Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Steve3007]

If I suggest observing a stick in the ground, and its shadow caused by the sun, might be one 'foundation of time', or at least a 'foundation of measuring', then would that be a better place to start?

What I meant was that the shadow's movement is caused by the regular movement of the Sun across the sky. So, however we discussed measuring that, yes. Fine.

Even if all physics can be traced back to common sense, at the start, then does that mean 'common sense' could not have been lost along the way?

Absolutely. Common sense could indeed have been lost along the way. The question of whether we can discover if that is true is the point of the topic.

I'm not going to deal with any of the rest of your post for now because I want to see if we can keep this topic from bloating to 60+ pages of "scroll over" posts.

[Steve3007]

I'll just deal with this one:

I agree that it is also worth looking at how exactly we are arriving at claims, because some people will report what they observe, but when delved into and looked at more honestly, then what it is that they claim to have observed could be found to be really just what has already been predicted, and/or reported to be observed, and not necessarily what they, themselves, have actually observed, personally or first hand.

Yes. That is an excellent point. It's the reason why one of the most basic requirements of any experiment that we seek to call a "scientific experiment" is that it should, at least in principle, be repeatable. That is, the experiment and the apparatus used should be described in such a way that anybody can, in principle, if they're capable of acquiring that equipment, repeat the experiment. When the results of experiments are published they are "peer reviewed". This whole process is designed to ensure that anybody who suspects what you described above can examine the experiment and the precise way in which the results were recorded, in as much detail as they require.

[Sy Borg]

Chemical reactions, quantum mechanics and galactic orbital dynamics are anything but intuitive. Common sense breaks down once you move to the realms of the very small and very large. Or, rather, these realms are largely governed by different physical rules to the middling scale physics that we're used to, where electromagnetism reigns. Then again, the relationship of electricity and magnetism isn't wildly intuitive to us either :)

[Atla]

Someone remarked that one could sit still and meditate for a million years, and still wouldn't come up with QM, because it's so counterintuitive. It was violently forced upon physics, no one really saw it coming.

But after that, one could do most of the experiments depending on budget, and confirm most of it. Maybe even develop a common sense understanding of it in 10-20 years.

[creation]

If I suggest observing a stick in the ground, and its shadow caused by the sun, might be one 'foundation of time', or at least a 'foundation of measuring', then would that be a better place to start?

What I meant was that the shadow's movement is caused by the regular movement of the Sun across the sky. So, however we discussed measuring that, yes. Fine.

Even if all physics can be traced back to common sense, at the start, then does that mean 'common sense' could not have been lost along the way?

Absolutely. Common sense could indeed have been lost along the way. The question of whether we can discover if that is true is the point of the topic.

I'm not going to deal with any of the rest of your post for now because I want to see if we can keep this topic from bloating to 60+ pages of "scroll over" posts.

The reason you do not want to deal with any of the rest of my post is so for about the fourth time you do not have to deal with the contradiction that you wrote. But this is fine with me, you can deflect away as many times as you like, as I previously implied, I can wait till you find enough time to come up with some sort of reasonable response. I am certainly in no rush here.

I have already shown the readers the way you have lied and have tried to deceive me/us, so that is all well and good, for now.

Also, I am already used to you not being able to clarify my questions for me, especially when they are way to hard for you to answer, honestly. I totally understand that when your own errors and contradictions are highlighted and shown here, and that you do not want to acknowledge them, then you would prefer to not answer my clarifying questions, and just try to deflect away from that. So, this is all perfectly fine and okay with me. Just as long as we do not forget this is happening.

For if you did just answer those questions honestly, then we would have already discovered where the errors and contradictions ARE, and where they have came FROM, by now, and so would not have to do this whole task of going back to the start and looking at the foundations and them slowly proceeding and working through yet unknown pages.

Anyway, as long as we are in agreement about the shadow on a stick, from the sun, is a good place to start this from, then let us move on.

[creation]

I'll just deal with this one:

I agree that it is also worth looking at how exactly we are arriving at claims, because some people will report what they observe, but when delved into and looked at more honestly, then what it is that they claim to have observed could be found to be really just what has already been predicted, and/or reported to be observed, and not necessarily what they, themselves, have actually observed, personally or first hand.

Yes. That is an excellent point. It's the reason why one of the most basic requirements of any experiment that we seek to call a "scientific experiment" is that it should, at least in principle, be repeatable. That is, the experiment and the apparatus used should be described in such a way that anybody can, in principle, if they're capable of acquiring that equipment, repeat the experiment. When the results of experiments are published they are "peer reviewed". This whole process is designed to ensure that anybody who suspects what you described above can examine the experiment and the precise way in which the results were recorded, in as much detail as they require.

Anybody with money and/or the authority that is. Otherwise a lot of these experiments and equipment are completely out of reach of most people.

Someone cynical might say that it is an industry, which is made up of a very tight-knit and close, if not closed, community.

[creation]

Chemical reactions, quantum mechanics and galactic orbital dynamics are anything but intuitive. Common sense breaks down once you move to the realms of the very small and very large.

Common sense does NOT breakdown at all, at least when I move between the very small and the very large. Although I agree that common sense does breakdown for others.

Or, rather, these realms are largely governed by different physical rules to the middling scale physics that we're used to, where electromagnetism reigns. Then again, the relationship of electricity and magnetism isn't wildly intuitive to us either

But the physical rules are not necessarily that different. The only reason it is said common sense breaks down for the observer at the very small and the very large scale is because the human being observer tends to look a things from their "middling" scale only perspective.

[creation]

So, are we in agreement and understand that what we view today in relation to 'time', itself, was built upon, and from the foundation of a stick and the sun?

If yes, then now, to me, the name that we came up for this measuring of the movement, motion, or change of the shadow in relation to the stick, and the sun, was 'time'.

To me, the word 'time' is nothing other than the measurement of change.

Obviously, the word 'time', to others, is in relation to other things, which to a few what those things are those people cannot explain, but, to others they refer to the word 'time' in relation to other things.

To me, however, as soon as we drift away from the definition of 'time' just being; the actual act of measuring change, in relation to the light from the sun,then this is where all the confusion and contradictions come from, and why there are so many constant errors.

This really is this simple and easy, which can be confirmed and proven with evidence and facts, logically and reasonably.

[Sy Borg]

Chemical reactions, quantum mechanics and galactic orbital dynamics are anything but intuitive. Common sense breaks down once you move to the realms of the very small and very large.

Common sense does NOT breakdown at all, at least when I move between the very small and the very large. Although I agree that common sense does breakdown for others.

Or, rather, these realms are largely governed by different physical rules to the middling scale physics that we're used to, where electromagnetism reigns. Then again, the relationship of electricity and magnetism isn't wildly intuitive to us either :)

But the physical rules are not necessarily that different. The only reason it is said common sense breaks down for the observer at the very small and the very large scale is because the human being observer tends to look a things from their "middling" scale only perspective.

The domains actually do operate differently. At quantum scales, the nuclear forces are dominant. At our scale, EM is dominant. At large scales, gravity is dominant. At very large scale, apparently dark matter's gravity is dominant.

As for chemicals, they can do most unexpected things, eg. the sugar snake experiment, the Briggs-Rauscher Reaction (vortex forms in fluid), Gummy Bear and potassium chlorate, elephant toothpaste, ferrofluid ...the list goes on.

[creation]

Common sense does NOT breakdown at all, at least when I move between the very small and the very large. Although I agree that common sense does breakdown for others.



But the physical rules are not necessarily that different. The only reason it is said common sense breaks down for the observer at the very small and the very large scale is because the human being observer tends to look a things from their "middling" scale only perspective.

The domains actually do operate differently. At quantum scales, the nuclear forces are dominant. At our scale, EM is dominant. At large scales, gravity is dominant. At very large scale, apparently dark matter's gravity is dominant.

This is because you see 'inconsistencies'. And, the reason why you see 'inconsistencies', is because of the way you look at this. As explained very rudimentary before.

As for chemicals, they can do most unexpected things, eg. the sugar snake experiment, the Briggs-Rauscher Reaction (vortex forms in fluid), Gummy Bear and potassium chlorate, elephant toothpaste, ferrofluid ...the list goes on.

This is because of the way you look at things.

I do not look at things, like most people do, so, I do not see things the way most people do.

For example, I do not see the inconsistencies, nor the unexpectedness, of things like most people do.

[Steve3007]

The reason you do not want to deal with any of the rest of my post is so for about the fourth time you do not have to deal with the contradiction that you wrote....

And so on. I'm not going to take part in another 60+ pages of irrelevant mutual bickering. If you found anything I've said in the past misleading, I apologize. I clarified it and then twice referred you back to that clarification. End of.

Anybody with money and/or the authority that is. Otherwise a lot of these experiments and equipment are completely out of reach of most people.

A valid point. But since we're starting at the beginning, with experiments that we could perform ourselves, we can deal with that issue when we come to it.

So, are we in agreement and understand that what we view today in relation to 'time', itself, was built upon, and from the foundation of a stick and the sun?

Stick and sun are part of the story. But we are not in agreement that what we view today in relation to 'time' was built just upon that. That's one observation; one part of the foundation. A good start. But to look at all of the things in physics, today, which involve the use of the word "time" we need to do what I suggested we do. Start with the earliest experiments and work forward.

To me, the word 'time' is nothing other than the measurement of change.

I've stated my own view in many, many posts that time is what clocks mark. This is roughly the same as what you're saying here. So we appear to agree on that.

[Steve3007]

Chemical reactions, quantum mechanics and galactic orbital dynamics are anything but intuitive. Common sense breaks down once you move to the realms of the very small and very large.

The proposition that I wanted to consider,in the OP, was this:

Is it possible, in principle, using only our personal experiences (experiments that we can personally perform) and our ability to follow logical arguments (written in mathematical language), to find out whether any or all of the predictions of any physical theory are valid? If we can, is it right to refer to this process as "studying physics"?

I realize that if we simply take them in isolation without reference to the chains of experiments and arguments that led to them, many of the discoveries of modern physics appear to be in conflict with common sense. My point was: can we satisfy ourselves that they flow logically and naturally from: common sense + a long chain of reasoning and experiments.

I've used an analogy with building a house a couple of times. The findings of modern physics conflict with common sense in the same sense that a roof, magically floating in the air, does. My question was analogous to: Can we see how the house was built?

[Sy Borg]

Chemical reactions, quantum mechanics and galactic orbital dynamics are anything but intuitive. Common sense breaks down once you move to the realms of the very small and very large.

The proposition that I wanted to consider,in the OP, was this:

Is it possible, in principle, using only our personal experiences (experiments that we can personally perform) and our ability to follow logical arguments (written in mathematical language), to find out whether any or all of the predictions of any physical theory are valid? If we can, is it right to refer to this process as "studying physics"?

I realize that if we simply take them in isolation without reference to the chains of experiments and arguments that led to them, many of the discoveries of modern physics appear to be in conflict with common sense. My point was: can we satisfy ourselves that they flow logically and naturally from: common sense + a long chain of reasoning and experiments.

I've used an analogy with building a house a couple of times. The findings of modern physics conflict with common sense in the same sense that a roof, magically floating in the air, does. My question was analogous to: Can we see how the house was built?

Sorry, I was off beam and focused on the limits of commonsense. Probably because I always enjoyed the unexpected nature of chemistry - mix two white powders together in water and end up with a fizzing purple liquid etc. :)

Your thread premise calls to mind a comment by the much maligned Rupert Sheldrake in describing the approach of the scientific community - "Give us one free miracle [big bang] and we'll explain the rest". The house has a few holes. All it needs is a foundation and a few more walls and it will look more like a house than a floating chimney that is almost perfect. (Given that we only know a fraction about less than five percent of the universe's contents, our models are not yet up to being a floating roof).

Ironically, it comes down to faith. We operate in hope that more learning will, in time, bring a deeper understanding. However, in science as in everything else, there are thresholds that lead to emergences. Quite often, one can continue accumulating information without broadening understanding. So the evidence would build. Using the example of relativity, in time enough information was built up to allow Einstein's change of perspective, that space and time were not distinct absolutes, but relative - and "relatives".

In the meantime, current experiments will bring the next leap of understanding ever closer. Basically a case of shut up and calculate ... until the subject matter starts to make sense.

[Steve3007]

Interesting, but not the central intention of the topic. The intention was far more mundane.

My intention for the thread was this: There are many, many people who look at the findings of modern science and, essentially, just say "nonsense" or "mathematical fantasy" or something similar. My point is that they can, possibly, find out if it really is nonsense. Not just assert that it is. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. Maybe the physicists are all worshipping a floating roof with no support. Maybe they're not. We don't have to speculate as to which of those two things are true. We can find out. If we're interested. Most people aren't. That's fine. But what I find odd is the people who aren't interested in looking at the foundations and walls but still accuse the physicists of worshipping a floating roof. On this forum, at this particular point in time, the poster called "gater" happens to be the exemplar; a useful extreme example to illustrate the phenomenon. But there are, and have been, many many others.

To be absolutely clear about the intended meaning of that metaphor: the foundations are everyday experiments that everyone can do, and which were done hundreds/thousands of years ago. They involve such things as observing the shadows of sticks and rolling balls down slopes. The walls are the gradual process of building on those early experiments by numerous people. The roof is such things as QM and SR/GR which are the main focus of derision. We don't have to speculate whether that roof has solid support. We don't have to simply assert that it either does or doesn't. We can find out. If we're interested.

[Steve3007]

I happened to notice this article that (briefly) discusses one of the things that links the findings of Galileo to those of Einstein, and also illustrates that even in the case of some of the oldest and apparently most well established theories, physicists continue to put them to the test.

https://www.space.com/physicists-drop-o ... rrect.html