Science: Wonders, causality and the indeterminable

Jonesboy said:
I talked about types of causality, not particular causalities.
Newtonian is reciprocal.

And concepts these days are only best solutions for the results we are looking for.
Click to expand...

Jonesboy, I have no idea what you mean by these three sentences. There may be perfectly intelligible ideas that you are trying to express, but the mere style and manner in which you express them completely obscure them. I can't get past how you say it to even get to what you might mean.

There is a style of communication that is clear, simple, and direct and which would greatly facilitate matters here.

For instance, it is impossible for your reader to understand what you mean when you describe "Newtonian" as reciprocal (and another part of the problem is that your reader has to assume that you mean "Newtonian physics" - to communicate well you should have your listener/reader assume as little as possible). There's any number of things you might mean by this, but your readers have absolutely no way of figuring out what you might mean. How could they?

If you want to communicate, you have to imagine how your readers might misunderstand or misinterpret or be befuddled by how you write what you write.
 
Jonesboy said:
-. Are you saying that mind can affect matter?
Try this though. Is mind "effected" by matter?
Click to expand...

Why yes it is! With arguments like yours you should easily dismiss paralysis as nothing more than the arm being lazy.

Jonesboy said:
Not only are you advocating mind over matter, but you are supposing that the brain makes us do things.
I think, you need, to examine that.
Click to expand...

I suppose all the evidence we have that tells us that the brain = mind won't change your opinion. Jonesboy, you're just wrong. Damned wrong even. fMRI's kicked your arguments to its knees and mercifully executed it already; I don't know why you're repeating wrong information.
 
Last edited:
I still fail to make the connection between science and whatever it is that you fancy.

Please clarify this for me.
 
Jonesboy said:
Hello Biker druid
how would you know that the maths was meant to be about gravity, unless someone told you what gravity was? Eh?
Click to expand...

You're saying Bikerdruid, if he was inclined to, could not EVER study gravity himself and derive the math himself? Was Newton and Einstein some terrible hiccup in the intellectual system and only THEY could actually do it; everyone else is only able to be taught and never able to do it themselves?

Don't be <rule10>
 
Multivac said:
Did physics at school, many years ago, but don't remember covering ultraviolet catastrophe as we only spent about 30 seconds on QM. Thankyou for giving me something else to read and learn about. :cool:
Click to expand...

While you're at it, if you are interested in the historical development of QM, take a look at both the photoelectric effect and analysis of spectral lines. Enjoy :)

ETA: Everyone should just stop talking with Jonesboy. I smell troll.
 
Last edited:
What is it about what you fancy that is pertinent to Science, Mathematics, Medicine, or Technology?

Has my request for clarification broken the back of your thesis?
 
Jonesboy said:
Gravity informs your understanding of the mathematics of gravity. Nothing new is added.
Click to expand...

If you mean that mathematics is not scientific until it is empirically validated, then say so.

The indeterminable that can be determined is not the interminably indeterminable. :cool:
 
Jonesboy said:
Science has four types of causality: Newtonian, mind/brain, quantum/relativistic, and form/non-form. All but the Newtonian causality are employed in two creation myths - mind, and the physical universe.

The creation of the Universe according to Science
Quantum and relatavistic theories, patched around the ultimately topological ideas of string theory, today pose as one pole of Science's creation myth. The other pole is emptiness from which the former are presumed to be in a causal relationship.

Science's universe creation myth assumes form and non-form. Science expresses the relationship of form and non-form as the relationship between quantum/relativistic events and emptiness.
Click to expand...




You are wrong. There are four fundamental forces in nature but your ideas do not appear to be related to these, or reality.

Why don't you first actually educate yourself in real physics? At least then if you want to explore some radical new ideas you will have the background knowledge and maths to do so. All you appear to be doing at the moment is using big words you don't understand.
 
Jonesboy said:
Originally Posted by Jonesboy View Post
If certain objects are scientific then they must have certain material properties that make them scientific. What are these properties?



But if science doesn't tell us 'which things we ought to explore' then how are we to choose among them?
Click to expand...

Um... you're just wrong. There's really no other word for it. Science provides a disciplined frame work for exploration. One my choose what to explore, the scientific method just tells you how to go about it.
 
Jonesboy said:
Originally Posted by Jonesboy View Post
If certain objects are scientific then they must have certain material properties that make them scientific. What are these properties?
Click to expand...

Oh my sweet lord. Jonesboy, please log off and stay logged off until you have even a faint idea of what you're talking about. Take a course in the philosophy of science, for a start, and at least one lab course in physics. That you can make your statement with a straight face is prima facie evidence of abysmal, and probably wilful, ignorance.

To start, no objects are scientific, or they all are, depending on how you look at it. In neither case do some or any objects have special, scientific properties.

Some ideas are scientific, and they all have this in common: they can (in principle) be disproved by examination of physical evidence, and only by physical evidence. Scientific ideas, as a result, can never be proved. They can be confirmed, sometimes very strongly, but never proved.
 
Jonesboy said:
There are no ideas that are not commensense.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll bite. Which of the following ideas were common sense when they were proposed:
1) The earth goes around the sun, and not vice versa,
2) Disease is cause by invisibly small organisms,
3) There is no such thing as absolute motion. Or absolute time.

And is it truly common sense that a moving object becomes more massive, shorter, and its' time flow becomes slower?

Is it truly common sense that Jews run the world?
Is it truly common sense that Masons run the world?
Is it tryly common sense that the Catholic Church runs the world?
Is it truly common sense that I run the world?

Just checking.
 
Single particle diffraction with massive particles, anyone? Fire a series of buckminsterfullerene molecules at a suitable grating, well-enough separated that individual molecules don't interact, and a wavelike diffraction pattern is observed. A result - indeed, an idea - less consistent with common sense would be difficult to imagine; a heavy, well-defined particle behaves like a wave. To describe this as "common sense" is to stretch the definition of common sense well past breaking point.

Dave
 
Jonesboy said:
Multivac said:
without science we would still be living in caves
Click to expand...
We were THAT stupid then?
Click to expand...

Obviously not - we had to start somewhere, but look what we have achieved - through investigating and experimenting (naive science), and progressively refining it, with increasing success, into the scientific method of today.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom