Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

[Sculptor]

Argumentation appears to be your forte. I was not mistaken as you assert. I will explain it again. If there is a group working on a specific area of a discipline, in this case physics, and they are all in cinque with a particular theory, then by definition the member of the group who publishes the theory is not a lone wolf, out on a limb, with a theory that does not have support of any of his peers; others in his discipline. He has the support of a whole group of them: physicist(s) plural; period; full stop.

I understand that you believe this but since you cannot name any of this mysterious cliche I doubt whether your 4 line assessement of their findings is really worth reading.

Comprende?

Putting your energy into understanding the theory, agreeing or disagreeing with it: allowed. Nit-picking: tiresome.

You not given any Theory to understand. All you have given is a tabloid sound bite about what you think "they" have discovered.
It's just a list of empty assertions about which you seem to know very little.

Whatever! Try to be less saturnine.

SO I assume I am correct on this point?

[Sculptor]

I understand that you believe this but since you cannot name any of this mysterious cliche I doubt whether your 4 line assessement of their findings is really worth reading.


You not given any Theory to understand. All you have given is a tabloid sound bite about what you think "they" have discovered.
It's just a list of empty assertions about which you seem to know very little.

Whatever! Try to be less saturnine.

An additional comment. I have given the physicist’s name. If you are interested check out the theory and then enlighten us, in your own words; explain in what way I have misrepresented it. A blanket statement that I have misrepresented it and seem to know very little about it could be either lack of comprehension or opinion. Either one is not pertinent to a meaningful dialogue.

You have dropped a mane but have not presented a theory of any kind.

[owl of Minerva]

Whatever! Try to be less saturnine.

An additional comment. I have given the physicist’s name. If you are interested check out the theory and then enlighten us, in your own words; explain in what way I have misrepresented it. A blanket statement that I have misrepresented it and seem to know very little about it could be either lack of comprehension or opinion. Either one is not pertinent to a meaningful dialogue.

You have dropped a mane but have not presented a theory of any kind.

You have a point there. On rereading what I wrote I realize I did not give the title of the study that produced the theory. The study is on quantum gravity and the theory is called the loop quantum gravity theory. You may check it out in Wikipedia but do not expect to find anything coherent there or assume that what you find there is accurate. What is accurate, and understandable, is what is written, not only by an expert in the field but also the founder of the study: Carlo Rovelli. The theory and its implications are to be found in his book: The ‘Order of Time’ if you are interested in pursuing it further.

[Sculptor]

An additional comment. I have given the physicist’s name. If you are interested check out the theory and then enlighten us, in your own words; explain in what way I have misrepresented it. A blanket statement that I have misrepresented it and seem to know very little about it could be either lack of comprehension or opinion. Either one is not pertinent to a meaningful dialogue.

You have dropped a mane but have not presented a theory of any kind.

You have a point there. On rereading what I wrote I realize I did not give the title of the study that produced the theory. The study is on quantum gravity and the theory is called the loop quantum gravity theory. You may check it out in Wikipedia but do not expect to find anything coherent there or assume that what you find there is accurate. What is accurate, and understandable, is what is written, not only by an expert in the field but also the founder of the study: Carlo Rovelli. The theory and its implications are to be found in his book: The ‘Order of Time’ if you are interested in pursuing it further.

Are you satisfied that Loop Quantum Gravity Theory is adequately summarised by the following:

A study of space by physicists reveals that nothing exists. No absolute time, space, or things. What they see are things activated by events. There would be no thing without events. They extrapolate this to the macro world: events lead to things which have a beginning, middle, and an end, propelled by change, ad infinitum to the end of time. What is real in both worlds are events and change.

Or that this passage is an accurate representation of LQGT?

[owl of Minerva]

You have dropped a mane but have not presented a theory of any kind.

You have a point there. On rereading what I wrote I realize I did not give the title of the study that produced the theory. The study is on quantum gravity and the theory is called the loop quantum gravity theory. You may check it out in Wikipedia but do not expect to find anything coherent there or assume that what you find there is accurate. What is accurate, and understandable, is what is written, not only by an expert in the field but also the founder of the study: Carlo Rovelli. The theory and its implications are to be found in his book: The ‘Order of Time’ if you are interested in pursuing it further.

Are you satisfied that Loop Quantum Gravity Theory is adequately summarised by the following:

A study of space by physicists reveals that nothing exists. No absolute time, space, or things. What they see are things activated by events. There would be no thing without events. They extrapolate this to the macro world: events lead to things which have a beginning, middle, and an end, propelled by change, ad infinitum to the end of time. What is real in both worlds are events and change.

Or that this passage is an accurate representation of LQGT?

If my summary of what the implications of the theory are; what it represents, is not enough for you, go back to the source and find out for yourself. Don’t expect me to spoon-feed it to you. I evolved past my spoon-feeding days a few years ago and have no desire to return to them.

[Sculptor]

You have a point there. On rereading what I wrote I realize I did not give the title of the study that produced the theory. The study is on quantum gravity and the theory is called the loop quantum gravity theory. You may check it out in Wikipedia but do not expect to find anything coherent there or assume that what you find there is accurate. What is accurate, and understandable, is what is written, not only by an expert in the field but also the founder of the study: Carlo Rovelli. The theory and its implications are to be found in his book: The ‘Order of Time’ if you are interested in pursuing it further.

Are you satisfied that Loop Quantum Gravity Theory is adequately summarised by the following:

A study of space by physicists reveals that nothing exists. No absolute time, space, or things. What they see are things activated by events. There would be no thing without events. They extrapolate this to the macro world: events lead to things which have a beginning, middle, and an end, propelled by change, ad infinitum to the end of time. What is real in both worlds are events and change.

Or that this passage is an accurate representation of LQGT?

If my summary of what the implications of the theory are; what it represents, is not enough for you, go back to the source and find out for yourself. Don’t expect me to spoon-feed it to you. I evolved past my spoon-feeding days a few years ago and have no desire to return to them.

From what I have read you seem to have misrepresented the theory

[owl of Minerva]

Are you satisfied that Loop Quantum Gravity Theory is adequately summarised by the following:

A study of space by physicists reveals that nothing exists. No absolute time, space, or things. What they see are things activated by events. There would be no thing without events. They extrapolate this to the macro world: events lead to things which have a beginning, middle, and an end, propelled by change, ad infinitum to the end of time. What is real in both worlds are events and change.

Or that this passage is an accurate representation of LQGT?

If my summary of what the implications of the theory are; what it represents, is not enough for you, go back to the source and find out for yourself. Don’t expect me to spoon-feed it to you. I evolved past my spoon-feeding days a few years ago and have no desire to return to them.

From what I have read you seem to have misrepresented the theory

Is this this fact or opinion? Site sources please. If I misrepresented the theory, then so did its founder, as my summary was from his exposition on the possible implications of the theory. I presented it as a world view. Whether the theory is true, false, or neither is not within my province to decide. A reminder: the topic under discussion was ‘Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?’ It was not: ‘Will Loop Quantum Gravity Theory upend Einstein’s Theory of Relativity?’ which is something only physicists are qualified to decide.

I am taking you seriously so far but if you are just trolling I will find something better to do.

[Belinda]

Owl of Minerva wrote:

In some universities there is not a lot of support for the humanities. Philosophy departments are barely holding on. There is a cultural view that all that is a waste of time and not a good fit for the average student. In public school art classes are not considered necessary; it is thought best to put emphasis on a practical career choice; on what will be in demand. Science and business are perceived as top choices, even in some elite universities, for their perceived cachet and money-making prowess. The development of the student to be an all-around individual is too often neglected. This may not be true in all cultures but it is in some.

The well-off in the past got a classical education and even some ordinary people were quite cultured and benefited from their educations, even if their life’s work was humble.

I agree that universities generally are not teaching enough Humanities. Not enough tax money is spent on tertiary education for all. Books are not read. Theatre is too expensive for most working people.

[Sculptor]

If my summary of what the implications of the theory are; what it represents, is not enough for you, go back to the source and find out for yourself. Don’t expect me to spoon-feed it to you. I evolved past my spoon-feeding days a few years ago and have no desire to return to them.

From what I have read you seem to have misrepresented the theory

If I misrepresented the theory, then so did its founder, as my summary was from his exposition on the possible implications of the theory. I presented it as a world view.

Oh really.
Please cite.

[owl of Minerva]

From what I have read you seem to have misrepresented the theory

If I misrepresented the theory, then so did its founder, as my summary was from his exposition on the possible implications of the theory. I presented it as a world view.

Oh really.
Please cite.

You did not post the whole of your last post or the whole of my response to it or answer the question I posed to you. You took snippets of both out of context and posed a new question. I do not respond to snippets taken out of context, consequently I am not citing anything. If you do not get the irony of a respected founder of a theory not understanding it, or that ‘perspectives’ in the title refers to world views, there is nothing to be said. You either have cognitive dissonance or like trolling. While the former is worthy of compassion, the latter is worthy of disdain.

So adios, Au Renoir, Sayonara, Goodbye.

[Sculptor]

If I misrepresented the theory, then so did its founder, as my summary was from his exposition on the possible implications of the theory. I presented it as a world view.

Oh really.
Please cite.

You did not post the whole of your last post or the whole of my response to it or answer the question I posed to you. You took snippets of both out of context and posed a new question.

Yes, but its you that is the one making the claims. I'm just asking questions which you have failed to answer.

[owl of Minerva]

I agree with Wiki’s definition of reductionism. I have responded in your “Humans are programmed for evil” with a defense of Physics, you may read it there, and outlined the reasons it is not reductionist but explanatory of the origin of phenomena.

Reductionism as “associations between phenomena which can be described in terms of other simple or more fundamental phenomena.” What is more fundamental than virtual particles that are arising in space-time. It is not possible to get more fundamental than that, other than peering into interior space which so far is not an option. What is fundamental cannot be reduced precisely because it is fundamental.

The other definition “that interprets a complete system as the sum of its parts” is done all the time. The brain being a prime example as causal to intelligence, individuality, mind etc. I would not be too sure about neuro-psychology, cognitive sciences etc. It appears to me that they too consider biology as fundamental.

The East whose culture goes back to the rishis (sages) of higher ages interprets evolution differently than does the West. They do not base it on biology which reductively “interprets a complete system as the sum of its parts.” What is unsheathed or liberated from biology is viewed not as a product of biology but foundational to biology. Physics in studying origins rather than outcomes can have a better perspective on which view is valid.

I did not mean to imply that you promoted the idea of a deity or believed in one. It appeared that your overseeing CEO type system was reminiscent of that concept. In your other post you said that the Buddha was theist and I refuted that assumption there.

I don't think there is anything worthwhile with regards to Evolution [biology] from the past Eastern sages. So it would be more effective to jump to Darwin's evolution and thereafter of the West.

I don't agree that Physics is superior.
Rather all the main sciences are equally important as parts to understand of the whole of reality.

Before all the sciences were on their own they were subsets of philosophy-proper [the managing director of life]. Even the various sciences and other knowledge are now on their own they still remain within the ambit of philosophy-proper*.

*philosophy-proper as opposed to pseudo-philosophy e.g. bastardized philosophy such as academic institutionalize philosophy or merely armchair intellectualized philosophy.

I did not post a response to this correctly so you may have missed it.

Darwin’s theory of evolution has many gaps. While the theory holds, as process, origin and an understanding of whether what emerged was elemental to the process or was created; evolved from the process, is not clear, nor is the origin of the process itself. Although origin is not necessary to validate it, its absence is a vagueness that requires answers.

A study of all that is elemental is important, I agree. But physics studying the last, or first element: space, is especially interesting as evolution is top down, its origins have a better chance of shedding light on what evolved and on how it evolved.

Philosophy has and still plays a leading role as thought that is primary to any research or theory. Maybe all philosophy starts as armchair philosophy, as reflection. In academia if it is too intellectualized, not related to anything fundamental, it can be sterile and not applicable to anything, just a circular enterprise.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't think there is anything worthwhile with regards to Evolution [biology] from the past Eastern sages. So it would be more effective to jump to Darwin's evolution and thereafter of the West.

I don't agree that Physics is superior.
Rather all the main sciences are equally important as parts to understand of the whole of reality.

Before all the sciences were on their own they were subsets of philosophy-proper [the managing director of life]. Even the various sciences and other knowledge are now on their own they still remain within the ambit of philosophy-proper*.

*philosophy-proper as opposed to pseudo-philosophy e.g. bastardized philosophy such as academic institutionalize philosophy or merely armchair intellectualized philosophy.

I did not post a response to this correctly so you may have missed it.

Darwin’s theory of evolution has many gaps. While the theory holds, as process, origin and an understanding of whether what emerged was elemental to the process or was created; evolved from the process, is not clear, nor is the origin of the process itself. Although origin is not necessary to validate it, its absence is a vagueness that requires answers.

A study of all that is elemental is important, I agree. But physics studying the last, or first element: space, is especially interesting as evolution is top down, its origins have a better chance of shedding light on what evolved and on how it evolved.

Philosophy has and still plays a leading role as thought that is primary to any research or theory. Maybe all philosophy starts as armchair philosophy, as reflection. In academia if it is too intellectualized, not related to anything fundamental, it can be sterile and not applicable to anything, just a circular enterprise.

As I had stated the top-down approach based on empirical evidences [verified, justified and polished] attempts to go as deep down as possible without anticipation of a starting point. As such we can establish sufficient confidence levels from the conclusion drawn.
Heisenberg's Observable Turn: Kant's Copernican Turn
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34095

The bottom-up approach presume a starting point based on faith then works its way up, thus its conclusions are conditioned upon merely an assumption.
What is based on faith is always questionable, thus the ground in the bottom-up approach is shaky and vulnerable to be exploited.
The bottom-up approach is basically driven psychologically and this in general often end up with a God or some unproven entity.

Whatever the philosophy, what they must be grounded upon philosophy-proper which is an inherent function within all humans whilst active in some and dormant in most at present. As such we need to understand what philosophy-proper entails before doing philosophy.

[owl of Minerva]

I don't think there is anything worthwhile with regards to Evolution [biology] from the past Eastern sages. So it would be more effective to jump to Darwin's evolution and thereafter of the West.

I don't agree that Physics is superior.
Rather all the main sciences are equally important as parts to understand of the whole of reality.

Before all the sciences were on their own they were subsets of philosophy-proper [the managing director of life]. Even the various sciences and other knowledge are now on their own they still remain within the ambit of philosophy-proper*.

*philosophy-proper as opposed to pseudo-philosophy e.g. bastardized philosophy such as academic institutionalize philosophy or merely armchair intellectualized philosophy.

I did not post a response to this correctly so you may have missed it.

Darwin’s theory of evolution has many gaps. While the theory holds, as process, origin and an understanding of whether what emerged was elemental to the process or was created; evolved from the process, is not clear, nor is the origin of the process itself. Although origin is not necessary to validate it, its absence is a vagueness that requires answers.

A study of all that is elemental is important, I agree. But physics studying the last, or first element: space, is especially interesting as evolution is top down, its origins have a better chance of shedding light on what evolved and on how it evolved.

Philosophy has and still plays a leading role as thought that is primary to any research or theory. Maybe all philosophy starts as armchair philosophy, as reflection. In academia if it is too intellectualized, not related to anything fundamental, it can be sterile and not applicable to anything, just a circular enterprise.

As I had stated the top-down approach based on empirical evidences [verified, justified and polished] attempts to go as deep down as possible without anticipation of a starting point. As such we can establish sufficient confidence levels from the conclusion drawn.
Heisenberg's Observable Turn: Kant's Copernican Turn
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34095

The bottom-up approach presume a starting point based on faith then works its way up, thus its conclusions are conditioned upon merely an assumption.
What is based on faith is always questionable, thus the ground in the bottom-up approach is shaky and vulnerable to be exploited.
The bottom-up approach is basically driven psychologically and this in general often end up with a God or some unproven entity.

Whatever the philosophy, what they must be grounded upon philosophy-proper which is an inherent function within all humans whilst active in some and dormant in most at present. As such we need to understand what philosophy-proper entails before doing philosophy.

[owl of Minerva]

Lost what I wrote again. Darn.