Thread: Imagination

>>Clyde: Laws don't change at all, what we think of them changes, the rules the universe runs on don't suddenly alter themselves when we figure something out. <<

The point I originally made was the subjectivity of observation, which i'm happy to see you now concur with. There is a notion called the 'anthropic principle' (it has a name, guess it must be a 'law') that suggests that these 'laws' exist and the uni/multiverse exists only because we observe/describe them.

>>Clyde: WRONG, self-validating!? What nonsense! Science is validated by EXPERIMENT, real life validates science, everytime you step in a car or aeroplane, or use a computer, or take any medicine you validate science.<<

Experiment is empirical observation, specifically the deducto-hypothetico technique. As with all other philosophical doctrines/methodologies it relies on core, unprovable assumptions. Your arguments, like science, are circular. All science does is ergo cogito sum.

>>Clyde: Eh!? Of course there are "actual" laws! If there weren't "actual" laws everything would be in flux there would be no fixed properties, no repeatable experiements, no complex systems could ever exist, etc. etc<<

Do these 'laws' exist in the absence of anyone to observe them?

>>Clyde: It's not assertation, we can track the universe back to 1*10^-32 of a second. We know what happened. <<

I wouldn't give a flying hooey if 'we' then asserted that it all emerged from the enlarged sphincter of a wooly mammoth- assertion is still not proof. In any event, that was a response to your "....... the laws of physics are the same everywhere" comment; which still remains (within the limits of our experience) an unprovable assertion. Since you are fond of EXPERIMENT, here's a simple challenge: go and devise an experiment to prove that the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

>>Clyde: Wrong, we are most certainly NOT limited by our imagination we left those limits behind a long time ago, we can't imagine wave-particle duality, in fact we can't imagine most of quantum mechanics or relativity. We can overcome the limits of our imagination with mathematics. <<

Where exactly do you believe these ideas come from? Tea-leaves? Fairies? We can't imagine quantum mechanics or relativity? I'm sorry, I was unaware that Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Pauli and Feynman to name but a few were not human, although I might concede that mathematics can be fairly inhumane at times.

>>Clyde: Quantum effects break down on anything larger than a simple molecule.<<

Molecules can get pretty big. Anyway, isn't this just a detection limit problem: no-one's going to be in a great hurry to test for quantum intereference in something as chunky as a person.

>>Clyde: Properties that are not subjective; length, volume, temperature, wavelength, etc. all objective not subjective.<<

All observations are subjective.

>>Clyde: WRONG, utterly wrong. It's not speculation at all, claiming that all things might be possible is beyond ridiculous:<<

Read it again: 'all things might be possible'. Now apply those logic rules you discussed earlier to that statement.

>>Clyde: The universe is governed by rules, we are part of the universe, we are hence governed by the universe's rules, accordingly if the rules dictate something is impossible, it is impossible. End of story.<<

I prefer: 'Science provides a useful dynamic model that partially describes some of my observations and questions. It is always subject to constant re-evaluation and re-definition; it is not absolute. The uni/multiverse is currently considered infinite. In an infinite uni/multiverse all things are possible.'

>>-Ken-: Would it be possible to be shot seven times in the head at point blanc range and survive?<<

Possibly. I read about this a while ago; apparently it's a famous 'thought-experiment' but stands as an actual challenge for anyone willing to demonstrate their utter faith in the laws of Quantum mechanics. How about it Clyde?

"The point I originally made was the subjectivity of observation, which i'm happy to see you now concur with"

Not all observation is subjective.

"There is a notion called the 'anthropic principle' (it has a name, guess it must be a 'law')"

I'm well aware of it, and it's not a law.

"that suggests that these 'laws' exist and the uni/multiverse exists only because we observe/describe them"

Thats not what it says at all. The anthropic principle is an explanation for why the universe has some of the properties it does, it does NOT say those laws exist merely because we observe/describe them. I suggest you read up on the topic before you use it in an argument.

"Experiment is empirical observation, specifically the deducto-hypothetico technique. As with all other philosophical doctrines/methodologies it relies on core, unprovable assumptions. ".

There is only ONE assumption that science makes;it is that our senses are based on reality and not faked. That assumption is a pretty safe bet, further more, science WORKS planes fly, computers compute, cars drive, etc. etc. if that assumption was false they wouldn't.

"Your arguments, like science, are circular."

Where are my arguments circular?

"All science does is ergo cogito sum"

No... that would be Decarte.

"Do these 'laws' exist in the absence of anyone to observe them? "

Yes, and it is idiocy to claim otherwise.

"I wouldn't give a flying hooey if 'we' then asserted that it all emerged from the enlarged sphincter of a wooly mammoth- assertion is still not proof."

*sigh* I am so tired of tired of coming up against this kind if ignorance. Scientists know (well have pretty good idea anyway) what happened at the very beginning of time not by magically guessing, but by WORKING IT OUT, based upon the evidence in the universe around us. It's not assertation it's SCIENCE, based upon evidence and derived theory.

"Where exactly do you believe these ideas come from? Tea-leaves? Fairies?"

The "ideas" come from MATHS, mathematical derivation, NOT "imagination".

"We can't imagine quantum mechanics or relativity?"

Bingo, or perhaps you can imagine 9 dimensional space? Or imagine what you would "see" if you could "zoom in" on a molecule and look at electrons?

" I'm sorry, I was unaware that Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Dirac, Pauli and Feynman to name but a few were not human"

Eh? Again you argue from IGNORANCE, I study quantum mechanics at university and the first thing that the lecturers tell you is that you CANNOT imagine the principles in your head. They are derived mathematically, you can use them to predict, but you absolutely CANNOT picture what's going on.

"Molecules can get pretty big."

Hence "simple" molecules.

"Anyway, isn't this just a detection limit problem: no-one's going to be in a great hurry to test for quantum intereference in something as chunky as a person. "

WRONG, it's NOT a detection problem, it's because quantum effects break down with macroscopic objects.

"All observations are subjective"

Wrong, wavelength is not subjective, velocity is not subjective, mass is not subjective, energy is not subjective, voltage is not subjective, power is not subjective, etc. etc. Percieved colour on the hand, how loud a sound sounds, how cold it feels, etc. they are subjective, see the difference?

"I prefer: 'Science provides a useful dynamic model that partially describes some of my observations and questions"

Your observations and quesitons...... and what exactly would they be?

"It is always subject to constant re-evaluation and re-definition; it is not absolute"

Re-evaluation is basically checking to see if people have made mistakes, but eventually you are left with a theory that does not get "re-defined"(or if you like the "re-definitions" become less and less significant) because its for want of a better word "right". The Earth is round and I can tell you now that will never change, and will never be re-defined.

"but stands as an actual challenge for anyone willing to demonstrate their utter faith in the laws of Quantum mechanics"

There are areas of quantum mechanics that will undoubtedly change when quantum gravity turns up, that doesn't mean that it will be totally scrapped, clearly most of it works.

"So shut up and keep argueing with fitlike over something that you've been proved wrong in 3 times in this thread, at least"

*searches for this "proof"*, sorry you'll have to point it out for me. Oh, and please accept my humblest apologies for ever questioning your vast knowledge on this topic.

>>proved wrong in 3 times in this thread

Funny, I swear I read this entire thread and I didnt notice anything like that. Clydes logic appears unflawed as usual.

>>The astral

Say what now? Stick to actual things here, don't go pulling weird witchcraft **** outta your arse.

>>Possibly. I read about this a while ago; apparently it's a famous 'thought-experiment' but stands as an actual challenge for anyone willing to demonstrate their utter faith in the laws of Quantum mechanics. How about it Clyde?<<

Point blanc? you realize that means right up against your head, right? Ok, ok, how about this: A shotgun, point blanc, right at your temple. Then once between the eyes for good measure.

>>"I prefer: 'Science provides a useful dynamic model that partially describes some of my observations and questions"

I'd just like to point something out here.

From my Oxford:

Science:
a branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systamized observation of and experiments with phenomena


Can anyone else think of an effective method of gathering knowledge? Guessing perhaps? Premonitions? Faith? These all get progressivly more and more ridiculous. Science is merely the word for the only logical process available to explain the universe we live in. When there is a logical and mathematically precise method available, why oh _why_ do some people refuse to accept what that method indicates? I dont understand.


>>unprovable assumptions.

*doh* I ask you this:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

... What is next in this pattern based on the knowledge you have? ... Exactly. Technically, 23 is an unprovable asumption. But it is a far more logical choice then say 42. Why do I see so many people here who would say 42? When faced with a finite amount of evidence one obviously cannot be infinitly certain of the result. But get a grip man. When presented with a finite amount of evidence pointing to one result and non-existant evidence for another, WHY do some people chose to argue the other? You might as well scrap the whole reasoning process.