evince (02-26-2023)
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
evince (02-26-2023)
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
evince (02-26-2023)
This is all meaningless gibberish. Was there some point that you wanted to discuss?
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.
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?
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.
evince (02-26-2023)
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?
evince (02-26-2023)
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.
evince (02-26-2023)
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.
evince (02-26-2023)
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.
Nope. Philosophy (using logic), which is what you are describing, has been around much longer than that.
Would anyone on here be able to translate this sentence? Anyone? No, I didn't think so. I'm at a loss myself.
What, specific, part of Fourier? I'm genuinely curious.1. Here we have another echo of Fourier: theories whose equations match empirical experience but whose terms have no obvious correlation with “reality.”
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.2. Einstein and Bohr engaged in an epic, decades long argument over the explanatory adequacy of quantum theory.
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.3. What was at issue seems to have been different conceptions of the criteria of the intelligibility of experience.
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".4. The dispute illustrates the persistence of the hunger for
certainty and Truth within science against pragmatic.
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.
Science is the best information we have of the physical world at any given moment
That is its main value to mankind
Bookmarks