|
Post by olmy on Oct 22, 2010 8:16:51 GMT 1
carnyx, you really are a clown! I'll just add 'reading for comprehension' and 'the theorems of Kurt Gödel' to the list of things you know nothing about. For those interested, Gödel produced incompleteness theorems, the clue about what he said of formal systems is in the name.....
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 22, 2010 8:29:48 GMT 1
Hi Olmy!
Out for your morning blurt, is it?
And thank you for confirming my aside on Goedel's famous paradoxes. It seems you are not aware that they are the very manifestation, and proof, of incompleteness[i/]
Which, as you show in your post, is clearly one of your existential difficulties.
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 22, 2010 8:42:27 GMT 1
And thank you for confirming my aside on Goedel's famous paradoxes. It seems you are not aware that they are the very manifestation, and proof, of incompleteness[i/]You said "Goedel's idea that in any systems based on axioms, there will be paradox". Rather than your usual content and thought free bluster, why not provide a reputable source to back up this statement....? I'll not hold my breath......
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 22, 2010 9:56:17 GMT 1
Abacus, you are right about the idea that the mathematical models are tools, rather like the scaffolding which is necessary to build, yet is not the building. Anyway, STA clearly does not share Popper's view of the provisional nature of scientific 'truths'. Or perhaps even Goedel's idea that in any systems based on axioms, there will be paradox. One gets the feeling that she wishes that Physics was over and settled, so she can get on and teach it. Maybe this low tolerance of ambiguity is behind her aggression. And that, given the umbrage in her last two paragraphs, is really amusing, n'est-ce pas? Well, I think what STA too readily forgets is that science grew out of philosophical musings so that philosophy is a necessary underpinning to scientific enquiry. To that extent at least we can all pose questions about the universe, even non-scientists, so to assert that you have to hold a scientific degree to think intelligently about things seems very arrogant and protectionist. I'm sure even the most qualified scientists ask themselves philosophical questions that many others have asked and the job of science is to analyse methodically and systematically such questions. As regards Goedel, his proof of the Incompleteness Theorem clearly demonstrates that we can only know things based on what we already know and there will inevitably be unseen built in contradictions to what we know making our accumulated knowledge essentially wrong, which is why we can only ever hope to achieve a very rough model of what we think is reality. In any case, reality is actually not all 'out there' because we, as observers, form an intrinsic part of it and as such have to be included within its definition so that it is our reactions to observations that bring in mathematics and instruments and concepts that construct models of our conscious experiences.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 22, 2010 10:15:51 GMT 1
The truth is that even mathematics is intuitive, if you examine its basis. Where does mathematics come from? It comes from the need to organize objects in the real world into sets in order to manipulate them and we impose this approach onto the examination of the universe which will inevitably fail because the universe is much more subtler than that.
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 22, 2010 11:52:28 GMT 1
Well, I think what STA too readily forgets is that science grew out of philosophical musings so that philosophy is a necessary underpinning to scientific enquiry. The truth is that even mathematics is intuitive, if you examine its basis. Where does mathematics come from? Cultivating a couple of genetic fallacies, I see....
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 22, 2010 12:35:00 GMT 1
Olmy.. you are priceless!
Can't you see that your posts are a living example of the genetic fallacy!
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 22, 2010 12:37:24 GMT 1
Well, I think what STA too readily forgets is that science grew out of philosophical musings so that philosophy is a necessary underpinning to scientific enquiry. The truth is that even mathematics is intuitive, if you examine its basis. Where does mathematics come from? Cultivating a couple of genetic fallacies, I see.... I don't really see how, Olmy. Mathematics isn't some magical device that opens up the secrets of the universe; it is ultimately based on human perceptions and so is as limited as human perceptions. Mathematics describes relationships between things but such relationships must always be considered within the context of human values. Attempting to impose such a value-system on the rest of reality is essentially modifying it to a subjectively human-based system of ideas.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 22, 2010 13:03:29 GMT 1
And so we're back to much of the usual bilge. In short:
Maths is just a tool
Maths is intuitive (a surprise to all of you that can't do advanced maths, and along the lines of maths is just analogies that we've had before)
Godel says physics has a problem -- this one is another sure sign of charlatans, usually on the mistaken assumption that Godel involves paradoxes (it doesn't), so that we can never really know anything. Along with Popper says all theories are provisional, hence we can never really know anything.
Actually, this last is utter nonsense, and in fact confuses theories and observations.
To take an example. I observe rocks fall to the ground, I have the theory that this is a natural affinity of rocks for the earth beneath, whereas lighter things have an affinity for the air above. Hence en I heat water I turn it from being more earth-like as water, to more air-like as steam, when it then rises.
Later on. New theory, everything falls unless something prevents it. A new THEORY, yet the basic observation (things fall) remains unchanged.
So, back to quantum theory. We have the unassailable observation that measurements of entangled quantum objects violate an inequality. If we have what most people would think of a sensible physics (locality, determinism and so on), this could not be so.
Hence we have a clear signal that SOMETHING weird is going on. Exactly how that weirdness is explained is only ever provisional, but the observations that things can't be straightforward because of the violated inequality remains.
It's like saying, what happens when I drop this rock, does it go up or does it go down? The explanation as to why it goes down may change (invisible gravitational pull, the shape of curved spacetime, exchange of elusive virtual photons between the rock and the earth, shielding of some mythical pressure force by the earth, hence the rock is pushed down, carried down by invisible blue goblins all named Wilbur..........), but the fact of it falling rather than rising doesn't change, just as the fact that a quantity based on the correlations between measurements on a pair of entangled particles lies on one side of a number rather than the other. The fact that Bells inequality is violated isn't going to change, and scuppers all commonsense explanations of entanglement.
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 22, 2010 13:09:14 GMT 1
Olmy.. you are priceless! Can't you see that your posts are a living example of the genetic fallacy! ;D ;D ;D ;D Yet another random accusation with no evidence! Go on, point to something I said that is an example. Once again, I'll not be holding my breath..................... [Got anywhere with finding that reference, yet?]
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 22, 2010 13:16:30 GMT 1
Mathematics isn't some magical device that opens up the secrets of the universe... No, but it has been shown to be useful in producing accurate models of reality. Not only that but it has been shown to be the only way to make any real sense of some aspects of reality. ...it is ultimately based on human perceptions and so is as limited as human perceptions. That's sort of a truism. However, it is a very different way of thinking from the 'everyday'. Mathematics describes relationships between things but such relationships must always be considered within the context of human values. Attempting to impose such a value-system on the rest of reality is essentially modifying it to a subjectively human-based system of ideas. Now you've wandered off Zarquon knows where.... If you mean things is a physical sense, you are wrong. I have no idea what you think 'human values' have to do with it or even what you mean by the phrase in this context...
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 22, 2010 13:52:09 GMT 1
STA, you really are exhibiting the fallacy of reductio-ad-absurdam
No-one here is saying;
You really must get your non-sequiturs under control, or we shall think you irrational
And with regard to Goedel's idea ..... as a matter for debate other than one of your de-haut-en-bas posts:
... how else do theories get refined, other than by the stimulus of counterexamples.. aka contradictions ... aka 'paradox'?
(And to clarify, I use the greek word 'paradox' as the preposition para, meaning "against" or "beyond", and the noun stem doxa, meaning "belief" or "opinion" )
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 22, 2010 14:00:34 GMT 1
Olmy,
Apparently, you pray to Zarquon!
Then be a sweetie and sent him our regards, and ask if he could grant you the wit to start a thread.
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 22, 2010 14:10:50 GMT 1
Olmy, Apparently, you pray to Zarquon! Then be a sweetie and sent him our regards, and ask if he could grant you the wit to start a thread. I guess that's your admission that you cannot find a reference to back up your drivel about Gödel and cannot point to an example of my using a genetic fallacy. Good job I didn't hold my breath.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 22, 2010 14:18:41 GMT 1
STA, you really are exhibiting the fallacy of reductio-ad-absurdamIt's not a fallacy, carnyx - it's a legitimate and often illuminating form of argument. (And it's spelt absurdum.)
|
|