11
   

Temporal kinetics and the creation of the universe

 
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2014 12:50 am
Razzleg wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

My point is that the people who created correct work in the hard sciences did it by proceeding from science and math. They knew the science and the math and worked with that and equations. They were not people ignorant of the hard sciences who proceeded from nothing but philosophy to correct science agreed upon later by the scientific community, at least not in the past couple of centuries.

Scientific work can be somewhat verified if entirely different approaches lead to the same equations, but, for the sake of simplicity, we can change it to "accepted by the world scientific community."

There simply were no people who, ignorant of physics, proceeded from philosophy alone and reached conclusions about the physical universe that were considered correct by the scientific community and matched results obtained by science.


You do realize that you "sound unhinged" just now, right? I mean:

Brandon9000 wrote:

My point is that the people who created correct work in the hard sciences did it by proceeding from science and math. They knew the science and the math and worked with that and equations.


That sounds like something straight out of Thomas Bernhard. *Self-high five for the Bernhard reference.*

Brandon9000 wrote:
There simply were no people who, ignorant of physics, proceeded from philosophy alone and reached conclusions about the physical universe that were considered correct by the scientific community and matched results obtained by science.


You, clearly, have no idea what "science", "physics", or "philosophy" are; and you certainly aren't in a position to determine who will investigate or comment on it, or what the value of their contributions will be.

What you think philosophy is...it's not that. What you think science is...it's not that, either. Wise the **** up.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2014 09:02 am
@Razzleg,
None of these are arguments. Attacking the poster is not a valid argument. Give me a counter example in which someone who didn't know physics produced a physics theory later accepted by the scientific community, by proceeding from philosophy alone.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 May, 2014 09:05 am
Oh Jeeze, Brandon, that's too easy. Physicists have long insisted that it is not possible to speak with one's anal sphincter. Razzleg has been talking out of his ass for as long as he's been here. Quod erat demonstrandum . . .
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2014 11:02 am
@Brandon9000,
..., by proceeding from philosophy alone

Bran I get the feeling--purely intuition, understand--that the issue is largely one of semantics

https://www.google.com/#nfpr=1&q=philosophical+speculation+leads+to+scientific+theory&spell=1
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2014 03:47 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

..., by proceeding from philosophy alone

Bran I get the feeling--purely intuition, understand--that the issue is largely one of semantics

https://www.google.com/#nfpr=1&q=philosophical+speculation+leads+to+scientific+theory&spell=1

And your example of someone who succeeded in doing this?
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2014 04:09 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
And your example of someone who succeeded in doing this?


"Einstein's philosophical thinking was driven by and contributed to the solution of problems first encountered in his work in physics."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

https://www.google.com/#q=philosophical+insight+leads+to+scientific+theory

http://able2know.org/topic/245921-1
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 May, 2014 05:32 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
And your example of someone who succeeded in doing this?


"Einstein's philosophical thinking was driven by and contributed to the solution of problems first encountered in his work in physics."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

https://www.google.com/#q=philosophical+insight+leads+to+scientific+theory

http://able2know.org/topic/245921-1

Obviously not the question asked. Can you give the name of someone during the past couple of centuries who arrived at important new results in the area usually worked on by physicists, without education in physics, using philosophy alone?
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2014 10:52 am
@Brandon9000,
Nah Bran, not at all in my league of expertise. I strongly suspect however that the issue is largely one of semantics. Also there's a certain dualism to the idea of philo on one hand and phys on the other, in a world where nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else

Good buddy MB replies to my q in this regard, "The binary method of computing, physically implemented by polarizing magnets, was contemplated by logic philosophers"

Thanks anyhow Bran for the chat
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2014 06:45 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Nah Bran, not at all in my league of expertise. I strongly suspect however that the issue is largely one of semantics. Also there's a certain dualism to the idea of philo on one hand and phys on the other, in a world where nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else

Good buddy MB replies to my q in this regard, "The binary method of computing, physically implemented by polarizing magnets, was contemplated by logic philosophers"

Thanks anyhow Bran for the chat

You are letting yourself off the hook to easily. If you are right about the semantics and all, you should be able to point to one person in the past couple of centuries who has done it and succeeded.
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2014 10:29 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

None of these are arguments. Attacking the poster is not a valid argument. Give me a counter example in which someone who didn't know physics produced a physics theory later accepted by the scientific community, by proceeding from philosophy alone.


A brief review of our conversation before I comment:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Many laymen think things are outside the range of knowledge because they are unfamiliar with the field. If more is learned about the origins of the universe, it will be by physicists, certainly not by philosophers. What has philosophy ever given the world?


Razzleg wrote:

Civilization...


Brandon9000 wrote:

You could argue that, but I was talking about the world of physical science. Has philosophy without physics and mathematics ever resulted in a significant contribution to man's understanding of the universe in modern times?


Razzleg wrote:

"Ecological preservation might be a a good thing for both ourselves and other existing species?..."

"Space travel is possible?..."

"Man's understanding of the universe"... i think you may need to expand your definition of that phrase... Historically speaking, neither physics nor mathematics would have developed as they did without philosophy, and they only remain socially influential for philosophical reasons. Of course, physics and mathematics are important, as aspects of humanity's pursuit of knowledge and truth...


Brandon9000 wrote:
Tell me a case in which a philosopher working without physics contributed something to modern scientific theory.


Razzleg wrote:
That would ridiculous...there's no such thing, although there are a couple of biologists i could mention. But the fact of the matter is, they didn't oppose physics, theoretical or otherwise. their theories just didn't touch upon that discipline.

i'm not arguing against the validity/value of modern theoretical physics, i'm arguing against the irrelevance of philosophical thinking by physicists, among others.

They aren't mutually exclusive types of study...


Here, there is a slight gap in our exchange, where you failed to address me and my last response. So i provoked you:

Razzleg wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Philosophy has never contributed anything to science. When used to speculate about nature, it's just a refuge for people too lazy to take the science classes. If you disagree, find a counter-example.


Your ignorance and classificatorial rigidity are adorable. Your knowledge of the history of science, i.e. natural philosophy, is embarrassing. Here are some, not so random, names: Isaac Newton, Ernst Mach, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Douglas Hofstadter...(Leonardo da Vinci, maybe)

Brandon9000 wrote:

What is the track record for philosophers in finding verifiably correct facts about the formation of the universe? Would that be zero?


What standard for "verifiability" are you using? By most standards, no one has verifiably correct facts about the formation of the universe...there are mathematically reliable theories, though.


Here, beneath, is where you stopped responding to my comments and simply started reacting to my disagreement. Previously, i had addressed your questions without dismissing you, the facts, your opinions on them, or your argument, while disagreeing with your position; my provocation evoked an adversarial, rather than an argumentative, response:

Brandon9000 wrote:
My point is that the people who created correct work in the hard sciences did it by proceeding from science and math. They knew the science and the math and worked with that and equations. They were not people ignorant of the hard sciences who proceeded from nothing but philosophy to correct science agreed upon later by the scientific community, at least not in the past couple of centuries.

Scientific work can be somewhat verified if entirely different approaches lead to the same equations, but, for the sake of simplicity, we can change it to "accepted by the world scientific community."

There simply were no people who, ignorant of physics, proceeded from philosophy alone and reached conclusions about the physical universe that were considered correct by the scientific community and matched results obtained by science.


My response to the above statement was also provocative, because i had realized that i was no longer dealing with a rational interlocutor, but one whose only investment was not in resolving the argument but in winning the "fight":

Razzleg wrote:

Your ignorance and classificatorial rigidity are adorable. Your knowledge of the history of science, i.e. natural philosophy, is embarrassing. Here are some, not so random, names: Isaac Newton, Ernst Mach, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Douglas Hofstadter...(Leonardo da Vinci, maybe)

Brandon9000 wrote:

What is the track record for philosophers in finding verifiably correct facts about the formation of the universe? Would that be zero?


What standard for "verifiability" are you using? By most standards, no one has verifiably correct facts about the formation of the universe...there are mathematically reliable theories, though.


You responded:

Brandon9000 wrote:

None of these are arguments. Attacking the poster is not a valid argument. Give me a counter example in which someone who didn't know physics produced a physics theory later accepted by the scientific community, by proceeding from philosophy alone.


Now, i will comment. You neither addressed my question nor remarked on the names i gave. i hope that you realize that you stopped making arguments a while ago. You are just defending your ideological position at this point.

Brandon9000 wrote:

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:
And your example of someone who succeeded in doing this?


"Einstein's philosophical thinking was driven by and contributed to the solution of problems first encountered in his work in physics."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

https://www.google.com/#q=philosophical+insight+leads+to+scientific+theory

http://able2know.org/topic/245921-1

Obviously not the question asked. Can you give the name of someone during the past couple of centuries who arrived at important new results in the area usually worked on by physicists, without education in physics, using philosophy alone?


Here you show you are obviously not interested in another person's thoughts on the matter...you are entrenched in your position...waiting for confirmation.

Brandon9000 wrote:

None of these are arguments. Attacking the poster is not a valid argument. Give me a counter example in which someone who didn't know physics produced a physics theory later accepted by the scientific community, by proceeding from philosophy alone.


You're right, my last post wasn't an argument, and it was an insult. Because after years of trying, i've realized that you can't win a rational argument with an irrational person. In that situation, particularly online, the best you can do is make your interlocutor lose the thread of their own argument and let them spin out.

i did address your position, i did name names, and if i haven't responded with the arguments you were prepared for, i remain unrepentant.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Give me a counter example in which someone who didn't know physics produced a physics theory later accepted by the scientific community, by proceeding from philosophy alone.


You treat physics as both a given discipline and a given degree without a history or a relation to any philosophical precedents; here's a counter example that precedes either category: Ἐρατοσθένης...
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 May, 2014 11:36 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Oh Jeeze, Brandon, that's too easy. Physicists have long insisted that it is not possible to speak with one's anal sphincter. Razzleg has been talking out of his ass for as long as he's been here. Quod erat demonstrandum . . .


i'll be honest, Setanta, you wound me...at one time, you actually welcomed me and valued my contributions to this forum. Your current caprice reveals, along with the entirety of your forum contributions' constant sarcasm and consensus' support, your inability to speculate or imagine. QED?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2014 04:31 am
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

....You treat physics as both a given discipline and a given degree without a history or a relation to any philosophical precedents; here's a counter example that precedes either category: Ἐρατοσθένης...

I'm not very familiar with the life of Eratosthenes. I know that he lived at a time when most of physics, chemistry, and biology did not exist. I know that he arrived at some valid conclusions. Since he is your choice as an example, let me simply ask you, what is one example of him arriving at a valid understanding of nature by means of philosophy alone? I Googled him and nothing like that jumped out at me.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2014 07:42 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

I'm not very familiar with the life of Eratosthenes. I know that he lived at a time when most of physics, chemistry, and biology did not exist. I know that he arrived at some valid conclusions. Since he is your choice as an example, let me simply ask you, what is one example of him arriving at a valid understanding of nature by means of philosophy alone? I Googled him and nothing like that jumped out at me.


You're killing me. Do you think endlessly repeating variations of the same question regardless of the response you receive is an argument? It's not, that's a freakin' koan.

As far as Eratosthenes goes, a quick googling will probably reveal everything that is known about the man. i brought him up as an example, because he made near accurate predictions about the physical world centuries before the dawn of the empirical method. His existence shows that the definitions of science and philosophy are mutable, as is the definition of what counts as science and what counts as philosophy.

Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2014 09:12 am
Science itself is a product of philosophy. Descartes formalised the scientific method, for instance.
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2014 12:06 pm
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I'm not very familiar with the life of Eratosthenes. I know that he lived at a time when most of physics, chemistry, and biology did not exist. I know that he arrived at some valid conclusions. Since he is your choice as an example, let me simply ask you, what is one example of him arriving at a valid understanding of nature by means of philosophy alone? I Googled him and nothing like that jumped out at me.


You're killing me. Do you think endlessly repeating variations of the same question regardless of the response you receive is an argument? It's not, that's a freakin' koan.

As far as Eratosthenes goes, a quick googling will probably reveal everything that is known about the man. i brought him up as an example, because he made near accurate predictions about the physical world centuries before the dawn of the empirical method.




Erastosthenes method for accurate predictions about the physical world came from employing ratios and trigonometry, not philosophy. Or they came from, well, observing the world and taking note of other observations before him.

And even if some philosopher X made an assertion about the world that turned out to be somehow true, that would be pure chance. Democritus and Lucretius had no way of perceiving the existence of atoms, and yet they definitely speculated that the world is composed of something like them.

The point is that philosophers cannot, by some a priori ratiocination or other similar means, arrive at truths of the world. And even if they did, even if they did, it would be by pure chance. You have to actually observe the world, control and test it.

Razzleg wrote:

His existence shows that the definitions of science and philosophy are mutable, as is the definition of what counts as science and what counts as philosophy.


So what? We are talking about physics and philosophy as they are now. Don't drop the context. Even if the definitions are mutable, which I agree they are, that doesn't change the fact that we have current definitions that we need to use.

And there is no definition of what counts as science or philosophy, there are criterion, which fall under the definitions of science and philosophy. For example, Philosophy is, "the method of... that deals with...".
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2014 10:12 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Ding an Sich wrote:
Erastosthenes method for accurate predictions about the physical world came from employing ratios and trigonometry, not philosophy. Or they came from, well, observing the world and taking note of other observations before him.

And even if some philosopher X made an assertion about the world that turned out to be somehow true, that would be pure chance. Democritus and Lucretius had no way of perceiving the existence of atoms, and yet they definitely speculated that the world is composed of something like them.

The point is that philosophers cannot, by some a priori ratiocination or other similar means, arrive at truths of the world. And even if they did, even if they did, it would be by pure chance. You have to actually observe the world, control and test it.


Of course, i agree with almost everything you are saying. And of course, i wasn't implying that Erastosthenes intuited or logic-ed out the approximate circumference of the planet from pure conjecture. The point i am making, the point i have been trying to make throughout this entire thread, is that the distinctions we make between intellectual disciplines is up for debate. Erastosthenes was, apparently, a brilliant mathematician and a crack geographer, but those terms didn't exist in his time. His contemporaries would have regarded him as a philosopher, because that was the only contemporary term that fit.

Brandon9000 stated that:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Philosophy has never contributed anything to science. When used to speculate about nature, it's just a refuge for people too lazy to take the science classes. If you disagree, find a counter-example.


That's just flat-out wrong. In their infancy, physics and mathematics were extensions of, or at least the children of, philosophy. Of course, since they've been weaned, they've accomplished great and terrible things on their own. I respect both of those disciplines to the highest degree, even if i do shake my head on occasion.

Also, honestly, his implication that philosophy students theorizing about nature are lazy is annoying, and the further implication that philosophy is the refuge of the lazy is insulting. He could have just said "mistaken", which is probably true, but he said "lazy".

Previously, he also made this demand/asked this question:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Tell me a case in which a philosopher working without physics contributed something to modern scientific theory.


i didn't argue with him, i just gave him the name of several recent thinkers that published both mathematical and scientific work as well as philosophical pieces, each of which indicated an inter-disciplinarian approach. In other words, these people were scientists, but their thought included, nay, required, their philosophical concerns.

Ding an Sich wrote:

Razzleg wrote:

His existence shows that the definitions of science and philosophy are mutable, as is the definition of what counts as science and what counts as philosophy.


So what? We are talking about physics and philosophy as they are now. Don't drop the context. Even if the definitions are mutable, which I agree they are, that doesn't change the fact that we have current definitions that we need to use.

And there is no definition of what counts as science or philosophy, there are criterion, which fall under the definitions of science and philosophy. For example, Philosophy is, "the method of... that deals with...".


Please fill in the lacunae of your example: "Philosophy is the method of ...that deals with ..." And also, please fill in the contrasting mad-lib for science. Please make an equally adequate summary statement about the "soft" sciences like psychology, anthropology, paleontology, statistics, and so on.

What is the current criterion for an argument to count as philosophical v. whatever? Hopefully, it includes a little knowledge of history.

i never dropped the context, i merely addressed the context that the question actually required: the past and potential future of human thought.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2014 04:58 am
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I'm not very familiar with the life of Eratosthenes. I know that he lived at a time when most of physics, chemistry, and biology did not exist. I know that he arrived at some valid conclusions. Since he is your choice as an example, let me simply ask you, what is one example of him arriving at a valid understanding of nature by means of philosophy alone? I Googled him and nothing like that jumped out at me.


You're killing me. Do you think endlessly repeating variations of the same question regardless of the response you receive is an argument? It's not, that's a freakin' koan.

As far as Eratosthenes goes, a quick googling will probably reveal everything that is known about the man. i brought him up as an example, because he made near accurate predictions about the physical world centuries before the dawn of the empirical method. His existence shows that the definitions of science and philosophy are mutable, as is the definition of what counts as science and what counts as philosophy.



Sorry I'm "killing" you, but this is a debate. Please tell me one (and only one) example of a person (preferably at a time after science as we know it existed) who without knowledge of science used philosophy to arrive at a model of some aspect of nature which is now accepted as true. If you cannot give one specific example of your theory working, then you lose the argument.

Dalehileman, who clearly doesn't know physics, was trying to use philosophical speculation alone to draw conclusions about cosmology. I assert that trying to learn about physical phenomena that way is the closest thing to impossible.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2014 11:06 am
Quote:
Breakthrough in Quantum Physics May Do Away with Space-Time
Sept 2o13
http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/
Ding an Sich
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2014 09:51 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Quote:
Breakthrough in Quantum Physics May Do Away with Space-Time
Sept 2o13
http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/


"May" is the important word here. Until then, I think we can still talk about space, time, and space-time.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 12:43 am
@Ding an Sich,
I suggest that "talk about" cannot be divorced from specific contexts. Obviously we still meaningfully talk about terrestrial journeys as though the earth were flat, or sunset, as though the sun moved across the sky. The point is that meaning is contextually confined to specific usage.
It appears that the new suggested paradigm of the amplituhedron questions the utility of common sense notions like "existence in space time" with respect to explanations of "reality". For this reason it has important philosophical significance.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/26/2021 at 07:06:15