|
Post by jean on Oct 22, 2010 22:35:17 GMT 1
Jean #83 Here is a snippet of the argument that you seem most interested in: STA's response; See the strawman? Where on earth does STA get the idea that anybody on this thread has claimed 'we can never really know anything'? What I do see is you using Popper's dictum to justify your not believing something STA has said, without adducing any other evidence. As she points out, you can do exactly that with absolutely anything - and without further argument, you have proved nothing. I may not be a scientist nor even an engineer, but I know a bad argument when I see one.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 24, 2010 18:45:29 GMT 1
simplex,
You fail to see that NO-ONE has said " Popper says all theories are provisional, hence we can never really know anything."
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 24, 2010 21:21:17 GMT 1
Of course I don't, carnyx!
STA's Popper says all theories are provisional, hence we can never really know anything was indeed, as you spotted (well done!) the reductio ad absurdum of what you did say.
See my last post for an explanation.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 24, 2010 21:34:45 GMT 1
simplerx,
Thank you for agreeing with my original observation that STA was engaging in reductio ad absurdum, to point of creating a straw man argument
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 24, 2010 21:49:33 GMT 1
I agree with you only insofar as STA really was engaging in reductio ad absurdum - which, let's remember, is not a fallacy.
That she was creating a straw man argument was not part of your original observation, of course, and I don't agree with that.
(I don't think you've digested the explanation in my #90, have you?)
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 25, 2010 11:44:22 GMT 1
No I didn't -- I just said that what fails is our intuition.
Back to quantum entanglement -- rather than not explaining it, or treating it as some big problem, or ignoring it, science instead focuses on it, because it says most clearly how our intuition about the universe is just plain wrong. Its says that the way quantum objects behave is totally unlike the way classical objects behave, which is what our physical intuition is built on. Hence no surprise if our in tuition fails at the quantum level.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 25, 2010 20:19:11 GMT 1
No I didn't -- I just said that what fails is our intuition. Back to quantum entanglement -- rather than not explaining it, or treating it as some big problem, or ignoring it, science instead focuses on it, because it says most clearly how our intuition about the universe is just plain wrong. Its says that the way quantum objects behave is totally unlike the way classical objects behave, which is what our physical intuition is built on. Hence no surprise if our in tuition fails at the quantum level. Yes, so you're admitting the scientific method, which incorporates human intuition, has failed. What you seem to desperately want to avoid is to admit your cherished spacetime ideas are not enough to account for 'spooky action at a distance.' What we need are new models of the universe which extend our understanding, but ultimately, all we have is intuition to guide us. The alternative is to conclude that reality is, at base, chaotic and undefinable.
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 26, 2010 8:23:34 GMT 1
Yes, so you're admitting the scientific method, which incorporates human intuition, has failed. What you seem to desperately want to avoid is to admit your cherished spacetime ideas are not enough to account for 'spooky action at a distance.' What we need are new models of the universe which extend our understanding, but ultimately, all we have is intuition to guide us. The alternative is to conclude that reality is, at base, chaotic and undefinable. What a bizarre and utterly ridiculous post! The scientific method (the process of asking questions, building hypotheses, making predictions, testing...) has proceeded without a blink through the discovery of entanglement (and all the other intuition defying discoveries). It is not, in any way, affected by the content of the hypotheses and theories developed. Your wittering about "all we have is intuition" is just so much gibberish. Intuition has failed and science has simply moved beyond it. You just don't like that fact, is all....
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 26, 2010 9:12:29 GMT 1
You're a fool if you think intuition has no part to play in constructing new scientific theories. Where do you think new ideas come from? Maths alone will never allow us to make further progress in understanding the way the universe is put together; the function of maths is to subject new ideas to logical scrutiny, or did you not know that? Einstein never relied solely on mathematics - he used maths to check ideas that were generated by his remarkable intuitive abilities. Your comments probably indicate why you have little ability to put over ideas in an intuitive way, rather than in mathematical terms. Entanglement has not so far been accounted for by any new scientific foundation so stop pretending in has, in common with STA.
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 26, 2010 9:33:14 GMT 1
You're a fool if you think intuition has no part to play in constructing new scientific theories. Where do you think new ideas come from? Maths alone will never allow us to make further progress in understanding the way the universe is put together; the function of maths is to subject new ideas to logical scrutiny, or did you not know that? Einstein never relied solely on mathematics - he used maths to check ideas that were generated by his remarkable intuitive abilities. Your comments probably indicate why you have little ability to put over ideas in an intuitive way, rather than in mathematical terms. Entanglement has not so far been accounted for by any new scientific foundation so stop pretending in has, in common with STA. Firstly let's note you completely changing the subject away from the supposed failure of the scientific method, due to non-intuitive ideas like entanglement, and on to 'well you are using intuition anyway'. This is an old tactic of yours - never mind sticking to the point I made just argue with each post in any way at all, just for the sake of it.... On this post (and no doubt your argument will totally change again next time), it depends how far you want to push the definition of 'intuition'. Of course, if one is familiar with a logical structure (say a mathematical model), no matter how abstract and no matter how disconnected with 'physical intuition' it is, you may have new, speculative ideas about it that may turn out to be correct. Pure mathematics proceeds like this despite (quite possibly) having nothing at all to do with our intuitive ideas about how the world works. Your last statement remains gibberish. I have no idea what you even mean by "entanglement has not so far been accounted for by any new scientific foundation". What the hell is a "new scientific foundation" if not a theory (which of course, entanglement is clearly covered by)?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 26, 2010 10:19:18 GMT 1
I am sure that any interested outsider must quail at the amount of personal abuse they're going to have to wade though if they're ever going to find anything interesting or informative underneath.
What I would like to know is what abacus means by
Does he mean in a way that is comprehensible by someone with no mathematical knowledge, who understands scientific information by intuition rather than with the help of mathematics?
And is the intuitive explanation a substitute for the mathematical one and equivalent to it, or is it in some way superior?
And would abacus claim (which seems to have been a crucial point of the argument here) that there is absolutely nothing which cannot be understood by absolutely anyone, provided it's appropriately explained?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 26, 2010 10:55:22 GMT 1
Then let me simplify for you. Entanglement does not currently fit into the known laws of physics and to assert that we can observe its effects is certainly not equivalent to providing a foundation within which to explain it. Again, I have to come back to the distinction between observing phenomena and explaining it. Faster than light action at a distance is prohibited so we have no rationale within which to accommodate such an effect.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 26, 2010 11:03:52 GMT 1
I am sure that any interested outsider must quail at the amount of personal abuse they're going to have to wade though if they're ever going to find anything interesting or informative underneath. What I would like to know is what abacus means by Does he mean in a way that is comprehensible by someone with no mathematical knowledge, who understands scientific information by intuition rather than with the help of mathematics? And is the intuitive explanation a substitute for the mathematical one and equivalent to it, or is it in some way superior? And would abacus claim (which seems to have been a crucial point of the argument here) that there is absolutely nothing which cannot be understood by absolutely anyone, provided it's appropriately explained? Both mathematical and intuitive ideas are necessary for any new scientific ideas to evolve since maths alone cannot suggest new approaches, that's all I'm saying. Call It original thinking if you like or philosophy. As to personal abuse, it is predominantly the other side who is responsible for that (as usual). Of course I am not saying anyone at all can understand scientific theories but I am saying that intuition plays a crucial role in generating new approaches to solving old problems. The kind of intuition I am referring to has, of course, to be based on a great deal of scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 26, 2010 11:08:42 GMT 1
Then let me simplify for you. Entanglement does not currently fit into the known laws of physics... Quantum mechanics is part of the 'known laws of physics'. Not only does entanglement fit in with it, it is explained by it and was predicted by it (hence the stuff about it being just an observation is equally daft). Faster than light action at a distance is prohibited so we have no rationale within which to accommodate such an effect. Faster than light transfer of information is prohibited - you cannot transfer classical information via entanglement. This is anyway beside the point. Quantum mechanics is just as much part of the laws of physics as special relativity is. Even if it there was a solid contradiction, your statement would still be piffle. Of course, there is a problem reconciling general relativity with quantum theory - that doesn't stop either being part of the 'laws of physics', it just means we don't know everything yet (alert the media!)....
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 26, 2010 11:26:13 GMT 1
Can I have a reply to my #100, please?
|
|