"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ... Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended ... thus the concept of particles cannot play a fundamental part, ... and can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or energy density are particularly high."
(Albert Einstein, Metaphysics of Relativity, 1950)
"It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics. ... The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles."
(Carver Mead, Professor Emeritus at Caltech. Received $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize in 1999)
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Chris Wright
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 51
Location: Scotia
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:03 pm Post subject: Reply on Political Structure of Forum |
 |
|
Hi Geoff,
| Quote: | | Having been a moderator of the WSM Yahoo Group for over a year, which functioned pretty much as a democracy, the end result was largely as I expected; many different opinions, conflict, and little progress. |
In what sense was the Yahoo group a democracy? It was anarchy most of the time, with the odd little patch of dictatorship here and there. No-one voted on how anything should be done - all were just left to post as they wished.
Intellectual conflict in opinions is a good thing, if you want progress. But do you really want intellectual progress? OR do you want marketing progress? It seems that you want the WSM to stay as it is and become known to many people, rather than wanting to 'edit' it in any sense. That is fine; but then, would you tell me whayt you mean by 'progress'?
As to your Bradley quote, did he not also say: "Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct."? Search for that quote and I think you will find it somewhere.
As to your supporting this political move with Plato's political opinions, as laid down in The Republic - that is just ridiculous. Any Plato scholar will laugh at anyone who interprets that text politically - it is a metaphorical investigation into the human mind, and nothing more. It is true that Plato was inclined to dislike Democracy, but then, he was living in the earliest democracy around, where women and slaves were denied votes, where the corruption of politicians would ultimately lead to Athens' losing the Pelopynesian War during Plato's lifetime, where that democracy had tried and executed Socrates for corrupting the young, and where the alternative political system was Sparta's military oligarchy that won them war after war after war. Opinion on democracy formed in these conditions millenia ago can hardly be used in modern political science!
At the end of the day, this forum will be better than the Yahoo one (already is, arguably) because it is a much much better layout and format. The categorizing of subjects and permanant visibility of posts is simply excellent - I have never been on a forum like it.
And it shall be less contentious because people here are not going to be nearly so interested in Physics as they are in philosophy - that is a direct inversion from before. It is just how things go - what the early members talk about will determine that. So you will not have theorists pushing their ideas, and therefore differences in opinion will not be destructive.
You must think to yourself - 'what do I want from this forum?' and 'what should it do?', once you have answered those questions, tell us the answer, and if people like myself don't feel we can contribute to that plan then we will leave, but I do not think this should need to be the case. Why not answer to yourself that you want, simply, a place for people to discuss ideas sparked by the WSM? What is wrong with that answer? Why are you afraid of letting those discussions disagree with your opinions? Is it because you, deep down, know that your opinions are wrong?
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
robertkernodle
Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 36
Location: Now
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 3:26 pm Post subject: Response To Chris's Response |
|
|
Hi Geoff and Chris,
I feel in Chris a weaker echo of what might be a stronger resoponse from strangers to this forum. By that I mean, since Cris has familiarity, his response shows the respect of this familiarity. Others coming into the fourm, however, might be scared a bit---- "that Geoff is a dictatorial devil"  , they might think.
Of course, we know different. It's hard to state a certain direction of focus without stepping on a few toes (Theories Of Everything ?--- NO  , this time "toes" means feelings). Hopefully, people who come into this forum will not have that wimp response (NO---- , I do not mean "weakly interacting massive particles", this time "wimp" means running away before getting a feel for the consistency beyond the first impression.)
This is my advice to everyone. Realize that a typed word is a closed, limited formation that tries to capture a much more complex situation that extends beyond it in space/time. Realize that (to some degeree) even strongly stated words are somewhat conditional. As such, emotions sparked by words should be held a bit open, as well, until the consistency of words' usage becomes a little more obvious over long-term connection with their writer.
Don't become enemies over a few words typed by relative strangers who never see one another face-to-face. Sometimes don't type your immediate reaction, but cool down a bit, then approach things a little more composed. I've seen blow ups in forums, and I think if we all just try to stay composed (without getting too boring), then things will not become unpleasant or overly dictatorial.
Robert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
haselhurst
Site Admin
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 728
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe, Infinite Space. Status: Endangered Species. Cause: Ignorance
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:01 am Post subject: Reply to Chris. Motives, Dictator |
|
|
Hi Chris,
I have posted in your entire post below, my comments added.
Will probably edit it over time as I think of more things. Interesting!
Geoff
In what sense was the Yahoo group a democracy? It was anarchy most of the time, with the odd little patch of dictatorship here and there. No-one voted on how anything should be done - all were just left to post as they wished.
Geoff - Democracy in the sense it shared certain traits with Democracies, i.e. freedom of speech, freedom to set up a poll and vote on things, freedom to join and leave group. These freedoms were not absolute, nor are they in society (my little bits of dictatorship, generally after complaints and consulting others advice). The group was better for this.
But yes, I agree, lacking in direction and foundation, largely an anarchy and thus pretty useless at making any progress.
Intellectual conflict in opinions is a good thing, if you want progress.
Geoff - In Science deduced from common foundations / principles there is no opinion, no conflict if things are correctly deduced. So if we deduce things about the wave structure of matter we should agree on them. That is one foundation / purpose of this forum. To apply Science to the WSM.
However there are many things to do with human behaviour that cannot be deduced, where robust debate and throwing up different ideas and opinions is useful and constructive, though it would always be better if constrained by good knowledge of physical reality..
---
But do you really want intellectual progress? OR do you want marketing progress?
Geoff - I think in the modern world we all realise that the two are interconnected (probably have always been, just more dominant media now). I believe that truth does eventually rise to the top, but it occurs much faster with good marketing.
It seems that you want the WSM to stay as it is and become known to many people, rather than wanting to 'edit' it in any sense. That is fine; but then, would you tell me what you mean by 'progress'?
Geoff - My ideas on Progress.
Understand central Principle of WSM (on Space and its Properties as a Wave -Medium). Understand how this is most simple Science theory / language for describing reality (so should be considered for that reason alone). Understand how opinion then plays no part, that we should be able to deduce from this dynamic unity solutions to many / most of the problems of knowledge. Learn what we have already worked out (which is not trivial) and build upon this knowledge to explain and solve more things.
In time I hope that other people will help write this work up better, and help get it dominant on the internet. This is quite reasonably achievable, and Karene and I both work hard to help get this process started (which is always the most work).
As to your Bradley quote, did he not also say: "Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct."? Search for that quote and I think you will find it somewhere.
Geoff - Good quote, true of most metaphysics. Can you please tell me why believing that I exist in Space is only an instinct and not really true. i.e. Can you give me one good reason why Space CANNOT exist / Does not exist? Don't you think that the WSM explains enough, is sensible enough that Scientists should be aware of it. I'm curious!?
As to your supporting this political move with Plato's political opinions, as laid down in The Republic - that is just ridiculous. Any Plato scholar will laugh at anyone who interprets that text politically - it is a metaphorical investigation into the human mind, and nothing more. It is true that Plato was inclined to dislike Democracy, but then, he was living in the earliest democracy around, where women and slaves were denied votes, where the corruption of politicians would ultimately lead to Athens' losing the Peloponnesian War during Plato's lifetime, where that democracy had tried and executed Socrates for corrupting the young, and where the alternative political system was Sparta's military oligarchy that won them war after war after war. Opinion on democracy formed in these conditions millenia ago can hardly be used in modern political science!
Geoff - Not true. Pretty much same human instincts / nature in both societies (we have not evolved much in 2,500 years). And pretty much same problem of society founded on opinions of masses (largely past cultural myths) rather than truth. This will naturally tend to conflict rather than the greater harmony found in common agreement of what is true.
If you read the academic introductions to these books (Greek Philosophy in general) you will find that some academics take these works very seriously in terms of their relevance to modern society (I suspect many of the rest are just ignorant of them, so dismiss them).
However, my main point is that truth is very important to Politics, and to the evolution of a wise / just society.
Do you disagree with that?
At the end of the day, this forum will be better than the Yahoo one (already is, arguably) because it is a much much better layout and format. The categorizing of subjects and permanent visibility of posts is simply excellent - I have never been on a forum like it.
Geoff - There are a lot of things that are better, but I am new to this too and will have to learn and adapt a bit as we go along. One aspect that is important to me is that genuine quality discussions / knowledge end up at the top of the pile. This will be an interesting process I suspect.
And it shall be less contentious because people here are not going to be nearly so interested in Physics as they are in philosophy - that is a direct inversion from before. It is just how things go - what the early members talk about will determine that. So you will not have theorists pushing their ideas, and therefore differences in opinion will not be destructive.
Geoff - This forum draws on the same 'crowd', the people who visit the spaceandmotion website. So there will be quite a diversity of people over time. I hope that by imposing this limiting factor of Science / Metaphysics here (only one thing Space exists), that we will have more harmony and progress (from a much smaller group). This also prevents many theorists posting their own ideas (as their own ideas are invariably founded on imagining many different things to exist).
The ultimate dictator though is physical reality, and knowledge we have from both our senses and our reason.
If the WSM is wrong, then this forum should show, using our knowledge of sciences, that it is wrong. This is not a place to delude ourselves, it is a place of serious study.
----------
You must think to yourself - 'what do I want from this forum?' and 'what should it do?', once you have answered those questions, tell us the answer, and if people like myself don't feel we can contribute to that plan then we will leave, but I do not think this should need to be the case.
Geoff - Two things;
1. I want the most simple obvious sensible (and i think necessary) description of reality, the WSM, founded on One thing Space existing, to be visible to the world (rank in top ten on main relevant search terms).
2. I want this knowledge beautifully presented, both in its logic and reasoning, and its aesthetics and simplicity.
Considerable work is required to achieve this, Karene and i need a lot of help. But we have nonetheless made remarkable progress in some areas, enough to have confidence that both of the above are possible / achievable.
--------------------
Why not answer to yourself that you want, simply, a place for people to discuss ideas sparked by the WSM? What is wrong with that answer?
Geoff - There is a place for free discussion, the WSM yahoo forum. And anyone can post me a question - i will eventually answer!
But experience tells me that to make progress you must limit human imagination with principles of science / metaphysics.
Why are you afraid of letting those discussions disagree with your opinions? Is it because you, deep down, know that your opinions are wrong? Chris
Geoff - You must show where I have stated an opinion about WSM. The foundations seem pretty free of opinion, and the rest is deduced.
We all experience Space (not my opinion).
Assuming Space is what exists is most simple explanation for our common sense of Space (not my opinion).
Of all the other concepts (matter particles, light particles, time, motion, waves, fields, strings, etc.) there is only one way that you can explain these things while maintaining unity of reality, and realizing that reality is also dynamic (this is foundation of metaphysics). To realise that Space is a wave medium for wave motions that form matter (cause effects of particles, time, fields, ...).
I don't see that any of this is my opinion, nor is it my opinion that from these foundations we can then mathematically deduce fundamentals of Quantum theory and Einstein's Relativity from relative motions and Doppler shifts of these spherical wave structures that cause matter.
So to me it would just be crazy to ignore all this.
And Chris, in some ways it would be a great relief to me to find that this is all wrong, it is not important to Humanity, just my delusions, as then I would be free of this feeling of responsibility to get this knowledge out there (since I believe that our planet is doomed and that truth and reality are the necessary foundations from which to improve things.)
I also think some of your above criticisms are not fair, they are motivated by your feelings more than your reasoned thoughts in my opinion, that if you gave these things more time and thought you would not write them in the first place (so that i then have to show that they are wrong, or at least only part of the truth).
And I am not trying to criticise you in writing this Chris, I find your posts in general very intelligent and interesting (as you know). I also suspect that early on clarifying these issues is probably important, so in that sense your post is also important.
But at times a bit pessimistic / skeptical, where reason does not entirely support your view.
Anyway, I am going for a walk in the sun. Hope this helps a bit.
Geoff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Wright
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 51
Location: Scotia
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:14 pm Post subject: politics and WSM |
|
|
Och, 'tis the cycle of life - familiarity breeds contempt.
Anyway, let's have a little look:
| Quote: | The old forum was a Democracy in the sense it shared certain traits with Democracies, i.e. freedom of speech, freedom to set up a poll and vote on things, freedom to join and leave group. These freedoms were not absolute, nor are they in society (my little bits of dictatorship, generally after complaints and consulting others advice). The group was better for this.
But yes, I agree, lacking in direction and foundation, largely an anarchy and thus pretty useless at making any progress. |
You are thinking of liberal democracies. You can equally have liberal dictatorships and liberal anarchies. This liberalism isn;t inherent within the concept of democracy (for example - Plato's Athens wasn't liberal at all). So the groups was not a democracy; it was a bit of dictatorship and a bit of anarchy - a good mix in my view. I do not use the word 'dictatorship' to imply badness, you were and are a very benign dictator - the best type of government.
| Quote: | In Science deduced from common foundations / principles there is no opinion, no conflict if things are correctly deduced. So if we deduce things about the wave structure of matter we should agree on them. That is one foundation / purpose of this forum. To apply Science to the WSM.
|
Science does not entail certainty - you know that. If you can deduce truth from principles then ask yourself 'on what truth are the principles based?' And so on, ad infinitum.
| Quote: | My ideas on Progress.
Understand central Principle of WSM (on Space and its Properties as a Wave -Medium). Understand how this is most simple Science theory / language for describing reality (so should be considered for that reason alone). Understand how opinion then plays no part, that we should be able to deduce from this dynamic unity solutions to many / most of the problems of knowledge. Learn what we have already worked out (which is not trivial) and build upon this knowledge to explain and solve more things. |
It's the last bit I'm not comfortable with - 'build upon this knowledge'. Your 'knowledge' is about the fundamnetal nature of matter - what is there to build upon? As a certain French scientist says 'fire will still burn the same way'. Do you feel the WSM is incomplete?
If not, what sorts of ideas do you want us to come up with? Name a single idea concerning te WSM that you think this forum or the old forum has produced? Can you see any such progress happening soon?
| Quote: | | Good quote [Bradley: "Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct."], true of most metaphysics. Can you please tell me why believing that I exist in Space is only an instinct and not really true. i.e. Can you give me one good reason why Space CANNOT exist / Does not exist? Don't you think that the WSM explains enough, is sensible enough that Scientists should be aware of it. I'm curious!? |
How do you want me to start contradicting the postulate 'I exist in Space'? Can you tell my why you think I am not drinking tea? I never said you didn't exist, I never said the WSM was false, I never postulated that you were wrong, I just quoted Bradley on metaphysics because you had done so too. You accuse me of writing in anger! You are even using BLOCK CAPITALS!
| Quote: | Not true [response to my assertion that the Republic is not about politics]. Pretty much same human instincts / nature in both societies (we have not evolved much in 2,500 years). And pretty much same problem of society founded on opinions of masses (largely past cultural myths) rather than truth. This will naturally tend to conflict rather than the greater harmony found in common agreement of what is true.
If you read the academic introductions to these books (Greek Philosophy in general) you will find that some academics take these works very seriously in terms of their relevance to modern society (I suspect many of the rest are just ignorant of them, so dismiss them).
However, my main point is that truth is very important to Politics, and to the evolution of a wise / just society. Do you disagree with that? |
Now I have apparantly said that Plato is irrelevant. Where did I write this? I wrote that The Republic is not about politics - its about psychology and the relationship between the individual and the rest of society. It's incredibly relevant and important - but not in 21st century political debates. Plato's political feelings are largely allegorical - he creates his 'republic' as an allegory for the human mind, with its three castes and its 'philosopher kings'. It is not an argument for not allowing people to disagree with you on a discussion forum because democracy is rubbish.
| Quote: | | We all experience Space (not my opinion). |
It is, however likely, not a certainty, unless you choose to define it in such a way as that it is. (I think therefore I am, where existence is defined as experienceing Space).
So we are not dealing in certainties here, we are dealing in ideas with vageu definitions, as such there is scope for argument and discussion to test those ideas and define them better.
| Quote: | | So to me it would just be crazy to ignore all this. |
I think it would be crazy too. SO why are you suggesting we ignore it? Why not let it be discussed?
| Quote: | | I also think some of your above criticisms are not fair, they are motivated by your feelings more than your reasoned thoughts in my opinion, that if you gave these things more time and thought you would not write them in the first place (so that i then have to show that they are wrong, or at least only part of the truth). |
Geoff, it's one thing to be wrong, it's another to be patronizing. Show me which criticisms are motivated by feelings rather than logic. You seem to have entirely misinterpreted most of my criticisms anyway - all I'm saying is that in the long run you might regret limiting dicussions to petty posts saying how wonderful the WSM is. Fine - but what does it change? What does it acheive to agree with what is there already? If you want progress, allow new ideas to emerge, that's all. If you are so certain that WSM is true that you don't want the theory to change or develop, then what is the point of a forum?
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Philippe
Joined: 23 Mar 2005
Posts: 20
Location: Tokyo
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:28 pm Post subject: Interesting posts |
|
|
Hello Guys,
I was just reading your posts this morning before going to work... How interesting! I hope you realize that a little bit of tension is necessary for a good discussion. A forum where everyone agrees on everything is not a forum but a tea party!
Most great scientific progress was made against the odds. Sometimes physical misery but almost always intellectual. People who bring "something" to humanity are not people with great ideas but those who can take the heat, quite different. Sometimes of course a group of people can conbine the qualities that usually cannot be found in only one person. This necessitate a common goal and some diplomacy but not agreement on everything. Did I hear some interest?
Let's talk about this later then. See you around 
Philippe |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
haselhurst
Site Admin
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 728
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe, Infinite Space. Status: Endangered Species. Cause: Ignorance
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:05 am Post subject: Re: politics and WSM |
|
|
Hi Chris, Robert, Philippe, WSMers,
Firstly, my thanks to Robert and Philippe for adding some very astute and wise comments to above. It is great to have people like you at this forum! So big thanks!
Obviously there will be 'conflicts' in this group, the rough and tumble of vigorous debate (Plato, writing for Socrates, likens philosophy to wrestling!).
But I believe in physical reality, the necessary truths that arise from true knowledge of reality. So I expect that in time, as we better understand the WSM, we will have more harmony in our thoughts / conclusions.
Below are my further comments in reply to Chris.
Geoff
-------------------------
Chris - Och, 'tis the cycle of life - familiarity breeds contempt.
Anyway, let's have a little look:
| haselhurst wrote: | The old forum was a Democracy in the sense it shared certain traits with Democracies, i.e. freedom of speech, freedom to set up a poll and vote on things, freedom to join and leave group. These freedoms were not absolute, nor are they in society (my little bits of dictatorship, generally after complaints and consulting others advice). The group was better for this.
But yes, I agree, lacking in direction and foundation, largely an anarchy and thus pretty useless at making any progress. |
Chris - You are thinking of liberal democracies. You can equally have liberal dictatorships and liberal anarchies. This liberalism isn't inherent within the concept of democracy (for example - Plato's Athens wasn't liberal at all). So the yahoo group was not a democracy; it was a bit of dictatorship and a bit of anarchy - a good mix in my view. I do not use the word 'dictatorship' to imply badness, you were and are a very benign dictator - the best type of government.
Geoff - I agree with your distinction - the past Yahoo group was more a liberal system, largely an anarchy with some dictatorship as required. And I am glad that you approve of my limited interventions as benevolent dictator.
However, the main point I was trying to make is that this Forum is different. The 'dictator' is Science, and in particular the subjects of Philosophy Physics and Metaphysics, the understanding of why reality must be a Dynamic Unity, and how the Wave Structure of Matter is in harmony with these most simple and necessary foundations. This is not a censorship of Scientific debate, but an enforcing of these rules of Science so that we can hopefully make some progress.
| haselhurst wrote: | In Science deduced from common foundations / principles there is no opinion, no conflict if things are correctly deduced. So if we deduce things about the wave structure of matter we should agree on them. That is one foundation / purpose of this forum. To apply Science to the WSM.
|
Chris - Science does not entail certainty - you know that. If you can deduce truth from principles then ask yourself 'on what truth are the principles based?' And so on, ad infinitum.
Geoff - Depends what you mean by certainty. Deductions from Principles are certain, just as maths is certain. I think you mean that you cannot be certain that your Principles are true (correspond to what exists), even if they do deduce what we observe. But then, as i have explained before, we are certain that we all experience Space, we are certain that the simplest way to explain this is to assume that Space is what exists.
And most significantly, we are certain that when we assume Space exists as a Wave Medium for Spherical Waves which form matter we do deduce (with logical / mathematical precision), exactly what we observe from observation / experiment.
I realise that you (and most Scientists) reject that idea that we can ever be certain about physical reality. I am more inclined to the metaphysical view that if you know what exists, you should be able to prove that this is true. Certainly it must be impossible to prove that it is not true!
I hope that we can carry this discussion on over time.
| haselhurst wrote: | My ideas on Progress.
Understand central Principle of WSM (on Space and its Properties as a Wave -Medium). Understand how this is most simple Science theory / language for describing reality (so should be considered for that reason alone). Understand how opinion then plays no part, that we should be able to deduce from this dynamic unity solutions to many / most of the problems of knowledge. Learn what we have already worked out (which is not trivial) and build upon this knowledge to explain and solve more things. |
Chris - It's the last bit I'm not comfortable with - 'build upon this knowledge'. Your 'knowledge' is about the fundamental nature of matter - what is there to build upon? As a certain French scientist says 'fire will still burn the same way'. Do you feel the WSM is incomplete?
If not, what sorts of ideas do you want us to come up with? Name a single idea concerning the WSM that you think this forum or the old forum has produced? Can you see any such progress happening soon?
Geoff - With respect to making progress it is early days, and I keep trying. Thus far I have had little success - i hope this Forum will be part of a better system that improves this.
And yes, it is demoralising at times. It is not fun to be a failure! All I know is that if I don't try then failure is a certainty, at least by having the courage to try we give ourselves some chance of success. Certainly our current society is a failure, founded on numerous errors that the WSM has the potential to correct.
With respect to human cultural knowledge there is an enormous amount of work to be done. The whole foundation of modern physics (particles and continuous fields in space-time) needs to be scrapped, thus all their mathematical modelling needs to be changed.
In Quantum Theory this means modifying wave equations to actually describe spherical In-Waves, as a way of determining 'motion of particle' caused by where these waves meet at their Wave-Center. The current QT Schrodinger wave equations, and later Bohm's deterministic 'Pilot waves' do not do this (they dance around the edges so to speak!). This would then lead to explanations of EPR and the 'apparently' non local aspects of reality (which are really just caused by the WSM and that matter is subtly interconnected to all other matter by In and Out waves).
In Einstein's relativity we need to re-do Einstein's field equations from foundations of Spherical Waves in continuous Space, rather than his continuous spherical fields in space-time. We need to calculate how the Wave Density of Sun slows In-Waves, which causes curvature of light past sun, and then apply this slowing of wave velocity in higher wave density space (more matter) to deduce gravity correctly. This then also explains how matter changes ellipsoidal shape, due to change in velocity of In-waves from one direction, as a way of explaining Einstein's 'curvature of the 4D space-time continuum'.
In Cosmology the whole Big bang creation theory of Universe is wrong - Space, as one thing existing, is necessarily Infinite and Eternal. Time applies to matter in space (due to its activity / wave motions), not space itself. Each Wave-Center is effectively the center of its own finite spherical universe within an Infinite Space.
Finally, not only does this work need doing, it also needs promoting on Internet so it gets read and has some influence.
I know that I have neither the time or the ability to achieve these things, thus I need help. Will this happen? I don't know, other than to say that if i don't do it then it probably won't!
So lots of work yet to be done! Which is hardly surprising when you are talking about the discovery of physical reality, and thus the end of our current postmodern times of no absolute truths.
| haselhurst wrote: | | Good quote [Bradley: "Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct."], true of most metaphysics. Can you please tell me why believing that I exist in Space is only an instinct and not really true. i.e. Can you give me one good reason why Space CANNOT exist / Does not exist? Don't you think that the WSM explains enough, is sensible enough that Scientists should be aware of it. I'm curious!? |
Chris - How do you want me to start contradicting the postulate 'I exist in Space'? Can you tell my why you think I am not drinking tea? I never said you didn't exist, I never said the WSM was false, I never postulated that you were wrong, I just quoted Bradley on metaphysics because you had done so too. You accuse me of writing in anger! You are even using BLOCK CAPITALS!
Geoff - Sorry, capitals just for emphasis, not anger. What was the reason for posting quote?
So I take it that you have no problems / evidence that Space does not exist, thus this is an acceptable starting point for Science / Metaphysics of physical reality.
| haselhurst wrote: | Not true [response to my assertion that the Republic is not about politics]. Pretty much same human instincts / nature in both societies (we have not evolved much in 2,500 years). And pretty much same problem of society founded on opinions of masses (largely past cultural myths) rather than truth. This will naturally tend to conflict rather than the greater harmony found in common agreement of what is true.
If you read the academic introductions to these books (Greek Philosophy in general) you will find that some academics take these works very seriously in terms of their relevance to modern society (I suspect many of the rest are just ignorant of them, so dismiss them).
However, my main point is that truth is very important to Politics, and to the evolution of a wise / just society. Do you disagree with that? |
Now I have apparently said that Plato is irrelevant. Where did I write this? I wrote that The Republic is not about politics - its about psychology and the relationship between the individual and the rest of society. It's incredibly relevant and important - but not in 21st century political debates. Plato's political feelings are largely allegorical - he creates his 'republic' as an allegory for the human mind, with its three castes and its 'philosopher kings'. It is not an argument for not allowing people to disagree with you on a discussion forum because democracy is rubbish.
Geoff - I assume that we both agree that Science should not be Democratic (where we vote on what is true) but should be based on past principles / knowledge of physics philosophy and metaphysics, combined with knowledge from observation / experiment. So that is all I am enforcing (which would clearly be a responsibility of a philosopher).
If people abide by these rules of Science then I am more than happy to answer their criticisms. However, if you go to most forums you will see that this is not normally the case, people just express their opinions, and can be pretty brutal / mocking of anyone else's.
Hopefully we can maintain a much better quality forum here.
| haselhurst wrote: | | We all experience Space (not my opinion). |
It is, however likely, not a certainty, unless you choose to define it in such a way as that it is. (I think therefore I am, where existence is defined as experiencing Space).
So we are not dealing in certainties here, we are dealing in ideas with vague definitions, as such there is scope for argument and discussion to test those ideas and define them better.
Geoff - Well it is certain that i experience existing in Space, it is not certain that this means that Space physically exists (important distinction as you realise). However, we can show, using methods of Science / Metaphysics, that assuming Space exists is the most simple science language for describing reality, and that it then does deduce many things correctly, solves a lot of problems in physics philosophy and metaphysics.
If people have any valid arguments relating to this they are most welcome to express them.
However, rules of Science only allow two forms of criticism;
i) There is a better / simpler theory, which is not possible for WSM, which has the unique position of being the most simple science theory of reality by being founded on One thing (Space) that we all commonly experience.
ii) Thus the only possible criticism is that the WSM deduces things that contradict observation and experiment. And these types of criticism require good knowledge of WSM. But this is important, if the WSM is true, then this should also be impossible.
| haselhurst wrote: | | So to me it would just be crazy to ignore all this. |
Chris - I think it would be crazy too. SO why are you suggesting we ignore it? Why not let it be discussed?
Geoff - This is where I think you are being emotional. The purpose of this forum is to discuss the Wave Structure of Matter in its most simple / necessary form (founded on One thing, Space, existing as wave medium).
However, we are not here to discuss everyone's pet theories (which is what tended to happen at Yahoo group).
So people can't just add more 'existents' to WSM and argue them - it defies rules of Science / Metaphysics.
| haselhurst wrote: | | I also think some of your above criticisms are not fair, they are motivated by your feelings more than your reasoned thoughts in my opinion, that if you gave these things more time and thought you would not write them in the first place (so that i then have to show that they are wrong, or at least only part of the truth). |
Chris - Geoff, it's one thing to be wrong, it's another to be patronizing. Show me which criticisms are motivated by feelings rather than logic. You seem to have entirely misinterpreted most of my criticisms anyway - all I'm saying is that in the long run you might regret limiting discussions to petty posts saying how wonderful the WSM is. Fine - but what does it change? What does it achieve to agree with what is there already? If you want progress, allow new ideas to emerge, that's all. If you are so certain that WSM is true that you don't want the theory to change or develop, then what is the point of a forum? Chris.
Geoff - I am not trying to be patronising. And I do think your comments are a bit emotionally driven despite what you say.
For example, you write;
| Quote: | | all I'm saying is that in the long run you might regret limiting discussions to petty posts saying how wonderful the WSM is |
I must admit that I find this a mocking exaggeration (assume it is emotionally founded), and has nothing to do with my hopes for this forum and what it can achieve. I think my comments above make it more clear as to the point of the forum. But over time I expect that this foundation / purpose of forum will become better understood (and respected / appreciated) by forum users, and we will get better introductions written that help re-assure users that we are not here as a mutual feel good society, but a serious philosophy of science forum with important work to do.
In ending, as a philosopher I am clearly very influenced by philosophers from the past. So as a 'philosopher dictator' of this forum I am not imposing my own ideas, but those shared by many / most philosophers.
Of particular relevance to moderating this Forum the following quotes from Leibniz can be taken as my foundations.
 I agree with you that it is important to examine our presuppositions, thoroughly and once for all, in order to establish something solid. For I hold that it is only when we can prove all that we bring forward that we perfectly understand the thing under consideration. I know that the common herd takes little pleasure in these researches, but I know also that the common herd take little pains thoroughly to understand things.
... a distinction must be made between true and false ideas, and that too much rein must not be given to a man's imagination under pretext of its being a clear and distinct intellection. (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670)
I hold that the mark of a genuine idea is that its possibility can be proved, either a priori by conceiving its cause or reason, or a posteriori when experience teaches us that it is in fact in nature. ... It is a good thing to proceed in order and to establish propositions. This is the way to gain ground and to progress with certainty. (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670)
Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. .....
I do not conceive of any reality at all as without genuine unity. .....
I maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial, cannot be conceived in their bare essence without any activity, activity being of the essence of substance in general. (Gottfried Leibniz, 1670)
And if you take 'Monad' to mean spherical standing wave then Leibniz is also pretty spot on where he writes;
It follows from what we have just said, that the natural changes of monads come from an internal principle, and that change is continual in each one. … Now this connection of all created things with each, and of each with all the rest, means that each simple substance has relations which express all the others, each monad represents the whole universe. (Leibniz, 1670)
For those who wish to discuss God / Theology, I think the following quote mirrors my own thoughts on this (and most philosopher / metaphysicists).
.. the ultimate reason of things must lie in a necessary substance, in which the differentiation of the changes only exists eminently as in their source; and this is what we call God. .. God alone is the primary Unity, or original simple substance, from which all monads, created and derived, are produced. (Leibniz, 1670)
So this Forum is devoted to the study of this 'original simple substance' Space. Is this not an interesting and worthwhile thing to do?
Hope this helps,
Geoff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Wright
Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 51
Location: Scotia
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:28 am Post subject: politics |
|
|
OK, I'll admit to a certain premeditated attempt to influence things here. I think it's very important to lay down the aims in non-abstract terms, and I hope I've provoked you into doing that in slightly deeper detail.
Two general aims of your mission (correct me if I'm wrong):
1) to spread the knowledge you already have
2) to apply that knowledge to physics and philosophy
Now, the forum doesn't do anything for the 1st aim, but only for the second.
In terms of physics, the 2nd is not likely to be aceived by discussion, but by proffesional physicists working on something themselves. The forum for these people must simply act as a communication springboard, if anything at all.
So, let the philosophy discussions begin.
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
haselhurst
Site Admin
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 728
Location: Planet Earth, Milky Way, Universe, Infinite Space. Status: Endangered Species. Cause: Ignorance
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Chris,
I don't understand why you think this Forum won't spread knowledge we already have, and help improve this knowledge. My hope is that in a year or two there are many thousands of visitors to this Forum every day - to both discuss, improve and spread this knowledge around.
And over time I also hope that we will get intelligent physicists (most likely students) who will do some good work here.
So no, i don't really agree with your last post. I do not see this forum limited to philosophy. As its name suggests, it is a forum to study / discuss subjects of truth, reality, physics, philosophy and metaphysics - founded on the Metaphysics of Space.
And truth and reality do apply to all things (I know that one bugs you!).
Anyway, I think we now better understand one another, and hopefully others will read this and will better understand the purpose, principles and political structure of this forum (which I appreciate was part of your motive in engaging me!)
So Chris, after all this hard grind, how about posting some jokes for us in the humour section - a few of us will be interested in what things amuse you!
Cheers,
Geoff
PS - This post is getting too long. Please start a new post if you wish to discuss any of above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Simple Science Forum - Dynamic Unity of Reality
FAQ
Search Forum
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
