We know.

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

  We know.

Post by socrat44 » Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:20 pm

  We know.
===
1 - we know: the early universe started from '' a hot singularity'',
where mass is enormous, the volume zero, the density infinite
and time is zero.
2 -  we know: more than 95% of substance in the universe is a
dark energy / matter.
3 -  we know:only about 5% of matter is contained in a ''big bang''
4 -  we know: ''a hot singularity'' (with less than 5% of matter in
the universe) is a basis for modern philosophy of science.
5 -  we know: psychologists tell us we use only about 10%
of our brain power.
6 -  we can understand :   ≈ 10% of our brain power can discover
only less than  5% of  matter in the universe
7 -  we know: modern scientific / philosophical knowledge
doesn't obey our everyday common logic.
======
absract.jpg
absract.jpg (10.01 KiB) Viewed 613 times

Age
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re:   We know.

Post by Age » Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:04 pm

socrat44 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:20 pm
  We know.
===
1 - we know: the early universe started from '' a hot singularity'',
where mass is enormous, the volume zero, the density infinite
and time is zero.
That is an assumption "you" and "others" make.

I KNOW there is NO beginning and there was NO end.

socrat44 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:20 pm
2 -  we know: more than 95% of substance in the universe is a
dark energy / matter.
Human beings may THINK they know this.
socrat44 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:20 pm
3 -  we know:only about 5% of matter is contained in a ''big bang''
Human beings THINK this may be true
socrat44 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:20 pm
4 -  we know: ''a hot singularity'' (with less than 5% of matter in
the universe) is a basis for modern philosophy of science.
A basis for 'modern philosophy of science' would all depend on what you SAY is 'modern philosophy of science'.
socrat44 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:20 pm
5 -  we know: psychologists tell us we use only about 10%
of our brain power.
I do NOT know of one psychologist who has told me this. And, what is that 10%, which "you" have heard about, is based on exactly?
socrat44 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:20 pm
6 -  we can understand :   ≈ 10% of our brain power can discover
only less than  5% of  matter in the universe
I am pretty sure that "you" human beings can understand that those figures are NOT based on any actually real substantial facts. Unless of course "you" can show 'Me' as being wrong and prove otherwise
socrat44 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:20 pm
7 -  we know: modern scientific / philosophical knowledge
doesn't obey our everyday common logic.
======
absract.jpg
And I KNOW WHY.

What "you" human beings supposedly KNOW can vary very differently from what 'I' actually KNOW.

But when "you" say "we" you might be referring to some thing other than "human beings"?

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4973
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

All I know is...

Post by henry quirk » Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:22 am

...I'm self-directin' meat (same as you) in an amoral reality (so it's all up for grabs, buddy).

gaffo
Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re:   We know.

Post by gaffo » Sat Mar 23, 2019 4:43 am

we know nothing.

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Re:   We know.

Post by socrat44 » Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:48 pm

I know.
===
1 - i know: Newton's gravity describes that two objects with mass
        feel toward each other.
2 - i know:  Einstein's gravity describes that a single object with mass
  distorts the space and time around it in such a way that causes
    light in the vicinity to curve toward that object.
3 - i know: Newton's and Einstein's matter are less than 5% in the universe
4 - i know: these ≈ 5% of matter can bend only ≈ 5% of universe's space
5 - i know: the rest space of the universe (+ 95%) is flat continuum.
6 - i know: this simple arithmetic is hard to adopt.
======
FLAT.jpg
FLAT.jpg (6.26 KiB) Viewed 574 times
=====

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re:   We know.

Post by Atla » Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:12 am

socrat44 wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:20 pm
  We know.
Aren't you making a little too many assumptions here?
1 - we know: the early universe started from '' a hot singularity'',
where mass is enormous, the volume zero, the density infinite
and time is zero.
- observable universe, not universe
- small or zero volume, not certainly zero
- huge or infinite density, not certainly infinite
- and the idea that in every sense, time had a starting point back then, is a wild guess and pretty illogical
2 - we know: more than 95% of substance in the universe is a
dark energy / matter.
observable universe, not universe
3 - we know:only about 5% of matter is contained in a ''big bang''
maybe, maybe not, personally I doubt it
4 - we know: ''a hot singularity'' (with less than 5% of matter in
the universe) is a basis for modern philosophy of science.
Well it's the most mainstream idea but I think anyone will admit that there are many issues with it. And there are scientists who flat out reject the Big Bang idea.
But yes the observable universe does seem to come from a singularity.
5 - we know: psychologists tell us we use only about 10%
of our brain power.
Nope that's just a well-known urban legend.
A few people can seem to be able to directly tap into the raw processing power of their unconscious though, going way beyond what's "normal".
6 - we can understand : ≈ 10% of our brain power can discover
only less than 5% of matter in the universe
How do you know they won't discover the other 95% next week?
7 - we know: modern scientific / philosophical knowledge
doesn't obey our everyday common logic.
Actually deep down everything is still based on everyday common logic.

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Re:   We know.

Post by socrat44 » Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:51 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:12 am
Actually deep down everything is still based on everyday common logic.
Heisenberg
Heisenberg.jpg
Heisenberg.jpg (43.17 KiB) Viewed 493 times

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re:   We know.

Post by Atla » Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:05 am

socrat44 wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:51 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:12 am
Actually deep down everything is still based on everyday common logic.
Heisenberg
Heisenberg.jpg
If anything, that's the godless "God" of Eastern philosophy.

(But maybe by "logic" you mean the standard Western worldview, yeah that one got destroyed, but that's not what I mean by logic.)

“Quantum theory will not look ridiculous to people who have read Vedanta.” - Heisenberg

Anyway Heisenberg did go too far with the Vedanta stuff, the Copenhagen interpretation did a lot of harm I think.

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Re:   We know.

Post by socrat44 » Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:46 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:05 am
socrat44 wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:51 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:12 am
Actually deep down everything is still based on everyday common logic.
Heisenberg
Heisenberg.jpg
“Quantum theory will not look ridiculous to people who have read Vedanta.” - Heisenberg
Agree
=====

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re:   We know.

Post by Atla » Sat Apr 13, 2019 12:49 pm

socrat44 wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:46 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:05 am
socrat44 wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 10:51 am


Heisenberg
Heisenberg.jpg
“Quantum theory will not look ridiculous to people who have read Vedanta.” - Heisenberg
Agree
=====
But in the end Vedanta only solves like half of the mistery too. The weirdest part of QM remains unsolved.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re:   We know.

Post by -1- » Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:24 am

Listened to a philosophy lecturer in my home town, back about five years ago, who proposed that logic of humans has been shaped by evolutionary forces, and human intuitive logic excludes those logical possibilities that are counter or useless for use in our evolutionary past.

He proposed to call the evolution-shaped logic to be called Logic 1, and the non-intuitive logic which keep baffling humans Logic 2.

Apparently this is the latest breakthrough in logic theory and in philosophy of the last decade.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re:   We know.

Post by -1- » Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:31 am

Further to my previous post:

In L1 (Logic 1) things move smoothly and in a continuous tranportation from A to B. In L2, they jump avoiding existence in the interim space.

In L1 the existence of things that cause other things to happen, precede in time the existence of the caused things. In L2, this is not always the case.

In L1, acceleration is smooth and speed is always a function of acceleration. Not in L2.

In L1, things are additive: one plus one makes an amount of twice one. In L2, this is not true at all.

The list continues, and new items get added to the list of differences between Logic 1 and Logic 2, as the research into QM continues.

gaffo
Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re:   We know.

Post by gaffo » Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:34 am

-1- wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:24 am
Listened to a philosophy lecturer in my home town, back about five years ago, who proposed that logic of humans has been shaped by evolutionary forces, and human intuitive logic excludes those logical possibilities that are counter or useless for use in our evolutionary past.

He proposed to call the evolution-shaped logic to be called Logic 1, and the non-intuitive logic which keep baffling humans Logic 2.

Apparently this is the latest breakthrough in logic theory and in philosophy of the last decade.
concur - came to the same conculusion about logic - in my sophmore year in college - wrote a paper on it in my philospy class. Logic was just a product of evolution of man's brain - a form of instinct (pre-frontal large brian, ect but still just an instinct).


of course the same prof thought i might be "mentally troubled" and "need help" due to my views of the only reality i knew of was myself (Solipsist from 5 yrs prior - 16 yr old).


so go figure.

gaffo
Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re:   We know.

Post by gaffo » Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:37 am

I do think "logic" is over rated and just an another animal instinct (just a newer one the man and maybe a couple of "higher" animals (apes/dalphins/etc) may have.

not related to any "truth" in the least.

imo of course.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re:   We know.

Post by -1- » Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:32 am

gaffo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:37 am
I do think "logic" is over rated and just an another animal instinct (just a newer one the man and maybe a couple of "higher" animals (apes/dalphins/etc) may have.

not related to any "truth" in the least.

imo of course.
I think it may be related to truth. Or not related. But to prove that it's not related is just as hard or impossible as to prove that logic is related to truth.

Both a possibilities that defy verification by man.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests