On October 27 2014 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote: Mathematicians show that the process of inflation is quantum mechanical in nature.
Bunch of people on forum argue about assumptions that were never made.
Surprise me TL go on.
I've always been surprised about how very specific areas in specific fields of science get debated by people who are not involved in that specific field of science let alone involved in that specific area of that specific field. It is similar to having a medical doctor work on a satellite. But I guess that is why we have the internet so everyone can become an expert in under 30 minutes of wiki-ing.
And in the words of Feynman "Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists." Any child can ask why, a scientist spends years/decades/centuries trying to find out.
On October 27 2014 18:00 SoSexy wrote: The title is misleading. As always, this gets down to the definition of 'nothing'. 'The Big Bang could have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations' just move the question one step back, as one could ask - where did quantum fluctuations come from?
In my experience (I did a lot of reading, as a philosopher of religion) usually one side argues that 'nothing' is 'really' nothing and therefore nothing could come out of it, while the other argues that 'nothing' is a 'something with intrinsic properties, such as quantum fluctuations'.
If you are interested in the debate between this two positions, you could watch this debate between William Lane Craig (who argues for the first position) and Sean Carroll (who holds the latter):
Where did quantum fluctuations come from? Where did god come from? It's the same question so why would you choose god instead of something that could make sense? And yea people who are exposed to mental illnesses are also exposed to believing in god because its the same part of the brain that controls it. It would be about damn time that people started to accept that religion is an illness. And yea where mental illnesses usually come from? Unstable childhood. Be nice to your children people.
So off topic, sorry. I'm mad. Eager to see if I get banned, nuked or left alone for saying how it is.
Any kind of ability to think scientifically is helpful here by the way. Instead of trying to figure out exactly where we came from, why we are here etc. The best thing that this study does is prove mathematically that inflation can be caused by quantum fluctuations. People are so eager to try and generalize this into something that we can almost feel or touch.
In fact, as far as i'm aware, it has pretty much answered only one question: Is inflation caused by quantum fluctuations?
On October 27 2014 22:34 Teoita wrote: More like, can it be caused by quantum fluctuations given a few hypthesis?
Even better.
I'm no scientist, but I am interested in philosophy and the philosophical basis of science. You have to know what questions are being asked and answered by a scientific experiment before you discuss it. No-one is trying to prove or disprove God with this stuff. It also enrages me when new age idiots piggyback on quantum mechanics they don't understand. You cannot interpret this stuff in terms of who we are, why we are here and where we came from. You just can't. Science is based on asking one question at a time to build up a picture, a symbol of what certain parts of the observable universe are like and how they work. How can you even do that when everyone wants every question to be our ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything?
It's really funny seeing people here talk down about philosophy. Praise the logic used in the mathematical proofs discussed in the paper, and then insult the study of various problems in the universe which people attempt to solve using pure logic. Sure, you can go ahead and say particular people in the field, but don't insult the entire field. And I'm not even a philosopher. Also, thanks for explanation Teoita, really helpful for people interested in the subject without the basis to understand all of it.
On October 27 2014 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote: Mathematicians show that the process of inflation is quantum mechanical in nature.
Bunch of people on forum argue about assumptions that were never made.
Surprise me TL go on.
I've always been surprised about how very specific areas in specific fields of science get debated by people who are not involved in that specific field of science let alone involved in that specific area of that specific field. It is similar to having a medical doctor work on a satellite. But I guess that is why we have the internet so everyone can become an expert in under 30 minutes of wiki-ing.
And in the words of Feynman "Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists." Any child can ask why, a scientist spends years/decades/centuries trying to find out.
It's easy for a scientist to say 'science>philosophy' based on immediate practical success. But would science even exist without philosophy? Wasn't the birth of modern science during the seventeenth century a philosophical process in the first place? It's similar when you compare math with physics. Math is more abstract, but no one would dare to say that it's useless in science; it's actually the opposite. On the other hand, math is based on logic which was originally a branch of philosophy.
On October 27 2014 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote: Mathematicians show that the process of inflation is quantum mechanical in nature.
Bunch of people on forum argue about assumptions that were never made.
Surprise me TL go on.
I've always been surprised about how very specific areas in specific fields of science get debated by people who are not involved in that specific field of science let alone involved in that specific area of that specific field. It is similar to having a medical doctor work on a satellite. But I guess that is why we have the internet so everyone can become an expert in under 30 minutes of wiki-ing.
And in the words of Feynman "Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists." Any child can ask why, a scientist spends years/decades/centuries trying to find out.
It's easy for a scientist to say 'science>philosophy' based on immediate practical success. But would science even exist without philosophy? Wasn't the birth of modern science during the seventeenth century a philosophical process in the first place? It's similar when you compare math with physics. Math is more abstract, but no one would dare to say that it's useless in science; it's actually the opposite. On the other hand, math is based on logic which was originally a branch of philosophy.
I think he is missing out on what philosophy is actually about. Without an epistomological basis, science has nothing at all. We have to know what it is we are trying to find out before we can find it out, and we have to know whether it is something that can be known. Concrete answers to those kind of questions can and have been answered by philosophy.
It has long been a problem of science that many of its greatest people think that science is EVERYTHING and that no other field of study can be useful.
There is, however, a problem with the way philosophical questions arise from scientific papers/theories. You cannot make philosophical assumptions about the world based on quantum mechanics, for example. It just shouldn't and doesn't work. People can try, but in the end all we have is mathematics and demonstrations that the 'stuff' of quantum mechanics exists. People confuse a TV visualization of an electron with the reality of said electron, and think they can find some understanding of the universe from that visualization. Nope. Not going to happen. You have to understand the reality of it to be able to say anything about it. That's something that only a very limited portion of society can do i'm afraid.
Also, it's no coincidence that math and philosophy were extremely close to each other in ancient Greece, where essentially both "moderen" math and philosophy started off.
I really wish I had more time to pull up my mathematical and scientific knowledge a bit, even Teo's fine posts for the layman are proving a bit tough for me. I feel my brain has atrophied working in dead-end jobs for too long
If there's any parts you don't get feel free to ask. As i said, it's a lot of stuff condensed together, so i'd be surprised if it was easily understandable
That's pretty much what I had concluded, minus the points about background radiation being undetectable by our current tech base, I did not know that. Thanks for the info.
Edit: that's why it sounded wierd lol, I thought you were talking about a separate form of background radiation. Yeah, from what I understand, we can measure everything up to a few microseconds past the big bang, but past that physics as we understand it breaks down. Also I always think of a tortoise when I see your name, I guess that's why the e always escapes me.
Nah the CMB is easily detectable, it was first detected in the 60's. Measuring its polarization accurately is a different matter altogether though.
What i was getting at is that you can see photons up to the moment of emission of the CMB, but nothing behind it (or farther away from us, or farther back in time), because it acts like a wall.
I didn't know that was Teo's field actually so was cool to know. One of the best TL strat writers and also a guitar baller, dat man crush is growing...
On October 27 2014 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote: Mathematicians show that the process of inflation is quantum mechanical in nature.
Bunch of people on forum argue about assumptions that were never made.
Surprise me TL go on.
I've always been surprised about how very specific areas in specific fields of science get debated by people who are not involved in that specific field of science let alone involved in that specific area of that specific field. It is similar to having a medical doctor work on a satellite. But I guess that is why we have the internet so everyone can become an expert in under 30 minutes of wiki-ing.
And in the words of Feynman "Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists." Any child can ask why, a scientist spends years/decades/centuries trying to find out.
It's easy for a scientist to say 'science>philosophy' based on immediate practical success. But would science even exist without philosophy? Wasn't the birth of modern science during the seventeenth century a philosophical process in the first place? It's similar when you compare math with physics. Math is more abstract, but no one would dare to say that it's useless in science; it's actually the opposite. On the other hand, math is based on logic which was originally a branch of philosophy.
The border between science and philosophy are in my view rather nebulous, and often transitory. Basically, when we don't know and can only speculate, we call it philosophy. When we can actually investigate and can perform reproducible and consistent results, we call it science.
Science springs from philosophy, but is never beholden to it. The empirical will always supersede the purely theoretical.
I didn't know that was Teo's field actually so was cool to know. One of the best TL strat writers and also a guitar baller, dat man crush is growing...
On October 27 2014 23:41 Wombat_NI wrote: I actually do now, you have piqued my curiosity.
I really wish I had more time to pull up my mathematical and scientific knowledge a bit, even Teo's fine posts for the layman are proving a bit tough for me. I feel my brain has atrophied working in dead-end jobs for too long
As an example, I think most people have heard about the Higgs field and how it is responsible for giving mass to all other particles. The Higgs field is in a vacuum that we pretty much just assume to be a 'true' vacuum (it is implemented that way in the Standard Model). If the Higgs potential is more complex, it might be the case that it is currently in a false vacuum and might jump to the true vacuum at some point (this is possible because Quantum Mechanics is weird). If that happens, the way the Higgs field interacts with other particles changes, and that directly changes their mass. This has consequences that reach so far that the universe is pretty much guaranteed to go to shit.
On October 27 2014 23:41 Wombat_NI wrote: I actually do now, you have piqued my curiosity.
I really wish I had more time to pull up my mathematical and scientific knowledge a bit, even Teo's fine posts for the layman are proving a bit tough for me. I feel my brain has atrophied working in dead-end jobs for too long
As an example, I think most people have heard about the Higgs field and how it is responsible for giving mass to all other particles. The Higgs field is in a vacuum that we pretty much just assume to be a 'true' vacuum (it is implemented that way in the Standard Model). If the Higgs potential is more complex, it might be the case that it is currently in a false vacuum and might jump to the true vacuum at some point (this is possible because Quantum Mechanics is weird). If that happens, the way the Higgs field interacts with other particles changes, and that directly changes their mass. This has consequences that reach so far that the universe is pretty much guaranteed to go to shit.
On October 27 2014 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote: Mathematicians show that the process of inflation is quantum mechanical in nature.
Bunch of people on forum argue about assumptions that were never made.
Surprise me TL go on.
I've always been surprised about how very specific areas in specific fields of science get debated by people who are not involved in that specific field of science let alone involved in that specific area of that specific field. It is similar to having a medical doctor work on a satellite. But I guess that is why we have the internet so everyone can become an expert in under 30 minutes of wiki-ing.
And in the words of Feynman "Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists." Any child can ask why, a scientist spends years/decades/centuries trying to find out.
It's easy for a scientist to say 'science>philosophy' based on immediate practical success. But would science even exist without philosophy?
Yes. Both fall under the umbrella of 'inquiry'. But instead of talking about that, let's talk about particles.
On October 27 2014 22:04 Jockmcplop wrote: Mathematicians show that the process of inflation is quantum mechanical in nature.
Bunch of people on forum argue about assumptions that were never made.
Surprise me TL go on.
I've always been surprised about how very specific areas in specific fields of science get debated by people who are not involved in that specific field of science let alone involved in that specific area of that specific field. It is similar to having a medical doctor work on a satellite. But I guess that is why we have the internet so everyone can become an expert in under 30 minutes of wiki-ing.
And in the words of Feynman "Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists." Any child can ask why, a scientist spends years/decades/centuries trying to find out.
It's easy for a scientist to say 'science>philosophy' based on immediate practical success. But would science even exist without philosophy? Wasn't the birth of modern science during the seventeenth century a philosophical process in the first place? It's similar when you compare math with physics. Math is more abstract, but no one would dare to say that it's useless in science; it's actually the opposite. On the other hand, math is based on logic which was originally a branch of philosophy.
The border between science and philosophy are in my view rather nebulous, and often transitory. Basically, when we don't know and can only speculate, we call it philosophy. When we can actually investigate and can perform reproducible and consistent results, we call it science.
Science springs from philosophy, but is never beholden to it. The empirical will always supersede the purely theoretical.
I didn't know that was Teo's field actually so was cool to know. One of the best TL strat writers and also a guitar baller, dat man crush is growing...
I have been spurned. Sudoku is the only option.
I see what you mean. Scientific discoveries can't be linked directly with philosophy, but they are. You can't make 'discoveries' in philosophy, it's more about slow processes that can last decades or centuries, but they will change deeply the way you think, and also the way you do science.
The limit of the empirical is that you can check that a statement is true for X different cases one by one, but you will never be able to prove that it is true for infinite cases. You can , instead, do that with a theoretical proof. The limit of the theoretical is that nothing ensures you that you didn't make mistakes in the logical steps. So you need to check if it actually works in reality. In this area of physics where you study what happened 13 billion years ago it's hard to empirically check if what you found out in theory is true. So from this point of view, it's related with philosphy.
EPT
