341–350 of 455 posts
Recently, I came across the Feynman-Wheeler handshake[1-ish], which lead to the Transactional Interpretation[2] of quantum mechanics, which lead to the Afshar experiment[3] I've come to conclude that all of these are consistent, but that they are a metaphorical truth , in that you shouldn't interpret them as literal truth. Gun safety advocates teach "All Guns are Loaded", another metaphorical truth. If you behave as…
Funny that your entire comment is woo.
It's an article about QM. On Vice. About a QM thought experiment. On Vice. Why would there be any expectation of scientific rigor whatsoever? "retrocausality, may seem like science fiction grist at first glance" Stop there, vice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I ask this question without ascribing credibility or lack thereof for Vice, but just in general.
Recently, I came across the Feynman-Wheeler handshake[1-ish], which lead to the Transactional Interpretation[2] of quantum mechanics, which lead to the Afshar experiment[3] I've come to conclude that all of these are consistent, but that they are a metaphorical truth , in that you shouldn't interpret them as literal truth. Gun safety advocates teach "All Guns are Loaded", another metaphorical truth. If you behave as…
This comment will probably give you hives, but the inability to interpret things like QM literally and the inability of the left brain to process things holistically seems relevant to the interpretability problem. See Iain McGilchrist's "The Matter with Things". (I promise it's less woo-woo than it appears)
It turns out I don't need physics to be interpretable, just a workable predictive tool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would imagine that the vast majority of people working at a place like vice don't understand the distinction between soft and hard sciences, don't care about the distinction, or are bitter about the distinction.
Philosophy isn't anywhere on the Mohs scale of sciences—it's not a science at all. Each philosopher has their own idea about what philosophy is, but I'm not aware of any who think it's a science. That's one way to tell the difference—a philosopher asking "what is philosophy?" is doing philosophy. A physicist asking "what is physics?" is doing philosophy, philosophy of science. Actually it's mostly philosophers who as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Philosophy isn't anywhere on the Mohs scale of sciences—it's not a science at all. Each philosopher has their own idea about what philosophy is, but I'm not aware of any who think it's a science. That's one way to tell the difference—a philosopher asking "what is philosophy?" is doing philosophy. A physicist asking "what is physics?" is doing philosophy, philosophy of science. Actually it's mostly philosophers who as…
Not entirely true https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-action-distance/
If you want to communicate anything by that, please explain what you're referring to. I'm not going to read that entire page trying to guess. I can't at first glance see anyone asking "what is physics?", if that's what you meant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Causality isn't broken; the universe is "simultaneously causal and teleological," because it's superdetermined. There also isn't any free will, because there isn't actually any agent who could have it. Actions we perceive as volitional actually arise in the brain up to 7s before we "choose" them. The sense of a "me" is a post hoc add-on that claims credit for everything, in order to unite the disparate phenomena that…
Again this seems like a "God of the gaps" thing - if this universe isn't strictly deterministic then it's superdetermined by a meta universe, and so on
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does it bother you? As Richard Feynman said, "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." Sure, lots of what scientists do, including Feynman, involve an implied philosophy. It is easy to read https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm or https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appf.htm and extract a lot of important philosophical ideas from them. But I have yet…
Feynman was actually quite sophisticated philosophically eg. “The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific truth.” I think when there is a purpose to philosophy eg. understanding science, it works better. When there isn't really philosophers tend to in many cases just discuss what other philosophers have said about each other which tends to get a bit circular and pointless.
Maybe part of the meaning, is that I'm the course of doing what scientists do, philosophy doesn't move their particular ball forward in the way they want so they can and sometimes do ignore it. Not necessarily that they should.
This guy helped create nuclear weapons, and then quoted the bagvad ghita and had a long time to think about it. I can't imagine it didn't occur to him.
It's an article about QM. On Vice. About a QM thought experiment. On Vice. Why would there be any expectation of scientific rigor whatsoever? "retrocausality, may seem like science fiction grist at first glance" Stop there, vice.
The main thing I didn't like about it was pretending it's all scientists involved and not philosophers. The article talks mostly about Huw Price—and from phrases like "Scientists, including Price", you'd think he's a scientist. He's an Australian philosopher. He was my professor for a couple of philosophy-of-science-related courses at Sydney Uni 20 years ago. He started the Centre for Time there I believe. He's a gre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mostly a bunch of clickbait crap. > "One 'Super-Earth' Could Destroy Our Own Planet, Study Finds" > A super-Earth existing in our solar system is so far hypothetical, but its effects would be incomprehensibly destructive.
Lars von Trier has entered the chat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's check. F = ma F = m dv/dt u = -t dv/dt = -dv/du - F = m dv/du If you stop there it looks like you're right, but you also must change the definition of velocity to account for the new time. v = dx/dt = -dx/du +F = m dx/du So the direction of gravity (the force F) stays the same when you flip time. I can explain that without the math by pointing out that if you took a video of a ball being thrown up and caught an…
What is u?