uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:51 pm
I’m sure we are all touched by your solicitude.
As am I - by your sarcasm.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:51 pm
Right. In philosophy of science this is a problem associated with the theory dependence of observation. In Kuhn's 'normal science' everyone is working to find the evidence that their paradigm predicts.
Everyone knows that there are different research groups, to use Lakatos' term, that are looking for different things in the same data, but no one knows of any objective criteria that will create an algorithm that will find 'the Truth', which we wouldn't even know if we saw it. Underdetermination again.
Sure, it's just that the word 'observation' is ambiguous (e.g dualistic) and so the word 'objectivity' becomes ambiguous/dualistic and so we are using prediction IN LEU of 'objective morality' (right and wrong). And so if it predicts better then it is better, which is a subjective appeal to utility because the word 'prediction' is meaningless without an objective definition of Time (which is also dualistic between the paradigms of QFT and GR).
And the whole house of cards comes crashing down! Which paradigm is better? The one that predicts better? Which definition/interpretation of 'prediction' is better? Uuuuuuuuhh! Fuck. Flip a coin? The problem of free will
There are objective standards! The laws of identity and non-contradiction! They are also unachievable ideals. And so the best we can hope for is to make our models less and less wrong (precision). Given two equally wrong models - which one is better? The one which is LESS deadly to
humans in the event of a Black Swan! First we have to survive before we can do any science! No harm - objective morality!
The problem with the law of identity is that you can't assert two things are "the same" (A = A) until you
test them for symmetry.
But if you can "see" two things then they are NOT identical! You have successfully individuated these 'two things' by SOME criteria! Space-time coordinates? Quantum state?
And so if you mis-interpret the "law" of identity you get dumb, Pantheistic hippie shit like "I am one with the universe!".
You NEED a triad! Two test subjects AND an observer.
Such contradictions are buried deep down in the metaphysical and the Butterfly effect makes them worse!
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:51 pm
If you find a ToE, there will be no way of knowing that it will account for all future observations; at best it will be a theory of everything you have seen so far-which may well roll on and on, but could stop at any time.
There is also no reason to assume that the puzzles that are troubling Loop Quantum Gravity, String Theory or any of the other hypotheses, won't be solved and that we end up with several empirically adequate ToEs.
Correct! But it will be useful. Also - I already know it's impossible and so I am not even bothering with that infinite loop
It will be functionally equivalent to a ToE but in science everything is an operational definition. It is just that it may take us millenia before we find a contradiction/paradox in it!
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:51 pm
No. Someone who is convinced they have the answer pretty much defines a crank.
I don't have "The Answer". I have An answer. And I am busy proving that it is better than your answer.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:51 pm
What I have done in the book is to illustrate some of the basic ideas that make up contemporary physics by showing the philosophical models, rather than explain the mathematical models that underpin them.
You have explained them in Pictures when physicists explained them in Mathematics. They are still open to interpretation.
What you are solving is a human problem not a theoretical one.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:51 pm
That's one way of looking at it. I’m just not so mad as to think I know better than everyone else.
That's one way of looking at it. Another is to recognize the statistical phenomenon of variance. So on the statistical distribution of "cranks" - I could be Einstein or Deepak Chopra.
Finding and fixing problems is what I do. Do I know better than everyone else? I don't know how to answer that.
Here is a problem I see. Here is how I think you can fix it. I've given you the power of choice. It's up to you what to do with it.
Judging me on my character (using the pejorative 'mad') instead of my argument is an ad-hominem.
I did. My blog explains your dualism:
http://www.whatisti.me/2018/09/02/Openi ... s-box.html
But it boils down to: Given two visual representation of the same physics concepts, how do you DECIDE which one is better without some criteria for 'better' and 'worse'?
It is work in progress. It is time for Computer Science to give back to science. We've learned SO much in the last 20 years by building things like The Internet, Google, Facebook and other large scale socio-technical systems.
And in a true Feyerabendian anarchic fashion - I refuse to play the academic publication game. That system is broken.
I will publish my knowledge myself.