Please bear with me on this one! A lot of it was written while half-asleep, and most of it pondered over while trying to get to sleep. And failing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So i was talking to a Barstool in a parallel universe. I was saying to him that because the universe is so full of stuff, its a wonder we can even move. We have electrons and neutrons and protons and photons (and so on) then we have all the forces. On top of that we have dark matter and dark energy, allegedly filling in a lot of the space in between.
Hot damn, It's a wonder that we can even twitch in an environment that on a "higher level of understanding" has the consistancy of, say, syrup.
To make things even more convoluted, string-theory posits that we have 11-dimensions, instead of just the four we feel comfortable with (some say that these extra dimensions may be what makes up all that 'dark' stuff).
The Barstool nods sagely at me, and proceeds to beat me within an inch of my life with the human he was perched on.
I wake up to find a human beating up on me with a barstool, however, and so cosmic balance is restored.
Fucking about with false physics to try and make meaningful insights into ourselves and our 'societies' is only going to get you burned. If you monumentally fuck up, you may be burned twice.
I do not profess to have any real understanding of quantum physics, string theory, or any of the new areas of research in Physics. The only contribution I can make to any discussion of this right now is this: Until the late nineteenth century, as I understand my history, many of the leading physicists were actually more philosophical than scientific.
The recent past has seen physics dominated by men of a mathematical bent, resulting in some of the greatest (at least better known) advances in the field, such as the greater understanding of nuclear physics, Einsteins theories on relativity, and a deeper look into the "building blocks" of matter (quarks, mesons etc.) Many of these are backed up with prominant mathematical equations.
The very latest theories put forward seem sometimes (to a layman like meself) to be returning to a more philosophical look at the field. Quantum theory and String theory, as I used in the paragraph above, seem to be a hip new way for us log-heads to look like we really know what we're talking about, without much chance of being called out on it. And its being used in a totally innapropriate way, as evidenced on many other threads on this board.
One final example. I read somewhere a few years back that a couple of guys had used one of these more philosophical branches of 'New Physics' to prove that Einstein could be wrong with E=MC2, by showing that light can travel at different speeds, and is not constant, at least at all times and all places. I haven't heard anything more about it, so I'm assuming it was all bullshit, maybe one of you has?
The point to all this is this: First, I wouldn't mind if someone could try to break down how this may apply, if at all, to the common 'discordian' theories of perceptions and grids. Second: If I have made some fundamental error somewhere in this post, I will gladly edit, or at least discuss it properly, because I do like to learn new stuff, but anything I can ever catch on the internets goes right over my head.
I had a silly thought once a few years back while half asleep, imaging the many worlds theory in effect, as each point on a grid, which, in turn extended in 11 dimensions, and further, was also infinite as each point on the grid also contained a further infinite grids etc.
Each thought, relavence and relationship both possible and not possible could fit somewhere (and more appropriately, anywhere) on the grid being that any relationship could be established.
This applied to worlds, timelines, thoughts, perceptions, etc. it was on on the same grid.
Then I started thinking about the neurological brain patterns, in how, synapses that fire together wire together and establish relationships based on use, much like the discordian "grid theories".
After a while I got to thinking that each one of these points n a grid could easilly be determined as a consciousness and that interaction between them would be what is considered established consensus reality, however, there is no such thing but the apparrent relationships between them seem to indicate otherwise to the perciever who is under the impression that things like barstools are real because they are reinforced by our own mirrors of perception we find with other grid points (ie relationships between consciousnesses).
Soon after I decided that you aren't even a brain in a jar because that too was just another relationship on the grid, but rather, just a point on the grid of eternity.
Then I decided to punch myself in the nuts to remind me how pretentious I was being, becuase whether I agree with it or not, I have not transcended belief in that the barstool is indeed real, and it will still hurt if someone hits me with it.
That's about the best I can give you on relating discordian junk to fake physics, both of which are just other points on the grid, neither being more important nor more correct than another, only relative to your point on the grid.
And this is why I wanted the barstool emoticon.
:barstool:
Quote from: Ambassador KAOS on April 12, 2007, 10:16:31 AM
I had a silly thought once a few years back while half asleep, imaging the many worlds theory in effect, as each point on a grid, which, in turn extended in 11 dimensions, and further, was also infinite as each point on the grid also contained a further infinite grids etc.
Each thought, relavence and relationship both possible and not possible could fit somewhere (and more appropriately, anywhere) on the grid being that any relationship could be established.
This applied to worlds, timelines, thoughts, perceptions, etc. it was on on the same grid.
Then I started thinking about the neurological brain patterns, in how, synapses that fire together wire together and establish relationships based on use, much like the discordian "grid theories".
After a while I got to thinking that each one of these points n a grid could easilly be determined as a consciousness and that interaction between them would be what is considered established consensus reality, however, there is no such thing but the apparrent relationships between them seem to indicate otherwise to the perciever who is under the impression that things like barstools are real because they are reinforced by our own mirrors of perception we find with other grid points (ie relationships between consciousnesses).
Soon after I decided that you aren't even a brain in a jar because that too was just another relationship on the grid, but rather, just a point on the grid of eternity.
Then I decided to punch myself in the nuts to remind me how pretentious I was being, becuase whether I agree with it or not, I have not transcended belief in that the barstool is indeed real, and it will still hurt if someone hits me with it.
That's about the best I can give you on relating discordian junk to fake physics, both of which are just other points on the grid, neither being more important nor more correct than another, only relative to your point on the grid.
And this is why I wanted the barstool emoticon.
:barstool:
Shut the fuck up.
Thanks.
Quote from: Ambassador KAOS on April 12, 2007, 10:16:31 AM
I had a silly thought once a few years back while half asleep, imaging the many worlds theory in effect, as each point on a grid, which, in turn extended in 11 dimensions, and further, was also infinite as each point on the grid also contained a further infinite grids etc.
Each thought, relavence and relationship both possible and not possible could fit somewhere (and more appropriately, anywhere) on the grid being that any relationship could be established.
This applied to worlds, timelines, thoughts, perceptions, etc. it was on on the same grid.
Then I started thinking about the neurological brain patterns, in how, synapses that fire together wire together and establish relationships based on use, much like the discordian "grid theories".
After a while I got to thinking that each one of these points n a grid could easilly be determined as a consciousness and that interaction between them would be what is considered established consensus reality, however, there is no such thing but the apparrent relationships between them seem to indicate otherwise to the perciever who is under the impression that things like barstools are real because they are reinforced by our own mirrors of perception we find with other grid points (ie relationships between consciousnesses).
Soon after I decided that you aren't even a brain in a jar because that too was just another relationship on the grid, but rather, just a point on the grid of eternity.
Then I decided to punch myself in the nuts to remind me how pretentious I was being, becuase whether I agree with it or not, I have not transcended belief in that the barstool is indeed real, and it will still hurt if someone hits me with it.
That's about the best I can give you on relating discordian junk to fake physics, both of which are just other points on the grid, neither being more important nor more correct than another, only relative to your point on the grid.
And this is why I wanted the barstool emoticon.
:barstool:
FAIL.
Quote from: Payne on April 12, 2007, 04:49:33 AM
I do not profess to have any real understanding of quantum physics, string theory, or any of the new areas of research in Physics. The only contribution I can make to any discussion of this right now is this: Until the late nineteenth century, as I understand my history, many of the leading physicists were actually more philosophical than scientific.
You are right here in one aspect and wrong in another. You are right in the sense that something like the homo universalis (people like da vinci, descartes, pascal) does not exist anymore. the simple reason is that the material has become to complex to be an expert in many fields.
However (theoretical) physics itself has become more philosophical. The reason is that until 1900, physicists did experiments and then tried to understand them. With the advance of quantum theory and general relativity, the strange situation has appeared that theoretical physics is more advanced then experimental physics. this automatically makes physics more philosophical then before. moreover, nowadays we get closer and closer to using physics to answer the prime philosophical questions of say the 18th century like: what is space? what is time? how did the universe begin? etc. the language in which physicists talk about these problems is mathematics, but the discusion is philosophical. (Of course on could wonder if mathematics is the right language for this purpose)
Quote
One final example. I read somewhere a few years back that a couple of guys had used one of these more philosophical branches of 'New Physics' to prove that Einstein could be wrong with E=MC2, by showing that light can travel at different speeds, and is not constant, at least at all times and all places. I haven't heard anything more about it, so I'm assuming it was all bullshit, maybe one of you has?
First of all: there are
many people who claim einstein was wrong, just for the sake of it. most of these people have no idea what they're talking about (it gives you 10 points; http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html )
There are some more serious people who have worked with variable speed of light theories (moffat and others). however evidence for this approach is completely absent and as far as I can judge no one except moffat himself takes this idea very seriously. (but it got him a lot of media attention)
Has it become more complex though? Well, obviously, to a degree it has, but too complex for a gifted individual to understand and be able to work in several fields? I don't think so.
What has happened is that Universities in the 18th and 19th century moved away from education and became suppliers for the management class of capitalism, specializing the needs of all major fields in such a way that comprehensive knowledge itself became a monopoly held by the governing elite. Call it a reaction to the Enlightenment and the last Renaissance men, if you will. Knowledge monopolies are one thing capitalism refuses to acknowledge the existence of, because its one of the main mechanisms of hidden power among its elite.
Quote from: Cain on April 12, 2007, 01:48:07 PM
Has it become more complex though? Well, obviously, to a degree it has, but too complex for a gifted individual to understand and be able to work in several fields? I don't think so.
In a sense you're right; I certainly think it has become more difficult, but if you're smart enough...
Quote
What has happened is that Universities in the 18th and 19th century moved away from education and became suppliers for the management class of capitalism, specializing the needs of all major fields in such a way that comprehensive knowledge itself became a monopoly held by the governing elite. Call it a reaction to the Enlightenment and the last Renaissance men, if you will. Knowledge monopolies are one thing capitalism refuses to acknowledge the existence of, because its one of the main mechanisms of hidden power among its elite.
very true, but i don't realy see how it is related to the above..
Another thing that certainly is important is the pressure on researchers to publish. If you persue a scientiffic career (in physics, biology, chemestry, medicine...) you must publish articles. and if you want to have any hope of becoming a (assistant) professor, you mst publish articles that are cited by many people. So many young researchers are almost desperately trying to write this article that will make them famous (enough) (You usually get 1-2 years to achieve this). In other words: each hour you spend not working on your area of expertise, will diminish your chances of becoming a professor.
Well I've only had time for a brief glance through this, I have to go catch a train to Edinburgh in a minute, and won't be back until monday.
Looks interesting though. Thanks guys!
Payne, just a bit of info: Yes, a physicist has managed to slow light down (http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html). However, Einstien didn't say that light couldn't be slowed, he said that nothing can go faster. He posited ight as a "constant" merley because the numbers worked out that way. So far, faster-than-light travel has not been shown to be possible (never mind what those QUIP junkies say). Slower-than-light travel, however, happens all the time.
Quote from: LMNO on April 12, 2007, 02:22:18 PM
Payne, just a bit of info: Yes, a physicist has managed to slow light down (http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html). However, Einstien didn't say that light couldn't be slowed, he said that nothing can go faster. He posited ight as a "constant" merley because the numbers worked out that way. So far, faster-than-light travel has not been shown to be possible (never mind what those QUIP junkies say). Slower-than-light travel, however, happens all the time.
The constant speed of light of einstein is always referring to the speed of light in vacuum. There the speed (according to him) is really constant. and the maximum speed. These experiments of slowing light down, are all related to slowing light in a cerain medium. (and it goes completely according to the rules)
I can only agree with you. Thanks for the clarification.
Quote from: Bo on April 12, 2007, 02:20:25 PM
Another thing that certainly is important is the pressure on researchers to publish. If you persue a scientiffic career (in physics, biology, chemestry, medicine...) you must publish articles. and if you want to have any hope of becoming a (assistant) professor, you mst publish articles that are cited by many people. So many young researchers are almost desperately trying to write this article that will make them famous (enough) (You usually get 1-2 years to achieve this). In other words: each hour you spend not working on your area of expertise, will diminish your chances of becoming a professor.
I just read an article talking about how there is a huge shift in publishing from scientific journals to blogs. This of course makes it much harder to sift through the ca ca but it has the advantage of having a tremendous audience size with interactive input.
It's been going on for years of course, but according the mag it was stated that it has become a burden among even renouned scientists not to have the advantages of the internet and thus forsake the illusion of credibility associated with a magazine or journal.
Though the article itself was not very enlightening (dur, internet makes 4 smart) interestingly enough this was an article published in a physical manually operated magazine making me think it was not designed to put a positive spin on using the internet in their own best interests as it clearly wouldn't be.
"Science magazine publishes: stop reading science magazines!"
it still smells funny though. it's a mag circulated among the bio proffessors of the school I work at, one would think they need not be told to go use the internet... hrmm......
1. are these the same bio professors about which you spoke, when you said a large part of them reject evolution theory?
2. this article was in a print magazine, so you cannot provide a link? could you please name the title of this magazine, it's issue number and the title of the article? i have access to scientific magazines/papers/etc via my university, and i would be interested in reading that, because i cannot really believe that a scientific magazine can make a serious case for weblogs over scientific journals. it would make sense to use the web in such a manner for easier publication, but not with blogs.
Quote from: BoIn other words: each hour you spend not working on your area of expertise, will diminish your chances of becoming a professor.
shit, is that really true? also in other fields of research besides physics? i never really noticed that pressure, but maybe i'm not paying enough attention. also, either way, i should get working, whether i want to be/get to be a professor or not :)
Quote from: Bo on April 12, 2007, 02:20:25 PM
Quote from: Cain on April 12, 2007, 01:48:07 PM
Has it become more complex though? Well, obviously, to a degree it has, but too complex for a gifted individual to understand and be able to work in several fields? I don't think so.
In a sense you're right; I certainly think it has become more difficult, but if you're smart enough...
Quote
What has happened is that Universities in the 18th and 19th century moved away from education and became suppliers for the management class of capitalism, specializing the needs of all major fields in such a way that comprehensive knowledge itself became a monopoly held by the governing elite. Call it a reaction to the Enlightenment and the last Renaissance men, if you will. Knowledge monopolies are one thing capitalism refuses to acknowledge the existence of, because its one of the main mechanisms of hidden power among its elite.
very true, but i don't realy see how it is related to the above..
Another thing that certainly is important is the pressure on researchers to publish. If you persue a scientiffic career (in physics, biology, chemestry, medicine...) you must publish articles. and if you want to have any hope of becoming a (assistant) professor, you mst publish articles that are cited by many people. So many young researchers are almost desperately trying to write this article that will make them famous (enough) (You usually get 1-2 years to achieve this). In other words: each hour you spend not working on your area of expertise, will diminish your chances of becoming a professor.
Oh, I was just going off on a tangent. The problem of information in a supposedly free market fascinates me, especially with the current state of communications.
Quote
shit, is that really true? also in other fields of research besides physics? i never really noticed that pressure, but maybe i'm not paying enough attention. also, either way, i should get working, whether i want to be/get to be a professor or not :)
yes it's true. I don't really know how it is in other fields. Biology, chemistry and medicine appear to be comparable. I don't know how it is in social studies
Payne - I'm far from being an expert on physics, but from what I understand, Quantum Mechanics and String Theory probably shouldn't be associated together.
From what I can gather, Quantum Mechanics has been a roaring success in terms of making predictions and then backing them up with experimental data. However, String Theory has not yet had any experimentation to back it up at all. (AFAIK)
I'm not even sure if 'String' concepts deserve to be called a theory as such. When the idea of it was first proposed, many scientists said 'meh' and ignored it. Over time, more and more people got on board. The trouble was that the mathematics needed were so ridiculously complex, that they typically use simplified, short hand equations as substitutes in order to make it workable.
There were two books published this year that are casting doubt on whether Strings are worth the hassle. Can't remember the both titles, but I believe one was called 'Not Even Wrong'. The premise of these books are that a lot of time, money and brain power have been poured into an intellectual fad that so far, has not yielded anything in terms of experiemental data. I think that some physicists (rightly or wrongly...I dunno!) believe that String Theory is a blind alley and that it's time to draw a line under it and look for other explanations.
So your doubts on 'Strings' are being reflected in the scientific community, albeit on a small scale. I doubt if any of the anti-string books will receive the sales, popularity or acclaim of someone like Brian Greene whose books 'The Elegant Universe' and 'The Fabric Of The Cosmos' were both bestsellers.
I believe that the fate of Quantum mechanics is assured, but Strings may not turn out to be the holy grail of physics that people were hoping for. I'm not even sure if even all the String guys agree on the 11 dimensions thing either. Either someone is going to have an emormous experimental breakthrough that will give String some weight or 20 years from now, people will be slapping their heads going "I can't believe we pissed millions of research dollars away on an 11 dimensional mathematical hypothesis that proved dick-all."
I've heard similar things to Mang, but not in the same depth of detail.
When I remember, I want to check out some of the anti-string titles and see what other lines of research they are suggesting.
I read a good chunk of Elegant Universe but had to bail on it. I read most of Fabric Of The Cosmos but had to abandon it for different reasons (I kept reading it at times that were totally unsuited to digesting the material and I lost the momentum. Mang's tip: don't read books on physics in hospitals.)
On that line of advice, don't read "Arabic For Beginners" at airports either.
It was the only book I had with me :sad:
Getting back to the above - I think Leonard Susskind is one of the physicists breaking rank from the String trend.
Oh yeah, I forgot about this thread. Brief skim over it just now. I never put quantum theory and string theory together I don't think. I only suggested that are more philosophical than other branches of physics earlier in the 20th century.
But, that said, I should take the time to read through this all before I open my trap...