of mathematics' exists as a matter FACT and is pursued by SOME Physicists and Mathematicians, in order to defeat your stupid notion that philosophy is an invalid subject of study. Obviously, if some physicist think it important, it is not a dead subject.

You, quoting a few physicists who think otherwise does not negate all other physicists and mathematicians.

...
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 05, 2012
Albert Einstein was deeply interested in philosophy his entire life, to such an extent that he wrote reviews and introductions to/of philosophical works; on the relation of epistemology (and Kant) to his ideas, on Plato, on Lucretius, on Bertrand Russell's theory of knowledge, on Émile Meyerson's epistemology, forwards to philosophical works by Max Planck and Philipp Frank and on and on. When Einstein famously debated Niels Bohr, he was engaging in philosophy of physics.

See this wiki paragraph on Einstein on the importance of the philosophy of physics;

http://en.wikiped..._physics

...
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 05, 2012
A short list of physicists and mathematicians who were also philosophers, and/or who wrote and/or lectured on epistemology, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of physics, or philosophy in general.

Niels Bohr [1]
Albert Einstein
Abraham Pais [2], [3]
Werner Heisenberg [4], [5]
Ernst Mach [16]
Max Planck [18]
Bertrand Russell [6]
Ludwig Wittgenstein [7], [8]
Alfred North Whitehead [9]
Kurt Gödel [10]
Roger Penrose
Georg Cantor
Edmund Husserl
Henri Poincaré [17]
David Hilbert
Philipp Frank [20]
Arthur Eddington [19]
Louis de Broglie
James Hopwood Jeans [11]
Hermann Weyl [12]
Erwin Schrödinger [13]
Eugene Wigner [14]
Wolfgang Pauli [15]

...
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (15) Feb 05, 2012
[1] The Philosophical Writings of Niels Bohr, 3 vols

[2] Niels Bohr's Times,: In Physics, Philosophy, and Polity

[3] Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein

[4] Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science

[5] Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics

[6] The Problems of Philosophy

[7] Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

[8] Philosophical Investigations

[9] Process and Reality

[10] Gödel: Unpublished Philosophical Essays

[11] Physics and Philosophy

[12] Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science

[13] What Is Life and Mind and Matter

[14] Philosophical Reflections and Syntheses

[15] Writings on Physics and Philosophy

[16] http://en.wikiped..._science

[17] http://en.wikiped...ilosophy

[18] http://en.wikiped...x_Planck

[19] http://en.wikiped...ilosophy

[20] http://en.wikiped...pp_Frank
Henrik
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2012
Impressive and decisive responses. The idea that physics somehow could dwell in a self-imposed metaphyisical vacuum is just ridiculous.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 05, 2012
No matter how logical and factual my response and absurd his position, GhostOfOtto will never concede anything, ever. His arrogance is founded on ignorance.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 05, 2012
GhostOfOtto posts; "...philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics."[ - Stephen Hawking]


In the very same book in which Hawking makes the above statement, he goes on to say,...

"Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others" - Stephen Hawking.

Here we see Hawking speaking of philosophy of science and a philosopher. [Popper was not actually a positivist, but I let that slide].
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 05, 2012
And again in the same book,....

"There is no way to remove the observer us from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains. - Stephen Hawking

This is in fact, philosophical epistemology, and the very Kantian analysis of the phenomena of experience which I cite in order to support scientific [logical] positivism, and as against scientific realism. This is very similar to Niels Bohrs position wrt qm, and is also very similar to that aspect of Kant which I have posted of. Immanuel Kant arrived at this conclusion through philosophical considerations way back in 1790! Whether Hawking is aware of this or not, is irrelevent, but it is clear that he is engaging in philosophy here.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 05, 2012
,...
I have not read Hawking book, "The Grand Design" where apparently GhostOfOtto got the above "Philosophy is dead" quote, ...but given the above additional quotes,... I suspect it is quite out of context.

Hawking probably was contrasting OLD philosophy of ages ago, with modern science,. i.e Rene Descartes notion of philosophy as a source of knowledge.

I have shown that Hawking has engaged in philosophy of physics, and epistemology.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (18) Feb 05, 2012
Obviously, if some physicist think it important, it is not a dead subject.
Physicists, like any other human, can be interested in all sorts of nonsense. Philosophy is just one of them.
You, quoting a few physicists who think otherwise does not negate all other physicists and mathematicians.
But ALL other physicists and mathematicians do not embrace philopap. In fact very few do, re its use as a standing joke.
Albert Einstein was deeply interested in philosophy his entire life
Yah we went through this in a previous thread. Einstein explored philo in his youth and abandoned it when it failed to produce anything he could use. Whether he endorsed books for colleagues and fellow academes and media whores during his career is understandable.
I have shown that Hawking has engaged in philosophy of physics, and epistemology.
-According to YOUR definition of what he was engaged in, not HIS. I have shown that Hawking thinks philo is worthless because thats what he SAYS.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (18) Feb 05, 2012
You have failed to address this most embarrassing of disclosures:

"Kant stated the practical necessity for a belief in God in his Critique of Practical Reason. As an idea of pure reason, "we do not have the slightest ground to assume in an absolute manner ... the object of this idea", but adds that the idea of God cannot be separated from the relation of happiness with morality as the "ideal of the supreme good"."

Kant obviously preferred superstition to reason, despite what he named his books. One cannot accept ANY of his flummery as valid in light of his endorsement of voodoo and the effect this may have had on his thinking.

Was he only sucking up to the establishment in spots? Perhaps. But just how much of his work is similar such suckuppery? Who was he trying to impress? Der Bischoff vielleicht?

Was he in fact engaged in selling euroxian superiority to the world to justify imperialism re manifest destiny and the nationalist fueled conflicts to follow?

Of course he was.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (20) Feb 05, 2012
Because Kant, like the lot of them, were Propagandists of the highest sort, CREATING sociopolitical reality rather than trying to discover the nature of it. His works were every bit as phoney as the piltdown man; and were created for identical reasons. Eurocentricity.

Euros are so smart that no one can understand Kant but them, let alone write such stuff. Ever read goethe? Shakespeare??? Rob Reiner wrote more sophisticated stuff and whats more, you could understand it.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 05, 2012
I never referenced 'A Critique of Practical Reason', nor have I said I agree with everything he ever wrote. Irrelevant.

One cannot accept ANY of his flummery as valid in light of his endorsement of voodoo and the effect this may have had on his thinking.


Apparently, you know zero about Kant or his epistemology. Kant showed [in 'A Critique of pure Reason'] that metaphysics CANNOT be a source of knowledge,... so clearly, his belief in god didn't effect that conclusion.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 05, 2012
I have shown that Hawking has engaged in philosophy of physics, and epistemology. - Noumenon


-According to YOUR definition of what he was engaged in, not HIS. - GhostOfOtto


No, according to the established FACT and the definition of philosophy of physics and epistemology. Hawking spoke of philosophy of science by speaking of positivism and even made reference to the work of a pure philosopher, ...non-physicist non-mathematician philosopher. Those statements were not equations, they were words, philosophical words. This is a fact. According to you claim, he would have to have been ignorant of the fact he was speaking in philosophical terms. BS.

I have shown that Hawking thinks philo is worthless because thats what he SAYS. - TheGhostofOtto1923


Given the above quotes that I have provided I no longer believe that you have reproduced the context of that quote properly, as I pointed out in a previous post, you would end up doing.

Done.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 05, 2012
You may speak to me about philosophy in one year, after you have read 'A Critique of pure Reason' and understood it, other wise do not attempt further debates about Kant with me.
Ethelred
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2012
He can do what he wants and that post shows that you don't crap about debate. He need not read Kant to debate you anything because of your rather blatant attempt to put a boundary of YOU deciding what 'understanding' is.

And I suspect that demand is based on an erroneous assumption that YOU understand it. Did you read it in the original language and do you think it if you did? And of course there is the strong possibility of a false dichotomy there. It may be there really isn't anything to understand it. The title itself is a rather big giveaway that it is self contradictory. Your statements on it show a major contradiction.

How many experiments did Kant perform to test his thesis?
You claim to have gained knowledge from a book that says it can't be done by pure reason, have YOU performed any experiments to test that?

Given that 1 1=2 and implies 3 how is that NOT gaining by pure reason?

Ethelred
Cynical1
not rated yet Feb 06, 2012
Have any of you actually read the Andrulis paper? All I can say is - wow, wow, wow... And I'm not even sure he is legit in his intention...
It puts entanglement in quite a different light...
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 06, 2012
@Ethelre, what are you talking about? GhostOfOtto, is not making arguments against Kant. He is just arguing against the validity of philosophy in general, not even himself, but through other people he quotes of the Internet. I've been through this non-sense with him over and over. Even in the quantum thread I said just speak about physics and even asked a specific question, but no, he kept with the anti-philo non-sense.
Cynical1
4 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2012
Even in the quantum thread I said just speak about physics and even asked a specific question, but no, he kept with the anti-philo non-sense.


I guess that's his philosophy...
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 06, 2012
He need not read Kant to debate you anything because of your rather blatant attempt to put a boundary of YOU deciding what 'understanding' is.


LOL, reading Kant is a prerequisite to debating him, not a boundary. GhostOfOtto mistakes the Internet is his knowledge. I'm no debating a person who relies on 2nd hand out of context quotes. Also, his position that philosophy is pointless or meaningless is absurd; I already demonstrated above that it isn't and is relievent to physics. Did you only read this last page?
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 06, 2012
And I suspect that demand is based on an erroneous assumption that YOU understand it. Did you read it in the original language and do you think it if you did? And of course there is the strong possibility of a false dichotomy there. It may be there really isn't anything to understand it. The title itself is a rather big giveaway that it is self contradictory. Your statements on it show a major contradiction.


Really?, you "suspect", and there "is a possibility", and "it may be", and you rely on the title. Clearly you are not in a position to argue for or against either, not are you in a position to question whether I've read Kant. I've attempted to explain it numerous time here and at the forum. I have only seen one poster who understood it fully.

I'm not interested in debating whether philo is valid or not as a subject. If you or Otto have arguments against some post I made, then argue against that, anti-philo is not an argument.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 06, 2012
In the following thread about Smolins book, I and another poster independent come to the same use of Kant. This is an example of the relevance to physics.

http://www.physor...877.html

My use of Kant supports scientific positivism and is an argument against scientific realism.

I provided a quote above of S. Hawking who makes a very similar argument. Any one who is familiar with philosophy can't help but to draw the similarities.

I have provided a list of physicists and mathematicians that have written on philosophy of physics or philosophy of mathematics above,.. but ghostofOtto/Ethelred still wants to make the same foolish arguments.

Again, I've never said that physics advances because of philosophical analysis,... although Einstein was in a quagmire over philosophical issues.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 06, 2012
,.. Now to be fair, in the above thread I was able to get a response from Smolin via email. He said he majored in philosophy and didn't agree with Kant, even though he never said why,.. and also he didn't appreciate Hyperion's tone. I can respect disagreement if the guy says he was familiar with Kant, even though he provided no counter argument. But, I can't respect someone who has never studied a subject but desires to proclaim that subject invalid anyway. It's not like philosophy is akin to religion.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (18) Feb 06, 2012
Erhelred, try reading the thread before commenting.

GhostofOtto quoted Hawking as saying "philo is dead".

Above, I have quoted Hawking citing a philosopher in support of positivism,... this is the exact reason for me citing a philosopher, Kant,.. in support of the same thing, positivism. Yet he ignores this fact and continues his pointless arguments.

Further, I listed several physicists and mathematicians who have written on philosophy of mathematics and Philosophy of physics, Yet he ignores this fact and continues his pointless arguments.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (19) Feb 06, 2012
metaphysics CANNOT be a source of knowledge,... so clearly, his belief in god didn't effect that conclusion.
And yet it can have a significant influence on his judgement, when he says that faith is more important than reason, and that god is the logical source of goodness and morality.

OF COURSE it affected his conclusions. Even to the extent of contradicting himself. Or perhaps you are just misinterpreting what he said? This is understandable.
Above, I have quoted Hawking citing a philosopher in support of positivism,...
Hmmm... Perhaps you are right. Without doing further research I am assuming that it is possible that hawking, like einstein, fiddled with philosophy for awhile and, having found nothing useful in it, THEN declared that it was dead. Because this is what he SAID, in his latest book. This makes sense to me.

After all theyre both explorers and can be expected to decide these things for themselves. Yes?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (19) Feb 06, 2012
And your nice list of scientists? who may have said this or that, isnt really the same as my various quotes and youtube vids of preeminent scientists declaring their rejection of your little hobby.

Try a little harder.
I and another poster independent come to the same use of Kant. This is an example of the relevance to physics.
No actually this is most likely 2 cases of rubes being deceived in similar fashion. Millions of xians are similarly deceived you know. People are easy to deceive; you just tell them what they want to hear.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (18) Feb 06, 2012
You may speak to me about philosophy in one year, after you have read 'A Critique of pure Reason' and understood it, other wise do not attempt further debates about Kant with me.
-Or I could just pretend to understand it and memorize a few choice quotes like you aficionados do?

"Kant gives two expositions of space and time: metaphysical and transcendental. The metaphysical expositions of space and time are concerned with clarifying how those intuitions are known independently of experience. The transcendental expositions attempt to show how the metaphysical conclusions might be applied to enrich our understanding."

The ONLY WAY to enrich our understanding of space and time is SCIENTIFICALLY. Scientists who have rejected kants obvious BULLSHIT have made great strides in this understanding whereas kant DID NOT. Which is what hawking was saying.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (17) Feb 06, 2012
How many experiments did Kant perform to test his thesis?

I am guessing innumerable thought experiments.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 06, 2012
The quote that I provided where Hawking cited a philosopher in support of scientific positivism, the same bloody thing that I cited Kant for,... was from the same recent book that you got the "philo is dead" quote from.

This is why I stated above that I don't believe the context of that quote is known by us. He may have meant wrt Descartes or a Leibniz type philosophy where it was presumed that new things about reality could be obtained through pure philosophy. That is old philosophy. Modern philo wrt science deals with interpretations of what a given theory is saying about our knowledge of reality,.. and every physicist dealing with qm or cosmology partake in some philosophical speculation at some point.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 06, 2012
And your nice list of scientists? who may have said this or that, isnt really the same as my various quotes and youtube vids of preeminent scientists declaring their rejection of your little hobby.


What!? The list I gave wrote books on philosophy of physics and philosophy of mathematics and they were all preeminent scientists. It's clear at this point you're just trolling..
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 06, 2012
The ONLY WAY to enrich our understanding of space and time is SCIENTIFICALLY. Scientists who have rejected kants obvious BULLSHIT have made great strides in this understanding whereas kant DID NOT. Which is what hawking was saying.


Here is Hawking quote again,...

""There is no way to remove the observer us from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing and through the way we think and reason. Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains. - Stephen Hawking"

Science cannot discover space and time as independent entities. These concepts can only be applied as a conceptual structure in which to order experience. This is what Hawking is saying above except he uses the phrase 'interpretive structure' while I say 'conceptual structure'. This is in essence Immanuel Kant.

You're the type who will never admit they're wrong.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 06, 2012
So to summarize;

A) I provided a list of top physicist and mathematicians who were also renowned philosophers and or who wrote books on Philosophy of Physics or Philosophy of Mathematics, and even provided reference titles, thus proving that philosophy is relevant to science.

B) I provided a quote from Hawkings book that not only demonstrates that He cited a philosopher and thus must think they are useful, but also for the same reason that I did,.. and further I provide a quote from that same book, showing Hawking speaking Kantian, nearly the same positivist philosophy which you have condemned me for,... and he's 'your guy'!!!

You will continue to argue despite these facts because you have no intellectual integrity or honesty.

I've studied philosophy and read Kant multiple times and own many philosophy books, but am more interested in physics. You're not even close to being qualified to question what I know, but I know that won't stop you.
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 06, 2012
And your nice list of scientists? who may have said this or that, isnt really the same as my various quotes and youtube vids of preeminent scientists declaring their rejection of your little hobby


I can't believe I have to explain this to you for the third time.

Your contention is that philo is dead amongst scientists. All I have to do is show that SOME physicist & mathematicians of top calibre write about philosophy, to disprove you.

It's not enough that YOU can show that SOME physicist think its nonsense, to support your idiotic claim,.. because clearly I can provide a counter list of like eminent people.
antialias_physorg
Feb 06, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (21) Feb 06, 2012
Science cannot discover space and time as independent entities.
You are implying that our perceptions have some effect on what we are perceiving. What we are perceiving do not change whether we are perceiving them or not. Hawking is talking about modeling what we perceive in the context which you ignore. We can choose how we model...

What am I talking about? Youre saying he was discussing PHILOSOPHY?? This is science. Modeling is SCIENCE not kantian pasta. Modeling is secondary reproduction of immutable phenomena whether micro or macro, and which would be there whether we modeled it or not. No meta involved.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (21) Feb 06, 2012
A) I provided a list of top physicist and mathematicians who were also renowned philosophers and or who wrote books on Philosophy of Physics or Philosophy of Mathematics, and even provided reference titles, thus proving that philosophy is relevant to science.
Proof only exists in math. You have the opinions of some (hasbeen?) hacks who are trying to remain relevant and earn a living by 'alternative' means. And can we discern from reading these books which are actual science and which are only musings and idle speculation? You have NOT demonstrated HOW these novelists have been relevant when they were doing philosophy instead of science, and cannot do so.

Sagan did a nice NOVA series and wrote some science fiction. Did this change the course of science or affect it in any way whatsoever? NO.
Popper. Put science on a solid footing. End of argument.
Yeah by doing SCIENCE and not philosophy. There is a clear division. One works and one does not. End of argument.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (21) Feb 06, 2012
"Kant gives two expositions of space and time: metaphysical and transcendental. The metaphysical expositions of space and time are concerned with clarifying how those intuitions are known independently of experience.
There IS no 'intuition' independent of experience. And if there were, kant is here claiming that the metaphysical CAN provide knowledge, in direct contradiction to your claims of what he said.
The transcendental expositions attempt to show how the metaphysical conclusions might be applied to enrich our understanding."
Enrich our understanding. That is, to provide us with information from the netherworld, from beyond the pale, from the land of angels and demons and lawn gnomes that come alive at night and dance around in the dark.

We know better now dont we? We know that morality is biological. That the physical is all there is. And that science is the only way to ever learn anything about it. Only science informs.
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2012
@Ethelre, what are you talking about?
Your post.

GhostOfOtto, is not making arguments against Kant
I was not responding to Otto.

validity of philosophy in general,
Good.

I've been through this non-sense with him over and over.
So why do you still quote Kant?

he kept with the anti-philo non-sense.
Sorry but it isn't nonsense. Kant is. You can't prove there is nothing to be learned by any particular methods when you use those methods to prove it. That would be learning something and thus a contradiction.

LOL, reading Kant is a prerequisite to debating him, not a boundary.
No. You insist that he understand the crap and YOU are clearly setting as the arbiter of his understanding. So if he notices that crap is crap you will pretend he did not understand.>>
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2012
Also, his position that philosophy is pointless or meaningless is absurd; I already demonstrated above that it isn't and is relievent to physics.
That is your fantasy. You showed that Penrose had a fantasy. You just failed to understand the Penrose was wrong. Just as he was wrong about other things in the human mind. He is brilliant but that does not make him right all the time.

I made a specific reply to an inaccurate post. There is no need to read all the irrelevant nonsense that preceded it. That is like claiming that Genesis 1 and 2 somehow don't contradict each other because of something that might have been said elsewhere.

Really?, you "suspect", and there "is a possibility", and "it may be", and you rely on the title.
No.

not are you in a position to question whether I've read Kant.
Sure I am. You are the one pretending to be the expert.

Did you read it in the original language? That post was evasion and nothing else.>>
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2012
I've attempted to explain it numerous time here and at the forum.
So then you do think you are an expert.

. I have only seen one poster who understood it fully.
By your standards. Which is what I said you were going to insist on with Otto.

Did you read it in the original language? If not then YOU have it second hand.

Your evasion of the question makes it clear that you only have it second hand.

I'm not interested in debating whether philo is valid or not as a subject.
Then why do you keep doing it?

If you or Otto have arguments against some post I made, then argue against that, anti-philo is not an argument.
I did. You evaded what I asked.

Did you read it in the original language?

Does Kant or does Kant not claim that you can't get knowledge from metaphysics and did he or did not use metaphysics (philosophy) to reach that conclusion?

If he did then he contradicted himself by gaining knowledge from metaphysics.>>
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2012
If you don't answer the questions it is clear you are unable or unwilling to do so.

My use of Kant supports scientific positivism and is an argument against scientific realism.
That is what you think. And it looks just bit contradictory. Science either deal with reality or it doesn't. You are trying to have it both ways.

I have provided a list of physicists and mathematicians that have written on philosophy of physics or philosophy of mathematics above,
I don't really care if they have sullied their arguments with nonsense.

I have provided a list of physicists and mathematicians that have written on philosophy of physics or philosophy of mathematics above,
I am not Otto and your attempts to evade my valid question by pretending that I am anyone else it not going to fly here.

Again, I've never said that physics advances because of philosophical analysis
Yes you have. You made the claim with Heisenberg.>>
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2012
although Einstein was in a quagmire over philosophical issues.
He went down the wrong track partly because he only was using two forces and partly because he didn't like the Uncertainty Principle.

. He said he majored in philosophy and didn't agree with Kant
Yes Smolin seems to have his head on his shoulders. Sure wasted a lot of time with that major.

It's not like philosophy is akin to religion.
It is in your hands.

Erhelred, try reading the thread before commenting.
Try replying to my post instead of evading it. I don't care what Otto said. Thus I don't care about you replies to him. I was pointing out that you have a self contradiction and you evaded that.

And the rest of post was the same a previous one.

Yet he ignores this fact and continues his pointless arguments.
Fine. You are trying to be pointless yourself. Did you read the original language?>>
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2012
where it was presumed that new things about reality could be obtained through pure philosophy.
New ideas that need to be tested can be found by pure logic and math. But they must be tested.

That is old philosophy.
To bad for modern philosophy. The Natural Philosophers learned that logic CAN produce new ideas but they have to be tested to find out if they apply to this universe.

Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains. - Stephen Hawking"
Which why we TEST. And do more tests with different methods. It doesn't matter how are brains shape the knowledge if we test it against reality.

Science cannot discover space and time as independent entities.
Of course not. They are not independent. It is SPACE-TIME.>>
Ethelred
3 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2012
These concepts can only be applied as a conceptual structure in which to order experience.
Horseshit. The math produces results that fit the tests which are a measurement of reality.

This is in essence Immanuel Kant.
Except he didn't even try to test. Hawking can be tested.

And Orac is still a lying cowardly no guts troll ranker and his whining that I might be counteracting his trolling is seriously hypocritical.

Everyone should counterattack sockpuppets.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2012
Popper. Put science on a solid footing. End of argument.
Popper is wrong. It is possible for a theory to be correct and not be falsifiable. Popper was engaged in wishful thinking on that.

And Orac is still a lying cowardly no guts troll ranker and his whining that I might be counteracting his trolling is seriously hypocritical.

Everyone should counterattack sockpuppets.

Ethelred
StarGazer2011
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2012
Ethelred: 'It is possible for a theory to be correct and not be falsifiable. '
Logically its possible, but its not useful.
Without falsification you cant tell if you have an actual predictive explainatory theory or if you have a curve fitting back tested 'just so story'.
Falsification also provides a method for determining between two competing isomorphic theories.
Post normalism (i.e the abandonment of falsfication) is not science, its politics.
And Orac is a sockpuppet, he ranks me down too and has never, ever, posted a comment.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (16) Feb 07, 2012
Did you read it in the original language? If not then YOU have it second hand.

Your evasion of the question makes it clear that you only have it second hand.


I evade questions that I think are pointless. But sense you seem to think it's relevant I'll answer it, even though why such a question should be relevant to someone who has never studied Kant, is beyond me.

I own a translation of Kant's Critique which is regarded as one of the best in English, and which also contains the original in German, but I don't read German. Also, I have other sources, for example F. Coppleston's nine volume history regarded as the "best written in English".
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2012
Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains. - Stephen Hawking"

Which why we TEST. And do more tests with different methods. It doesn't matter how are brains shape the knowledge if we test it against reality.


You don't understand what Hawking is saying, nor Bohr's point, nor what i've been saying when mentioning Kant as a reference in saying the same thing quoted from Hawking's book above. This is why it is frustrating arguing with you two knuckleheads, your not willing to attempt to learn anything, ... you interject irrelevancy and end up missing the point.
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2012
Logically its possible, but its not useful.
That doesn't matter. It means that Popper's idea is not valid.

Without falsification you cant tell if you have an actual predictive explanatory theory or if you have a curve fitting back tested 'just so story'.
Tell me something I don't know. It still isn't an adequate objection to a theory.

Falsification also provides a method for determining
If the tests can be done. And it still won't disqualify a theory the can't be falsified.

Post normalism (i.e the abandonment of falsfication) is not science, its politics.
No. It is the acceptance of reality. To give an well know example String theory allegedly cannot be falsified. So far it can't be completed mathematically either.

I have no expectation of there being a TOE that can be falsified. Since I suspect that ours is only one of many possible Universes there can be no Popper certified TOE except WRONG TOEs.

Orac is a sockpuppet,
Of course.

Ethelred
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2012
It doesn't matter how are brains shape the knowledge if we test it against reality.


"testing" does not alleviate the issue Hawking is speaking about here, so is irrelevent to his point. In fact no one* is saying that physics can't progress despite the above statement by Hawking or my use of Kant, so your response misses the point and adds irrelevancy.

Our knowledge of reality is "dressed" up, unavoidably, in a conceptual structure that is not discovered in reality apart from us, but is instead already present in us as a given functionality of the mind,... that is, as a-priori intuitions of the mind, ... or a-priori faculaties of the mind,...or the "mechanics" of the mind in how it processes sense experience (I've said it in many different ways).

It is unavoidable, as Hawking said, and as Kant has said. What we can ever know about reality must be in the form of these a-priori intuitions,... the act of conceptualizing reality changes the form of how reality IS apart from us.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2012
,... Why does this matter? Because it is why Feynman said "no one understands qm". It has implications for qm wrt interpretations, and observations. At some point, (the qm realm) our built in intuitions can no longer provide a rationally consistent picture of reality; we cannot have an intuitive understanding of qm.

Science can progress of course by giving up this natural desire, as long as one learns this lesson and realizes that some concepts like space and time (or space-time) come from us, and are not in fact discovered entities existing independently of us. Obviously such assumptions break down in qm, as well as causality. But Hawking may not go this far.

I should mention that Kant could not conceive of science being able to progress without an intuitive understanding possible, but this is where I break from him. I don't expect him to know this is 1790.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2012
To respond to the charge that I'm using metaphysics,..

That aspect of Kant's transcendental deduction that I make use of is an epistemology, a philosophy of knowledge, his a-priori synthetic propositions,.. or "innate knowledge" (not in the old philo sense),... so this in principal is knowable by definition and is not metaphysics as such.

Kant wrote on metaphysics of course. I do not use his philosophy for the same reason he did nor do I even accept most of his philosophy. Knowing Kant, I simply point out that the Bohr core argument is in fact a physical rediscovery of Kant,... and the reason qm is strange is due to epistemological reasons first analyzed by Kant.
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2012
I own a translation of Kant's Critique which is regarded as one of the best in English, and which also contains the original in German, but I don't read German.
So the answer is no. Then you have only read it second hand and that is accuse others of.

Also, I have other sources, for example F. Coppleston's nine volume history regarded as the "best written in English".
How condescending and still second hand.

You don't understand what Hawking is saying, nor Bohr's point, nor what i've been saying when mentioning Kant as a reference
False. That is YOU doing EXACTLY what I said you would do to Otto. If we don't suck up to your ideas we will be accused of not understanding.

I FULLY COMPREHEND THE CLAIM that our language and senses and minds effect how we see things. YOU DO NOT COMPREHEND that is why we use MATH and INSTRUMENTS.>>
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 07, 2012
If a theory cannot be falsified in principal it is not a science. String theory is a science because in principal it might be able to be tested.

Scientific Realism is believing in things unobservable, equating mathematical constructs with the reality itself despite not being observable in that form.

Scientific Positivism is limiting knowledge of reality to only observable entities, i.e. the waveform is not a thing in itself.
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2012
Math allows us to to look at things in ways the human mind cannot do on its own. We can not discern 4D space yet we can deal with the math just fine. You refuse to acknowledge this.

Time after you ignore that reality. You insist only YOU understand what I clearly understand at least as you.

This is why it is frustrating arguing with you two knuckleheads,
The reason you are frustrated is because you are wrong.

your not willing to attempt to learn anything,
Lie. I already understand your point and refuse to accept that. I disagree with the substance of your idea and have given good reason for doing so. I have done it before just as well and every time you refuse to get your head out of Kant's ass.

you interject irrelevancy and end up missing the point.
There was no irrelevancy and if you think you can others of going on second information when you are doing that yourself you are completely oblivious. YOU are the one that has refused to see MY point.>>
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 07, 2012
I FULLY COMPREHEND THE CLAIM that our language and senses and minds effect how we see things. YOU DO NOT COMPREHEND that is why we use MATH and INSTRUMENTS.>>


You don't 'listen'. Using "MATH and INSTRUMENTS" has NO BEARING on the above, none, not relavent, nor does it fix the problem about how a-priori intuitions effect out understanding of reality as outlined above. It was already presupposed that math and observations are used. Yes, science progresses despite the above, as I've stated,.. but effects our understanding no less.
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2012
"testing" does not alleviate the issue Hawking is speaking about here, so is irrelevent to his point
It obviates YOUR point.

so your response misses the point and adds irrelevancy
That word does not mean what you seem to think it means.

"mechanics" of the mind in how it processes sense experience (I've said it in many different ways
And they are all irrelevant to my point that we can and do take that into account by using math and tests with instruments that are not limited to what humans can discern.

It is unavoidable, as Hawking said, and as Kant has said
Since we can and do avoid it then they are wrong or least your interpretation of what they said is wrong.

What we can ever know about reality must be in the form of these a-priori intuitions
False. We can and do use math. We can and do use instruments. We can and DO change our minds. A-priori is what YOU are stuck in. I am not limited to YOUR pigheaded insistence that YOU are stuck in the past.>>
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2012
Ass-priori is your problem. I can change my mind. You insist it can't be done.

the act of conceptualizing reality changes the form of how reality IS apart from us.
Horse manure. Reality is what it is no matter what we think. What we think CHANGES as we learn new things. Well I LEARN. I can't help it if you refuse to do so.

We have been over that multiple times and NOT once have you noticed that I understand what you say and simply disagree that it is some kind of permanent unavoidable limit for the simple reason that it isn't. Your insistence that I don't understand something I clearly do is YOUR Head-In-Kant's Ass-Priori pigheadedness.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2012
Why does this matter? Because it is why Feynman said "no one understands qm
That is because he used the Copenhagen Misinterpretation of reality. Few do anymore.

we cannot have an intuitive understanding of qm
Yet we can handle it with math and instruments exactly as you say we cannot. In fact, all the math is wave based. Nothing impossible to understand even if it is counterintuitive.

, as long as one learns this lesson and realizes that some concepts like space and time (or space-time) come from us
Except that math based on Space-Time actually works so why give it up.

and are not in fact discovered entities existing independently of us
And you can prove this how?

Obviously such assumptions break down in qm, as well as causality
Actually they don't. Or rather the math based on Space-Time does not.

I should mention that Kant could not conceive of science being able to progress without an intuitive understanding possible
Well he was wrong.>>
Noumenon
4 / 5 (16) Feb 07, 2012
There was no irrelevancy and if you think you can others of going on second information when you are doing that yoursel


The translation that I have is regarded as one of the best. Unless you can show where it differs from the original in concept your point is empty.

If you're saying that because of what I said to GhostOfOtto, it was because Otto dumps quotes about a subject he apparently despises and thinks is invalid , therefore rather than argue with someone who mistakes the Internet as their personal knowledge, I would rather he actually study the subject before pronouncing it invalid by invoking authority he retrieved off the Internet . As I demonstrated I can do the same thing .

You can notice I do not quote Kant, nor prevent his ideas in the same way,.., I try to simplify in my own imperfect words.
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2012
but this is where I break from him.
So you do have some comprehension that humans are not limited to Ass-priori thinking.

I don't expect him to know this is 1790.
It isn't a matter of time. Its a matter of him not understanding how things can be done in other ways than using intuition.

so this in principal is knowable by definition and is not metaphysics as such.
Nothing is knowable by definition. You are much too dependent on definitions for thinking. That is why you fail. Defining things does not make them real. They may make them valid but that is not the same as real.

Reality is what remains when you stop believing in it. Phillip K. Dick. A man that had trouble with reality still understood that much.

Knowing Kant, I simply point out that the Bohr core argument is in fact a physical rediscovery of Kant,...
And Bohr was wrong. His Copenhagen model is utter crap.>>
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2012
What we can ever know about reality must be in the form of these a-priori intuitions

False. We can and do use math. We can and do use instruments. We can and DO change our minds. A-priori is what YOU are stuck in. I am not limited to YOUR pigheaded insistence that YOU are stuck in the past.>>


What does changing ones mind have to do with anything?! Statements like the above are why i conclude you don't understand. Ask yourself why on earth would Hawking put that above quite in his book,.... surely HE knows that math and observation are used in physics, right? It's because it has nothing to do his point. Instruments and interpretations of observations are extensions of the mind, they don't side step the unavoidable issue raised by Hawking in that quote. Understand?!

The measurement problem and the unintuitive nature of qm, has not been resolved, therefore the above applies, as does the core Bohr interpretation.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2012
we cannot have an intuitive understanding of qm

Yet we can handle it with math and instruments exactly as you say we cannot. In fact, all the math is wave based. Nothing impossible to understand even if it is counterintuitive.

More misapprehension. I've never said it cannot be handled with math and instruments. I just said "cannot have an intuitive understanding ", then you retort "[can] understand even if it is counterintuitive". I qualified my use of "understand" by using the word "intuitive".

The math is wave-based while the observation is either wave or particle based dependant on arrangement. This should tell you "wave" or "particle" is the Form WE add to the particular aspect of reality under investigation, and not how reality IS independent of us.
Ethelred
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2012
and the reason qm is strange is due to epistemological reasons first analyzed by Kant.
Which is wrong since Bohr was wrong. He Pissed On Mount Illogical is not involved here. The biggest reason QM is strange is because some people still insist on using a broken model. YOU are the one using a broken model and insisting that it doesn't intuition fit. I agree that it doesn't fit intuition. Its also crap because it REQUIRES an intelligent observer and distinguishes between the atoms of the observer and the atoms of the instruments. They are both just atoms. You are one of the few people still insisting on using that silly idea. And you are using a broken model to try to prop up Kant.

Its BROKEN. Its CRAP. The universe does not give a damn whether any given atom is connected to a brain or not. If you want to claim otherwise you are the one that doesn't have a clue.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.6 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2012
If a theory cannot be falsified in principal it is not a science.
Popper is wrong on that. So are you.

String theory is a science because in principal it might be able to be tested.
It is not testable. It can produce any Universe you can imagine. Heck any that any SF author can imagine.

i.e. the waveform is not a thing in itself.
The map is not the territory but that doesn't hold for the waveform since the math is wave based AND it works. So far the waveform is the thing. Until proven otherwise.

Ethelred
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2012
Decoherence does not solve the measurement problem, it only gives the appearance of "wavefunction" collapse. So for example, a system described by a wavefunction interacting with another system results in a superposition of the entire system,... so cannot be equated to a "measurement or observation" where state reduction actually occurs as outlined by Von Neumann.

An observation is fundamentally different than simply an interaction.
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2012
You don't 'listen'. Using "MATH and INSTRUMENTS" has NO BEARING on the above, none,
I do listen. I don't agree.

or does it fix the problem about how a-priori intuitions effect out understanding of reality as outlined above.
Of course it does. It how we change our ASS-priori intuitions.

It was already presupposed that math and observations are used.
Yet you don't understand it.

Yes, science progresses despite the above, as I've stated,.. but effects our understanding no less.
One or the other. We accept our reality or we are pigheaded and controlled by Ass-Priority. Choose one that actually fits the reality of science. Since we do change how we think we are NOT limited by head in ass thinking unless we allow ourselves to do so. For instance by sticking to 250 year old thinking. Perhaps that is why Bohr was so silly.

Ethelred
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2012
The map is not the territory but that doesn't hold for the waveform since the math is wave based AND it works. So far the waveform is the thing. Until proven otherwise.


The wavefunction is not an entity, as its not observable in that form. It is a mathematical construct representing probabilities. (Even wave interference observations use multiple point particle observations to build up the wave like interference effects).

You appear to accept Scientific Realism as opposed to Scientific Positivism. Your position tends to claim reality for unobservable entities. This is metaphysics in spirit. I believe most physicists are positivists.
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2012
The translation that I have is regarded as one of the best.
Does the concept of second hand completely escape you?

Unless you can show where it differs from the original in concept your point is empty.
Nonsense. The point is that it is second hand.

Otto dumps quotes about a subject he apparently despises and thinks is invalid ,
I don't think you have that right. The word 'apparently' is the wrong word. He REALLY DOES despise it. I merely find it rather obvious as far as it goes and it does not go far enough.

I would rather he actually study the subject before pronouncing it invalid by invoking authority he retrieved off the Internet .
You would rather he waste a lot of time?

As I demonstrated I can do the same thing .
You demonstrated that you can quote mine. You have not demonstrated that humans are permanently limited yet you are insisting on acting as if that is the case.>>
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2012
I try to simplify in my own imperfect words.
It is very simple. It just isn't complete and you don't want to deal that. Humans are not limited to what Kant thought they could do. Newton showed that, heck the entire Royal Society, even the most silly, showed Kant was wrong.\

Orac is a wanker
And lied about ranking deservedly.
But in reality wanking is all he deserves.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2012
What does changing ones mind have to do with anything?
Everything.

Statements like the above are why i conclude you don't understand.
That statement show you do not understand.

surely HE knows that math and observation are used in physics, right?
Actually he thinks visually. Were you aware of that?

Instruments and interpretations of observations are extensions of the mind, they don't side step the unavoidable issue raised by Hawking in that quote.
Except that they do.

Do you understand that?

The measurement problem
Is understood and even quantified.

and the unintuitive nature of qm,
That is Bohr and I neither agree with him nor is it relevant to the math. Much of math is non-intuitive yet humans manage it anyway.

therefore the above applies, as does the core Bohr interpretation.
No. The Bohr interpretation is crap and you are one of the few that has yet notice it.

Bohr is irrelevant to this.>>
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2012
never said it cannot be handled with math and instruments
Then Bohr and Kant are wrong.

I just said "cannot have an intuitive understanding
Which isn't relevant to our ability to understand in the long run.

then you retort "[can] understand even if it is counterintuitive". I qualified my use of "understand" by using the word "intuitive"
Which is contradictory. Make up your mind. Either the intuition is all or it isn't. I showed clearly that it isn't and therefor what the hell do you bother bringing it up for?

The math is wave-based while the observation is either wave or particle based dependant on arrangement
The observation effects the wave by effecting the wave boundaries.

The math is wave-based while the observation is either wave or particle based dependant on arrangement
Nonsense. It is the change in the boundaries that has the effect. Not intelligence.

and not how reality IS independent of us
Reality IS independent of us.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2012
The measurement problem is not related to us. Even the electron is limited to the actuality of the wave function.

so cannot be equated to a "measurement or observation" where state reduction actually occurs as outlined by Von Neumann.
There is no state reduction. We simply measure what is inherent in the setup of the equipment.

An observation is fundamentally different than simply an interaction.
And you can prove this how? The observation is fundamentally controlled by the atoms involved an not any intelligence that might have been involved in putting those atoms where they were.

The wavefunction is not an entity,
Of course not. Its is a wave.

as its not observable in that form.
So you never listened to radio or watched television.>>
Noumenon
Feb 07, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2012
as its not observable in that form.
Or it is an actual wave. The math works the same either way.

(Even wave interference observations use multiple point particle observations to build up the wave like interference effects).
OOOOH so false. Tests have been done with only one photon at at time. For a particle to interfere with itself the particle must actually be a wave and not actually a particle.

Otherwise the math wouldn't work.

You appear to accept Scientific Realism as opposed to Scientific Positivism.
I don't worry about words that are intended to obfuscate as opposed to elucidate.

There is a real world out there.

This is metaphysics in spirit.
That is bullshit in fact.

I believe most physicists are positivists.
Most physicists think there is an objective reality. What you believe is irrelevant.

You may use as many silly words as you wish for a while as I must shut down and do internal maintenance.

Ethelred
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2012
(Even wave interference observations use multiple point particle observations to build up the wave like interference effects).

OOOOH so false. Tests have been done with only one photon at at time. For a particle to interfere with itself the particle must actually be a wave and not actually a particle.


And those tests with one photon at a time, are done with many such photons one at a time to build up the wave interference pattern, as I just said.

Also, don't mistake the mathematical wavefunction which describes a system as an actual wave, as this notion is not new, just untenable. Schrodinger himself assumed this interpretation at first but had to accept Max Born's probability interpretation eventually.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2012
,.. also, it is factually incorrect to equate (unobserved) decoherence interactions with an observation. An observation is different because reality is forced into our conceptual box in the way experimental apparatus is designed and in the way we interprete the results,.. as Hawkings book speaks of above.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2012
You may use as many silly words as you wish for a while as I must shut down and do internal maintenance.


I would suggest a complete overhaul.

Since you are a daifinguator,... I think you left because you are blark for having been caught being bhin,... and supposing me as being abi, while i'm stating facts,... britches.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 07, 2012
For a particle to interfere with itself the particle must actually be a wave and not actually a particle.


Actually, it is neither, apart from observation. It is detected as a particle, but the accumulated results show it must behave like a wave UNTIL it is observed. Such self interference wave effects vanish if there is an attempt to observe the particle before such wave interference effects are determined. This means we are changing the form of the "thing".

See the quantum eraser experiments.
Cynical1
5 / 5 (1) Feb 07, 2012
Thanks, Noum for sticking to the subject matter (on topic) rather than all this tripe about what can or Kant be done...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (23) Feb 07, 2012
If you're saying that because of what I said to GhostOfOtto, it was because Otto dumps quotes about a subject he apparently despises and thinks is invalid
They ARE pretty (non) self-explanatory.

"Up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but ... let us once try whether we do not get farther with the problems of metaphysics by assuming that the objects must conform to our cognition."

-Tripe. From a meta-religionist. There is no reconciling this statement with what science today knows about reality.

Kant may have been able to get away with this mischief in the 1700s, but anybody who actually READS this stuff, instead of just decorating their bookshelves with it, can smell the poop.

And anybody who actually tries to use kant in discussion are being either shamelessly pretentious, or they are unaware of how they are exposing their scientific stupidity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (23) Feb 07, 2012
I try to simplify in my own imperfect words.
So... a rough approximation of an imperfect translation of an obvious misinterpretation of the ignorant viewpoint of a dead propagandist, with a big dollop of religionist dogma thrown in. This is the description of the world you really expect people to swallow?

I quote kant. Straight from wiki. I need not wade through 300 pages of muck to get to these same quotes, to gain any more understanding of how kant thought our perceptions combined with vapors from the aether and Authority direct from god, can reshape reality. Like magic. Like a magician with an oxford doctorate and a tweedy jacket.

No, all I have to do is read

"All the preparations of reason, therefore, in what may be called pure philosophy, are in reality directed to those three problems only [God, the soul, and freedom]. However, these three elements in themselves still hold independent, proportional, objective weight individually."

Except 2 dont exist and 1 is relative.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (23) Feb 07, 2012
Hey this philomesmerization stuff is easy. Lets try some more:

"Thus the objective order of nature and the causal necessity that operates within it are dependent upon the mind's processes, the product of the rule-based activity which Kant called "synthesis". There is much discussion among Kant scholars on the correct interpretation of this train of thought."

-Oh Im sure there is indeed. 'Objective order' based on subjective thinking processes. I think therefore I am/it is. Yes I see... snicker.

This is back when aristocrats were clearing the landscape and constructing elaborate gardens of perfect symmetry, in total disregard of nature. This was shortly before actions like the great land grab would take place in africa, in total disregard for native cultures. Do you see the connection here? Western intellect replaces god, on authority of god.
Cynical1
Feb 08, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Cynical1
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2012
Since the philosophical musings of Kant are not germaine to the topic of anti-matter, ALL posts referencing him must be removed for "pointless" verbiage.

Just making a point, here. Actually I am beginning to believe the moniters are just college kids, in a dorm room and taking a shot for every post they delete...
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2012
My use of Kant supports scientific positivism and is an argument against scientific realism. - Noumenon


That is what you think. And it looks just bit contradictory. Science either deal with reality or it doesn't. You are trying to have it both ways. - Ethelred


No, I'm using the term "Realism" in a specific sense, which is well known and is used both in the context of qm and in the context of philosophy of science. The next three posts will explain this.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2012
@Ethelred,

Your position appears to be that of 'scientific realism', which is to say that the things we measure and sense are really there apart from our measurements in the form conceptualized. This is both scientifically and philosophically untenable.

While I am advocating [logical] 'scientific positivism', which is to say that the form of our knowledge of reality is determined by a-priori intellectual faculties, and the experimental observations we choose to make, and not any intuitive presuppositions or speculations of the realism of entities that are not directly observable.

Hawking, says he is a positivist,...

"Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains. - Stephen Hawking"

This means that our knowledge of reality is limited by the above. What reality IS apart from this is metaphysics.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2012
[While I am advocating [logical] 'scientific positivism', which is to say that the form of our knowledge of reality is determined by a-priori intellectual faculties, and the experimental observations we choose to make, and not any [..] speculations of the realism of entities that are not directly observable.]

Corrected the above.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2012
The Natural Philosophers learned that logic CAN produce new ideas but they have to be tested to find out if they apply to this universe. - Ethelred


You asked if Kant ever did tests. Of course I'm applying Kant in the context of qm and have stated that the non-intuitive nature of qm is in effect a rediscovery of some of Kant's ideas. Of course qm has been tested over and over,....
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2012
Our perception and the observations upon which our theories are based are shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains. - Stephen Hawking"

Which why we TEST. And do more tests with different methods. It doesn't matter how are brains shape the knowledge if we test it against reality. - Ethelred


It does matter, because it concerns the very nature of scientific knowledge, which in turn necessitates epistemological reflection,.. i.e. 'scientific realism' vrs 'scientific positivism', ...both of which are philosophical notions which can be tested.

I will refer you to the experimentally verified violations of Leggett type inequalities which are similar to Bell inequalities but more profound;

http://physicswor...ws/27640

http://physicswor...ws/44580

http://en.wikiped...equality
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (18) Feb 08, 2012
Since the philosophical musings of Kant are not germaine to the topic of anti-matter, ALL posts referencing him must be removed for "pointless" verbiage. - Cynical1


Your posts is senseless.

You have made about seven posts in this thread, none of which have anything to do with gravitational effects on anti-matter.

Posts made by GhostOfOtto and Ethelred and 98% of other posters in this thread including you, have nothing to do with the topic of anti-matter, either, so why single out Kant posts?

It appears the moderators are not thought police and allow discussions to develop upon there own momentum.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (20) Feb 08, 2012
What does changing ones mind have to do with anything?!
Well apparently changing ones mind also changes reality, according to kant and his Dingy an sich:

"Thus the objective order of nature and the causal necessity that operates within it are dependent upon the mind's processes"
Statements like the above are why i conclude you don't understand.
Why dont you just change your mind and then ethelred would understand? Kant would do this. I bet he also could bend spoons by squinting at them.

You have yet to reconcile your embarrassing statement:
Kant showed conclusively imo, that metaphysics cannot be a source of knowledge
-with what kant said directly:

"The transcendental expositions attempt to show how the metaphysical conclusions might be applied to enrich our understanding."

-How can this transcendental thing enrich our understanding without adding knowledge from the beyond, as you so state? Enriching, clarifying, illuminating as it were, is adding more info, YES?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (20) Feb 08, 2012
"Metaphysics
2a: of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b: supernatural"

okay

"Transcendant
b:...cin Kantian philosophy: being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge"

So. We can see that the def of Metaphysics necessarily includes, and is inextricably bound to, the entity Kant. It also includes the entity phrase 'beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge'.

And upon redaction we find:
(Kant) = (beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge)

-We can thus conclude that the thing called kant can have NO effect upon reality.

But wait- The entity Kant can be found printed on the spines of books, many of them leatherbound and similar to bibles. These books can be wielded and shaken at unbelievers to similar effect.

So we can see that, while the SUBSTANCE of the entity Kant can have no effect on our perception of reality, the entity itself can. Is this the true meaning of Ding an sich?
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 08, 2012
@Ethelred,

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy (1958)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (20) Feb 08, 2012
Uh nou

"A lot of our stereotypes about science come from a period where science was dominated by a particular philosophy - positivism - that tended to support some of these views. Here, I want to suggest (no matter what the movie industry may think) that science has moved on in its thinking into an era of post-positivism where many of those stereotypes of the scientist no longer hold up."

-Perhaps it is time to upgrade?

-Notice the clever deception; "science has moved on in its thinking into an era of post-positivism"

-SCIENCE doesnt give 2 shits about ISMS. PHILOS do. Scientists do what they are trained to do while philos scurry about looking to attach themselves to the whole process, with transparent maneuverings such as this. Only philos would read statements like this and think it meant they were still relevant.

And since philos have been using maneuverings such as this throughout their existance, they may never have been relevant. Rhetorics IS the study of clever arguing yes?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (20) Feb 08, 2012
@Ethelred,

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy (1958)
-And the more answers we get, the more and better questions we can ask. This process proceeds until we know ALL there is to know about a phenomenon.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (16) Feb 08, 2012
@Ethelred,

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy (1958)
-And the more answers we get, the more and better questions we can ask. This process proceeds until we know ALL there is to know about a phenomenon.


Your response is not relevant to the point made by Heisenberg, nor to the similar point made in Hawking's book, nor to the reason I posted it. This is why I stopped reading any of the other posts above.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a defective web-crawler bot.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (20) Feb 08, 2012
Your response is not relevant to the point made by Heisenberg
Absolutely it is. You are implying some limits to our methods. There are no limits. We have already exceeded the limits of human rationality and the senses with math and machines. We go where they lead us.

You philos limit yourselves to what your brains can conceptualize. This is why you struggle with what ethelred is trying to tell you. You think it SHOULD be understandable. You think that words SHOULD be able to describe it.

But they cant. Only numbers can. And they often describe things that make no sense but which we know are the truth because the numbers tell us so. This is not philosophy. There is no room for philosophy here, or anywhere except perhaps politics. Youre only singing ballads of the brave exploits of pros. Those who cant, sing.

YOU say kant says there can be no knowledge from the metaphysical but kant says there can be, per the quotes I gave you. Care to obfuscate? That means explain doesnt it?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (18) Feb 08, 2012
-And dont forget, you need to refer to dr hawking as a POST-positivist. I suppose. As if he gives a shit.
Cynical1
4 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2012
Since the philosophical musings of Kant are not germaine to the topic of anti-matter, ALL posts referencing him must be removed for "pointless" verbiage. - Cynical1


Your posts is senseless.

You have made about seven posts in this thread, none of which have anything to do with gravitational effects on anti-matter.

Posts made by GhostOfOtto and Ethelred and 98% of other posters in this thread including you, have nothing to do with the topic of anti-matter, either, so why single out Kant posts?

The first post or 2 might have referenced the topic - I really don't remember at this point. Another more recent post was thanking you for trying to pull the thread out of the Kant quagmire.
I chose Kant, because it reminds of all the times as a child (and even now at almost 60) I was told I CAN'T do something - with no explanation as to why...
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 09, 2012
String theory is a science because in principal it might be able to be tested.

It is not testable. It can produce any Universe you can imagine. Heck any that any SF author can imagine.-Ethelred

I'm sure you're under your desk by now , but,...
I said in principal. The LHC may detect supersymmetric particles for example.

But your response here reminded me of many-words theory, which if I recall you like.

Everett was a student of John Wheeler, who said of his theory, "it carries too much metaphysical baggage".,...
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (17) Feb 09, 2012
....,But Everett's theory has since been reinterpreted as 'decoherent histories', by Griffiths, Gell-Mann, and Hartle. Now Dowker & Kent have shown that besides the observed world the theory describes, there had to be an infinite number of other 'words'.

There is no 'correct' set of histories that emerges as a result of some law of nature,... all possible histories being equally valid, our choice of history depends on the kinds of questions we ask, and observations made. Sounds familiar.

'It seems to be a theory in which we can formulate the answers, but not the questions' - Lee Smolin.
Iourii Gribov
1 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2012
The positronium gravity test could radically change our future, it will be an immediate NP to David Cassidy and Allen Mills..., if positronuim has Zero-gravity mass, but commonly 2Me- inertial mass: (Gribov Pico - Periodical Multiverse (PPM) concept and Vallita's CPT- enlargement in the GR). The PPM contains equal quantity of matter-antimatter, with theoretically estimated correct DE / (DM plus OM).. ratio ~74%/26%. Matter and antimatter clusters are placed along 2D-bubble's surfaces, voids are empty. Cooper-like compository-(electron/positron) vacuum is weightless superfluid, with composite-ghostly SUSY. The Higgs bosons are excluded by the 3D-waveguided rest-mass creation mechanism. The equal periodical-overlapped Universes/Untiuniverses have the same SM-particles and physics. Our civilization is very young between plenty of developed hyper-civilizations (placed proximately near 10 -100 light minutes in a R4-distance around via Milky Way galaxy).
DarkHorse66
not rated yet Mar 14, 2012
...from someone who is being exposed to Kant in my (elective) philosophy class as we speak...if I wanted to read an interminable debate about philosophic beliefs, I would go to the appropriate subsection of this site. Are you sure that you are in the right thread? Since you have chosen to do it here, why not end the 'off-topicness' by agreeing that we all have different ideas about this subject and return to the actual topic of the article. That is, if you haven't already killed it stone-cold dead. One way to stop this, might be not to keep responding to the others' taunts and needlings, no matter how keenly you feel about the subject. And grow a thicker skin to these. You might then just be able to resist the urge to unhinge emotionally. It takes at least two to keep tangoing! What else can you actually contribute to the real subject meant to be under debate? In that I am interested. Very interested. I'm always interest when REAL discussion takes place. :) Best Regards, DH66
DarkHorse66
5 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2012
@ Iourii Gribov: That just reads like a point form of a very, very large topic and is not really explanatory. Too cryptic for a non-specialist (if specialist is what you are) to really work out. Are you trying to make a genuine contribution? Or just trying to occupy space? If the former applies, could you please try and explain in real sentences what the message of your post is supposed to convey? Regards, DH66