tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post8998189454405766853..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: The Philosophie of GapsSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82770863609666082112013-04-15T12:37:56.525-04:002013-04-15T12:37:56.525-04:00Actually the foundations of GR are much more inter...Actually the foundations of GR are much more interesting than that.<br /><br />>> Rastus Odinga Odinga: "<i>spacetime is curved, and that fact is responsible for the mistaken notion of "gravitational force". This is GR, and if you want I can readily turn these words into mathematics...</i>"<br /><br />>> Steve Carlip: "<i>It's true that the particulars of Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12843348520853108444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-32253512507779330902013-04-05T22:28:41.219-04:002013-04-05T22:28:41.219-04:00I would like to take an example, all our physical ...I would like to take an example, all our physical theories (even Newtonian deterministic theories) requires the assumption of free-will - the freedom of choice in choosing the preparation and measurement apparatus.<br />So I don't think neuroscience, based on the deterministic mechanisms, can explain (not to mention to refute) free-will. A theory simply cannot refute its assumptions.tytunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05777947785613061617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-75113345752957384122013-04-05T01:46:59.383-04:002013-04-05T01:46:59.383-04:00You are right that verbal arguments without the re...You are right that verbal arguments without the relevant mathematical equations are not really progressive in the established areas.<br />However, on the other hand, one of the point of philosophy is that there is possibly no such thing as "established" knowledge. It is possible that these established theories, however successful, are still illusions that are based on erroneous tytunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05777947785613061617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-8251134071346201702013-03-27T18:58:20.756-04:002013-03-27T18:58:20.756-04:00Thanks for this great post! :)
Recently found thi...Thanks for this great post! :)<br /><br />Recently found this wonderful quote from Søren Kierkegaard in THE Cognitive Neuroscience book by Gazzaniga, Ivry and Mangun. :<br /><br />That a man should simply and profoundly say that he cannot understand how consciousness comes into existence— is perfectly natural. But that a man should glue his eye to a microscope and stare and stare and stare— and https://www.blogger.com/profile/06317671285224813560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-87248344789520208612013-03-24T23:12:46.618-04:002013-03-24T23:12:46.618-04:00Coming to this way late, but: DocG, you wrote, &qu...Coming to this way late, but: DocG, you wrote, "I would add that just as we can't have a brain without a mind to observe it, we can't have a mind without a brain to produce it." Surely the latter clause is begging the question, isn't it? How could we know this? (even assuming you're willing to define "brain" broadly enough to include the inhabitants of Beta Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13894825668610190284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-44386733795060003422013-03-22T13:58:22.608-04:002013-03-22T13:58:22.608-04:00Rastus Odinga Odinga said
Physicists do philosoph...Rastus Odinga Odinga said<br /><br /><i>Physicists do philosophy all the time, and they almost always make a hash of it. Consider the following example: "The basic idea of GR is the equivalence principle". I used to believe this, and got into an argument about it with a philosopher. It took me a long time to accept this, but the fact is: I was annihilated in that argument. GR is the Steve Carliphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13292789900279217821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-80469025253314937652013-03-22T01:09:59.981-04:002013-03-22T01:09:59.981-04:00I'd like to know why you think there's no ...I'd like to know why you think there's no fundamental mystery about self-awareness. Here's my speculative try.<br /><br />Yes, we do know how to make a self-aware machine in principle. We do know how to make a machine that has a model of another system. Now let that system be "itself".<br /><br />Many models of motor planning by animals have something called "Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13566339300164159622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-60066674840866494902013-03-20T18:02:44.881-04:002013-03-20T18:02:44.881-04:00I think the core misunderstanding behind the occas...I think the core misunderstanding behind the occasional clashes between scientists and philosophers is the idea that both are after the same kinds of knowledge, from where the idea comes that once science has sufficiently established itself within a particular context, philosophers ought to 'clear the turf'.<br /><br />But I think the notion is a simple category error. Science is, Jochenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07418841955052661428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-86093951210182700792013-03-19T17:33:29.277-04:002013-03-19T17:33:29.277-04:00http://www.tony5m17h.net/IFAEinstein.html
Since E...http://www.tony5m17h.net/IFAEinstein.html<br /><br />Since Einstein referred to Spinoza as a "religious genius ... distinguished by ... cosmic religious feeling", my comments will come from a Spinoza - Pantheist - Taoist perspective. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:<br /><br />"… A defining feature of pantheism is allegedly that God is wholly immanent … John Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16525125349739950426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-38442281534438385512013-03-19T08:25:55.231-04:002013-03-19T08:25:55.231-04:00@Rastus:
I said ""One of the basic prin... @Rastus:<br /><br />I said ""One of the basic principles of physics is symmetry, and the equivalence principle is the symmetry behind the derivation of GR."<br /><br />Rastus said: "This is standard physicist mumbo-jumbo. When you try to analyse any of these assertions, they just dissolve into verbiage."<br /><br />Look at it this way. There are two parts to general Peter Shorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13823970640202949073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-34747102085281642672013-03-18T13:21:25.261-04:002013-03-18T13:21:25.261-04:00An example of language development is perhaps in o...An example of language development is perhaps in order?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.eskesthai.com/2013/03/adinkra-symbolsphysics.html" rel="nofollow">Adinkra Symbols(physics)</a><br /><br />As a theoretical physicist how complete the process for you to see that mathematically you have indeed gone the full range of it's analytical basis, to have seen it all based in a image?<br /><br />It PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-37977799114728351992013-03-18T12:40:34.951-04:002013-03-18T12:40:34.951-04:00Leon:Does philosophy fill the gaps in mathematical...<a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-philosophie-of-gaps.html?showComment=1363584588073#c3440859282312670963" rel="nofollow">Leon</a>:<i>Does philosophy fill the gaps in mathematical physics with words, or does physics fill the gaps in natural philosophy with mathematics?</i><br /><br />I do not see it this way. The language derived from the equations needs to be exact, so in PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-53524008666407864122013-03-18T12:34:18.878-04:002013-03-18T12:34:18.878-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-45171001647669538132013-03-18T10:06:25.167-04:002013-03-18T10:06:25.167-04:00The essential problem in the relationship between ...The essential problem in the relationship between physics and philosophy is that physics, as with science in general, presupposes certain philosophical views: that there is a real world independent of subjective observers, that this world can at least partly be represented by mathematical laws, and that scientists can improve their understanding of those laws by doing experiments (this is the Michael Goginshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07300917064580760923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-34408592823126709632013-03-18T01:29:48.073-04:002013-03-18T01:29:48.073-04:00Does philosophy fill the gaps in mathematical phys...Does philosophy fill the gaps in mathematical physics with words, or does physics fill the gaps in natural philosophy with mathematics?Leonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12711285313237764064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65956794745436236692013-03-17T21:50:11.343-04:002013-03-17T21:50:11.343-04:00Peter Shor said:
"One of the basic principle...Peter Shor said:<br /><br />"One of the basic principles of physics is symmetry, and the equivalence principle is the symmetry behind the derivation of GR."<br /><br />This is standard physicist mumbo-jumbo. When you try to analyse any of these assertions, they just dissolve into verbiage. Our hostess here very justly said: "If somebody can’t write down a definition for expressionsRastus Odinga Odingahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615544434035028500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81811344323226064662013-03-17T19:30:40.514-04:002013-03-17T19:30:40.514-04:00Aldous Huxley: about consistencyAldous Huxley: <a href="http://i.imgur.com/pjFLvTJ.jpg" rel="nofollow">about consistency</a>Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-16556682028767954532013-03-17T11:23:07.248-04:002013-03-17T11:23:07.248-04:00Arun: "Their way around the subject-object di...Arun: "Their way around the subject-object dichotomy I think is to say that the basis of all existence is an undifferentiated awareness. Of course, I may not understand what they were saying. But what is beyond dispute is that to them, mind (minus awareness) is physical."<br /><br />Sounds to me more like the other way around, that the mind, as "undifferentiated awareness" is DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-78124535495396399762013-03-17T11:05:45.711-04:002013-03-17T11:05:45.711-04:00What I find particularly interesting is so much of...What I find particularly interesting is so much of the excited speculation regarding "the multiverse" and similar constructs. Brian Greene is especially amusing in this respect, since his ideas remind me so much of Carl Sagan, with his talk of "billions and billions" of stars (or galaxies) while his eyes are literally popping out of his head.<br /><br />Translate that into &DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-86458317158796569002013-03-17T10:47:39.727-04:002013-03-17T10:47:39.727-04:00Re: Rastus
The fact that there are philosophers w...Re: Rastus<br /><br />The fact that there are philosophers who don't believe <i>the basic idea of GR is the equivalence principle</i> greatly reduces my opinion of philosophers. One of the basic principles of physics is symmetry, and the equivalence principle is the symmetry behind the derivation of GR. If the philosopher denies that the equivalence principle has anything to do with GR, he isPeter Shorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13823970640202949073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-91071076231503351502013-03-17T09:32:01.786-04:002013-03-17T09:32:01.786-04:00Dear Bee, you are making a big mistake, one which ...Dear Bee, you are making a big mistake, one which I understand because I have made it myself. <br /><br />Physicists do philosophy all the time, and they almost always make a hash of it. Consider the following example: "The basic idea of GR is the equivalence principle". I used to believe this, and got into an argument about it with a philosopher. It took me a long time to accept this, Rastus Odinga Odingahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615544434035028500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-88653823951686430992013-03-17T08:12:00.697-04:002013-03-17T08:12:00.697-04:00Re:mind-body dichotomy: per some ancient Indian t...Re:mind-body dichotomy: per some ancient Indian thought, the mind - the thing that produces the running commentary in your head, the stream of thoughts.- is just as physical as your brain. So is any higher reasoning power. Their way around the subject-object dichotomy I think is to say that the basis of all existence is an undifferentiated awareness. Of course, I may not understand what they Arunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-3698391569269865032013-03-17T08:05:06.492-04:002013-03-17T08:05:06.492-04:00Effective field theory may have banished philosoph...Effective field theory may have banished philosophers, but still has a problem of mass scales, which the non discovery of SUSY at LHC only exacerbates.Arunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-84413817121008601572013-03-17T06:57:13.818-04:002013-03-17T06:57:13.818-04:00Tabula rasa (Latin: scraped tablet or clean slate)...<i><b>Tabula rasa</b> (Latin: scraped tablet or clean slate) refers to the epistemological thesis that individual human beings are born with no innate or built-in mental content, in a word, "blank", and that their entire resource of knowledge is built up gradually from their experiences and sensory perceptions of the outside world. </i>PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-55722759575476498572013-03-17T06:50:51.831-04:002013-03-17T06:50:51.831-04:00http://physicalworld.org/restless_universe/figs/fi... http://physicalworld.org/restless_universe/figs/fig_1_2lrg.gif <br /><br /><i>These are not distractions from trying to understand physics, but are the tools needed to make that understanding possible. It is only through using mathematics that a secure understanding can be achieved. When you see an equation, welcome its concision and clarity and try to ‘read’ the equation just as you would PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.com