a timely question

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Well I don't think as a general statement, this represents an accurate view of science 'thinkers' nor of human imagination.

If I can see that science tools have their limitations, anyone can !

I think I agree that we need more tools but the process doesn't necessarily inhibit the development of them. (I would say, it actually enhances it).

Can you provide an example of what you mean ?

Let me also say, that for any axiomatic system, there will always be things outside of that system, which cannot be proven from within that system. This itself has been proven. (Godel's Incompleteness theorems).

Axiomatic systems are difficult to avoid. The universe may be one of them.

This aspect, combined with human ingenuity and inquisitiveness, may actually be the driver for continued tools development (and human breakthroughs).

Cheers

Ok Craig, tell me....what came before the BB??.

Quantum superposition of state requires that in order to have all these possible outcomes for any given system, there must be an infinite number of possible collapse states (Universes). They should exist....where are they?? What do we use to measure them and their states??

Relativity states that in the beginning, the universe was in a state of singularity, yet the existence of a singularity defies the rules of quantum physics. A singularity can't exist if the universe obeys quantum laws on the micro scale.

How about quantum entanglement....flies in the face of all Relativity. Einstein thought it was a joke...probably because he couldn't understand it. We still can't explain it.

What is life....explain to me what life is...what is its fundamental basis. You can't even explain it as a function of quantum physics, yet that probably has something to do with it w.r.t. how it interacts with physical existence.

The universe is only axiomatic because we barely understand it, even those parts of it we think that we do understand. We've hardly scratched the surface of it.

The scientific method has little if anything to do with imagination, or even thinking. It's a series of steps...a logical sequence of processes and outcomes...that is used to define and classify whatever is being studied. Anything that lies outside of the ability of the method to study and classify is deemed "unscientific". Therefore, it is limited in what it can study and discover if it is strictly adhered to as it is. You don't really need to think about what you're doing if all the steps are outlined for you. You will come to a conclusion that is within scientific parameters regardless of the "leaps beyond logic" you may do in the process. As you have put it on a number of occasions, if the question is beyond science to explain, then it is not science. However, that is only because we are limited by our knowledge of science and our methods of doing science reflect this.

Science evolves within and creates paradigms. Paradigms by their own definition have limits, beyond which the knowledge and methods within those paradigms cannot operate. Even if the present scientific paradigm encounters things beyond its limits it cannot, by definition, study them or acknowledge their reality because the reality of the paradigm will not allow it. It has to change in order to accommodate the new knowledge and paradigms have a bad habit of being rather inflexible and hidebound to established ideas.

In any case, if doing science is not in order to find the answers we seek to the questions we ask, then what is the point of doing it at all.

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Ok Craig, tell me....what came before the BB??.

Quantum superposition of state requires that in order to have all these possible outcomes for any given system, there must be an infinite number of possible collapse states (Universes). They should exist....where are they?? What do we use to measure them and their states??

Relativity states that in the beginning, the universe was in a state of singularity, yet the existence of a singularity defies the rules of quantum physics. A singularity can't exist if the universe obeys quantum laws on the micro scale.

How about quantum entanglement....flies in the face of all Relativity. Einstein thought it was a joke...probably because he couldn't understand it. We still can't explain it.

What is life....explain to me what life is...what is its fundamental basis. You can't even explain it as a function of quantum physics, yet that probably has something to do with it w.r.t. how it interacts with physical existence.

The universe is only axiomatic because we barely understand it, even those parts of it we think that we do understand. We've hardly scratched the surface of it.

The scientific method has little if anything to do with imagination, or even thinking. It's a series of steps...a logical sequence of processes and outcomes...that is used to define and classify whatever is being studied. Anything that lies outside of the ability of the method to study and classify is deemed "unscientific". Therefore, it is limited in what it can study and discover if it is strictly adhered to as it is. You don't really need to think about what you're doing if all the steps are outlined for you. You will come to a conclusion that is within scientific parameters regardless of the "leaps beyond logic" you may do in the process. As you have put it on a number of occasions, if the question is beyond science to explain, then it is not science. However, that is only because we are limited by our knowledge of science and our methods of doing science reflect this.

Science evolves within and creates paradigms. Paradigms by their own definition have limits, beyond which the knowledge and methods within those paradigms cannot operate. Even if the present scientific paradigm encounters things beyond its limits it cannot, by definition, study them or acknowledge their reality because the reality of the paradigm will not allow it. It has to change in order to accommodate the new knowledge and paradigms have a bad habit of being rather inflexible and hidebound to established ideas.

In any case, if doing science is not in order to find the answers we seek to the questions we ask, then what is the point of doing it at all.

What he said! Bert

[CraigS]

Ok .. paradigm shifts occur by living within the realms of possibility.

Choices are made, and are distinct from decisions.

Decisions come from the past.

Choices occur in freedom, unconstrained by the past.

The phenomenon of paradigm shifts is well known.

Science works incrementally, step-by-step. Each step uses the accumulated knowledge of the past, and builds upon that paradigm.
Some would say decisions based on reasons from the past, result in another cycle around the same loop. Choice breaks the loop, but can only be made by leaving the past where it should reside .. in the past, and launching from the present.

Funny thing is that humans spend 99% of their time living in the past !
Think about it .. just about everything you do is based on knowledge, experiences or ‘reasons’ from the past.

Human beings are capable of generating paradigm shifts. It is not new. It has always happened, and always will.

Paradigm shifts occur in Science. The process encourages this in the pre-hypothesis stages. Its beginning is called brain-storming. Everyone is capable of this mode of thought. The older we get, the less likely we are to invoke this mode. None-the-less, we are all capable of it. It is a skill, and it can be learned.

Check out some examples of Paradigm Shifts in the Natural Sciences.
These all occurred within the traditional scientific process, and the social boundaries of the day. The process serves to minimise unproductive detours, by weeding them out in the earlier stages. Productive thinking always survives. Remember that we live with others who spend 99% of their lives living in thoughts coming from the past. To support your cause, you must connect with them.

I still can’t see how our present day scientific processes directly inhibits paradigm shifts, nor can I see how it inhibit humans’ abilities to achieve them. It has its challenges, and the process itself, is not immune from paradigm shifts. It can change .. by the very process outlined above.

Cheers

[avandonk]

The fundamental idea of prederminination elicited by the major religions always made me even more dubious of their grip on reality.
Science is not about belief it is about testable hypotheses.
If I think out of the box you are all welcome to shoot me down with evidence and logic.
It is only intelligently pushing the boundaries with a lot of knowledge that real paradigm shifts can be made.
Wishing for miracles is close to a cargo cult.
If I have made you think a bit more than usual then that is a miracle!
Bert

[CraigS]

Is that Predetermination or Predestination ?

Cheer

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Is that Predetermination or Predestination ?

Cheer

That is facile.
bert

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by avandonk

That is facile.
bert

And that was a misunderstanding ..

I was enquiring about your statement:

The fundamental idea of prederminination elicited by the major religions always made me even more dubious of their grip on reality.

Because I was unclear as to whether you meant the theological term "Predestination" or the general term "predetermination", I asked a simple question. Your misspelling caused the initial problem.

Bert .. you are reading too much into my communications with you.

Cheers

[Brian W (Brian)]

Don't give up now Craig, renormalise et al are getting down to the essential question found at the centre of the onion....

At least one question has been answered (for me) there must have been time in the singularity because there was change in the singularity.

Brian
PS, having been both a pastor and a husband as well as a father I long ago realized everything was my fault.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Brian W

PS, having been both a pastor and a husband as well as a father I long ago realized everything was my fault.

Finding fault with, or placing blame, is a waste of time …


Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Ok .. paradigm shifts occur by living within the realms of possibility.

Choices are made, and are distinct from decisions.

Decisions come from the past.

Choices occur in freedom, unconstrained by the past.

The phenomenon of paradigm shifts is well known.

Science works incrementally, step-by-step. Each step uses the accumulated knowledge of the past, and builds upon that paradigm.
Some would say decisions based on reasons from the past, result in another cycle around the same loop. Choice breaks the loop, but can only be made by leaving the past where it should reside .. in the past, and launching from the present.

Funny thing is that humans spend 99% of their time living in the past !
Think about it .. just about everything you do is based on knowledge, experiences or ‘reasons’ from the past.

Human beings are capable of generating paradigm shifts. It is not new. It has always happened, and always will.

Paradigm shifts occur in Science. The process encourages this in the pre-hypothesis stages. Its beginning is called brain-storming. Everyone is capable of this mode of thought. The older we get, the less likely we are to invoke this mode. None-the-less, we are all capable of it. It is a skill, and it can be learned.

Check out some examples of Paradigm Shifts in the Natural Sciences.
These all occurred within the traditional scientific process, and the social boundaries of the day. The process serves to minimise unproductive detours, by weeding them out in the earlier stages. Productive thinking always survives. Remember that we live with others who spend 99% of their lives living in thoughts coming from the past. To support your cause, you must connect with them.

I still can’t see how our present day scientific processes directly inhibits paradigm shifts, nor can I see how it inhibit humans’ abilities to achieve them. It has its challenges, and the process itself, is not immune from paradigm shifts. It can change .. by the very process outlined above.

Cheers

I can give you a direct example of how the science has been stifled by a paradigm that has existed for just over 100 years....Relativity. The idea that nothing can travel faster than light, and Einstein himself is thought of as almost like a god. To hear some scientists talk of the "nothing faster than light" paradigm and it sounds just like a religion. The really stupid thing is...and it's hardly ever mentioned in physics textbooks...is that Einstein never said that nothing can travel faster than light. All that he actually said is that no material objects within the universe (ie: through spacetime) can travel at the speed of light. SR actually has solutions to its equations which require that objects travel faster than light, but never as slow as the speed of light. Even spacetime itself can move at any velocity it likes....it could do a million c and never break the rules. However, it's gotten into the popular lexicon and thought that Einstein said this "grand pronouncement" and so generations of scientists have grown up knowing this to be a "fact", when in fact its not. How many scientists do you know that have worked on the physics and the maths which would give us a glimpse as to how to accomplish faster than light travel??. I can name about 4 or 5, maybe. Most of them hardly rate a mention because the prevailing paradigm says it's impossible to do. About the only one you'll hear about is Miguel Alcubierre. Ever heard of Burkhard Heim???. Steven may have heard of him, but I doubt many others have. Not even many scientists have and yet he was quite an accomplished scientist. Only for a serious accident that happened when he was a young man, he may have become one of the greatest physicist the world ever produced. But, he ended up a recluse and his works only ever were published in German.

Think about how hard a time Charles Darwin had getting his theories on the origin of species and evolution accepted, even by the scientists of the time. Or Galileo, Nicholas Copernicus, Giordano Bruno, Michael Faraday, even Nicola Tesla...all at one time thought of as being crackpots with way out ideas by the establishment, whom eventually were vindicated. But only when science had progressed far enough that some scientists willing to go out on a limb to see what their ideas would do found that these guys had it right all along.

The whole idea of breaking paradigms is to learn how to leave what is comfortable and certain behind and to think outside the little square box all your learning has taught you where everything should and must belong to. Many, many scientists (and other people in all walks of life) don't like the idea of doing that because of the risks that accompany such a move. I don't need to spell out what those risks are, they're quite obvious.

[avandonk]

Carl, Einstein could not even contemplate action at a distance or as we know it now know it quantum entanglement.

We are forever doomed to be entangled forever to every particle we have ever encountered. It is actually worse than this we are the sum total of every interaction up till now.

Bert

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Carl, Einstein could not even contemplate action at a distance or as we know it now know it quantum entanglement.

We are forever doomed to be entangled forever to every particle we have ever encountered. It is actually worse than this we are the sum total of every interaction up till now.

Bert

True, that's why Einstein called it "spooky"...he was equating it with the "supernatural" (which is another unfortunate word).

[CraigS]

Carl;
I understand where you're coming from .. from my professional career, I can relate to it intimately.

I'm not sure the problem lies with the process.

There's too much human nature causing the obstructions you mention.

Any process can be used as you have described (ie: as a weapon).

Such is the organisational life which humans have devised, as a means of survival.

Enough for tonight .. I'm off 'til tomorrow. I'll have more of a think on this.

Not sure if this is getting Brian his 'answers' …

Cheers, Regards to all & thanks for a respectful discussion !

[renormalised (Carl)]

My brain is hurting from all this talk

Going to go watch some gratuitous violence and mayhem at the movies

(Might watch Ice Age)

[CraigS]

Well, its been a couple of days .. we've had plenty of chances to get some rest and quiet thoughts .. and then I see this article ..

Model shows how scientific paradigms rise and fall.

“Our model indicates that social cooperation makes it more difficult for new ideas to nucleate because of social pressure,” Bornholdt said.

“Accordingly, our model finds a ‘winner take all’ dynamic, suggesting a fashion-like dynamic for the prevailing focus of contemporary science.
“Even though our model is extremely simplified and does not deal with right and wrong, it explores the effect of herd mentality in the propagation of ideas,” he added. “Our model suggests that herd mentality makes a larger system less innovative than several smaller ones. In short, for innovation it’s better to listen to yourself than to others.”

.. pretty obvious if you ask me … who needs the model?, I hear being asked …
Well, at least it shows that someone is at least dedicating some effort by enquiring into our (collective) abilities to progress thinking within established scientific paradigms ...

The results could have implications for science philosophy and science policy, as the model suggests that scientific diversity may need special attention.

Their authors' study was recently published, (2nd Feb, 2011), in Physical Review Letters. At the very least, it has a reasonable chance of promoting discussion amongst segments within the scientific community, for whom this topic is an issue.

Good to see the issue is not just slipping by, unnoticed.


Cheers

[Paddy (Patrick)]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Actually Craig, the original question was not 'does time exist' but rather 'would time exist without change?'

Brian

The problem that my wee mind has with time is that there is no way of discussing it that doesn't imply time. So "would time exist without change?" - to me change necessarily includes time. I've never come across any expression about time that avoids this. Same with consciousness. I think therefore that it cannot be understood, which is utterly wonderful. Of course we must try to understand anyway.

Just my totally confused, uninformed and uneducated two bob's.

[Brian W (Brian)]

Strangely enough I am getting answers to my questions if by answers one means ' new ways to consider the question'?... and I do.

I am beginning to understand time as a necessity.

It does not matter if there is an intelligence that records it or an atom that observes it if there is change there is a movement from one form to another and change occurs in what English speaking humanity has called -time-.

At this point the question for me has become, does change cause time or does time cause change?

In a previous discussion some of the problems and possibilities of infinity were examined. In a way this tropic is just the opposite... is eternal sameness possible or will -time- as a causative force create change?

Brian

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Brian W

At this point the question for me has become, does change cause time or does time cause change?

In a previous discussion some of the problems and possibilities of infinity were examined. In a way this tropic is just the opposite... is eternal sameness possible or will -time- as a causative force create change?

Brian

Brian;
In science, the value of the outcomes are usually directly related to the way the question is phrased. Your question is now seeking cause and effect:

does change cause time or does time cause change?

Not singling this out, but in my travels, I see many, many problems resulting from seemingly trivial points, such as the way the question is phrased. Dependent variables in mathematics are just that … dependent. In isolation, they may have no physical significance, and exist only to describe an influence (dependence) on another variable, which may have physical significance .. (it may not have physical significance, also). The same reasoning also applies for the resultant of the variables' relationship.

It seems in metaphysics these questions are productive for promoting thought, not necessarily founded in reality.

Also, whilst the phrasing of a question may seem to be a pedantic issue, in science it is not.

Even your question implies the presence of time .. ie: what is cause and what is effect if there is no time ?

At this point, I'll call "foul" due to the phrasing of the question. I cannot conceive that you'll ever get an "answer" other than the one your phrasing assumes (ie: the never-ending existence of time).

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

If time doesn't exist, then there is no cause and effect, as we understand them. The same can be said if time is nothing more than an illusion which is generated by the observer/observed and/or consciousness. In either, cause and effect can be seen as nothing more than experiences which will either be separate from one another or occur simultaneously, depending on the point of view of that entity which experiences them.

[Brian W (Brian)]

Hi Craig, the instant replay has been watched and the head referee rules no foul.

My first question as well as my newest question are both -cause and effect- questions'

-Is it also fair to say that -change- creates time-

-does change cause time or does time cause change?-

However I believe you are correct in that there is no way to run an experiment to find the answer to whether or not time is -causative-.

But if mere speculation will be allowed for a moment? Perhaps time is a fifth force only instead of holding things together it is the force that demands change.

But as you say in this paradigm there is no way to test such a thought! But it has been an interesting thread, at least for me.

Brian

.