Freethought & Rationalism Archive

beausoleil · 01-22-2003, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cfgauss
I see his point too, but it's crap! You don't *get* to argue with a definition!!!!

Sure you do, since we don't have an English usage authority laying down the meaning of words. In particular, specialist definitions of words used by physicists have no preferred status in the wider community, though even in physics we agree on definitions of some quantities, but many words are more flexible. I'm not convinced that all physicists would agree with what you're saying anyway. I'm a physicist - I finished my degrees and everything

- and I don't agree with you; I don't think that 'universe' has a definition in the way that, say, 'momentum' does.

So let's investigate how 'universe' is used. Ideas such as 'other universes' seem to be perfectly intelligible in some contexts. How can they be if your definition is final? It seems that a universe can be a domain over which a certain set of physical principles applies, or a domain which shares a causal past or future, neither of which is obviously identical in reference to the other or to the 'everything that exists' notion (which begs the question of what you mean by 'exists' anyway).

What, for instance, do you make of the question "Are there other universes ?" ? But is it necessarily unintelligible or answered tautologicaly, or can you understand it in terms of a different definition of universe outside of that advanced (I think by you) above.

Ted Hoffman · 01-22-2003, 05:08 AM

Mr Sammi,

Quote:

An interesting point to note, is IFF we discover another universe where the laws of physics are completely different from the ones we are accustomed, and we can access this universe and have demonstration of the other set of laws, then our universe expands to encompass this other universe.and the universes collapse into worlds to give rise to 1 known universe.

We cant discover another world - by definition!
Because each world has decohered from the rest of the worlds - there can be no interference between worlds!

Anything we discover only adds onto human understanding and reality. Within the same world.

Please wrap this tightly around your head.

Mr. Sammi · 01-22-2003, 07:05 AM

Intensity,

definitely then we cannot begin to imagine the scope of the universe. If we use the definition Universe is all possible worlds and our world is bounded by c (speed of light), then we can not say anything instructive about the universe seeing we only have access to 1 world - our world.

NOTE TO cfgauss, on how to debate a definition. A definition makes certain assumptions, if these assumptions can be shown to have inconsistencies then one places the definition in doubt. If there is additional evidence, and not just an opinion, which when juxtaposed to the definition, places the validity of the definition in doubt, then it surely places the integrity of the protaginist in doubt.

cfgauss, the reason why I left you this note is so you can augment your *genius* which you seem to pride highly, but which is not apparent. Perhaps you were using a relative measure. Welcome to the real world.

* * *

Tabula Rasa.

Cfgauss, througout the evening, you have been making false claims about my effort to define what UNIVERSE may be, you have given no counter argument, neither have you produced any concrete information which may contradict what I have writetn, or place what I have proposed in doubt.

I am indeed grateful that you, cfgauss, consider what I write to proport the gospel truth - THANKS. I never purposly intended it this way, but I am happy it is turing out this way. Like any other participant on this website, what i say or write is open to debate. You have chosen to try to enforce your methodology or linear thinking onto my proposals, but to mo avail. Please try again, and please do not repeat yourself, but try sound argumentative principles with meaningful analogies.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Ted Hoffman · 01-22-2003, 08:46 AM

Quote:

then we can not say anything instructive about the universe seeing we only have access to 1 world - our world.

Nobody said only the happy answers are correct.

Universal physics does not care whether we say instructive things or not. We are subjects of its activity.

The tail does not get to say how the dog should be wagged (whether in an instructive manner or not)

In a nutshell, unpleasant or uncomfortable facts are not incorrect facts.

Its equally less instructive to only speak about our world and assume its the only one that exists. While at the same time we know about the superpositions in a wavefunction, the anthropic principle(s) and the problem of being an observer.

We either recognise QM or we dont. So far, the best Interpretations are the Bohm and Everets (the Copenhagen is way too weak).

I am for MWI (Everetts) - you are for which one? Or you have no regard for QM?

Ted Hoffman · 01-22-2003, 08:49 AM

Oh, btw Sammi, have you heard of the Correspondence principle?
Physics will have to redefine our understanding of the words worlds, universes, reality etc.
Or we simply employ neologisms like Michael Langan.

Mr. Sammi · 01-22-2003, 10:10 AM

Intensity,

no I do not concur with multiple worlds in QM context.

I have done no research on the correspondence principles.

* * *

Ted Hoffman · 01-22-2003, 10:02 PM

Bohr's Correspondence Principle:

Quote:

To be the more profound and correct theory, Quantum Theory must reproduce the results of Classical Physics at large scales -- the "Classical Limit" -- where single quantum effects do not matter....
In complicated situations, such as the interaction of an atomic system and a measuring device, it may be possible to treat part -- the atoms -- with Quantum Theory, and the rest -- the measuring device, and the rest of the world! -- with Classical Physics...

Mr Sammi,

Quote:

you seem to be getting around to saying things about the Universe, where the demonstratable laws of physics are universal.

Something on "relativistic physics" might also tweak your understanding and "application" of the term "universal laws of physics".

Check it out.

Heck, time dilation, length contraction, the twin paradox etc and relativity (esp GR) itself challenge the validity of the strict meaning of the term "universal" as used in universal laws of physics.

cfgauss · 01-22-2003, 10:21 PM

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Ted Hoffman · 01-23-2003, 12:13 AM

cfgauss, is that me or you?

Peter Soderqvist · 01-23-2003, 06:20 AM

The word universe is used in many different contexts, when physicists use this word, they refer to Big Bang, and its expanding property known as the universe, there the speed limits is the light speed, known as locality! I have a good quotes with emphasis in bold type by me here from Richard Dawkins, Albert Einstein. And Count Alfred Korzybski!

A map cannot represent all its territory!

Quote:

Richard Dawkins Charles Simonyi Professor In the Public Understanding of Science Oxford University, Oxford, England From his book The Selfish Gene, Chapter 2 the Replicators page 18: Should we then call the original replicator molecules "living"? Who cares? I might say to you " Darwin was the greatest man who has ever lived", and you might say No, Newton was, but I hope we would not prolong the argument! The point is that no conclusion of substance would be affected whichever way our argument was resolved. The facts of the lives and achievement of Newton, and Darwin remain totally unchanged whether we label them great or not.

Similarly, the story of the replicator molecules probably happened something like the way I am telling it, regardless of whether we choose to call them "living". Human suffering has been caused because too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use, and that the mere presence in the dictionary of a word like "living" does not mean, it necessarily has to refer to something definite in the real world. Whether we call the early replicators living or not, they were the ancestors of life; they were our founding fathers

Living or non-living?
Were these early self-replicating molecules living or non-living? Dawkins: that's an idle question. 'No conclusion of substance would be affected by whichever way our argument was resolved.'
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/psychology/...kins.htm#sect5

Albert Einstein: These thoughts did not come in any verbal formulation. I rarely think in words at all. A thought comes, and I may try to express it in words afterward. Quoted in H Eves Mathematical Circles Adieu (Boston 1977).
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~.../Einstein.html

Alfred Korzybski: Whatever we may say something is, obviously is not the 'something' on the silent levels. Indeed, as Wittgenstein wrote, 'What can be shown, cannot be said.' In my experience I found that it is practically impossible to convey the differentiation of silent (unspeakable) levels from the verbal without having the reader or the hearer pinch with one hand the finger of the other hand. He would then realize organismally that the first-order psycho-logical direct experiences are not verbal. The simplicity of this statement is misleading, unless we become aware of its implications, as in our living reactions most of us identify in value the two entirely different levels, with often disastrous consequences. Note the sadness of the beautiful passage of Eddington on page. He seems to be unhappy that the silent levels can never be the verbal levels. Is this not an example of unjustified 'maximum expectation' ?

I firmly believe that the consciousness of the differences between these levels of abstractions; i.e., the silent and the verbal levels, is the key and perhaps the first step for the solution of human problems. This belief is based on my own observations, and studies of the endless observations of other investigators. There is a tremendous difference between 'thinking' in verbal terms, and 'contemplating', inwardly silent, on non-verbal levels, and then searching for the proper structure of language to fit the supposedly discovered structure of the silent processes that modern science tries to find.

If we 'think' verbally, we act as biased observers and project onto the silent levels the structure of the language we use, and so remain in our rut of old orientations, making keen, unbiased, observations and creative work well-nigh impossible. In contrast, when we 'think' without words, or in pictures (which involve structure and therefore relations), we may discover new aspects and relations on silent levels, and so may produce important theoretical results in the general search for a similarity of structure between the two levels, silent and verbal. Practically all important advances are made that way.
http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak2.htm

01-22-2003, 07:05 AM	#43
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	two - worlds IN 1 universe. Intensity, definitely then we cannot begin to imagine the scope of the universe. If we use the definition Universe is all possible worlds and our world is bounded by c (speed of light), then we can not say anything instructive about the universe seeing we only have access to 1 world - our world. NOTE TO cfgauss, on how to debate a definition. A definition makes certain assumptions, if these assumptions can be shown to have inconsistencies then one places the definition in doubt. If there is additional evidence, and not just an opinion, which when juxtaposed to the definition, places the validity of the definition in doubt, then it surely places the integrity of the protaginist in doubt. cfgauss, the reason why I left you this note is so you can augment your genius which you seem to pride highly, but which is not apparent. Perhaps you were using a relative measure. Welcome to the real world. * * * Tabula Rasa. Cfgauss, througout the evening, you have been making false claims about my effort to define what UNIVERSE may be, you have given no counter argument, neither have you produced any concrete information which may contradict what I have writetn, or place what I have proposed in doubt. I am indeed grateful that you, cfgauss, consider what I write to proport the gospel truth - THANKS. I never purposly intended it this way, but I am happy it is turing out this way. Like any other participant on this website, what i say or write is open to debate. You have chosen to try to enforce your methodology or linear thinking onto my proposals, but to mo avail. Please try again, and please do not repeat yourself, but try sound argumentative principles with meaningful analogies. Sammi Na Boodie ()

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-22-2003, 08:49 AM	#45
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Oh, btw Sammi, have you heard of the Correspondence principle? Physics will have to redefine our understanding of the words worlds, universes, reality etc. Or we simply employ neologisms like Michael Langan.

01-22-2003, 10:10 AM	#46
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Intensity, no I do not concur with multiple worlds in QM context. I have done no research on the correspondence principles. * * *

01-22-2003, 10:21 PM	#48
cfgauss Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: USA Posts: 108	:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

01-23-2003, 12:13 AM	#49
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	cfgauss, is that me or you?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.