The Darwinian Mob

For the discussion of philosophical books.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sun Feb 15, 2015 5:26 am

uwot wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:Isn't the idea that gravitational force on mass and e/m is a form of refraction (with space itself acting as the lens) kind of included in General Relativity? That was a pretty good theory, as you claim.
It's a very good theory, but while it's true that astronomers talk about gravitational lensing, the mechanism that Einstein proposed was a material, spacetime, that is warped by mass; he didn't explain how though.
None of my limited studies of GR showed any indication that Big Al included any physics in the process, as in SR (Special Relativity). He simply did the math based upon how we measure things. Any proposals that spacetime was a "material" were the afterthoughts of materialist idiots.

He did not worry about "how" things work, only about the manner in which they worked. A pragmatic approach. This is consistent with the principles of classical physics in which "why" is a completely irrelevant question, and "how" is pretty much guesswork. So long as the principles hold true and the math works, a physicist is happy.
uwot wrote:My view is that if you take a position of realism, ie the universe is made of some 'stuff', combine it with some version of the Big Bang, then the universe is made of Big Bang stuff.
The argument goes that since Big Bang stuff expands/grows/spreads out, then so do fundamental particles.
The reason we don't experience this is that particles are knots/twists/accretions of the Big Bang stuff that act as point sources of Big Bang stuff; the universe is flowing out of them.
The 'energy' we experience, e/m for instance, is waves in Big Bang stuff.
E/m waves demonstrably move slower in denser media.
Big Bang stuff is denser the closer to point sources or collections thereof: fundamental particles, atoms, you, me, planets and stars, and hence waves passing through are refracted.
The way the density of Big Bang stuff falls with distance is consistent with Newton's Inverse Square Law, and if you start moving things around, you get they consequences of the Doppler effect associated with Relativity.
The reason we experience 'weight' is that the fundamental particles we are made of are tumbling over each other; in other words they spend some of their time travelling perpendicular to the main source of Big Bang stuff, in our case the Earth.
For simplicity we can just think in terms of left and right, but in both cases they experience refraction towards the Earth; downwards, if you like.
This implies that gravity is a localised effect and that once the density falls below a particular value, the expansion/growth/spreading out of Big Bang stuff becomes repellent and accelerates the recession of distant objects, a bit like dark energy.
It is nice story, but I have no idea whether it is true. For all I know it was created by beon and as for where consciousness or soul fits in, I haven't a clue. You'd be better off asking Ginkgo, he knows way more about that stuff than me.

I will try and read your book, but I'm very pressed for time and will struggle to give it the attention you say it needs any time soon.
Uwot,

You wrote, "My view is that if you take a position of realism, ie the universe is made of some 'stuff', combine it with some version of the Big Bang, then the universe is made of Big Bang stuff. "

I agree absolutely with you that the universe is made of stuff. However, although I am not qualified to trundle through the various mathematical schemes that have tried to model the Big Bang and justify the current cosmological bullshit, it is clear to me, and ought to be clear to anyone with a three-digit IQ, that the plethora of theories attempting to mathematically justify the BB indicates that the theory sucks.

Of course there must be a beginning, but I agree with Roger Penrose that a universe beginning at very low entropy is a troublesome concept. I also find that Big Bang theory is functionally identical to the omnipotent God theory-- both representative of low-entropy beginnings.

Therefore Beon Theory takes an entirely different approach to the beginnings of things, assuming that the initial state of the universe was at Entropy One.

You appear to be well qualified to understand it, provided that you take it slowly and ask questions. The only difficult part will come as you try to deal with the extreme conflict between my ideas and those you've adopted via the science-agreement system.

There is no difficult material anywhere in the book. Even my editor, a word and people person who had not taken a single high school math or science course, made perfect sense of my physics explanations. Perhaps because she had not been programmed to believe in contrary bullshit.

A chapter weekly will make it an easy read, giving you some time to consider the alternative ideas you will find along the way. Except for a few of the later chapters on Darwinism and physics. These should be perused a section or two at a reading, or whatever works for you.

Reading a book that is guaranteed to challenge your fundamental beliefs is a very difficult undertaking. Should you choose to accept the challenge, I'll do my best to assist.

I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post because I'm not interested in conventional physics beliefs. No point in trying to discuss them without an alternative paradigm. Perhaps, you'll come to understand this later. Or not.

Greylorn

uwot
Posts: 4394
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by uwot » Sun Feb 15, 2015 10:56 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:None of my limited studies of GR showed any indication that Big Al included any physics in the process, as in SR (Special Relativity). He simply did the math based upon how we measure things. Any proposals that spacetime was a "material" were the afterthoughts of materialist idiots.
As it happens, Einstein himself was a materialist. This is how he summed up a lecture entitled Ether and the theory of Relativity (you can read the whole thing here http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Ext ... ether.html ):

"...we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Philosophical realism (as least as it pertains to ontology) is only the idea that the universe is made of something that can loosely be described as material. Naïve materialism, that bricks are made of brick, is what materialist idiots believe, most people grow out of such beliefs.
Greylorn Ell wrote:He did not worry about "how" things work, only about the manner in which they worked.
The whole 'God does not play dice' thing was a response to the instrumentalist approach taken by many physicists. Einstein was very keen to explain how things like "spooky action at a distance" actually work.
Greylorn Ell wrote:A pragmatic approach. This is consistent with the principles of classical physics in which "why" is a completely irrelevant question, and "how" is pretty much guesswork. So long as the principles hold true and the math works, a physicist is happy.

Depends on the physicist, but as I have argued many times that is the defining feature of physics.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Uwot,

You wrote, "My view is that if you take a position of realism, ie the universe is made of some 'stuff', combine it with some version of the Big Bang, then the universe is made of Big Bang stuff. "

I agree absolutely with you that the universe is made of stuff.
Right, so you're a materialist.
Greylorn Ell wrote:However, although I am not qualified to trundle through the various mathematical schemes that have tried to model the Big Bang and justify the current cosmological bullshit, it is clear to me, and ought to be clear to anyone with a three-digit IQ, that the plethora of theories attempting to mathematically justify the BB indicates that the theory sucks.
The theory is based on the observed red-shift of distant galaxies. It also explains why the universe isn't collapsing under gravitation. One of the major flaws with Einstein's original version of GR is that he had to introduce the 'cosmological constant' a force that just happened to exactly counteract gravity. As it became clear that the Big Bang was a better explanation he called it his "greatest blunder". The fact that the sums are hard doesn't mean the theory sucks.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Of course there must be a beginning, but I agree with Roger Penrose that a universe beginning at very low entropy is a troublesome concept. I also find that Big Bang theory is functionally identical to the omnipotent God theory-- both representative of low-entropy beginnings.
However you describe the beginning of the universe is troublesome. It is difficult to imagine what sort of experiment you could run to recreate the conditions of the beginning of a universe without obliterating the one we currently live in.
Greylorn Ell wrote:Therefore Beon Theory takes an entirely different approach to the beginnings of things, assuming that the initial state of the universe was at Entropy One.
Ideas like that go back at least as far as Anaximander, he believed the universe was a perfectly smooth blend, the apeiron, which 'curdled' into water, earth, air and fire. There are interpretations of quantum cosmology that posit a basically homogeneous quantum field that is being ripped up by the event we on this side call the Big Bang. It's a perfectly respectable philosophical believe, but as you say, in the instrumentalist sense, it isn't science.
Greylorn Ell wrote:You appear to be well qualified to understand it, provided that you take it slowly and ask questions. The only difficult part will come as you try to deal with the extreme conflict between my ideas and those you've adopted via the science-agreement system.
The thing with my science-agreement system is that it is based on empirical evidence. If there is no evidence, there is no reason to entertain it.
Greylorn Ell wrote:There is no difficult material anywhere in the book. Even my editor, a word and people person who had not taken a single high school math or science course, made perfect sense of my physics explanations. Perhaps because she had not been programmed to believe in contrary bullshit.
I don't 'believe' any scientific hypotheses are true. Generally I have to take it on trust, but for the most part, I believe the reports of experimental results are accurate.
Greylorn Ell wrote:A chapter weekly will make it an easy read, giving you some time to consider the alternative ideas you will find along the way. Except for a few of the later chapters on Darwinism and physics. These should be perused a section or two at a reading, or whatever works for you.

Reading a book that is guaranteed to challenge your fundamental beliefs is a very difficult undertaking. Should you choose to accept the challenge, I'll do my best to assist.
Like I said, I'll do my best to get round to it. You mentioned that you have a website. What's the address, and where should I start?

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Ginkgo » Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:27 pm

uwot wrote:Isn't the idea that gravitational force on mass and e/m is a form of refraction (with space itself acting as the lens) kind of included in General Relativity? That was a pretty good theory, as you claim.
It's a very good theory, but while it's true that astronomers talk about gravitational lensing, the mechanism that Einstein proposed was a material, spacetime, that is warped by mass; he didn't explain how though.
He probably did if we regard space and time as a set of coordinates. This is where his field equations came into play. Scientific realism gives the same ontological status to observables and none observables. So it is reasonable to assume that space/time is some sort of "stuff". In am not sure about Einstein's position in relation to the aether in terms of a materialist explanation, but then again we now have have new candidates. Having said that, I think the term "materialism" is a bit too restrictive if we are talking about scientific realism.

uwot
Posts: 4394
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by uwot » Sun Feb 15, 2015 1:19 pm

Ginkgo wrote:
uwot wrote:It's a very good theory, but while it's true that astronomers talk about gravitational lensing, the mechanism that Einstein proposed was a material, spacetime, that is warped by mass; he didn't explain how though.
He probably did if we regard space and time as a set of coordinates. This is where his field equations came into play.
Well, yes. That's exactly what the theory of General Relativity does. The mathematical model treats the universe as a topological structure, the shape of which is influenced by mass. Einstein didn't, to my knowledge, propose any idea how it might do so. As I understand, it's essentially a dualistic theory, in that there is matter/energy and spacetime, which interact, but no one knows how.
Ginkgo wrote:Scientific realism gives the same ontological status to observables and none observables. So it is reasonable to assume that space/time is some sort of "stuff".
Personally, I agree that it is reasonable (it doesn't follow from anything scientific realism has to say though).
Ginkgo wrote:In am not sure about Einstein's position in relation to the aether in terms of a materialist explanation, but then again we now have have new candidates. Having said that, I think the term "materialism" is a bit too restrictive if we are talking about scientific realism.
It really depends on how restrictively you define materialism. Here's one I cooked earlier:
uwot wrote:Philosophical realism (as least as it pertains to ontology) is only the idea that the universe is made of something that can loosely be described as material.

Ginkgo
Posts: 2525
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Ginkgo » Sun Feb 15, 2015 1:37 pm

...

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Darwinian Mob

Post by Greylorn Ell » Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:28 am

uwot wrote:
Greylorn Ell wrote:None of my limited studies of GR showed any indication that Big Al included any physics in the process, as in SR (Special Relativity). He simply did the math based upon how we measure things. Any proposals that spacetime was a "material" were the afterthoughts of materialist idiots.
As it happens, Einstein himself was a materialist. This is how he summed up a lecture entitled Ether and the theory of Relativity (you can read the whole thing here http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Ext ... ether.html ):

"...we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Philosophical realism (as least as it pertains to ontology) is only the idea that the universe is made of something that can loosely be described as material. Naïve materialism, that bricks are made of brick, is what materialist idiots believe, most people grow out of such beliefs.
Uwot,

This information was a serious revelation for me. Busy, so had to reread your cited material a few times before responding, and will be rereading again and again until the entire idea makes conceptual sense.

I'd been taught in my physics classes that Big Al did not care about the aether and that the entire concept was dismissed because his calculations re: relativity, both special and general, were independent of any "aether." So I believed until now.

In younger days I'd made the mistake of trusting the Catholic Church to tell the truth about the origin of things and the nature of consciousness, but got over that. Subsequently I learned to distrust many aspects of science, but have held my physics teachings in much the same way that I once held Catholicism. No longer. Shit. Thank you for the insights, but still, shit, dammit! Why the effing lies in every field of inquiry?

And thank you for the deep corrections. More on this after I study Al's material.

Greylorn

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests