Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Way up this thread I chose as an example the dual nature of light precisely for its implications.
I claimed that this is an example which can hardly be explained rationally.
I showed that brilliant scientists doubted for years, even as both theoretical and experimental base was already there.
Why? Because explaining such fundamental topic by means of probabilities is -- weird. In this particular case, it's not just that we wouldn't hold the ultimate secret of the universe; the problem is that we don't quite know what photons, or quanta are, even at a functional level. And the practical applications in work today are only using the tip of the theoretical iceberg.
More still, the philosophical issues resulted from this are absolutely fascinating and show, not the limits of rational thinking (on the contrary, I always claimed myself of rational argumenting, not from mystical ), but the complexity of the universe even as we know it and the irrationality of using terms such as irrational vs some rational, hard-fact science.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 03:38:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or like I already said before, there is but a small part of the religious phenomenon that I can safely call "subjective". The rest of it, be that the creation (not that idiocy called intelligent design, mind you), the spiritual, or the mystical side, I hold my judgement and I don't exclude at all that sometime in the future they will be subject to rational, skeptical, analythical approach.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 03:46:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Related to this, one big obstacle will have to be removed, and that is science being reduced to materialism and reducing the world to what can be seen. The fact that scientifical positivism became the religion of the modern days, literally killing the man, doesn't mean it will always be like that. We're known to be a resilient species :)

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 04:03:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yawn. I've seen that movie before.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 1st, 2009 at 08:41:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, you've probably seen it here, argued way better and leaner than I tried to.

I begin to realize that you indeed have debates of almost anything.

The newcomer's guide should contain an explicite recommandation for him/her to search the archives before entering in or starting any kind of debate :)

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 at 09:51:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ValentinD:
Why? Because explaining such fundamental topic by means of probabilities is -- weird. In this particular case, it's not just that we wouldn't hold the ultimate secret of the universe; the problem is that we don't quite know what photons, or quanta are, even at a functional level. And the practical applications in work today are only using the tip of the theoretical iceberg.
At a functional level, you get particles when you decompose the hilbert space of spaces of a complex system in terms of irreducible representations of the appropriate group of spatio-temporal symmetries.

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 at 04:37:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Did you just say weird?

European Tribune - The world is weirder than you ever thought

In other words: it is an experimentally verifiable fact that, if God doesn't play dice, 1) the world out there has spooky action at a distance; 2) you are not allowed to ask about the values of quantities you don't measure; 3) if you considered "what if" you had actually measured an additional quantity, the values of the ones you did measure would change.


The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 at 04:40:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ValentinD:
Way up this thread I chose as an example the dual nature of light precisely for its implications.
Which are? Hopefully something more substantial than
this is an example which can hardly be explained rationally.
If you cannot explain an experiment rationally, you'll have to revise the logic of your attempt at rational explanation and, if that is not faulty, examine the (often unstated) philosophical assumptions and maybe drop some of them.
I showed that brilliant scientists doubted for years, even as both theoretical and experimental base was already there.
Why?
Because they had to give up a lot of metaphysical baggage. Some of the creators of QM were never able to do it. Einstein and Schrödinger among them.
the philosophical issues resulted from this are absolutely fascinating and show, not the limits of rational thinking
Wait, I thought
that this is an example which can hardly be explained rationally.


The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 at 08:45:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Like the good semanticist that you are, you certainly realized that the latter sentence used "rational" in a positivist/realist understanding, while the former used it in an idealist one.

Unfortunately I had not read previous debates here on quantum mechanics ontology, related metaphysics and so on.
Or else I would have directly referred you to those debates and avoid repeating here what has largely been said before.
Suffice it to say that ontological and epistemological interpretations of the different quantum mechanics theories are well there and are not disproved by "rational hard-fact" science. At that level there is hardly any "hard fact" and the notion of rational depends on your chosen interpretation. That's what I also meant with my example, which I gave with no intention to provoke such a debate, but just to show that science is far from being a hard-fact field.

That said, it's your right to think you can leave metaphysics and the spiritual out of science, or classify them as irrational, and my right to call that positivism and blind materialism.
Others also did this before, and subsequent debates were far from solved.

Other diaries will probably deal with the issue, and this is definitely not the place.
I can hardly find a post in this diary, so it's become unmanageable and that's a pity, it was originally about improving ET's presentation and clarifying agenda issues.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 at 10:39:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
i think it's an important part of ET's 'knowing itself', and the facet being presently studied is tolerance toward diversity. i'm glad not all ET is so meta, but it makes a nice break from oohing and aahing about the latest ghastly phenomena coming down the newspike, lol.

yes other diaries will return to this, because, atheism's victories notwithstanding, there is more religion than ever in today's world, (most bad, probably), and religion has more influence than ever on politics that affect all of us, faithful or not.

where better to debate its sins and virtues than this forum, where several nations (and belief systems) meet?

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 at 11:12:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Suffice it to say that ontological and epistemological interpretations of the different quantum mechanics theories are well there and are not disproved by "rational hard-fact" science. At that level there is hardly any "hard fact" and the notion of rational depends on your chosen interpretation.

Scientifically, they are the same theory. They make the same experimental predictions, and their equations reduce to each other. The debate between them is a non-debate, as far as the science is concerned.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 at 04:33:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... at least we settled one thing: we've still no idea what a photon really is :)

Besides all this, another question come to mind:
how come a whole range of progressive can be so idealistic in social, or political matters, and so down-to-earth materialistic in science matters.
You all jumped at my throat when I was singing praises to God Reason and pragmatic ThirdWayers, yet now those same people do exactly the same about science: all of a sudden, pragmatic, hard-fact, purely-rational approach is no longer damned.
I proclaim my idealism about science, and all I hear is Vade Retro!

What is a progressive in the end, is it an idealist, or not? Or the idealism is limited to the working class? The philosophical dreamer continuously building new, better worlds, is in reality reduced to hard fact science and restricting philosophy to production-means ownership issues.

The conclusion would be that poemless was right: progressive is no progressive really; it's just another word for marxist.

Why not call a cat what it is then.

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)

by ValentinD (walentijn arobase free spot franša) on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 at 10:51:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
how come a whole range of progressive can be so idealistic in social, or political matters, and so down-to-earth materialistic in science matters.

Who's idealistic around here?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 at 10:57:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ValentinD:
we've still no idea what a photon really is :)
It depends on what you mean by "really".

Can you calculate a phonon dispersion relation, by the way?

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 at 11:01:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
how come a whole range of progressive can be so idealistic in social, or political matters, and so down-to-earth materialistic in science matters.

Because science deals in facts, predictive power and universally applicable theories. Politics, by its nature, does not have the luxury of universally applicable theories and easily controlled experiments. That is not to say that science cannot inform politics - it obviously can, just as science and politics can inform religious dogma (the other way around, though... not so much).

But attempting to turn politics into a physical science with universally applicable theories and three-significant-figures predictive power has historically not turned out so well. Just as attempts to turn science into a political or religious enterprise has never really been terribly productive.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 at 04:29:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I, personally, feel extra-ordinarily bored by your comments.
by Lily (put - lilyalmond - here <a> yahaah.france) on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 at 07:23:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's your prerogative. Me, I feel extraordinarily exasperated with all the attempts to claim the mantle of science to justify personal superstitions.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 at 08:04:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series