It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 119
74
<< 116  117  118    120  121  122 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

You said;

Electrons do not have spatial extent.

That which does not have spatial extent is a 0d point.

Phage said "geometry" "doesnt "exist"";

Because a 0d point doesnt exist;

If we all agree electrons exist;

And you declare electrons have no spatial extent;

And you declare electrons are a 0d point;

You are declaring to Phage that geometry does exist;

That 0d point does exist.




posted on May, 18 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi



But phage said points cant exist.

No. Phage said that points don't exist.
A geometric point has a location but no dimension. As has been pointed out, an electron has no defined location.
Trying to apply geometric principles to electrons doesn't really work very well.

Sort of like using math to explain philosophy.

edit on 5/19/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Bedlam

You said...


Do you understand my comment?

Magritte has something to tell you, if you listen carefully.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage
late to the party here but:
what about the geometry of the probability fields where the electrons are sometimes?



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Danbones
*sigh*

The claim is that math is "real." That anything that math represents exists as a "thing."

A geometric point does not exist.
A geometric line does not exist.
A geometric plane does not exit.
The square root of negative one does not exit.

Math (none of them) are "real." They are tools which can be used to represent reality but they are not "real."

i.e. what is a one?


edit on 5/19/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Once again your understanding terminates at reasoning via schoolboy linguistic syllogisms. "is" "exists" etc.

We've been trying to push you out of this for a year now.

Ceci n'est pas un lepton
.



edit on 19-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: ImaFungi

Once again your understanding terminates at reasoning via schoolboy linguistic syllogisms. "is" "exists" etc.

We've been trying to push you out of this for a year now.

Ceci n'est pas un lepton
.




My turn you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. When we start debating points and whatever is o d. We left science and entered into philosophy. There word games are played in hopes of finding meaning or as a teacher I knew used to say. It's someone trying to grasp something beyond them thinking they can relate there experiences. Doesn't always work as we can see.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
We left science and entered into philosophy.
I was kind of hoping the philosophers with their "dopey philosophical" questions would have "fallen to the wayside" by now as Feynman quipped, but they still seem to be around:

Richard Feynman on hungry philosophers


Not directed at you dragonridr, but for people who want to discuss philosophy, there's a separate forum for that on ATS:
Philosophy and Metaphysics

Prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics, one might have thought that using reason in philosophical lines of questioning would be an approach that might lead to truth. However, since the discovery of quantum mechanics, experiments have demonstrated results contrary to what we might have developed through reason and logic.

Therefore I don't see the logic in people trying to use a philosophical reasoning approach to finding answers to scientific questions when it seems to be universally agreed that such an approach would not have led us to our current understanding of quantum mechanics, where experimental results finally decide what is true about the behavior of nature, sometimes revealing unexpected behaviors one would not have predicted from pure reasoning.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Bedlam

You said...


Do you understand my comment?

Magritte has something to tell you, if you listen carefully.


Yeah I understand your comment because you have used it in my vicinity before, its not as clever as you think and it is more a tool of deflection than anything else, an example of anything else being actually brave up and walk towards the pain of having a discussion with me in which I prove what you are saying to be incorrect.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
That anything that math represents exists as a "thing."



The claim was not!

ANYTHING that math represents is a thing.

You are being purposefully ignorant.

I already said in my responses to you;

I understand why the book keepers of geometry wrote the axioms as they did. The 0 d points and stuff, is to imply the timeless abstract perfection, that the ruler is beyond all substance, and therefore the most perfect ruler, to compare all substance to.

Even in your statement above, you prove how you are ignoring what I am saying; anything math represents, you are already presupposing and ignoring the essence of what I am saying, that the essence of what math is, is already existing and represented by reality and reality continuing to exist, before human math is written and then used to attempt to describe reality.


3d space EXISTS!

incremental distances in that space EXISTS!

Therefore the fundamental essence of what numbers on number line and graph are and represent; are the representations of a timeless fact!

The fact of self consistent equal distance and rule.

Once that grid of math space is discovered by humans;

Than they can plot points on it, in any way, and write functions, (symbolic mechanisms to organize, distribute, and transform quantities in relation to one another)

which move points around the grid, and compare their distances to one another;

In the 3d grid, there is, what is implied, more dimension of space; so there are relationships between points in that space, that can be considered when compared to 2d number line, complex relationships, complex numbers.

Even if a perfect sphere does not and cannot and will not ever exist;

The concept of a perfect sphere does, can, and will always exist, even if no minds exist to know it;

Consider a deflated basketball; you pump it up with air and it begins to inflate;

Would we not agree that it is getting closer to becoming a sphere?

Can an object which is approaching becoming a sphere, surpass sphereness?

The basketball example I now do not like because it would burst, to surpass this, but using a more fluid material or such;

Approaching sphereness, and surpassing it, is the surpassing always just in both directions, of equalling not perfect?

The perfect sphere is a benchmark; Perfect geometry and math are timeless benchmarks, that eternally exist without existing at all, as to which all material forms that ever exist are relatively compared to.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: ImaFungi

Once again your understanding terminates at reasoning via schoolboy linguistic syllogisms. "is" "exists" etc.

We've been trying to push you out of this for a year now.

Ceci n'est pas un lepton
.


Give me your definition and understanding of the terms 'is' and 'exist'

And how important the terms and the reality the terms point to, are in relation to science and knowledge?

I agree, I should have asked you these exact questions a while ago, this is great, I am eager to hear.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr


My turn you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. When we start debating points and whatever is o d. We left science and entered into philosophy. There word games are played in hopes of finding meaning or as a teacher I knew used to say. It's someone trying to grasp something beyond them thinking they can relate there experiences. Doesn't always work as we can see.


Science doesnt exist without philosophy;

Philosophy is ONLY! the totality of all possible thoughts;

Science hopefully is focused on; out of the totality of all possible thoughts; those thoughts which aid sciences progress;

Can science exist without any thinking?

In your case, it seems so.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi






Science doesnt exist without philosophy;


This is absolutely untrue. Science is objective. Science has no opinion except what is discovered through the data. The data doesn't know Plato from Mickey Mouse.

Philosophy is founded on rational thought - but one person's "rational thought" may be completely different from another person's "rational thought". In other words, it is someone's opinion on a particular topic or problem.

Science doesn't care about "rational thought" or opinions. It only cares about the collective data and the results.

You cannot mix the two without reaching false conclusions in both disciplines.

edit on 19-5-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Exactly. Great post.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Philosophy is ONLY! the totality of all possible thoughts (though also the acknowledgement of the existence of all impossible thoughts);

If scientists do not think at all; you are correct

If scientists think at all; you are incorrect
edit on 19-5-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Now I am nervous about saying; only the totality of thoughts; because the term thought is a bit sketchy;

I am inclined to say; philosophy is the totality of what the totality of minds can think and think to know; is experience knowledge?

(this is why aesthetics is an aspect of traditional tenants of philosophy) is painting necessarily thinking?

Is doing, always thinking?

Is doing, always knowing?

Are you saying that the endeavor of science is; deterministic nature determining itself to determine how it determines itself to determine?

The science and scientists do not have free will?

That scientists are the laws of physics forced to learn the laws of physics exactly how the laws of physics force the laws of physics that are scientists to learn the laws of physics?

Can learning exist without thinking?

Is asking a question always determined?

Do you believe in 0 free will?

Does a scientist desire to know?

Does a scientist force itself to desire to know?

Is that determined, is 'it' doing the forcing, or is it forced to force itself, and there for not an it self?

Does a scientist know that it can know?

Does a scientist know what it cannot know, and why and how?

Philosophy is the existence of consciousness, and the entire spectrum from 100% ignorance to 0% ignorance.

That spectrum is not necessarily a 2d line.

Individual consciousness falls somewhere on that spectrum, and the collective of consciousness always is closer to 0% (which is why and where and how theory of god occurs);

For example, would we not agree that there is more ignorance contained in any individual consciousness, than ignorance contained in the totality of all libraries (representation of collective of consciousnesses)?

Of course we note my use of the inversion, using ignorance as a marquee, instead of traditional knowledge or intelligence or memory or intuition and imagination, but the relationship is implied and not overlooked by me.

edit on 19-5-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi






Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and language.[1][2]

en.wikipedia.org...

Physics is a hard science. Philosophy is a soft science. Any conclusions you may reach in philosophy have to be proven in the hard science to be validated.



Metaphysics is the study of the most general features of reality, such as existence, time, the relationship between mind and body, objects and their properties, wholes and their parts, events, processes, and causation. Traditional branches of metaphysics include cosmology, the study of the world in its entirety, and ontology, the study of being.


I think your questions are more metaphysical than scientific. I'm sure it's interesting to discuss over a cup of coffee, but as a bench scientist, metaphysics carries no weight in my research lab. That's not to imply that a bench scientist can't think creatively. On the contrary, we speculate, design experiments and ask a lot of questions. But at the end of the day, it comes down to the data and the results and how they hold up to scrutiny.

As I said before, I'm a lousy philosopher - I personally have no use for it in the lab. It's above my pay grade!



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Of course we could not prove this, but consider for hypothetical thought experiment sake;

Imagine that it was true, that ~95% of sufficiently intelligent/conscious beings in civilizations throughout the entire universe;

Lets imagine there are 1,000,000,000,000 intelligent civilizations throughout the universe;

And ~95% of them, in similar to your words; invented or made up, the triangle,

Would you say this is just a coincidence?

Or would you be inclined to say, that something about the principles of the triangle, exist independent of humans?

Now this is where, MBkennel is right to point out, the nature of the terms; 'is' and 'exist'.

Because if we imagined reality did exist;

And that absolutely no consciousness and intelligence existed in reality and absolutely no triangles existed in reality;

Could I possibly say that 'triangle' exists; or the essential principles of triangle exist;

Which brings us to the concept another poster brought up; potential;

Does potential exist?

Right now, does tomorrow exist? (if even in an abstract and subtle sense, then in that sense, it exists)

Not the word; but what the word represents; a day just like today, that does not exist yet;

But if it is guaranteed to exist, if it is known to exist, and if that knowledge can allow us and force us to do things today, for tomorrow, then in these ways and more, it might be said that right now, tomorrow exists, and is real;

Before humans discovered the principles of triangle;

The principles existed;

And the potential for humans to discover them, existed.

If the potential did not exist;

The actuality could never exist.







edit on 19-5-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, knowledge, time, objects and their properties, wholes and their parts, events, processes, and causation.



Oh, those terms have nothing to do with science?

Science is a tool of philosophy.

Philosophy is the fact that consciousness exists, and it cannot and does not want to remain completely ignorant.
edit on 19-5-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


What it comes down to is you are trying to use the word 'philosophy' as a means to dissuade and punish me for questioning the knowledge and methods and interpretations that existence in the realm of science, because quite exactingly, my efforts are questioning the mechanism of human activity you are associated with. I am associated with science too, I love science, I love existence, I love invention, I love knowledge, but I love truth. I love questions, I love discussions, I love arguing, I love attempting to know more and more and doing more and more, and better and stronger and faster and longer.
edit on 19-5-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Where I am coming from is that, every action at all, can be questioning and thought about, and it is precisely this processes which is the gaining and attempting to gain understanding and knowledge. Every aspect of science can be questioned to understand how it exists, how the theories are the way they are, the models, the experiments, from a position of ignorance, all of these things are questioned, to yield knowledge of how and why and what they exist as and for. All the results can be questioned, all the data. And it must be, in order to interpret its meaning and significance. How can there be any contradictory model or theory or interpretation in science? There cannot be contradiction in reality, so questioning is required, skepticism and doubting, to bring us ever closer to the purest knowledge and understanding.
edit on 19-5-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


Is thinking always required for knowing?

There is knowledge which is self evident, intuitive;

There are no further explanations of why 1=1. 2=2. + = +. 1+1=2.

There are no further explanations as to why a circle and triangle are different, and that there are reasons that make them different.

But according to evidence, and view, and intuition and looking and noting;

At one point in time, science had no choice to claim that the sun revolved around the earth.

We can drop a ball and it falls to the ground;

Before science could figure out why this occurred, was there no reason that it occurred?

if someone guessed the reason why it occurred and swore they knew it, would it be knowledge? would they truly know?

If humans claim that they have done experiments, and that their experiments mean x y z = truth and knowledge;

Than it is in the name of Sciences best interest, to question completely that; and everything.


edit on 19-5-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


Science is objective. Science has no opinion except what is discovered through the data.


I think there's this false ideal that science is completely objective. It's not.



Science doesn't care about "rational thought" or opinions. It only cares about the collective data and the results.


There's data. Then there's interpretation of that data. And invariably, the interpretations will differ amongst the subjective entities processing such data. There are differing opinions amongst scientists all the time. It is these differing views that can lead to progress, and can show just how wrong the previous data was, or just how wrong our interpretation of that data was. I guess, this is science. A realization of a different way to see the world.

But science and humans are intimately connected. It is, after all, written by the human for the human. We describe the world with our own language and concepts. We think that gravity is a force, and the world is made of particles. These are all human ideas.

The true objective world, we can never know.

I'm with Phage et al on this one though, math is not universal. It is human.

And yeah, that got a little philosophical. Sorry.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Great Thread and information,


I'm really surprised that it only has 29 flags? Not that it really matters, but surprising nonetheless.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 116  117  118    120  121  122 >>

log in

join