awareness

[Blaggard]

Very interesting and informative set of posts Blags.

Thanks

P.S We need to have coffee.

Hehe let's do lunch.

I am at a loose end for most of the time at the moment, and the best way to understand stuff you have learnt is to try and explain it, you are helping me hence far more than I am helping you. Seldom do I get time off but when I do, it's nice to talk.

[uwot]

Well you can't measure it precisely but you can observe the way a particles field behaves and infer the energy system only balances when you include an intrinsic spin to the particles orbital.

Actually, the link you provided ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%8 ... experiment ) explains exactly how you measure spin.

the maths is really complicated though and I haven't really studied it, suffice to say it's an inductive mathematical property based on observation, which means there is no reason to say it does not in reality rotate about its axis but there is no pictorial way of showing a quantum system per se,

I gather that the maths for an open tap is tricky, but I have no trouble describing what happens. From the point of view of maths or physics, it doesn't matter what mechanism causes an effect, it is metaphysics, but that is precisely what philosophers are interested in: arm waving, as you not unreasonably called it.

but to fully analogise it we would have to have access to things we are already only inferring such as its position and momentum at the same time.

Is it not the case that you cannot measure one without affecting the other, as with your analogy of feeling ripples, rather than not being able to analogise it.

Suffice to say you end up with spin as a natural consequence of energy concerns in the system and spin in turn gives rise to certain particle types, which accordingly follow certain laws such as electrons not being able to occupy the same quantum state and so on.

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse. It sounds like spin is something you can imbue a particle with, rather than an intrinsic property of particles. Mind you; could be.

...the effect of spin is what gives it its properties its an intrinsic part of the particles energy.

Again to be clear, isn't the energy just the amount two or more particles deflect each other?

Just as colour is an intrinsic part of a gluons attractive force so spin is an intrinsic part of electromagnetic force or whatever force you happen to be talking about.

As above.

Well it would be pretty hard to explain why an electron has a negative charge and a positron has a positive charge or most things without some understanding of maths. So not really. h bar is one of those constants that jumps out of the equations because it is just so. Just like the fine structure constant and c. I did give an analogy to a spinning top below which is the best I can do at this time.

What is positive or negative charge other than pushing something this way or that?

[Blaggard]

I can't do what you want, I have not studied this enough to answer you questions. I am sorry if that is going to annoy you but I will not try to explain that which I don't know. It seems derogatory to do so and I am sure you would not appreciate a half baked nonsense based on someone who does not know. I genuinely do not know how to answer your questions, I wont make out that I do for the sake of my ego. Or for the sake of your understanding, when I do know though be assured you will be the first to know

[uwot]

I can't do what you want, I have not studied this enough to answer you questions. I am sorry if that is going to annoy you but I will not try to explain that which I don't know.

Like I said, it's metaphysics. There's no reason why you or anyone should know how to answer that sort of question. It's Newton and 'Hypotheses non fingo' again http://philosophynow.org/issues/88/Hypotheses_Non_Fingo ; the physics is the inverse square law, the demonstrable effect one body has on another (near enough). What causes it is neither here nor there. Same with charge, mass, weak and strong nuclear forces and spin.

It seems derogatory to do so and I am sure you would not appreciate a half baked nonsense based on someone who does not know.

No, I really would; it's meat and drink to philosophers. It is arm waving, but I like good stories.

I genuinely do not know how to answer your questions, I wont make out that I do for the sake of my ego. Or for the sake of your understanding, when I do know though be assured you will be the first to know

I doubt if anyone will ever know, and while it is refreshing to hear someone admit they don't know, if in the meantime you come up with some half baked nonsense, I'd be happy to hear it.

[Blaggard]

I can't do what you want, I have not studied this enough to answer you questions. I am sorry if that is going to annoy you but I will not try to explain that which I don't know.

Like I said, it's metaphysics. There's no reason why you or anyone should know how to answer that sort of question. It's Newton and 'Hypotheses non fingo' again http://philosophynow.org/issues/88/Hypotheses_Non_Fingo ; the physics is the inverse square law, the demonstrable effect one body has on another (near enough). What causes it is neither here nor there. Same with charge, mass, weak and strong nuclear forces and spin.

It seems derogatory to do so and I am sure you would not appreciate a half baked nonsense based on someone who does not know.

No, I really would; it's meat and drink to philosophers. It is arm waving, but I like good stories.

I genuinely do not know how to answer your questions, I wont make out that I do for the sake of my ego. Or for the sake of your understanding, when I do know though be assured you will be the first to know

I doubt if anyone will ever know, and while it is refreshing to hear someone admit they don't know, if in the meantime you come up with some half baked nonsense, I'd be happy to hear it.

Lol when I do indeed come up with some half baked nonsense I will let you know.

Refreshing or not sometimes people just don't know, al fresco it is.

I of course don't know, whether anyone will ever know, well that is of course something I don't know.

I just get by on my studies atm and barely, if those studies lead me to become the worlds biggest authority on something I am sure I will end up being the worlds biggest authority on nothing of importance. Although would like to think this study is edging towards something, but if not so be it.

I think if I discover nothing it is probably better to do so than discover something that no one cares about, and nothing that matters. But I have waxed lyrical too long, if nothing is all I am good for then nothing is fine by me, I kinda like the study, I kinda like the fact I am doing nothing, I kinda like knowledge. So sue me...

[jackles]

puppy dog.

[uwot]

Lol when I do indeed come up with some half baked nonsense I will let you know.

Here's some. In another thread, you ask whether GR and QM are compatible. In the sense that they both work extremely well, no they are not. What seems to be incompatible from a philosophical point of view, is the ontology. You argued that QM doesn't commit to any ontology, I suggested that nor does GR. From an instrumentalist, Newtonian Hypotheses non fingo, Machian positivist perspective, it doesn't matter. As I said, all that mass, charge, spin, colour are, are measurable effects that one lump of matter has on another. We have a sense of mass and of charge, they make us feel a particular way, but that is Chalmers' hard problem. All they mean as far as physics is concerned, is that they affect how things move; the tingling feeling from licking a battery, for instance, is a mystery in itself, but incidental.

Refreshing or not sometimes people just don't know, al fresco it is.

I of course don't know, whether anyone will ever know, well that is of course something I don't know.

Well, that's empiricism for you: nobody will ever know. Physicists know certain things; for instance that the acceleration due to gravity on Earth is 9.8ms². Nobody knows what the cause is; could be warped spacetime, could be graviton exchange, could be something stringy, could be angels pushing everything together. Any old bollocks can be made compatible with 9.8ms².
Philosopher 1: So these undetectable angels push stuff together at 9.8ms²?
Philosopher 2: That's right.
They call each other names, a fistfight ensues and nobody's any the wiser. Works with scientists too.
Personally, I think physicists should try and sort out their ontology. To me the most plausible explanation for the phenomena that gives rise to the appearance of stuff, is some stuff that is responsible for the phenomena. A field or fields of some sort, combining Alan Guth's inflaton and whatever fields have to be added to account for the things that physicists know. Frankly, with my limited knowledge, I think something like an inflaton will do it.

[jackles]

the future has no size cos it hasent happened .yet it the future presents size in the now as far as consciousness goes.and its an inflated size relative to size in the past.

[Blaggard]

Lol when I do indeed come up with some half baked nonsense I will let you know.

Here's some. In another thread, you ask whether GR and QM are compatible. In the sense that they both work extremely well, no they are not. What seems to be incompatible from a philosophical point of view, is the ontology. You argued that QM doesn't commit to any ontology, I suggested that nor does GR. From an instrumentalist, Newtonian Hypotheses non fingo, Machian positivist perspective, it doesn't matter. As I said, all that mass, charge, spin, colour are, are measurable effects that one lump of matter has on another. We have a sense of mass and of charge, they make us feel a particular way, but that is Chalmers' hard problem. All they mean as far as physics is concerned, is that they affect how things move; the tingling feeling from licking a battery, for instance, is a mystery in itself, but incidental.

Refreshing or not sometimes people just don't know, al fresco it is.

I of course don't know, whether anyone will ever know, well that is of course something I don't know.

Well, that's empiricism for you: nobody will ever know. Physicists know certain things; for instance that the acceleration due to gravity on Earth is 9.8ms². Nobody knows what the cause is; could be warped spacetime, could be graviton exchange, could be something stringy, could be angels pushing everything together. Any old bollocks can be made compatible with 9.8ms².
Philosopher 1: So these undetectable angels push stuff together at 9.8ms²?
Philosopher 2: That's right.
They call each other names, a fistfight ensues and nobody's any the wiser. Works with scientists too.
Personally, I think physicists should try and sort out their ontology. To me the most plausible explanation for the phenomena that gives rise to the appearance of stuff, is some stuff that is responsible for the phenomena. A field or fields of some sort, combining Alan Guth's inflaton and whatever fields have to be added to account for the things that physicists know. Frankly, with my limited knowledge, I think something like an inflaton will do it.

Well Copenhagen has no ontology until a measurement is performed. If that counts as an ontology that would be it. We cannot know anything about something that is unobserved. All we can do is express a probability that something might be in any particular state. That's not to say something does not exist until we measure it, just that it is undefined.

As I said on another thread if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

GR and QM are compatible in field theory that explains wave interaction but the particle theory encounters problems. I have already explained what they are.

What we actually need is experiment, and it is all we have to verify science, we don't have the benefit of making shit up like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whatever.


Yeah intelligent falling is my best hope for a resolution to the issues of gravity too. j/k

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling

[Blaggard]

puppy dog.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, puppies are cute though. Awwww...

the future has no size cos it hasent happened .yet it the future presents size in the now as far as consciousness goes.and its an inflated size relative to size in the past.

The future does not exist until it happens, you do like your profundity don't you jackles.

Suffice to say mainstream physics agrees the future does not exist but is often dependant on the present.

[Arising_uk]

...
As I said on another thread if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? ...

Only if there are things with senses around.

In other words it depends upon how you define a sound.

[Blaggard]

...
As I said on another thread if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? ...

Only if there are things with senses around.

In other words it depends upon how you define a sound.

That's the point how do you define a sound?

I see you saw the thread.

You hence get the ideas behind the current Copenhagen interpretation, as philosophical as it is, it at least does have a logical bent on ontology.

[uwot]

Well Copenhagen has no ontology until a measurement is performed.

Yes, I should have added Copenhagen, Shut Up and Calculate to the list. Incidentally, I meant to say 'you ask whether GR and QM are incompatible', I don't know whether that makes it any clearer that I understand that physics can be interpreted entirely instrumentally.

If that counts as an ontology that would be it.

Only if you are prepared to say what the ultimate cause of the phenomenon is.

We cannot know anything about something that is unobserved.

That too, is empiricism for you.

As I said on another thread if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Thanks Arising for putting it so succinctly. Yes, we get that observations/sensations imply observers/sensors although almost from the time Descartes said it, even that has been challenged; by Gassendi, initially.

GR and QM are compatible in field theory that explains wave interaction but the particle theory encounters problems. I have already explained what they are.

Particle theories have been encountering problems since Democritus first suggested them (stealing Leucippus' thunder, perhaps).

What we actually need is experiment, and it is all we have to verify science, we don't have the benefit of making shit up like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whatever.

There's a bit more to it than making up dancing angel shit. It's what philosophy does, you take the phenomenal world and put it in a context; try and make sense of it. Quite literally the oldest question in philosophy is 'What is everything made of?' According to our best physics, the universe is made of something that can grow from eansy-weansy to really, really big in just shy of 14 billion years. And do all the freaky is it a wave? is it a particle? two slit jiggery-pokery, form stars, planets and conscious beings, indistinguishable from magic stuff. Philosophers are as much party to that information as physicists, second hand, granted; but for all that we are dumbstruck by the brilliance of experimentalists in finding things to measure, and the mathematical genius it takes to account for the measurements, can physics or maths say anything about what the universe, what fundamental particles are made of?
Steven Weinberg, no friend of philosophy, but undoubtedly a brilliant man, Nobel laureate no less, says that most physicists assume 'a rough and ready realism'. What is it that most physicists think is real?

You said before: "I can't do what you want." I'm not trying to be funny, but do you at least understand the question 'What are fundamental particles made of?' I quite appreciate that 'Yes, but who cares?' is entirely reasonable, but this is a philosophy forum and you wouldn't be playing the game. Bad Blaggard!

[Blaggard]

Well Copenhagen has no ontology until a measurement is performed.

Yes, I should have added Copenhagen, Shut Up and Calculate to the list. Incidentally, I meant to say 'you ask whether GR and QM are incompatible', I don't know whether that makes it any clearer that I understand that physics can be interpreted entirely instrumentally.

If that counts as an ontology that would be it.

Only if you are prepared to say what the ultimate cause of the phenomenon is.

We cannot know anything about something that is unobserved.

That too, is empiricism for you.

As I said on another thread if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Thanks Arising for putting it so succinctly. Yes, we get that observations/sensations imply observers/sensors although almost from the time Descartes said it, even that has been challenged; by Gassendi, initially.

GR and QM are compatible in field theory that explains wave interaction but the particle theory encounters problems. I have already explained what they are.

Particle theories have been encountering problems since Democritus first suggested them (stealing Leucippus' thunder, perhaps).

What we actually need is experiment, and it is all we have to verify science, we don't have the benefit of making shit up like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whatever.

There's a bit more to it than making up dancing angel shit. It's what philosophy does, you take the phenomenal world and put it in a context; try and make sense of it. Quite literally the oldest question in philosophy is 'What is everything made of?' According to our best physics, the universe is made of something that can grow from eansy-weansy to really, really big in just shy of 14 billion years. And do all the freaky is it a wave? is it a particle? two slit jiggery-pokery, form stars, planets and conscious beings, indistinguishable from magic stuff. Philosophers are as much party to that information as physicists, second hand, granted; but for all that we are dumbstruck by the brilliance of experimentalists in finding things to measure, and the mathematical genius it takes to account for the measurements, can physics or maths say anything about what the universe, what fundamental particles are made of?
Steven Weinberg, no friend of philosophy, but undoubtedly a brilliant man, Nobel laureate no less, says that most physicists assume 'a rough and ready realism'. What is it that most physicists think is real?

You said before: "I can't do what you want." I'm not trying to be funny, but do you at least understand the question 'What are fundamental particles made of?' I quite appreciate that 'Yes, but who cares?' is entirely reasonable, but this is a philosophy forum and you wouldn't be playing the game. Bad Blaggard!

This forum is running so slowly at the moment I can't possibly answer your questions, when it stops basically running that slowly I will endeavour to do so. It's like swimming through treacle though atm, fucked if I can be assed to.

See you anon.

I have noticed forums do that, I am not sure why, it seems if you post more than 1 post in half an hour they restrict your access by rick rolling you about. It's a sad practice but what can you do.

cnuts will of course be cnuts. It's ever so human to restrict access to those who can think.

Still as Einstien once famously said: "Fuck da powlice."

[uwot]

This forum is running so slowly at the moment I can't possibly answer your questions, when it stops basically running that slowly I will endeavour to do so. It's like swimming through treacle though atm, fucked if I can be assed to.

In your own time.
About dancing angel shit, dunno whether you saw New Scientist, 8 Feb. Pop science, I know, but just as an example, four different versions of black holes, I'm sure there are plenty more. The kudos will go to those that devise the experiment that determines whether it's foxtrot or rumba. The glory will go to the one that can say: I told you it was angels.

cnuts will of course be cnuts. It's ever so human to restrict access to those who can think.

I blame the Inebriatti.