Can Ideas Be Real?

[Bill]

I've only been posting here about week and seem to have
already flushed out most of those who have nothing to say.
Alas, they say it anyway.

I pointed out something that seemed well known: everything
is made of atoms. 99% of an atom is empty space which must
mean that everything made of atoms is likewise mostly empty
space. This is significant in that realty is 99% not there.
This should be a self-evident, uncontroversial fact everyone
can agree on.

It turns out that posters find this incomprehensible. It
seems that atoms conspire to create a new level of reality
that has properties in addition to and beyond anything the
atom itself can produce. This new level of reality can't be
real in any physical sense, it's just a configuration of
non-physical relationships. This is what atomic theory
requires.

Even so people here insist that the this extra level of
reality is real in the same sense as the atoms themselves.
This is obviously not so yet it is profoundly convincing to
most here.

When considered alongside the discussions of cosmic fine-
tuning a probable underlying argument emerges. Reality is
literally real, there are no quantum level type
distinctions, everything is one thing. There is no tuning,
no special circumstances, everything is just as it appears
to be. Because all of this exactly follows a fixed
interpretation of physical reality, it satisfies those
wanting easy answers.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

And your view satisfies those who want to feel that they are the purpose for which the entire universe exists. It's certainly a flattering thought. Who wouldn't want to be at the center of *what it all means.* But the very appeal of the idea should make you hesitate. Conclusions that satisfy one's vanity are all to easily found to be convincing.

[jillery]

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 16:54:59 -0600, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I've only been posting here about week and seem to have
>already flushed out most of those who have nothing to say.

You flushed yourself down the toilet.

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bill]

So, the universe, whose physical existence consists solely
of atoms, somehow arranged itself into what we experience.
We know that everything is really just atoms so what is all
the other stuff? What is it that we perceive? We have two
obvious possibilities: A universe consisting of tiny
particles fortuitously arranges itself into everything we
experience or perception itself is something other than the
physical universe.

A hint is that observers perceiving the universe exist,
giving form and structure that only exist at the scale of
the observers. What know is that we have no way to know.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

You've already been correct on that "solely of atoms" bit. Most of the mass of the universe is *not* atoms.

>somehow arranged itself into what we experience.

"Somehow," is the subject of science. How things work is interesting to people interested in details rather than blather.

> We know that everything is really just atoms so what is all
> the other stuff? What is it that we perceive? We have two
> obvious possibilities: A universe consisting of tiny
> particles fortuitously arranges itself into everything we
> experience or perception itself is something other than the
> physical universe.

"Fortuitously"? You don't mean "for no reason at all" do you? Since that would be to ignore all the physics that governs how things behave. Perhaps you mean "without having us as the goal of all of existence." There, there, you're still important to your family and friends.

>
> A hint is that observers perceiving the universe exist,

true enough

> giving form and structure that only exist at the scale of
> the observers.

This sounds like woo to me. If observers didn't exist, the universe would be almost identical to what it is now, except that on the odd planet here or there some specific forms of life would not be present.

>What know is that we have no way to know.

The why do you go on and on about it all.

>
> Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

Fine tuning could not exist until perceived, meaning it was retrocaused by
humans relatively recently, at least if one expects your arguments from a
recent thread you escaped to bear all their fruit. Esse est percipi.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Could there be tiny perturbations in the cosmic microwave background
radiation that predicted you would make this post in a cosmological form of
Islamic qadr? Or if such perturbation is perceived now would your post have
been retrodicted by the perceiver. Said perceiver of the tiny difference in
the cmbr that made a difference would bear full responsibility for your
post even if qadr precludes free will. Cosmologists must not open the
Pandora's box of perceiving cmbr. Their punishment will be just though
foreordained billions of years ago.

I now know why your replies occur hours before the posts they follow. The
time loop of backward causation has been sufficiently proven. Nobel Prize
here we come. Was that foretold in the cmbr? The cmbr discovers itself thus
becoming self aware across time and space. Woohoo!

[Bill]

What physical entities exist that are not composed of atoms?

Bill

[Bill]

It may be that you're in over your head here. Perception
only exists in living things. Some living things are more
acutely perceptive than others but life is the fundamental
requirement. Before life emerged perception was impossible.

If nothing is perceived, it would be exactly the same as
there being nothing to perceive. The scale of the observer
such as time, distance, size, speed, etc., will determine
what is observed. The mechanisms by which things are
observed will determine how the observations will appear.

What is perceived by microorganisms will be completely
different than what a human perceives. If it were possible
for an atom to perceive what would it see? Probably nothing.
Consider the scale of human existence, could there be
another scale?

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

Neutrinos, photons, pi mesons, dark matter. Most of the mass of the universe is composed of dark matter.

[Bill]

You surely know that the "particles" you mention are
hypothetical, mathematical entities invoked to explain
phenomena for which no other explanation works.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

Sure. Just like atoms. And, come to think of it, atoms don't exist, in your view, because we cannot perceive them. And the space between them does not exist because we cannot perceive it either.

Like, wow, heavy man (puff, puff), and, like, have you ever really looked at your hands (puff, puff), like really looked at them? Cause their heavy, man. All made up of a few atoms and mostly empty space (puff, puff). Like, wow, I feel transparent. It's all the Void, man, totally Zen.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Have you ever looked at the area between your shoulderblades? If not it
doesn't exist.

When I was a kid our dog would turn away from us if he had done something
wrong as if we ceased to exist if he couldn't see us. Out of sight out of
mind.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrich_effect

>
> Like, wow, heavy man (puff, puff), and, like, have you ever really looked
> at your hands (puff, puff), like really looked at them? Cause their
> heavy, man. All made up of a few atoms and mostly empty space (puff,
> puff). Like, wow, I feel transparent. It's all the Void, man, totally Zen.
>

How old is the number three and how much weight has it gained?

[raven1]

OK so far as we know.

>If nothing is perceived, it would be exactly the same as
>there being nothing to perceive.

What? Are you saying that existence is contingent on observation? Are
you arguing for solipsism? Or something else entirely? I'm baffled as
to what your sentence can possibly mean.

> The scale of the observer
>such as time, distance, size, speed, etc., will determine
>what is observed. The mechanisms by which things are
>observed will determine how the observations will appear.

Certainly.

>What is perceived by microorganisms will be completely
>different than what a human perceives. If it were possible
>for an atom to perceive what would it see? Probably nothing.
>Consider the scale of human existence, could there be
>another scale?

Dude, pass the joint already.

[Earle Jones27]

On 2017-01-06 22:54:59 +0000, Bill said:

> I've only been posting here about week and seem to have
> already flushed out most of those who have nothing to say.
> Alas, they say it anyway.
>
> I pointed out something that seemed well known: everything
> is made of atoms. 99% of an atom is empty space which must
> mean that everything made of atoms is likewise mostly empty
> space. This is significant in that realty is 99% not there.
> This should be a self-evident, uncontroversial fact everyone
> can agree on.

[...]

*
Bill: I agree that atoms are mostly empty space. And that we are
mostly made of atoms.

What is it that you conclude from this profound observation?

Thanks,

earle
*

[jillery]

They're as real as you are. Are you saying you're a mathematical
entity?

[jillery]

You already asked, and I alreadly answered. Are you admitting you
can't comprehend written English?

[Kalkidas]

Huh? What are you talking about? Are you advocating for or against
monism? I can't tell.

[Bill]

I conclude (tentatively) that the vast collections of atoms
that comprise the "things" we perceive are, most literally,
illusory. The reality is the atom. The reality we perceive
is the perception itself. Everything we experience exists at
a very specific scale: human. Of course we believe our
perception is real - but only to us.

The inert universe that exists apart from our perception of
it, is just a endless sea of dead particles. It must be
then, that our perception creates what we perceive. By being
alive and experiencing the universe we create it.

Yeah, I know, much too esoteric, too much woo and navel
gazing. Naturalistic interpretations become incomplete and
unsatisfactory and our picture of reality becomes a childish
scrawl. Little wonder no one likes this point of view. Fact
is, the objections have nothing to do with fact, just how
the facts might ramify.

Bill

[Bill]

In a sense, human observations are only solipsism. We think
we're seeing reality because we seek consensus and confuse
it with established fact.

>
>> The scale of the observer
>>such as time, distance, size, speed, etc., will determine
>>what is observed. The mechanisms by which things are
>>observed will determine how the observations will appear.
>
> Certainly.
>
>>What is perceived by microorganisms will be completely
>>different than what a human perceives. If it were possible
>>for an atom to perceive what would it see? Probably
>>nothing. Consider the scale of human existence, could
>>there be another scale?
>
> Dude, pass the joint already.

A little toke from time to time can clarify things be
conventional reality can be experience in a different way.
Shifting a viewpoint is probably a terrifying prospect for
most posters here but it can be therapeutic.

Bill

[Bill]

I neither said nor implied any such thing. You hope to imply
the opposite to preserve the notion that existence is
meaningless, purposeless and directionless. You're befuddled
by your philosophy.

Bill

[Bill]

Can you provide the physical means by which these entities
are physically observed and physically measured? They
"exist" because theory requires them.

Bill

[John Bode]

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 5:04:58 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote:

[snip]

>
> I pointed out something that seemed well known: everything
> is made of atoms. 99% of an atom is empty space which must
> mean that everything made of atoms is likewise mostly empty
> space. This is significant in that realty is 99% not there.
> This should be a self-evident, uncontroversial fact everyone
> can agree on.
>

What about the 1% that *is* there?

[Bill Rogers]

Why on earth would I hope to "preserve the notion that existence is meaningless, purposeless and directionless"? I find existence meaningful indeed. And fun. What I don't find is any evidence that my existence is the purpose of the whole universe.

As to whether you neither said nor implied any such thing, I'll let others be the judge.

[Bill Rogers]

You've still never explained what it is about "how the facts might ramify," that causes all the objections to your posts. As far as I can tell, the conclusions you draw from the "facts" you describe are all extremely comforting and flattering to our vanity. If you think objections are motivated by fear of the ramifications of your ideas, perhaps you should spell out what is so fearful about them.

[J. J. Lodder]

Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've only been posting here about week and seem to have
> already flushed out most of those who have nothing to say.
> Alas, they say it anyway.
>
> I pointed out something that seemed well known: everything
> is made of atoms.

First blunder.

> 99% of an atom is empty space which must
> mean that everything made of atoms is likewise mostly empty
> space. This is significant in that realty is 99% not there.
> This should be a self-evident, uncontroversial fact everyone
> can agree on.

Au contraire, more than 99% of the universe is not atoms.
[verbiage snipped]

Do yourself a favour, and learn something before talking,

Jan

[Bill]

Enlighten me. I'm sure you can ...

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

Two other posters have already explained to you that the majority of mass in the universe is not composed of atoms. You seem uninterested in making the effort required to learn anything, so why keep asking questions?

http://chartsbin.com/view/yuc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
https://www.coursera.org/learn/astro#syllabus
https://www.coursera.org/learn/solar-system/home/welcome

You can lead a horse to water...

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 16:54:59 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>I've only been posting here about week and seem to have
>already flushed out most of those who have nothing to say.
>Alas, they say it anyway.

Funny; that's what I was thinking about your posts (which
seem to have been going on *much* longer).

<snip self-aggrandizement>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[eridanus]

electrons? electromagnetic waves? neutrinos, protons, neutrons, dark matter?
eri

[Bill]

So, you aren't aware that dark matter is an hypothesis
proposed to explain alleged discrepancies in the masses of
galaxies. Dark matter is not an observed fact but a
provisional explanation. It may exist but no one knows.

It's unfortunate that people can't tell the difference
between hypothesis and fact, believing, it seems, that
they're the same.

Bill

[Bill]

Electrons are a component of atoms without which they don't
exist. Protons and Neutrons are likewise basic components of
atoms. Dark matter is an explanation not a particle. If you
insist on picking nits at least try to be persuasive.

Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

Jan and the other Bill seem to be capably puncturing your bubbles. What
knowledge claims can you proffer or is this one of those deified ignorance
things? Your time gap seems to be growing. Fix your clock.

[eridanus]

fact is polysemic. It can mean some materials, some acts, some testimonies, etc. Theories are explanations to make sense of something, like a set of data.
But theories have behind a large group of scientists that accept it.
Why a hypothesis is a theory not yet accepted by a large group of academics.
It does not mean that theories are true, but "acceptable".
In this sense, theories are also facts, for they are testimonies of some
scientists that affirm "this is true" or valid explanations.
Facts is them a mixed word. Sometimes it means that a great number of
scientist believe Theory X is true; taken true as meaning it is believable.
By example AGW is a theory and it is true, for it is believable. But it can
as well be wrong if not totally at least in part.

But quite often, some second-hand scientists behave like religious fanatics.
This is all.

Eri

[eridanus]

It looks you are in error. Most electrons are around the nucleus of an
atom. But occasionally they are free for a time, till they arrive close to
some atom that has a free orbit. But it all depends on how close the electron
passes near an atom. For all atoms are guarded by a cloud of electrons.
Then the free electron has the same electric charge, is repelled by the electrons of most atoms. Occasionally some radioactive atoms shoot out a
proton or a neutron, or a neutrino, or a gamma ray. But this is not very
common.
As for the dark matter not one knows yet if this is meat or fish.
eri

[Bill Rogers]

You seem to have no consistent position about what an observed fact is. Dark matter is the best current explanation for the rotational velocities of galaxies. But then atoms and all sorts of concepts in science have that status. Why do you think atoms are more real than dark matter. Neither is observed directly. Both are simply the best current explanations for large amounts of interlocking data.

You seem to be remarkably sloppy, not to say downright lazy, in your thinking. Do you want to learn about the evidence and the observations that dark matter explains? No. Too much trouble. Do you want to bother to sort out your personal philosophy of science? No. Too much work. I mean, your position seems to be something other than scientific realism...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#Emp

but you are completely inconsistent in how you talk about "reality" "facts" "perceptions" and all the rest. Some things you say are most compatible with a very radical Berkleyan idealism, others seem most compatible with different, more modern versions of anti-realism. But it seems obvious to everyone here that you have not thought at all carefully about what you are saying. You don't seem to want to do the work of learning about the science you want to criticize, nor the work to learn about the philosophy of science that you butcher so badly in your posts. Which is particularly ironic since you like to complain that everybody else just takes the easy way out.

>
> It's unfortunate that people can't tell the difference
> between hypothesis and fact, believing, it seems, that
> they're the same.

Speak for yourself.

>
> Bill

[jillery]

BZZT! Theories exist to explain observations, and to constrain
predictions.

I take it back. You're not a mathematical entity. You're a virtual
particle.

[jillery]

He is, he just doesn't know it.

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

Bill wrote

>I've only been posting here
>about week and seem to
>have already flushed out
>most of those who have
>nothing to say. Alas, they
>say it anyway.

>I pointed out something that
>seemed well known:
>everything is made of

>atoms. 99% of an atom is

>empty space which must
>mean that everything made
>of atoms is likewise mostly
>empty space. This is
>significant in that realty is
>99% not there. This should
>be a self-evident,
>uncontroversial fact
>everyone can agree on.

>...snip
>Bill

[1] At 1 - 1.5m X 10, the word "everything" in physics means only public things seen. On this scale one can see everyday things and conventional space. Public space therefore, is not empty space. It is filled with things. Common grammar refers to this stuff in terms of nouns like a persons, places, or things. Space is a noun that is not occupied by nouns that refer to persons or things. So your text is illogical. It mixes two different public things as one.

[2] There is force and energy at work in and around atoms at 1 - 1.5m X 10^-15. You must know that "work" is the essential focus for physicists. The 1% (your term) of physical things at 1 - 1.5 m X 10 breaks down your text's logic when compared to potential energy logic in classical physics. This can be proven by one trying to walk through a wall. 99% of no one's space can do it. Meaning it is not predictive. No one will walk 99% through a wall by aligning the spaces between them and a wall. Thus the noun person is a physical thing not a thought. And therefore, both the person and the wall have more than 1% potential physical energy to withstand 99% of their atomic spaces.

[3] Reality is there. Physical reality can be sensed by the wall experiment. Try it.

SC RED

[*Hemidactylus*]

I get the impression Bill has tried the wall experiment one too many times.

[eridanus]

El domingo, 8 de enero de 2017, 23:04:58 (UTC), Bill escribió:
> I've only been posting here about week and seem to have
> already flushed out most of those who have nothing to say.
> Alas, they say it anyway.
>
> I pointed out something that seemed well known: everything
> is made of atoms. 99% of an atom is empty space which must
> mean that everything made of atoms is likewise mostly empty
> space. This is significant in that realty is 99% not there.
> This should be a self-evident, uncontroversial fact everyone
> can agree on.
>

> It turns out that posters find this incomprehensible. It
> seems that atoms conspire to create a new level of reality
> that has properties in addition to and beyond anything the
> atom itself can produce. This new level of reality can't be
> real in any physical sense, it's just a configuration of
> non-physical relationships. This is what atomic theory
> requires.
>
> Even so people here insist that the this extra level of
> reality is real in the same sense as the atoms themselves.
> This is obviously not so yet it is profoundly convincing to
> most here.
>
> When considered alongside the discussions of cosmic fine-
> tuning a probable underlying argument emerges. Reality is
> literally real, there are no quantum level type
> distinctions, everything is one thing. There is no tuning,
> no special circumstances, everything is just as it appears
> to be. Because all of this exactly follows a fixed
> interpretation of physical reality, it satisfies those
> wanting easy answers.
>
> Bill

the problem to enter into this empty space of atoms is the cloud
of electrons that surround each atom. Then, only a particle without
electric charge can enter inside the atom and pass through. You cannot
have an imaginary sharp needle to enter an atom because it has barrier
or electrons both of the atom, and even the sharp needle. Just imagine
a sharp needle such that the point is a single atom. This atom whatever
sort of atom it is basically a cloud of electrons at a great distance
from the nucleus. Then, the electrons of whatever mass you want penetrate
it becomes impenetrable.
Apparently, the air, or most liquids, do not present a barrier to get
into. But this is explained because the atoms of liquids, or gases,
form small molecules separated among them, not attached to each other.
While the solids present molecules tightly bound to each other for some
number of atoms. Even the concept tightly bound to each other is relative,
for a bullet with great velocity can break in smaller pieces some quantity
of solid material. Some military tanks are covered with armored plates,
but some special bullets had been made to penetrate the armor. If not all
a good part of them. That is some solid metals are specially strong by
some combination of diverse atoms but it can be pierced anyway depending
on the amount of power used. An atomic bomb perhaps cannot flatten a tank,
for the matter projected by the atomic explosion are only made of gases.
But the tank can be heated to high temperature and cook the humans inside
the tank. Some neutrons liberated by the atomic explosion could penetrate
the tank and kill all human life inside the tanks as well, before those
humans would had been cooked by the heat.

What is the different with an hydrogen bomb making a hue crater in the
floor? The floor is not made of tightly bound atoms, but of some mix of
particles and small stones that can be compress or carried away by a very
strong current of gases, like occurs with common explosions.

All this has a relation with the concept how solids can have atoms tight
to each other. Most solids have not its atoms strongly bonded to each
other, as can be observed we can break a big stone with a hammer. A common
bullet can break a stone in smaller pieces, it depends in which stone we
are speaking of. But a bullet hitting some hard stone only take out some
small fragments, not break the stone in two. I depends on the relative sizes
of the stone and the bullet. Each combination of stone and a bullet
requires a different analysis.

The question of the atoms being empty has not any meaning in your argument
because you you ignoring the electronic barrier, that makes an atom sort
partially impenetrable. The problem of atomic nuclei colliding among them
is also a rather complex thing. For all the atomic nuclei have a positive
electric charge and repel each other. Only nuclei with extreme kinetic
energy can collide with another; for they both have an electric positive
field that works like a barrier and repel each other. For some amount of
kinetic energy we can imagine a nucleus to smash to each other and sort of
fuse in part.

I have only a very light notion about these questions but I know enough
as not being myself telling some silly arguments.

We have some ideas to tell the atom looks almost empty because we had made
some experiments with neutrons and how easily they pass through the atoms.
How low is the probability of an neutron to hit on a nucleus. Also by
the estimated mass of a proton. Sometimes we can observe a proton in some
sort of apparatus and watch how some electric field or magnetic field can
bend the path of a proton. Those experiments had provided means to calculating the mass and the electric charge of a proton. Scientists had
been working for more than 100 years on all these problems.

What is totally new is the dark matter and the dark energy. They had not
found yet an explanation for this. Is it a cat? Is it a dog? They do not
know it yet.

eri

[J. J. Lodder]

Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I've only been posting here about week and seem to have
> >> already flushed out most of those who have nothing to
> >> say.

You failed. You missed yourself.

> >> Alas, they say it anyway.
> >>
> >> I pointed out something that seemed well known:
> >> everything is made of atoms.
> >
> > First blunder.
> >
> >> 99% of an atom is empty space which must
> >> mean that everything made of atoms is likewise mostly
> >> empty space. This is significant in that realty is 99%
> >> not there. This should be a self-evident, uncontroversial
> >> fact everyone can agree on.
> >
> > Au contraire, more than 99% of the universe is not atoms.
> > [verbiage snipped]
> >
> > Do yourself a favour, and learn something before talking,
>
> Enlighten me. I'm sure you can ...

I don't think so.
You can't cure people who are delusional by talking to them.

They have to cure themselves,

Jan

[Bill]

There are those here who deny that science is a philosophy.
The general consensus that if some explanation is proposed
by some scientist, it must be true. There those who believe
that if something like dark matter is hypothesized, it must
exist. There are some here who ignore the fact that many of
these hypotheses are mathematical descriptions, essentially
ad hoc to provide a provisional explanation. These
hypotheses have the function of preserving a theory.

The problem is not the scientists or science but the
misunderstanding (misrepresenting) of these distinctions
making this or that speculation seem more plausible.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/6/17 2:54 PM, Bill wrote:
> I've only been posting here about week and seem to have
> already flushed out most of those who have nothing to say.
> Alas, they say it anyway.
>
> I pointed out something that seemed well known: everything
> is made of atoms.

Not true, but other posters are already covering this.

> 99% of an atom is empty space...

Define "empty space", and describe how you confirm it.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"We are not looking for answers. We are looking to come to an
understanding, recognizing that it is temporary--leaving us open to an
even richer understanding as further evidence surfaces." - author unknown

[Bill]

Mark Isaak wrote:

> On 1/6/17 2:54 PM, Bill wrote:
>> I've only been posting here about week and seem to have
>> already flushed out most of those who have nothing to
>> say. Alas, they say it anyway.
>>
>> I pointed out something that seemed well known:
>> everything is made of atoms.
>
> Not true, but other posters are already covering this.
>
>> 99% of an atom is empty space...
>
> Define "empty space", and describe how you confirm it.
>

This is such an common and annoying dodge. You can't keep up
your end of a discussion to you demand endless pedantic
clarifications. If I say something is blue, you will require
its specific wavelength. It is just a dodge.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 06 Jan 2017 22:38:25 -0600, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

Just to satisfy my curiosity...

Do you imagine that anyone has ever directly observed a
subatomic particle? Or are you aware that we only know they
exist via their observable effects, as is the case with dark
matter?

[Bill]

Part of my point is that there are only observable effects.
I tried to simplify it to make the point more digestible but
even that is too difficult it seems.

We as observers believe that what we observe is real in some
fundamental sense even knowing that reality consists of
innumerable unobserved "things". An atomic theory seems
explanatory because it gives us a starting place, an idea
that appears to connect everything into something
comprehensible.

The key is "something comprehensible". The universe doesn't
care that we try to make sense of it; it's a harmless
exercise. The essential ingredient is us, the observer. We
make the universe make sense but the effort is limited to us
as observers. For whatever reason, posters here find this
observation to be anathema.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

That's not a general consensus I've ever run across, especially among scientists. The general consensus I've found is that if some explanation is proposed, one's immediate task is to poke holes in it and think up experiments that would show that it's wrong.

But you won't get that from cable tv programs on science and you seem unwilling to look anywhere else.

>There those who believe
> that if something like dark matter is hypothesized, it must
> exist.

I've not met anybody like that. I have met some who think that if dark matter explains observations better than any competing hypothesis (say MOND, modified Newtonian Dynamics) then it's a good idea to provisionally accept the existence of dark matter as a working hypothesis and to try to figure out more about it.

>There are some here who ignore the fact that many of
> these hypotheses are mathematical descriptions, essentially
> ad hoc to provide a provisional explanation. These
> hypotheses have the function of preserving a theory.

I haven't met anybody like that, either.

>
> The problem is not the scientists or science but the
> misunderstanding (misrepresenting) of these distinctions
> making this or that speculation seem more plausible.

I think the problem is in your very weak and inconsistent understanding of the philosophy of science (which is not "science, as a philosophy", but philosophers' attempts to explain what people are doing when they are doing science). Lots of the mutually inconsistent ideas you float here have been thought about in depth by philosophers and scientists for many years. But it seems to be too much trouble for you to look at what's already been thought about.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#Emp

[Burkhard]

yet you try to claim as facts statements your statements about atoms
even though they are just as much based on inferences from observed
effects as dark matter, which you reject on taht ground.

With other words your selective epistemological nihilism is internally
inconsistent

[Mark Isaak]

Let me be more direct, then. It is a well-known fact that no space is
ever empty.

[John Bode]

What about the 1% that isn't empty space?

[eridanus]

In science any theories can be changed or even declared erroneous when
new data appear and scientists change their thinking.
Our truths are provisional and erasable.
It does not occur the same with religions.
eri

[Bill]

eridanus wrote:

...

>>
>> The problem is not the scientists or science but the
>> misunderstanding (misrepresenting) of these distinctions
>> making this or that speculation seem more plausible.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
> In science any theories can be changed or even declared
> erroneous when new data appear and scientists change their
> thinking. Our truths are provisional and erasable.
> It does not occur the same with religions.

Why invoke religion? Do you believe that's what this is
about? Bringing this up makes it look like science is not
not the issue at all.

Bill

[jillery]

When you claim something is blue, and the evidence supports a claim
that it's anything but blue, it's reasonable to eliminate some reasons
why you would baldly and repeatedly assert that claim. One obvious
possibility is that you use a unique personal definition of blue, that
blue is anything but blue.

So if there's any common annoying dodge here, it's your repetitive
bald assertions.

[eridanus]

both science and religion contain elements of faith. common people
in both fields believe in some authority.
eri

[J. J. Lodder]

Mark Isaak <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

> On 1/6/17 2:54 PM, Bill wrote:
> > I've only been posting here about week and seem to have
> > already flushed out most of those who have nothing to say.
> > Alas, they say it anyway.
> >
> > I pointed out something that seemed well known: everything
> > is made of atoms.
>
> Not true, but other posters are already covering this.
>
> > 99% of an atom is empty space...
>
> Define "empty space", and describe how you confirm it.

And just to confuse 'Bill' further:
Atomic nuclei are all empty space too.
Quarks are mathematical point particles,
and gluons are just quantum fields.
And from bad to worse: real mass (of the quarks)
is only an insignificant part of the preceived mass.
Almost all of our mass is no more than zero-point energy
of the quantum fields.

So at the fundamental level there is only emptyness,
nothing but point particles and quantum fields,

Jan

[Kalkidas]

No, he's got a real point. The current understanding in physics is that
space is not at all empty. In fact, it takes many pages of equations to
describe it. So when you claim that 99% of an atom is "empty space" you
are really only saying that 99% of an atom is something other than
atoms. You are not saying that 99% of an atom is nonexistent nothingness.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:22:32 -0600, the following appeared

Aha! So if *you* don't find something comprehensible that is
prima facie evidence that it's false? Did you ever consider
that the ability to "make sense of" something is strongly
dependent on one's prior knowledge? Do you claim that all of
both Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are
comprehensible to you? If so, please publish the
reconciliation between them; you'll be famous overnight.

Bottom line: You reject anything which you don't understand,
like the yokel seeing the elephant and proclaiming "There
ain't no sech animal!", and treat theories you imagine you
understand, such as atomic theory, as "facts" while
rejecting those such as dark matter, which are no more
theoretical than is atomic theory and which are based on the
same quality of observational data.

And STW, what some posters here find "anathema", among other
things such as running away or attempting to redirect the
discussion when shown to be wrong, is your tendency to post
contradictory assertions; the most egregious one I've seen
is your assertion one day that "Without perception, the
actual existence of anything is unknown which is the same as
non-existent" followed a day later by your assertion that "I
did not limit existence to my perception of it so we can
discard that frivolous objection".

At least try to keep your pronouncements consistent.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 23:56:47 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Well, he *is* a genius philosopher, one whose deep though is
mostly beyond the comprehension of mere mortals...

[Jonathan]

On 1/6/2017 5:54 PM, Bill wrote:



> I've only been posting here about week and seem to have
> already flushed out most of those who have nothing to say.
> Alas, they say it anyway.
>
> I pointed out something that seemed well known: everything

> is made of atoms. 99% of an atom is empty space which must

> mean that everything made of atoms is likewise mostly empty
> space. This is significant in that realty is 99% not there.
> This should be a self-evident, uncontroversial fact everyone
> can agree on.
>

> It turns out that posters find this incomprehensible. It
> seems that atoms conspire to create a new level of reality
> that has properties in addition to and beyond anything the
> atom itself can produce. This new level of reality can't be
> real in any physical sense, it's just a configuration of
> non-physical relationships. This is what atomic theory
> requires.
>
> Even so people here insist that the this extra level of
> reality is real in the same sense as the atoms themselves.
> This is obviously not so yet it is profoundly convincing to
> most here.
>
> When considered alongside the discussions of cosmic fine-
> tuning a probable underlying argument emerges. Reality is
> literally real, there are no quantum level type
> distinctions, everything is one thing. There is no tuning,
> no special circumstances, everything is just as it appears
> to be. Because all of this exactly follows a fixed
> interpretation of physical reality, it satisfies those
> wanting easy answers.
>

Your title is a great question.
What is an idea made of? List them?

No one can as the list would be endless
with each item mostly undefinable.
For instance define how our brain
works with objective precision?

Not gonna happen, let alone the endless
facts and emotions that contribute to
an idea.

So lets try a different approach to not
only answer whether an idea or anything
else is 'real', but at the same time
finding a new way to scientifically
deal with such difficult 'variables'
or questions.

........
IF anything has a measurable....effect
on other things, then it is real and
should be considered a variable to
reality and taken into consideration
wrt to modeling and predicting reality.
........


Would you agree with that statement?

First it takes the question of what
something is 'made of' away as it
no longer matters. We're looking
at effects not causes, what things do
not what they're 'made of'.

And second even if something has no
physical presence whatsoever, for
instance an idea, it still can be
dealt with in the /same way/ physical
or 'real' objects would be, in terms
of the effects they have on other things.

And such an effects based methods
means any type of thing whatsoever
can be dealt with with a /single/
mathematical form. A single math
for EVERYTHING whether real or
even imaginary.

Does that sound like a good 'idea'
given the current state of having
a unique discipline for each and
every type of thing that exists?


Let me outline simply how this new
form of mathematics, called attractor
theory, works.

An idea may be so insignificant, wrong
or extreme that once released has little
to no effects on other things or people.

Such an idea would be termed 'simple'
behavior. Either static attractor (not
changing fast enough) or chaotic attractor
(changing too fast) to sustain itself.

But a really good idea may be so compelling
in some way it 'takes on a life of it's own'
and not only keeps spreading, but continues
for an extended time reverberating around
the globe.

This would be considered a 'complex' idea.
Or a dynamic attractor that resides at
the transition between the simple opposites
of static and chaotic.

For instance water being the transitional
form between the opposites of solid (static)
and gas (chaotic).

For instance the simple idea (static or chaotic)
would have an effect, let's say on a spring, that
would deflect the spring a small amount
and it would return to rest quickly.

The technical term for the amount of disturbance
an effect has is 'transient length'.
A small transient length refers to a
minor disturbance.

Where the disturbance is large and continues
for an extended time is a long transient length.

This gives us a mathematical basis for
quantifying 'effects' on other things
without needing to know the /first thing/
about it's 'atomic' construction.

Examples of long transients would be
something like poorly constructed building
where an earthquake causes the building
to sway too much and for too long, or say
The Communist Manifesto or even Christ.

There's no doubt such ideas or concepts
have enormous effects or are a large
variable to our current human reality.

Even though the concept of God or the
wisdom of communism are difficult if
not impossible to prove in an objective
scientific way, let alone having any
physical reality in itself.

Is an idea real, of course it is, as
real as anything you can trip over, and
in fact with more potential to change
the world and future than most 'real'
things.

One could argue the belief in God is
so pervasive and powerful few other
things are more important to predicting
our future. While also arguing the belief
is perhaps the least provable thing
of all.

A curious and interesting dichotomy
that deserves far more discussion
and importance whenever discussing
the nature or future of reality.


Jonathan


s










> Bill
>

[Bill]

I think you read in too much. What we think about reality
only tells us what we think. Reality is our perception of
it, the end product is an idea. The idea may be a theory or
a guess or some elaborate experiment that refers to reality
without being reality. There is reality and then there is
what we think about it - they are not the same thing.

Bill

[Bill]

I'm trying, most patiently, to believe you are not an idiot,
yet you mimic one flawlessly.

Bill

[J. J. Lodder]

It seems that 'Bill' never learned anything about atoms
beyond the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom,

Jan

[Jonathan]

On 1/10/2017 6:49 PM, Bill wrote:


> There is reality and then there is
> what we think about it - they are not the same thing.
>

You can't separate the two.

There is no such thing as an objective
reality as nothing in the universe
exists in complete...isolation.

All things are dependent upon at
least two other preexisting things

Are you talking about physical reality
or human reality?

Our perception and ideas about reality
most certainly effects our future.
How much of current America is the
result of 'ideas' from those that
came before us?

How much has terrorism, or hate, effected
our current reality? How much does our
perception of reality shape our future
reality.

We live in a coevolutionary world where
our perceptions effects our environment.
And our environment effects us.

Again, you can't separate the two.





> Bill
>

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ideas can be about real things or about nothing in particular. I prefer the
ideas that apply to objective reality. There are aspects of reality that to
borrow from a simplistic dichotomy of Ayn Rand's are metaphysically given.
A waterfall or the rocks lining the river upstream of said stream are
metaphysically given. There are other things that, forgive the archaic
Randroid language "man made". These are things caused by humans. We have
more impact on those things: cars, buildings, tv sets. There are human
productions that are more ideational in content such as shared concepts,
stories, and theories. These occupy Karl Popper's so called third world.
They are partially intentional but have unintended aspects and therefore
some degree of autonomy and feedback onto our subjective worlds. Theories
can have a mixture of truth and falsity value (verisimilitude). Mediated by
our subjective worlds these ideas can impact the physical world as technic
creations. There can be impact upon the shared intersubjective world where
finance and economy happens, iron laws mixed with social construction. To
the extent that perception drives economy we get into what George Soros
calls reflexivity and irrational stuff such as bubbles. This is the weird
aspect of how to a limited extent we can create our own realities at least
until the bubble pops and reality creeps in, though fiat paper money
systems seem to have a bit of the wizard behind the curtain to them.

But getting back to the metaphysically given physical world, there are
rocks however much empty space exists inside them the brute fact is that if
you stub your toe on one hard enough it might swell and bruise, regardless
if your house gained or lost appraised value in recent years after the
crash. Of course the objects involved are nominally rocks and toes.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Yeah. I dunno. I thought I had a decent grasp of reality until I read some
election related stuff tonight because a friend sent a meme about garbanzos
vs chickpeas that made no sense. And at an abstracted level I can say such
and such reported on stuff about so and so making bizarre allegations about
you know who. What's true? What's false anymore. Or will it be a battle of
dueling fake news stories and may the most salacious one win? And it's
about a very despicable individual yet after laughing at all the funny puns
when the shock wears off I am left wondering if it's just a horrible hit
piece that lacks veracity. If so another sign of post-truth. If not wow.
Buyers remorse set in yet?

Trying to imagine Walter Cronkite reporting on *that*.

Can ideas be surreal? I don't think we are in Kansas anymore. We are
heading down that yellow brick road. Ok. Sorry about that colorful
metaphor. Too soon?

And what's different between manufactured consent versus manufactured
dissent?

[Earle Jones27]

On 2017-01-11 18:21:35 +0000, Jonathan said:

On 1/6/2017 5:54 PM, Bill wrote:

I've only been posting here about week and seem to have

already flushed out most of those who have nothing to say.

Alas, they say it anyway.

I pointed out something that seemed well known: everything

is made of atoms. 99% of an atom is empty space which must

mean that everything made of atoms is likewise mostly empty

space. This is significant in that realty is 99% not there.

This should be a self-evident, uncontroversial fact everyone

can agree on.

*

In fact, shouldn't we be more correct and say, "Everything is made of empty space"

earle

*

[...clipalot here...]

*

Jonathan:

Do you set your 'line-length' to 25 or so characters, so that your postings look like poetry?

earle

*

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

J. J. Lodder wrote,

>It seems that 'Bill' never
>learned anything about
>atoms beyond the Bohr
>model of the hydrogen
>atom,

>Jan

Or forgot the the more fundamental principle in physics--the various dynamic atomic states of a gas, a liquid, or a solid.

SC RED

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 17:52:40 -0600, the following appeared

Well, that's one way to ignore those pesky observations and
questions you find uncomfortable while running away...

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 01:00:24 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

Don't see how it could, any more than soda vs. pop, or bag
vs. sack. Terminology only; no content.

> And at an abstracted level I can say such
>and such reported on stuff about so and so making bizarre allegations about
>you know who. What's true? What's false anymore. Or will it be a battle of
>dueling fake news stories and may the most salacious one win? And it's
>about a very despicable individual yet after laughing at all the funny puns
>when the shock wears off I am left wondering if it's just a horrible hit
>piece that lacks veracity. If so another sign of post-truth. If not wow.
>Buyers remorse set in yet?
>
>Trying to imagine Walter Cronkite reporting on *that*.
>
>Can ideas be surreal? I don't think we are in Kansas anymore. We are
>heading down that yellow brick road. Ok. Sorry about that colorful
>metaphor. Too soon?
>
>And what's different between manufactured consent versus manufactured
>dissent?

[Bill]

Since you have dodged the points I've raised, pretending not
to understand what is plainly said, it's understandable that
you will defend your confusion. I believe that to respond
cogently to a point gives the impression that the point has
merit. It might then require a rational response.

If no such response is possible, pretend to misconstrue the
point, relieving you of any obligation to think. This is a
favorite ploy here of course but obvious to anyone paying
attention. Argue that some position you don't like is
unworthy of thought and you won't have to think about it.

Bill

[Ray Martinez]

Except many people come to the exact same conclusions, so among this particular set they are the same thing.

You're arguing standard and stale Idealism.

Ray

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

Bill wrote,

>...What we think about

>reality only tells us what we >think. Reality is our
>perception of it, the end
>product is an idea. The idea
>may be a theory or a guess
>or some elaborate
>experiment that refers to
>reality without being reality. >There is reality and then
>there is what we think about
>it - they are not the same
>thing.

>Bill

That is true. So one must always go back to the "reality" after a logical analysis of it, constantly over and over again, and remake that analysis an imitative near exact copy of what reality is if we are to say the science is ontological to sense--that we can engineer it too. Otherwise, it is epistemic if done once by logic only or not tested over and over, or worse, if we cannot produce neither the ontological nor the epistemological, it will just be poetry (literary opinions).

SC RED

[J. J. Lodder]

<scienceci...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That is true. So one must always go back to the "reality" after a logical
> analysis of it, constantly over and over again, and remake that analysis
> an imitative near exact copy of what reality is if we are to say the
> science is ontological to sense--that we can engineer it too. Otherwise,
> it is epistemic if done once by logic only or not tested over and over, or
> worse, if we cannot produce neither the ontological nor the
> epistemological, it will just be poetry (literary opinions).

In science use of 'reality' is best avoided.
It serves no useful purpose.

Leave it to the philosophers,

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 16:36:41 -0600, the following appeared

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:10:55 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

Think of it as shorthand for "what would exist even if
humans or other sophonts had never evolved".

[*Hemidactylus*]

Alas the Emperor of Reason has no clothes. Borrowing from Popper's Open
Society, how do we bootstrap reason? Is reason itself arrived at by
argument devoid of presupposition or is there a fideist initial seeding? He
relies heavily on the liar's paradox whereby uncritical rationalism topples
its own foundations. We cannot argue far enough backward to get past the
infinite regress of presupposition. I feel as I am stuck inside a hall full
of smoke and mirrors.

[blood curdling screams resonate]

[*Hemidactylus*]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:10:55 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
>> <scienceci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> That is true. So one must always go back to the "reality" after a logical
>>> analysis of it, constantly over and over again, and remake that analysis
>>> an imitative near exact copy of what reality is if we are to say the
>>> science is ontological to sense--that we can engineer it too. Otherwise,
>>> it is epistemic if done once by logic only or not tested over and over, or
>>> worse, if we cannot produce neither the ontological nor the
>>> epistemological, it will just be poetry (literary opinions).
>>
>> In science use of 'reality' is best avoided.
>> It serves no useful purpose.
>>
>> Leave it to the philosophers,
>
> Think of it as shorthand for "what would exist even if
> humans or other sophonts had never evolved".
>

Or Ayn Rand's bootstrap that existence exists. Without objective reality
what is the point of science? I guess we do have engineers for the
pragmatics and applications but to what? Dreamscapes?

[Jonathan]

And the math I outline can quantify which ideas
have the greater effects, and how to design ideas
so that they have greater effects.

> I prefer the
> ideas that apply to objective reality.

But the things around us, the so-called
objective reality, or our environment is
only half the picture in any coevolutionary
system.

Our perceptions and beliefs etc, the subjective
side of reality is the other half and of
equal importance.

Some would argue of even more or defining
importance. Since the laws, rules or objective
facts of reality tend to be relatively constant.

While our subjective side of beliefs and perception
shape our future far more. After all when trying
to build a better future for humanity do we
really refer to quantum theory, cosmology and
so on, or do we look to societal issues
such as politics, government and economy?

Physics and quantum theory etc are great for
building things, but FIRST the subjective
side needs to decide what needs to be
built.

Subjective reality should come first. Our
values and needs etc, objective reality
second as a means to those ends.

For instance in a game of chess, we can't win
unless each move is guided by an intelligent
hand with a clearly defined purpose.

Letting the game play itself with it's rules
guided by...random...events gets you nowhere.

Evolution is not a set of rules operating
on random events only, but life adds a
purpose and guiding intelligence at their
own level. Even if that intelligence is
nothing more than a collection of single
celled life moving in a common direction
say towards light. Instead of a single
life moving randomly in any direction.

Such emergent intelligence is the difference
between a world full of microbes and
a world that can produce Microsoft.

Emergent intelligence, or God, must be
and is a defining part of evolution.

> There are aspects of reality that to
> borrow from a simplistic dichotomy of Ayn Rand's are metaphysically given.
> A waterfall or the rocks lining the river upstream of said stream are
> metaphysically given. There are other things that, forgive the archaic
> Randroid language "man made". These are things caused by humans. We have
> more impact on those things: cars, buildings, tv sets. There are human
> productions that are more ideational in content such as shared concepts,
> stories, and theories. These occupy Karl Popper's so called third world.
> They are partially intentional but have unintended aspects and therefore
> some degree of autonomy and feedback onto our subjective worlds.

It's crucial to be able to define the difference between
man-made and natural.

If a man-made system follows the laws of nature it's
a...natural system, regardless of it's physical
construction or how it came into being.

One must place natural processes in abstract form
so we can decide if...any system...is man made
in character or not.

A man-made system is where one manipulates the parts
into a.../preconceived/...or designed final product.
A building or dictatorship for instance.

A natural system allows the final product to
/emerge as it will/ as in any naturally
evolving system.

So, a key aspect to decide man-made or not is if the
final product or future of that system can be
precisely predicted or known in advance or not.

And any natural system will display a critical interaction
between it's opposing forces and also emergent properties.

Man-made system do not on either count.

For instance a natural system such as universe
will exist near the transition point between it's
opposing forces such as gravity and cosmic expansion.
With dark energy emerging once the system is fully
organized or every niche filled.

Or a system like Darwinian evolution residing
at the critical threshold between it's opposing
forces of genetics and selection.

Or an idea residing at the critical point between
it's opposing forces of facts and imagination
with it's emergent properties like wisdom etc.

So, a building is a man-made system while
an idea is a 'natural' system.

So, a commercial forest is a man-made system
while a business built upon the concepts
of say complexity science is a natural system.

Part details do not define man made or natural
but whether they display a balance between
the fixed rules of operation and freedom
of interaction among the parts, or not.

Theories
> can have a mixture of truth and falsity value (verisimilitude). Mediated by
> our subjective worlds these ideas can impact the physical world as technic
> creations. There can be impact upon the shared intersubjective world where
> finance and economy happens, iron laws mixed with social construction. To
> the extent that perception drives economy we get into what George Soros
> calls reflexivity and irrational stuff such as bubbles. This is the weird
> aspect of how to a limited extent we can create our own realities at least
> until the bubble pops and reality creeps in, though fiat paper money
> systems seem to have a bit of the wizard behind the curtain to them.
>
> But getting back to the metaphysically given physical world, there are
> rocks however much empty space exists inside them the brute fact is that if
> you stub your toe on one hard enough it might swell and bruise, regardless
> if your house gained or lost appraised value in recent years after the
> crash. Of course the objects involved are nominally rocks and toes.
>

And an idea, which has zero physical existence, can burn the
world to the ground, or create Utopia.

If our ideas and societies follow the laws of nature
the latter is our destiny. If following the rule of
man the former is, and has been, our fate.

Top down rule, such as dictatorships of any kind whether
military, religious or a corrupt capitalism behaves
as a man-made system with all the horrors of the
last century inevitable.

But a democracy with a balance or critical interaction
between it's opposing forces of laws and freedom
can produce the relative paradise called America
and other western free market democracies.

Please note I said 'relative' paradise. As compared
to dictator ravaged regions like Syria, Middle East
and so on.


Jonathan


s

[J. J. Lodder]

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:10:55 +0100, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> > Lodder):
> >
> >> <scienceci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> That is true. So one must always go back to the "reality" after a logical
> >>> analysis of it, constantly over and over again, and remake that analysis
> >>> an imitative near exact copy of what reality is if we are to say the
> >>> science is ontological to sense--that we can engineer it too. Otherwise,
> >>> it is epistemic if done once by logic only or not tested over and over, or
> >>> worse, if we cannot produce neither the ontological nor the
> >>> epistemological, it will just be poetry (literary opinions).
> >>
> >> In science use of 'reality' is best avoided.
> >> It serves no useful purpose.
> >>
> >> Leave it to the philosophers,
> >
> > Think of it as shorthand for "what would exist even if
> > humans or other sophonts had never evolved".
> >
> Or Ayn Rand's bootstrap that existence exists.

Words, nothing but words,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

No country can be more surreal than the US of A,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:10:55 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> ><scienceci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> That is true. So one must always go back to the "reality" after a logical
> >> analysis of it, constantly over and over again, and remake that analysis
> >> an imitative near exact copy of what reality is if we are to say the
> >> science is ontological to sense--that we can engineer it too. Otherwise,
> >> it is epistemic if done once by logic only or not tested over and over, or
> >> worse, if we cannot produce neither the ontological nor the
> >> epistemological, it will just be poetry (literary opinions).
> >
> >In science use of 'reality' is best avoided.
> >It serves no useful purpose.
> >
> >Leave it to the philosophers,
>
> Think of it as shorthand for "what would exist even if
> humans or other sophonts had never evolved".

Yes, that is philosophy.
Physics is about what doesn't depend on the way
those humans or other sophonts talk about it to begin with,

Jan

[jillery]

Even if so, there are plenty which are as surreal. Just sayin'.

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Facts utilized are dependent upon personal (or interpersonal) interest. You
go towards a subset of available facts and discard irrelevancies. You apply
words and formulations to concepts. You depend upon instrumentation and
upon available money. Proposals are worded to argue importance. You
prioritize. Press releases say to the public "Look at me and what I did."

All hot air aside, if it fails the test against reality, whatever that is,
off to the dustbin. Reality is final arbiter.

[*Hemidactylus*]

J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:

Not even North Korea? Granted we have definitely stumbled into a cesspit,
but we are taking the rest of you with US. Enjoy.

[*Hemidactylus*]

J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:

Ok if you're not a fan of reality as something to strive towards
understanding, maybe you can move beyond disdain for philosophy and counter
the interesting argument that neurobiology is prior to physics and
potentially subsumes it:

https://youtu.be/V_TQea0aOnE

Checkmate?

[J. J. Lodder]

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:10:55 +0100, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder):
> >>
> >>> <scienceci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> That is true. So one must always go back to the "reality" after a
> >>>> logical analysis of it, constantly over and over again, and remake
> >>>> that analysis an imitative near exact copy of what reality is if we
> >>>> are to say the science is ontological to sense--that we can engineer
> >>>> it too. Otherwise, it is epistemic if done once by logic only or not
> >>>> tested over and over, or worse, if we cannot produce neither the
> >>>> ontological nor the epistemological, it will just be poetry (literary
> >>>> opinions).
> >>>
> >>> In science use of 'reality' is best avoided.
> >>> It serves no useful purpose.
> >>>
> >>> Leave it to the philosophers,
> >>
> >> Think of it as shorthand for "what would exist even if
> >> humans or other sophonts had never evolved".
> >
> > Yes, that is philosophy.
> > Physics is about what doesn't depend on the way
> > those humans or other sophonts talk about it to begin with,
> >
> Facts utilized are dependent upon personal (or interpersonal) interest.

'Facts' don't exist, in science.

> You
> go towards a subset of available facts and discard irrelevancies. You apply
> words and formulations to concepts. You depend upon instrumentation and
> upon available money. Proposals are worded to argue importance. You
> prioritize. Press releases say to the public "Look at me and what I did."
>
> All hot air aside, if it fails the test against reality, whatever that is,
> off to the dustbin. Reality is final arbiter.

Neither does 'reality',

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Come on, wake up, the American century is over,

Jan

[*Hemidactylus*]

Well there goes the fact vs value distinction. I can't accelerate to the
speed of light in my car, but I can surely surpass the conventional speed
limits of my jurisdiction. Basic Newtonian physics can inform my driving
and though I cannot violate edicts of nature I can violate convention,
driving super fast against traffic in the rain. Facts about tire traction
and head on collision can come in handy, but I am free to do otherwise. I
ought to drive on the proper side of the road within my lane and at or
below the speed limit. Yet ought implies can. If I run out of gas or get a
flat tire I cannot drive properly. Running out of fuel is a problem for the
internal combustion engine. Riding on a flat is bad for wheels because
physics stuff. I could still try it but would regret it because personal
economics of cost of tire vs. cost of tire plus damaged wheel.

>
>> You
>> go towards a subset of available facts and discard irrelevancies. You apply
>> words and formulations to concepts. You depend upon instrumentation and
>> upon available money. Proposals are worded to argue importance. You
>> prioritize. Press releases say to the public "Look at me and what I did."
>>
>> All hot air aside, if it fails the test against reality, whatever that is,
>> off to the dustbin. Reality is final arbiter.
>
> Neither does 'reality',
>

Such vulgar scientism. Philosophy takes science into consideration, but as
my Popper inspired contrast of natural law and convention above shows
ethics, prudence, morality and legality are beyond the scope of science. So
is ontology and metaphysics, but these considerations lose no value as a
result. And values constrain the manner facts should be obtained. Science
should be answerable to ethics. That's why they use crash test dummies and
not people when conducting traffic safety research.

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

J. J. Lodder

Will you cry "unfair" when research money goes to the sciences presented as real world over science that says best to avoid the real?

A scientist has a better chance than a philosopher to carve out a living in the real world based on their respective knowledges.

SC RED

[J. J. Lodder]

All very fine, good common sense,
but no need to invoke 'facts' here.

> >> You
> >> go towards a subset of available facts and discard irrelevancies. You apply
> >> words and formulations to concepts. You depend upon instrumentation and
> >> upon available money. Proposals are worded to argue importance. You
> >> prioritize. Press releases say to the public "Look at me and what I did."
> >>
> >> All hot air aside, if it fails the test against reality, whatever that is,
> >> off to the dustbin. Reality is final arbiter.
> >
> > Neither does 'reality',
> >
> Such vulgar scientism. Philosophy takes science into consideration, but as
> my Popper inspired contrast of natural law and convention above shows
> ethics, prudence, morality and legality are beyond the scope of science. So
> is ontology and metaphysics, but these considerations lose no value as a
> result. And values constrain the manner facts should be obtained. Science
> should be answerable to ethics. That's why they use crash test dummies and
> not people when conducting traffic safety research.

Yes, and so what?

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Sorry, no youtube for me,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Don't worry, that's what one always hears,
inside Plato's cave,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Do you really think that physics research proposals
talk about discovering reality?

Jan

[*Hemidactylus*]

The costs of tires and replacement wheels are not obtainable facts?

>
>>>> You
>>>> go towards a subset of available facts and discard irrelevancies. You apply
>>>> words and formulations to concepts. You depend upon instrumentation and
>>>> upon available money. Proposals are worded to argue importance. You
>>>> prioritize. Press releases say to the public "Look at me and what I did."
>>>>
>>>> All hot air aside, if it fails the test against reality, whatever that is,
>>>> off to the dustbin. Reality is final arbiter.
>>>
>>> Neither does 'reality',
>>>
>> Such vulgar scientism. Philosophy takes science into consideration, but as
>> my Popper inspired contrast of natural law and convention above shows
>> ethics, prudence, morality and legality are beyond the scope of science. So
>> is ontology and metaphysics, but these considerations lose no value as a
>> result. And values constrain the manner facts should be obtained. Science
>> should be answerable to ethics. That's why they use crash test dummies and
>> not people when conducting traffic safety research.
>
> Yes, and so what?
>

Science has its place but is constrained by ethics. It cannot determine
what we should do in situations and it should not violate pertinent norms.

But interestingly there are cases where science can push at the bounds of
what can be construed ethical behavior. The development of cultured meat
could pose a challenge to ethical vegans. A hamburger patty obtained
without animal suffering could make meat eaters out of some vegans, but
vegetarians would probably still refrain.

[*Hemidactylus*]

J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:

Would reality be at least implied? Does particle physics spend butt loads
of money to push the boundaries of our ontology?

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

J. J. Lodder wrote,

>Do you really think that
>physics research proposals
>talk about discovering
>reality?

>Jan

Do you think research would continue without discoveries about the world?

SC RED

[J. J. Lodder]

Ah, yes, the world.
Now you are talking sense,

Jan

--
"Science is our best explanation so far of the world we live in."

[J. J. Lodder]

Only if you want to call it that.

> Does particle physics spend butt loads
> of money to push the boundaries of our ontology?

Like in: (skipping 5000+ authors)
A measurement of the Higgs boson mass is presented based on the combined
data samples of the ATLAS and CMS experiments at the CERN LHC in the H
and ÜP decay channels. The results are obtained from a simultaneous fit
to the reconstructed invariant mass peaks in the two channels and for
the two experiments. The measured masses from the individual channels
and the two experiments are found to be consistent among themselves. The
combined measured mass of the Higgs boson is mH = 125.09 ą 0.21 GeV.

Hmm, no reality in sight,

Jan