Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 29, 2024, 11:29 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
An argument showing time is temporal.
#31
RE: An argument showing time is temporal.
(May 29, 2015 at 11:12 am)Alex K Wrote:
(May 29, 2015 at 11:08 am)Pyrrho Wrote: Is it any wonder that regular people don't take seriously the stuff physicists say?

No, not at all. Regular people are idiots. Fortunately, we don't have any of those here, eh? Big Grin

But really, you are being unfair, for he asked me for the craziest thing I could think of.

Of course I am being unfair!  It was a joke.

In any case, until physicists come to some sort of consensus on something, non-physicists are right to pretty much ignore an idea that some physicist puts forth.  It is only after something has been figured out that a non-physicist need bother with any concern for it (if, indeed, there is any need for it then).

Surely, you agree, that non-physicists weighing in on some dispute within physics is not only unnecessary, but generally foolish?  Do you think it adds anything to a discussion of some problem within physics for people who know nothing, or nearly nothing, about physics to express an opinion on the matter?

Isn't it irritating when someone expresses an opinion on something that they do not really understand?


This reminds me of Socrates from Plato's Apology (bold is added for those who can't be bothered to read it all):

I dare say, Athenians, that someone among you will reply, "Why is this, Socrates, and what is the origin of these accusations of you: for there must have been something strange which you have been doing? All this great fame and talk about you would never have arisen if you had been like other men: tell us, then, why this is, as we should be sorry to judge hastily of you." Now I regard this as a fair challenge, and I will endeavor to explain to you the origin of this name of "wise," and of this evil fame. Please to attend then. And although some of you may think I am joking, I declare that I will tell you the entire truth. Men of Athens, this reputation of mine has come of a certain sort of wisdom which I possess. If you ask me what kind of wisdom, I reply, such wisdom as is attainable by man, for to that extent I am inclined to believe that I am wise; whereas the persons of whom I was speaking have a superhuman wisdom, which I may fail to describe, because I have it not myself; and he who says that I have, speaks falsely, and is taking away my character. And here, O men of Athens, I must beg you not to interrupt me, even if I seem to say something extravagant. For the word which I will speak is not mine. I will refer you to a witness who is worthy of credit, and will tell you about my wisdom - whether I have any, and of what sort - and that witness shall be the god of Delphi. You must have known Chaerephon; he was early a friend of mine, and also a friend of yours, for he shared in the exile of the people, and returned with you. Well, Chaerephon, as you know, was very impetuous in all his doings, and he went to Delphi and boldly asked the oracle to tell him whether - as I was saying, I must beg you not to interrupt - he asked the oracle to tell him whether there was anyone wiser than I was, and the Pythian prophetess answered that there was no man wiser. Chaerephon is dead himself, but his brother, who is in court, will confirm the truth of this story. 

Why do I mention this? Because I am going to explain to you why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the god mean? and what is the interpretation of this riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a god and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. After a long consideration, I at last thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, "Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest." Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed to him - his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination - and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another, who had still higher philosophical pretensions, and my conclusion was exactly the same. I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him. 


After this I went to one man after another, being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and feared this: but necessity was laid upon me - the word of God, I thought, ought to be considered first. And I said to myself, Go I must to all who appear to know, and find out the meaning of the oracle. And I swear to you, Athenians, by the dog I swear! - for I must tell you the truth - the result of my mission was just this: I found that the men most in repute were all but the most foolish; and that some inferior men were really wiser and better. I will tell you the tale of my wanderings and of the "Herculean" labors, as I may call them, which I endured only to find at last the oracle irrefutable. When I left the politicians, I went to the poets; tragic, dithyrambic, and all sorts. And there, I said to myself, you will be detected; now you will find out that you are more ignorant than they are. Accordingly, I took them some of the most elaborate passages in their own writings, and asked what was the meaning of them - thinking that they would teach me something. Will you believe me? I am almost ashamed to speak of this, but still I must say that there is hardly a person present who would not have talked better about their poetry than they did themselves. That showed me in an instant that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius and inspiration; they are like diviners or soothsayers who also say many fine things, but do not understand the meaning of them. And the poets appeared to me to be much in the same case; and I further observed that upon the strength of their poetry they believed themselves to be the wisest of men in other things in which they were not wise. So I departed, conceiving myself to be superior to them for the same reason that I was superior to the politicians. 


At last I went to the artisans, for I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and in this I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets; because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom - therefore I asked myself on behalf of the oracle, whether I would like to be as I was, neither having their knowledge nor their ignorance, or like them in both; and I made answer to myself and the oracle that I was better off as I was. 

This investigation has led to my having many enemies of the worst and most dangerous kind, and has given occasion also to many calumnies, and I am called wise, for my hearers always imagine that I myself possess the wisdom which I find wanting in others: but the truth is, O men of Athens, that God only is wise; and in this oracle he means to say that the wisdom of men is little or nothing; he is not speaking of Socrates, he is only using my name as an illustration, as if he said, He, O men, is the wisest, who, like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go my way, obedient to the god, and make inquisition into the wisdom of anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then in vindication of the oracle I show him that he is not wise; and this occupation quite absorbs me, and I have no time to give either to any public matter of interest or to any concern of my own, but I am in utter poverty by reason of my devotion to the god. 

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Reply
#32
RE: An argument showing time is temporal.
Pyrrho, I must contradict. Yes, you are right that a non-physicist may ignore the speculative hypotheses which are discussed without risking accusations of being ignorant of important facts.

However, is that enough? As someone who is passionate about science outreach, I do not see fundamental science and (high) culture as separate things. In fact, I believe that scientific discourse is one of the most important cultural activities. I think it is crucial for laypeople to participate as informed observers, not only in viewing the outcome, but also the process. Speculation is a powerful way of learning, of become intimate with a topic, even if it only serves the purpose of being shown where one went wrong. I don't just say that from the perspective of a professional, but also from that of a layperson, for example in the field of biology.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition

Reply
#33
RE: An argument showing time is temporal.
(May 29, 2015 at 1:03 pm)Alex K Wrote: Pyrrho, I must contradict. Yes, you are right that a non-physicist may ignore the speculative hypotheses which are discussed without risking accusations of being ignorant of important facts.

However, is that enough? As someone who is passionate about science outreach, I do not see fundamental science and (high) culture as separate things. In fact, I believe that scientific discourse is one of the most important cultural activities. I think it is crucial for laypeople to participate as informed observers, not only in viewing the outcome, but also the process. Speculation is a powerful way of learning, of become intimate with a topic, even if it only serves the purpose of being shown where one went wrong. I don't just say that from the perspective of a professional, but also from that of a layperson, for example in the field of biology.

It would be nice if everyone were able to participate in high culture, but not everyone is able to appreciate Mozart.  Sadly, I think this will always be the case.  You are likewise going to run into problems with people not being able to understand science.

Now, I agree that it would be good if everyone had a basic understanding of the fundamental way science works, as well as knowledge of scientific facts in broad outline, but that isn't going to happen either.  There is some attempt at this in schools, but it is not entirely successful.


One of the points I was getting at with my previous post is the fact that there are many people who have ill-informed opinions about things, and they are worse off than someone who knows that he or she does not know the thing in question.  There are certain subjects about which this seems to happen more often than others.  For some reason, physics seems to be one of those subjects where people (typically men) like to pretend that they know something, and pretend that their opinions have value and are correct for understanding the fundamentals of the way the universe works.  They value their "gut feeling" more than the opinions of people who have actually studied the issue.

For some strange reason, a lack of knowledge and understanding does not prevent many people from forming opinions anyway.

Here is a link to a humorous article related to this topic:

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~an4m/fun/men-tiles

Here is an excerpt [with a typo corrected]:

Quote:Have you ever wondered why:
* Men who have never been west of Kentucky can tell you
about the mentality of the Japanese?
* Men who can't pay their credit card bills have a plan
for dealing with the national debt?
* Men who aren't on speaking terms with their families
know how to achieve peace in the Middle East?
* Men who flunked high school Physics can explain what
went wrong at NASA?
* Men who haven't had a date in six months know what
women really want?

"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Reply
#34
RE: An argument showing time is temporal.
Loved it ...too true..Now Alex, I make security doors for a living, but I really need to talk to you.
I don't believe they've got the 6 quark type model just right... Some of the finer details need a little tweaking.

Hehe. Tongue


I think it comes down to human nature ...you get arrogant religios and you get smart arse atheists who are full of it.

In the end, science will win
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Reply
#35
RE: An argument showing time is temporal.
(May 29, 2015 at 9:59 pm)ignoramus Wrote: Loved it ...too true..Now Alex, I make security doors for a living, but I really need to talk to you.
I don't believe they've got the 6 quark type model just right... Some of the finer details 

I'm listening - what do you propose? Smile
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition

Reply
#36
RE: An argument showing time is temporal.
Sorry, but seriously? Time is temporal? That's what time means. It's like saying heat is hot, or pain is painful.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
#37
RE: An argument showing time is temporal.
(May 30, 2015 at 2:35 am)Stimbo Wrote: Sorry, but seriously? Time is temporal? That's what time means. It's like saying heat is hot, or pain is painful.

He must think there is *another* time in which this one exists or something. It all sounds confused.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition

Reply
#38
RE: An argument showing time is temporal.
He probably just meant "time is relative" I'd say.
No God, No fear.
Know God, Know fear.
Reply
#39
RE: An argument showing time is temporal.
Time is emit spelled backwards

COINCIDENCE?!?!
I think NOT!!
Idk what it means tho
Reply
#40
RE: An argument showing time is temporal.
(May 30, 2015 at 9:47 am)ignoramus Wrote: He probably just meant "time is relative" I'd say.

Well, then it's perfectly clear.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition

Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Reasoning showing homosexuality is evil. Mystic 315 46708 October 23, 2017 at 12:34 pm
Last Post: Foxaèr
  Reasoning showing that heterosexuality is evil I_am_not_mafia 21 4620 October 23, 2017 at 8:23 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  Temporal anomaly Darwinian 40 22500 August 4, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Last Post: Violet



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)