Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 66

Thread: Einstein and Bohr Redefine Reality

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,779
    Thanks
    35,457
    Thanked 50,277 Times in 27,090 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default Einstein and Bohr Redefine Reality

    Einstein and Bohr Redefine Reality

    Special and general relativity describe a wholly new world, yet they were assimilated by the scientific community as if they were extensions of 19th-century physics.
    1. Relativity theory is not merely an improvement of Newtonian physics; it redefines the most fundamental terms of that physics and in the process it redefines reality.
    2. Scientists behave as if theory change were a continuous process instead of discontinuously changing what we consider real.
    3. The commonsense notion that the real is the changeless source and cause of experience is belied by the continual redefinition of “reality” as scientific knowledge evolves.

    Heisenberg’s acausal matrix mechanics and Schrödinger’s causal-deterministic wave mechanics proved to be intertranslatable.
    1. Here we have another echo of Fourier: theories whose equations match empirical experience but whose terms have no obvious correlation with “reality.”
    2. Einstein and Bohr engaged in an epic, decades long argument over the explanatory adequacy of quantum theory.
    3. What was at issue seems to have been different conceptions of the criteria of the intelligibility of experience.
    4. The dispute illustrates the persistence of the hunger for
    certainty and Truth within science against pragmatic.


    Source credit: Steven Goldberg, philosopher of science

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    evince (02-26-2023)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,779
    Thanks
    35,457
    Thanked 50,277 Times in 27,090 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    It boils down to the question of whether science is only in the business of providing descriptions of relations among phenomena, or whether it is providing certain, neccessary, and universal knowledge of reality; the external causes of experience

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    evince (02-26-2023)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,467
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,697 Times in 2,029 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Einstein and Bohr Redefine Reality
    This is all meaningless gibberish. Was there some point that you wanted to discuss?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    3. What was at issue seems to have been different conceptions of the criteria of the intelligibility of experience.
    This should have been your clue that this article was written as a joke. "Intelligibility" is a quality of communication, not of tacit knowledge, e.g. experience. This is an intentional play on the readers' ignorance on the topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    4. The dispute illustrates the persistence of the hunger for certainty and Truth within science against pragmatic.
    This should have been your clue that the author is scientifically illiterate and thus is simply playing to his layman readers' ignorance. Nothing is ever TRUE or CONFIRMED in science.

    Why did you post this?

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,467
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,697 Times in 2,029 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    It boils down to the question of whether science is only in the business of providing descriptions of relations among phenomena, or whether it is providing certain, neccessary, and universal knowledge of reality; the external causes of experience
    Science is nothing more than a set of models. Science is not a business and nobody owns it.

  7. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,779
    Thanks
    35,457
    Thanked 50,277 Times in 27,090 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    I don't read or discuss with the mentally ill.

    I tend to be of the mind that scientific theories generally only constitute summaries of the relationships of experiences, or among phenomena. They are capable of prediction, but they don't provide a picture of any external reality out there independent of the human mind.

    Newton's law of gravitation made good predictions but it told us nothing about what gravity really is or it's external causes.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    evince (02-26-2023)

  9. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    53,142
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 15,989 Times in 11,516 Posts
    Groans
    873
    Groaned 2,459 Times in 2,200 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    Science is nothing more than a set of models. Science is not a business and nobody owns it.
    So, people employed by university science departments are not getting paid?

  10. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,467
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,697 Times in 2,029 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    I don't read or discuss with the mentally ill.
    You don't discuss with anyone who knows what he's talking about because it would otherwise only be a matter of time before you look stupid for not knowing what you are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    I tend to be of the mind
    Does this mean that often you are not?

    Could you elaborate on those times that you are not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    that scientific theories generally only constitute summaries of the relationships of experiences, or among phenomena.
    We have reached the point in this discussion where you look stupid. Now that didn't take long, did it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    They are capable of prediction, but they don't provide a picture of any external reality out there independent of the human mind.
    Too funny. They don't soften hands while you do the dishes either.

    Science models predict nature. That's their job. They aren't supposed to be painting pictures of anything outside the scope of the model itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Newton's law of gravitation made good predictions but it told us nothing about what gravity really is or it's external causes.
    Are you under the mistaken impression that Einstein's model somehow does?

  11. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,779
    Thanks
    35,457
    Thanked 50,277 Times in 27,090 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    You don't discuss with anyone who knows what he's talking about because it would otherwise only be a matter of time before you look stupid for not knowing what you are talking about.


    Does this mean that often you are not?

    Could you elaborate on those times that you are not?


    We have reached the point in this discussion where you look stupid. Now that didn't take long, did it?


    Too funny. They don't soften hands while you do the dishes either.

    Science models predict nature. That's their job. They aren't supposed to be painting pictures of anything outside the scope of the model itself.


    Are you under the mistaken impression that Einstein's model somehow does?
    Familiarize yourself with the three thousand years debate in Western intellectual history on this topic. Then come back with a cogent and meaningful response.

    And take your meds

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    evince (02-26-2023)

  13. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,467
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,697 Times in 2,029 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Familiarize yourself with the three thousand years debate in Western intellectual history on this topic. Then come back with a cogent and meaningful response.

    And take your meds
    You really COULD enroll in some courses. You are NOT somehow required to remain an uneducated dolt forever.

    It really is NOT the end of the world if you can no longer fool people into believing that you are somehow a thmart perthon. You can always try fooling the sheep at a local farm.

  14. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,779
    Thanks
    35,457
    Thanked 50,277 Times in 27,090 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    You really COULD enroll in some courses. You are NOT somehow required to remain an uneducated dolt forever.

    It really is NOT the end of the world if you can no longer fool people into believing that you are somehow a thmart perthon. You can always try fooling the sheep at a local farm.
    ^ meaningless drivel.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    evince (02-26-2023)

  16. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,779
    Thanks
    35,457
    Thanked 50,277 Times in 27,090 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    The open question is whether the claims of scientism are true.

    "Scientism: The belief that science is the only way of knowing what's true or real"


    That's been an open debate for the better part of 400 years.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Cypress For This Post:

    evince (02-26-2023)

  18. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,467
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,697 Times in 2,029 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    The open question is whether the claims of scientism are true.

    "Scientism: The belief that science is the only way of knowing what's true or real"
    This is a necessarily stupid question. Follow the logic:

    1. Nothing in science is true or confirmed.
    2. Science cannot therefore be the only way to somehow"know" what is true or confirmed.
    3. It does not take 400 years to discuss points 1 and 2.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    That's been an open debate for the better part of 400 years.
    Nope. Philosophy (using logic), which is what you are describing, has been around much longer than that.

  19. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Posts
    6,775
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 1,352 Times in 1,057 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 116 Times in 108 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    Heisenberg’s acausal matrix mechanics and Schrödinger’s causal-deterministic wave mechanics proved to be intertranslatable.
    Would anyone on here be able to translate this sentence? Anyone? No, I didn't think so. I'm at a loss myself.

    1. Here we have another echo of Fourier: theories whose equations match empirical experience but whose terms have no obvious correlation with “reality.”
    What, specific, part of Fourier? I'm genuinely curious.

    2. Einstein and Bohr engaged in an epic, decades long argument over the explanatory adequacy of quantum theory.
    Einstein was sadly mistaken. It happens to the best of the best. Many famous greats in the sciences were caught off guard by advances they didn't necessarily like or understand.

    3. What was at issue seems to have been different conceptions of the criteria of the intelligibility of experience.
    I'm guessing by this bloated phrase they are talking about the concept of the role of the Observer. That seems to have been the primary sticking point everyone had with the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.

    4. The dispute illustrates the persistence of the hunger for
    certainty and Truth within science against pragmatic.
    Yes and no. Any real scientist knows that all we EVER get are hints and "best estimates" of truth. That's why scientists don't deal in "proofs" but rather "evidence".

    As for "certainty" science has slowly been drug kicking and screaming into a stochastic world. Whether it's the bland day-to-day stochastic concepts like the temperature of a gas being a function of velocity of the gas molecules knowing that no individual molecule can be perfectly characterized but the ensemble can be understood all the way to the truly freaky aspects about wave-particle duality and the fact that an orbital in an atom is little more than a "probability space" for finding that electron.

    ...but all that is science so we won't discuss it on here. Let's just hack it out with IBDaMan because he doesn't threaten to actually talk about REAL science.

  20. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Posts
    6,775
    Thanks
    200
    Thanked 1,352 Times in 1,057 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 116 Times in 108 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress View Post
    The open question is whether the claims of scientism are true.

    "Scientism: The belief that science is the only way of knowing what's true or real"


    That's been an open debate for the better part of 400 years.
    Since it's an open debate it's probably best to just tell everyone that no one should discuss it and they should just let you list authorities in long unending copy-pastes. Then Doc can approve your posts and it's all cool.

  21. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    183,528
    Thanks
    71,923
    Thanked 35,503 Times in 27,049 Posts
    Groans
    53
    Groaned 19,565 Times in 18,156 Posts
    Blog Entries
    16

Similar Threads

  1. Einstein vs. Bohr
    By Cypress in forum Religion, Philosophy, and Ethics
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: 11-11-2021, 07:37 PM
  2. Niels Bohr vs. Werner Heisenberg
    By Cypress in forum Religion, Philosophy, and Ethics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-30-2021, 06:13 AM
  3. Niels Bohr vs. Erwin Schroedinger
    By Cypress in forum Religion, Philosophy, and Ethics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-18-2021, 09:48 AM
  4. Ryan denies trying to redefine rape
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-27-2012, 09:12 PM
  5. minnesota trying to redefine when deadly force is ok
    By Don Quixote in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 02-27-2012, 08:20 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •