Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Magical Realist, Mar 30, 2016.
no-one cares for your " want-to-be" intellect nonsense.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
My perception of the "paradoxes" in science is that most are not really paradoxes, but thought experiments designed to highlight a difference between obsolete or "common sense" thinking and the reality of how the universe works. For example, my understanding of the history is that the "Twins Paradox" was invented after the genesis of Special Relativity as a thought experiment/teaching tool.
In cases where they highlight a difference between new and obsolete theories, they illustrate the limitation of logic and the importance of the development of impiricism. Special relativity is itself a good example of where logic can fail and has to be replaced by new data.
Prior to the development of Special Relativity, Maxwell's theories on electrodynamics implied that light should violate the ancient and well accepted principle of relativity. But at the same time, it was believed based on evidence that light should travel on a medium like sound and as such would be subject to the principle of relativity. That sounds logical, but today we know it was a bias, not a step in logic that was driving the belief. It was assumed that light was waves and therefore since waves required a classical medium, light should behave like sound. Turns out, that assumption was incorrect. New data confirmed that.
That's the problem with logic: when the data is thin, the holes are filled-in with assumptions that seem logical based on experience, but can be biased and wrong.
russ, i attempted to give you 3 likes. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! LIM--
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I see what you mean, I think, but I wouldn't call it a problem with logic, more a problem with the assumptions underlying the application of logic. Classical physics, relativity and quantum theory are all logical in terms of their own assumptions or postulates. It is just that the postulates of one are quite different from those of another. Or so it seems to me at any rate.
Nor for your drive-by trolling. But thanks for playing.
comical-- keep up the pathetic-ness..
i simply pointed out your nonsense--i simply understand of why that is considered trolling-- it is not like you were capable of anything else to say, correct?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! --carry on.
You have certainly claimed it to be. Others think quite the opposite. It thus behooves you to explain why you think it is as you claim rather than merely claim it. That is how discussions progress. To not do so, as is your want, is both a waste of everyone's time and trolling. Are you above that?
it appears that you are simply clueless to the meaning and definition of " want-to-be."
-- i will actually help you,
1. One who aspires to a role or position.
2. One who imitates the behavior, customs, or dress of an admired person or group.
3. A product designed to imitate the qualities or characteristics of something.
Wishing or aspiring to be; would-be.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! (shrugs)
also, maybe comprehend post #20.
Ya know, that's kinda' insulting. I think I would relish into things that are like totally out there Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Like, Fox Mulder: I want to believe. But there's no awesome evidence. Also kinda' weird and sad to think so much energy is wasted, say like, chasing ghosts.
Seems you're not above it.
Hey ho. Do come back when you want to progress the discussion, though.
We're not too far apart here. My perception is that often when the assumptions are wrong it is because the assumption came from a logical mis-step, not bad/incorrect data. For example:
Premise 1: Light is a wave.
Premise 2: Waves travel on mediums.
Logical deduction: light travels on a medium.
The problem is that at least the first premise is false, even though people thought it was true. They actually were over-reaching in the logic. The observed fact is that light behaves like a wave in some experiments. The statement that "light is a wave" is not an observed fact, it is a conclusion of logic that in this case turns out to be an overreach.
This sort of logical overreach is exactly the human failing that also causes things like the UFO/bigfoot crazes when taken to a further extreme.
Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" is an argument that humans are hard-wired for jumping to conclusions on insufficient data, as an evolutionary advantage. His argument is that much of the natural world is out to kill you and as a result, you need to learn quickly what things to avoid. The cost of a false positive is very low, while the cost of a missed positive is very high. So we're pre-wired for false positive reasoning. We're inclined to logical overreach. I found the argument compelling.
Must admit I've read your post 20 several times and I have no clue what you are trying to say.
You know, you do rather remind me of Gus Grissom in "The Right Stuff", at times: "What Gus is saying........"etc.
You are very Delphic in your utterances. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ok Krash, can you answer Sarkus' question? Precisely how do you think that 'quantum entanglement' defies logic?
I'm not convinced that it does. I'm more inclined to think that it is simply inconsistent with certain 'classical' assumptions about how the world behaves.
After all, if quantum entanglement really does defy logic itself, then making any kind of logically sound case for the reality of entanglement based on experimental observations would seem to be problematic.
LIM-- i love the X-files-- i actually own the complete series and both movies.
(shrugs)-- again , it appears that your comprehension of post #20 has failed.
--carry on Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Many people assume common sense is the analytical tool of the huddled masses. This is not the case. We all have common sense but in different ways. Common sense is not one thing nor is it a static thing. For example, time changing, due to relativity, can be shown with experiments. The results of such experiments, reach scientists through their sensory systems; eyes, and thereby evolving their data based for common sense. The huddled masses may never have this access, so their common sense may not evolve to that level. If you are an expert craftsman, your common sense can solve any problem that can stump the less skilled.
Theory is like the cross hairs on a rifle's scope. It allows us the ability to zoom in, focus and then zero in on the game; experience, we need to advance our common sense. For example, if the result of the gravity wave experiments, looks like a squiggle on graph paper or a blip on a computer screen, theory allows to focus in on the odd shape, so we can take the money shot. Without that theoretical background; scope, this squiggle may not advance our common sense to any degree. It is just a squiggle without good scope.
When things defy common sense, all that means is there is no good theory; scope, to help us focus properly on the sensory target, so our common sense can advance. This is a sign theory the scope is broken or is too weak and may need to retrofitted or replaced. It is a simple litmus test, but prestige and the ego can get in the way of common sense. Common sense breaks down with pride.
When the earth was thought to be flat, this flat earth premise defined the cross hairs on the scope of average people, allowing the collective common sense to see a flat earth. If you did not see this, you lacked common sense. Later, the theoretical scope changed and the earth become round. In modern times, the scope of common sense allows us to see the curvature of the earth. When the theoretical scope targeted a flat earth, this curvature data would not enter into our common sense, since this would be out of the scopes range and focus.
There were some people who sensed the flat earth theory was not right; Columbus. The scope for common sense was felt to be biased to the left or right. They may decide to go back to the basics and not use any scope. Instead they decided to use the sight on the gun; look at the horizon at the seacoast without any theoretical expectations. Some noticed curvature of the horizon, because it was there and easy to see. It was much easier to see without the scope trying to target you brain somewhere else.
This free style data suggested that the earth was round. This assumption, although consistent with the scoreless gun, can cause social problems, since you will be accused of lacking common sense. Some people will try to help you, by put the existing scope back on the gun, and make you look through the cross hair a certain way, so you can see what they see.
You may see what they want you to see. However, you also saw the direct data, without the scope, that shows curvature. You may have to develop a new scope, that allows others to see the round earth. But often nobody wants to see through the new scope, less they be accused of lacking common sense. There is safety hunting with the group, and not being in their cross fire, even if wrong.
Once physics theory departs from common sense, the state of the art theory is no longer a useful scope for furthering common sense. This is the litmus test for finding niches that can use help.
Yes I see. But again I would not blame logic for what you term "overreach". We push the use of our models in science as far as we can, until they don't work and only then do we change them. But that is just applying the principle of parsimony isn't it? Which is a practical way of working, but not actually anything derived from logic, surely?
And also, by the same token I think you are too hard on humanity. It isn't a failing, surely, to try to push a model to the point of breakdown before changing it. What would be a failure would be if, having seen it break down, we were not to acknowledge the need to change it.
(shrugs)-- Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! i am sure--except it is not a matter of " what you are trying " but simply of what i have said.
you are on the right path.
I don't know if posting this would somehow be against rules, however, this still is the internet...
simple--from a human's perspective--what is logic? again, understand post #20.
if one actually understands QM or simply the quantum world in general, one would see how everything that is considered a " fairy tale " or science fiction, is actually reality--due to the quantum world. this is exactly what all the past quantum physicist are saying--including Einstein.
Apologies for pushing this, though, but how does this actually answer the question that was raised: precisely how do you think that 'quantum entanglement' defies logic?
If everything is reality due to the quantum world (my bank manager would disagree, however) rather than, say, merely a possibility, that still doesn't explain how you think that QE defies logic.
You can keep telling people to "understand post #20" all you like, but maybe you'd like to make it intelligible to them?
And when you refer to "reality" - to what are you actually referring?
Our objective reality?
Separate names with a comma.