Re: Weird World

On 16 Aug 2006 17:45:52 -0700, "guscubed"
<james.prendergast@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


*** wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:09:36 -0700, "A.Carlson" <amcarls@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:47:09 -0500, Dick <remdickhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


What a weird world we live in:

Light has a governor limiting its speed.

It certainly is *observed* to be at a steady rate for whatever reason
but what evidence do you have for the existence of some sort of
'governor'?
Too loose perhaps, I merely meant that light was assumed to have a
fixed speed limit. If you really want to get me, attack my belief
that "time" doesn't exist. What does that due to the speed of light?

If light didn't have a speed limit what would that mean? Ultimately the
universe would be completely homogenious(sp?) as all parts of the
universe would be in constant 'communication' with each other from the
time of the big-bang to now. If time didn't exist, then there would be
no means of measuring any velocity or in fact anything at all, the fact
that we can proves that time exists. Whatever it may be.

It clearly would change nothing in our daily lives, only how we think.
We would plan a picnic for tomorrow (projection from experience) and
set about, in the intervening "nows" doing what is appropriate in
each.

A film projector has motion even though does not record time.
Superimpose two frames, there is no time, only movement. But,
replayed we see movement and "say" that movement is through time, even
though we "know" it is small changes in position of space that
changes.

Why did Einstein say "time is what a clock measures? Surely such a
concept deserves more. Could it be he had not thought about the
nature of time? I don't think anyone would believe that. We do know
he didn't like to have outcomes that he didn't agree with. It took
years for him to accept an "open universe." Maybe he just didn't want
to open another potential can of worms.



Electrons that can't decide what to be, wave or particle, until a
human peeks at them.

How about they show characteristics of being both/either a wave and/or
a particle. Not only that but how we choose to describe what we
observe does not then *dictate* their actual makeup.

They decide what to be only after man has decided how to run his test.

Particles/waves don't decide anything. We just use the terms particles
and waves to try and understand the properties of things that we have
no direct macro-world metaphor for. Elementary particles display
properties of both classical particles (billiard balls) and classical
waves - however what they really are is not easy for us to envisage as
we have no experience of objects in the macro-world (that which we
detect with our senses directly) that exhibit the exact properties that
these 'particles' do so we are limited to describing aspects of their
behaviour as 'wave-like' and 'particle-like'.

It is the act of 'measurement' (ie. interaction with other particles)
that determine which properties we can detect. 'Measurement' need be
nothing more than the interaction of an electron with a photon, without
human intervention.

Without human intervention, the tree has fallen in the woods, with or
without sound. If man does not set up a recording device who knows
what happens? This is getting close to a philosophical statement such
as "man is the measure of all things."


Time that we all live by, know nothing about, except it is measured by
a clock and can move only in one direction.

Which, if anything, reflects our lack of understanding. Would you
argue therefore that time does not really exist because we don't yet
fully understand it?


No, I would argue time does not exist because: 1) We can't experience
it directly; 2) We have no way to determine what it is.

Saying it is what we measure with a clock is not very helpful in
knowing if it exists.

Something that we call space, that can only be described by
mathematics.

Actually it can be described in a number of ways but a mathematically
based three-dimensional coordinate system certainly does come in handy
as well.

Handy, is handy. It was handy to say the sun rotated around the
earth, truth? Not!

Some magical change from lifeless molecules through abiogenesis
becomes capable of motion and reproduction.

Why do you presume it was 'magical'? Sounds like a 'god of the gaps'
argument.

Magical, mystical, surprising, unknown, all words. It is the fact
that matters. Life and non-life are distinctly different. That
matters!

Are molecules alive? Is DNA alive? Is a ribosome alive? is a protein
alive? is a cell membrane alive? is a virus alive? is a mitochondrion
alive? is a plasmodium alive? Is a yeast cell alive?

Where do you draw this line between living and non-living matter?

Great question, do you have an answer. Sort of like the time
question, it seems like we know when "life" is present, but we don't
know what it is. My time question is a parallel, we seem to agree
that time passes, but we don't know what it is.


Particles that are so entangled they can't be different from each
other.

Yes, we have a lot yet to learn about particle physics.

A beginning called a singularity that magically decides to expand into
a not yet existent space.

What do you base this supposition that there was a will behind this
particular event or that it was somehow 'magical'?


Don't put words in my mouth, "Will" is conjecture. It fits with life
experience, but it needs proof. I object to it being excluded by
"proposition."

Huh? You were the one who said that the singularity 'magically
"decides" to expand into a not yet existent space' - if that's not
assiging 'Will' to an event I don't know what is. It is *your* language
that is loaded with anthropomorphisms.

Anthropomorphisms is a common way to express thoughts. I certainly
was not suggesting a magician, although that thought cannot be
excluded. However, I was using the word to express something that
happens that is not understood. Why so picky?



An expanding universe growing into what we don't know.

But we can speculate based on past observations that have served us
well.

Truth is never proven by observation. The earth centric universe
served us well.

If it served us so well, why do we no longer use an earth-centric model
of the universe? Surely it hasn't been proven to be incorrect by,
*gasp*, observation?

Hmm, you are picky. Clearly we breath easily long before we know
anything about the mechanics of respiration. Understandings change,
not the actuality. I don't think respiration was understood by
ordinary observation. Lots of misstatements were made before today's
temporary understanding.

Funny how words can be used in so many ways. Clearly respiration was
observed by any exhausted cave man after chasing his prey. Who knows
what he made of the observation of his heavy breathing. I doubt that
observation led to any truth about respiration. However, observation
is also the basis for experimentation. I don't think I can win your
approval of my statements. If you choose to not understand, I don't
think any care on my part will matter.



Fixed laws, set at some point into specific values which 13 billion
years later allow abiogenesis.

'Laws' are nothing more than observed consistencies in nature. They
are not analogous to civil laws, dictums set from on high.

Natural laws are accepted doctrine, regardless of the authority.

But this gives the lie to your nihilistic stance that truth is never
proven by observation. Or were you talking about Truth - capital T?

"Nihilistic" wow, did I do that? Questions are great, nothing to
attack. Any answer, on the other hand, is a great target for
interpretation.

Have fun.


Nano particles we cannot see that can be selectively combined changing
from quarks into various configurations we call electron, neutrino,
atom and molecule which we still can't see.

Yes, isn't nature fascinating? We have so much yet to learn and even
more that we will probably never know.

A theory of reality made up of 1 dimensional strings, which requires
10 dimensions to calculate, while we can only detect 3 with our senses
(4 if you include the one measured by a clock).

Yes, *theoretical* physics can get quite complicated at times. Maybe
we'll be able to develop a more simple way to try and understand its
working some day or maybe its true complexity will continue to elude
our attempts to understand it but it still remains what it is. It
still exists independent of our understanding of it.

And so forth.

Who dares mock those that worship an god? We do seem enabled to
choose our beliefs.

There is a world of a difference between those who blindly believe on
faith that which is not at all evident and those who are struggling to
better understand that which is clearly evident.

I say that faith is faith, no matter the authority. I feel safer
keeping open my options. Gravity has worked for me, "Curved Space"
seems speculative. Just satisfying a mathematical formula is great
for the mathematician, but children build fantasy worlds that they
enjoy.

The authority in the case of science is reality, the great thing about
that is that you don't have to take anyone's word for anything, you can
check for yourself.


E=MC2 is great, but move things around and solve for t. You get the
square root of t. What is -t? Oh, forget it? I think not. Until I
can learn how -t fits into the real world, it is open to suspicion.

Sure, the formula was persuasive enough for our country to spend large
sum of money to develop the atomic bomb. We did it ahead of Germany
and Russia, but was the formula any more than a tool to awe the
politicians? Did it provide the road map to set up the labs and
equipment? Lacking the formula, would we have been defeated? Is it
still so wondrous now that North Korean and Iran might join the club?
Life is just not so simple.

Eh? Wha? Who is under the misapprehension that Einstein's mass-energy
equivalence equation was all that was needed to create an atomic bomb?
A few other things had to happen between 1905 and 1945 before the first
atom bomb was detonated.



Most of our more recent mental acquisitions have been "seen" only by
mathematicians. Any wonder I refer to them as the new priesthood?

Because you can't honestly deal with the fact that your beliefs are
based on faith alone so you dishonestly try and bring science down to
the same level?

Oh, that I had some faith, life would be different. However, I am
cautious about which I wish; I might get it.

No, I have passionate disagreement with most religions, especially
Christianity as I know it best. Familiarity breeds contempt!

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I thought your comments were
"fair and balanced."

***

.

Loading