Why science must eventually reform

[Unnamed]

Where is P.S.A. when we need him? He seemed to understand lifegazer.

Meanwhile, people are debating lifegazer. Again. People who joined the forum before me, and therefore should know better. Haven't we learned anything from his moderated thread?

 

[Tricky]

There's only one thing wrong with Einstein's theory - and that's the ultimate accolade he attributes to the experience of light - being some sort of 'absolute' substance in itself.

Odd that you obviously don't understand physics at all, yet you feel qualified to claim a problem with Einstein's theories.

He was wrong about one thing. The rest of his work was brilliant. Yet he was a scientist and not a philosopher - he never knew that his observations/math related to experience alone. How could he, given the time that he lived? I mean, most of you are still caught in a trap that he was in a hundred years ago, yet he - unlike you - did not have it all explained to him.

Actually, he was wrong about a number of things, some of which he later admitted. Good scientists don't mind having their works improved upon. Einstein didn't.

And all you philosophical stuff existed long before Einstein. It is just as relevant today as it was then, which is to say, not at all.

That's what many people called Einstein, for having the audacity to challenge Newtonian ideas.

No they didn't. They asked him to provide evidence. He did. They accepted it. Unlike Galilio, Einstein was accepted as a genius even in his own time, thanks to the fact that science had become an acceptable way of finding truth.

An arrogant man is a man who thinks that 'he' is important. What you don't understand about my philosophy, is that it reduces lifegazer's importance to absolutely nothing.
I want nothing from any man, least of all recognition for a truth that is God's.

LOL. Well, you certainly fit your own definition of an arrogant man. You claim to know God's truth. You claim to know physics better than Einstein. You claim lots of things, yet you cannot support a single one with evidence. I don't know of any higher arrogance than that.

 

[RandFan]

How could he, given the time that he lived?

Oh LG this is so disappointing. I and others have pointed out that your ideas are by no means unique and certainly not new. We've told you over and over that such ideas go all the way back to the Ancient Greek sophist Gorgias. We've discussed Berkley and Descartes (all lived before Einstein). We've laid out the history to you many times. That you can sit here and make such a fundamental and stupid error really speaks volumes to your arrogance and refusal to listen and learn simple facts or to take the time to educate yourself. I have given you at least a dozen links so that you could find the truth and yet you apparently refuse to avail yourself of those sources or grasp such simple truths. Garden variety ignorance is curable. Stubborn, willful and pigheaded ignorance is not. That you continue to act in this fashion raises an important question, why should anyone take you seriously?

Dumb gazer, real dumb.

 

[epepke]

I'm aware of what Einstein says... I'm aware of the physicists' viewpoint (the scientific viewpoint).
... This is the point I have been trying to make throughout this thread - that scientific theories are moulded around the idea that the universe is real. Let me try to explain:-

Einstein moulded his theory around the idea that only the speed-of-light is absolute. Space & time (or spacetime, if you like) are relative to the observer, so that any two individuals do have unique perspectives of the space; time; or spacetime, of this singular universe.

I'm guessing that you don't care, but this is totally wrong. There's a huge difference between space & time and spacetime. Space and time, taken separately, are relative. Spacetime, however, is absolute in some sense. The Minkowsian norm of the spacetime interval, for example, is invariant for all observers.

Until such time as you may be able to get this into your skull, then I'm afraid that anything you say about it will come out as mush.

In fact, it's practically impossible for any two observers to have absolutely-identical experiences of the space & time existing in this universe.

Two observers have absolutely identical models of spacetime. The whole point of Einsteinian relativity is to have a consistent model of physics. I don't know what you mean by "experience," but the experiences are no different from seeing the Brandenberg gate from the back versus the front.

... But the point is, that with a "real world" in mind and also the relative experience of space-time between each individual, Einstein (physics... science) had no choice other than to attribute a special property to 'light', since there was nothing else "out there" that he/they could attribute this weirdness to. Hence, 'light' was deemed special and attributed with 'absoluteness'.

Wrong again. You do this a lot. Light per se isn't special. c is special. It is the constant that relates time to space the same way the constant 1 relates kilometers north/south to kilometers east/west.

Light simply happens to go at c because it can't go at any other speed.

... Because light has no substance within experience. Neither does space; time; (or 'spacetime'). As I said earlier in the thread, reality and experience are distinct & separate. This includes the experience of 'light'.

Irrelevant.

We experience light amongst our experience of space and amongst our experience of time.

Yes, and this is a fundamental misunderstanding. Einsteinian relativity is a way to correct this misunderstanding. Many are incorrigible.

...Therefore, if the experience of space and the experience of time (or, the experience of spacetime) is relative (and therefore 'unique' to each individual with comparison to all others), then the only conclusion one can come to is that it is GIVEN!! to the individual to EXPERIENCE the velocity of light at a specific value ('c'), regardless of his/her individual experience of space & time (spacetime).

That's so bad it isn't even wrong.

 

[Belz...]

scientific theories are moulded around the idea that the universe is real.

Well DUH! Wouldn't be very useful otherwise.

 

[Belz...]

There's only one thing wrong with Einstein's theory - and that's the ultimate accolade he attributes to the experience of light - being some sort of 'absolute' substance in itself.

Er... no.

He was wrong about one thing. The rest of his work was brilliant.

You are one arrogant poster, Lifegazer. How could YOU possibly find holes in a theory you don't even graps in the least ?

That's what many people called Einstein, for having the audacity to challenge Newtonian ideas.

You... you're calling yourself the next Einstein ???

An arrogant man is a man who thinks that 'he' is important.

What you don't understand about my philosophy, is that it reduces lifegazer's importance to absolutely nothing.
I want nothing from any man, least of all recognition for a truth that is God's.

Drivel.

 

[Huntster]

...Before you can claim science needs to be reformed you first need to understand the current state of play regarding how science currently defines itself philosophically....

Sorta like how individual people define themselves? Like religious sects define themselves? Like governments define themselves?

Do you accept other self-proclaimed definitions as pronounced by others, or do you observe behaviors and actions then define the entity yourself?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by JustGeoff :
It is most definately not the job of science to answer such questions.

If it is not the job of science to objectively explain the order and cause of the world, then what's the bleedin' point of science? To entertain?

To sustain life for itself, just like every other human endeavor out there.

 

[lifegazer]

Oh LG this is so disappointing. I and others have pointed out that your ideas are by no means unique and certainly not new. We've told you over and over that such ideas go all the way back to the Ancient Greek sophist Gorgias.

What ideas are you talking about? All the philosophers you mention lived before Einstein and didn't know about Relativity... nor QM.

 

[RandFan]

What ideas are you talking about? All the philosophers you mention lived before Einstein and didn't know about Relativity... nor QM.

What does that have to do with Einstein and the "time that he lived"? Einstein did know about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. You're posts are incoherent.

 

[RandFan]

What ideas are you talking about? All the philosophers you mention lived before Einstein and didn't know about Relativity... nor QM.

What ideas were you talking about?

Yet he was a scientist and not a philosopher - he never knew that his observations/math related to experience alone. How could he, given the time that he lived? I mean, most of you are still caught in a trap that he was in a hundred years ago, yet he - unlike you - did not have it all explained to him.

What do you mean by "experience alone"? What does that have to do with relativity and QM which Einstein was clearly aware of?

Do you even understand what the hell you are talking about?

 

[Jimbo07]

All the philosophers you mention lived before Einstein and didn't know about Relativity... nor QM.

Nor do you, apparently.

I don't know what you mean by "experience," but the experiences are no different from seeing the Brandenberg gate from the back versus the front.

Only in LG's case it's like seeing a Brandenberg Concerto from the purple versus the pungent.

 

[lifegazer]

What does that have to do with Einstein and the "time that he lived"? Einstein did know about Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. You're posts are incoherent.

Yeah, but Einstein wasn't a philosopher and - as my thread seeks to explain - he, like all other scientists, moulded his theories around the idea that the world he was observing is real in itself, rather than just the experience that it is.
If Einstein had been awake to understanding that 'the world' is an experience given to the mind via ordered sensations, he would surely have understood the absoluteness of the observer himself. And I'm not talking about the experienced-body of that observer.

Few here are thinking about what I have posted. The world of objects is indeed an experience... and science is the study of the order that exists amongst that experience. Thus, all theories must/should mould themselves to this fact - rather than treating the world as real in itself.

The most obvious example is that of theories regarding the origin of the universe. Yet the only universe scientists (humans) are privy to, is that experienced within the mind via sensations.
Hence, theories related to the origin of our universe should concern themselves to the origin of the sensations which paint a picture of the universe.
Clearly, theories about big-bangs and many-universes are theories which treat the universe real in itself.

What I am saying is obvious and shouldn't require repetative explanation. But I guess that's what happens when one addresses a biased audience.

 

[lifegazer]

There's a huge difference between space & time and spacetime. Space and time, taken separately, are relative. Spacetime, however, is absolute in some sense. The Minkowsian norm of the spacetime interval, for example, is invariant for all observers.

Do you have any idea what this actually means within the context of the universe itself, or how this information relates to that universe, or are you just parroting knowledge passed onto you from another source?
The point of this thread and my mentioning of Einstein is to explain how theories are moulded around the idea that the universe is real in itself.

Until such time as you may be able to get this into your skull, then I'm afraid that anything you say about it will come out as mush.

Really?
Do you now comprehend that scientists are studying the order inherent within the experience of the universe yielded via the sensations? This is an undeniable fact, since humanity cannot study anything other than it's own experience. All I want to know is whether you understand it?
If not, then it's upto you to take a time-out and contemplate what I mean.
But, if so, then what you're saying is completely irrelevant, because the fact is that we all experience the universe with parameters - the values of which are relatively different for each individual. Hence there is no absolute space or absolute time.
Now, you are saying that there is absolute spacetime. So, since you think that I don't know what I'm talking about and that you obviously do, I hereby challenge you to explain what, in itself, absolute spacetime is within the context of the experience of this world which we are having.

Two observers have absolutely identical models of spacetime. The whole point of Einsteinian relativity is to have a consistent model of physics. I don't know what you mean by "experience," but the experiences are no different from seeing the Brandenberg gate from the back versus the front.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that there isn't Something absolute or singular upon/within which all of this relativity-experience occurs, but to describe that thing as absolute-spacetime is pathetic.

Wrong again. You do this a lot. Light per se isn't special. c is special. It is the constant that relates time to space the same way the constant 1 relates kilometers north/south to kilometers east/west.

I'm sorry mate, but if you don't see anything special about an energy that will always be perceived to move at the same velocity regardless of your own velocity, then you haven't given it much thought.
For example, let's swap 'light' for 'cats'. Imagine that the velocity of all things in the universe, including light, was relative to your own motion. Except cats. Cats would always be perceived to be moving at 20m/s regardless of your own velocity. So, any intelligent person would regard the motion of cats as "special" with comparison to everything else. But not you, apparently, since you see no big deal about an energy that apparently disregards your own motion!
Think man, think. And think within the context of 'light' being a sensation, rather than a real energy existing outside of yourself and moving through real space & time.

As I said earlier, science studies the order inherent within the exerience of the world, yielded by sensations. And 'light' is a sensation. And the reason why there is a constant relationship between the observing mind and the sensation of light, is because light is not an object in a real world... and neither is the observing mind.

Light simply happens to go at c because it can't go at any other speed.

Oh, so light doesn't have any "special" properties? Then perhaps you could explain to this forum why it ALONE moves through the same [supposedly] real universe as every-thing else, but, unlike everything else, it's velocity is not perceived relative to your own.

Climb the ladder mate. This isn't a test about who knows more about physic's terminology regarding any specific theory. This thread is a wake-up-call, asking you to see beyond all of that and ask questions. The pertinant question is: does this terminology have direct relevance to the reality of our world? And you cannot truthfully answer that question until you understand that the "reality of our world" is a Self-generated experience, composed of ordered sensations.

 

[lifegazer]

Odd that you obviously don't understand physics at all, yet you feel qualified to claim a problem with Einstein's theories.

I understand the problems physics/science faces. You... do not.

Actually, he was wrong about a number of things, some of which he later admitted. Good scientists don't mind having their works improved upon. Einstein didn't.

Good. So let's change things then, as advocated by this thread.

And all you philosophical stuff existed long before Einstein. It is just as relevant today as it was then, which is to say, not at all.

I can assure you that no philosopher that existed before Einstein was discussing Einstein's theories. Nor those theories associated with QM. Nor the fact that scientific theories are moulded upon a 'real' world.

LOL. Well, you certainly fit your own definition of an arrogant man. You claim to know God's truth. You claim to know physics better than Einstein.

Do you think that God's truth completely mirrors what Einstein said?

You claim lots of things, yet you cannot support a single one with evidence. I don't know of any higher arrogance than that.

What "evidence" are you asking of me? The FACT that what we experience is not a universe of real-in-themselves objects within real-in-itself space & time, is basic rationale. Something science has overlooked for several-hundred years. Fact.

Why support a reality that is fictitious? Nobody - including the best scientists you can name, has observed a real world. So ignore their theories about such a world. Instead, listen to theories about the world that you/they have observed: the world of experience, given unto consciousness by ordered sensations.
Your attitude is akin to that of a religious order, which will defend it's beliefs to it's deathbed.
Sobeit. Die. Many have. Many will. But YOU will not have an excuse come that day. At least they did - it was not explained to them.

 

[balrog666]

Any scientist that mentions 'God' is systematically ridiculed and castigated.

If they mention any god or gods with respect to their scientific work, then they should be ridiculed and castigated.<p>

Why would any rational being think otherwise?

 

[Tricky]

I understand the problems physics/science faces. You... do not.

LOL. Uh huh. You have demonstrated that you haven't got a clue about science, something quite obvious to all the scientists here. You're the guy who tries to tell the plumber how to fix the leak when your basement is flooded.

Good. So let's change things then, as advocated by this thread.

You first. You can start by boycotting anything that our "broken" science has invented.

I can assure you that no philosopher that existed before Einstein was discussing Einstein's theories. Nor those theories associated with QM. Nor the fact that scientific theories are moulded upon a 'real' world.

Actually, a lot of things Einstein studied were discussed before his time, but they didn't have consistent answers. He was building on the shoulders of giants. But yes, they were a way of modeling the 'real' world in that they were based on experimentation and multiple observations as well as his keen mathematical insight. Your philosophy has none of that, because you don't understand pea turkey about science.

Do you think that God's truth completely mirrors what Einstein said?

Well, since I am an atheist, I don't believe there is such a thing as "God's truth". But no, Einstein wasn't completely correct. He said so himself. As we learn more, the theories he initiated get improved upon, just as Einstein improved upon Newton's theories. Of course, that would all stop if all scientists suddenly became insane and adopted your "improvements".

What "evidence" are you asking of me? The FACT that what we experience is not a universe of real-in-themselves objects within real-in-itself space & time, is basic rationale. Something science has overlooked for several-hundred years. Fact.

Wow! What a brilliant insight from one who knows nothing about science. Why don't you provide some evidence to go along with these "facts"? Why don't you do something useful with these "facts"? If you can, then you'll get a lot more attention than you will by trolling. And it is a FACT that attention is the only thing you want.

Why support a reality that is fictitious? Nobody - including the best scientists you can name, has observed a real world. So ignore their theories about such a world. Instead, listen to theories about the world that you/they have observed: the world of experience, given unto consciousness by ordered sensations.

Oh, but those sensations aren't the "real world" either because the organs that do the sensing aren't real. Neither is the brain that records them. Neither is your consciousness. Neither are any of your observations. Try following your insights to their logical conclusions. You'll be forced to conclude that even you are not real. That's a very useful philosophy you have there, lifegazer.

Your attitude is akin to that of a religious order, which will defend it's beliefs to it's deathbed.

I will change my beliefs the instant someone provides good evidence that they are wrong (I have many times). I won't change them because of the incoherent rantings of a madman.

Sobeit. Die. Many have. Many will.

Die? How can I die. According to you theories, I'm not even real.
(BTW Sobeit is not a real word.)

But YOU will not have an excuse come that day. At least they did - it was not explained to them.

And who would I need an excuse for? God? Would I have to tell him, "Sorry God, I should have listened to Lifegazer"? Something tells me that if God did exist, He wouldn't choose somebody like you for his spokesman. He'd be smarter than that.

 

[Wowbagger]

What ideas are you talking about? All the philosophers you mention lived before Einstein and didn't know about Relativity... nor QM.

You are missing the point. The whole question of whether the world is "real" or not dates back to Gorgias. This is a philosophical problem that has nothing to do with Relativity, (except that we can tell that Relativity represents an accurate, dependable model of the world we experience.)

I understand the problems physics/science faces. You... do ot.

You don't even understand physics or science. What makes you so sure you understand its problems.
Perhaps the problem is that you are letting your own existential quandaries interfere with how you examine your experienced world. I think you might understand science better if you learn to let go of such fuzzy ideas, at least temporarily, and understand that science is only here to study the empirical world. Nothing more, nothing less. And, subsequently, its models get better all the time, though none of them are ever going to be 100% el perfecto.

Good. So let's change things then, as advocated by this thread.

This would turn science into a postmodern drivel-fest, and put and end to what makes it reliable and useful. No thanks.

Einstein got a number of things wrong, and they were corrected by other scientists, using the tools of science - without such reforms in place.

I can assure you that no philosopher that existed before Einstein was discussing Einstein's theories. Nor those theories associated with QM. Nor the fact that scientific theories are moulded upon a 'real' world.

They may not have had Einstein's Relativity, but as stated earlier, a lot of ancient philosophers had a hard time distinguishing the real world from the experienced world.

For example, Plato thought there existed a literal Reality of Forms. If its origins in Plato were forgotten, and someone came up with that idea, today, we would think of that person as a very confused fellow. Science doesn't even consider it worth thinking about, as there is no empirical evidence of Forms.

Do you think that God's truth completely mirrors what Einstein said?

Just a friendly reminder: appeals to supernatural origins of truth are not accepted as science. Thank you.

Why support a reality that is fictitious? Nobody - including the best scientists you can name, has observed a real world.

Scientists already understand that their theories are provisional, and are only kept alive by the collective experience of all of them.

Do you think you have insights into the real world that science does not?

Your attitude is akin to that of a religious order, which will defend it's beliefs to it's deathbed.
Sobeit. Die. Many have. Many will. But YOU will not have an excuse come that day. At least they did - it was not explained to them.

Our attitude is that science has no room for purely ontological arguments. It does not build beliefs. It builds reliable, useful models.

Some scientists have personal beliefs. These beliefs will have to change if evidence works against them. And, yes, sometimes specific scientists will cling to a belief long after it has been discredited. And, it sucks being them.

But, that doesn't mean we need to reform science.

...Therefore, if the experience of space and the experience of time (or, the experience of spacetime) is relative (and therefore 'unique' to each individual with comparison to all others), then the only conclusion one can come to is that it is GIVEN!! to the individual to EXPERIENCE the velocity of light at a specific value ('c'), regardless of his/her individual experience of space & time (spacetime).

...(snip)...

Hence, Einstein's theory of Relativity is a classic example of how assuming that the world is real can (and has done), screw-up science.

Science needs to abandon pre-conceived ideas of reality because such conceptions are corrupting the conclusions!!!
The same thing has happened with quantum-mechanics.

Einstein's theory of Relativity is a classic example of how science can transform its view of the Universe into one that is more reliable and accurate than previous views. This is not screwing up science. This is the beauty of science. Only a philosopher would think its conclusions are "corrupted".

Hence, Lifegazer's explanation of what Relativity implies is a classic example of how assuming you understand science, when you do not, can (and does) screw-up philosophy.

 

[RandFan]

Yeah, but Einstein wasn't a philosopher and - as my thread seeks to explain - he, like all other scientists, moulded his theories around the idea that the world he was observing is real in itself, rather than just the experience that it is.

{sigh} Sorry, no.

Demonstrate a little intellectual honesty. Let's go back.

Yet he was a scientist and not a philosopher - he never knew that his observations/math related to experience alone. How could he, given the time that he lived? I mean, most of you are still caught in a trap that he was in a hundred years ago, yet he - unlike you - did not have it all explained to him.

Ok, let's parse your argument:

Proposition: Einstein didn't know that his observation/math related to experience alone.

P1.) Einstein wasn't a philosopher.
P2.) Einstein couldn't have known the proposition because of the time he lived in. (He didn't have it all explained to him. It logically follows that because of the time he lived in he couldn't have had it explained to him).

I'll grant you premise #1. Please to explain #2.

What do you know now that Einstein couldn't have known because of "the time that he lived"?

What have you explained to us that Einstein couldn't have known because of "the time that he lived"?

 

[RandFan]

Do you now comprehend that scientists are studying the order inherent within the experience of the universe yielded via the sensations?

Yes. This is painfully obvious to everyone. So what?

We all exploit that order by using the Internet to post on forums, drive cars, watch TV, fly on airplanes, avoid hunting and gathering (thank you scientists studying "the order inherent within the EXPERIENCE".

So what? This fact changes nothing. Even if there is no reality we can still drive cars, watch TV, fly on airplanes and avoid hunting and gathering.

That scientists are studying "the order inherent within the experience" of the universe changes nothing.

If I lock you in a room you will still ask to be let out or die. You can't escape "the order inherent within the experience".

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, is still there."

I don't pretend that I'm the first to let you in on that little gem. It's still true though. And you still haven't figured out away around it. And that is precisely why science isn't going to reform because it doesn't make sense to reform. There is nothing to reform.