Drifting off topic slightly … take a look at this article when you get the chance, Bert … Vision of beauty
Its about the eye and creating artificial vision based on mathematical models of the retina (you guessed it .. all fractal in nature).
The summary is:
Quote:
i) Surgeons restore human vision by replacing diseased photoreceptors in the retina with semiconductor implants based on digital cameras;
ii) The physical structure and motion of the retina are based on nature's fractal geometry, in contrast to the Euclidean geometry used by photosensitive chips in digital cameras;
iii) Nanocluster growth technology will be used to self-assemble artificial neurons on the surface of future retinal implants that mimic the fractal structure of the eye's natural neurons;
iv) Pattern analysis reveals that the eye searches for visual information using a fractal motion, similar to that of foraging animals, that covers an area more efficiently than random motion;
v) The spatial distribution of photoreceptors across an implant has to match that found in the eye in order to trigger a physiological stress-reducing mechanism associated with the eye moving its gaze to observe fractal scenes.
Fantastic stuff !
Its all about how how we pick out the important bits of knowledge from the 'vast scene' before our eyes.
I always liked the look of cars designed in the thirties. I had a 1937 Chev Sloper when I was nineteen. It is only now I realise the curves emulated breasts and bottoms.
Isn't time more intimately associated with a change in entropy than with any form of perception? In the forward direction there is a gradual increase in total entropy, whilst the reverse direction leads inevitably to the BB. Time therefore ends with the heat death of the universe.
Isn't time more intimately associated with a change in entropy than with any form of perception? In the forward direction there is a gradual increase in total entropy, whilst the reverse direction leads inevitably to the BB. Time therefore ends with the heat death of the universe.
Quite so.
Contrary to this, so called "(super) Strong anthropic principle" ((which I personally think is sheer nonsense) that some people advocate, is telling us that everything (including time) exists because we perceive it. In a nutshell, they claim that "because we exist, the universe must be the way it is"..
In my "school of thought" however, we exist just because the conditions in the universe happen to be right.. so we are perceiving what really exist (not that we are capable of seeing everything of course.. we see and perceive parameters that are relevant to our existence as species, living organisms..).
Thanks to our mind (pure overhead from the evolution point of view - we would survive as species even if we were not much more clever than monkeys - it may happen that our mind will de the very cause of our own demise as species, in the future) and our tool -making capabilities, we can see (detect, measure, contemplate) much more than that minimum. But we still may be quite limited in the ability to perceive many things - and that may be quite irrelevant in fact (do the things that in principle can't be detected and measured really exist? if you ask me, the answer is no)
For the record, I originally decided to create this thread as a small test, (& challenge for me), to see if it was possible to have a value-laiden conversation about a 'left-of-centre', non-mainstream science topic in the Science Forum (and, as an attempt to give Joe a little support in presenting the topic).
We've had a few 'excursions' along the way, but I am quite heartened to see that it has run as long as it has, and what remains .. is a bunch of interesting information of which I was completely unaware, before I started out.
Thank you to everyone who has participated.
A point I'd like to emphasise is that even though one's opinion of a topic might be: 'this is sheer nonsense', it is still possible to gain a lot from exploring a topic not often considered by mainstream science, by keeping an open mind, citing relevant information/sources and exercising rational thinking.
One step further, I might even go so far as to say that the expression of one's judgements of the topic, even seems to me, to contain less value than the topic itself.
In my view, dismissal of a concept (such as the Biocentric Universe) is not at all necessary. I am happy to know that if I re-orient my thinking, I can quite happily exist within its boundaries, if I choose to, as it seems to be a perfectly valid perspective. I can also make a choice about where I'd prefer to spend most of my time, in hindsight of the experience, also - which is along the lines of the 'mainstream' Cosmological Principle.
Why is it necessary to label a mere perspective as 'nonsense' ?
After all, don't we live in universe where most things are Relative ?
Although you wouldn't think so by the "hero worship" he gets from many scientists. His word is like a religion to some.
His 'word' is unimportant, perhaps more nostalgic than anything.
The insights and thinking he left behind, are important.
Words, (and maths), might be the means he used to communicate his message, but anyone who can read and undertake the logical steps encoded in the maths, will arrive at the same insights, and they can verify the results for themselves.
I feel it important to re-emphasise that Science is not some story, some funky-haired dude told some people, sometime. Einstein's work can be replicated by anyone today, who is interested enough to understand the logical steps ... and what results goes way beyond some cute 'story'.
Its amazing how few folk appreciate this distinction.
I feel it important to re-emphasise that Science is not some story, some funky-haired dude told some people, sometime. Einstein's work can be replicated by anyone today, who is interested enough to understand the logical steps ... and what results goes way beyond some cute 'story'.
Its amazing how few folk appreciate this distinction.
Cheers
Craig,
Quite the contrary...
I know you were referring to my statement (about what's nonsense and what's not) but what I tried to say in that post earlier is exactly what you said in the quoted snippet above ..
The fact that everybody CAN repeat (for example Einstein's work) for me is a proof we are dealing with real thing, and not something what lives inside us, in our inner private world because of we are (which can not be verified by anyone outside, BTW )
The Universe and Time will go on existing as they are now even after the last human dies.
I should apologise if it sounded like I was tackling you. I most certainly wasn't trying to do that. As usual, its the issue raised by some good words which I suddenly realised, articulates a commonly shared human trait (especially when it comes to views on Science).
I realise also, that good, classical science must be firmly rooted in physical reality and, further than that, the feeling of that 'firm rooting' must be able to be experienced by others for it to become 'real' by consensus. (Eg: our example of Relativity .. which is of course, a Theory .. ). But as I have stated many times before, don't believe any of it .. as soon as you do, what doesn't fall into the 'mainstream bucket', is lost.
When it comes to some of the concepts presented under the banner of 'The Biocentric Universe', I find that there is a 'hard core' of real-life phenomena underpinning it. Just like there is a 'hard core' of plasma physics at the heart of 'Plasma Cosmology' (I'm not sure I'd extend these same sentiments to EU although, charge separated plasma in free space does exist and in some environments, big currents do flow ! … and there is plenty of evidence in support of this in the real world/universe).
The sticking point for me, is the tendency to dismiss it all outright. Exploring these 'fringes' yields its own benefits … and often the benefit is an increased understanding of one's own chosen flavours .. (ie: for us - mainstream science).
Suppression of 'fringe' discussions inhibits learning, which for me, is the true problem with this trait. Although probably guilty of it myself, jumping to conclusions about some of it, is a bit like taking a sub-consciously motivated short-cut, without even pondering the reasons. When there is no need for intuition, why always chose the instinctive/intuitive path ?
Why not just let it ride, and move on with 'other' business, but keep the encounter 'alive' in the back of one's mind ?
Some of the criticism cited by pseudoscientists directed at 'mainstream scientists' and 'mainstream science', to me, is perfectly valid. Whilst I may not agree that the mainstream science process is necessarily at fault, the one thing in common between pseudoscientists and mainstream scientists, is humans playing their 'automatic' games.
And this behaviour, in the long-run, ultimately works against us.
His 'word' is unimportant, perhaps more nostalgic than anything.
The insights and thinking he left behind, are important.
Words, (and maths), might be the means he used to communicate his message, but anyone who can read and undertake the logical steps encoded in the maths, will arrive at the same insights, and they can verify the results for themselves.
I feel it important to re-emphasise that Science is not some story, some funky-haired dude told some people, sometime. Einstein's work can be replicated by anyone today, who is interested enough to understand the logical steps ... and what results goes way beyond some cute 'story'.
Its amazing how few folk appreciate this distinction.
Cheers
His words are his insights and his thoughts. You can have all the insights and thoughts in the world but if you can't communicate them in a legible form, you might as well talk to yourself.
I can tell you now, unequivocally, that not too many people can follow the maths or the logic needed to understand Einstein's work. Only those people who have studied the maths and have the logical thought processes necessary to work through that maths step by step can really understand it. The descriptive part of the theory is hard enough for most people...only those interested in the science can follow it. I know that from first hand experience in trying to explain it to people. At its best, it's nothing more than a nebulous concept to most. Put a wacky old man with messy hair up on stage and have him poke his tongue whilst reciting complex mathematical formulae and most people just nod their heads and agree with him...without a shred of understanding. Those that can and do follow it very rarely question whether Einstein might be wrong. His ideas are only a theory, much the same as Newton's ideas were. Yes, they work splendidly in most situations, but there are instances where they don't and it's becoming increasingly obvious the further we delve into the real nitty gritty of the way reality works.
Science is very much a story that some funky old dude (Einstein et.al.) told a few interested people, one day. Anything that people do is a story. It's the story of our attempts to try and understand what the hell is going on. Some do a good job at it, others don't. Most are plodders but every now and then, someone comes up with the scientific equivalent of Star Wars and the old story is never the same again. It's usually better
Those that can and do follow it very rarely question whether Einstein might be wrong.
Sorry Carl, countless falsification tests have been conducted for decades !
These must have been devised from the premise of 'Einstein might be wrong' !
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
His ideas are only a theory, much the same as Newton's ideas were.
I presume you are using the emboldened phrases in the colloquial sense .. not in a scientific sense ?? Please clarify.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Yes, they work splendidly in most situations, but there are instances where they don't and it's becoming increasingly obvious the further we delve into the real nitty gritty of the way reality works.
This is news to me .. can you elaborate on the 'instances' (and thus circumstances), where GR or SR don't 'work' ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Science is very much a story that some funky old dude (Einstein et.al.) told a few interested people, one day. Anything that people do is a story. It's the story of our attempts to try and understand what the hell is going on. Some do a good job at it, others don't. Most are plodders but every now and then, someone comes up with the scientific equivalent of Star Wars and the old story is never the same again. It's usually better
'Doing' science (aka following a scientific process), is not the same as telling a story.
Someone can tell me a story coming from their past, but this completely different from my experiencing the same deliberately recreated phenomenon, in present day physical reality, and drawing my own inferences from that. Big difference !
Sorry Carl, countless falsification tests have been conducted for decades !
These must have been devised from the premise of 'Einstein might be wrong' !
All the falsification tests in the world prove nothing if the original test cannot adequately test the theory. You can only test and falsify a theory within the boundaries of the knowledge you have at present. Who's to say that in 100, 200 or 1000 years any theory, let alone Einstein's, is going to hold up to scrutiny. It's not to say that Einstein is going to be 100% wrong (or even right)...what we might know of whatever his (or any other ) theory is going to be applicable to the knowledge base of science at that time is anyone's guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
I presume you are using the emboldened phrases in the colloquial sense .. not in a scientific sense ?? Please clarify.
The emboldened phrases were made to emphasise a point. You cannot divorce his words from his insights or his thought processes. They go hand in hand and cannot be separated. One without the other is lost. His words convey his insights, his thoughts and the way he went about bringing his ideas and thoughts to reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
This is news to me .. can you elaborate on the 'instances' (and thus circumstances), where GR or SR don't 'work' ?
News....well I can tell from that you don't really understand either. Why do they have such a hard time trying to reconcile quantum physics with general relativity?? Why is a quantum theory of gravity eluding their best efforts to formulate. Why does GR breakdown at the singularity level?? It's because the equations and the descriptive science of GR, which deals with the macroscopic level of reality, has a very hard time trying to reconcile itself with what occurs at the quantum level of reality. SR deals with the accelerated motion of objects within relative inertial frames of reference and GR deals with large scale geometry of spacetime (essentially how gravity works on large scales). SR doesn't have as hard a time dealing with the quantum world because it's not dealing with spacetime geometries. You can develop good working theories of SR and quantum physics together...e.g. the Dirac Equation (that great long equation that describes spin and other properties of subatomic particles), or the Standard Model. SR itself is not applicable in situations where GR can adequately explain the structure of spacetime, i.e. large gravitational fields, non flat spacetimes. SR is only applicable where the spacetime has a gravitational potential that is less than C^2. What that means is that for SR to be accurate, it must be formulated in the absence of strong gravitational fields i.e. curved spacetimes. Basically space must be flat otherwise the space-like paths of the spacetime in question allow for violations of time-like motion (they essentially can break the c limit). That's where GR comes into its own. GR basically describes the spacetime curvature in the presence of significant gravitational fields whilst conserving the premise of the universal speed limit (c) as formulated in SR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
'Doing' science (aka following a scientific process), is not the same as telling a story.
Someone can tell me a story coming from their past, but this completely different from my experiencing the same deliberately recreated phenomenon, in present day physical reality, and drawing my own inferences from that. Big difference !
Cheers
What do you do when you tell a story?? You start with a premise, you then develop on that premise and come up with other ideas, some you reject, others you keep. You then give that story a plausible flow and eventually come to a conclusion which (hopefully) ties up everything that you have added to the timeline of your tale.
In essence, that's exactly what you do in science. You come up with an idea (Hypothesis), you then test that hypothesis by looking for any evidence by which you can disprove (falsify) it. If you can falsify it, you discard it. If you can't falsify it, you accept it until you can test it again and go through the same process all over again. You either come to a conclusion or you have to leave it open ended.
Many a great story are open ended "come back next time and I'll continue on with the tale". Science is the same...it's a quest for knowledge and (hopefully) understanding. Some of the best stories are scientific ones. That's why science fiction is so good. Whether its fact or fiction, it is the telling of a story. Your own statement answers the question for you. You can take what you want from a tale told by a stranger about something that happened long ago. It maybe outside your experience of reality, but that doesn't make it any less real. You just haven't experienced it. Even if you recreate it (as in an experiment), you can only make it as real as you experience it. Even if that experience repeats exactly what everyone else has found (as in a repeatedly tested and proven theory), it is still a story that is being told by you. The scientific method is very much a story being told by those that undertake its use. Whilst it's not strictly storytelling as you would define it and as would be commonly understood, it is nevertheless, the telling of a story. As I have already said, it's the quest for knowledge and understanding. Quests at their very heart, are stories.
Last edited by renormalised; 28-05-2011 at 11:54 PM.
Ok Carl .. I see the sense in which you are using a 'story' as an analogy for Science … and that's fine by me. Its not my cup of tea, but its Ok if its yours.
The 'big difference' for me, which I mentioned, is that in a story, one is aligning oneself to accept the 'words' of the story-teller. In science, one doesn't have to do that .. one can find out (by 'experiencing' it), for oneself. This is one way I use to maintain the distinction between science and religion. As soon as I think of science as a story, it becomes a religion ! (Aka … what's the difference, then ?). Its also interesting that religion has its roots embedded in a past, which can't be verified in the present.
What happens if a story has its roots embedded in the future ? I say that this results in the same as religion (or sci-fi) … and is then something that cannot be used to falsify something in the present .. this in my view, rules it out as a legitimate test of falsification of a theory framed in the present.
I have seen certain ‘famous’ pseudoscientists using this as an argument basis against useful present-day mainstream theories. I thus assume this to be what a pseudoscientist might do, when confronted with irrefutable, present-day, physical reality.
I must admit, I had a brain-slip in posing the question about where GR/SR doesn't work .. I wasn't even thinking of the (obvious) sub-atomic realm. Doh !! .. So, I’m cool with what you say on all this ... no worries ..
Cheers
I understand that the clocks used in the GPS satellites are periodically corrected to compensate for the effects of Gravitational time dilation of the clocks in orbit, when compared with ground clocks … using GR to calculate the correction factors.
Although the Global Positioning System (GPS) is not designed as a test of fundamental physics, it must account for the gravitational redshift in its timing system, and physicists have analyzed timing data from the GPS to confirm other tests. When the first satellite was launched, some engineers resisted the prediction that a noticeable gravitational time dilation would occur, so the first satellite was launched without the clock adjustment that was later built into subsequent satellites. It showed the predicted shift of 38 microseconds per day. This rate of discrepancy is sufficient to substantially impair function of GPS within hours if not accounted for.
Cheers
Last edited by CraigS; 11-06-2011 at 11:28 AM.
Reason: Added Link
)
