0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: David Cooper link=topic=48746.msg423652#msg423652Materialism looks to me like a bit of a straw man. Things that exist are material. Interactions between things that exist are not material, but they are mechanistic interactions. Materialism without mechanism is not going to get anywhere as a kind of science because it cannot handle interaction, and for that reason I don't think there's anyone out there in science doing pure materialism. There are places in science where mechanism is being ignored though, so those places need to be identified and the people who are making errors through ignoring mechanism need to be helped to see where they're going wrong. That comment strikes me as disingenuous. I'm not familiar with any form of science, material or otherwise, that doesn't include mechanisms. That's the whole point, unless one envisions a static world in which nothing happens, and there is no causality.
Materialism looks to me like a bit of a straw man. Things that exist are material. Interactions between things that exist are not material, but they are mechanistic interactions. Materialism without mechanism is not going to get anywhere as a kind of science because it cannot handle interaction, and for that reason I don't think there's anyone out there in science doing pure materialism. There are places in science where mechanism is being ignored though, so those places need to be identified and the people who are making errors through ignoring mechanism need to be helped to see where they're going wrong.
I would also suggest that mechanisms alone are not sufficient. One could imagine or invent mechanisms, entire models, but unless they correspond to something that actually exists, they are just ideas, even if they are logically consistent ones.
Someone from another world who saw a car for the first time could invent or imagine mechanisms that explain its movement, whether it's many squirrels in tiny wheels, or a sophisticated, alternative engine design, but at some point, he'd actually have to look inside to be certain.
Never the less, it's encouraging to see Don appropriating the word mechanism (as in "the mechanism of non-physical processes,") when previously "mechanistic" was only used derisively.
<reams of junk that nobody will ever read>
That comment strikes me as disingenuous. I'm not familiar with any form of science, material or otherwise, that doesn't include mechanisms.
Quote from: DonQuichotte<reams of junk that nobody will ever read>You've got to be kidding me! As David said, nobody is ever going to read all that boring nonsense. I can't believe how you just wasted this thread with long boring junk like that. What on earth ever gave you the idea that was going to be read by someone?
Don. Posts 817 to 824 will simply not be read by anyone sane. That is not the way to argue or discuss anything.
Quote from: cheryl j on 10/11/2013 03:44:22That comment strikes me as disingenuous. I'm not familiar with any form of science, material or otherwise, that doesn't include mechanisms.When it comes to relativity, mechanism appears to be something that most physicists do not want to consider.QuoteI would also suggest that mechanisms alone are not sufficient. One could imagine or invent mechanisms, entire models, but unless they correspond to something that actually exists, they are just ideas, even if they are logically consistent ones.That's true - mechanism needs something to act on. The stuff that it acts on though is typically complex in nature and is held together by mechanisms, so it's very rare that you're dealing with anything fundamental, and I don't know if science has identified anything yet that can't be further divided.QuoteSomeone from another world who saw a car for the first time could invent or imagine mechanisms that explain its movement, whether it's many squirrels in tiny wheels, or a sophisticated, alternative engine design, but at some point, he'd actually have to look inside to be certain.Obviously it's best to look inside as that will help you to home in on the actual mechanisms involved, but you only need to come up with one viable mechanism that fits the known facts to show that whatever it is your looking at doesn't need to depend on magic. If you have a machine that can do arithmetic, for example, that is evidence that humans could do arithmetic mechanistically too and that they don't need to do it by magic. The same applies to reasoning - once a machine demonstrates that it can think as well as a human, Don's claims that the brain must think without using mechanisms will be shown to be false. He may not stick by those claims though anyway, but I wouldn't hold out any hope in that direction.QuoteNever the less, it's encouraging to see Don appropriating the word mechanism (as in "the mechanism of non-physical processes,") when previously "mechanistic" was only used derisively.Well, he may be getting the point that without mechanism he has only magic to fall back on, and that isn't very satisfying as an explanation as it's an utterly empty one.
Quote from: David CooperAn example of this is time dilation. When a rocket accelerates away from another rocket, it will either have its time slowed down or speeded up, but it can't do both of those things at the same time. Special Relativity studiously ignores this problem and bans anyone from addressing it, but it's actually a problem which invalidates the theory.That’s not a problem in special relativity. The problem here is with your understanding of special relativity. I’ll explain your error to you: If two observers are moving relative to each other such that each measures the speed of the other to be v then each reckons the other’s clock to be running slow. That’s not a problem whatsoever. No true paradoxes or contradictions arise from this observed fact. By observed fact I mean that time dilation has actually been observed so we know that it’s true from an experimental point of view.
An example of this is time dilation. When a rocket accelerates away from another rocket, it will either have its time slowed down or speeded up, but it can't do both of those things at the same time. Special Relativity studiously ignores this problem and bans anyone from addressing it, but it's actually a problem which invalidates the theory.
There is a famous scenario called the Twin’s Paradox which is used to clarify the nature of time dilation. This subject came up recently in my science forum. We have a resident expert on general relativity there who sent me his article on the subject. If you’re really interested in learning the correct understanding of time dilation then you can download and read about it here – The twin paradox and principle of relativity – by Øyvind Grøn which can be found at http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.4154
... All the best ... See ya in another life , maybe ,who know ?
Don't despair "folks", my telepathic dog has just indicated to me that DonQuichotte will be coming back [] ...
[I didn't mock-up that book cover : it's a real book by Don's idol ]
Quote[I didn't mock-up that book cover : it's a real book by Don's idol ]Yes, that's another one that has failed several attempts at replication and been thoroughly debunked.
Sheldrake has become seriously flakey of late, and is now claiming there's a grand conspiracy of skeptics out to suppress the publication of paranormal and psychic articles on Wikipedia, etc.: Sheldrake's Skeptical Conspiracy ...