Views on Science/Scientists/Scientism (Split from Is the MCO Real?)

[Nungali]

6 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

oh my ass, for gods sake.

 

 

Painful ?   Unfortunately  science has not greatly advanced 'Preparation H '  since  1935 , when the unfortunately named George  Sperti used  sunburn cream for .....   'something else'  . 

[old3bob]

8 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Painful ?   Unfortunately  science has not greatly advanced 'Preparation H '  since  1935 , when the unfortunately named George  Sperti used  sunburn cream for .....   'something else'  . 

 

do tell...

[Nungali]

I'm convinced its the flares ...... ever since we stopped wearing them  ..... nothing !  

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited 21 hours ago by Nungali

[Taomeow]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

I'm convinced its the flares ...... ever since we stopped wearing them  ..... nothing !  

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Not just wearing them, having the Sun's production line reliably supply them.  Circa 1968 the Sun entered a flat maximum reaching into the 1970s, i.e. instead of the erratic flares we all know and hate today, we got a sustained stream of energizing photons consistently nourishing yang creativity on which physics as we know it depends. 

Contrast it with the biggest flare ever recorded, out of the blue in 2001...  That was in April and we all know what happened in September of that year.  It's been like that since the 1970s -- the Sun transmitting some Morse code, which no one really bothers to try deciphering. 

Edited 20 hours ago by Taomeow

[Sanity Check]

1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

 

Not just wearing them, having the Sun's production line reliably supply them.  Circa 1968 the Sun entered a flat maximum reaching into the 1970s, i.e. instead of the erratic flares we all know and hate today, we got a sustained stream of energizing photons consistently nourishing yang creativity on which physics as we know it depends. 

Contrast it with the biggest flare ever recorded, out of the blue in 2001...  That was in April and we all know what happened in September of that year.  It's been like that since the 1970s -- the Sun transmitting some Morse code, which no one really bothers to try deciphering. 

 

 

Coronal Mass Ejection.

 

But what of the earth's magnetic field potentially weakening... or even worse...  flipping poles.

 

That might not be the funnest event of the century.

 

Although it might foster...  enthusiasm for...  daylight savings time.

[Taomeow]

26 minutes ago, Sanity Check said:

 

 

Coronal Mass Ejection.

 

But what of the earth's magnetic field potentially weakening... or even worse...  flipping poles.

 

That might not be the funnest event of the century.

 

Although it might foster...  enthusiasm for...  daylight savings time.

 

Yeah, don't know about the poles -- been hearing talk about them flipping any minute now for the past 20 years so to me it's like flipping a coin...  or not flipping it.  Who knows.

 

As for daylight saving time, I like what a Native American chief said about it (quoting from memory):  brilliant science -- take a blanket, cut a piece of it on one end, sew it onto the other end, and voila -- you now have a longer blanket.    

 

People with small children and dogs are particularly 'excited' every time we switch the clocks...  and us bazi readers hate it for an additional reason -- every time you do someone's chart you have to go check if DST was in effect that year, that month, that day at that location... ugh.  It's different from year to year, country to country...  and in the US, a couple of states don't switch and neither do some territories, but there's no guarantee they never did in the past when someone was born, so, still extra work even if it's a Zonie's* chart.

 

*Zonies are people who come on vacation to San Diego from Arizona.  A local phenomenon.    

[Apech]

3 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

So, whats your idea or theory on  that ..... why was 70s so special  ( aside from the flares ) OR what happened  since the 70s ?

 

Dont tell me we hit that point again !   ;   Lord Kelvin ;  '' "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics". 

 

 

.

 

I don't know why exactly but this is not just my view.

 

When in my late teens I pretended that I was a physicist (because I came second regularly in the school exams behind Mr. Perfect who always got 90+% in every exam while I got 89%) I liked it because to me physics was the science which tackled the big questions  about the nature of reality/astrophysics/relativity/quantum doodahs etc.  Fortunately for me and the world of science I read the Tao Te Ching when I was 18 and that finished things.  I became a mystic and just played at physics from then on.  But still I held in it in some respect for the scope of its subject and so on.  This would be in the 1970s by the way when the beast was still alive and kicking.

 

One trick I discovered was that in any branch of physics there are one or two (max three) basic equations which if you master them all other equations are derived from.  So you can 'know' (or in my case blag) a subject by just working out which equations these are.   Which leads on to another point about physics - which is that most physics is the application of a form of mathematics to the physical world.  

 

In the 1670s or thereabouts both Newton and Leibniz invented calculus.  Although Newton accused Leibniz of plagiarism this was not so.  In fact Leibniz's notation and formulation were better, he was the better mathematician but Newton's application (to mechanics) was better.  We use Leibniz's notation today but we have Newtonian mechanics.  The history of science is littered with examples where two or more independently discover the same thing, at more or less the same time.  I see this as there being times when key ideas enter the human consciousness.  Of course the ideas used have always been there, the Greeks, the Egyptians, Babylonians, Indians, Chinese ... which is why Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants.  But despite this there are times when these ideas/insights come into the human domain in a new way and with new applications.  There are other times of course when ideas are not so forthcoming.  The 'truth' becomes elusive.

 

One thing that I suspect may happen is that there is a conceptual block because of the mathematics used.  For instance in quantum mechanics there is 'uncertainty' and this means it is difficult to express mathematically the qualities of sub atomic particles, their position and energy for instance.  But if you apply probability statistics to them you can make predictions about their behaviour which are accurate and allow you to do things like make semi-conductors which work in circuits.  So you know that your approach works because the diodes and transistors work (and thus your television or computer works).  Hey presto.  But then you may fall into a conceptual trap because you might think that because probability maths works for you, then particles are probability wave functions.  Not that they can be described in this way but actually this is their nature.  It's a kind of conceptual capture which leads to a ton of woo woo.  This means many physicists will say don't worry about what it means just do the numbers (cos they work).

 

 I think this may have happened across a number of fields of physics.  Which has lead people to play with the maths too much and generate a host of hypothetical theories which are just kind of mathematical expansions which have no relation to reality.  This is not progress but just a testament to the imaginative skill of humans.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

 

[steve]

I think science is just fine, as a method of inquiry, when applied rigorously and honestly.

The problem is the people and the institutions that grow out of them.

 

I enjoyed this brief discussion which tries to make sense of the "weirdness" of quantum mechanics.

 

 

[Lairg]

24 minutes ago, Apech said:

in quantum mechanics there is 'uncertainty' and this means it is difficult to express mathematically the qualities of sub atomic particles, their position and energy for instance

 

The use of probability may indicate that something fundamental is missing.

 

Does entanglement work through probability?

 

 

Edited 17 hours ago by Lairg

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, Lairg said:

 

The use of probability may indicate that something fundamental is missing.

 

Does entanglement work through probability?

 

 

 

Probably  ... sometimes . 

 

 

[Sanity Check]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

But then you may fall into a conceptual trap because you might think that because probability maths works for you, then particles are probability wave functions.  Not that they can be described in this way but actually this is their nature.  It's a kind of conceptual capture which leads to a ton of woo woo.  This means many physicists will say don't worry about what it means just do the numbers (cos they work).

 

 I think this may have happened across a number of fields of physics.  Which has lead people to play with the maths too much and generate a host of hypothetical theories which are just kind of mathematical expansions which have no relation to reality.  This is not progress but just a testament to the imaginative skill of humans.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

 

 

After the economic crash of 2008, it was reported financial markets emulate brownian motion to produce artificial randomness to create their predictive models. This was used to try to emulate the random seeming behavior of consumers, etc.

 

Then around 2017 it was revealed market analysts were using satellite photographs to accurately estimate how many tesla EVs were sold & driven off lots, before tesla itself compiled accurate data on the topic.

 

If wallstreet nerds were more interested in science than money, maybe more scientific progress might be made.

[Taomeow]

39 minutes ago, Sanity Check said:

 

 

After the economic crash of 2008, it was reported financial markets emulate brownian motion to produce artificial randomness to create their predictive models. This was used to try to emulate the random seeming behavior of consumers, etc.

 

Then around 2017 it was revealed market analysts were using satellite photographs to accurately estimate how many tesla EVs were sold & driven off lots, before tesla itself compiled accurate data on the topic.

 

 

Interesting.  Sort of dovetails with my assessment -- this late in the state capitalism's day very little is random.  Both in economy and in politics.  Even when things are falling apart, it's not a random process, it's controlled demolition -- except perhaps for the margin of randomness always present in everything.  A narrow one presently and getting narrower by leaps and bounds.

 

45 minutes ago, Sanity Check said:

If wallstreet nerds were more interested in science than money, maybe more scientific progress might be made.

 

Well, that's not their job description. 

One wall street nerd I knew quite closely for the longest time started out with a rather brilliant "pure" scientist's mind but didn't find any jobs in demand that would reward that with an actual ability to pay the bills.  And then this lifestyle meticulously and inevitably extinguishes the drive to do anything other than make money, along with much else. 

Add to this insider trading and the unholy alliances politicians make with high tech venues toward personal enrichment and we get what we get -- technology we didn't ask for that solves nothing whatsoever on the level of anyone's personal life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.    

[Apech]

8 hours ago, Lairg said:

 

The use of probability may indicate that something fundamental is missing.

 

Does entanglement work through probability?

 

 

No it doesn’t.

 

 

[old3bob]

 

some interesting stuff happens sometimes while experiments are being done,  for instance and if I remember correctly LED light bulbs came about that way,  which are a big improvement in energy usage.  (the old incandescent bulbs and others are uncommon now with few being on the shelves for sale)

 

From Ai:  "LED lights were invented  through a process that began with early discoveries of electroluminescence in the early 1900s. The first practical infrared LED was accidentally invented in 1961 by Robert Biard and Gary Pittman at Texas Instruments. The first visible light LED, a red one, was developed by Nick Holonyak, Jr. in 1962 while working at General Electric."  

 

Edited 8 hours ago by old3bob

[Lairg]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

9 hours ago, Lairg said:

 

The use of probability may indicate that something fundamental is missing.

 

Does entanglement work through probability?

 

 

No it doesn’t.

 

 

So entanglement is specific rather than randomized.

 

Many years ago, I put my attention to a quartz crystal - and instantaneously became aware of all the quartz in this galaxy.  It seems that all the quartz is connected in real time - whatever real time is

 

 

[bradley]

39 minutes ago, old3bob said:

some interesting stuff happens sometimes while experiments are being done,  for instance and if I remember correctly LED light bulbs came about that way,  which are a big improvement in energy usage.  (the old incandescent bulbs and others are uncommon now with few being on the shelves for sale)

 

Also the microwave oven!

 

Wikipedia:  

In 1945, the heating effect of a high-power microwave beam was independently and accidentally discovered by Percy Spencer, an American self-taught engineer from Howland, Maine. While employed at Raytheon, he noticed that microwaves from an active radar set he was working on started to melt a candy bar he had in his pocket. The first food deliberately cooked by Spencer was popcorn, and the second was an egg, which exploded in the face of one of the experimenters.

 

Apparently there is still an ongoing controversy about what kind of chocolate bar invented the microwave.  

 

[Apech]

10 hours ago, steve said:

I think science is just fine, as a method of inquiry, when applied rigorously and honestly.

The problem is the people and the institutions that grow out of them.

 

I enjoyed this brief discussion which tries to make sense of the "weirdness" of quantum mechanics.

 

 

 

 

Thanks @steve that was interesting.  

 

Just goes to show that the questions that physics has 'stumbled upon' are very ancient.  For instance as in the idea that the wave function of the experimenter interacts with the experiment to give the outcome.  The Samkhyas asked a similar question - what is the observer and what is the observed ... and came up with Purusha and Prakriti as the answer.  I guess Buddhists would say various things depending on the schools, it's dharmas, its 'mind' = citta or even Madhyamaka - there is no observer or an observed.  So I think physics is asking important questions and more importantly showing that it's not just theory it's real.  But they are still stuck in the paradigm of 'the external objective physical world is fundamentally real' ... while I would say that unless they break this assumption their theories will not develop.  For instance they talk about the qualities of particles without ever asking what exactly is a particle (if indeed such a thing exists in the first place).

 

I don't think fundamentally that reality can be broken down into bits.  Or at least if you do ... then each 'bit' somehow contains the whole.  As in each instance of consciousness (dharma) includes all consciousness (like a hologram).  But to think like this would fundamentally tear up the very idea of an objective world as a real thing.  We have tried, in a bid to be truly objective, to exclude ourselves from the equation, only to fail.  But the successes we have had in manipulating 'matter' and so on keep us locked in this view.

 

 

[old3bob]

 

there is no rest in splitting hairs, aka time and matter...

 

[steve]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

For instance they talk about the qualities of particles without ever asking what exactly is a particle (if indeed such a thing exists in the first place).

 

There actually are people working in exactly this dimension and wrestling with foundational questions, particularly in relational quantum theory. Carlo Rovelli has written some interesting stuff in this regard. David Bohm as well. Huw Price is another interesting figure who writes on the philosophy of science, particularly regarding time. The entirety of string theory seems rooted in looking for a deeper understanding of what is a particle.

 

I think that it is so useful and effective to work with the assumption of objective reality that it is difficult to give up. It’s that way with any foundational axioms but theoretical progress requires freedom and creativity, both of which tend to be suppressed by financial and political influences. 

 

Your earlier comment is spot on - we need to take care not to mistake the theory and models for the reality they attempt to represent and explain.

[Taomeow]

42 minutes ago, steve said:

 

 Carlo Rovelli has written some interesting stuff in this regard. David Bohm as well. Huw Price is another interesting figure who writes on the philosophy of science, particularly regarding time.

 

Thanks.  Of these I'm only familiar with David Bohm's work.  While we're mentioning books that approach physics from some underexplored but potentially fruitful perspective, here's an interesting one I read a bunch of years ago and will probably return to, to see how I see it now:

 

    

 

I am fascinated by everything Time and its phenomena (in the "physics" sense -- as are taoist sciences, for which it was the main area of study since time immemorial -- unlike in ours overwhelmingly more focused on the antics of Space phenomena).  One quote from Barbour's book that stayed with me as a kind of mental meme, a reminder of sorts of "the way things really are":

"The cat that jumped off the couch and the cat that landed on the floor are not the same cat."  

[Apech]

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

There actually are people working in exactly this dimension and wrestling with foundational questions, particularly in relational quantum theory. Carlo Rovelli has written some interesting stuff in this regard. David Bohm as well. Huw Price is another interesting figure who writes on the philosophy of science, particularly regarding time. The entirety of string theory seems rooted in looking for a deeper understanding of what is a particle.

 

I think that it is so useful and effective to work with the assumption of objective reality that it is difficult to give up. It’s that way with any foundational axioms but theoretical progress requires freedom and creativity, both of which tend to be suppressed by financial and political influences. 

 

Your earlier comment is spot on - we need to take care not to mistake the theory and models for the reality they attempt to represent and explain.

I guess there must be people working on the foundational questions - which I guess is helpful.  By the way I’m with Eric Weinstein that string theory is one of the major blocks to progress. 
 

But I spend very little time thinking about science these days so I’m out of touch with the latest stuff.

 

 

[Apech]

24 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

Thanks.  Of these I'm only familiar with David Bohm's work.  While we're mentioning books that approach physics from some underexplored but potentially fruitful perspective, here's an interesting one I read a bunch of years ago and will probably return to, to see how I see it now:

 

    

 

I am fascinated by everything Time and its phenomena (in the "physics" sense -- as are taoist sciences, for which it was the main area of study since time immemorial -- unlike in ours overwhelmingly more focused on the antics of Space phenomena).  One quote from Barbour's book that stayed with me as a kind of mental meme, a reminder of sorts of "the way things really are":

"The cat that jumped off the couch and the cat that landed on the floor are not the same cat."  

The Ancient Egyptians saw everything I terms of time and didn’t even have a word for space as such.