Einstein: Philosophy versus Empiricism

[skwinty]

Philosophy of science in todays curriculum of physicists is all but gone.
It seems that the philosophical approach is the exception rather than the rule. Physicists of today see thousands of trees but no forests.
The independence which is created by philosophical insight is the difference between the artisan and the seeker of truth.
Logical empiricism changes science into engineering whereas creative free thinking cannot be replaced by algorithms for building and testing theories.
Einstein believed that when theories are tested they should be tested as a whole and not by fixing one of the variables as this makes the variable selection arbitrary.

Logical empiricism soon turns to orthodoxy which leads to a Kantian revival.
The basis of this is in
1. Critique of Pure Reason
2. Critique of Practical Reason
3. Critique of Judgement.

Kant believed that Euclidean geometry was true a priori to our organisation of our experience of external objects.

On the other side the philosophical approach has some of it's basis in the following works.

1. Critique of Pure Experience....Richard Avenarius
2. What are the numbers and what should the numbers be...Richard Dedekind
3. Treatise of Human Nature....David Hume
4. Analysis of Sensations and the relation of the physical to the psychical....Ernst Mach
5. A System of Logic....John Stuart Mill
6. The Grammar of Science....Karl Pearson
7. Science and Hypothesis.....Henri Poincare

When Einstein, his wife and Hubble went to Mt Wilson, Einsteins wife asked Hubble what the telescope was used for, she was to that it was to determine the shape of the universe. She replied " My husband does that on the back of an old envelope"

Years before Hubble detected cosmic expansion Einstein had developed General Relativity which could explain cosmic expansion. General Relativity describes the birth, expansion, life and death of the universe and therein lies the difference
:P

[Kokatha man]

Hi skwinty - I noze wot yers uptos: yer jist conflatin dem udder freds togethers ('cludin wun wot woz band) to gits dat ol' ball rollin agins!

Anyways, Im agree-in' wif da sentiments. 'Cordin to meez, dem artisans choppin down dem trees t' sees wots dem made of - I reckons dem empa-thingies ain't got much empathies in 'em: tis only dem artist/philosophers who seeks da real truths; but den agin, I'm bi-arsed!

Darryl.

[skwinty]

No pulling the wool over your philosphical eyes hey Darryl.
When we gonna see some of your art then!
Better not be a study of fruit in a bowl!;)

[skwinty]

Lots of views and no replies! Silence gives consent?;)
I must admit I expected a few dissenting voices:rolleyes:

[Alchemy]

at the risk of looking dumb , i have no idea what you are trying to convey.
it would appear so does everyone else.

cheers clive.

[skwinty]

It was a reference to a quote by Plato that all could be deduced from an armchair. Some people believe this to be false and felt that sophisticated tests and measurements are required to determine all, hence philosophy versus empiricism.
Also as Darryl pointed out I was trying to revive a thread by xelasnave about this topic when certain individuals launched into each other and subsequently the thread was locked.
I found this to be a great pity as I enjoyed the exchange of opinions about the more esoteric scientific ideas and notions:thumbsup:

[Kokatha man]

Whilst respecting your own viewpoint Clive, I don't think that "no responses" reflects a forum full of either "non-thinking" or "philosophy-challenged/inarticulate" members: ;) personally I think it's a great topic to get your teeth into as long as we don't let personal egotism hijack our conversations. Bert raised an interesting point in his (I think) "heroes" thread response that would have some relevance re Steve's (this) thread.

As for me, I'm sorry skwint, but I'm mentally fatigued with paperwork and writing for my supper at the moment to contribute - can't even get the energy to drag my gear up on my lookout to do some obbing at the mo: but at least I'm taking some breaks between keyboard banging and going through accounts etc to design some new gear and my mini-observatory (a glorified box on rollers just big enough to contain either scope that I can just roll off and start obbing with at the drop of a hat.....:):D:thumbsup:)

Hopefully that'll provide my eyes and heart with some solace for my star-gazing habits whilst other things take up most of my time!

Cheers, Darryl.

[avandonk]

skwinty skwinty skwinty don't you realise unless your application for a grant to do scientific research promises untold wealth in a very short time for your benefactors you have no hope of any support.

If you even mention anything as esoteric as philosophy you will be labeled as a nut or worse. The word unsound comes to mind!

Here are two examples.
1.
This proposal is to stop (pick your disease or problem) by eliminating all social and environmental causes before we embark on only uselessly treating the resultant symptoms.

2.
With mass screening of many compounds and nanotechnology and many other expensive methods we will produce a cure that will bring many benefits for the organisation in a healthy cash flow that will never cease as the problem is still really there so we can treat the symptoms in perpetuity untill ...

Which alternative proposal sounds emminently logical to the members of the board (who generally know stuff all about anything, let alone science or philosophy)?

That is why scientists seem to fall into this mold. They need to eat as well.

You are quite correct mere philosophy barely rates a mention, as that it asks us all to question what is really going on.

No method on its own can give us insight into how things tick. Sitting in an armchair just thinking without any empirical guideposts will leave you none the wiser. Deluded maybe but not wiser.

As Kokatha man (Darryl) said a very interesting book by Douglas Hofstadter goes into these questions to try to understand how a self referential system can exist and still be logical. It can't (Godels Theorem) as there will always be contradictions or paradoxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%2C_Escher%2C_Bach

Einstein was very disturbed by quantum mechanics especially action at a distance or quantum entanglement. I personally think that the fact that at a fundamental level that the Universe is a sea boiling with uncertainty and only a localised experiment can force the system to a logical picture for only that locality and observer does not exclude all other possibilities.

Words are puny devices for conveying ideas. That is why we have art and music. It is curious is it not that all 'primitive' human societies conveyed their store of knowledge by art and music.

I should stop now.

Bert

[skwinty]

Hello Bert
Yes, the sad state of physicists today being motivated by money rather than truth is a sad indictment of modern society in general.
As to the stigma attached to the philosophy of science, I dont believe that it applied to Einstein as such.
I maintain that physicists of his calibre are few and far between today.
Stephen Hawkins is one of them and offhand no others stand out.Einsteins ability to think outside of the box and his non conformance to the standards of the time were in my opinion his greatest assets.
All of his revelations came from the "armchair" and the laboratory of his mind.
Sure , he had reservations about the quantum theory and to quote "The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it gets"
Schrodingers equations postulate that objects are represented by probability waves that extend throughout space and contain all possibilities.
BUT, it only measures the probabilities of those possibilties and not the outcome of the possibilities.
ie the cat is dead OR alive and not The cat is dead AND alive. We just dont know until we look.
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle was not the final word on nature according to Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. The EPR stated that either quantum theory is incomplete or the left hand particle disturbs the right hand particle regardless of locality.
Einstein took exception to this as it implied that the disturbance was faster than light. This didnt agree with Einsteins "reality".
Bohr replied that it all depended on what you mean by reality.
Most physicists agreed with Bohr and used quantum theory to build nuclear bombs.
Great for your political and financial resume.
There was a general consensus that Einstein did not understand quantum theory.
In later years this feeling changed.
Tests at CERN and UCLA did prove the quantum theory rather than Einsteins reality. However scientist cannot even agree on the definitions of "Locality and Reality"
The practicalities of "Spooky action at a distance" is limited and so far may only have potential in quantum computers and cryptography.
I agree with your sentiments regarding puny words.
Einstein would think in pictures and then attempt to translate into words.
Art and music are great conveyors of thought and emotion yet cannot imo convey scientific knowledge through the ages without the use of words and science.
Perhaps , I too should now put a cork in it until later.:thumbsup:

[skwinty]

No problem Darryl, all good things come to those who wait;)

[avandonk]

I have seen the results of the experiments. Would you believe protons diffracting with themselves in the classic double slit interference experiment.
This implies the proton went through both slits ie it was some sort of wave function.

It gets more scary as it has now been done with Buckyballs ie C60 or 60 Carbon atoms. When they do it with a lab rat I will start to believe in the Matrix!

As I said just because something works locally and this includes the observer that does not mean this is how things behave when you are not looking!

If we ever get qbit computers into reality it is even scarier as a 40 qbit computer supposedly can describe the Universe. I still maintain that the Universe is a quantum computer and the human brain derives its complexity or conciousness from this inherent capability as it also derives its computational power from some deeply embedded quantum states. What are all these fibrils that seem to do nothing doing inside our brains. Most physicists will tell you that low temperatures are needed to have quantum coherence. I vaguely remember chemists saying the same thing until biological enzymes were finally discovered that worked at body temperatures!.

The other scary thing is that we do not control ourselves. There is a ghost in our machinery that really runs things. We just think it was what we wanted to do.

It is for the younger ones to work all this out.

Bert

[skwinty]

Well, if its possible for protons and bucky balls, then its possible for rats.
However, how do you isolate a rat from its surrounds.
As Zeilinger the buckyball man says "The border between classical and quantum phenomena is just a matter of money"
Obviously lots of it.
Now the problem with quantum computers is the maintenance of coherence within the system.
According to Wolfram, the inventor of the programming language Mathematica, the program required to create the universe is quite simple and only consists of a few lines of machine code.
Run this little program and repeat for 14 billion years. this program would be similar to a "cellular automaton"
To get back to Einstein.
He always said that the preferred theory was the one that resulted in the simplest mathematical proof.
The shortcoming of equation based physics is its inability to cope with complexity.
Look at the sacrifices made in string theory to reduce the mathematical complexities.
All these fantastic theories, a product of the laboratory of the mind waiting for empirical validation. May take a little time.
A quote from Eddington " We have found a strange footprint on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after the other to account for its origin. At last we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the footprint. And lo, it is our own"
Yes it is for the younger generation to resolve these issues, but I see no reason for the older generation to not die trying.:thumbsup:

[skwinty]

Some quotes relating to the subject matter of this thread.

Mark Twain
Spectrum analysis enabled the astronomer to tell when a star was advancing head on, and when it was going the other way. This was regarded as very precious. Why the astronomer wanted to know, is not stated; nor what he could sell out for, when he did know. An astronomer's notions about preciousness were loose. They were not much regarded by practical men, and seldom excited a broker.
- "The Secret History of Eddypus"

Scientists have odious manners, except when you prop up their theory; then you can borrow money of them.
- "As Concerns Interpreting the Deity"

A scientist will never show any kindness for a theory which he did not start himself.
- A Tramp Abroad

The scientist. He will spend thirty years in building up a mountain range of facts with the intent to prove a certain theory; then he is so happy in his achievement that as a rule he overlooks the main chief fact of all--that his accumulation proves an entirely different thing.
- "The Bee" essay

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
-- Life on the Mississippi, chapter 17, 1883.

Dylan Thomas (1914--1953)
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Frank Zappa (1940--1993)
The Very Big Stupid is a thing which breeds by eating The Future. Have you seen it? It sometimes disguises itself as a good-looking quarterly bottom line, derived by closing the R&D department.

;):P:lol::thumbsup:

[Kokatha man]

Skwint, just posting to let you know that whilst I'm not contributing to this post 'cos of other commitments; I'm still enjoying your soliloquies that seem to combine both the research references and philosophical conjectures of various people: or is this a window on the split personality of the scientist/philosopher in you coming to the fore ?!?

Keep it rolling - at least if you start taking offence at your own postings and get "locked" for personal invective you'll only have yourself to blame!?!

I am enjoying the posts; some of it re-awakening past reading or musings, and some adding to my "must follow up this reference etc."

Cheers, Darryl.

[skwinty]

hi Darryl
At home I am surrounded by females.
The only other male is one of the dogs, so I do talk a lot about scientific things to myself so a split personality is definately on the cards.
It does get boring because no matter what the topic, I always win the argument.
Thats why I tend to persist with these posting as I do get intelligent and differing opinions on the topics that fascinate me.
The IIS forum sure bearts talking to females, dogs, trees, the stars and myself.
No insult to the ladies, its just the ones surrounding me are not interested in science, technology and astronomy;)

[omnivorr]

Hi Guys, ..I won't spoil it this time..

You are getting way out of my league, but may I make a couple of simple points..

All empirical evidence is subject to interpretation.. whether post-factum, mere observation.. or by design, experiment/measure...

do the frogs bring the rain by their chorus, or merely celebrate its impending arrival?

A cup might be a utilitarian 'datum' to one mind, a Holy vessel to another,.. it may be art or kitsch, ..half full or half empty... ...a cup is what context makes it.. without being upright in a gravitational field as we expect, its functional 'cup' identity may be subverted.. similarly any form of impirical evidence merely 'holds water' within a set of specific contexts of "ideals" framed by the mind contemplating it.

Concensus is the nearest to absolute we'll ever achieve.. and dominant concensus is not necessarily always the best concensus.. vis history.

Cheers
Russ

[skwinty]

Hi Russ
You are correct in your observations. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
The main point when considering empirical data is: Are the predictions set forth in the theory shown to be true or not in practice? Sure these data may be open to interpretation, but if the theory sets its predictions unequivically then the data must also be unequivical and thus not open to misinterpretation.
All in all a daunting task and hence the stringent peer review requirements for any serious science.:thumbsup:

[Kokatha man]

But in the past few years, a new theory called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) has emerged. The theory suggests the possibility of a “quantum bounce,” where our universe stems from the collapse of a previous universe. Yet what that previous universe looked like was still beyond answering.


http://adms.physorg.com/openads/www/delivery/lg.php?bannerid=14&campaignid=9&zoneid=11&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.physorg.com%2F news126955971.html&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iceinspace .com.au%2Fforum%2Fshowthread.php%3F t%3D30591&cb=022404df43
http://cdn5.tribalfusion.com/media/1122346.gif (http://a.tribalfusion.com/h.click/aGmxB4REnQQsMnPtFs1WvoV6vM4G310U3Zb TPan2PrbRmbA4WMt1dYIntIo5A3T5sY8VcQ lUV77R6QmUHQ3TbJR3rEuWajpTTQlQq3HQV ZbCPFuoPHMiVcYP5rXvmtaMXEmpPTvqcLuY Jk/http://physorg.tradepub.com/free/orm)
Now, physicists Alejandro Corichi from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Parampreet Singh from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario have developed a simplified LQG model that gives an intriguing answer: a pre-Big Bang universe might have looked a lot like ours. Their study will appear in an upcoming issue of Physical Review Letters.

“The significance of this concept is that it answers what happened to the universe before the Big Bang,” Singh told PhysOrg.com. “It has remained a mystery, for models that could resolve the Big Bang singularity, whether it is a quantum foam or a classical space-time on the other side. For instance, if it were a quantum foam, we could not speak about a space-time, a notion of time, etc. Our study shows that the universe on the other side is very classical as ours.”

The finding builds on previous research, with some important differences. Last year, Penn State physicist Martin Bojowald used a simplified version of LQG to show that a universe “on the other side” of the bounce could have existed. However, although that model produced valid math, no observations of our current universe could have lead to any understanding of the state of the pre-bounce universe, as nothing was preserved across the bounce. Bojowald described this as a sort of “cosmic amnesia.”

But Corichi and Singh have modified the simplified LQG theory further by approximating a key equation called the quantum constraint. Using their version, called sLQG, the researchers show that the relative fluctuations of volume and momentum in the pre-bounce universe are conserved across the bounce.

“This means that the twin universe will have the same laws of physics and, in particular, the same notion of time as in ours,” Singh said. “The laws of physics will not change because the evolution is always unitary, which is the nicest way a quantum system can evolve. In our analogy, it will look identical to its twin when seen from afar; one could not distinguish them.”

There you are skwint - the above is taken from a link in programmer's "bouncing universes" in today's General chat section of IIS forum.

I thought it might be a nice addition to your thread - the emboldened text is mine: these 2 guys get my vote - I do so like "nice" theorists and theories!?!:P:screwy::D:doh::whistl e::)

Cheers, Darryl.

[skwinty]

Hi Darryl
Very interesting read. It seems to me that this theory takes Stephen Hawkings Big bang Big crunch and the bouncing universe a few steps further.
There has been general consensus however, that the laws of
physics and mathematics break down at the point of singularity. So these laws must be very resilient to survive through the point of infinite mass in zero volume space. That is I suppose the beauty of mathematics.
Perhaps the wormhole and multi verse theories could gather momentum now although there are no real tests for their validity.
However the possibility of all our theories, even those which have passed rigorous testing and review, could plainly and simply be wrong!

I attended a lecture last night by Prof Peter Dunsby from the department of applied mathematics at UCT and they are talking about modifying Einsteins theory of gravity as it appears to influence the distribution of baryonic matter, dark matter and dark energy. It seems that the quest to prove Einstein wrong will never diminish.

Einstein himself considered the cosmological constant his biggest blunder, but yet today it is the flavour of the week. I think Einstein was being a bit hard on himself though, as his equations showed the universe to be accelerating or decellerating but observation showed a static universe hence his cosmological constant to keep the equations reflecting observation.
It was only in 1929 that Hubble actually measured the expansion of the universe.

I am hoping that when my turn comes to vacate this world, that all these issues become clear.;)

[avandonk]

Could I just say that the boundary between science and philosophy is totally arbitrary. It is a continuum.

Just as the 'real' world has these strange states called macro level and quantum level and the boundary seems indistinct, I am sure we are looking at a totally analogous situation.

We reflect the real situation of our reality because we are a part of it. Self referential systems have inherent paradoxes and I think that is how our Universe overcomes this is by being very fuzzy at the micro and yet reflect this fuzziness at the really macro ie Galaxy clusters and clusters of Galaxies and so on. This comes full circle?

The fact that I can even begin to communicate these ideas over a vast distance compared to even our immediate ancestors tells me that we live in relatively enlightened times.

What really scares me how many charletans are gaining credence by placing drivel in front of the many!

I think Kokatha man is very interesting as he incisive and does not preach as I hope I do not.

Now to get to the theories that you have both put forward.

Conjecture is a first start. Without experimental evidence it is still mere conjecture.

Bouncing Universes whilst being beyond real comprehension should not be ruled out. I am all for new life as long as I get a bit myself.

As far as the laws of Physics surviving a pan dimensional disaster of Biblical proportions? I am still trying to work out the current one.

By the way Biblical meant the whole of Palestine and Arabia?

When we fully understand Gravity we may know.

The large Hadron Collider may give us a glimmer of understanding.

Bert

[Zuts]

Hi,

Whatever you can think of there is always something bigger. This applies to numbers, people, life and the universe. It just doesnt make sense to me that the universe is bounded in space or time or in dimensions.

So I am a believer in the multiverse. Space is infinite, the universe is infinite and there are an infinite number of universes. Everything is possible somewhere, sometime, somehow and in some universe.

In mathematics the natural numbers are infinite, but between each natural number there are an infinte number of other real numbers. There is a branch of pure mathematics, number theory, which deals with and explains the various categories of infinity. I think everything, the UNIVERSE is the highest category of infinity.

I believe that every quantum interaction in the universe causes another universe to split off, and every quantum interaction in all those other universes everywhere causes another split. An infinite infinity of universes.

Can this be proved? Sure :)

Take a gun and shoot yourself in the head. In some universe split at a quantum level the gun will not fire. So, shoot yourself again, and again and again........

After 1, 10, 100, 1000, ......., 1,000,000 firings of a gun in working order I am sure you will agree with me :). The number of times you will have killed yourself in all these quantum splits is countless, but in one universe you will still be alive and I could say, I told you so.

Paul

[skwinty]

Well that sure is the ultimate test.
I doubt you find any willing participants in that experiment.
I will read and digest these last two posts and reply sometime tomorrow as I am about to get ready for open night at the SAAO.:thumbsup:

[Zuts]

Sure,

This is one time i hope the empiricists don't get hold of an idea, coz you dont have to do it to yourself!

Paul

[Starless]

According to the Oxford dictionary
universe
•noun
1 all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
2 a particular sphere of activity or experience.
ORIGIN
from Latin "universus" ‘combined into one, whole’.

So the term universe is esentialy everything.

Every one of the infinite quantum outcomes leads
to an infinite number of quantum choices.

Ipso facto, all things are not only possible, everything
will happen, eventually.

There is no reason, meaning or purpose to any of it,
to quote Dr Carl Sagen "this (the cosmos) is just
something hydrogen atoms do if you leave them lay
around long enough."

[Kokatha man]

"Conjecture is a first start. Without experimental evidence it is still mere conjecture." - Bert

A reasonable (very) initial proposition: methinks however, that Zuts and Starless imbue this with more faith than I could muster!

Regards, Darryl.

[skwinty]

Yes, perhaps a quantum leap of faith.
To quote Douglas Adams:
"There are 2 things you should remember when dealing with parallel universes.
1. They are not really parallel
2. They are not really universes.

Even if you do not believe in the multiverse theory they do offer good analogies to the quantum world.
The double slit experiment is a good example.
The single photon passing through the slit interferes with another photon going through the other split. The second photon comes from another universe!

Now as far as conjecture goes. Yes it is conjecture until proven by observation, but it is conjecture with firm roots in solid mathematics.

Now to come back to repeatedly blowing ones brains out to prove a point.
Larry Niven wrote a book called "All the myriad ways"
This deals with suicide with the knowledge of multiple versions of ones self.
They commit suicide out of despair for their current situation because it doesnt matter what you do as the opposite will be true in another reality.

Perhaps this is why the boundary between the microscopic and macroscopic world is so obscure and difficult to penetrate. Quantum mechanics does not reveal itself in the realities of the macroscopic world for good reason.
How confusing would the observable universe be if it and ourselves were in two or more places at once.

Now I agree, all things are possible, but are they probable!
Schrodingers equations dealt with probabilities of specific outcomes and not that the outcomes all existed when the probability wave collapsed.

Quantum theory deals with uncertainties and Physics deals with certainties.:thumbsup:

[Karls48]

Interesting tread. It would be even more interesting if people who participate in it would post their philosophical view on our Universe – how it begin, how big it is, is the speed of light ultimate speed, what is the time and the space. I think that most of people with hobby like Astronomy do formulate their own philosophical view on Universe that is not necessary same as current scientific view.

[Kokatha man]

Hi Karl - not content with occasionally correcting an old codger (me) who's forgotten/unaware of the specific specs of some electronic parts, you're now castigating our philosophical, etc musings....!

Seriously though (and I'm only the bittiest bit-player in this thread) I reckon you'll find that in canvassing concepts and constructs this thread touches on most of what you find interesting: that and the references/reading associated with it.

I for one reckon I'm getting a vague handle from others posts/intimations/implications, of their own philosophical leanings/appraisals.

I think it's a thread that needs to weave its way along without any definitive "this is what I believe/think/ it is" requirements: unless you want the sort of answer from that computor - you know, "the answer to life/existence etc is 23 and a half" (or whatever!)

So hopefully our chief contributors and those that are drawn in keep on weaving a sort of tapestry, the more and varied the better!

Or maybe it'll be like the million monkeys banging away on a million keyboards for a million years....!

Anyway Karl, give us a bit of your philosophical musings: this thread's ambit is (I think) broad enough for that.

Cheers, Darryl.

[Karls48]

Hi Darryl, I did not meant to be pain in backside when I butted in with my technical explanations. I’m retired (few years early due to accident) electrical engineer with long experience in manufacturing liner power supplies and security electronics. Some times the urge to correct something I consider not quite right gets better of me.

Now about Philosophy versus Empiricism I will start on bit different note. Although I do not believe in any religion I must say that I do to some extend envy people who do. All the answers to the mysteries of life, Universe and everything are supplied to them in few books. Unbelievers like me have to seek their own answers. It is fruitless and never-ending task. The answers change as I grow older and gain experience and wisdom (or becoming more senile). In earlier stage of my life I did believe that science and technology had all the answers. Later I started to see too many inconsistencies and contradictions and scientific facts that were facts in sixties were
no longer facts in this enlighten age when we know it all (we did know it all in sixties also). That why I think that Philosophy is just as important to day as it was 4000 years ago. I pass thru years of my life I learn and observe the world around me. I read about scientific (todays) facts and theories. Then I sit in the armchair or lie in the bed and try to blend that accumulated information in holistic point of view. That is my substitute to the answers supplied by religion. And I don’t care it if it doesn’t agree with some current scientific theories. Sometimes I wonder why we have this constant urge to understand everything. I suppose it is evolutionary survival trait.
I come out few times with my view of Universe in the past and I was empirically shot down in flames. In older times I think I would be burned at stake. I will see if anyone else will stick their neck out.
After reading yours and Skwity’s posts and appreciate your elegant use of English language I apologise for my clumsy English.

[Kokatha man]

Hi Karl - nothing wrong with any of your corrections re me and those electrical/tronics posts: both the ones I remember you making were spot-on comments to make - though I did re-post about my VR application; it was (a possible) suggestion for where a badly regulated charger was hanging off the battery.......see! There I go again, I'm as pedantic as the best of them; no need to justify correcting my mistakes etc, I allways stick my two-bob's worth in!

Reading your post here, I see many parallels with my own thoughts/experiences/musings; it has informed my own craving for not necessarily knowledge or understanding per se to the extent of "revelation" - I leave that for those with specific "faiths" - but at the same time believe that "wisdom surpasses all knowledge" - if that isn't too obtuse or cryptic a comment to make.

Bert (Avondonk) made an interesting comment re appraising the universe as an enormous "quantum computer" and makes the interesting point of "a ghost in the machinery" that could create interesting extrapolations.....perhaps herein lies an explanation of our human numinous.

Anyways, back to book-keeping and accounting for me at the moment: far more prosaic; but if I want my shelter and supper (let alone the next bit of AA equipment I want to burden my overloaded financial predicament with) I'd best get back to it!

Cheers, Darryl.

[Alchemy]

i wondered why i was having so much difficulty with philosophy, just as well i think, i will leave the thinking and shooting to others


interesting read though.

[skwinty]

hi Karl,
To quote Richard Feynman:" I can safely say no-one understands quantum mechanics"
However, in my opinion it is better to die trying to understand, rather than to pin one's hopes on untested assumptions piled on top of more untested assumptions, which is what one does when religion takes over your thought processes.
Another benefit to trying to understand scientific issues is that oldtimers disease can be staved off by the brain exercise. I have had my fair share of religion and can say that envy is one of the cardinal sins, so go forth and envy no more.:thumbsup:

[Kokatha man]

Hi Skwint - well, my own particular paraphrasing of your sentiments is: "it is better to live trying to understand!"

I've enough doubts of the prosaic kind to contend with as a mere mortal, who knows his (and everyone else's) ultimate fate: looking after an elderly mum who developed senile dementia, and taking care of a father still going (relatively) strong at 91; makes me focus on the here and now rather than wanting to contemplate my own (ever closer) future!!!

As for the other bit of your's above; well.....perhaps we'll allow each other some small measures of faith in that particular instance; in the absence of much else!?!:shrug::D:P:):whistle:

Cheers, Darryl.

[skwinty]

Hi Darryl
Just a figure of speech. I always say that when trying to attain the impossible , if you werent prepared to die trying , then you werent trying hard enough.
My Mum also passed due to Altzheimers and my Dad in a car accident when I was eight years old so I guess the idea of death lost its mystery for me at an early age. As far as religion is concerned, to each their own. I sure gave religion a good test drive in my time and wasnt convinced.
I dont believe that death should be feared, rather embraced but never hastened or self inflicted.:thumbsup:

[avandonk]

I read many years ago about a bright young student who proudly said to Einstein that he was one of the three people who understood quantum mechanics. The best I can work out this student was refering to Heisenberg and Einstein.

Einstein dryly said 'and who are the other two?'

We cannot have the answers without asking the correct questions. We have a remarkable ability to understand the Universe in a way that fits in with our mathematics. I still think that is because we are a part of it. Hence the term 'self referential'. Contemplating your own navel comes to mind.

Science moves foward slowly except for the major paradigm shifts.

We are still stuck within the quantum computer and unless we can 'see' outside it of it we are forever blind.

I wonder if a search for the spiritual side of our human nature is one way or scarier still the only way!

I think all shamans through history were taking on an altered state and 'seeing' beyond the logic.

Schizophrenia in some of us unfortunately is the price we pay for having a very well developed analytical brain. Or does it give us a window to the unreality of reality!

Bert

[avandonk]

The imminent loss of anyone dear to you is traumatic. It is these invisible bonds that are forever broken that really hurt.

I miss my father and I will leave it at that.

I thought I would say this seperately so as not to get confused with the discussion.

I have railed all my life at disease and have spent forty years fighting them with science.

Bert

[Kokatha man]

Hi Bert - all this becomes extremely "heady" stuff (pardon my pun) very quickly! Just what is language, and if it is hard-wired into us, what might we extrapolate from this?

Mathematics is often touted as the/our most fluent form of "expression" - but unless they're a mathematician, theorist etc; try selling that to someone gazing in awe at a beautiful sunset etc.

As a young boy full of dreams I wanted to be "an astronomer" - with very little real awareness of the degree of "science-based knowledge and/or discipline" required: not that I was slow at school, I was known as "Professor *#@!%" - both a mark of respect for my capabilities in physics, chemistry and maths, as well as a derogatory racial pejorative!

Life has lead me a merry dance over the years, and in my mid-life began to carve out a career and small reputation for myself as a visual artist. What has allways fascinated me (and hence the relevance to this thread) is the repetition of patterning that seems to run through everything from the micro to the macro cosmic, manifesting itself both internally and externally.

I suppose that pattern is by definition repitition or replication: one thing my ancestors were implicating at the core of (their) traditional art. I believe both "raark," or "x-ray" painting as it is known; and the concentric circles, spirals and wave patterning inherent to my own (Western Desert) traditions, implicitly symbolize at one level, their innate fundimentality to our world/universe.

Without (in general) any 3 dimensional or perspective representation to their imagery, it is easy, to the point of being facile, to infer that this was only some simplistic attempt at interpretation/interpolation of the world around: but when one listens to the story-telling and dramatic enactments therein, which are absolutely essential adjuncts to the imagery; you realize that in a number of ways that this has at its core an analogy to mathematical equations and basic principles, in terms of what is being defined under specific variable constants etc.

Perhaps to people "outside the loop" this may seem like an incredibly long bow to draw; but I have had the amazing priveledge to engage in mutually stimulating conversations with old men and women from traditional backgrounds, on some of the most intellectual and esoteric of subjects. Lingo is often a major impediment; but there is no confusion when participants strike chords that resonate the complimentary experiences, analogies or insights each has on obtuse and/or philosophical topics: each parties' differing metaphors only adding to a sense of their (each's) intellectual integrity and understanding.

My ramblings now flow onto imagery per se, be it that of the shaman, visual artist, writer, story-teller or scientific theorist "on a roll" - in the rapture of inspiration, revelation or paradigm shift in consciousness - through whatever communicative devices, aimed at whoever is the target audience.

Do these images/equations and other compositions really "speak a 1000 words" or do they unleash hitherto unspoken languages and unrevealed thoughts/ideas to enrich or expand the world to extend our understanding (or perhaps it extends our knowledge, but our understanding lags far behind?)

Perhaps the metaphor is all, or perhaps it is the best, that we possess to externalise on existence from within - you're "navel gazing" et al.

Patterns and metaphors have become my own "stock-in-trade" - when I was younger I was a cynic about art and its interpretation: not that there isn't far more bumf written, or spoken, or ascribed to much that is merely, at best, more properly defined (imho) as "fashion" - be it passing or otherwise!

But I have come to realize that at the very least, this form of expression/creativity does draw out of the individual something that is both inherently innate to humans; both from some sort of species specific unconscious perspective as well as from the subconsciousness of experiential causality.

On this topic I should say that I am the most savagest of critics over any pretension within my own art - and I have perpetrated my share therein - but part of my make-up and experiences has left me in a lifelong flux of doubt.

Notwithstanding this personal predilection, I also have refined my objectivity to such a level of detachment that I think of it as almost unnatural at times! However, I still constantly amaze myself with the degree of both unconscious and subconscious input and "referencing" that is imbued into my art without much conscious awareness - but perhaps this is the natural consequence of developing/extending patterning!!!

Lastly on this (perhaps seemingly interminable) rant; if I possess anything that could most easily be equated with "faith" or religous-imbued terminology, it is on the subject of "revelation."

No, not John of biblical text or any similar such dramas - mine is both personal/internal as well as having its repetition/reflection out into the wider world and beyond: it is to me what we inherently strive for (or at least believe we should!) by investing our knowledge in understanding: what I think is the core impetus of this thread, both the "machine and the ghost" you spoke of Bert - "the cause and the reason" - or should that be "the reason and the cause "??!!??!

Better get back to welding my pier before the sun goes down!

Regards, Darryl.

[avandonk]

My simple answer KM is that of all the bits of metal that go into a big V8 and the fuel that fires it, could anyone predict the beautiful sound that it makes. It must fire up a basic rhythm that evokes something that goes far back in time.

We are all trying to understand the whole picture and we barely know the colours.

We all possess a bit of the puzzle, it is called art, music, dance and dare I say it science.

It is not the final destination that is important, it is how you deal with the journey!

I should add we had two sayings in our lab at CSIRO.

If you doubt your sanity every now and again you are quite sane.

If you remembered you forgot you are OK.

PS
KM have you played with fractal image generators?


Bert

[DARKMATTER]

I Love This Site!

[Kokatha man]

Now we're talking stuff we can chew Bert - I believe that V8 sound is an example of good ol', soul-deep, primal syncopation!

.....(but for you Bert) I'll throw in something about the various harmonic balances/imbalances inherent in 4-cycle engines of various cylinder numbers and configuratons....!

Regards, Darryl.

ps - skwinty will be awake by now saying - "my god: what are they doing to my thread!?!

[skwinty]

Hi Bert and Darryl
Now as you know I am not religiuos so i am saying "What the photon quark are they doing to my thread"

The sound of a V8 does raise the hairs but the the sound of the solar wind really raises my spirit.

As I also said in a previous post that I sometimes wish that I was born into the Khoi San a hundred years ago, naked in the desert. I really meant that as the one thing I lack is spirituality. I only found biased dogma in organised religion.

Bert hits the nail on the head when he mentions trying to see the whole picture yet we cant even see all the colours.

The amazing thing about fractal generators is that they illustrate "out of chaos comes order" and " out of order comes chaos" and that to understand recursion you must first understand recursion.

Darryl ,I like your new avatar.
To my mind it represents the day and night sky and all within the sky.
The desert and the freedom of flights of imagination:thumbsup:

[Kokatha man]

Pretty close Steve - not that there would be anything wrong with any other interpretation you chose to put on it for yourself!

It's called "Flyaway Country" - from my most recent exo called "Ceremony of Meaning."

Regards, Darryl.

[Karls48]

I also lack spirituality and artistic ability. Yet it doesn’t stop me from wonder about those things. Growing up in communist dogma makes me to quickly seek fastest exit route at slightest smell of dogmatism.
I think that most of us are born with this shamanic ability that Bert mentioned. We learn logic and the reason and lose this ability after few years of schooling.
Steve, if the Big Bang theory of the origin of our universe is correct, even the fractals can not be infinite because finite system can not have infinite outcome.

[skwinty]

A long list, but worth reading and digesting

If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it. I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

When we survey our lives and endeavours, we soon observe that almost the whole of our actions and desires is bound up with the existence of other human beings. We notice that our whole nature resembles that of the social animals. We eat food that others have produced, wear clothes that others have made, live in houses that others have built. The greater part of our knowledge and beliefs has been communicated to us by other people through the medium of a language which others have created. Without language our mental capacities would be poor indeed, comparable to those of the higher animals; we have, therefore, to admit that we owe our principal advantage over the beasts to the fact of living in human society. The individual, if left alone from birth, would remain primitive and beastlike in his thoughts and feelings to a degree that we can hardly conceive. (Albert Einstein, 1934)

The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Physics constitutes a logical system of thought which is in a state of evolution, whose basis (principles) cannot be distilled, as it were, from experience by an inductive method, but can only be arrived at by free invention. The justification (truth content) of the system rests in the verification of the derived propositions (a priori/logical truths) by sense experiences (a posteriori/empirical truths). ... Evolution is proceeding in the direction of increasing simplicity of the logical basis (principles). .. We must always be ready to change these notions - that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics - in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically. (Albert Einstein, Physics and Reality, 1936)

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. (Albert Einstein, Religion and Science, New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love.
I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details.
The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
The only real valuable thing is intuition.
A person starts to live when he can live outside himself.
I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.
God is subtle but he is not malicious.
Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character.
I never think of the future. It comes soon enough.
The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.
Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing.
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.
Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education.
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.
The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.
Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.
Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater.
Equations are more important to me, because politics is for the present, but an equation is something for eternity.
If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.
The fear of death is the most unjustified of all fears, for there's no risk of accident for someone who's dead.
Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves.
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -- how passionately I hate them!
No, this trick won't work...How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
Yes, we have to divide up our time like that, between our politics and our equations. But to me our equations are far more important, for politics are only a matter of present concern. A mathematical equation stands forever.
The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.
Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.
A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.
Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat.
One had to cram all this stuff into one's mind for the examinations, whether one liked it or not. This coercion had such a deterring effect on me that, after I had passed the final examination, I found the consideration of any scientific problems distasteful to me for an entire year.
...one of the strongest motives that lead men to art and science is escape from everyday life with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one's own ever-shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from the personal life into the world of objective perception and thought.
He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.
A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest ... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.
Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton)

[Zuts]

moderators please help, this post is too long to reply to :)

[xelasnave]

What an interesting thread fellas.
Everything can be worked out in an arm chair with a net connection

We need more of this sort of thread it was/is a pearler
alex