11
   

Temporal kinetics and the creation of the universe

 
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 12:53 am
@fresco,
I remember seeing this thing a few years ago. If memory serves it is primarily a computation device, a mathematical shortcut. It could mean more than that of course; the calculus could actually mean something about reality, but the jury is still out.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 01:12 am
@Olivier5,
Of course. But by analogy, the heliocentric model could be called merely a better "computation device" than a geocentric model. What takes the second model beyond "device status" is our ability to picture it better than the first in our mind's eye. This raises the significant issue of the relationship of our notion of "reality" to our ability to form "pictures"....a whole ball game in its own right !
Ding an Sich
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 07:40 am
@fresco,
Well no **** Sherlock. But we're talking about the scientific context.

Thanks for the postmodern drivel.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 10:46 am
@Ding an Sich,
Quote:
But we're talking about the scientific context.

No. The OP sets a philosophical agenda irrespective of the quality of exposition.
Quote:
Thanks for the postmodern drivel.

Ah, I see you have a touch of setantitis ! Smile
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 02:02 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
by analogy, the heliocentric model could be called merely a better "computation device" than a geocentric model.

Not really, because the laws of physics one would need to have to accommodate a geocentric model would not be coherent for all celestial objects. E.g. other planets, including some much larger than earth (Jupiter, Saturn etc) would still revolve around the sun, and only earth would be in the situation of having the sun (and everything else in the solar system) revolve around it. At the galaxy level, the picture would become even more bizarre. So it goes beyond a mere computation device - a geocentric model clearly messes up the coherence of physical laws.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 08:37 pm
pretty good drivel if you ask me. I wish we could have more of it.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 09:30 pm
Actually, everything orbits the common center of mass which is within the sun, since it's so much bigger than the planets.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 10:25 pm
@Brandon9000,
Thanks for the info, Brandon. ;-)
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 10:45 pm
@Brandon9000,
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.


William of Ockham...

i thought i was just going to abandon this thread...but the last page of contributions, or so, have made it worth sticking around...Thanks, fresco and JLN. This is one of those moments when i cannot help but regret being such an asshole to both of you in the past. As well as, one of those moments that, despite our differences, i appreciate your sticking to your principles, or whatever intellectual structures you substitute for the same.

Of course, i don't mean to imply that i won't still be a huge **** in the future. But in the meantime, i'm eager to see where this thread goes Razz
0 Replies
 
 

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 09/24/2021 at 12:21:18