The Most Foolish Theory in Physics

[Lucian]

But a more tenuous familiarity with reality.
He did not learn English in Australia. Even the Australians are not that bad at English.

In an earlier post, UncaYimmy suggested that Singularitarian has Semantic Pragmatic Order (according to the profile on another forum):

Okay. Just curious. In case you're wondering why I asked, I just noticed some interesting similarities in the personal information claimed on The Student Room and SciForums:

* Born within 30 days of each other (Same age and astrological sign)
* Both live in Scotland
* Both have Semantic Pragmatic Disorder* Both gay
* Both have played in an orchestra and specifically mentioned "Flight of the Bumble Bee"
* Both going for an HND in physics
* Both wrote, "Now imagine we created two Tachyons from the same source: possibly from the decay of tritium" - Google doesn't show that sentence being on any other sites.

I'm not sure if the profile does refer to Singularitarian, but if it does, it would explain why a native speaker of English has so much trouble expressing himself effectively.

Some of the characteristics of Semantic Pragmatic Disorder:

# difficulty understanding questions
# difficulty understanding choices and making decisions.
# difficulty following conversations or stories. Conversations are "off topic" or "one sided".
# difficulty extracting the key points from a conversation or story; they tend to get lost in the details
# difficulty with verb tenses
# difficulty explaining or describing an event
# tendency to be concrete or prefer facts to stories
# have difficulty understanding satire or jokes
# have difficulty understanding contextual cues
# difficulty in reading comprehension
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_pragmatic_disorder

 

[Singularitarian]

In an earlier post, UncaYimmy suggested that Singularitarian has Semantic Pragmatic Order (according to the profile on another forum):

I'm not sure if the profile does refer to Singularitarian, but if it does, it would explain why a native speaker of English has so much trouble expressing himself effectively.

Some of the characteristics of Semantic Pragmatic Disorder:

The Plot thickens.

 

[Dr. Trintignant]

X-Files, Season 9,

Agent Dogget, ''Are you familiar with Occams Razor?''

Doctor Scully, ''Yes, Mulder used to identify it as the principle of least imagination.''

Too bad Scully was wrong, although the statement fits within the general view in the show of skeptics as boring pooh-poohers.

The reality is that the search for elegance in science requires at least as much imagination (not to mention intelligence and hard work) as the alternative. It also tends to produce results that are true.

- Dr. Trintignant

 

[Singularitarian]

Too bad Scully was wrong, although the statement fits within the general view in the show of skeptics as boring pooh-poohers.

The reality is that the search for elegance in science requires at least as much imagination (not to mention intelligence and hard work) as the alternative. It also tends to produce results that are true.

- Dr. Trintignant

To be fair to Mulder, he was more concerned that if Occams Principle is applied, keeping a wide-range of possibilities still alive, one must remain diverse. A strict appliance of the theory renders the imagination narrow as to except no other explanation.

 

[realpaladin]

Seeing that Sol butted out already, I am going the JHWH route:

JHWH, Jaweh, God etc. have not been proven to exist or have existed.

It is a lack of imagination that things can 'be' without being created or without a superbeing doing something so they come into existence.

 

[Singularitarian]

Seeing that Sol butted out already, I am going the JHWH route:

JHWH, Jaweh, God etc. have not been proven to exist or have existed.

It is a lack of imagination that things can 'be' without being created or without a superbeing doing something so they come into existence.

The questions that physics raises today where the same questions that gave life the mythologies of the human imagination, which would then make them metaphors of the New Age of Science.

 

[nathan]

I suspect he has a vague familiarity with the English language.

they just don't talk to each other anymore.

 

[realpaladin]

The questions that physics raises today where the same questions that gave life the mythologies of the human imagination, which would then make them metaphors of the New Age of Science.

No they were not. They might resemble them because of the wording used to formulate them, but the connotations and background is wholly different.

This is a standard play of words that is being used by people advocating religion, from the Dalai Lama to the Pope.

If you want to discuss these questions, go ahead!

I vote for moving this thread to RPH, do I have a second?

 

[Singularitarian]

No they were not. They might resemble them because of the wording used to formulate them, but the connotations and background is wholly different.

This is a standard play of words that is being used by people advocating religion, from the Dalai Lama to the Pope.

If you want to discuss these questions, go ahead!

I vote for moving this thread to RPH, do I have a second?

Not really.

Indeed, the theory of physics during the 1700's was rooted into honouring the Church, th Vatican most prominently. Because of this, when physical theorists noted there seems to be a beginning to time, the Vatican was most pleased with it, because it corresponded to religious genesis.

However, going further back than this, the Ancient Greeks where the real first physicists of the world (and the race unto which we got the name ''atom'' for an indivisible unit, even though we know this is not true now) - and most of the physicists then developed physics on the foundation of theology, not so much the story of the Divinity we call the testiments, but rather inclusively studying their philosophical contexts, and as any educated person will know, the roots of philosophy and religion stem even deeper.

 

[Singularitarian]

And eh, boycotting is such an ugly side by the way

 

[realpaladin]

And eh, boycotting is such an ugly side by the way

Boycotting? Where? How? Your thread is not on science, it is on philosophy. So it should rightfully be moved there.

It will still continue.

 

[realpaladin]

Not really.

<snippety>

educated person will know, the roots of philosophy and religion stem even deeper.

Your post being an example and argument for my case. Thank you.

Now, where does the 'not really' come into play?

 

[Singularitarian]

Your post being an example and argument for my case. Thank you.

Now, where does the 'not really' come into play?

Sir, you are going to have to make yourself more clearer, because i am not caching on to what you are meaning whatsoever.

More importantly, i've made my point, and none of them where of fabricated character, so put your money where you mouth is, instead of boastfuly calling for some vote of confidence in the threads integrity.

 

[realpaladin]

Sir, you are going to have to make yourself more clearer, because i am not caching on to what you are meaning whatsoever.

You are not caching because you keep invalidating!

More importantly, i've made my point, and none of them where of fabricated character, so put your money where you mouth is, instead of boastfuly calling for some vote of confidence in the threads integrity.

I never said anything about fabrication. I just mentioned that your arguments on the history of science were rather a point in favor of my line of reasoning than yours.

I wholly agree with your argument, except for the fact that it should have been in my repertoire and not yours.

 

[Singularitarian]

You are not caching because you keep invalidating!



I never said anything about fabrication. I just mentioned that your arguments on the history of science were rather a point in favor of my line of reasoning than yours.

I wholly agree with your argument, except for the fact that it should have been in my repertoire and not yours.

If that where not considered a joke, i still found it reasonably amusing.

So, from what i have read, what i said according to you is essentially correct, but it really should have been something you said.

mmm... I'm really not that cojent in providing a reply to this...

 

[Cuddles]

* Both going for an HND in physics

Oh, really? Singularitarian, can you confirm that you are in fact currently studying for a (Scottish) Higher National Diploma, equivalent to A-level in the rest of the UK, in physics? And yet you spend half your time arguing with and insulting many professional physicists, and others with physics degrees and/or PhDs? You certainly wouldn't be the first, but it's always interesting to see the old adage about those with the least knowledge being the least likely to realise it in action.

 

[Singularitarian]

That's because your claims are insufficiently coherent to have any meaning to refute. If I respond that the Big Bang must have happened because waveling smots denatulate the crevending perspinalities, what's your rebuttal? Your claims make about as much sense as that.

Dave

Oh they are being refuted, whether or not they know better on the subject than i do, something i would never normally boast on, but i hate it when amatures who have not experienced a higher level of education in physics to refute my claims with the highest impunity resorts me to see little good in their actions.

 

[realpaladin]

If that where not considered a joke, i still found it reasonably amusing.

So, from what i have read, what i said according to you is essentially correct, but it really should have been something you said.

mmm... I'm really not that cojent in providing a reply to this...

Yes, cojones are needed. Got any?

 

[realpaladin]

Oh they are being refuted, whether or not they know better on the subject than i do, something i would never normally boast on, but i hate it when amatures who have not experienced a higher level of education in physics to refute my claims with the highest impunity resorts me to see little good in their actions.

Yes, those darn armatures.

Well, let me tell you a couple of things here... if you feel that answers from the likes of Sol Invictus are not good enough, then I wish you an enormous amount of good luck in your academic future.

You will need it.

 

[realpaladin]

Not really.

Indeed, the theory of physics during the 1700's was rooted into honouring the Church, th Vatican most prominently. Because of this, when physical theorists noted there seems to be a beginning to time, the Vatican was most pleased with it, because it corresponded to religious genesis.

However, going further back than this, the Ancient Greeks where the real first physicists of the world (and the race unto which we got the name ''atom'' for an indivisible unit, even though we know this is not true now) - and most of the physicists then developed physics on the foundation of theology, not so much the story of the Divinity we call the testiments, but rather inclusively studying their philosophical contexts, and as any educated person will know, the roots of philosophy and religion stem even deeper.

So let me try this again.

But first, what school teaches you that the Greeks are a race instead of a culture?

Your abstract reasoning is lacking. Because I asked you why, today, we still should look unto science as we do unto religion.

You respond with some history, but fail to finish it.

I say that it would be my argument, but you fail to see my logical conclusion;

"But because Science is a methodology rather than a belief, it could break free from it's religious roots and, at first co-exist, and finally refute it's religious roots.

Had it been a mere belief system, it would have stayed where it was."

Capiche kiddo?