What is eternity?

[bernhard]

I'm surprised no one here bothered to open up dictionary..(or maybe they did and I'm too lazy to read their posts):

3 entries found for eternity.
e·ter·ni·ty    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (-tûrn-t)
n. pl. e·ter·ni·ties
1 Time without beginning or end; infinite time.
2 The state or quality of being eternal.

3 The timeless state following death.
4 The afterlife; immortality.
5 A very long or seemingly endless time: waited in the dentist's office for an eternity.

source: www.dictionary.com

A dictionary will not tell you the real meaning of a word. It will tell you the “usage”. The above is a good example. It tells you how the majority of people use the word eternity. However this is not eternity at all.

This is not a criticism on the dictionary. The dictionary quite rightly gives you the word usage, not its ultimate meaning. If they did, there would no need for research. All we would need to do was to look up the Dictionary. Why don’t you try the dictionary definition of “God” and see how many people will agree with that. Or “atom”. Also compare such definitions with the most recent edition and an edition 50 years ago. The meaning will have changed since the usage (and our knowledge) will have changed.

Best wishes.
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

Now xvimbi, I believe that we agree more than we disagree. However I must take issue with several of your assertions.

Trivializations in physics, particularly in quantum mechanics, and describing complex physical phenomena through names from everyday experiences have always caused more harm then did good; the term "spin (of a particle)" is a perfect example.

The term “spin” existed long before physicists used it. Should we now not use “spin” anymore just because it may confuse the general public in relation to “spin of a particle”? What About “spin” in the sense of a political bias in the news?

As long as the context and the meaning is clearly specified why should anyone confuse anything?

Yet this seems to be exactly what you are suggesting below:

Not using the same language when talking about a subject does not help. In science, a "dimension" is anything that is used to describe something. Any axis in a plot is called a "dimension", no matter what the units are. As I said before, the first dimension does not need to have the unit of length. This is only the case if we talk about geometrical spaces.  

So now are we supposed to use dimensions only in the mathematical sense described above? When the word dimension to start with was appropriated by mathematicians in the same way the the word spin was appropriated by physicists?

The word “dimension” as used by mathematicians is an analogy with spatial dimensions: just like a two dimensional graph will lie on a plane, let us calleach axis a dimension. But this has nothing to do with “real dimensions”. A simple example should suffice. Let us make a graph of the temperature of a gas (x axis) against its volume (y axis). Mathematically speaking, and for the sole purpose of drawing a graph (and coming up with an equation), it makes sense to talk about temperature as a dimension and volume as a dimension. Hence two dimensions. It is modelling at its best: deletion and distortion for the purposes of simplifying a problem to its essential elements. But in reality, volume is not one dimension, it is three. So your graph is not a representation of two dimensions (except in the trivila sense that it is being drawn on a plane). Your graph is a simplified model of how a quality (temperature) behaves in three dimensional space (volume).

Likewise, when in a graph we represent time in one axis, this does not mean that time is one dimensional. It means that we chose to simplify its representation as graph – partly because nothing would be gained by representing time as a four dimensional variable.

You are simply confusing the map with the territory.

Any space with more than 3 dimensions is called hyperspace, not just the one with four dimensions.

Terminological discussion is usually a waste of time. I accept whatever terminology you wish. In fact I said so: “I call these dimensions with these names (for the purposes of discussion) but you can call them anything you like.” As long as it is clear what is bing called what, what difference could it possibly make? Now calling any dimension abouve 4 by the same name “hyperspace” is sure to cause confusion. Surely you could call them “Hyperspace 1”, “Hyperspace 2”, etc.

Furthermore, hyperspaces in geometry have dimensions that ALL have the unit of length!!! There is no time involved! The four-dimensional space involving three dimensions with unit length and one dimension with unit time is called "space-time", or "space-time continuum".

One of the reasons physics is now stuck…

Now you are confusing dimensions with units derived from operational definitions.

For the benefit of those who may not be able to accompany this discussion (xvimbi already knows – or should know what follows)

It has been my opinion now for many years that the success of Physics as a science (as compared to sociology, psychology, biology) is that physicists very cleverly got rid of metaphysical definitions and use instead operational definitions.

What is matter? Instead of spending the eternity (he he) discussing what exactly is matter, physicists said: It is not important. Instead, let us all agree (including the English) that this piece of lead is 1 kg. Let us keep it in a museum, and let us use a scale to compare everything in the universe with this piece of lead (or a copy made with the most rigorous standards). Now the mass of everything in the universe can be expressed as a multiple or as fraction of this piece of lead. Notice that the actual size and weight of the piece of lead is completely arbitrary. But as long as everyone agrees, this is fine.

Now take distance. What is distance? Never mind that. Let us get this piece of wood here. This is going to be called one metre, and everything in the Universe can now be compared to it and be expressed as a multiple or fraction of this standard that we all agreed upon.

Besides getting rid of metaphysical definitions (and the need to actually figure out what something really is), operational definitions have another huge advantage: they allow precise, numerical comparisons, and hence mathematical models. But make no mistake here: an operational definition defines nothing: it measures distances by using distances; it measures weights by using weights, and it measures time by measuring time.

You can make operational definitions for everything. Just agree on a standard, and measure everything of that “nature” as multiple or a fraction of that standard. For instance, you could have an operational definition of “volume”, and if you could come up with an apparatus to compare volume of anything with the standard volume, you are in business. However there is no need to create such an operational definition since volume is distance x distance x distance. Hence we can use the operational definition of distance to define (operationally) volume. Of course we still have no idea what “distance” and “volume” actually are, but at least we can measure them.

However, if you cannot figure out a way to reduce your physical quality into another for which there is already an operational definition, then you have to create a new operational definition. It is the case, for instance with electrical charge. But it is not the case with for instance density, whose operational definition is actually a mathematical relationship between the operational definitions of weight and volume: w/m3.

So all you are saying is that physicists have not come up with any decent way to define time in terms of distance. So they created a new operational definition for time. That of course, is fine, and it is exactly as it should be. But please do not jump to the conclusion now that time is some sort of independent linear entity. It is not. I have given you enough hints here for you to go home do a few calculations and get a Nobel prize! I cannot be bothered because I like playing the piano best.

More important, and this may well lead to a completely new discussion, is the fact that the state of an object is unknown unless we interact with, i.e. perturb it (Schrödinger). A famous example is the question whether the moon exists if we don't look at it. The answer is, we cannot know until we look at it. Finally, this interaction only gives us data, not knowledge (data lead to information, which may lead to knowledge).

Just remembered an excellent book:  

Robert Anton Wilson – “the Schrodinger’s cat trilogy”

So much to say - so little time. I think I'll spend it making Beuf a la Bourguignonne, which - for whatever reason - I have been dreaming about last night. I usually use Shiraz for that - ever tried that?

Bon Apetit!

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[bernhard]

 As a scientist, I am constantly faced with things that I can't explain.

Aren’t we all?

It's my job to find those things and then try to find explanations for them. Since we don't have all the answers, your scenario (or equivalent forms of it) is my daily business.

I completely disagree. As a scientist your job is not to find explanations for anything. Anyone can do that. All the religious people in the forum have already explained everything.

As a scientist your job is to organise explanations (either yours or other’s) in the form of empirically falsifiable hypothesis, and then proceed to try to falsify them. And if you fail to do so, then it is also your job to publish your results and inform your peers that for the moment being your hypothesis stand good.

Having said this, it is meaningless for scientists (or anybody, I would presume), to talk, speculate, or ponder about something that we don't have any data, information, or knowledge about.

I guess we should all be grateful that Einstein was not informed of that, otherwise there would be no theory of relativity…

That's why we don't engage in discussions that start with "Can you imagine...", without having any handle on how to go about investigating the issue.

He he. Maybe you do not do it in public. But yes, most scientists after a good Beef Bourguignone watered down with a few bottles of shiraz will sit down amongst themselves in the common room of their colleges and imagine wildly. That’s a good one xvimbi. You cannot fool me.

That does not mean that we will never investigate the issue, but we would do so only if we have done enough groundwork to give us the justified expectation that we will get something useful out of it; otherwise, our research will not get funded. Funding agencies are surprisingly pragmatic and "down to Earth", so to say, when it comes to spending money

Oh dear, so are you employed by the army? Or the drug companies?

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[picdude]

However there is a point that is very relevant for this discussion, and this is the matter of models.

Hi Bernard, you might be interested in taking a look at O'Reagan and Noe's paper on perception, which does away entirely with any mental models. it provides a very interesting and convincing account of how the relationship between ourselves and the world works.

You can read it at:

https://nivea.psycho.univ-paris5.fr/ASSChtml/Pacherie4.html

Regards,

Paul

[xvimbi]

Dear Bernhard,

The term “spin” existed long before physicists used it. Should we now not use “spin” anymore just because it may confuse the general public in relation to “spin of a particle”? What About “spin” in the sense of a political bias in the news?

No. I said that physicists should not use the word spin, and similar everyday words, to describe complex quantum-mechanical phenomena that do not have anything to do with these words.  

As long as the context and the meaning is clearly specified why should anyone confuse anything?

First, it doesn't make sense to use established words for unrelated things (how about calling "plutonium" from now on "Sushi"? I am sure it would cause confusion). Second, people do indeed get confused all the time about these terms and concepts.

So now are we supposed to use dimensions only in the mathematical sense described above? When the word dimension to start with was appropriated by mathematicians in the same way the the word spin was appropriated by physicists?

Not at all. You appear to give the impression that the word "dimension" always specifies "length" if we are talking about "first dimension" and "time" if we are talking about "fourth dimension". What I was trying to point out is that the word "dimension" is used in a much more general way in the sciences (after all, "length" and "time" are scientific phenomena") and in psychology (after all, "length" and "time" are psychological phenomena"). When we say "Lifting the ban on assault weapons puts a whole new dimension onto the problem of crime", we are not talking about "length" or "time". We are talking about the level of complexity, the number of variables considered to study and describe something.
 

The word “dimension” as used by mathematicians is an analogy with spatial dimensions: just like a two dimensional graph will lie on a plane, let us calleach axis a dimension. But this has nothing to do with “real dimensions”
...
Likewise, when in a graph we represent time in one axis, this does not mean that time is one dimensional. It means that we chose to simplify its representation as graph – partly because nothing would be gained by representing time as a four dimensional variable.
 
You are simply confusing the map with the territory.

You speak with papal authority.

This does not mean that what you are saying is correct. We are beating a dead horse here.
 

Terminological discussion is usually a waste of time. I accept whatever terminology you wish. In fact I said so: “I call these dimensions with these names (for the purposes of discussion) but you can call them anything you like.” As long as it is clear what is bing called what, what difference could it possibly make? Now calling any dimension abouve 4 by the same name “hyperspace” is sure to cause confusion. Surely you could call them “Hyperspace 1”, “Hyperspace 2”, etc.

Now, you are getting a bit too stubborn. It does not help if you use the term "hyperspace" to describe "space-time", and similar. We can't have a discussion about rhythm if I from now on use the term "staccato" for "quarter notes". Even if I told you so at the beginning, it would probably confuse everybody.

So all you are saying is that physicists have not come up with any decent way to define time in terms of distance. So they created a new operational definition for time. That of course, is fine, and it is exactly as it should be. But please do not jump to the conclusion now that time is some sort of independent linear entity. It is not.

It seems you haven't considered what I said about "time" in my earlier posts. It is you who insists in associating four dimensions with the term "time". This is the conclusion you must have jumped to long ago, when you thought about it. I am trying to tell you that this is not the case. I am trying to point out that "time" is only one of the four dimensions in the construct that we call "space-time", that "time" is not involved in "hyperspaces", that "time" CAN be one-dimensional, just as well as it can be part of a ten-dimensional space, depending on the phenomenon we are studying. Time is not four-dimensional. I pointed out that the passing of time is equivalent to "change". The dimensionality of "time" therefore depends on the dimensionality of a given change. No change no time.
  

Anyone can do that. All the religious people in the forum have already explained everything.

Don't tell anybody, you are putting me out of my job.  

I guess we should all be grateful that Einstein was not informed of that, otherwise there would be no theory of relativity…

Oh no, Einstein had a lot of experimental data to build his theory on. Granted, a lot of what theoretical physicists work out on paper first needs to be experimentally tested, but they don't just start thinking with a handful of fundamental axioms. Einstein had all of Newtons physics and a lot more to work with.
 

He he. Maybe you do not do it in public. But yes, most scientists after a good Beef Bourguignone watered down with a few bottles of shiraz will sit down amongst themselves in the common room of their colleges and imagine wildly. That’s a good one xvimbi. You cannot fool me.

Every Friday 4pm. We call it the "Free and frank exchange of ideas". You are cordially invited.

Oh dear, so are you employed by the army? Or the drug companies?

Army? You should know me better by now.
Nothing like that at all, just normal funding channels.

Thanks for the chat.  

[cziffra]

Influence.

Take Jesus, for example.

(P.s i have not read any of the messages on this post yet.)

[janice]

Influence.

Take Jesus, for example.

quote]

So......is there a question here that I overlooked?  Sorry!

[m1469]

Dear Bernhard,

I do not have words for most of the things I wish to say at this time.  It is for reasons such as this, that I play the piano.

As I was reading through your post, I realized that much of what you are describing is something that I have been more aware of lately, but in a way is something that I have known all of my life.  Although, I have not been ready to be as articulate about it as you have beautifully been.  Thank you.

Obviously there are profound implications, and it is natural for me to want to ask questions.  But, even words fail me at this time, with those as well.  For now, I should wish to just touch some things.

You mentioned...

There are two currents of thought in this matter: One says that reality does not exist, it is all a product of our minds. The other says that reality actually exists, we just do not know what it looks/feels like. I happen to side with the second current. I believe that reality exists, but it is ultimately unknowable. All we can hope to know is our models of reality. However we can improve these models and approach reality infinitesimally. So yes, the sensations we have are caused by reality.

I also would tend toward the second current.   Wouldn't it be plausible, however, that we actually are looking directly at reality and that we actually do know exactly what it is, but at this point we simply do not know what to make of either what we are seeing and even what we may already know?  Much like what you mentioned here...

You may have heard of the Pigmys who would look at a picture of an Elephant and could not see it. Or the several cases of people who were born blind and recovered their vision but to no avail: they could not make sense of it. Our senses are not a given: we must learn how to use them. Such learning is mostly unconscious and heavily cultural. Ultimately it is completely conditioned to language.

And that this is why models are created, because we have to sort it all out in a way that makes sense to us.  Wouldn't the model be formed from us looking directly at reality itself, and actually, doesn't reality exist even in the exact spot that we are perceiving (or believe to be perceiving) only a model?

(Perhaps these are exactly the points you are making?)

That's another attempted baby step for now.

Thank you so much,
m1469

[xvimbi]

I also would tend toward the second current.

And that this is why models are created, because we have to sort it all out in a way that makes sense to us.  Wouldn't the model be formed from us looking directly at reality itself, and actually, doesn't reality exist even in the exact spot that we are percieving (or believe to be percieving) only a model?

Reality always exists. This is the definition of reality. The old adage goes "perception is reality". What you feel inside your head is reality. It does not matter what is going on around you, only how you perceive it. From that immediately follows that your reality is not necessarily anybody else's reality. Models try to objectivate reality in that they poll what most people feel when given some external stimulus, and if there is a consensus, one can come up with a formula, i.e. a model to describe this consensus. Sometimes, somebody strongly deviates from the consensus, a state that we often call "disease".

The use of instruments has facilitated the objective description of reality, but one could argue that instruments don't tell us anything new, because we have to interpret their output, which in turn is then again left to our perception.

[bernhard]

Influence.

Take Jesus, for example.

Er....

(P.s i have not read any of the messages on this post yet.)

Clearly.

Maybe you should.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[bernhard]

And I thought I could leave these metaphysical threads and go back to playing the piano…

Xvimbi, you are a logical positivist! And I thought logical positivism was long dead and buried…

Reality always exists.

That is of course an article of faith. (Talk about papal authority… )

The old adage goes "perception is reality".

You mean, the wrong adage?

What you feel inside your head is reality.

Er… Actually what you feel inside your head is called “imagination” (sometimes it is also called a “headache”)

It does not matter what is going on around you, only how you perceive it.

Really?

Then I guess the earth is flat after all. Not to mention that David Copperfield has actually been sawed in half. And the Americans Forces are liberating Iraq and bringing democracy to their grateful inhabitants.

Try this scientific experiment. Get three bowls. Put water at 45 degrees in the left one, water at 20 degrees on the middle one and water at 5 degrees on the right one. Put your right hand on the right bowl, your left hand on the left bowl. Leave it there for a couple of minutes. Now put both hands in the middle bowl. Your perception will tell you that the water in the middle bowl is both hot and cold. But then I guess it does not really matter what is going on around you, just what you perceive.

Sometimes, somebody strongly deviates from the consensus, a state that we often call "disease".

There is no “disease” here. Only divergent behaviour. Calling divergent behaviour a “disease” is simply using illness as a metaphor to debase behaviour we do not agree with. I suggest you read Thomas Szasz – The manufacture of mental illness. (He is not the only one who argued this point: So did R.D. Lang and Michel Foucault)

Now xvimbi, this may shock you, but science is really the ultimate “occultism”. I will let you reflect on it.  

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Spatula]

DUN DUN DUN DUNNNN!!!

(first opening bar of Beethoven Sym Nr. 5)

[xvimbi]

Xvimbi, you are a logical positivist! And I thought logical positivism was long dead and buried…

That is of course an article of faith. (Talk about papal authority… )

What is the matter with you? Now, I present arguments that science is not the ultimate authority, but - when it comes to the human mind - is superceded by how people perceive things, something that you strongly suggested when we were discussing "dimensions", and you still have the urge to object.

I have the feeling you just want to object...

And the Americans Forces are liberating Iraq and bringing democracy to their grateful inhabitants.

You won't believe how many people are absolutely convinced of that.
Ever seen the movie "Dark Star"?

Try this scientific experiment. Get three bowls. Put water at 45 degrees in the left one, water at 20 degrees on the middle one and water at 5 degrees on the right one. Put your right hand on the right bowl, your left hand on the left bowl. Leave it there for a couple of minutes. Now put both hands in the middle bowl. Your perception will tell you that the water in the middle bowl is both hot and cold. But then I guess it does not really matter what is going on around you, just what you perceive.

Now, you are just plain facetious. You should have realized that this example is support for "perception is reality".

There is no “disease” here. Only divergent behaviour. Calling divergent behaviour a “disease” is simply using illness as a metaphor to debase behaviour we do not agree with. I suggest you read Thomas Szasz – The manufacture of mental illness. (He is not the only one who argued this point: So did R.D. Lang and Michel Foucault)

I was not defending the term "disease" or how we use it. I was saying that humans often use it this way, without mentioning anything about whether this is correct or not. There is no need to lecture me in a way that makes it appear I said something to the contrary  

[m1469]

And I thought I could leave these metaphysical threads and go back to playing the piano…

Uh... sorry  :-/.  Don't worry about my questions  , I am used to them.

Thank you again for everything you have offered here!  It has made a big impact on me.

Happy practicing,
m1469

[m1469]

The use of instruments has facilitated the objective description of reality, but one could argue that instruments don't tell us anything new, because we have to interpret their output, which in turn is then again left to our perception.

xvimbi, this is why I have had a hard time with science, because of what you are saying here (and things like it).

But, you still choose science.  I suppose it just plain makes the most sense to you -eh?

[xvimbi]

xvimbi, this is why I have had a hard time with science, because of what you are saying here (and things like it).

But, you still choose science.

There is a deep perception among many religious people and non-scientists that makes them believe science is a religion or a cult. I sense you think along those lines.

I do not CHOOSE science. One cannot CHOOSE science. Science is not a religion, it is not a system of belief, it is not a philosophy. Science merely tries to understand as much of our Universe as possible. Science does not claim it understands everything. Scientists don't claim they understand everything. However, sciene is very good at understanding SOME things. It is very good in a lot of practical ways, without which we wouldn't have many of the technical advances that we enjoy today.

I choose science for those things.

Scientists also believe that they can understand a lot more if they try hard. Many things that we did not have a clue about a hundred years ago are now well understood to a point where we can put the kowledege to good use.

I believe that this is the case, otherwise I wouldn't be a scientist.

Science is nothing mystic, although many people believe so. Many religious people believe that science is the Anti-Christ, that science is there to disprove the existence of God. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive!

This problem has deep historic roots. It comes from the fact that a long time ago, people thought that everything they didn't understand must have divine roots. They were praising various gods for these things and offered many sacrifices and set up systems of belief around them. Slowly, people came along who were smart enough to realize that there was nothing mystic or divine about many of these phenomena. The old Greeks did not understand wind and storm, so they thought some god must be behind them. Likewise, Christians believed (some still believe) that the Earth is the center of the Universe, and that the sun revolves around it. Nowadays, we laugh about that. Yet, people who studied these natural phenomena and realized that they are as simple to understand as an apple falling from a tree were viewed as evil, because they were perceived as somebody wanting to disprove god. They often died bitter deaths. Christianity is very infamous for that, in fact, it has been the most insecure and therefore intolerant main religion invented so far.

Religious people are not the only ones who have a low opinion of scientists. Many non-scientists do so too, and often for very similar reasons. They fear that science is there to destroy their world and the way they look at it. Yet everybody who drives a car, plays the piano, or switches on the light at night should become a "believer in science" right away, because they are dealing with science pretty much 24 hours a day (wow, this rhymes!). Science is nothing else than trying to explain what is going on around us. Nothing more, nothing less.

When you ponder about the meaning of "dimension", you've become a scientist! Don't be offended now, it's not an insult. For those who like to have names cited, try this: Feyerabend states that any conscious thought about life is philosophy. Stimulated by his friend Lakatos he wrote this platitude down in Against Method (1975). Philosophy and science are intrinsically one and the same thing.

I must say that there are often hilarious moments. I give you a fictitious example to summarize many experiences I have had with non-scientists. When you tell them "Scientists found that the Earth revolves around the sun", they don't want to hear any of it. They often say "Oh, what do THEY know?". However, when you say "George W. Bush [substitute any non-scientist leader of your choice] declared that the Earth revolves around the sun", they do not have the slightest problem.

Now, it is your turn: what is your problem with science?

[m1469]

Now, it is your turn: what is your problem with science?

I suppose it is unfair really for me to have a "problem" with science.  More accurately, I simply disagree with many of it's premises and conclusions.

There is a deep perception among many religious people and non-scientists that makes them believe science is a religion or a cult. I sense you think along those lines.

You are correct in picking up on my hints to you that I feel this way.  Not necessarily that it is a religion or a cult, but it often seems to have many parallels in my mind with common religion.  And more ironically, many similarities in its effect on the human belief about life and how people try to convince others as to what reality is.  As with you, I am of the camp which says

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive!

Bernhard's comment is relevent for me here:

The main problem at this moment in time is that there is a confusion between models and reality (partly because some of the models have been so successful)

Whether science believes there to be a "greater" power at work or not, it seems that the explorations of science all begin with a model, which I believe to be greatly false, rather than the reality itself.  Or more accurately, they assume the model to be actually reality, studying and disecting it as though there will be some physically tangible answer just waiting to be found, hidden beneath the human skull, or weaved within a particle of dust from the outter limits of the universe.  While I do believe that these explorations will produce useful results, I believe it will eventually and time-consumingly tire in its path and find that it has inadvertantly proven itself to have been a farce.

And, I must say that this would greatly impose upon a scientist's perception of reality, and perception of his/her own importance, and the like, just as you suggest many people feel science does to them.

What Bernhard pointed out here is largely what I am talking about:

It has been my opinion now for many years that the success of Physics as a science (as compared to sociology, psychology, biology) is that physicists very cleverly got rid of metaphysical definitions and use instead operational definitions.

What is matter? Instead of spending the eternity (he he) discussing what exactly is matter, physicists said: It is not important. Instead, let us all agree (including the English) that this piece of lead is 1 kg. Let us keep it in a museum, and let us use a scale to compare everything in the universe with this piece of lead (or a copy made with the most rigorous standards). Now the mass of everything in the universe can be expressed as a multiple or as fraction of this piece of lead. Notice that the actual size and weight of the piece of lead is completely arbitrary. But as long as everyone agrees, this is fine.

So what is matter?

If nothing else, it is a seemingly tangible starting place for all humanly scientific hypothesis, research and conclusion.  In my opinion, a false one at that.

I think a more interesting question here would be, what is absolute substance?  I believe this to be a more accurate premise for absolutely truthful discovery and conclusion, wouldn't you agree?

Aside from these things, there are more surfacey things that make "scientific" thought difficult for me to digest.

First off, it seems that much about elitism stems from either science itself, or many people who consider themselves to be scientists.  "We, and only we, will find thee cure for cancer!  We are noble, we are great, we are intelligent, we are elite!   Science is only for those who are extremely smart!  Science is for the upper crust of society.  The rest of humanity, those ungrateful basta*ds, can only hope to eat the crumbs that we drop from our highly esteemed and decadent tables."

And there "science" goes telling us what to eat, what to think, and what drug(s) to take when things aren't going well.  "And, as you come in for this surgery, please sign here relieving us of our responsiblity on behalf of your life and livelihood, for you see, we are indeed science, but we are not an exact science.  So, we cannot truly be held responsible for what we do to you."

There is already a cure for the deadliest diseases there are, but science dismisses this altogether because it would seemingly dismiss much of science altogether (or so they think).

Other than this, science does not give us any reason to treat others kindly and with respect.  With all of its greatness, there is still so much that suffers in the world.  But, it is only because science has not yet discovered the answer.  This is a false sense of responsibility!  For all that science knows, or doesn't know, each person could already posses the answers to every question there ever was, and not even know it!  It could be built into our very being.  As a whole, humanity is quite young in its understanding of life and how it works, yet believes itself to be advanced and wise.   It is always searching for answers out there, when they may be much closer than that.

Perhaps the biggest responsibility we have as human beings, is that of each individual in every moment, taking responsibility for themselves and their actions and even their thoughts.  But, poop on that!  That's just plain difficult.  And besides, it is too simplistic!

What if there were no hate?  Scientifically speaking, there could be a lot less problems.  This is testable.  But, who bothers?  It seems too hard to accomplish.  Well, test it out in your own life.  See what happens.  We dissmiss our own responsibility because we think our responsiblity is to control others, and this is ultimately impossible.

And since you asked me what I have against science, I have kept my comments directed toward science and not religion, although many thoughts could apply to both.

As a side note, I do not find myself to be fitting under any category of "scientist", "non-scientist", "religionist" or "non-religionist" any more or less than anybody else.  I am simply me, just as you are you.

sincerely,

m1469 Fox

(PS- I don't think anything rhymed in mine!)

[janice]

By golly, I think that m1469's post here beats Bernhard's posts, in terms of length. LOL  Congrats, m1469!  My deepest sympathy, Bernie.  

[xvimbi]

I suppose it is unfair really for me to have a "problem" with science.  More accurately, I simply disagree with many of it's premises and conclusions.

I do too!

Whether science believes there to be a "greater" power at work or not, it seems that the explorations of science all begin with a model, which I believe to be greatly false, rather than the reality itself.

This is not so. Science starts with experimental data. I guess you call that reality. The data don't really tell a whole lot, yet. From the data, information is extracted, i.e. the data are reproduced, the ones with large errors are discarded, and higher-order relationships are identified. Finally, the information leads to what we call knowledge, i.e. an understanding how something works on a more abstract level.

Or more accurately, they assume the model to be actually reality, studying and disecting it as though there will be some physically tangible answer just waiting to be found, hidden beneath the human skull, or weaved within a particle of dust from the outter limits of the universe.  While I do believe that these explorations will produce useful results, I believe it will eventually and time-consumingly tire in its path and find that it has inadvertantly proven itself to have been a farce.

I must mildly object. Scientists are quite clear about the fact that a "model" is not "reality", otherwise, they would not call it a "model". Scientists don't really dissect models, they do dissect reality and put the abstract components that they think they have an understanding about into the model. As such, they are not really looking for answers per se. Science begins with a pure description of how natural phenomena behave and how they work (this component is called "analysis"). Models are then used to make predictions or construct something (this is applied science, or engineering, and it is called "synthesis"). Not many people actually look for answers, i.e. the sense in all that. Those are the philosophers.

It has been my opinion now for many years that the success of Physics as a science (as compared to sociology, psychology, biology) is that physicists very cleverly got rid of metaphysical definitions and use instead operational definitions.  
 
What is matter? Instead of spending the eternity (he he) discussing what exactly is matter, physicists said: It is not important. Instead, let us all agree (including the English) that this piece of lead is 1 kg. Let us keep it in a museum, and let us use a scale to compare everything in the universe with this piece of lead (or a copy made with the most rigorous standards). Now the mass of everything in the universe can be expressed as a multiple or as fraction of this piece of lead. Notice that the actual size and weight of the piece of lead is completely arbitrary. But as long as everyone agrees, this is fine.

So what is matter?

To be clear here. Bernhard's statement is nonsense (IMO). Physicists did not put away with matter by inventing a language (operational definitions) to talk about it. In fact, these operational definitions constitute the basis of the language that scientists (and everybody else, for that matter) use to talk about EVERYTHING they study (not just matter). It is completely irrelevant whether a kilogram corresponds to 2 pounds, or 2.13 pounds, or whatever. He is getting caught up in the technicalities, and he makes it appear as if, by using operational terms, scientists are fooling people into believing that they understand more than they do. These operational terms can be compared to the notes in a scale, the chords, rhythm, etc, i.e. the building blocks of music. We need those too, to describe what we are talking about, but they do not constitute the substance of music per se, just like kilogram and meter don't constitute the substance of science.

If nothing else, it is a seemingly tangible starting place for all humanly scientific hypothesis, research and conclusion.

You are quite right. The tangible parts of our Universe are indeed the object of science.

In my opinion, a false one at that.

Then you are no longer talking about science. Science studies the tangible Universe. It does not claim it can study, nor answer the intangible Universe. These aspects are not part of science, per definition almost, so talking about them in the context of science is meaningless.

I think a more interesting question here would be, what is absolute substance?  I believe this to be a more accurate premise for absolutely truthful discovery and conclusion, wouldn't you agree?

I completely agree. I do this in my private time. The fact that I am a scientist does not mean I don't engage in meta-physical or philosophical pondering. As I said before, science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and so are physics and meta-physics.

Aside from these things, there are more surfacey things that make "scientific" thought difficult for me to digest.

First off, it seems that much about elitism stems from either science itself, or many people who consider themselves to be scientists.  "We, and only we, will find thee cure for cancer!  We are noble, we are great, we are intelligent, we are elite!   Science is only for those who are extremely smart!  Science is for the upper crust of society.  The rest of humanity, those ungrateful basta*ds, can only hope to eat the crumbs that we drop from our highly esteemed and decadent tables."

Now, this is a bit harsh, but I completely agree with your overall feelings. Scientists often are, or they appear, arrogant, just like any teacher. This is a fundamental problem. It is not confined to science, but it shows very clearly in science. Whenever you have somebody who tells someone else what to do, what to think, or somebody who corrects someone else, one automatically gets this feeling. You'd be surprised that among scientists, these feelings are widespread, just as they are among any human population. Politicians, religious leaders, my piano teacher, they all tell me what to do and what to thinks. They are no different. It is human, but...

And there "science" goes telling us what to eat, what to think, and what drug(s) to take when things aren't going well.

... it is not the purpose of science to tell anybody what to do and what to think. Science only describes nature. If you look carefully, who it actually is who is telling everybody what to do and what to think, you may be surprised.

"And, as you come in for this surgery, please sign here relieving us of our responsiblity on behalf of your life and livelihood, for you see, we are indeed science, but we are not an exact science.  So, we cannot truly be held responsible for what we do to you."

Medicine is not a science, it is a craft. There is a clear and important distinction. Yes, doctors tell us all the time, what to eat, and what not to eat. You should see what scientists think of doctors...

There is already a cure for the deadliest diseases there are, but science dismisses this altogether because it would seemingly dismiss much of science altogether (or so they think).

No scientist will object to any therapy that can cure the millions of people infected with HIV.

Other than this, science does not give us any reason to treat others kindly and with respect.

Science strives to be independent of all human morals and values. It does not define rules for human interaction, politicians and religious leaders do that. You are again expecting something from science that is simply not part of it.

 With all of its greatness, there is still so much that suffers in the world.  But, it is only because science has not yet discovered the answer.

Science has a lot of answers to many of the problems in the world. We could easily build power plants wherever we want, we could easily bring the whole of Africa to the same health standards that we have in the West. But again, it's the political, religious and economical leaders that choose not to do this.

What if there were no hate?  Scientifically speaking, there could be a lot less problems.  This is testable.  But, who bothers?  It seems too hard to accomplish.  Well, test it out in your own life.  See what happens.  We dissmiss our own responsibility because we think our responsiblity is to control others, and this is ultimately impossible.

Now you are getting all pumped up, and all his because of what I think is a wrong perception of what really science is.

[m1469]

Dear xvimbi, I am only writing at the moment to let you know that I am thinking about all of this and I cannot sit down right now to fully respond, but that I do indeed plan to (hopefully today).

At this moment however, I feel it worthwhile to point out that the very fact that you and I, and all of mankind, are sitting here on Earth "together" means to me that we are working out the same or very similar problem of existence.  I believe that we are sharing a planet to help eachother in some way.  Perhaps you disagree with this, however, I don't think that this concept is beyond your reason.

I'LL BE BACK...

m1469

[xvimbi]

At this moment however, I feel it worthwhile to point out that the very fact that you and I, and all of mankind, are sitting here on Earth "together" means to me that we are working out the same or very similar problem of existence.  I believe that we are sharing a planet to help eachother in some way.  Perhaps you disagree with this, however, I don't think that this concept is beyond your reason.

Why would I disagree? Did I give the impression that I am a misantrop or some violent terrorist? You almost make me look like one

[Spatula]

tsk tsk

[m1469]

Why would I disagree? Did I give the impression that I am a misantrop or some violent terrorist? You almost make me look like one

Oh man!  Please do not get angry now, this is not what I meant at all.  I apologize for whatever you think I was trying to say!  I was simply reminding that we are ultimately on the same side, that's it.  

I promise, I come in peas (sorry, I couldn't help it, I once saw a bumper sticker that said "imagine world peas")

bye bye for now

[m1469]

Okay, xvimbi, here it goes...

There are some things that I feel I could argue about with you, but I just plain don't feel like it right now.  What would be the point?  Besides, we both know that there is so much more to be learned, it seems silly to argue about this stuff sometimes, you know?

I think that you have an idea of where I am coming from and I have an idea of where you are coming from.  Maybe that's enough for now.  I have appreciated your thoughts on these subjects, you have put a lot of time into it through your life it seems.

Discussing this has helped me learn new things, but also it has helped me to clarify what it is that I believe.  But I'm tired.  Maybe I will pick it up again in a few days.

You are fun to talk with!  

Take care,
m1469

[bernhard]

“a finger points to the moon
Put the expression
A finger points to the moon, in brackets
(a finger points to the moon)

The statement:
“a finger points to the moon is in brackets”
is an attempt to say that all that is in the brackets
(                                                  )
is, as to that which is not in the brackets,
what a finger is to the moon

Put all possible expressions in brackets
Put all possible forms in brackets
And put the brackets in brackets

Every expression and every form,
Is to want is expressionless and formless
What a finger is to the moon
All expressions and all forms
Point to the expressionless and formless

The proposition
“All forms point to the formless”
is itself a formal proposition

***

Not,
As finger to the moon
So form to formless

But,

As finger is to moon
So

[all possible expressions, forms, propositions,
including this one, made or yet to be made,
together with the brackets]

to

****

What an interesting finger
Let me suck it

It’s not an interesting finger
Take it away

***

The statement is pointless
The finger is speechless

(R. D. Laing – “Knots” – Penguin)

[m1469]

Is Is

Is is not is not

is not is not Is

is not is not Is Not

Is Not is not Is

Is is Is, not is not

Is Not is not

is not is not

Is Is

[flash]

Eternity "begins" when time stops. A paradox

[julie391]

OMG

this topic is just 

[bernhard]

Here is a practical application of dimensional theory :

(This should interest you xvimbi  )

https://tv.yahoo.com/news/wwn/20030319/104808600007.html

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[xvimbi]

Here is a practical application of dimensional theory :

(This should interest you xvimbi  )

https://tv.yahoo.com/news/wwn/20030319/104808600007.html

Best wishes,
Bernhard

This is one hilarious story. Unfortunately...

"Unfortunately, Yahoo!, a primary news source for many people on the Internet, reprints some Weekly World News articles in their TV News section under a heading of "Entertainment News & Gossip," a title that doesn't convey a strong "bogus" warning to readers who don't notice the original source is the Weekly World News (or don't know what the Weekly World News is)."
(https://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/insider.htm)

[bernhard]

This is one hilarious story. Unfortunately...

"Unfortunately, Yahoo!, a primary news source for many people on the Internet, reprints some Weekly World News articles in their TV News section under a heading of "Entertainment News & Gossip," a title that doesn't convey a strong "bogus" warning to readers who don't notice the original source is the Weekly World News (or don't know what the Weekly World News is)."
(https://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/insider.htm)

Hmmm…

I suspect a cover-up!