Is he hawking b*ll*cks?

[carnyx]

jean

In this case, STA's statements are fallacious, as a woman of your age and experience will know.

And for for someone who is well used to MBs, you also know that pointing out a solecism ... is a solecism)

But seriously Jean, can you add to the discussion?

[abacus9900]

Oct 22, 2010 13:03:29 GMT 1 speakertoanimals said:

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)

No, I said maths is based on intuitive ideas like greater than, less than, probability and so on, which are expressions of real word practical experiences. The fact that maths has been highly developed does not change this otherwise it would not be comprehensible to anyone. It's like language; you can learn a language, given time, but essentially language expresses ideas derived from experience. It does not follow that reality, or at least some parts of it, can be expressed in mathematical terms. For all we know there could be other channels of perception, such as intuition, feelings, spiritual, religious, etc.

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.

Observations do not change, true, but it is the mathematical descriptions of observations that are inherently wrong because within such expressions are unseen errors, so that while the maths seems to work well enough at one level you can never progress to deeper insights without revising the mathematical structures.

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 insights 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.

This illustrates what I am getting at. Conventional physics has no way of 'explaining' in its own terms why entanglement happens and so highlights the fact that out 3 dimensional spacetime 'outlook' fails completely when examining deeper aspects of the universe.

[jean]

In this case, STA's statements are fallacious,

That is something you must show, rather than merely mislabelling the argument.

And...you also know that pointing out a solecism ... is a solecism

The spelling mistake was a solecism, though the effect of pointing it out will (hopefully) be to puncture the air of de haut en bas.

The attempt to derail the argument by accusing the person you're arguing with of a fallacy that is no fallacy is more serious for the matter of the argument, and deserves to have attention drawn to it.

That is my contribution to the discussion.

I await further developments with interest , though without much hope, given the level of argument displayed so far.

[abacus9900]

Oct 22, 2010 13:16:30 GMT 1 olmy said:

Oct 22, 2010 12:37:24 GMT 1 abacus9900 said:

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.

How accurate, though? Do we really know? How accurate can they be when there are still so many questions? Olmy, fact is we know very little about reality. All we can really know about anything is through symbolic little 'pictures' we call maths which is always going to be human based and, therefore, perfunctory. How, for example, can entanglement be accounted for using the scientific method? It can't, so there you are. We have to look elsewhere. An amoeba doesn't need maths to live and survive for a time, it does it instinctively and I think instincts are built into the fabric of reality and should be given greater prominence in forming new scientific models.

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...

I mean the ability to manipulate our environment in order to provide food, shelter, reproduction - all of science is really only based on these, so ultimately science is rooted in the primitive world of having to survive. It does not follow that all of existence can be appreciated or understood in such terms - science just assumes, through the 'scientific method', that it can 'describe' everything in terms of maths. This is actually a big assumption that Popper imposed on the world as a compromise between practical and philosophical concerns.

[olmy]

Oct 22, 2010 15:08:20 GMT 1 carnyx said:

jean

In this case, STA's statements are fallacious, as a woman of your age and experience will know.

And for for someone who is well used to MBs, you also know that pointing out a solecism ... is a solecism)

But seriously Jean, can you add to the discussion?

carnyx, you silly muppet, you accused STA "exhibiting the fallacy of reductio-ad-absurdam".

Not only did you fail to point out in what way she was exhibiting this 'fallacy' but, in fact, there is no such fallacy at all. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid logical argument.

This prize piece of muppetry is not a solecism.

[carnyx]

A problem with your post, Jean.

I have no need to show the error in STA's post .. it is there for all to see! Perhaps you would be able to identify it?

(And is olmy your familiar by any chance?)

[olmy]

Oct 22, 2010 15:29:37 GMT 1 abacus9900 said:

How accurate, though? Do we really know? How accurate can they be when there are still so many questions? Olmy, fact is we know very little about reality. All we can really know about anything is through symbolic little 'pictures' we call maths which is always going to be human based and, therefore, perfunctory. How, for example, can entanglement be accounted for using the scientific method? It can't, so there you are. We have to look elsewhere. An amoeba doesn't need maths to live and survive for a time, it does it instinctively and I think instincts are built into the fabric of reality and should be given greater prominence in forming new scientific models.

"When all else fails waffle!"

Our models are as accurate as they are measured to be.

You seem to be claiming to know how much we don't know about reality.....!?

I can only assume that "can entanglement be accounted for using the scientific method? It can't, so there you are." is some sort of joke....?

The "instincts are built into the fabric of reality" is purest superstition. If you want to go back and live like an amoeba - please don't let me stop you....

Oct 22, 2010 15:29:37 GMT 1 abacus9900 said:

I mean the ability to manipulate our environment in order to provide food, shelter, reproduction....

We were talking about mathematics - do keep track!

[speakertoanimals]

Observations do not change, true, but it is the mathematical descriptions of observations that are inherently wrong because within such expressions are unseen errors, so that while the maths seems to work well enough at one level you can never progress to deeper insights without revising the mathematical structures.

This is utter tosh! And mixes up maths and physics for starters. So, the mathematical expressions you derive for observations/predictions from Newtons Law of gravity are mathematically correct, derivable from the axioms that are the mathematical expression of Newtons laws. And so are the mathematical expressions you derive from Einsteins equations of general relativity.

Both are MATHEMATICALLY correct, but both (or perhaps neither) are physically correct when compared to observations.

All this maths is the scaffolding, not the structure, shows the problems of trying to argue using analogies.

First off, it doesn't accord with earlier claims that maths is a model of reality, not reality itself. Nor does it accord with what is actually the case in theoretical physics -- a physical theory IS maths, its not that the maths supports the theory, or is something that can be removed once the theory is completed. Hence the scaffolding analogy falls down (not a good thing for scaffolding!).

Maths as a language, that is better, a language that enables you to express precisely what you mean by a particular theory. So, you could use the analogy of a complete plan of a structure (the structure described using maths), compared to a blurry photograph of a building, with some parts obscured by trees, some parts just plain invisible, other parts obscured by reflections from windows etc, which would be an attempted description of the actual structure using ordinary language and intuitive analogies, as deemed suitable for the intelligent layperson. Or perhaps even better, such a photograph photographed again, in a dense fog, viewed using the wrong specs, because that is about how far away some common analogies are from the actual physics.....................

[jean]

Oct 22, 2010 15:43:06 GMT 1 carnyx said:

I have no need to show the error in STA's post...

I think you do, carnyx.

And I expect that if you could have shown it, you would have done so. What you did instead was to label her argument a fallacy when it was no such thing.

[olmy]

Oct 22, 2010 15:43:06 GMT 1 carnyx said:

I have no need to show the error in STA's post .. it is there for all to see! Perhaps you would be able to identify it?

;D ;D ;D There is such a need if you don't want to be a laughing stock (although it might be way too late to avoid that).

I think this is a very obvious pretence and there is no error. I challenge you to show that I am wrong.....

[Once again, I'll not be holding my breath. Any Gödel references yet? Any example of me using a genetic fallacy...? ]

[speakertoanimals]

Conventional physics has no way of 'explaining' in its own terms why entanglement happens and so highlights the fact that out 3 dimensional spacetime 'outlook' fails completely when examining deeper aspects of the universe.

Total bollocks! Entanglement arises quite naturally out of quantum theory, which is based on a four-dimensional spacetime 'outlook'.

If you knew anything about it at all, you would have known that the question being asked here was not does quantum theory make correct predictions (it does), but is there possibly an underlying 'hidden variables' theory, more akin to conventional physics. Except the answer is just a plain no, the universe is fundamentally weird, as quantum theory says, and any attempts to make statements about anything that forget this (i.e. invoking no effects without causes, or other similar nonsense), are therefore fundamentally flawed.

Rather than there being some deep and revealing failure, all it shows is that our intuitive view of how things work, or how we think they should work, is just plain wrong, and should be ignored.

[carnyx]

Jean #83

Here is a snippet of the argument that you seem most interested in:

.... 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.

STA's response;

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.

See the strawman?

Where on earth does STA get the idea that anybody on this thread has claimed 'we can never really know anything'?

[abacus9900]

Our models are as accurate as they are measured to be.

You seem to be claiming to know how much we don't know about reality.....!?

I can only assume that "can entanglement be accounted for using the scientific method? It can't, so there you are." is some sort of joke....?

The "instincts are built into the fabric of reality" is purest superstition. If you want to go back and live like an amoeba - please don't let me stop you....

Olmy, simply measuring something is not the same as understanding it!

Again, I have to remind you that the way we measure something has to be in our terms that make sense to us. You seem to have concluded that there are no other legitimate ways of understanding reality, but how can you be so sure? What about psychic phenomena or religious experience? Are all of these to be totally dismissed without another thought because they do not seem amenable to scientific measurements? You see, the great weakness with science is that it automatically discounts so much unless and until it can express things in its own terms but that is a huge part of reality that is being excluded. Fact is, the idea of other dimensions used to be thought of as belonging to the lunatic fringe yet nowadays it is becoming part of mainstream science, so you see, we are guilty of being very arrogant to discount many ideas that currently aren't accepted by science. UFO's are a good example, where, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, mainstream science dismisses UFO's as either natural phenomena or misidentifications or psychological aberrations, and so on.

I don't know why you think I am joking about quantum entanglement because nobody can explain it. They just accept it and move on because it challenges and makes us confront our most cherished ideas about space and time.

The point about the amoeba analogy was to highlight the fact that often, our instincts are correct about things and should not always be deprecated. Have you not heard of 'gut instinct' which has often produced the correct answer while more conventional methods have not?

Oct 22, 2010 15:29:37 GMT 1 abacus9900 said:

I mean the ability to manipulate our environment in order to provide food, shelter, reproduction....

We were talking about mathematics - do keep track!

Where do you think maths came from, Olmy?

[abacus9900]

Rather than there being some deep and revealing failure, all it shows is that our intuitive view of how things work, or how we think they should work, is just plain wrong, and should be ignored.

I'm sorry to upset you STA but you have just admitted that the scientific method has failed here and you just want to ignore it! Is this not a form of religious dogmatism?

[abacus9900]

This is utter tosh! And mixes up maths and physics for starters. So, the mathematical expressions you derive for observations/predictions from Newtons Law of gravity are mathematically correct, derivable from the axioms that are the mathematical expression of Newtons laws. And so are the mathematical expressions you derive from Einsteins equations of general relativity.

Both are MATHEMATICALLY correct, but both (or perhaps neither) are physically correct when compared to observations.

Maths and physics are similiar in that they are both based on axiomatic assumptions. In the case of maths, logical relations are proposed and with physics scientific principles are formed. Again, though, the basic flaw with both of these is that they rely on incomplete information.

All this maths is the scaffolding, not the structure, shows the problems of trying to argue using analogies.

First off, it doesn't accord with earlier claims that maths is a model of reality, not reality itself. Nor does it accord with what is actually the case in theoretical physics -- a physical theory IS maths, its not that the maths supports the theory, or is something that can be removed once the theory is completed. Hence the scaffolding analogy falls down (not a good thing for scaffolding!).

Maths as a language, that is better, a language that enables you to express precisely what you mean by a particular theory. So, you could use the analogy of a complete plan of a structure (the structure described using maths), compared to a blurry photograph of a building, with some parts obscured by trees, some parts just plain invisible, other parts obscured by reflections from windows etc, which would be an attempted description of the actual structure using ordinary language and intuitive analogies, as deemed suitable for the intelligent layperson. Or perhaps even better, such a photograph photographed again, in a dense fog, viewed using the wrong specs, because that is about how far away some common analogies are from the actual physics.....................

It all depends on what you wish to examine. Simply producing finer and finer details of something does not define it. Cerebral examination eliminates other ways of 'perceiving' things.