AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

There was a review in yesterday's Sunday Times of a book which should appeal to many of us: THE SINGULAR UNIVERSE AND THE REALITY OF TIME by Roberto Mangabeira Unger (a philosopher) and Lee Smolin (a physicist).
 
Apparently they make three statements that, if true, overturn most of contemporary physics. The statements are: time is real and therefore there are no unchanging physical laws; there is only one universe; and mathematics is of strictly limited use in explaining the cosmos. Unger talks of the descent of science into allegory, circulatory, special pleading and factless speculation. Smolin talks of crass contemporary determinism and the babble of neuroscientists who claim they have disproved free will and dismiss the self as an illusion. -Before you get too excited, though, Smolin is apparently an atheist. I couldn't find Unger's leanings.

4595 views

dhw: There was a review in yesterday's Sunday Times of a book which should appeal to many of us: THE SINGULAR UNIVERSE AND THE REALITY OF TIME by Roberto Mangabeira Unger (a philosopher) and Lee Smolin (a physicist).-The article is behind a paywall, but the opening paragraphs are startlingly like Smolin's book I have mentioned here, The Trouble With Physics. The Times article begins:-http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/culture/books/non_fiction/article1501444.ece-> 
> dhw: Apparently they make three statements that, if true, overturn most of contemporary physics. The statements are: time is real and therefore there are no unchanging physical laws; there is only one universe; and mathematics is of strictly limited use in explaining the cosmos. Unger talks of the descent of science into allegory, circulatory, special pleading and factless speculation. Smolin talks of crass contemporary determinism and the babble of neuroscientists who claim they have disproved free will and dismiss the self as an illusion.-The reviews of the books are fascinating. The book appears to show all the holes in current theories. Google Smolin and you will find, as I have previous mentioned, he is a proponent of quantum-loop gravity theory, and thinks Strings are dead in the water.-For some of Smolin's thinking:-"Horgan: Some leading physicists, such as Tegmark, Susskind, and Greene, espouse multiverse theories plus the anthropic principle as a kind of final framework for cosmology. Comment?-Smolin: This is a sleigh of hand by which they hope to convert an explanatory failure into an explanatory success. If we don't understand the values the fundamental constants take in our universe, just presume our universe is a member of an infinite and unobservable ensemble of universes each with randomly chosen parameters. Our universe has the values it does because those make it hospitable to life.-"There is so much wrong with this as a scientific hypothesis. As I have explained in detail in three of my books and several papers, it is hard to see how it could make any falsifiable predictions for doable experiments. Claims to the contrary are fallacious, as I and others have explained in detail. I won't impose the details on your readers but just mention that these criticisms have not been answered.-"What we have to do is to propose mechanisms by which the laws and constants may have evolved which imply falsifiable predictions by which they can be checked. I have proposed two: cosmological natural selection and the principle of precedence."-To get the full flavor read the entire article in Sci Am:-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2015/01/04/troublemaker-lee-smolin-questions-if-physics-laws-are-timeless/-For further insight look at the ecstatic reviews on Amazon of the book mentioned at first.-http://www.amazon.com/Singular-Universe-Reality-Time-Philosophy/dp/1107074061/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420507299&sr=8-1&keywords=The+singular+universe-"- the universe has a history; even the laws of this early state could have been different; they could evolve; the current structure is a reflection of a process, and processes occur over time.-" But this is problem, and the authors strongly develop it: time - the time with a continuous flow and a real history of unique moments, each moment reflective of all previous moments - has been stripped from physics. The cause, the history, the symptoms and the cure for this is the subject of the book. Some symptoms: There is the current ubiquitous proclaiming of the "multiverse" - per Unger, a theoretical failure exalted to a triumph. There is Special and General Relativity with their jointly construed "block" universe, where all time - past, present, future - is frozen as a vast space - a conception with no ability to extend to and include those first moments of the universe. There is the arbitrariness of the standard model(s) of particle physics, with multiple dimensionless constants and where multiple choices for values must be made to tune a model to reality. Of the causes: one lies in a deep misunderstanding and wrong placement of the role of mathematics in our study of the real world, and Unger's chapter-long discussion of its true role was to me worth the price of admission by itself." (my bold)

4784 views

Here's a view of this book-https://kindle.amazon.com/post/e52X1op-Ro-KYg8wiI5_3Q-I agree with this judgment, but would prefer a single universe!
But we need deeper theories to explain the values of the constants.

--
GPJ

4516 views

George:Here's a view of this book
> 
> https://kindle.amazon.com/post/e52X1op-Ro-KYg8wiI5_3Q
> 
> George: I agree with this judgment, but would prefer a single universe!
> But we need deeper theories to explain the values of the constants.-I've read the first chapter. They prefer a single universe in a series of universes. They want empirical proof, not a mathematical presentation of multiverses accepted as proof. Quite refreshing. I know the constants just 'are', without explanation why they have to be that way. It is obvious we are really missing something, and their approach is needed.

4544 views

George:Here's a view of this book-https://kindle.amazon.com/post/e52X1op-Ro-KYg8wiI5_3Q-George: I agree with this judgment, but would prefer a single universe!
But we need deeper theories to explain the values of the constants.-DAVID: I've read the first chapter. They prefer a single universe in a series of universes. They want empirical proof, not a mathematical presentation of multiverses accepted as proof. Quite refreshing. I know the constants just 'are', without explanation why they have to be that way. It is obvious we are really missing something, and their approach is needed.-What appeals to me is that there is no beginning. You and I have agreed on a first cause, which is energy. In your case the energy is conscious, and I have suggested that conscious energy would not have spent eternity twiddling its metaphorical thumbs but would likely have created a whole succession of universes. In the second scenario of non-conscious energy, if it can mindlessly create one universe by turning itself into matter, it can mindlessly create a succession of universes the same way. Since the first cause has to be eternal, theoretically you can have an infinite succession of universes. And the more universes you have, the shorter the odds against one of them finally and randomly producing the conditions for life. I'd have thought this would appeal to George!

4554 views


> dhw: What appeals to me is that there is no beginning.In the second scenario of non-conscious energy, if it can mindlessly create one universe by turning itself into matter, it can mindlessly create a succession of universes the same way. -Your proposal contains a big IF. Philosophically speaking 'mindlessness' creates nothing.

4548 views

dhw: What appeals to me is that there is no beginning. [...] In the second scenario of non-conscious energy, if it can mindlessly create one universe by turning itself into matter, it can mindlessly create a succession of universes the same way. -DAVID: Your proposal contains a big IF. Philosophically speaking mindlessness' creates nothing.-Philosophically speaking, how do you know?

4555 views

dhw: What appeals to me is that there is no beginning. [...] In the second scenario of non-conscious energy, if it can mindlessly create one universe by turning itself into matter, it can mindlessly create a succession of universes the same way. 
> 
> DAVID: Your proposal contains a big IF. Philosophically speaking mindlessness' creates nothing.
> 
> dhw: Philosophically speaking, how do you know?-Because I can think. Our only experience with planning is use of the mind. Sudden mysterious appearance of complexity without proper mental planning is called a miracle. I view the origin of life that way.

4506 views

dhw: What appeals to me is that there is no beginning. [...] In the second scenario of non-conscious energy, if it can mindlessly create one universe by turning itself into matter, it can mindlessly create a succession of universes the same way.-DAVID: Your proposal contains a big IF. Philosophically speaking mindlessness' creates nothing.-Dhw: Philosophically speaking, how do you know?-DAVID: Because I can think. Our only experience with planning is use of the mind. Sudden mysterious appearance of complexity without proper mental planning is called a miracle. I view the origin of life that way.-I was not talking about planning or about life but about non-conscious energy forming a succession of universes. Unless you have suddenly become a convert to a form of panpsychism, I don't see how you can be so sure that mindless matter can't create things. Can you not imagine universes full of stars and planets and meteors and rocks and dust and gases WITHOUT life? The result of energy and matter endlessly transforming themselves? Universes without planet Earth?

4509 views

dhw: Can you not imagine universes full of stars and planets and meteors and rocks and dust and gases WITHOUT life? The result of energy and matter endlessly transforming themselves? Universes without planet Earth?-No I can't. How long do you want to watch a rock to see if it will do anything? Or become something else? Perhaps you should define the 'matter' you are envisioning.

4538 views

DAVID: Philosophically speaking mindlessness' creates nothing.-Dhw: Unless you have suddenly become a convert to a form of panpsychism, I don't see how you can be so sure that mindless matter can't create things. Can you not imagine universes full of stars and planets and meteors and rocks and dust and gases WITHOUT life? The result of energy and matter endlessly transforming themselves? Universes without planet Earth?-DAVID: No I can't. How long do you want to watch a rock to see if it will do anything? Or become something else? Perhaps you should define the matter' you are envisioning.-The rock is the matter I am envisioning, as are the stars, planets, meteors, dust and gases, plus the 95% of dark energy and matter that make up our own universe. You claim that the first cause is conscious energy. If this is true, all matter came from that energy, and whether it's one or a zillion universes, the same principle has to apply: energy and matter endlessly being transformed. If you can have your conscious energy transforming itself, why I can't I have my unconscious energy transforming itself? In case you've forgotten my point, it is that Smolin and Unger's preference for a single universe in a succession of universes would shorten the odds against one of those universes coming up with a combination of materials to engender some form of awareness.

4472 views


> DAVID: No I can't. How long do you want to watch a rock to see if it will do anything? Or become something else? Perhaps you should define the matter' you are envisioning.
> 
> dhw: The rock is the matter I am envisioning, as are the stars, planets, meteors, dust and gases, plus the 95% of dark energy and matter that make up our own universe. You claim that the first cause is conscious energy. If this is true, all matter came from that energy, and whether it's one or a zillion universes, the same principle has to apply: energy and matter endlessly being transformed. If you can have your conscious energy transforming itself, why I can't I have my unconscious energy transforming itself?-I'm trying to imagine you unconscious and writing a play, as an example of how preposterous your theory is.-> dhw: In case you've forgotten my point, it is that Smolin and Unger's preference for a single universe in a succession of universes would shorten the odds against one of those universes coming up with a combination of materials to engender some form of awareness.-I'm with Smolin and Unger as is George! I think it is possible that God has done this before, one universe at a time. Eternity is very long. As for awareness from rocks, no way.

4476 views

dhw: You claim that the first cause is conscious energy. If this is true, all matter came from that energy, and whether it's one or a zillion universes, the same principle has to apply: energy and matter endlessly being transformed. If you can have your conscious energy transforming itself, why I can't I have my unconscious energy transforming itself?
DAVID: I'm trying to imagine you unconscious and writing a play, as an example of how preposterous your theory is.-Then please try instead to imagine single-celled organisms eventually evolving into humans. And before that try to imagine inanimate matter becoming animate. That is what you believe happened. Only you believe that it happened through a mysterious, inexplicable, first-cause conscious energy making it happen. I am proposing the same process, except that it happened through a mysterious, inexplicable dawning of comparatively primitive consciousness within matter that gradually increased in complexity. Either way you have an inexplicable form of consciousness, and if one is preposterous, then so is the other. However, you argued that mindlessness was incapable of creating anything. I have no difficulty imagining mindlessness creating rocks, stars, gases, chemicals...And this brings us to the second point:
 
dhw: ...Smolin and Unger's preference for a single universe in a succession of universes would shorten the odds against one of those universes coming up with a combination of materials to engender some form of awareness.
DAVID: I'm with Smolin and Unger as is George! I think it is possible that God has done this before, one universe at a time. Eternity is very long. As for awareness from rocks, no way.-George doesn't believe in a before or in other universes, but thank you for your explicit support for this part of my hypothesis. If God created one universe, he might well have created earlier universes, and the same applies to mindless first-cause energy. Eternity is indeed long enough for any number of universes, and so the odds shorten in favour of one of them eventually coming up with a combination of materials to create life.
 
I am not proposing awareness coming from rocks (though some forms of panpsychism might.) I am proposing awareness from those materials that came together to give life to inanimate matter. However, please do not mistake a hypothesis for a belief. Even with this hypothesis, I still cannot imagine chance assembling the ingredients for life, reproduction, consciousness and evolution. That is one reason why I am not an atheist. It is just as difficult for me to imagine as a universal mind from nowhere that knows everything even before it exists. That is one reason why I am not a theist. I would not in fact describe either hypothesis as preposterous, but I am merely a gentle, tolerant agnostic.

4518 views


> dhw: I am not proposing awareness coming from rocks. I am proposing awareness from those materials that came together to give life to inanimate matter. However, please do not mistake a hypothesis for a belief. Even with this hypothesis, I still cannot imagine chance assembling the ingredients for life, reproduction, consciousness and evolution. That is one reason why I am not an atheist. It is just as difficult for me to imagine as a universal mind from nowhere that knows everything even before it exists. That is one reason why I am not a theist. I would not in fact describe either hypothesis as preposterous, but I am merely a gentle, tolerant agnostic.-Yes you are a sweet unbelieving agnostic. How awareness (or information) arises from inanimate matter is the sticking point. You start with rocky material. So have the OOL researchers, and they have found no way so far after 70 years. I think it has to start with an animate mind.

4477 views

dhw: What appeals to me is that there is no beginning. You and I have agreed on a first cause, which is energy. In your case the energy is conscious, and I have suggested that conscious energy would not have spent eternity twiddling its metaphorical thumbs but would likely have created a whole succession of universes. In the second scenario of non-conscious energy, if it can mindlessly create one universe by turning itself into matter, it can mindlessly create a succession of universes the same way. Since the first cause has to be eternal, theoretically you can have an infinite succession of universes. And the more universes you have, the shorter the odds against one of them finally and randomly producing the conditions for life. I'd have thought this would appeal to George!-It doesn't appeal to me because I have an aversion to infinity. 
Whenever infinity appears in any physical explanation it is indicative of an error. 
There is no such thing as "eternity".
Time and Space have a common zero point (I avoid calling it a "beginning"). 
There was never any 'before' or 'outside' of the universe. 
This is obvious when you realise that the universe is everything, by definition.

--
GPJ

4481 views

dhw: What appeals to me is that there is no beginning.....I'd have thought this would appeal to George!
> 
> George:It doesn't appeal to me because I have an aversion to infinity. 
> Whenever infinity appears in any physical explanation it is indicative of an error. 
> There is no such thing as "eternity".
> Time and Space have a common zero point (I avoid calling it a "beginning"). 
> There was never any 'before' or 'outside' of the universe. 
> This is obvious when you realise that the universe is everything, by definition.-I certainly agree with your statement that the universe is everything. For me the universe does appear to have had a beginning, which implies a before, and your approach doesn't answer the question of why is there anything.

4454 views

dhw: ...In the second scenario of non-conscious energy, if it can mindlessly create one universe by turning itself into matter, it can mindlessly create a succession of universes the same way. Since the first cause has to be eternal, theoretically you can have an infinite succession of universes. And the more universes you have, the shorter the odds against one of them finally and randomly producing the conditions for life. I'd have thought this would appeal to George!-GEORGE: It doesn't appeal to me because I have an aversion to infinity. 
Whenever infinity appears in any physical explanation it is indicative of an error. 
There is no such thing as "eternity".
Time and Space have a common zero point (I avoid calling it a "beginning"). 
There was never any 'before' or 'outside' of the universe. 
This is obvious when you realise that the universe is everything, by definition.-You can win any argument by defining your terms in such a way that there can be no opposition. But here are three dictionary definitions of universe:
1)The aggregate of all existing matter, energy, and space. (Collins)
2)All existing space, energy and matter (Chambers)
3)Universe (astron.) In modern astronomy this term has the particular meaning: that totality of all that is in the cosmos and which can affect us by means of physical forces. The definition excludes anything which is in principle undetectable physically, such as regions of spacetime that have been irreversibly cut off from our own spacetime. (Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary)-You are of course free to choose your own definition, but the emphasis in all of these is on what now exists. They do not exclude a before or earlier universes. Your aversion to infinity, and authoritative statements that there is no such thing as infinity or eternity or before or outside are as speculative and as unprovable as all the different theories about how we got here. But I must confess I'm disappointed that you've rejected the statistical support that previous universes would offer for your faith that chance could assemble the ingredients for life. Ah well, I did my best!

4406 views


> dhw: You are of course free to choose your own definition, but the emphasis in all of these is on what now exists. ... But I must confess I'm disappointed that you've rejected the statistical support that previous universes would offer for your faith that chance could assemble the ingredients for life. Ah well, I did my best!-Not good enough! I agree with George that we can only know and observe this universe. Anything else is sheer speculation, grounded in nothing. George fuzzes the appearance of our universe, but he is obviously struggling at that point.

4452 views

dhw's arguments contain his usual hidden assumptions or misconceptions.-"You are of course free to choose your own definition, but the emphasis in all of these is on what now exists. They do not exclude a before or earlier universes."-I consider Time to be just as much a part of the universe as Space and matter and energy. dhw believes in an absolute Time within which the universe exists or comes into existence. I maintain that this concept is nonsensical. Postulating earlier universes (or phases of the universe as I would prefer to say) does not get rid of the problem of the origin of Time, it just puts it back further. Putting it back to an infinite regression with no origin is what I would characterise as "occult" thinking.-"Your aversion to infinity, and authoritative statements that there is no such thing as infinity or eternity or before or outside are as speculative and as unprovable as all the different theories about how we got here."-The logical difficulties with concepts of infinity cannot be dismissed out of hand like this. They are well known and not at all speculative or unprovable. -Here is an interesting discussion on mathematical philosophy that touches on such issues, though I realise it may be rather heavy going!-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uWS7Kwau1A&feature=youtu.be-"But I must confess I'm disappointed that you've rejected the statistical support that previous universes would offer for your faith that chance could assemble the ingredients for life. Ah well, I did my best!"-This is the old "faith in chance" nonsense again! We've argued this before at length, so I'm reluctant to go over it all again.

--
GPJ

4413 views


> George: I consider Time to be just as much a part of the universe as Space and matter and energy. dhw believes in an absolute Time within which the universe exists or comes into existence. I maintain that this concept is nonsensical. Postulating earlier universes (or phases of the universe as I would prefer to say) does not get rid of the problem of the origin of Time, it just puts it back further. Putting it back to an infinite regression with no origin is what I would characterise as "occult" thinking.-I agree with you. Note my entry at 18:51 today, concerning theories about time
> 
> George: This is the old "faith in chance" nonsense again! We've argued this before at length, so I'm reluctant to go over it all again.-Obviously, I don't think chance events can produce the evolution we observe.

4484 views

GEORGE: I consider Time to be just as much a part of the universe as Space and matter and energy. dhw believes in an absolute Time within which the universe exists or comes into existence. I maintain that this concept is nonsensical. Postulating earlier universes (or phases of the universe as I would prefer to say) does not get rid of the problem of the origin of Time, it just puts it back further. Putting it back to an infinite regression with no origin is what I would characterise as "occult" thinking.
DAVID: I agree with you.-David's agreement indicates the pointlessness of such arguments without clear definitions. He believes in eternity, in a before, and in a sequence of cause and effect going back to an intelligent first cause that might even have created universes before ours. None of these are possible with your concept of time. You also said earlier that Time and Space have a common zero point, but David insists that nothing can come from nothing. I'll offer my own definition later, but first:
 
Dhw: "Your aversion to infinity, and authoritative statements that there is no such thing as infinity or eternity or before or outside are as speculative and as unprovable as all the different theories about how we got here."
GEORGE: The logical difficulties with concepts of infinity cannot be dismissed out of hand like this. They are well known and not at all speculative or unprovable. 
Here is an interesting discussion on mathematical philosophy that touches on such issues, though I realise it may be rather heavy going!-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uWS7Kwau1A&feature=youtu.be-Heavy going is an understatement, and he doesn't even touch on the issue, beyond saying you can always add a thought or grammatical construction to an earlier thought or grammatical construction. No mention of eternity. Why do you refer me to a mathematician anyway? Do mathematicians know all the answers? To set the record straight, I also find logical difficulties with concepts of infinity and eternity, but I find limits to space and time equally difficult. I ask what lies beyond or before the limit. The stock answer from those who share your beliefs is nothing, and nothing is as illogical to me as infinity and eternity. Mathematically, it may make sense to you, but do not ask me to believe that you can prove time and space began from nothing and end in nothing! According to Smolin and Unger, time is real and therefore there are no unchanging physical laws, mathematics is of strictly limited use in explaining the cosmos, and apparently they also believe that ours is one in a series of universes. I have no idea who is right, but I do know there is no consensus, and so I see no justification for dogmatic statements such as there is no such thing as infinity, eternity, before etc. -I do, however, accept the argument that to have a before you have to have time. For me, time is an onward flow from past to present to future. We measure it by events, and so we can only measure it by events we know of or think we know of. But if the BB happened, I don't see why we should not ask what caused it, which means a before, and it's as speculative to say there were no events (causes) before as to say that there were. We simply don't know.
 
dhw: "But I must confess I'm disappointed that you've rejected the statistical support that previous universes would offer for your faith that chance could assemble the ingredients for life. Ah well, I did my best!"
GEORGE: This is the old "faith in chance" nonsense again! We've argued this before at length, so I'm reluctant to go over it all again.-Faith = a strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp. without proof or evidence (Chambers). I thought you believed strongly that the mechanisms for life, reproduction and evolution originally assembled themselves by chance (for which there is no evidence). My apologies if I've got that wrong.

4551 views

There's an even heavier going video lecture on the same page as the one I linked to. It is by Woodin on the Continuum Hypothesis. That is the hypothesis that there is no infinity between the infinities of natural and real numbers. It has famously been shown by Gödel and Cohen that under the usual assumptions of set theory the hypothesis can be true or false. It just depends what axioms you assume. This proves to me that the whole business of transfinite infinities is all nonsense.-In Woodin's lecture he surprisingly tries to get round this by introducing the Multiverse concept! But ultimately he concludes this doesn't work either. -I must admit I skipped a lot of the end section of his lecture, but at the end he admits that everything is back at square one.-This is why I don't place any credence in theories of the universe that involve infinite regression in time.

--
GPJ

4470 views


> George: In Woodin's lecture he surprisingly tries to get round this by introducing the Multiverse concept! But ultimately he concludes this doesn't work either. 
> 
> I must admit I skipped a lot of the end section of his lecture, but at the end he admits that everything is back at square one.
> 
> This is why I don't place any credence in theories of the universe that involve infinite regression in time.-I'm sure I couldn't follow it. Do you think there has been a series of singular universes like this one, and if there were do they vary, or are they all the same?

4473 views

David I'm sure I couldn't follow it. Do you think there has been a series of singular universes like this one, and if there were do they vary, or are they all the same?-George: This discussion falls right into the area of our current discourse. What do you think of his presentation?:-https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-73-the-multiverse-and-you-46c9e3c493e2-"What we find is that the Universe is most consistent with being spatially flat, with being uniform over a volume that's much greater than the volume of the piece of the Universe observable to us, and therefore probably containing more Universe that's very similar to our own for hundreds of billions of light years in all directions, beyond what we can see.-"But theoretically, what we learn is even more tantalizing. You see, we can extrapolate the Big Bang backwards to an arbitrarily hot, dense, expanding state, and what we find is that it didn't get infinitely hot and dense early on, but rather that??above some energy and before some very early time??there was a phase that preceded the Big Bang, and set it up.-.......
"The singularity theorem tells us that an inflationary state is past-timelike-incomplete, and hence, most probably did not last a truly infinite amount of time, but rather arose some distant-but-finite point in the past. There are a huge number of Universes out there??possibly with different laws than our own and possibly not??but there are not enough of them to give us alternate versions of ourselves; the number of possible outcomes grows too rapidly compared to the rate that the number of possible Universes grows."-And lots more

4468 views

GEORGE: There's an even heavier going video lecture on the same page as the one I linked to. It is by Woodin on the Continuum Hypothesis. That is the hypothesis that there is no infinity between the infinities of natural and real numbers. It has famously been shown by Gödel and Cohen that under the usual assumptions of set theory the hypothesis can be true or false. It just depends what axioms you assume. This proves to me that the whole business of transfinite infinities is all nonsense.
In Woodin's lecture he surprisingly tries to get round this by introducing the Multiverse concept! But ultimately he concludes this doesn't work either. 
I must admit I skipped a lot of the end section of his lecture, but at the end he admits that everything is back at square one.
This is why I don't place any credence in theories of the universe that involve infinite regression in time.-Communication isn't easy at the best of times, but I'm sure you'll understand that for a layman maths talk is mighty difficult to follow. There are moments when I get the impression that it means the opposite of ordinary talk! For instance, if a hypothesis can be true or false, or if everything is back at square one, I don't know how one can draw a firm conclusion about the subject under consideration. In my previous response I wondered why you thought maths had all the answers anyway, and I still don't see how anyone can prove the claim that there is no such thing as infinity, eternity, before...Having debated with you over so many years, I'm sure you have good reason for your beliefs - but then so has David, and his beliefs are the opposite of yours. Hey ho, the trouble with being in the middle of the road is that you can get run over from both directions.

4492 views

dhw: Hey ho, the trouble with being in the middle of the road is that you can get run over from both directions.-In New York there are no signs telling you in which direction to look at the curb as in London. Why is that?

4478 views

dhw: Hey ho, the trouble with being in the middle of the road is that you can get run over from both directions.-DAVID: In New York there are no signs telling you in which direction to look at the curb as in London. Why is that?-Could it be because Americans think there's only way to look at things (i.e. their own), whereas we British realize there are at least two? Only asking.

4476 views

DAVID: In New York there are no signs telling you in which direction to look at the curb as in London. Why is that?
> 
> dhw: Could it be because Americans think there's only way to look at things (i.e. their own), whereas we British realize there are at least two? Only asking.-The word for left in Latin is sinister. Any correlation? And I am very left-handed.

4534 views

Dhw: Hey ho, the trouble with being in the middle of the road is that you can get run over from both directions.-DAVID: In New York there are no signs telling you in which direction to look at the curb as in London. Why is that?-Dhw: Could it be because Americans think there's only way to look at things (i.e. theirs), whereas we British realize there are at least two? Only asking.-DAVID: The word for left in Latin is sinister. Any correlation? And I am very-left handed.-I have had the pleasure and privilege of meeting you, and you are not in the least sinister. Perhaps, just like your attempt to link the weaverbird's nest with God's plan to create humans, this is an example of your dislocated thinking.

4448 views


> Dhw: Could it be because Americans think there's only way to look at things (i.e. theirs), whereas we British realize there are at least two? Only asking.-Our colony may have been spawned by Britain but as we became independent we left you guys very far behind because our thinking was so open and inventive.

4485 views

Dhw: Hey ho, the trouble with being in the middle of the road is that you can get run over from both directions.-DAVID: In New York there are no signs telling you in which direction to look at the curb as in London. Why is that?-Dhw: Could it be because Americans think there's only way to look at things (i.e. theirs), whereas we British realize there are at least two? Only asking.-DAVID: Our colony may have been spawned by Britain but as we became independent we left you guys very far behind because our thinking was so open and inventive.-
So that's why you assume all your foreign visitors know which direction to look in before they cross the road? Anyway, until you learn how to play cricket, I'm afraid you will always be in Division Two of the Thinking World.

4483 views


> dhw: So that's why you assume all your foreign visitors know which direction to look in before they cross the road? Anyway, until you learn how to play cricket, I'm afraid you will always be in Division Two of the Thinking World.-We evolved baseball from it, which gave us a much more intellectual sport. It adds so much more strategy to contemplate and plan.

4467 views

DAVID: Our colony may have been spawned by Britain but as we became independent we left you guys very far behind because our thinking was so open and inventive.-dhw: So that's why you assume all your foreign visitors know which direction to look in before they cross the road? Anyway, until you learn how to play cricket, I'm afraid you will always be in Division Two of the Thinking World.-DAVID: We evolved baseball from it, which gave us a much more intellectual sport. It adds so much more strategy to contemplate and plan.-One possible (and strikingly similar) source is the game of rounders, which is still very popular over here among little girls.

4467 views


> dhw: One possible (and strikingly similar) source is the game of rounders, which is still very popular over here among little girls.-Must be very obscure. Never heard of it. Is it considered for the Olympics?

4464 views

DAVID: Our colony may have been spawned by Britain but as we became independent we left you guys very far behind because our thinking was so open and inventive.-Dhw: So that's why you assume all your foreign visitors know which direction to look in before they cross the road? Anyway, until you learn how to play cricket, I'm afraid you will always be in Division Two of the Thinking World.-DAVID: We evolved baseball from it, which gave us a much more intellectual sport. It adds so much more strategy to contemplate and plan.-DHW: One possible (and strikingly similar) source is the game of rounders, which is still very popular over here among little girls.-DAVID: Must be very obscure. Never heard of it. Is it considered for the Olympics?
-There are more things in heaven and earth, Dr Turell, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. And there aren't any Olympics for little girls.

4465 views


> DHW: One possible (and strikingly similar) source is the game of rounders, which is still very popular over here among little girls.
> 
> DAVID: Must be very obscure. Never heard of it. Is it considered for the Olympics?
> 
> 
> dhw: There are more things in heaven and earth, Dr Turell, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. And there aren't any Olympics for little girls.-This website is meant for learning. I've been to the baseball museum in Cooperstown, N.Y. where Abner Doubleday is reputed to have invented baseball. No mention of Rounders. I've investigated Rounders and that is obviously where baseball came from, not cricket as I've been taught. Thank you.

4471 views

Dhw: One possible (and strikingly similar) source is the game of rounders, which is still very popular over here among little girls.-DAVID: Must be very obscure. Never heard of it. Is it considered for the Olympics?

Dhw: There are more things in heaven and earth, Dr Turell, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. And there aren't any Olympics for little girls. -DAVID: I've investigated Rounders and that is obviously where baseball came from, not cricket as I've been taught. Thank you.-My pleasure. Alas, even teachers are fallible.

4367 views


> DAVID: I've investigated Rounders and that is obviously where baseball came from, not cricket as I've been taught. Thank you.
> 
> dhw: My pleasure. Alas, even teachers are fallible.-Shows us that one cannot trust what one is taught early in life. When in doubt read and research. I unwittingly accepted Darwin at face value until I started reading about his ideas seriously. Surprise! Full of holes.-But to be fair so are the ideas religions have about the mind of God as a personal God.

4429 views

A new one from Sabine Hossenfelder:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/physics/whos-killing-physics/

"The renowned German author, theoretical physicist and Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies thinks she’s found the root of evil: quantum mechanics.

***

"For much of the past century, scientific advances led to technological progress that furthered science, which in return led to more technological progress, and so on. It was a virtuous cycle that rapidly raised our standard of living. But in the foundations of physics, this virtuous cycle broke in the mid 1980s. Since then, we have been in a phase of stagnation.

"This stagnation has befallen not only cosmology but also the rest of the foundations of physics: quantum gravity, particle physics, and quantum foundations. You have certainly noticed this yourself: popular science articles that cover these areas just regurgitate the same topics.

***

"Nowadays, headlines covering the foundations of physics won’t tell you about new discoveries, but merely what “might be” or “could be”. The phrase “physicists say” is all too frequently followed by speculations about multiverses, non-existent particles, or fifth forces that we have no evidence of. Sometimes I’m embarrassed to be associated with this discipline.

"But the worst part is that most of my colleagues think this situation perfectly okay.

***

"...in the foundations of physics – those areas concerned with the most fundamental laws of nature: particle physics, quantum foundations, quantum gravity, and cosmology – theory-development has decoupled from experimental test. And in the absence of reality checks, pointless speculation became accepted norm.

"Let me be clear: it’s not that experiments have stopped in the foundations of physics. It’s just that – one after the other – experiments have confirmed theories we already had half a century ago and ruled out any ideas put forward after that. The confirmation that neutrinos have masses, that gravitational waves are real, and the detection of the Higgs are recent examples of remarkable experimental achievements in the foundations of physics. But the predictions of these phenomena all date back to before the 1970s.

"The misgivings that philosophers had about quantum mechanics, it turned out, weren’t entirely irrelevant after all. If physicists hadn’t been so dismissive of philosophy, they might have seen that sooner.

"This makes me worry it’s only a matter of time until experimental progress stalls in other areas of physics, too. That’s because for much of the history of physics, better observations led to a better understanding of natural laws, which led to better technologies, which led to better observations and so on. This virtuous cycle broke in the middle of the past century when foundational research hit the wall.

"The progress we currently see in the non-foundational areas of physics is largely due to more computing power and miniaturisation well into the quantum regime – all progress driven by those foundational breakthroughs from the beginning of the 20th century. There is still much potential in pushing this trend further, but if we don’t make new discoveries in the foundations soon, this progress will eventually stagnate, too. And that won’t only affect physics, it’ll affect all of society.

***

"Physicists have declared we’re close to a final “theory of everything” since the 1970s, but widely acknowledged that this success would be largely cosmetic – like the cherry topping the tart, aesthetically pleasing but not of high nutritious value. That’s because they believe the currently open questions, once answered, won’t be useful for technological applications anyway. Quantum gravity and dark matter, which have attracted most of the attention, are far too feeble phenomena to be good for every-day gadgets.

***

"In hindsight, physicists should have focused on the problem in front of their eyes, the one they’ve seen in myriad experiments: the measurement problem of quantum mechanics.

***

"At last, it seems the “shut up and calculate” doctrine, which has dominated quantum mechanics for half a century, is losing its grip on the community. And this is why I am more optimistic today that we will finally make progress in the foundations of physics than I was 10 years ago."

Comment: We've been here before with Ruth Kastner. ( dhw, 2013-08-16, 17:00) We feeble humans cannot figure out what God did.

818 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum