Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Blogger William Orem wrote on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 20:49 GMT
I'm posting this month from Italy, home-base of one of the most influential metaphysical systems in history--Roman Catholicism--and home to one of the most important names in physics: Galileo Galilei.
The light in Florence is of a clarity I have never experienced; I can see why this is a haven for painters. But leave that aside. If you have ever been here, you know.
After saturating myself with the products of unparalleled artistic and religious expression, I visited the rather modest museum to Galileo, tucked in beside the bubbling Arno. These are some images from inside.
These are Galileo's
fingers, kept under glass very much in the manner of reliquaries. Odd to see a person who so troubled the Church preserved in a style set aside for saints. One wonders whether enough traces of DNA remain in those desiccated bone cells to one day resurrect the great man; he would certainly be surprised to find himself, say, in the year 2115, and to discover how completely vindicated he was. (I know, I know:
cloning doesn't "bring back" the same person. Just play along, huh?) How ironic would it be if his Inquisition-banned books contributed to the formation of a scientific culture that, centuries later, gave him that very thing to which the Church had laid claim--life after death?
Ah well. At least his discoveries live on . . .
Here is the actual telescope that caused all the trouble, or one just like it. It is astonishingly small; about the length of a pool cue, perhaps twice as thick. That's it.
Is there a moral in this unprepossessing object? Granted, it was high-tech for its day. But perhaps the moral is that revolutions in knowledge come not from advanced instrumentation alone, but from ability to think outside the dogma--to turn that ship-spying device toward the sky, as it were. (And to admit what you are seeing--no mean feat in itself. Galileo famously complained to Kepler that some of his opponents in the heliocentric debate refused even to look.)
Perhaps this is a moral for our day, as well. We may not be able to get any closer to confirming or disconfirming String Theory, for example--which, despite its general popularity in the press, is still entirely
hypothetical; it bears repeating that the whole construction may be nothing more than a complex exercise in mathematics--without colliders that can reach unheard-of energies. If the kind of energy required turns out to be permanently inaccessible, we may be at an end on our quest. In that case, even if String Theory is true, we'll never know it.
Or . . . there may be a conceptual shift somewhere down the road that allows new understanding. To be sure, it won't happen without empirical data. History is replete with grand claims about the universe that cannot be tested, and so aren't worth terribly much; with no telescope at all, Copernicus' system itself might have remained "a complex exercise in mathematics," as Osiander wanted it to be. But perhaps Galileo's modest little device is whispering that the critical revolutions are the ones that happen inside the mind.
Last thought before we leave the museum: I signed the guest book with the FQX(i) logo. I'd like to think the great revolutionary would have approved.
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 23:00 GMT
Nice blog post -horrible fingers, with gruesome history.
I was at a museum not so long ago. They had on display the clay heads of three murderers, formed from moulds taken at their execution. Together with an accompanying internal memo from the museum around the time of their donation. It said "put these with the other grotesques not for public display."
Not sure if that means we are considered less sensitive today and so should be allowed see such things. Or is it to let us marvel at the insensitivity of earlier times when they were produced? I wonder.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 21:18 GMT
Amusing to me that it is 'two fingers' on display.
I wonder where the third one cut from his hand is. Is he 'giving the finger' somewhere else as well?
report post as inappropriate
FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 16:37 GMT
The CNN article linked-to says the museum has the third finger, too.
Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 21:53 GMT
Brendan,
Excellent! I didn't read to the end of the article. They have 3 fingers and a single tooth (why just one?). Have to wonder if there are any other stray body parts knocking around. Its a very strange, morally ambiguous, practice displaying human body parts.I don't know if it is highly respectful to Galileo or disrespectful. The difference is probably in the mind of the beholder..... Which makes the fingers simultaneously a grotesque and inappropriate treatment of any human remains while also being wonderful and appropriately fitting for the Great man. A superposition of states that is resolved by the choice of the observer.
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 07:55 GMT
William Orem wrote: "But perhaps the moral is that revolutions in knowledge come not from advanced instrumentation alone, but from ability to think outside the dogma..."
Let me give an example of thinking INSIDE the dogma. The observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, and the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength. Clearly the...
view entire post
William Orem wrote: "But perhaps the moral is that revolutions in knowledge come not from advanced instrumentation alone, but from ability to think outside the dogma..."
Let me give an example of thinking INSIDE the dogma. The observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, and the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/L to f'=(c+v)/L, where L is the wavelength. Clearly the speed of the light waves relative to the observer has shifted from c to c+v, but to admit this is tantamount to committing career suicide. So scientists resort to crimestop:
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 07:46 GMT
"Thinking outside the dogma" usually implies moving forward, towards a new, less false, theory. If Einstein's 1905 light postulate is the dogma, the "less false" theory is in the past, in the 18th century:
http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/wtundwg/Forschung/tagu
ngen/OWR_2006_10.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension of Newton's dynamics to light...
view entire post
"Thinking outside the dogma" usually implies moving forward, towards a new, less false, theory. If Einstein's 1905 light postulate is the dogma, the "less false" theory is in the past, in the 18th century:
http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/wtundwg/Forschung/tagu
ngen/OWR_2006_10.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten. A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light --which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell (1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner (1776-1833) and François Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect, is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian context."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 07:07 GMT
Thinking outside the dogma (and automatically becoming an unperson):
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.physics/ECqk
FKYIxH8/discussion
Bryan Wallace 1994: "At the very top of the pile of medieval theories will be Einstein's relativity theory that starts with the postulate that for some undefined abstract mystic reason, the speed of light is the same for all observers, no...
view entire post
Thinking outside the dogma (and automatically becoming an unperson):
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.physics/ECqk
FKYIxH8/discussion
Bryan Wallace 1994: "At the very top of the pile of medieval theories will be Einstein's relativity theory that starts with the postulate that for some undefined abstract mystic reason, the speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter how fast they or an observed object travels!"
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/2063601/physics/SpecL
etters1969-p361-367.pdf
RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE, Bryan G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters, 1969, pages 361-367, ABSTRACT: "Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c." INTRODUCTION: "There are three main theories about the relativity velocity of light in space. The Newtonian corpuscular theory is relativistic in the Galilean sense and postulates that the velocity is c+v relative to the observer. The ether theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the ether. The Einstein theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the observer. The Michelson-Morley experiment presents evidence against the ether theory and for the c+v theory. The c theory explains the results of this experiment by postulating ad hoc properties of space and time..."
http://users.navi.net/~rsc/physics/wallace/farce.txt
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v. [Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the text!]
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-4
George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 04:03 GMT
Seeing what the dogma tells us to see (Ignatius of Loyola principle):
Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, demonstrates how the speed (velocity) of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer (shifts from c to c+v) but does not see the variation - Divine Albert's Divine Theory tells him the speed of light should be "the same in all the reference frames":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUy
E2oD1w
Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "f'=f(1+v/c). Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."
Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 08:57 GMT
"revolutions in knowledge come not from advanced instrumentation alone, but from ability to think outside the dogma".
Galileo Galilei already compellingly anticipated the dogma of Cantor's infinite cardinalities.
Maybe, Galilean transformation will prove still valid. At least "Galilean Electrodynamics", Apeiron, Proc. NPA, Physics Essays, and FQXi essays may question the dogma of special non-Galilean relativity.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 13:08 GMT
"Special non-Galilean relativity" is an advanced malignant disease, Eckard. Even Einsteinians know it is wrong but... nothing can be done. It will die together with the death of our Civilization:
http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Th
eory-Science/dp/0618551050
Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p....
view entire post
"Special non-Galilean relativity" is an advanced malignant disease, Eckard. Even Einsteinians know it is wrong but... nothing can be done. It will die together with the death of our Civilization:
http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Th
eory-Science/dp/0618551050
Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp
/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 15:01 GMT
Pentcho,
Poincaré reportedly called Cantor's set theory a disease from which mankind will recover. Perhaps he did not enough for that cure. If you feel obliged to cure us from SR, you should not even shy back from the seemingly impossible up to questioning some putatively compelling experiments. How do you interpret Fig. 5 of my essay? I know, it does not fit into your paternoster-like repeated blend of quotes.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 17:20 GMT
Eckard,
I often have neither the time nor the energy to consider contradictory authors and experiments you refer me to. I hope you understand that. On the other hand, I defend a thesis that you, as an etherist, should welcome:
The speed of light relative to the observer varies with the speed of the observer.
Do you accept that? See this:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3653092
The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection, Olivier Darrigol: "It is clear from the context that Poincaré meant here to apply the postulate [of constancy of the speed of light] only in an ether-bound frame, in which case he could indeed state that it had been "accepted by everybody." In 1900 and in later writings he defined the apparent time of a moving observer in such a way that the velocity of light measured by this observer would be the same as if he were at rest (with respect to the ether). This does not mean, however, that he meant the postulate to apply in any inertial frame. From his point of view, the true velocity of light in a moving frame was not a constant but was given by the Galilean law of addition of velocities."
Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 20:28 GMT
Pentcho,
The speed of a propagating wave refers to the medium in which it propagates, not to its emitter and also not to any observer. How do you interpret Fig. 5 of my essay?
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 23, 2012 @ 21:09 GMT
You must be joking, Eckard. The question:
What is the speed of the wave relative to the medium?
is reasonable (if there is a medium), and the question:
What is the speed of the wave relative to the observer?
is also reasonable. However insofar as special relativity is concerned, only the second question is relevant. When relativists say:
"The speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer"
they implicitly refer to the speed of light RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER. If you don't understand that, things are hopeless.
Best regards, Pentcho
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 24, 2012 @ 20:08 GMT
Pentcho,
[The question] "What is the speed of the wave relative to the observer? is also reasonable." No. In that we should agree. No matter whether we consider a wave or for instance a car that moves with 100 km/h re ground along a street seen by two observers. The speed relative to any observer is changing and different from the speed relative to the speed relative to the other one. Constant speed re observer has been disproved e.g. by Shtyrkov's experiment with geostationary satellites. Any velocity is a distance divided by a timespan. It does not directly relate to an observer unless the observer is located at the beginning or the end of the distance. Einstein's SR is after Cantor's set theory the second example for something that continues to be accepted against common sense.
Let me now restrict to an acoustic wave. There is no doubt; Its speed of propagation refers to the medium in which it propagates. In case of em waves it does perhaps not matter whether or not there is an ether. I could also imagine them propagating within themselves. Einstein changed his opinion and did no longer deny an ether.
You mentioned someone in Bochum who found out that there were forgotten proponents of emission theory. This is not a surprise to me because they followed the Newtonian corpuscular idea of light. As an EE, I do not see any option but to consider electromagnetic waves as waves, as propagation of energy like in case of the obviously fictitious phonons, not as genuine particles.
Please do not evade looking at my Fig. 5. Maybe, Lorentz's interpretation of the experiment by Michelson and Morley was wrong.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
James A Putnam wrote on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 00:06 GMT
Dear William Orem,
"I'm posting this month from Italy, home-base of one of the most influential metaphysical systems in history--Roman Catholicism..."
Could you please explain more about the meaning of "...home-base of one of the most influential metaphysical systems in history--Roman Catholicism...". Its the word 'metaphysical' that prompts me to ask. I see it used rather loosely in meaning and I am wondering what your use of it communicates to us. I don't presume to know your use of it. I am not Catholic. Just wondering what you intended to communicate. Thank you.
James
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 04:24 GMT
Thank you James for putting a question that William Orem will hopefully answer more proficient than I. Let me already just add some details that should be known to everybody.
Metaphysics refers to what Aristotle appended as a supplement on physics to his ideas on philosophy. A PhD is a doctor of philosophy. Meanwhile, metaphysical means something speculative, something supernatural.
This negative judgment relates to the rejection of medieval scholastics which combined the Aristotelian dogmas with interpretations of the bible. Galileo Galilei was among those who questioned this rigid and infertile system. He provoked the pope and inquisition by successfully challenging Aristotle's arguments by means of reasoning and experiment.
At the time of Galileo, the dogmas of medieval scholastics were about as unquestionable as nowadays are Cantor's set theory and Einstein's theory of relativity.
It took centuries until the Catholic church was ready to at least in part accept Galileo's views.
An otherwise good Catholic textbook on the history of mathematics still denies any contribution of Galileo to mathematics.
Georg Cantor whose mother was Catholic, intended to be a good Catholic too. He asked cardinal Franzelin for confirmation of his infinitum creatum sive transfinitum - with no avail.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Blogger William Orem replied on Aug. 25, 2012 @ 14:32 GMT
James,
Thanks for the note. By “metaphysical system” I simply mean a body of beliefs pertaining to things thought to be beyond the physical world: spirits, angels, and the like. Plenty of individuals, and groups, have put forth metaphysical systems across the centuries, but few have been as influential as Roman Catholicism, which boasts over a billion adherents.
William
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 03:49 GMT
Eckard Blumschein,
Dear Eckard,
You are a very good source for reverence material. William's response made his use of the word metaphysical clear. That is what I askd for. Your own contrbution prompts me to ask this: What about the official standard for the Catholic Church as represented by the metaphysics of St. Thomas. My readings about from years ago was that it was quite logical. That may be anathema to sugges with what appears to be the modern meaning of Metapysics.
As I recall it, it is the rigorous study of first principles before physics. I know that it was appended to physics as After-Physics, but, my understanding, upon reading it, was that logically proceeded physics. It was not about angels and such. It didn't even appear to me to be dogmatic. I think back about it and I see two very different meanings ascribed to the word meta-physics.
For readers just picking up on this, I am not Catholic. I don't have a religion. However, I do not subscribe to the view that works by religious leaders are to be scientifically discounted, perhaps even held up as anti-scientific. I point any reader to the book by St. Augustine titled 'Concerning The Teacher'.
Choose to not accept his final conclusion about the role of Jesus, but, learn from his analysis. He presented a solution to one of the most important problems to be answered scientifically. The problem was: How do we learn?
In an honest effort to head off anti-religous reactions. My point is made for scientific reasons. I would argue that Augustine's solution is supported by physics empirical evidence. I read his works after coming to the same conclusion from considering empirical physics evidence. Be that as it may, my question to Eckard has to do with the historical development, especially with regard to the Catholic Church, of Metaphysics.
James
report post as inappropriate
James A Putnam replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 04:43 GMT
Eckard,
I had some typos and more. I am reproducing the beginning of the text with corrections:
You are a very good source for reference material. William's response made his use of the word metaphysical clear. That is what I asked for. Your own contribution prompts me to ask this: What about the official standard for the Catholic Church as represented by the Metaphysics of St. Thomas. My readings of it from years ago was that it was logical. That may be anathema to suggest in contrast to what appears to be the modern meaning of Metaphysics.
As I recall it, it is the rigorous study of first principles before physics. I know that it was appended to physics as After-Physics, but, my understanding, upon reading it, was that it logically preceded physics. ...
The rest of my text is good enough.
James
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 09:30 GMT
James,
"[After-Physics] logically preceded physics". Doesn't this depend on deductive vs. inductive approach alias central to caudal or top down vs. the other way round? There were many centuries of mysticism between Augustinus (354-430) who lived in northern Afrika and Thomas of Aquino (1225-1274) whose scholastic "Summa theologicae" is as far as I know still a basis of Catholicism. Augustinus was still pretty reasonable.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Eckard Blumschein replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 15:11 GMT
It was Andronikos of Rhodos who put the so called first philosophy of the work of Aristotle behind his physics.
While the mother of Augustinus was Christian, his philosophical orientation begun with Manichäism and Neoplatonism. It was bishop Ambrosius in Milano whose synthesis between Neoplatonism and Christianity made him a Christ.
This way, the ideas by Platon (427-347 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC) were incorporated in Roman catholicism which ruled the Roman empire.
Just today an interesting exhibition "Otto the Great and the Roman Empire" was opened in Magdeburg.
Thomas of Aquino canonized the Aristotelian philosophy and its further development in the Arab-Muslim world to the extent it does fit into the Christian tenets. In 1897, Leo XIII declared his dogmas the only true philosophy of Catholic church.
Notice the word canonic.
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 15:50 GMT
Dear Eckard,
I read their works in depth probably 30 years ago. I think I was expecting dogma. That is not what I read. Speaking only about the metaphysics of those eras, the thinkers were definitely not less logical nor less intelligent than our teachers of today. The development of first principles was important for educated persons to learn. My opinion today is that the early metaphysics should be studied before physics. I think physics of today would not be suffering from disunity and unworldly, probably unnatural, theoretical inventions if its proponents respected early metaphysics.
The reason I speak of early metaphysics is because I consider metaphysics to have lost its way when it became divided into separate types of 'metaphysics'. Today the word appears to be used very often to mean silly-physics. That circumstance represents, for me, a breakdown in the English language. Today's lack of respect for and lack of study of early metaphysics is not an intellectual advancement. It is the removal of an important part of logic from the development of theoretical physics.
That is what I think. I also think that I should thank william Orem for his response and for his patience. So, I will end my contribution to this discussion in his blog. Thank you Eckard for adding your knowledge to it. If you write more I will be sure to read it.
James
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
John Merryman wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 02:38 GMT
Three thousand years ago, monotheism was pretty cutting edge logic, in a world of tribal deities and anthropomorphic superstitions. Now it's dogma. Like string theory, it can't be proved, or disproved.
Logic is inductive and deductive. First we extract principles from experience and evidence, then apply these insights to explaining other phenomena. Dogma is a function of ignorance; That of having forgotten the process by which principles are arrived at in the first place and assigning them metaphysical qualities. The Platonic realm is as metaphysical as the Gates of Heaven.
Obviously early humans wrestled with the experience of being aware and trying to explain and define it. That groups of individuals could function as a larger unit was a given. If any of us were working with such basic information, we would have arrived at conclusions similar to the ancients. It is a conceit of the greatest magnitude to look down on our forebearers for embellishing their insights and then think our speculations are free of frivolity.
What is more obvious to life on this planet, than the sun moving across the sky. Flowers turn to follow it. It is not theory, it is observation. Epicycles were extremely accurate models of the motions of celestial objects. When anomalies were detected, it didn't mean the theory was wrong, only that there was an as yet undetected epicycle and the search would be on for where it was needed. What Galileo did, in proposing a heliocentric model, wasn't really to overthrow the system. Actually he simply made the motion of the earth itself another cycle in the model and it simplified everything else.
As with the current contest, we all are not so much looking to overthrow the model, as to figure out what has been overlooked that would make all the rest fit together better and not need as much complexity.
The final arbiter is not math, but Ockham's Razor.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny Jedi wrote on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 12:21 GMT
Hello to all,
It is an intresting article.
I beleive that the strings were a beautiful idea.But it is time to converge in 3D with a pure deterministic way.
I can understand that it is difficult for the string theorists. The strings must be sorted with determinism and after the good correlations can be inserted.
If my spheres take the place of strings, it is logic. The phase of replacement can be harmonious. The jobs can be respected. It is there that the convergences can be interesting for the replacement of strings. But a good Occham Razzor is essential like says John. The uncompleteness is rational. We are just fdar of our walls.
The strings were a good idea, my spheres are a better ideas !!! Like it or not my friends, it is the pure rational reality.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.