Can One Travel Without Actually Travelling

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

I was highlighting the logical fallacy "argumentum ad ignorantiam" where a premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

The assumption that today's theories will be replaced in the future because history proves this is an example of this fallacy.

Steven

And then there's the old adage "Ignore history at your own peril"

Today's theories may or may not be replaced, but to dismiss the fact that previous ideas have invariably been either supplanted or highly supplemented by new ideas, as being fallacy, is skating on thin ice.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Nesti

This thread's going quite well...a little reminiscent of the events surrounding the attached photo, but well.

Carl Heisenberg and Steven Schrodinger are on to round...13?

Hey, where's the card girls and the cheerleaders??!!!

[renormalised (Carl)]

Just getting off topically off topic, do you notice just how dull and uninspiring degrees sound when you express their pronunciation phonetically??!!

Like PhD...sounds like "fud", MSc = "misk" and BSc = "bisk"

They just don't sound grand enough, like "professor"

I say they need changing

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

First of all science is not in the business of replacing non sense beliefs.

Irrational beliefs are just that.

As to your assertion "Well, if science is so much more than religion or mysticism, why is it that science has not offered you a release from suffering…since all I have read from all of your words, in every one of your post, is hostility and a cantankerous disposition to the opinions of others. Science has imprisoned you in frustration...for what?"

I have never heard so much self satified drivel. I am not unhappy with myself. I find when the idiotic ignorant try to lead the rest of the ignorant down a blind path with their simple platitudes, this is what grates against my mindset.

I spent many years teaching PhD students in the finer points of our craft and many of them are now employed in the best Universities and Research Institutes.

You are entitled to your opinion no matter how deluded it is.

If you think I need an invisible friend to round out my life you are even further deluded. The smartest Jesuit priests lost that battle long ago.

I am not getting into a slanging match with anyone that thinks the undetectable is real. It is even worse when they quote ancient scriptures written by people that would think it was a miracle to converse on line.

I come from a place where rational criticism is assumed and encouraged.

Bert

You crack me up Bert...you just can't help yourself can you.

You still haven't answered my question as to why you bother communicating with the "deluded" and "ignorant" on a General Chat forum?

"I spent many years teaching PhD students in the finer points of our craft and many of them are now employed in the best Universities and Research Institutes." Yeah, self satified indeed Bert. That's somewhat hypocritical isn't it?

"THE CRAFT" how egotistical can someone get?! I have a quote for you Prof..."quaint ceremonial village, occupied by demigods on stilts". Einsteins own words describing behavior like yours. And your comments don't impress me the least.

I think the shoe fits nicely.

[TrevorW]

Me thinks this thread has gone way off left field, please guys keep it nice

otherwise he who holds the axe may chop you off

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

Me thinks this thread has gone way off left field, please guys keep it nice

otherwise he who holds the axe may chop you off

That's what I'm afraid of...

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

That's what I'm afraid of...

The topic gets diverted when people suppress the opinions of others.

Go back to where the thread gets diverted, and you'll almost always see it was someone trying to suppress others. It's an ego thing.

The thread and topic we fine before.

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Hey, hey, what’s going on here. Leave you blokes for five minutes and look what happens. The thread turns to S@#T. Now Bert. I want you to shake hands and apologise. Berrrrrt!!!! And Steven, don't misapply Latin maxims. Its not nice; "argumentum ad ignorantiam" indeed. How many times do you have to be told allowing for the possibility that today's theories will be replaced in the future does not amount to an assumption that they will be replaced. Now I want you to write a hundred times. I will not use hyperbole to win an argument.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by FredSnerd

Hey, hey, what’s going on here. Leave you blokes for five minutes and look what happens. The thread turns to S@#T. Now Bert. I want you to shake hands and apologise. Berrrrrt!!!! And Steven, don't misapply Latin maxims. Its not nice; "argumentum ad ignorantiam" indeed. How many times do you have to be told allowing for the possibility that today's theories will be replaced in the future does not amount to an assumption that they will be replaced. Now I want you to write a hundred times. I will not use hyperbole to win an argument.

And I'll say this only once, you cannot assume a premise is incorrect (or correct) on the basis that it will be proven incorrect (or correct) in the future. That is a logical fallacy as there is no causal relationship between past present and future.

On the otherhand if the premise is proven to be incorrect in the present and corrected in the future, there is a causal relationship (cause and effect), hence there is no logical fallacy.

Hawking responding to the issue of time machines (= traveling faster than light) said if such a concept is true then we should be overrun by tourists from the future.

On that note it's time for a permanent exit from this thread.

Steven

[Nesti (Mark)]

Wow Steven...popping smoke and extracting with military precision!

[renormalised (Carl)]

And I'll say this only once, you cannot assume a premise is incorrect (or correct) on the basis that it will be proven incorrect (or correct) in the future. That is a logical fallacy as there is no causal relationship between past present and future.

On the otherhand if the premise is proven to be incorrect in the present and corrected in the future, there is a causal relationship (cause and effect), hence there is no logical fallacy.

Steven, carefully read what you wrote here (even if you don't respond). No causal relationship between past, present and future??. If something happens in the past that causes an event to happen, does not the consequences of that event move forward through time, to the present (the past's future) and if it's important enough, into the future (both the future of our past and present time). If there was no causal link between past, present and future, then no event which happened in our past would move forward to the present or anything which may happen now (or in the past) would move into the future. However, according to convention, the only situation in which there would be no causal link would be from events happening in the future, if time travel is impossible. That would mean nothing from now would leak backwards through time to the past and neither would anything from the future leak back to now, or further back through time. If you regard the arrow of time as being inviolate, then anything which happens in the past cannot go anywhere but forward to the present and, possibly, the future. The causal link runs one way, in this case.

However what you are doing is assuming that FTL is incorrect now, and will be so in the future, when you have no way of knowing what will happen in the future. In essence, you are arguing a furphy. Neither of us can know what will occur in physics theory as far as future knowledge is concerned. In all likelihood we may both be in for a surprise. That's why I said we need to consider all possibilities and do the work to either confirm or deny their validity...whether that's done now or in the future is irrelevant. It should be done.

Hawking responding to the issue of time machines (= traveling faster than light) said if such a concept is true then we should be overrun by tourists from the future.http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/....milies/lol.gif

That statement from Hawking was facetious. Just because you don't see tourists from the future doesn't mean they're not here. Or, if they're not, then saying they don't exist and therefore time travel doesn't exist because of this is also rather dodgy logic. You have no way of knowing. Either situation is possible, for all sorts of reasons. Tourists aside.

[xelasnave]

What an interesting thread.

It seems most have their feet on the ground and open to the possibility of developments in our understanding of the Universe admitting we still do not know everything.

This must be a good thing.

If one thinks we know it all and nothing will change ...well I see that as unfortunate...and such a belief places us on no higher level than any leading civilization before us...

Sitting on the outside my observations of the scientific method is that like most things implimented by humans it will work well if the rules are followed..
However for mine it seems science goes out the door if the math says it can work and frankly as I have said I am suspicious of..not the math as such..but those who can use it as a tool that can fashion many realities..look at string theory.. this is a non established reality one which most are worshipping as the key to total understanding... so much effort etc but upon what hint of experimental evidence has it run as far as it has travelled... math without experiment etc is meaningless and I know all will disagree ...math in support of a stupid premise does not carry weight with me ...dam I have read scientific research papers upon ..for example..the meta universe... the observations etc all added up etc etc... but when it got to the unsupported extrapolation that our universe is inside a black hole...a propostion unsupported other than by the math I lost faith in the reasonableness and dependability of the paper...

We need to tie math to an observable reality evidenced by experiment...and even then be cautious that the findings match the predictions too closely...

just think of the "theories" that dont follow the rules and think of those folk who should be the first to reject same as non scientific are the first to run out in total support...

again think of the idea called string theory or/and if you like M theory ..it is still an idea ..it is still a revamped non original 200 year old geometric construction of the limitations particles should have..should have..they can/will only do what our geometric construction entitles them...yes maybe and when you can weigh a string and get some tangible data it could be at that point the idea could have a degree of respect... ...and it is no good saying well this explains this or that if there is no basis other than the musings of someone sckilled in math..and that is not sour grapes...
But these "theories" that are treated like "fact" but exist solely upon the math saying the universe will be bound by the rules humans work on on paper or in a computer model...

if this is not the case perhaps someone can tell me what experiments support, for example the inflation theory or string theory or M theory or the notion that we have multiple dimenions, parrallel universes or that black holes hold the key to time travell...super symetry..a corner stone to the current "standard cold dark matter model" as I believe it is called...the math supports the notion of these super particles but really I would like something more before I buy that idea....

go to the cern site..look it over.. and ask yourself does the demonstration of rationality come out when these folk are so indulgent in matters simply beyond belief and can be only supported by math extrapolation (not to mention the use of the site to list their social activities, book club etc...or has this changed since I was last there????

....and upon my understanding the n prize went to GR before any observational or experimental evidence was offerred in support which seems to me as a matter of giving the prize even when scientific method has not been followed...so is it at that stage science or speculation???..

I could be wrong on my understanding of the history as GR etc is not my profession...and I rely on my friends here to say so if my understanding of the history is flawed...I can be shot down with a list of experiments to establish GR (at the point of the prize giving) string theory etc

Those in the science profession refuse to accept that corruption can enter their profession (as it can with any profession) and yet we could grow tired if we sort to list the folk who have corrupted data/results to suit their own particular needs...now these folk are the exception one would like to think but to ignore this fact and the scepticism these rouges generate in the wider community such that some will regard all science as little better than any other "cult" driven by their beliefs would be silly really.

Folk remember the bad guys as we all know and forget the reality of gathing of scientific data...er and sample analysis seems to have gone out the door with string theory and dare I say the big bang theory...but true science must be boring if you want to test your ideas past one or two observations...
We still infer black holes and dark matter by our beliefs...we believe because of GR it is so and therefore it must be so... could the current science be wrong..no way never never never... well never say never.

Men like Bert have the cred from many deeds well done, they (he is) are honest and have the right to think those rouges who I refer to (the result fudgers and grant scammers) do not exist as his expectations of others will be as high as he sets himself and yet I doubt if all will be as professional as Bert has no doubt been in his career.

I was an honest real estate agent and because of that refused to think other real estate agents deserved their bad reputation... well I found out they were not all like me... when I had the opportunity of seeing them from the view point of a client (both selling and buying for various Government Depts) all I can say is those I came across were either unprofessional incompetent or shifty...would not feed any one that I had to deal with..over 100)

I grew up in various court house residences (flat off the court house and CPS office) next to the local police station so I always thought police were fair and uncorruptable..and I feel I was wrong in that assumption and have noted various exceptions to that original belief..but given my closeness to the "system" how else would I see it??

The rejection of alternatives out of hand is arrogant, even if the current science seems infalible it may be flawed... but rejection is convenient to eliminate competing views but is the predominance of one idea (or theory) a gaurantee of finding knowledge... a monopoly on thinking should be regarded as suspect.

The big bang is a theory and yet due to the finding of "background radiation" all alternatives, such as the steady state model (who even remembers there was such a view??) now are not considered as worhty of pursuit and so no funding and no further research..anything competing with big bang will not get a look in....how can an idea move forward when it is crushed by one bit of news..the finding suits the big bang but is there absolutely no other expalnation for the "back ground radiation other than support for BB theory?

I can not see that the grasping of one idea as infalibile and to exclude all others as helpful.

The older I get the more things I find are not really facts but positions based upon ones beliefs and rejection of any other view.

AND look to history it is so often the rank outsider who has the original "new" idea and I guess in those circumstances we could call that idea as "alternative".

Again alternative gets bad press because some alternatives are simply out of hand , medicine health etc... and alternative suggests a lack of comformity and a lack of respect for the system (whatever system not only science system)... so we must fear alternative ...no one wants change and that is a fact.

The guy who worked out what actually caused ulsers was laughed at because his idea did not fit the current learning and yet he turned the treatment of the condition on its ear...now if one had a nice practice in Macquarie Street specialising in treatment of the condition on the basis of causes being related to stress and purchased your world on the income from same you would reject any new treatments no doubt... but such a responce points to human nature not to a flaw in science ...the new guy actually went back to old and out of date treatments to see what they may offer...He discovered that in the old days the condition was treated with bismuth which pointed him to the consideratrion that ulsers may be caused by bacteria and not stress...no doubt the folk who knew more had not given their predessessors any recognition that there was some hope in their olden day approach to treatment... but as I understand the matter although very much any alternative approach it turned out to be correct.

Now we all know alternatives signals "crack pot" but I would suggest the application of a simple line from something I read a long time ago...Desetarata (spelling?) but it goes like this..."listern to the dull and the ignorant for they to have their story"... and maybe this simply points to a mechanism to remind us that as much as we think we know it all a fool may point out something not obvious to us, it may be a simple fact overlooked by repeated specialisation and refinement of an idea which thru the introduction of greater complexity sees the original premise hidden from simple scrutiny...

I am dull ignorant and old but perhaps less determined to accept ideas as fact simply because there is a wonderful equation to support the idea .... or to accept anything really that does not add up just because someone else thinks they could never be wrong.
alex

[sjastro]

So much for promises.

Originally Posted by renormalised

Steven, carefully read what you wrote here (even if you don't respond). No causal relationship between past, present and future??.

Carl,

Try reading it in the context of the paragraph not as an isolated statement.

However what you are doing is assuming that FTL is incorrect now, and will be so in the future, when you have no way of knowing what will happen in the future. In essence, you are arguing a furphy.

Once again a logical fallacy. FTL is incorrect on the basis of theory, observation and experiment. To argue that FTL may be correct is an assumption in itself that not only contradicts the current science (now) without proof, but requires the future to have a definite outcome.

An obvious question that arises is where do you draw the line with this mode of argument? Why simply confine it to FLT, why not perpetual motion machines? The logical extension is to science itself.

In other words lets have science turn itself on its head, deny its own experimental and observational data and attempt to second guess itself.

That statement from Hawking was facetious. Just because you don't see tourists from the future doesn't mean they're not here. Or, if they're not, then saying they don't exist and therefore time travel doesn't exist because of this is also rather dodgy logic. You have no way of knowing. Either situation is possible, for all sorts of reasons. Tourists aside.

I know that it was tongue in cheek.

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

So much for promises.

They were meant to be broken

[TrevorW]

Three green skinned multi segmented insectoid aliens in the distant galaxy of Xanadu having a chat

"Are we the only life in the universe"

"Off course look at the requirements planetary position, gravity, atmospheric composition etc needed for us too exist, that can't be by chance it must have been the work of the almighty Whogivesacrap"

"Well then what about UFO's"

"Figments of our own imagination to satisfy a personal desire that we are not alone in the universe"

"Okay then who believes in faster than quark travel"

"It'll never happen, the laws of Nocando, can't be broken"

"Do you mean we are stuck here on this overcrowded, polluted planet for all of our 2000 cycles"

"No, I think Wannagetoutoffhere is working on it and should have the problem solved in the next 100 cycles"

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

So much for promises.

I knew you couldnt keep away. Its in the blood man.

Originally Posted by sjastro

Carl,

Try reading it in the context of the paragraph not as an isolated statement.

Its a furphy. Whether in context or not.

Originally Posted by sjastro

Once again a logical fallacy. FTL is incorrect on the basis of theory, observation and experiment. To argue that FTL may be correct is an assumption in itself that not only contradicts the current science (now) without proof, but requires the future to have a definite outcome.

Steven, you cant hope it to be logically fallacious. It must be illogical in fact. You know. Any child will tell you that to say that something may be correct is not to assume that it is correct. With all due respect you really need to step back a bit on this one.

Originally Posted by sjastro

An obvious question that arises is where do you draw the line with this mode of argument? Why simply confine it to FLT, why not perpetual motion machines? The logical extension is to science itself.

In other words lets have science turn itself on its head, deny its own experimental and observational data and attempt to second guess itself.

Because the subject is so new. Relatively speaking
We know so very little about it and your wanting to close the book on it all and say. This is the way it is. They have a name for this approach, its called "jumping to conclusions". Bad idea and very unscientific. Lets get more data in before we declare it to be impossible.

Originally Posted by sjastro

I know that it was tongue in cheek.

Steven

OK, we'll let you off the hook this time but you know, anyone who didnt know you better might have thought you were putting that argument for real.

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

Couldnt agree more Trevor

[renormalised (Carl)]

Once again a logical fallacy. FTL is incorrect on the basis of theory, observation and experiment. To argue that FTL may be correct is an assumption in itself that not only contradicts the current science (now) without proof, but requires the future to have a definite outcome.

An obvious question that arises is where do you draw the line with this mode of argument? Why simply confine it to FLT, why not perpetual motion machines? The logical extension is to science itself.

In other words lets have science turn itself on its head, deny its own experimental and observational data and attempt to second guess itself.

You still don't get a thing I have written, Steven. What I have said, all along, is this...we don't know. You are correct in stating that, presently, theory and such says it is incorrect and a false assumption. However, you're assuming that the present state of knowledge will continue on into the future, and that in itself is a logical fallacy. Where's your proof in that?? There is none. You can only summise that a premise once held will always be held. What I have tried to impress upon you is that instead of arbitrarily dismissing something just because it doesn't fit in now, doesn't mean we should always do so. Neither you or I have any clue as to what the state of knowledge in physics will be in 50, 100, 200 or more years. It doesn't mean that it's open slather for everything, but that some things are more likely than others, and maybe some things will always remain off limits.

It's not about turning science on its head or anything like that, it's about breaking out of comfortable paradigms and looking outside boxes. If you stop asking questions, you won't get any answers. If you're not willing or unable to look at something anew, then you'll just sit there and slowly move along.

You want to know where all this was coming from??. I wrote in an early post this....let's take this generalisation: assuming (for the sake of argument) that all these UFO's (or at least some of them) are exactly what they are, extraterrestrial spacecraft. If that's the case, what does that say about our present knowledge of physics and the possibility of FTL travel. Unless they live for many thousands of years and don't mind traveling at below c, it can only mean 2 things...

1) Our present knowledge of physics is seriously lacking in relation to this: i.e. they use methods we are not aware of,

or,

2)We can't see the forest for the trees: i.e. we have come up with a way but just don't realise it yet because we've been blinkered by what we presently believe to be the case.

In either case, what we should do is experiment and find out. Then whatever the outcome, we include that in our body of knowledge.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

You still don't get a thing I have written, Steven. What I have said, all along, is this...we don't know. You are correct in stating that, presently, theory and such says it is incorrect and a false assumption. However, you're assuming that the present state of knowledge will continue on into the future, and that in itself is a logical fallacy. Where's your proof in that??

No Carl that is not what I am advocating. If you read my posts carefully you would note I use the terms now and current very deliberately.
I also mentioned the implications on causality if a premise is proven to be incorrect.
A premise is correct as it stands now. You can't go faster than light as theory stands now. A theory will be disproven through observation and experiment. Scientific method at work.
What you don't do is to assume the theory is incorrect to start with on the basis that it will be proven so in the future. That is an example of "argumentum ad ignorantiam" at work.

You want to know where all this was coming from??. I wrote in an early post this....let's take this generalisation: assuming (for the sake of argument) that all these UFO's (or at least some of them) are exactly what they are, extraterrestrial spacecraft. If that's the case, what does that say about our present knowledge of physics and the possibility of FTL travel. Unless they live for many thousands of years and don't mind traveling at below c, it can only mean 2 things...

1) Our present knowledge of physics is seriously lacking in relation to this: i.e. they use methods we are not aware of,

or,

2)We can't see the forest for the trees: i.e. we have come up with a way but just don't realise it yet because we've been blinkered by what we presently believe to be the case.

In either case, what we should do is experiment and find out. Then whatever the outcome, we include that in our body of knowledge.

Or aliens don't exist.

[renormalised (Carl)]

No Carl that is not what I am advocating. If you read my posts carefully you would note I use the terms now and current very deliberately.
I also mentioned the implications on causality if a premise is proven to be incorrect.
A premise is correct as it stands now. You can't go faster than light as theory stands now. A theory will be disproven through observation and experiment. Scientific method at work.
What you don't do is to assume the theory is incorrect to start with on the basis that it will be proven so in the future. That is an example of "argumentum ad ignorantiam" at work.

I have read your statements carefully, and I know you have chosen your words carefully, but you are still making the assumption of what holds now will be the same in the future, even if you're only implying it in the spirit of your posts. I am assuming that this may or may not be the case. But neither of us knows what the actual outcome will be, because neither of us can predict what we'll know down the track. I am not disputing what is in current theory (remember that word...theory). What I am saying is if there are alternative ideas floating about, that haven't been tested (which they haven't), that may (and I stress, may) lead to a different answer to the questions being asked, then it is wise to do those experiments and see what happens. If they turn out false, then so be it. If they turn out true, then great. But don't presume that because we think we know what the truth is (from what we've done up until the present) now, that it'll necessarily remain so in the future. It may, it may not.

Or aliens don't exist.

That statement is excluded from the argument. The whole question was prefaced by this: assuming (for the sake of argument), so that negates that premise.

However, it is a possibility and one which would, by necessity, change the premise of the initial argument (if it was included).