uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am
Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:10 amA book was written.
So it was. Thank you for reminding us:
https://willybouwman.blogspot.com
Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:10 amFeedback was asked for. I gave feedback.
Thank you again for your feedback, but bear in mind it's basically a cartoon strip. It was designed to show how the majority of mainstream physicists think the universe works to people who have little interest in mathematics.
And it does SHOW what some physicists THINK about how the Universe works. There is nothing to dispute here.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 amAge wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:10 amYou misconstrued what I was saying. That is all.
Hmm, pot/kettle. I really don't think that an introductory cartoon strip is the place for a torturous dissection of epistemological minutiae.
Personally I do NOT think that is even necessary in a place like this forum.
IF one person did NOT TRY and speak for me, and get it so WRONG, then I would NOT have said anything to THAT person.
I was talking to someone else when I wrote that remark. NOT "you" "uwot".
Your cartoon strip has NOTHING at all, in real terms, to what some person THOUGHT I was saying. I was replying to the person WHO misconstrued and misunderstood what I was saying. I was NOT saying anything in relation to YOUR cartoon strip here.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 amI made it as clear as I could in the introduction that there is a difference between what actually happens (you might not like my use of the term, but that's what I call facts) and the models we create in order to explain those things that actually happen.
BUT WHY would a "model" be NEEDED IF 'what actually happens' is ALREADY KNOWN?
WHY would a human being create a model if 'what ACTUALLY happens' is ALREADY KNOWN?
The difference between 'what actually happens' and the "models" you human beings create is ALREADY SO OBVIOUS.
WHAT the difference IS?
HOW the difference IS perceived?
WHY the difference IS created?
WHERE the difference IS exactly? And,
HOW the difference IS made?
Are ALL questions that can be very simply, easily, and quickly ANSWERED and RESOLVED.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 amIntroduction
“When reading the works of an important thinker,
"Important thinker" is a very relativistic term.
To me, ANY and EVERY young person is a far more 'IMPORTANT thinker' than so called adult "important thinkers" are. Young people LOOK FROM a Real and True perspective, that is; Sadly, BEFORE they are corrupted to LOOK FROM and SEE FROM a distorted perspective.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am look first for the apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person could have written them.”
Thomas Kuhn
Which is EXACTLY what I did. I SAW the "apparent" absurdities in your writings, and then gave you feedback, which is what you were asking for.
The only difference is I would NOT be so self-centered to perceive myself to be a "sensible person". I just express my views, and then wait for the WRONGNESS in them be pointed out and SHOWN.
Just like I continually ask to be SHOWN WHERE the "apparent" absurdities are in my writings, and then wait to be TOLD WHY they are absurdities.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 amOnce upon a time, Isaac Newton was sitting under an apple tree, trying to work out what makes the planets go round the sun. Suddenly, an apple fell from the tree and hit him on the head. Somehow, it shook his brain in such a way that Newton realised that the same force that makes apples fall on people’s heads is the very one that keeps planets in their orbits. Isaac Newton had discovered gravity. That at least is the story. How much of it is true isn’t clear.
What we do know is that Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, is one of the most influential science books ever written.
So what if any book is more influential than another. It is only because of the collective assortment of books that the Real and True KNOWledge of things become Truly KNOWN. NO book is more nor less important than another in REAL TERMS. Although some human beings will say otherwise.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am It shows how gravity works very accurately. What it doesn't do is explain why.
WHY gravity works, the way is does, is just because it could NOT work in any other way. A body of physical mass MUST attract physical things. Just like the Universe works the way it does, that is; Two opposites, constant in Equilibrium, could NOT work in any other way. The Universe could NOT exist in any other way than It does HERE, NOW. This really is just that SIMPLE.
WHY ALL of this IS the way It IS is another matter. But also just as SIMPLE and as EASY to explain ALSO.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 amWhen Newton published a second edition, he had to admit that he couldn’t work it out and, brilliant though it was, as time went on, it became clear that Newton’s description of how gravity works isn’t the whole story - some facts about how planets actually move were discovered that Newton can’t explain.
Then, in 1915, Albert Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity, which includes a story about why gravity works. The basic idea is that what looks like empty space is really a bit like some sort of rubbery fabric and that massive objects, like planets and even apples, change the shape of this stuff.
LOL.
WHAT EXACTLY is 'some sort of rubbery fabric'?
'Empty space' IS
empty space. 'Empty space' IS
NOT some sort of rubbery fabric. 'Some sort of rubbery fabric' IS
some sort of rubbery fabric. 'Some sort of rubbery fabric' IS
NOT empty space, OBVIOUSLY.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am Relativity explains all the known facts that Newton could, and the ones he couldn’t. So does that mean the story is true? Not necessarily. The trouble is, the same facts can support different stories.
'Some fact' could also NOT actually be facts at all. And, a 'story' is just 'that' -
a story.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 amConsider the rabbit/duck illusion. What scientists know, in effect, is the size and shape of many of the marks that make up the picture; those are the facts - they are real, you can see them and measure them and say all sorts of things about them which are demonstrably true. The thing is, those facts are the same whether you think the overall picture is a duck or a rabbit.
These so called "facts" can and do change. That is the Nature of the Universe, Itself.
The size and shape, however, of the Universe, Itself, does NOT change even though human being's stories about the Universe are continually changing.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 amThe same sort of thing is true about the laws of nature. We know a lot of facts about how gravity makes things move, but is it caused by warped spacetime or gravitons?
Well it certainly is NOT the former. And, could the answer be because of something else other than these two rather silly ideas?
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 amThere’s a lot we know about what electrons and photons do, but is that because they are waves or particles? We can measure time extremely accurately, but is it something that ‘exists’ in its own right, or is it simply clocks ticking?
"you" can NOT measure "time" because there is NO such thing to measure.
IF "you" human beings could measure "time" "extremely accurately", then it would be a rather strange thing to then question IF "time" is something that exists in its own right. If "it" could be measured accurately or even inaccurately, then it would HAVE TO EXIST, "in its own right", OBVIOUSLY.
What "you", human beings, are measuring is how long it took for one object to get from one place to another place. In other words "you" are measuring the length calculated, by agreed upon measurements, from one event to another event.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 amUnderstanding why the universe behaves as it does would be a lot simpler if such questions were always either/or, but they’re not.
WHY do "you" propose such a thing?
The Universe, SIMPLY, behaves the way It does because It could NOT behave in any other way. That is; There are physical things, with empty space between and around them. The empty space allows the physical to move freely. This is HOW the Universe ALWAYS exists AND ALWAYS behaves the way It does. There is absolutely NOTHING hard NOR complex to understand here regarding this.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am Suppose you want to find out whether the picture is a duck.
But NO human being can "FIND OUT" whether the picture is a duck. Absolute EVERY thing is relative to the observer. If a human being SEES some thing or other is depended upon their past experiences. NO picture can be one thing or another. Human beings SEE what they SEE. If a human being SEES a "duck" or a "rabbit", then that IS what they SEE. A picture does NOT stand in its own right. It really is that simple.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 amYou need to see more of the image, so you might think of a way to see whether it has webbed feet. Eureka! The experiment works and you know the creature has webbed feet - so it’s a duck.
NOT necessarily so. That is just 'another' ASSUMPTION, that you are making here.
The actual Truth is that is WHAT the human being CONCLUDED, that is; "it is a duck". But what human beings CONCLUDE is NOT always True nor Right, which has been EVIDENCED for countless of centuries.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 amWell, maybe. All you know for certain is that it isn’t any kind of rabbit you’ve heard of, but it could still be a goose, a swan, even a duck-billed platypus or something we’ve never seen before, like a sea rabbit. Richard Feynman, one of the great 20th century physicists,
Just because "you" SEE that human being with that label as being "great" does NOT necessarily mean that that person is nor was GREAT. "Your" interpretation of things does NOT make things thee actual Truth. Have "your" conclusions ALWAYS been True and Right? If yes, then the chances that some person with that label is GREAT might be MORE correct than a human being who's conclusions are NOT always True and Right, but I would still NOT jump to any ASSUMPTION, just yet.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 amput it like this: “Every theoretical physicist that’s any good,
The term "good" is just another example of a human being putting their OWN relativistic perception onto things.
Are human beings known by the letters "physicists" that "you" do NOT agree with "any good"?
If either yes or no, WHY SO?
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am knows six or seven different theoretical representations for exactly the same physics.”
So, OBVIOUSLY, there is some thing WRONG going on here.
What happens if a so called "physicist" knows of four or five different theoretical representations for exactly the same physics, are they "any good", "somewhat good", "just good", or "no good" at all? Or, some thing else?
'Relativity' really can play a part in ALL things.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 amThe “physics” is the facts that describe how the laws of nature work
The "physics" described at any particular moment, that they are prescribed, might explain for some human beings how the laws of nature work. But EXACTLY HOW Nature, Itself, works does NOT need human beings to make up models. The human made up "physics" may describe SOME apparent facts, at some particular moments, but HOW Nature, Itself, ACTUALLY WORKS is just so SIMPLE and EASY to understand that the majority of human beings, when this is written, are unable to COMPREHEND the simplicity of It ALL.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am- the results of experiments, and the maths that describe them. “Theoretical representations” are stories about why they work, but there are lots of different stories. Some physicists believe one thing, some another, some don’t have any strong opinion and some couldn’t care less.
Just because some human beings have been given the label "physicists" in NO WAY should infer that they KNOW MORE than any "other" human being.
The one and only actual True STORY holds the actual and real True FACTS anyway.
The SIMPLICITY of HOW the Universe/Nature actually works goes straight past MOST adult human beings, because they are LOOKING FOR things that are NOT even here. They, especially "physicists" prefer to MAKE UP "models" of what COULD BE, instead of just LOOKING AT
what IS, which is
what IS actually just True and Right anyway.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 amThat in a nutshell is what sometimes makes physics so bewildering, because depending on which theoretical physicist you are listening to, you could hear any one from a range of different stories.
Thus a reason to NOT really be to concerned with what they say. If what they say does NOT make sense almost instantly, then that probably says more about their made up stories than I ever could.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 amMany of them might seem absurd, but assuming the physicist is ‘any good’,
Who/what decides on a "good" so called "physicist" from a NOT "good" one?
And, WHAT is the "good" going to be based on EXACTLY?
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 amthe story will be based on solid facts.
The WHOLE POINT that I have been saying from the outset IS; The so called "solid facts" that "you" prescribe to ARE NOT even necessarily facts to even begin with, let alone being 'solid facts' at all.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 amThis book draws together some of the best stories to give a general idea of how physicists think the universe actually works.
Yes that is exactly what this book does. But how does that differ from what the writers' of most books have been TRYING TO do since writings have been put into books?
The so called "best" stories, the "general ideas", "how physicists think', and "how the Universe works" are ALL only "YOUR" interpretation of things, which may or may NOT be true and right at all.
Just because "you" BELIEVE that what "you" have written is a compilation of the "best ideas", from the "best physicists", about the "best description of how the Universe works", does NOT mean that it is the best, or even close to being the best at all. "YOUR" interpretation could be WRONG, from the VERY outset.
Those human beings with the label "physicist", in those times of when this is written, still actually have NO idea of 'what actually happens', in regards to the Universe, Itself.
uwot wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:33 am In a way, it’s like imagining that the reason why a particular law of nature works is because it is a duck. Bear in mind though, it could be a rabbit.
Yes, what "YOUR" interpretation of HOW Nature works, could in FACT be completely different from what "YOU" think "you" see now. In fact HOW the Universe/Nature actually works could be so SIMPLE and EASY that, at the moment, "you" could NOT even fathom it, let alone imagine just HOW simple and easy the Universe Truly IS to understand and know.
What "you" SEE as being COMPLEX and HARD may in FACT actually be just really VERY SIMPLE and EASY indeed.
Define "fact"; define "true"; define "real"; define "discover"