EPTbig bang theory (noun)
- a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density
Is the mind all chemical and electricity? - Page 69
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
xM(Z
Romania5298 Posts
big bang theory (noun) - a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density | ||
|
tokinho
United States792 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:11 xM(Z wrote: it's not derailing anything. if there is no beggining and no end then time doesn't exist. think of the concept of 'mind' without any time limits. an infinite, timeless mind. (quotes were only meant to show an alternative to big bang and yea i know what quotes were about) So you believe that time doesn't exist. Time being the measure of an action relative to another action. Like the ns of conduction time in neurons goes away? | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
He even bolded the word "theory" to make sure that we understand that he doesn't know that it's not using it's colloquial definition. Sigh. if there is no beggining and no end then time doesn't exist. YOU SEE!! He just said something WAY weirder. Come on, this is practically trolling here. Its surreal. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:44 DoubleReed wrote: Oh god he's quoting dictionaries in science arguments. This sounds productive... He even bolded the word "theory" to make sure that we understand that he doesn't know that it's not using it's colloquial definition. Sigh. YOU SEE!! He just said something WAY weirder. Come on, this is practically trolling here. Its surreal. Shhh! Let him continue  I need to see where this goes lol | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On July 12 2013 02:13 TSORG wrote: much of what I say rests on the assumption that the skepticism argument is correct and that we cannot know if we are right about something. The moment someone can convince me/show me/prove me that we this is not the case on basis of another argument than that of pragmatism, I will take back everything I said here. I'm not sure how to respond to this, I will give it some more thought. I do like to point out that I'm not saying that we cannot detect the dogma, we most certainly can and afaik it is not a very controversial amongst scientists that science cannot be scientifically proven. They simply disregard it based on the succesful results of their method and thus opt for a pragmatist approach. I see no fault in this, in fact I think I embrace it. Much of what I am saying is related to Kuhn's paradigms, although he is mostly talking about scientific development. To pick up a quick quote from him on wikipedia: "Successive transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is the usual developmental pattern of mature science." It is not that whenever something better, more "true", comes along that this immediately replaces whatever was there before, it will take a will for the resistance to build up to the point where the original theory no longer can be held and it will give way for something else (and sometimes it remains if there is no adequate replacement, even though the criticism has pointed out that whatever is in place now, is itself also inadequate). However what is being questioned here is a scientific theory, as in Newton vs Einstein, what is not questioned however are these metaphysical assumptions. I don't think you are far off to say that my point is almost tautologuous, but I disagree that it is therefore meaningless. Ofcourse there is a valid reason, but that reason is pragmatic. The weathercaster is having better results than the shaman and thus we believe him over the other. I am not putting them on par with each other, or atleast I try not to, perhaps I havent made that sufficiently clear. Perhaps I should say that they are incommensurable (although I am not sure if I can use the word in this context). It indeed does, and I have not denied that. I appreciate your response, but I have to admit that it leaves me somewhat puzzled, as it suggests I might have misread your earlier responses. I see that we are in vast agreement (or at least much more than I expected) and reading from your above response to another poster I do sympathize with any project that aims at minimizing bias, dogma or unwarranted overconfidence on all sides (who would want to disagree?!). However, if you wanted to make a stronger metaphysical (or practical, sociological, etc.) claim then I seem to not have gotten it. If you could offer some clarification that summarizes your criticism I would welcome it, but in the meantime I would like to focus on where we still disagree (as I see it). You write that science cannot justify itself and that's why we turn to pragmatism to defend its use. While I would somewhat agree I feel that you are not presenting it quite right. The question of whether science is really about 'truth' or just utility is certainly not answered by science because this is not a scientific, but a philosophical question. I would suppose that you would agree that this is not a defect of science in and of itself. However, stating that pragmatism is science's 'only' justification is not metaphysically innocent. Science is at least justified for pragmatic reasons, in the sense that anybody with a coherent world view should be able to agree on its effectiveness. The more interesting metaphysical question however is why it works so well. If it can discover (or get us closer to) "truths" about the external world then its usefulness were readily explained. If it just happens to work in a world which is structured completely differently then it becomes fully mysterious why it works so well - miraculous even. How would you counter that? | ||
|
Napoleon53
Denmark167 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:44 DoubleReed wrote: Oh god he's quoting dictionaries in science arguments. This sounds productive... He even bolded the word "theory" to make sure that we understand that he doesn't know that it's not using it's colloquial definition. Sigh. YOU SEE!! He just said something WAY weirder. Come on, this is practically trolling here. Its surreal. Hm you leave me kinda puzzled What is wrong about using dictionaries in science arguments? Who decides the colloquial definition? and what is the colloquial definition of big bang? Also I see you are into that sarcasm.. but it is easier to understand if you would just write it in a mannered way. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On July 11 2013 19:09 tokinho wrote: Again, I point toward the simple truth. Quantum mechanics discussions do not belong in this thread, nor discussions on unified theories or cosmololgy and apparently a new thread needs to be opened for this.. Please stop trying to use quantum mechanics in neurology. I quote from your article - " Although brains obey quantum mechanics, they do not seem to exploit any of its special features." (http://www.klab.caltech.edu/news/koch-hepp-06.pdf) Again your sources point to the simple truth quantum behavior leads to uncertainty which cannot happen in the brain. Let me give you the example of what would happen if quantum mechanics formulas were relevant. Neurons would lose their ability to polarize. These channels are voltage gated in a deterministic behaviour. Effectively your neurons sit at about -60-75 mv, until an influx of sodium raises that to about +55 mv, now the chemical potential enters since there is an influx of ions, forcing potassium out. This causes depolarization. The sodium potassium pump uses energy and repolarizes the cell. The trigger event which starts depolarization is over about 10^6+ neurotransmitters. Even if neurons were able to do maintain the polarization, the amount of neural transmissions in the network having even one error would results in a mass amount of more depolarizations of neurons. Have you ever heard of epilepsy? Imagine siezures like that that but even more severe. Grand mal siezures all the time if it were based off of quantum signal. The original work on these theories were done by (Katz 1955) using patch clamps. Discussions on quantum mechanics are not relevant, except that they lead to the causal behavior in neurology due to the heisenberg uncertainty principle. Even your source even argues this. This is also aruged in Weiss biophysics book which i recommended that you still haven't addressed. Also, I recommend another book. http://www.amazon.com/Ionic-Channels-Excitable-Membranes-Bertil/dp/0878933212 I would gladly discuss in private the math behind such things in private. I would strongly suggest that you actually read my posts in context, as you clearly lack very basic reading comprehension. That's all I really have to say to you on that. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 12 2013 04:28 Napoleon53 wrote: Hm you leave me kinda puzzled What is wrong about using dictionaries in science arguments? Who decides the colloquial definition? and what is the colloquial definition of big bang? Also I see you are into that sarcasm.. but it is easier to understand if you would just write it in a mannered way. If we're going down this route, the Oxford English Dictionary is the "official" records of colloquial and non-colloquial definitions of words that is used by Academia to prove their points; its also hidden behind a pay-wall. Pick a word and it will tell you the definitions the word has both geographically and temporally. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On July 12 2013 04:28 Napoleon53 wrote: Hm you leave me kinda puzzled What is wrong about using dictionaries in science arguments? Who decides the colloquial definition? and what is the colloquial definition of big bang? Also I see you are into that sarcasm.. but it is easier to understand if you would just write it in a mannered way. Dictionaries are not the arbiters of language. They are books talking about the historical usage of words. They also have no say in connotation. They only describe denotation, which is especially important when people try to futz around with word games. Such as him saying "the big bang is just a theory," where the connotation is hugely different from the denotation (particularly the word "just"). There is no need to ever consult a dictionary in an argument. If you want to use specific denotation, just define another word or something and move on. Disputing Definitions is literally pointless. The only thing that matters is that both people understand the terms being used. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5298 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:37 tokinho wrote: So you believe that time doesn't exist. Time being the measure of an action relative to another action. Like the ns of conduction time in neurons goes away? i will just point you to some links to read because if i were to use my words again those goons would just take them out of context, give them a new meaning, their meaning, then bury me in semantics. http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time#.Ud-qnJbvnRk http://www.grahameb.com/realitycheck/?p=425 i see it as something like: if time doesn't exist you'll still have the form (matter-energy continuum.) | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Pull out dictionary, then accuse other people of arguing semantics. Come on. This must be intentional at this point... | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5298 Posts
On July 12 2013 05:35 DoubleReed wrote: LOL Pull out dictionary, then accuse other people of arguing semantics. Come on. This must be intentional at this point... i know what i meant when i used those words but you apparently didn't. i tried to use your dictionaries to make you understand what i meant. it was the only thing i could do. how could i know that you'd reject the explanation provided by them?. | ||
|
YumYumGranola
Canada346 Posts
On July 12 2013 05:41 xM(Z wrote: i know what i meant when i used those words but you apparently didn't. i tried to use your dictionaries to make you understand what i meant. it was the only thing i could do. how could i know that you'd reject the explanation provided by them?. Everybody knew exactly what you meant when you said things like "just a theory". They weren't contesting the colloquial definition of the word, just it's lack of applicability when discussing science. | ||
|
TSORG
293 Posts
On July 12 2013 04:15 MiraMax wrote: I appreciate your response, but I have to admit that it leaves me somewhat puzzled, as it suggests I might have misread your earlier responses. I see that we are in vast agreement (or at least much more than I expected) and reading from your above response to another poster I do sympathize with any project that aims at minimizing bias, dogma or unwarranted overconfidence on all sides (who would want to disagree?!). However, if you wanted to make a stronger metaphysical (or practical, sociological, etc.) claim then I seem to not have gotten it. If you could offer some clarification that summarizes your criticism I would welcome it, but in the meantime I would like to focus on where we still disagree (as I see it). You write that science cannot justify itself and that's why we turn to pragmatism to defend its use. While I would somewhat agree I feel that you are not presenting it quite right. The question of whether science is really about 'truth' or just utility is certainly not answered by science because this is not a scientific, but a philosophical question. I would suppose that you would agree that this is not a defect of science in and of itself. However, stating that pragmatism is science's 'only' justification is not metaphysically innocent. Science is at least justified for pragmatic reasons, in the sense that anybody with a coherent world view should be able to agree on its effectiveness. The more interesting metaphysical question however is why it works so well. If it can discover (or get us closer to) "truths" about the external world then its usefulness were readily explained. If it just happens to work in a world which is structured completely differently then it becomes fully mysterious why it works so well - miraculous even. How would you counter that? I am afraid I will have to dissapoint you now, I don't think I can provide you with the answers or explanations you ask for. This is work in progress for me, as you may have noticed, and I do not yet have a clear picture of it all. As I said in another post, I even have some problems with accepting all the consequenses, even though I really believe in what I am saying. What it comes down to in the end, if it is a criticism, then it is not a criticism of science itself, but more a criticism of how some people try to use science (or any other beliefsystem/worldview for that matter) to make unjustified claims which their worldview, or imo any worldview, doesnt allow for. You are pretty much spot on when you talk about a project of minimising bias, dogma and unwarranted confidence. I know that I might be nagging about something which seems quite abstract, perhaps almost to the point of being out of touch with reality and futile, but I am not nagging about it just for the sake of arguing or trying to seem smart. I genuinely believe that it allows for an opportunity of a "better" world. Even though I cannot just say how exactly it would work, or how exactly I envision it, because as i said, its still work in progress. And it could very well be that I am being too naive in that respect. As to science and pragmatism being its (only) justification, I agree that it is not a defect of science, most certainly not, but it his however a limit/limitation (and not in the negative sense, but just in the dry sense that it marks a border). As to effectiveness of practical science, I have no explanation for it, and I have no counter for it (although I don't think I need one, because that was never the part of science which I am concerned about. I think we should distinguish between theoretical foundation of science, the practice of science and the technological discoveries of science as we distinguish between the roots of a tree, the trunk of the tree and its fruits. The part I am concernced with are its roots, which are buried so deep its sometimes hard to say something meaningfull about it. I hope that makes it a bit more clear). The point you raise is a good one however, and it is still one I am struggling with. All I can point at is history and that we have been able to make many technological discoveries and inventions with what we now conisder to be a faulty understanding of reality. It could simply also be the case now, even though there is no denying that this process has been vastly accelerated in the past 4 centuries. I could say that it may just be a coincidence that this is timed at the same time as the rise to glory of the scientific method, but I dont find that satisfying, I would be fooling myself I feel. So I guess I can just wrap it up and say that I don't yet have an answer for that. I am sorry if this is not satisfying. Edit: something your post made me think about, but which is not neccesarily directly related to it, is the "problem" of theories that are theoretically contradicting, but both adequately explain the same observed phenomenon. By law of the excluded third they cannot both be true, yet how is it possible for us to make a choice between them except on basis of pragmatism. It is possible, even though by our comprehension, most unlikely, that the pragmatic choice is not the true choice. I believe however that this bias is more the result of our intellectual tradition (of which both scholasticism and science are a part and which both are heavily influenced by the greek thinkers) than that it reflects anything in reality, or atleast we cannot know that. But I digress now... | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5298 Posts
On July 12 2013 06:38 YumYumGranola wrote: Everybody knew exactly what you meant when you said things like "just a theory". They weren't contesting the colloquial definition of the word, just it's lack of applicability when discussing science. if you worship an idea you find it hard to question it. if you trivialize said idea and get an overreaction, it's usually a good sign because one way or the other, it'll be an eye opener. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On July 12 2013 07:17 xM(Z wrote: if you worship an idea you find it hard to question it. if you trivialize said idea and get an overreaction, it's usually a good sign because one way or the other, it'll be an eye opener. Spoken like a true creationist. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On July 12 2013 00:55 xM(Z wrote: should have been instinctive reply prompted by me challenging the authority of your believes. you don't need to explain yourself. No, it shouldn't have been that at all, considering you quoted yourself the precise definition that showed you still didn't understand the difference between a scientific theory and the common use of the word theory. In other words, you again managed to shoot yourself in the foot. | ||
|
YumYumGranola
Canada346 Posts
On July 12 2013 07:17 xM(Z wrote: if you worship an idea you find it hard to question it. if you trivialize said idea and get an overreaction, it's usually a good sign because one way or the other, it'll be an eye opener. So you are just trolling? | ||
|
DertoQq
France906 Posts
On July 12 2013 07:17 xM(Z wrote: if you worship an idea you find it hard to question it. if you trivialize said idea and get an overreaction, it's usually a good sign because one way or the other, it'll be an eye opener. Maybe we should trivialize your precious dictionary that you seems to be worshiping, maybe they actually don't even exist ? did you ever though of that ? ! mannn, i'm so deep ! Anyway, could we like ... go back on topic ? xM(Z, tell me in 1 clear sentence what you think is the most likely (not necessarily what you believe) answer to the OP question. | ||
|
Livelovedie
United States492 Posts
| ||
| ||
