Board 8 > See, this is what amazes me about Black Holes.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't know why you couldn't understand why a person would find the mechanics of a black hole fascinating. It seems pretty obvious.

Maybe I just have some kind of deficiency then!

--
et tu, Joey Crawford?
http://i.imgur.com/HuR88.gif

I'll be interested in neutrinos when the results about their speed come out.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/cosplaygifer.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TORtanic

Uh, not faster than the speed of light.

Astronomers have already observed neutrino showers arriving weeks earlier than light from a supernova(long story behind this); exactly in the fashion that General and special relativity would have predicted. It's highly unlikely that the neutrino thing is anything but an equipment malfunction or a mistake in the calculation. Scientists are THAT sure about SR. Now, if you really BELIEVE that FTL travel is possible... there's like one person who's offering 1:5000 odds against FTL neutrinos, so you can try to bet against him and see how it pans out (I haven't been paying attention, has it panned out?)

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

This is so much cooler than that Stargate episode.

--
"Later..." <Toonami> <4/1/2012> <Never Forget> ~SCP~
http://img.imgcake.com/Jeffzeropngus.png

Jeff Zero posted...
This is so much cooler than any Stargate episode.

--
TheRock ~ Slow dramatic zoom-pan. Doesn't phase the hooded man.
"You have issues." - MWC. Pot. Kettle.

I do believe in FTL travel, because if science is good at something it's proving times and times again that we were wrong about everything.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/cosplaygifer.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TORtanic

Ayuyu posted...
I do believe in FTL travel, because if science is good at something it's proving times and times again that we were wrong about everything.

Science doesn't prove that we were wrong about everything: Science proves that we can't use the same paradigm for everything. Something we previously thought as a fundamentalbasement level reality was really just a higher level model where the math just happened to work out properly enough for us to do things.

Betting for FTL travel isn't like betting on the existence of the Higgs Boson or something. It's more like betting that apples would start falling upwards when a new theory of gravity gets discovered, or that you can start casting magic spells if you become a level 6 graduate student.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Heh, I've always said that everything is possible, and I'll keep saying that until I die.

Has me believing in the possible existence of pretty crazy things but whatever, it's truly how I feel and the world is much more amazing that way.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/cosplaygifer.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TORtanic

The neutrino thing already came out, and they said it was a miscalculation. It's not FTL.

--
-

No, they said it was possible it was a miscalculation because of certain factors, no confirmation yet.

I checked the OPERA website 5 minutes ago so I'm pretty sure I'm right.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/cosplaygifer.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TORtanic

Oh yeah they forgot to include GR corrections to the satellite syncing with the equipment. That's... kinda hilarious considering what we're talking about.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Ayuyu posted...
I do believe in FTL travel, because if science is good at something it's proving times and times again that we were wrong about everything.

I don't think "we have been wrong before" is a good basis for that argument any more than it would be to claim you might actually be a koala because you once mistook coke for pepsi >_>

From: Haguile | #062
Ayuyu posted...
I do believe in FTL travel, because if science is good at something it's proving times and times again that we were wrong about everything.

I don't think "we have been wrong before" is a good basis for that argument any more than it would be to claim you might actually be a koala because you once mistook coke for pepsi >_>

Well can you prove I'm not a koala?

Hmm!?

--
http://img.imgcake.com/cosplaygifer.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TORtanic

I have an unreasonable amount of fondness for neutrinos due to a terrible joke a friend made involving the apocalypse and a princess bride reference("I'm not left handed"). It's the kind of terrible joke that just stays with you for such a long time you grow fond of it.

Did the joke involve parity.

If so your friend is amazing and by amazing I mean I hope you're willing to give him a kidney.

His own kidney. I mean it's his after all.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Ayuyu posted...
From: Haguile | #062
Ayuyu posted...
I do believe in FTL travel, because if science is good at something it's proving times and times again that we were wrong about everything.

I don't think "we have been wrong before" is a good basis for that argument any more than it would be to claim you might actually be a koala because you once mistook coke for pepsi >_>
Well can you prove I'm not a koala?

Hmm!?

Well, yes. You are responding to my messages in a way that a koala couldn't. You are either human or a super developed koala that evolved so far beyond the boundaries of a regular koala that you would no longer be considered a koala, you'd just share a common ancestor with koalas. So it's pretty safe to say you can't possibly be a koala in any way.

Unless this is a Shakespeare and monkey thing and somebody stole the infinite improbability drive from Douglas Adams's grave.

ToukaOone posted...
Did the joke involve parity.

If so your friend is amazing and by amazing I mean I hope you're willing to give him a kidney.

His own kidney. I mean it's his after all.

Yes, I'm pretty sure it did. I can't remember the details because it was some time ago, but I distinctively remember him ending the joke with "I'm pretty sure neutrinos are just pretending to be left handed to screw with us. Somebody should challenge them to a sword fight."

yawn


So I hear there are some pretty good books out there. Like Faust and Manfred and the Republic. Seems more interesting than a bunch of science that'll be embarrassingly out of date in fifty years!

--
et tu, Joey Crawford?
http://i.imgur.com/HuR88.gif

There are various prediction markets out there right now which predict the rate of scientific progress; if you feel you know better than scientists about how quickly physics can advance, then you can go ahead RIGHT NOW and try to make money off of them.

Oh, you mean there's nothing about General or Special relativity up for grabs? It's almost as if they're incredibly robust theories and that we have quickly hit the realm of diminishing returns with respect to fundamental physics.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

There are various prediction markets out there right now which predict the rate of scientific progress; if you feel you know better than scientists about how quickly physics can advance, then you can go ahead RIGHT NOW and try to make money off of them.

"Prediction markets"? Is this like some kind of gambling ring for scientific advancements? By all means, point me to the place!

Oh, you mean there's nothing about General or Special relativity up for grabs? It's almost as if they're incredibly robust theories and that we have quickly hit the realm of diminishing returns with respect to fundamental physics.

There are only two possible outcomes for the pursuit of modern science, one if science is unlimited and one if it proves limited:

1) The causal chain behind things turns out to be relatively within our grasp, so we keep cutting things apart as we are now. And, just as things have been, every few hundred years or so modern science will simply hit another paradigm shift and have to reinterpret or throw out its old models as insufficient. So long as we have access to smaller and smaller, and bigger and bigger, slices of existence, our models will always have to change. Alternatively...

2) The causal chain behind things turns out not to be in our grasp, and we can only cut things up so far. Something like the Higgs-Boson or string theory turns out to be the final theater for scientific warfare against the world, and no new tools enable us to dig any deeper or climb any higher. We're simply left with what we have.

Either way, things don't look particularly promising. This is basically my problem with science.

--
et tu, Joey Crawford?
http://i.imgur.com/HuR88.gif

http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/

Either way, things don't look particularly promising. This is basically my problem with science.

oh no

sound the alarm

someone has a problem with science

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Don't be like that, Touka. Contrary to what you might think, I really enjoy our conversations, and I tend to learn a lot about science (since I'm apparently "illiterate" by your standards!). I'm just offering up the perspective of someone interested in the philosophical aspect of things, and from there, you can't help but notice defects and limits to the method.

--
et tu, Joey Crawford?
http://i.imgur.com/HuR88.gif

That website is absolutely incredible, by the way. Gonna have to favorite that

--
et tu, Joey Crawford?
http://i.imgur.com/HuR88.gif

Wait, so you say you're interested in truth and yet you don't know about the most accurate public policy prediction method that exists?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Either way, things don't look particularly promising. This is basically my problem with science.

And the alternative is....what?

Philosophy? Are you really suggesting that we are not also hitting the realm of diminishing returns within that discipline?

--
From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch

Also wait, when you say you "learn a lot about science" do you mean you're actually going and and looking up other sources, or do you think lines like 'matter is made of waves' actually constitutes understanding?

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

From: Westbrick | #070
1) The causal chain behind things turns out to be relatively within our grasp, so we keep cutting things apart as we are now. And, just as things have been, every few hundred years or so modern science will simply hit another paradigm shift and have to reinterpret or throw out its old models as insufficient. So long as we have access to smaller and smaller, and bigger and bigger, slices of existence, our models will always have to change. Alternatively...

2) The causal chain behind things turns out not to be in our grasp, and we can only cut things up so far. Something like the Higgs-Boson or string theory turns out to be the final theater for scientific warfare against the world, and no new tools enable us to dig any deeper or climb any higher. We're simply left with what we have.

Either way, things don't look particularly promising. This is basically my problem with science.

I don't understand your position, can you please clarify it for me a bit? To me it's sounding like you oppose an endless chase in your first point and also oppose a chase with an end in sight in your second point. I'm probably misunderstanding something, because the only alternative to those two options is to stand still and die a slow, extremely boring death.

And the alternative is....what?

Philosophy? Are you really suggesting that we are not also hitting the realm of diminishing returns within that discipline?

You make it sound like there's a choice involved here. Even if you're not a particularly big fan of some of the more esoteric / continental aspects of philosophy (existentialism, normative theory, all the juicy postmodern stuff), it still has a significant role to play in terms of logic and social moral calculus. Philosophy is also the pursuit of truth for truth's sake, which doesn't always lend itself to practical application. This is true of many other fields as well- I mean, do you really believe that beetle classification is going to help much in the long haul? Probably not.

The "alternatives" to science-as-science are few to none; it's the best at what it does. The alternatives to science-as-philosophy, however, are plentiful. But that's a topic for another day.

Also wait, when you say you "learn a lot about science" do you mean you're actually going and and looking up other sources, or do you think lines like 'matter is made of waves' actually constitutes understanding?

I mean that you open my eyes to how a reductionist thinks and approaches philosophical problems. It's good psychology. I do occasionally look up what you're talking about, as well.

I don't understand your position, can you please clarify it for me a bit? To me it's sounding like you oppose an endless chase in your first point and also oppose a chase with an end in sight in your second point. I'm probably misunderstanding something, because the only alternative to those two options is to stand still and die a slow, extremely boring death.

I'm not necessarily opposed to an endless chase for knowledge (which would be extremely hypocritical given my interests); I'm just highly skeptical of the high status we've given science in terms of interpreting how we see our place in the world. What I was talking about earlier is simply that logical positivism is dead, and that while science is useful, its limits and defects should invite criticism by all as regards its truth value.

In other words, I don't feel science deserves a chokehold over looking at how the world "really" is.

--
et tu, Joey Crawford?
http://i.imgur.com/HuR88.gif

Westbrick, you're a religious person aren't you.

If the Earth is destroyed before humanity achieves the means to escape to another planet, your kind is to blame.

From: baron von toast | #024
Speaking of SPACE I bought a telescope a few weeks ago and it's so cool. I got some higher magnification eyepieces recently and as soon it's clear imma find me some Messier objects.

Here's one.



--
SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name...
But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion

Westbrick, you're a religious person aren't you.

Atheist. Hardcore atheist, actually. I just don't feel the need to flaunt it most of the time, and I also happen to object to the association between atheism and science. The two aren't necessarily conjoined!

--
et tu, Joey Crawford?
http://i.imgur.com/HuR88.gif

it still has a significant role to play in terms of logic and social moral calculus.

What kind of role and why is Philosophy the best for it, and not, let's say discrete mathematics and computational theory for logic or political science, sociology and psychology for the social moral calculus?

Or rather, what has philosophy contributed that those things haven't already covered or surpassed and why would those solved problems be interesting? You speak of practicality, and you haven't defined it, but I'm currently unimaginative enough that I can't think of a definition which DOESN'T require you to answer those questions.

This is true of many other fields as well- I mean, do you really believe that beetle classification is going to help much in the long haul? Probably not.

Do you really believe that professors or foundations would find beetle classification to fund JUST beetle classification? Have you actually checked what biologists do before you said this?

I mean that you open my eyes to how a reductionist thinks and approaches philosophical problems. It's good psychology. I do occasionally look up what you're talking about, as well.

I wouldn't put so much stock in your understanding; of either psychology or a so called "reductionist"'s thinking.

And if you are looking things up, you really should be working through the math, because if you aren't you are merely fooling yourself into understanding what's really going on. Human brains aren't designed for understanding physics unless it has crutches; and right now the only crutch I know of is math or incredible genius (Archimedes level) and even incredible geniuses have independently concluded that math... is still really good.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

What kind of role and why is Philosophy the best for it, and not, let's say discrete mathematics and computational theory for logic or political science, sociology and psychology for the social moral calculus?

Because law and politics are both based entirely upon value judgments. "How should society be ordered?" is not a scientific question, but rather a normative one.

I've heard some people try to reduce all political questions to utilitarianism, but that itself is a particular conception of how society should be ordered, one which I suspect few would fully agree with.

Or rather, what has philosophy contributed that those things haven't already covered or surpassed and why would those solved problems be interesting?

Going back to politics, one of the most important writings in the past fifty years is Rawls' A Theory of Justice. It's pure philosophy, yet has had a major influence in how we approach certain political problems.

Do you really believe that professors or foundations would find beetle classification to fund JUST beetle classification? Have you actually checked what biologists do before you said this?

I feel like you left some words out here, but assuming I'm reading you right, you're suggesting that animal classification is done for reasons other than animal classification. Like what?

And if you are looking things up, you really should be working through the math, because if you aren't you are merely fooling yourself into understanding what's really going on. Human brains aren't designed for understanding physics unless it has crutches; and right now the only crutch I know of is math or incredible genius (Archimedes level) and even incredible geniuses have independently concluded that math... is still really good.

Without human brains, there would be no "physics." All science is just an attempt for the lowly human intellect to come to terms with an irrational cosmos. I still find it a little unusual, given how well-read you are in science, that you would cling to the logical positivism that has been dead and buried in philosophy for quite a long while now.

--
et tu, Joey Crawford?
http://i.imgur.com/HuR88.gif

Because law and politics are both based entirely upon value judgments. "How should society be ordered?" is not a scientific question, but rather a normative one.


I've heard some people try to reduce all political questions to utilitarianism, but that itself is a particular conception of how society should be ordered, one which I suspect few would fully agree with.

Sure they can choose to not agree with utilitarianism (and in fact, there's a lot of reason to believe that utilitarianism is the wrong theory for modeling humans), but there are consequences associated with subscribing to a moral system. Consequences which can then be reduced down to a (mathematical!) decision theory problem. If your moral system is reducible down to a decision theory and it turns out that it's not consistent, then a savvy and malicious person can literally force you into doing what you don't want by exploiting the inconsistency.

So sure, I guess it's nice that continental philosophy has its views on morality? But I'm certainly not going to bet against the side that can freely swindle away money/influence/power away.

I feel like you left some words out here, but assuming I'm reading you right, you're suggesting that animal classification is done for reasons other than animal classification. Like what?

Typo actually. Find is supposed to be 'fund'. Also you didn't address the question that you could answer. Don't drop that thread.

. I still find it a little unusual, given how well-read you are in science, that you would cling to the logical positivism that has been dead and buried in philosophy for quite a long while now.

I like how you understand the psychology of a reductionist when the line you're quoting has nothing relating to logical positivism in it and it doesn't pattern match to my extremely rough wikipedia derived definition in my head.

How do you go from "The best way to understand physics is math and anything else is just fooling yourself" to "Wow why are you going rah rah logical positivism"

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Westbrick posted...
Westbrick, you're a religious person aren't you.

Atheist. Hardcore atheist, actually. I just don't feel the need to flaunt it most of the time, and I also happen to object to the association between atheism and science. The two aren't necessarily conjoined!

Amen.

--
MRNICEWATCH - Somebody call the Brinks truck!
I INVENTED POSTING

Sure they can choose to not agree with utilitarianism (and in fact, there's a lot of reason to believe that utilitarianism is the wrong theory for modeling humans), but there are consequences associated with subscribing to a moral system. Consequences which can then be reduced down to a (mathematical!) decision theory problem. If your moral system is reducible down to a decision theory and it turns out that it's not consistent, then a savvy and malicious person can literally force you into doing what you don't want by exploiting the inconsistency.

All social structures are going to be entirely arbitrary by definition. Should we treat the criminal justice system as retributive, incentivizing, both, or neither? Is society about promoting individual rights, or maximizing social utility? Speaking of utility, should we focus on gross utility, or only the utility of a select group?

And the list goes on. I'd be curious to hear how any of these distinctions, much less "all" of them, reduce down to mathematics.

So sure, I guess it's nice that continental philosophy has its views on morality? But I'm certainly not going to bet against the side that can freely swindle away money/influence/power away.

You really don't know much about continental philosophy, do you? Here's a place to start. One of the most prominent continental philosophers, Nietzsche, is often described as a "hypermodern." He loves science, considers himself a scientist, and treats the individual aphorisms that make up his writings as "experiments," but nevertheless appreciates that without God, without "true worlds" to lean on, mankind's efforts to understand the world- scientifically or otherwise- are ultimately arbitrary, being not expressions of "truth" (a meaningless concept) but rather of power. Science is useful, but it's not true; because nothing is "true" objectively.

In essence, he's a consistent version of you. You should read him!

I like how you understand the psychology of a reductionist when the line you're quoting has nothing relating to logical positivism in it and it doesn't pattern match to my extremely rough wikipedia derived definition in my head.

How do you go from "The best way to understand physics is math and anything else is just fooling yourself" to "Wow why are you going rah rah logical positivism"

Because you're appealing to some objective, intelligible (there's that word again!) standard of "truth" which the limited human mind somehow has access to. You talk, for example, about how "the human mind can't understand physics," which implies a natural order independent of the human mind.

Every post of yours is littered with remnants of logical positivism. I'm just letting you know.

--
et tu, Joey Crawford?
http://i.imgur.com/HuR88.gif