|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 1, 2010 12:24:59 GMT 1
Total nonsense (again). Of course it is you just have to 'speak' the equations. symbols is just shorted. What is new in the language is not the symbols, but the vocabulary -- you need new words to describe the new concepts, concepts that don't arise in everyday language.
Constantly quoting Feynman, when I have already said that what he meant by 'understand' was understand in the intuitive way that we understand analogies. Making out that it means understand in every way is just totally daft. It's the lack of an intuitive understanding that he was getting at, and pointing out that we would NEVER have that. Doesn't mean we can' have a different sort of understanding, as we do with maths.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 1, 2010 12:40:24 GMT 1
The problem, in my view, is that people keep forgetting that we are part of the process of observation, or put another way, we are part of the nature of things, so that there is no such thing as an independent reality awaiting discovery by sentient beings like us. There is, in any observation, an 'observer' and that which is 'observed' and neither can exist without the other and I think they both feed on one another in the sense that a feedback loop is created that modifies both elements involved in the process. This appears to be how progress is made in terms of scientific and technological developments; experiments and observations are made, questions are asked, further experiments and observations are made and in the process both the 'observer' and the 'observee' are changed and developed. We must never forget that we are as much part of the natural universe as the tiniest bit of matter so we are matter interacting with matter and making matter evolve. Perhaps this is the purpose of the universe - to evolve and attain consciousness in order to know itself. A wonderful idea but is it true? This is where I think Feynman got it wrong; he asserts: "The more you see how strangely Nature behaves...", but this is seeing things from the wrong perspective, the perspective that looks on nature as being independent from us and going its own merry way regardless of any observations. It's not so much that nature behaves strangely - it the relationship between nature and us that creates strange results because we are always part of the equation.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 1, 2010 12:50:09 GMT 1
Just because you attach a label to something and call it a 'mystery' doesn't mean is stops being a mystery. Description is not necessarily the same thing as explanation. For example, Newton provided the mathematical basis for gravity which was a description, yet did not at all understand what gravity was. This is where you are going wrong STA. Maths is good at describing things but true understanding needs more.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 1, 2010 12:57:29 GMT 1
Right, bring on the pseudo-philosophical, pseudo-mystical nonsense. And give us an example of 'true' understanding please.................
The point about physical theories is that they do a hell of a lot more than 'describe', they do explain. So, we have QED, which brings within a single unified framework things seemingly as different as motors and power stations, to the exact magnetic moment of the electron. This is far from just 'describing' the physics, as you would know if you knew any physics.
As regards gravity, he said what gravity was better than Newton (for Newton, it was a mysterious force at a distance), in that he said gravity was the geometry of spacetime. In some sense, what Newton said was a simpler description (there is a force, you can measure it, it depends on the masses and distances like this), whereas statements about spacetime being curved, and that curvature ebing dyanmic, and effecting and being effected by matter and energy, is far from a simple description.
|
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Oct 1, 2010 13:14:15 GMT 1
Actually I don't think anybody has insisted that the big bang was the start of space time. The classical theory leads to that conclusion, however, pretty much everyone acknowledges that this is likely to be modified. There seems to be a lot of confusion around people trying to correct misunderstandings about theory vers. insisting that the theory is definitely correct. |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 1, 2010 13:49:10 GMT 1
I can't give you an example of true understanding because we don't have one, this is the point. Science has mathematical descriptions (which you call 'explanations') but there exists a barrier which science has come up against which seems insurmountable, at least so far. It might be that humans are not yet evolved enough to overcome such a barrier and so have to rely on mathematical analogies which do not provide true understanding but rather simply represents shadows of what it attempts to describe. For true understanding to take place we have to evolve into a higher consciousness/intelligence - a higher species, in fact. At the moment we are rather like marmosets trying to figure out what is really happening when the sun goes away and it gets dark. What colossal arrogance you display STA in assuming you can provide true insights into a universe that has been around for more time than we can imagine and that our puny maths is adequate to really gets to grips with it. Your scientific pride is showing again STA, but could it be a false pride?
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 1, 2010 14:38:48 GMT 1
And give us an example of 'true' understanding please................. It is difficult to define ‘understanding’ and it is notable that educationalists shy away from looking for ‘understanding’ However, we all intuitively know when we ‘understand’ something, a system, a concept. Our understanding is expressed (and recognised) through an ease with and unassuming mastery of the concept or system, an ability to draw on analogies, similes, parallels, and yet immediately know when these are inadequate and what the inadequacies are and attempt through open and frank discussion to overcome the limitations; the ability to speak fluently and with authority on the concept or system and yet easily accept that there are gaps in our knowledge, and to be open to criticism without our ‘virility’ being affronted. And understanding is also manifested by our willingness to know the limitations of our knowledge and yet not be deterred by those limitations – indeed to welcome the recognition of our limitations as a spur to learn more about the subject, the acceptance that any analogy must be flawed, that any model is an over-simplification of the reality. The ability to sometimes accept phenomena as necessary to supporting a model whilst also recognising that the phenomena may be wrong and misleading and is accepted solely for convenience until susch time as a beter explanation may be available But without any doubt at all, the acid test of ‘understanding’ of any subject is to appear in a court of law as an ‘expert witness’ and be bombarded with questions by very clever people, questions that demand answers, to be faced with other ‘masters of understanding’ (experts) who disagree with your opinions, and in all this have to convince a panel of non-experts of the integrity of your case you are supporting. It is quite evident that with the attitude expressed on these board that STA and Olmy would not last 5 minutes in such an environment – indeed no law firm would consider using them with their trenchant views, closed minds and propensity to insult those that question them! Arrogance is not an asset in such a setting; hubris leads to ridicule! |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 1, 2010 15:02:17 GMT 1
Except you have not shown that maths IS an analogy, you just keep claiming it is, whilst not being able to show what this deeper understanding might be.
As regards maths, the FACTS are that as far as we are able to test (which is a physical limit), the predictions of ours maths (which is an intellectual limit) fit. Not just almost fit, or roughly fit, but fit EXACTLY. Hence that is that, the universe (not us) appears to be inherently mathematical.
It need not have been that way, but it is. You could argue that there is some tenuous link between the mathematical form of the laws of physics, and the nature of creatures that evolve in such a universe and discover some maths.
But the rest of your post is just pseudo-mystical claptrap, empty of all substance.
Which is just the old, if you can't explain it to intelligent non-specialists, you don't understand it. And if you knew science, you'd know that scientific debate has a more stringent standard of (dis)proof than the law courts. You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that humanities graduates such as lawyers are smarter, and would ask harder questions, that fellow scientists.
Just tripe and waffle followed by even more tripe and waffle (which as a foodstuff probably wouldn't be recommended, either with or without maple syrup................)
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 1, 2010 15:10:30 GMT 1
Just a summary of where we are at. Some people aren't interested in the actual answers to physics questions, else they'd say something about that. No, we all have is repetition of a few themes, which can be expressed as:
You damn scientists, you think you're SO clever, with all your incomprehensible maths and funny equations. You don't really understand ANYTHING, because maths is just an analogy (doesn't matter that I don't understand any maths, I'll just keep using that line that I came across on the BBc boards one day), you can't explain this physics nonsense to a non-specialist, so you don't really understand it either, it's all a big con.
Which I think just boils down to -- I can't do science or maths, I don't like scientists or mathematicians telling me I just don't understand it, therefore I'd rather believe that either they don't really understand either (redefine understand as you will at this point), or that what they think they understand is a poor reflection of the ultimate nature of reality.
Which is rather a complicated defense mechanism from someone, just to avoid admitting that there are some things they are incapable of understanding -- I don't understand lots of things, I don't get all funny about it, just stick to what I do understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 1, 2010 15:14:12 GMT 1
Which is just the old, if you can't explain it to intelligent non-specialists, you don't understand it. And if you knew science, you'd know that scientific debate has a more stringent standard of (dis)proof than the law courts. You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that humanities graduates such as lawyers are smarter, and would ask harder questions, that fellow scientists. Just tripe and waffle followed by even more tripe and waffle (which as a foodstuff probably wouldn't be recommended, either with or without maple syrup................) ;D A succinct demonstration of why you would be considered unsuitable as an 'expert' witness! |
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 1, 2010 15:19:24 GMT 1
Just a summary of where we are at. Some people aren't interested in the actual answers to physics questions, else they'd say something about that. No, we all have is repetition of a few themes, which can be expressed as: You damn scientists, you think you're SO clever, with all your incomprehensible maths and funny equations. You don't really understand ANYTHING, because maths is just an analogy (doesn't matter that I don't understand any maths, I'll just keep using that line that I came across on the BBc boards one day), you can't explain this physics nonsense to a non-specialist, so you don't really understand it either, it's all a big con. Which I think just boils down to -- I can't do science or maths, I don't like scientists or mathematicians telling me I just don't understand it, therefore I'd rather believe that either they don't really understand either (redefine understand as you will at this point), or that what they think they understand is a poor reflection of the ultimate nature of reality. Which is rather a complicated defense mechanism from someone, just to avoid admitting that there are some things they are incapable of understanding -- I don't understand lots of things, I don't get all funny about it, just stick to what I do understand. You really do have a closed-mind, a person who just cannot see the viewpoint of others that do in fact admire and respect science yet are not prepared to accept the more outrageous blandishments that are often , as you have demonstrated, self-contradictory. You appear to conside that insult is as good an argument as any other |
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Oct 1, 2010 15:23:15 GMT 1
I could never become so proficient at a musical instrument that I could play in a professional orchestra. I recognise that this is something that I cannot do - it's not the fault of my music teacher.
I cannot paint or draw things that look like what they're suppopsed to never mind capture some other quality such as mood or emotion through art. I recognise that this is something that I cannot do - it's not the fault of my art teacher.
I could never become a world leading sportsman - I don't have the innate ability or the dedication to the training that this requires. I recognise that this is something that I cannot do - it's not the fault of my PE teacher.
Why is it that when people don't understand e.g. science or maths, they blame the teacher rather than recognising that we cannot all attain the same level of understanding as Prof Brian Cox by demanding of others on a message board, answers that we are able to understand?
Our lack of understanding is our lack of ability to understand - not the fault of the teacher.
|
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Oct 1, 2010 15:59:11 GMT 1
I could never become so proficient at a musical instrument that I could play in a professional orchestra. I recognise that this is something that I cannot do - it's not the fault of my music teacher. I cannot paint or draw things that look like what they're suppopsed to never mind capture some other quality such as mood or emotion through art. I recognise that this is something that I cannot do - it's not the fault of my art teacher. I could never become a world leading sportsman - I don't have the innate ability or the dedication to the training that this requires. I recognise that this is something that I cannot do - it's not the fault of my PE teacher. Why is it that when people don't understand e.g. science or maths, they blame the teacher rather than recognising that we cannot all attain the same level of understanding as Prof Brian Cox by demanding of others on a message board, answers that we are able to understand? Our lack of understanding is our lack of ability to understand - not the fault of the teacher. Perhaps, perhaps not When you have high achievers in any intellectual field that are really interested in science and cannot make them accept statements that go against their experience, then it may the fault of the person trying to explain the phenomena And certainly the 'explanations' given on this board have been derisory varying between 'its magic and cannot be explained' to insulting the audience for being stupid Do you not accept that a brilliant man like Feynman realised that we really do have no understanding of QM and cosmology outside mathematical abstractions? It is entirely reasonable to say 'The mathematics of QM indicate x, and there is really no way of explaining the meaning of x, but we accept the mathematics and the x result because that is all we have, and hope that understanding will arise in the future. It is quite intellectually dishonest to indulge in contradictory blather with analogies that hold no water and then accuse the audience of stupidity for not blindly accepting what is said |
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 1, 2010 17:03:27 GMT 1
So, you think there are no bad teachers? I think you'll find that a hard position to maintain.
If you are continually being told you simply cannot understand a given topic because you do not understand advanced maths do you not think that is an excuse not to try, at least, to convey a basic idea of the topic by offering more familiar concepts? From what I have seen of Brian Cox he is an excellent communicator of scientific ideas, which is why he has appeared on TV etc. What purpose would it serve if he kept stating that you have to understand the maths before you can understand the subject matter? Answer: None at all, which is why analogies are offered which have wide appeal. The fact is, most people do not particularly want an in-depth analysis of a subject but simply require a basic idea to start them off. Analogies are not meant to replace detailed scientific descriptions and must not be pushed too far, surely this goes without saying, yet STA continually berates analogies like the 'expanding balloon' analogy when introducing the idea of cosmic inflation. Obviously, this is just a way of linking a scientific concept to something we are already familiar with and serves as a stepping stone to greater understanding. Nobody begins studying a subject as an expert - they have to take the steps to become an expert if they so desire, and this means beginning with familiar concepts and working one's way into more abstract ones. Would you teach somebody who knows no arithmetic calculus? Of course not, and this applies across the board. STA is not doing anyone any favours by continually telling them they have no idea of what they are talking about. Genuinely interested people do have an idea but it is an idea they have picked up somewhere which has been given as a basic framework on which to hang (possibly) further concepts. What STA should be doing is to develop the ideas people have been given and refine them, a little at a time, so not to seem overwhelming which will allow further thought and possible more questions. Frankly, STA has no idea how to teach.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 1, 2010 17:17:10 GMT 1
I think I have, but you have not understood.
Mathematics consists of symbolic representations of axioms that are themselves based on practical experiences in the 'everyday world.' No matter how abstract the maths gets it's all founded on the historical knowledge of the culture. The trouble is, when confronting new phenomena, using such methods will inevitably 'tailor' the mathematical models constructed to previous experiences that have little or nothing to do with the new situation, therefore, they can only act as analogies because analogies are all we humans have. I've already covered this so why don't you bother to read my posts properly?
|
|
