@Jacob B "How can I tell that I'm really real? How can I tell I'm not dreaming? " " Just lop off the top of your nearest toe and wait for the sound of the screaming". (Hilaire Belloc???)
The end of science is when we can no longer tell the difference between mathematical reality and physical reality. This process has actually initiated by Albert Einstein. The real meaning of his principle of equivalence, for example, is that if we can not tell the difference between a mathematical model and physical reality, then there is no difference between them. This is specifically true for those physical realities which are neither provable nor falsifiable. For example, although the curvature of space is fundamentally imponderable, we still believe it is true. Because we can no longer tell that the curvature of gravity field is purely mathematical or physical or both.
Not sure I understand you Jeff. Why is the curvature of space imponderable? We many not be able to picture it directly in our minds, just as we can't directly picture an atom, but they can be described mathematically then tested scientifically. The curvature of space can be measured. Whether this tells us anything about the deeper underlying nature of reality (whatever that is) is another matter. Certainly there might be scientific theories that will forever remain conjecture, because we don't have the means to test them, but that doesn't mean they are imponderable. Not sure what "physical realities which are neither provable nor falsifiable" would be. Do you mean things like superstring theory, or the multiverse theory?
@@cthoadmin7458 "Why is the curvature of space imponderable? " An excellent question! Remember, our material universe is soaked to the empty space. I.E., to fully understand the curvature of space, we have to understand at the same time how the materiral behaves. Here, "imponderable" means that besides a baseless hypothesis, there is no specific physical method to quantify the behavior of the materials. For example, no body knows how to establish the space-earth interface using the equations of the general relativity. A popular but baseless hypothesis is that the earth has to riple together with space. I.E., the gravitational strain wave will travel in the earth in the speed of light. That however, is the most ridiculous hypothesis to me.
Nothing in General Relativity directly implies that space is curved, only that spacetime is curved. Spacetime is not the same as space. The only thing we can say for sure about spacetime, is that it is a mathematical construct that facilitates the field equations of GR. We know that these equations are very successful in describing the observed behaviors accurately. But it crosses the line into interpretation to assert that spacetime is an actual physical entity. Combining space and time is convenient for describing motions of massive objects when subjected to gravitation, but it doesn't establish as a scientific fact that spacetime is an entity which exists in physical reality. That is an interpretation that is very much open to debate. Space and time are two distinctly different phenomena in our observed universe, and nothing in GR proves that they are an actual combined entity in our physical reality. Spacetime is a mathematical model, and of course it is curved when the field equations are applied to a massive object within it, because gravitation is an effect which radiates outward in all directions from its source, which inherently projects a curved 3D surface of the effect at any given distance from the source. That does not equate to "there is a physical entity spacetime in the universe". It equates only to the fact that it is a model that facilitates an accurate description of the effects of gravitation through time.
So, when the field equations of GR are solved for a particular situation, say the orbit of a planet, it does not violate the possibility that the universe is mapped to a simple Euclidean geometry that can use conventional rectangular Cartesian coordinates. The solution can be easily translated back into this coordinate system, since GR employs spacetime as (x,y,z,t) coordinates that can be decomposed into that conventional system of describing space and time as we experience them. It is valid to state that light is traveling along a geodesic through spacetime when it appears to curve as it passes a massive object, but it is equally valid to state that the path of the light was bent into a curve through Euclidean space by the gravitational effect imposed upon it.
For example, if we map one year of the earth orbiting the sun, to a spacetime coordinate system, to apply the field equations to solve that orbit... The parcel of spacetime under consideration will encompass all positions of the earth and sun at all points in time. There is nothing "moving" through spacetime... Spacetime includes the entire period of time within itself. So it is nonsensical to imagine that the earth is orbiting the sun because it is encountering curved spacetime during its journey... the entire journey around the sun can only exist in that parcel of spacetime all at once. Yes, the spacetime is curved around both the sun and earth, but only within that coordinate system, which is an artificial mathematical construct for which there is no physical evidence whatever of its existence, apart from its conceptual existence within our minds.
"Episteme" means superimposition, to place over. We superimpose theories and beliefs to "what is". Knowledge is always incomplete. Science, which is obviously necessary, has to do with measurement. "What is", which include us, is immeasurable. In this sense, we need not know "what is", because we are that.
Both correspondence theory and coherence theories of truth are partially correct. My reasoning is based on a simple fact that life and evolution is impossible without partially correspondence and partially coherence between the internal consciousness and external reality. The real problem is that we human beings do not own the capability to differentiate correct part from not-so-correct part in advance.
The nature of science is to expand and quantify our ancestor's basic surviving tools, which is a set of the concepts. For example, distance, time, speed....The reason that our ancestors can be survived is pretty much because the fact that they had non-quantified sense of the speed and distance, say, to estimate how fast can lions run and how far between lions and themselves. The limit of science is also the limit of the concepts itself. Using Godel's terms, the fundamental physical concepts such as time, force, distance, speed etc are neither consistent nor complete. The first one who has tried to smash the concept of time is Albert Einstein.
Science is mythology without imagination and poetry. The scientific method is a paradoxical mystery, because if it is used correctly, the scientist's success becomes scientific knowledge. And his accident or mistake can also eventually become scientific knowledge. "I like science with the taste of chocolate and the texture of shark skin." - this meaningless phrase can be scientifically studied by a linguist. "I am a theologian, not a scientist." - this phrase makes sense, but theology cannot be considered a science. "On the atomic scale, matter has more empty space than any particle." - this phrase can be considered scientific, but measuring the void between the particles of any sample of matter is a major scientific problem.
Simple; to reduce individuals to mere iterations of typified classes, disentangling importance and value of the human "resources" they sought to exploit. ✔️
Good moderator, the questions asked were sensible and meaningful in directing the discussion
The bit from 3-5 min is superb. I’d direct anyone needing a basic introduction to the problem space here.
Very interesting discussion! Thanks for putting it on TH-cam. 😊
thanks for making these clips
Science's Lottie and Bailey technique is unparalleled.
We have access to the world through our senses as part of the world.
@Jacob B "How can I tell that I'm really real? How can I tell I'm not dreaming? " " Just lop off the top of your nearest toe and wait for the sound of the screaming". (Hilaire Belloc???)
1658: " Oi, Newton... Why the long face?"
Science deals with physics, religion/etc with metaphysics...its not that complicated, but we make it so.
Science deals with a lot more than physics. This discussion is on the nature of knowledge.
The end of science is when we can no longer tell the difference between mathematical reality and physical reality. This process has actually initiated by Albert Einstein. The real meaning of his principle of equivalence, for example, is that if we can not tell the difference between a mathematical model and physical reality, then there is no difference between them. This is specifically true for those physical realities which are neither provable nor falsifiable. For example, although the curvature of space is fundamentally imponderable, we still believe it is true. Because we can no longer tell that the curvature of gravity field is purely mathematical or physical or both.
Not sure I understand you Jeff. Why is the curvature of space imponderable? We many not be able to picture it directly in our minds, just as we can't directly picture an atom, but they can be described mathematically then tested scientifically. The curvature of space can be measured. Whether this tells us anything about the deeper underlying nature of reality (whatever that is) is another matter. Certainly there might be scientific theories that will forever remain conjecture, because we don't have the means to test them, but that doesn't mean they are imponderable. Not sure what "physical realities which are neither provable nor falsifiable" would be. Do you mean things like superstring theory, or the multiverse theory?
@@cthoadmin7458 "Why is the curvature of space imponderable? " An excellent question! Remember, our material universe is soaked to the empty space. I.E., to fully understand the curvature of space, we have to understand at the same time how the materiral behaves. Here, "imponderable" means that besides a baseless hypothesis, there is no specific physical method to quantify the behavior of the materials. For example, no body knows how to establish the space-earth interface using the equations of the general relativity. A popular but baseless hypothesis is that the earth has to riple together with space. I.E., the gravitational strain wave will travel in the earth in the speed of light. That however, is the most ridiculous hypothesis to me.
Nothing in General Relativity directly implies that space is curved, only that spacetime is curved. Spacetime is not the same as space. The only thing we can say for sure about spacetime, is that it is a mathematical construct that facilitates the field equations of GR.
We know that these equations are very successful in describing the observed behaviors accurately. But it crosses the line into interpretation to assert that spacetime is an actual physical entity. Combining space and time is convenient for describing motions of massive objects when subjected to gravitation, but it doesn't establish as a scientific fact that spacetime is an entity which exists in physical reality. That is an interpretation that is very much open to debate. Space and time are two distinctly different phenomena in our observed universe, and nothing in GR proves that they are an actual combined entity in our physical reality.
Spacetime is a mathematical model, and of course it is curved when the field equations are applied to a massive object within it, because gravitation is an effect which radiates outward in all directions from its source, which inherently projects a curved 3D surface of the effect at any given distance from the source. That does not equate to "there is a physical entity spacetime in the universe". It equates only to the fact that it is a model that facilitates an accurate description of the effects of gravitation through time.
So, when the field equations of GR are solved for a particular situation, say the orbit of a planet, it does not violate the possibility that the universe is mapped to a simple Euclidean geometry that can use conventional rectangular Cartesian coordinates. The solution can be easily translated back into this coordinate system, since GR employs spacetime as (x,y,z,t) coordinates that can be decomposed into that conventional system of describing space and time as we experience them.
It is valid to state that light is traveling along a geodesic through spacetime when it appears to curve as it passes a massive object, but it is equally valid to state that the path of the light was bent into a curve through Euclidean space by the gravitational effect imposed upon it.
For example, if we map one year of the earth orbiting the sun, to a spacetime coordinate system, to apply the field equations to solve that orbit... The parcel of spacetime under consideration will encompass all positions of the earth and sun at all points in time. There is nothing "moving" through spacetime... Spacetime includes the entire period of time within itself.
So it is nonsensical to imagine that the earth is orbiting the sun because it is encountering curved spacetime during its journey... the entire journey around the sun can only exist in that parcel of spacetime all at once. Yes, the spacetime is curved around both the sun and earth, but only within that coordinate system, which is an artificial mathematical construct for which there is no physical evidence whatever of its existence, apart from its conceptual existence within our minds.
"Episteme" means superimposition, to place over. We superimpose theories and beliefs to "what is". Knowledge is always incomplete. Science, which is obviously necessary, has to do with measurement. "What is", which include us, is immeasurable. In this sense, we need not know "what is", because we are that.
Both correspondence theory and coherence theories of truth are partially correct. My reasoning is based on a simple fact that life and evolution is impossible without partially correspondence and partially coherence between the internal consciousness and external reality. The real problem is that we human beings do not own the capability to differentiate correct part from not-so-correct part in advance.
If we didn't have that we would all have died from eating the wrong things.
@@casteretpollux That's exactly what I'm talking about!
The nature of science is to expand and quantify our ancestor's basic surviving tools, which is a set of the concepts. For example, distance, time, speed....The reason that our ancestors can be survived is pretty much because the fact that they had non-quantified sense of the speed and distance, say, to estimate how fast can lions run and how far between lions and themselves. The limit of science is also the limit of the concepts itself. Using Godel's terms, the fundamental physical concepts such as time, force, distance, speed etc are neither consistent nor complete. The first one who has tried to smash the concept of time is Albert Einstein.
Science is mythology without imagination and poetry. The scientific method is a paradoxical mystery, because if it is used correctly, the scientist's success becomes scientific knowledge. And his accident or mistake can also eventually become scientific knowledge. "I like science with the taste of chocolate and the texture of shark skin." - this meaningless phrase can be scientifically studied by a linguist. "I am a theologian, not a scientist." - this phrase makes sense, but theology cannot be considered a science. "On the atomic scale, matter has more empty space than any particle." - this phrase can be considered scientific, but measuring the void between the particles of any sample of matter is a major scientific problem.
Explain the role of the OSS CIA I promoting so-called Neo Marxism and identity politics.
Simple; to reduce individuals to mere iterations of typified classes, disentangling importance and value of the human "resources" they sought to exploit. ✔️
Haha the OSS what decade are you living in