Why do most people find science boring?

[Write4U]

First, I simply don't like ideological nonsense. Presenting religion as being opposite to science is ideological nonsense, some pseudo-religion. It has even a name, scientism. There has been a strong anti-religious aspect of the Aufklärung, which has exaggerated the differences between science and religion. I think it is useful to correct these exaggerations.

There are several related points. The aim to distinguish science from religion has had some fatal negative consequences for science itself, leading to naive empiricism and positivism in scientific methodology, with an almost religious hatred against any form of metaphysics. The consequence was the dangerous attack of Mach's positivism against atomic theory, which, by a happy accident, did not have the fatal consequence of killing atomic theory, because an observational proof of atomic theory appeared at this time. Despite this fatal blow against positivism, it became the leading philosophy of science, and has prevented any progress in the foundations of GR and QT for many years, because new foundational theories have to start as metaphysical interpretations of existing theories and only after this will start to become different theories, thus, a rejection of all metaphysical considerations simply prevents foundational progress by cutting the most natural way to develop more fundamental theories.

Another point: I have the impression that many people here have a strong religious background, and supporting science was a conversion for them. But it is well-known that proselytes are the most fanatical supporters of the new religion, and in particular the most fanatical enemies of their old belief. I think such fanaticism is harmful everywhere, and that it is useful to give some correction here.

Say, of course, intelligent design is nonsense as a scientific theory. But there is no reason to fight it with quasi-religious fanatism. Instead, one can consider them even as useful, because they can help to identify weak points in evolution theory, and finding weak points in existing scientific theories is an important and necessary part of science.

After carefully reading this I agree, with one major exception. You cite an anti-religious fanaticism by the scientific community. While it is true that most scientists are opposed to the concept of a sentient creator, I have never heard a scientist start such a discussion. In my experience it is always the religious person who seeks to discredit science and initiates discussion about spiritualism in Science fora.

As this is inappropriate, I can well imagine forceful replies, discrediting the arguments (from authority) by the proselytizing interloper..

OTOH, scientists are not even allowed to post on religious sites, unless you publicly declare that you are a believer. Moreover, I have never heard a scientist express a desire to discuss religion as it falls outside their purview.

Science is not threatened by religion. Religion is threatened by the emerging scientific knowledge of the universe and its properties..
Interestingly, the Vatican (Pope John Paul II) declared evolution to be true He did qualify it, that fundamentally this is not in conflict with creationism. But it's a start. http://www.biblelight.net/darwin.htm

But I agree that theism (spiritualism) is merely an early evolutionary step in the development of true science.

In the end everyone seeks the same thing, the answer to the "unanswered question". A wonderful symphonic analogy can be found in Charles Ives' musical composition "The Unanswered Queston"

 

[paddoboy]

Religion is the early form of science, and that a lot of it is simply nonsense does not change the point, but is what has to be expected from early science.

Rubbish...religion invokes some magical deity and as such is not science, despite you preaching that it is.
Science invokes reason, logic and evidence and is falsifiable...religion invokes magic, faith and is not falsifiable.
To say that it is science, is to take philosophy to ridiculous ends and is what turns people off such deep philosophical claptrap.

In fact, believes into God

Belief in any deity was simply the prelude to science and the scientific method.

Self-proclaimed scientists like you can have, of course, a tendency similar to adherents to a sect

I havn't self proclaimed myself to be anything other than a lay person...And you know that...which leads one to believe you are also a conveyor of untruths for the sake of dramatic effect.

No, no connection, no irony, simply a trivial fact that an approximation may be close to the truth, but is not the truth. And what is not truth, but has a truth value, is false.

You can skirt around facts all you like, as I said previously..it convinces no one.GR and other accepted scientific theories are certainly correct within their zones of applicability. This truth you speak of is just another ploy of yours for dramatic effect, and to throw a sense of "possible acceptance" on your own take on science. And of course this same truth is unknown and although ultimately the final desired goal, may well not really exist or may be unobtainable. Science's goal is to model what we see in a viable theory that successfully predicts.....If that be this "truth" so be it.....if not, the theory still works and is correct while making successful predictions.
eg: Quantum theory works and predicts, but as yet we don't understand the why or how.

A triviality which you, for some unknown reason, don't want to acknowledge.

I acknowledge that GR is overwhelming accepted and is correct within its known zones of applicability.

That I accept existing approximations as being false as theories also has the consequence that I want to find a better theory, in the ideal case a true theory. Once you think existing approximations are true theories, what would be the point of further research? There are no "truer" theories.

No one accepts that our theories are all encompassing.....That may not be possible along with your "truth"
Like the tools we use un carpentry, engineering etc, each has a job to do, and each is the correct tool for a particular job.

So, I can even understand if you think I'm very aggressive against you.

So you just launch aggressive attacks, but I resort to ad hominems?
Whatever.

I know that GR was not made to be entirely accurate to describe the evolution of the universe except its initial moment. It was made with the aim to find a theory which is true, that means, true everywhere and always. This aim has not been reached.

In this sense, there is a difference with my theory of gravity, which has been, almost from the start, only an attempt to find a large distance approximation.

No it is not an all encompassing theory but it is correct and true within its recognised parameters.
And I certainly do not believe your model does any better, if at all.
If it did, you would not be here.

In fact, I have never met a scientist who had a problem accepting that GR is only an approximation, that means, false, given that it is not a quantum theory. So, please don't claim that your private ideas are supported by mainstream academia, they are not.

Another example of you handling the truth lightly.
Let me say it again.......GR is correct within its known zones of applicabilty. Yes it is an approximation, but most scientists [and little old me] do certainly not believe as you do, that therefor it is wrong. So yes, certainly I claim that it is supported as I said. Oh, and again, not my private ideas.
What mainstream academia certainly does not support is your version.

And, again, my theory differs only in some details from mainstream cosmology. The difference looks big for a layman if one compares the interpretation - an expanding universe in the mainstream, a universe with shrinking rulers in my interpretation, but from an instrumentalist point of view there is no difference - the distances between far away galaxies seem to increase as measured by our rulers, and we do not even use different systems of spatial coordinates.

Even if that were true, it will not nor should it surpass the incumbent model or interpretation.
It needs to at least do more...it needs to invalidate the accepted model on certain points.

 

[Schmelzer]

Rubbish...religion invokes some magical deity and as such is not science, despite you preaching that it is.
Science invokes reason, logic and evidence and is falsifiable...religion invokes magic, faith and is not falsifiable.
To say that it is science, is to take philosophy to ridiculous ends and is what turns people off such deep philosophical claptrap.

I do not say that it is science, as well as I do not say that apes are human beings. But they have a common origin.

I havn't self proclaimed myself to be anything other than a lay person...And you know that...which leads one to believe you are also a conveyor of untruths for the sake of dramatic effect.

Sorry for somehow misinterpreting your "As a self claimed scientist I'm ...". Indeed, I see, this was name-calling against me.

You can skirt around facts all you like, as I said previously..it convinces no one.GR and other accepted scientific theories are certainly correct within their zones of applicability.

Given that the zones of applicability are unknown - we only know that the singularities are outside these zones - this is or a useless tautology of type we know something is correct in its domain of correctness, or wrong, because there are approximations which are known to be incorrect but may be nonetheless applicable.

And of course this same truth is unknown and although ultimately the final desired goal, may well not really exist or may be unobtainable. Science's goal is to model what we see in a viable theory that successfully predicts.....If that be this "truth" so be it.....if not, the theory still works and is correct while making successful predictions.

Feel free to descrease your own goals, but don't make this decrease obligatory to science in general. If truth is not your goal, fine, your decision. If flat Earth works fine in your garden, use it, no problem, it may be indeed sufficient as an approximation. But don't name it true or correct.

I acknowledge that GR is overwhelming accepted and is correct within its known zones of applicability.

GR may be sufficiently accurate as an approximation in these zones, but this does not make it correct.

No one accepts that our theories are all encompassing.....

False. There are a lot of scientists who think that the principles of quantum theory (in their preferred interpretation) are all encompassing. There are others who think that some aspects of the GR interpretation, like background freedom, are all encompassing, fundamental insights.

That may not be possible along with your "truth"

Maybe. This does not change the fact that it is worth to try to search for truth.

Like the tools we use un carpentry, engineering etc, each has a job to do, and each is the correct tool for a particular job.

Yet another incorrect use of "correct". Each may be a sufficient or appropriate tool for a particular job. (It may be, possibly, a "correct" tool from the point of view of state regulation, otherwise it makes no sense to call a tool "correct". At least this is what I think, I may be wrong, I'm not a native speaker.)

So you just launch aggressive attacks, but I resort to ad hominems?

Learn to read.

No it is not an all encompassing theory but it is correct and true within its recognised parameters.

In which paper has Einstein specified these "recognized parameters"? Please give a reference, and present some quotes from this reference which show how Einstein has specified them.

Let me say it again.......GR is correct within its known zones of applicabilty. Yes it is an approximation, but most scientists [and little old me] do certainly not believe as you do, that therefor it is wrong. So yes, certainly I claim that it is supported as I said. Oh, and again, not my private ideas. What mainstream academia certainly does not support is your version.

Sorry, but from "it is only an approximation" follows that it is wrong. It is your specific theory of truth which claims something different, no scientist will object with my logic if I say "theory X is wrong, because it is only an approximation which is invalid in zone Y".

The relation of the mainstream toward my theory is completely unrelated to this question, because it is, as well as GR, only an approximation.

Even if that were true, it will not nor should it surpass the incumbent model or interpretation.
It needs to at least do more...it needs to invalidate the accepted model on certain points.

It does. This interpretation rejects wormholes as well as solutions with causal loops as physically impossible.

But, no, interpretations are not obliged to differ from the accepted interpretation in such a way. Their role in science is different. First of all, they allow to distinguish those things which are physical from those things who are metaphysical. The physical things have to be shared by all interpretations, the metaphysical elements may be different. To know this difference is important for theory development - if one thinks that some metaphysical element is physical, one thinks that it cannot be modified in a more fundamental theory, thus, rejects one possibility of theory development without good reason.

Then, interpretations tend to have weak points, and different interpretations tend to have them at different places. These weak points may be removed by modifying the theory. This is a natural way for theory development. Each new interpretation is a natural first step of such a possible theory development.

Above things are important and useful even if the particular interpretation does not contain any different physical prediction, as usual for interpretations.

So, the Lorentz ether interpretation of GR is something intermediate between an interpretation and a different theory. It nicely illustrates the point that a theory is more than the equations - because the equations of the Lorentz interpretation are the same: The Einstein equations, combined with harmonic coordinates, which can be (and are widely) used in GR in spacetime interpretation too.

 

[Schmelzer]

You cite an anti-religious fanaticism by the scientific community.

No, that would be much too strong.

There may be individual scientists with some such elements. There are much more atheists among scientists than among the population in general. But there is no atheistic fanaticism in the scientific community as a whole.

In the past, as part of the Aufklärung, this may have been different. But I would guess (without sufficient historical knowledge about this) that even at this time the anti-religious atheistic fanatics have celebrated science as the new promise of salvation, but have not been scientists themself. As, for example, marxists, who have liked to sell their ideology as a "scientific worldview".

 

[paddoboy]

I do not say that it is science, as well as I do not say that apes are human beings. But they have a common origin.

The whole Universe has a common origin, but to stretch that to fabricate a scenario that religion and science are the same is, well just stretching the friendship.
Simply put, religion/God is a non scientific explanation.

Sorry for somehow misinterpreting your "As a self claimed scientist I'm ...". Indeed, I see, this was name-calling against me.

There's that thin skin again.

Given that the zones of applicability are unknown - we only know that the singularities are outside these zones - this is or a useless tautology of type we know something is correct in its domain of correctness, or wrong, because there are approximations which are known to be incorrect but may be nonetheless applicable.

Again what you chose to preach is really of no concern, and does not change the fact that SR.GR and other tried and true tested scientific models, are all correct within their zones of applicability.

Feel free to descrease your own goals, but don't make this decrease obligatory to science in general. If truth is not your goal, fine, your decision. If flat Earth works fine in your garden, use it, no problem, it may be indeed sufficient as an approximation. But don't name it true or correct.

Not decreasing the goals of science at all.....just telling it as it is.
ps: I suppose if I was thin skinned i could take that as an ad hominem.

GR may be sufficiently accurate as an approximation in these zones, but this does not make it correct.

It most certainly does make it correct within its zones of applicability.

False. There are a lot of scientists who think that the principles of quantum theory (in their preferred interpretation) are all encompassing. There are others who think that some aspects of the GR interpretation, like background freedom, are all encompassing, fundamental insights.

There are mavericks in every discipline.

Maybe. This does not change the fact that it is worth to try to search for truth.

Sure...but one must be disconnected to an extent from ones own personal preferences, to be able to recognise that truth if it is obtainable or realisable.

Yet another incorrect use of "correct". Each may be a sufficient or appropriate tool for a particular job. (It may be, possibly, a "correct" tool from the point of view of state regulation, otherwise it makes no sense to call a tool "correct". At least this is what I think, I may be wrong, I'm not a native speaker.)

More pedant nonsense. The analogy stands as to correct tools, measuring equipment not withstanding your personal bias. [another ad hominem? ]

In which paper has Einstein specified these "recognized parameters"? Please give a reference, and present some quotes from this reference which show how Einstein has specified them.

Perhaps more to the point, is that you should give a reference of where I have in this post claimed that Einstein specified anything. I speak of ssientific theories generally.

Sorry, but from "it is only an approximation" follows that it is wrong. It is your specific theory of truth which claims something different, no scientist will object with my logic if I say "theory X is wrong, because it is only an approximation which is invalid in zone Y".

And likewise no scientist is going to object to my claim that theories are correct within their zones of applicability.....though with your interpretation, I suggest a few eyebrows would be raised and some rolling of eyes.
And of course your total dishonesty continues with half truths re "approximations" and ignoring zones of applicability.
Seems more like a game for you.

The relation of the mainstream toward my theory is completely unrelated to this question, because it is, as well as GR, only an approximation.

In actual fact your whole premise is fabricated and geared towards giving your "hypothesis" as much credibility as possible, due to mainstream ignoring it.

It does. This interpretation rejects wormholes as well as solutions with causal loops as physically impossible.

OK, again why are you here? Get out and push your alternative hypothesis.
Worth noting though that all our alternative hypothesis pushers we have ever had, all prefer to infest science forums such as this with their nonsense and claims. It gives them that warm inner glow that I spoke of earlier.
Coupled with the fact that forums such as this are the only outlets they have.
The rest of your "preaching" I think really doesn't deserve much comment, so I'll let that die in the infinite cyber space that is the internet.

 

[Write4U]

Schmelzer,

paddoboy said: ↑
No it is not an all encompassing theory but it is correct and true within its recognised parameters.
Click to expand...

In which paper has Einstein specified these "recognized parameters"? Please give a reference, and present some quotes from this reference which show how Einstein has specified them.

Seems to me that "c" is an identified universal parameter.

paddoboy said: ↑
Even if that were true, it will not nor should it surpass the incumbent model or interpretation.
It needs to at least do more...it needs to invalidate the accepted model on certain points.
Click to expand...

It does. This interpretation rejects wormholes as well as solutions with causal loops as physically impossible.

Hmm, questions: Is compound interest a causal loop?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_loop_diagram

Are fractals causal loops? Are wave-interference patterns causal loops?

Why are causal loops undesirable? I understand that in physics causal loops "which require" traveling back in time present undesirable logical conflicts, but that does not negate the function and value of causal loops in other areas.

Also, elsewhere you made a statement that in a collider, particles can travel in opposite direction, implying (if I understand your thrust) that one particle must be going back in time, while the other is going forward in time.
If so, why would you come to such a conclusion? Personally I see no conflict in going forward in time, traveling in either (any) direction in space.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

Neil De-Grasse Tyson is doing a lecture tour of Australia next month.
I'm trying to get a couple of tickets.

@Paddo -
lucky you! i am jealous... feel free to PM or e-mail me and fill me in after you see them!

Philosophy needs not be subjective at all, it just needs to be logical. Are you arguing that the great philosophers (with little hard science) did not contribute to science, because their philosophy was subjective and unconstrained by science. IMO, that is a hasty conclusion.

@Write
although it need be logical, that logic is not always based upon empirical data, which was my point. In philosophy, it is only the argument which is necessary.

As for the rest, I argued nothing of the sort. However, there is a big difference between somethings origins and what that something might be today: case in point, your own self - would you say that today you are not housebroken because you once wore a diaper as an infant? as an infant, you were illiterate and required the assistance of parents and others for your nourishment and survival, but not necessarily today... This is the argument that is most frequently used to argue for the legitimacy of philosophy - that it is the origins of the scientific method.
Today, the scientific method has grown into something that is so far removed from it's origin that it is a completely different entity. this is much like yourself- you are not an illiterate drooling helpless baby still today, as you grew and evolved into something that is far more complex and capable than your infant self. The same with Science/the scientific method.
Just because it's historical origins included philosophy, or even had religious people working in it, doesn't mean it is a religion etc etc

I have a problem with scientist who are unable or unwilling to make an effort to simplify the more intriguing problems in science, but expect the layperson to rise to their level of knowledge in order be able to understand. imo, that is hubris.

about this... there are those who are better suited to doing the experiments, and those suited to explaining them (as in my personal favourite, Isaac Asimov). People all have different skills.
It is not wrong for a scientist to expect a layperson to at least adhere to certain behaviors... for instance: the request of source material and being able to recognize pseudoscience, be it easy (religious shamanism or beliefs in the "great wipe", flying spaghetti monsters, or some such) or sometimes hard (from the creationist/7th day advent claims with lots of techno-babble, like Kohl, or electric universe and their continued claims of impossible physics).

Most people, and i mean most scientifically illiterate people, accept only what they want to believe in, using only sources which they "trust" (whether bible or selected sites - this is most frequently seen in climate change debates in the USA/elsewhere as well as with certain popular pseudosciences). They accept that their source would not lie to them, forgetting entirely that they just might not have the capability to comprehend what is actually happening!
that was the reason for the studies about conspiracy ideation and it's refusal to accept validated scientific studies...

Who is calling science boring? I am not.

my reference was quoted... regardless, i think the main point is really this part right here:

people are boring.

this i can agree with wholeheartedly.

There are few great communicators in science and oddly, those who are, are often criticized by other scientists for being superficial. Go figure.

yes... there will always be detractors... "haters" if you will

Now I am encouraged. These type of links are not readily available to the average layman, unless pointed out by sympathetic learned minds. Thank you.

you said this to Paddo, but i would like to add to it... on the MIT link, you can also find courses in Quantum Physics as well as other things (like psychology ;-) )... there is a LOT of other stuff on that site! i really love the wide range of courses offered.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

I know that GR was not made to be entirely accurate to describe the evolution of the universe except its initial moment. It was made with the aim to find a theory which is true, that means, true everywhere and always. This aim has not been reached.

In this sense, there is a difference with my theory of gravity, which has been, almost from the start, only an attempt to find a large distance approximation.

Schmelzer
mite i make a suggestion: there is a book you should read called "For the Love of Physics" by professor Lewin (you can also take his courses at the MIT link above)

EDIT: Link for the book
http://www.amazon.com/For-Love-Physics-Rainbow-Journey-ebook/dp/B003UV8TFE


the above assumption is not true
GR was not "made with the aim to find a theory which is true", it was a theory which more accurately described what was observed, and gave specific means and ways for it to be tested, such as gravitational lensing, certain observable parameters, etc...
if it were "made with the aim to find a theory which is true" we would not still use Newtonian gravitational models for anything at all...

 

[brucep]

Now I am encouraged. These type of links are not readily available to the average layman, unless pointed out by sympathetic learned minds. Thank you.

Me too. The scientific literature is available for everyone. It belongs to us regular folk to.

 

[Schmelzer]

The whole Universe has a common origin, but to stretch that to fabricate a scenario that religion and science are the same is, well just stretching the friendship.
Simply put, religion/God is a non scientific explanation.

For me it is simply a very primitive and clearly false theory. To make testable predictions is, in fact, quite common for religions, thus, following Popper's criterion many may be classified even as empirical theories, and religious writings are full of claims of successful predictions made based on these theories. That there are no reliable statistics about the success rates of such predictions is quite clear - but this is what one has to expect from early attempts to develop science. Statistics is also a difficult domain with a lot of traps.

Chemistry has started with alchemy - it is, essentially, the same word ("al" is simply the arabic "the"), astronomy has started with astrology, which was very closely connected with various religious beliefs. And the name which has been given to the shamans, the religious leaders of tribes in ethnography, is also "medicine man", because he was the guy who had the knowledge about medicine.

There's that thin skin again.

If a father often objects if his child behaves in an uncivilized way, does this prove that the father has a thin skin? That I object to your ad hominem does not prove as well that I have a thin skin too.

Thin-skinned people would not participate in such a forum, and even less propose theories which are not supported by the majority.

Not decreasing the goals of science at all.....just telling it as it is.

But the goals of science are not about what is. It is about what one wants to reach.

ps: I suppose if I was thin skinned i could take that as an ad hominem.

This is because you don't understand that what distinguishes an ad hominem from a valid argument is completely unrelated to a thin skin. A valid argument about the content may hurt a lot more than some cheap ad hominems, which experienced people recognize anyway as a sign that they have won the discussion about the content, an information which does not hurt at all.

There are mavericks in every discipline.

The mavericks are those who think that the QT principles are only an approximation, or that relativistic symmetry is only an approximation. Even in the foundational community, thus, outside the "shut up and calculate" mainstream, there are almost no attempts to find a more fundamental theory which could replace QT. And to question the validity of the equivalence principle as fundamental is anathema left to ether theorists.

Perhaps more to the point, is that you should give a reference of where I have in this post claimed that Einstein specified anything. I speak of ssientific theories generally.

So what? Your general remarks can be applied to all special cases - which is what makes them general. So I can apply it to GR.
Moreover, rereading the context I see that the claim was made about GR. But let's look at the claim:

"No it is not an all encompassing theory but it is correct and true within its recognised parameters."

My claim is that GR was completely defined in 1915 by Einstein. If you like you can add Hilbert who has found the Lagrangian. IMHO it was, at that time, an all compassing theory. Else, the restrictions of its viability should have been defined in the papers of Einstein, possibly Hilbert, who have defined this theory.

As, for example, I claim that my theory will become invalid for very small distances, where it has to be replaced by an atomic ether theory.

So, or you can quote similar restrictions for the applicability of GR mentioned in the original papers which have defined this theory, or such restrictions are modifications made later. Modifications of scientific theories are in general, and restrictions of the domain of applicability in particular, made because there is something wrong with original theory, and the modification is better. But a modification of a true theory cannot be a true theory, thus, such a modification is made because at least those who propose the modification think that the unmodified theory is false.

And likewise no scientist is going to object to my claim that theories are correct within their zones of applicability.....

Usually I would not have objected too. There are far too many small inaccuracies to care about them all. To name approximations "true theories" was simply too much for me. That approximations may be applied correctly is something I could say myself - this means that one has considered the size of the errors which follow from applying the approximation, and found they are small enough for the particular problem.

And of course your total dishonesty continues with half truths re "approximations" and ignoring zones of applicability.

???? A theory which is invalid outside some zone of applicability is usually only an approximation inside these zones too. So, for some applications, it is accurate enough, for others possibly not.

OK, again why are you here? Get out and push your alternative hypothesis.

It is a forum for scientific discussions, so I have taken a look into it. What else do you propose to "push"? The theory is published in a peer-reviewed journal, repeating publications of the same theory is nothing supported by the rules of the scientific community. Whenever I'm near some university I take a look and propose to give a talk, but as an independent scientist, who is not very rich, I cannot afford a lot of travel. Thus, scientific forums are a quite natural way to "push" my theories.

 

[Schmelzer]

Schmelzer
mite i make a suggestion: there is a book you should read called "For the Love of Physics" by professor Lewin

Thanks. And you should read "Winnie the Pooh".

GR was not "made with the aim to find a theory which is true", it was a theory which more accurately described what was observed, and gave specific means and ways for it to be tested, such as gravitational lensing, certain observable parameters, etc...
if it were "made with the aim to find a theory which is true" we would not still use Newtonian gravitational models for anything at all...

We use Newtonian gravitational models if we do not need truth, but only a sufficiently accurate approximation, in a domain where NT is known to be sufficiently accurate.

That GR is a theory which more accurately describes the world is not the question. It does not tell us anything about the aim - which is some subjective motivation of that guy who found it, Einstein. If you have evidence that Einstein has searched not for a true theory, but simply some computational device which more accurately computes the Mercury perihel, please present it, this would be something new for me.

 

[Schmelzer]

Seems to me that "c" is an identified universal parameter.

But certainly not a parameter which described limits of applicability of GR.

Hmm, questions: Is compound interest a causal loop?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_loop_diagram
Are fractals causal loops? Are wave-interference patterns causal loops?

No. These are loops only because time is ignored. A change of a variable causes another change of the same variable, but in the future. So, in the complete picture there is no loop.

Why are causal loops undesirable?

Hm, this is about physics, not about wishful thinking. Feel free to desire causal loops - of course, it could be interesting to live in the World of Star Wars or so (no, not really).

Also, elsewhere you made a statement that in a collider, particles can travel in opposite direction, implying (if I understand your thrust) that one particle must be going back in time, while the other is going forward in time.

Certainly not. Opposite directions in space. About mental distortions of people who believe in four-dimensional spacetimes I do not care much.

Personally I see no conflict in going forward in time, traveling in either (any) direction in space.

I don't see no such conflict too. I see a conflict between reality and wishful thinking about travelling backward in time.

A theory where the mathematics gives solutions which would allow such a time travel is, how to say it politely, ... in my personal opinion simply wrong.

 

[paddoboy]

For me it is simply a very primitive and clearly false theory. To make testable predictions is, in fact, quite common for religions, thus, following Popper's criterion many may be classified even as empirical theories, and religious writings are full of claims of successful predictions made based on these theories. That there are no reliable statistics about the success rates of such predictions is quite clear - but this is what one has to expect from early attempts to develop science. Statistics is also a difficult domain with a lot of traps.[/QUOTES]
More preaching, more excuses, more cop outs.

Chemistry has started with alchemy - it is, essentially, the same word ("al" is simply the arabic "the"), astronomy has started with astrology, which was very closely connected with various religious beliefs. And the name which has been given to the shamans, the religious leaders of tribes in ethnography, is also "medicine man", because he was the guy who had the knowledge about medicine.

More of the same, preaching, excuses and cop outs.

If a father often objects if his child behaves in an uncivilized way, does this prove that the father has a thin skin? That I object to your ad hominem does not prove as well that I have a thin skin too.[/QUOTES]
While you mess with the truth, and make excuses for your own ad hominems, under another name of course, then expect the same.

Thin-skinned people would not participate in such a forum, and even less propose theories which are not supported by the majority.

Unless they are burdened with the usual over-inflated ego that troubles most alternative hypothesis pushers.

But the goals of science are not about what is. It is about what one wants to reach.

The goals of science are about describing and modeling the universe via the scientific method and peer review.

This is because you don't understand that what distinguishes an ad hominem from a valid argument is completely unrelated to a thin skin. A valid argument about the content may hurt a lot more than some cheap ad hominems, which experienced people recognize anyway as a sign that they have won the discussion about the content, an information which does not hurt at all.

You have often in your short time on this forum been under the delusions that you have a valid argument and won your victory. That of course started and continues with your claim re your hypothesis which languishes where all unsupported hypothesis go to die.
Each to there own little games and delusions I suppose.

The mavericks are those who think that the QT principles are only an approximation, or that relativistic symmetry is only an approximation. Even in the foundational community, thus, outside the "shut up and calculate" mainstream, there are almost no attempts to find a more fundamental theory which could replace QT. And to question the validity of the equivalence principle as fundamental is anathema left to ether theorists.

More preaching, more excuses, more cop outs and as usual more conspiracies.

To name approximations "true theories" was simply too much for me.

Again your attempted misuse of the truth.
They are correct within their zones of applicability and will remain so despite your continued raving and playing games.


SR/GR and most accepted scientific theories, are correct within their own zones of applicability.
The truth that you are so fanatical about finding, may be unobtainable of it exists at all, and is used as an excuse to give your own hypothesis some credibility at least in your eyes.
Science is about modeling as close to what we observe as possible be that what you see as truth or otherwise.
Science invokes reason, logic and evidence and is falsifiable...religion invokes magic, faith and is not falsifiable.
To say that it is science, is to take philosophy to ridiculous ends and is what turns people off such deep philosophical claptrap which is what it appears you have dabbled in..

The remaining of your post is again just excuses, cop outs and conspiracies and less than honest imo.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

 

[paddoboy]

I don't see no such conflict too. I see a conflict between reality and wishful thinking about travelling backward in time.

\

I see a conflict which often presents itself on forums.
Alternative hypothesis pushers with inflated egos and delusions of grandeur, that claim to rewrite 21st century cosmology and have no other outlet than forums such as this.
There favourite pastime of course is to indulge in conspiracies, denigrate mainstream science as "priests" practising some religion, and recalcitrant on protecting that religion for all their worth.
And of course excuses, preaching and cop outs.
In the end, they go the way of all alternative hypothesis pushers.

 

[paddoboy]

Thanks. And you should read "Winnie the Pooh".
.

For someone who continually whinges and brow beats about ad hominem attacks, you certainly are one real hypocritical character.
I for one am relieved that neither your science or your politics will ever come to fruition.

 

[Write4U]

@Paddo -
lucky you! i am jealous... feel free to PM or e-mail me and fill me in after you see them!

@Write
although it need be logical, that logic is not always based upon empirical data, which was my point. In philosophy, it is only the argument which is necessary.

I agree by todays standards. But the earliest empirical data (sun, rain, wind, droughts) was subjectively processed by our hominid ancestors. As these observable events were caused by unknown phenomena, they were attributed to "unseen enemies and friends above in the sky", the gods.
To flesh out Paddo's example that in days of old, it was thought gods and demons caused illnesses.
The earliest recorded labor strike was during the building of pyramids in Egypt. Daily rations of Garlic were distributed to the laborers. This was to ward of sickness caused by evil spirits. When these rations were cut back, the laborers went on strike, which was duly recorded by the Pharaoh's scribe.
Even today many theists believe that illnesses are caused by demons, in spite of the empirical proof that bacteria and viruses and other pathogens are responsible.

Anton van Leeuwenhoek
Bacteria were first observed by the Dutch microscopist Antonie van Leeuwenhoek in 1676, using a single-lens microscope of his own design. He then published his observations in a series of letters to the Royal Society of London.

and

Van Leeuwenhoek discovered "protozoa" - the single-celled organisms and he called them "animalcules". He also improved the microscope and laid foundation for microbiology. He is often cited as the first microbiologist to study muscle fibers, bacteria, spermatozoa and blood flow in capillaries.
Although, he did not have much education or a scientific background, yet he defied all odds to be reckoned as a great scientist through his skillful observations, insight and unmatched curiosity. He revolutionized biological science by exposing microscopic life to the world.

There are many amateur scientists in the world who contribute to science, albeit most often in small ways.
I don't even aspire to such accomplishments, I just want fundamental clarity of the nature of the universe, for my own gratification.

As for the rest, I argued nothing of the sort. However, there is a big difference between somethings origins and what that something might be today: case in point, your own self - would you say that today you are not housebroken because you once wore a diaper as an infant? as an infant, you were illiterate and required the assistance of parents and others for your nourishment and survival, but not necessarily today... This is the argument that is most frequently used to argue for the legitimacy of philosophy - that it is the origins of the scientific method.
Today, the scientific method has grown into something that is so far removed from it's origin that it is a completely different entity. this is much like yourself- you are not an illiterate drooling helpless baby still today, as you grew and evolved into something that is far more complex and capable than your infant self. The same with Science/the scientific method.
Just because it's historical origins included philosophy, or even had religious people working in it, doesn't mean it is a religion etc etc

And I never claimed that. I only agreed with Schmelzer's observation that earliest religion was the first ignorant attempt to account for observed natural phenomena, i.e. abstract thinking, leading eventually to the formalization of "the scientific method", which brings us to today's functional theories and applications..

about this... there are those who are better suited to doing the experiments, and those suited to explaining them (as in my personal favourite, Isaac Asimov). People all have different skills.

IMO, those are the unsung heroes.
p.s. As a boy, my very first sci-fi book was Asimov's Foundation Trilogy. Need I say more?

It is not wrong for a scientist to expect a layperson to at least adhere to certain behaviors... for instance: the request of source material and being able to recognize pseudoscience, be it easy (religious shamanism or beliefs in the "great wipe", flying spaghetti monsters, or some such) or sometimes hard (from the creationist/7th day advent claims with lots of techno-babble, like Kohl, or electric universe and their continued claims of impossible physics).

Most people, and i mean most scientifically illiterate people, accept only what they want to believe in, using only sources which they "trust" (whether bible or selected sites - this is most frequently seen in climate change debates in the USA/elsewhere as well as with certain popular pseudosciences). They accept that their source would not lie to them, forgetting entirely that they just might not have the capability to comprehend what is actually happening!
that was the reason for the studies about conspiracy ideation and it's refusal to accept validated scientific studies...

Fair enough. I have never tried to discredit concensus science. I am not qualified. I know my limitations, however I also know my strengths and have confidence in my ability to understand fundamental concepts, even as I may lack "formal education". I understand the meaning of "evolution and speciation" on all levels of expression, from Darwin to Bohm's Implicate to Minkowski spacetime.

But then, I do not fit the negative description of the "uninformed" public. But the OP asks why "people find science boring". I am the people (not professional scientists) and if you want to know how the people feel and think about science, let them speak. Or are only the "learned fellows" qualified to comment on the public's ignorance of science? "If only the people would study ".

I am now retired and spend about 4 hrs per day on research in reliable sites (sometimes generously provided by the learned fellows). and having interest in many of the sciences, I often find tangently related phenomena (such as fractals), which I then introduce into the conversation if I think it can add to the "general knowledge" of the participants.. To my personal delight, I am often rewarded with a comment like, "interesting question", or "interesting proposition".

This is why I like this forum, because in threads like this some leeway is afforded. It makes for less boring discussions. And that is a good thing.

you said this to Paddo, but i would like to add to it... on the MIT link, you can also find courses in Quantum Physics as well as other things (like psychology ;-) )... there is a LOT of other stuff on that site! i really love the wide range of courses offered.

Actually that "thank you" was meant in general (including you) and to all serious contributors. Personally, I always cite what I believe to be a reliable source link to anything of a scientific nature I post. On occasion I have had advice that a particular link was not in accordance with mainstream science (woo), but not often.

Let me repeat, I am an atheist by logical choice as science has taught me that the notion of a sentient creator is unnecessary, if only by Ockham's razor alone. I also understand that meta-physics are a delicate subject, easily labeled as woo. I am always careful to never posit anything which I know to be in conflict with mainstream science. This is why I am a little confused by the verocity of some of criticisms. The advice for "behavior" goes both ways. I never start ad hominem, but I will defend myself and in that area we are on equal intellectual footing, unless I am dealing with a troll. Then it becomes like fencing with an unarmed man.

But, I must admit that I am eternally intrigued by the question "what was causal to the universe"?
Isn't everybody?
This may be revealing:

Because there is little debate among modern scientists on this topic, and because such debates cannot be settled by appeal to experiment, and because such debates tend to degenerate into acrimonious and repetitive shouting matches, and because discussions of LET tend to attract crackpots, it is the policy of the PF Mentors who moderate the relativity forum that threads attempting to argue the superiority or veracity of either BU or LET will be closed with reference to this FAQ.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...rentz-ether-theory-and-block-universe.772224/

 

[Write4U]

I don't see no such conflict too. I see a conflict between reality and wishful thinking about travelling backward in time.

A theory where the mathematics gives solutions which would allow such a time travel is, how to say it politely, ... in my personal opinion simply wrong.

You'll have no argument from me on that score.

 

[Schmelzer]

For someone who continually whinges and brow beats about ad hominem attacks, you certainly are one real hypocritical character.

Sorry, but this was a fair symmetrical answer. He has recommended me to read a (possibly) nice book for children, I have answered with a similar nice book for children.

A symmetric answer is not an ad hominem. Ad hominem is asymmetric - one proposes an argument about some content, some subject matter, and the answer is not a rejection of the argument itself, but an attack against the person who has proposed the argument. Because this is a clear sign that the attacker has no counterargument against the content, it means, the first one is the winner of the discussion. Therefore, it makes a lot of sense to make this point.

Instead, in symmetrical attacks, also named flamewar, there is no such advantage for one side.

And these considerations have nothing at all to do with thin skins, or whinges of so.

I for one am relieved that neither your science or your politics will ever come to fruition.

Feel free to believe this. I hope this will make you happy.

 

[paddoboy]

Sorry, but this was a fair symmetrical answer. He has recommended me to read a (possibly) nice book for children, I have answered with a similar nice book for children.

What you were recommended to read.....
Schmelzer
mite i make a suggestion: there is a book you should read called "For the Love of Physics" by professor Lewin
A book for children? Is this another example of your dishonest appraisal of anyone or anything that opposes your philosophy on life and science?
Ignoring as usual your stories, excuses, preaching, conspiracies and delusions on winning arguments.

Feel free to believe this. I hope this will make you happy.

No. not at all. I am relieved that's all.

 

[Schmelzer]

The goals of science are about describing and modeling the universe via the scientific method and peer review.

Funny. A method is a particular tool to reach some goal. That means, one needs, at first, a goal, and then one can think about a method to reach this goal.

So, the goal to reach something via some method is a little bit strange.

If one has the search for truth as the aim, then the scientific method appears to be the best method to reach this.