The religious experience vs. the experience of reality

[_mfbukowski]

-Unless the photon escapes, there is no detection of this particle, thus why it is 'imaginary' and not 'real' - if it doesn't escape, we will never know it existed. Thus 'imaginary', and not 'real'. It has to escape the black hole in order to 'exist' in our eyes, because if it doesn't, there is no evidence it ever existed.

Ah yes. This sounds just a tad familiar. ;-)

Tarski will like that one I am sure.

[_TAO]

-Unless the photon escapes, there is no detection of this particle, thus why it is 'imaginary' and not 'real' - if it doesn't escape, we will never know it existed. Thus 'imaginary', and not 'real'. It has to escape the black hole in order to 'exist' in our eyes, because if it doesn't, there is no evidence it ever existed.

Ah yes. This sounds just a tad familiar. ;-)

Tarski will like that one I am sure.

Yes, it sounds VERY familiar to the 'tree falls in a forest nobody hears'... I was like lol when I realized it while typing it.

Life is ironic sometimes, I guess XD.

[_Tarski]

TAO,
Please don't lecture me about blackholes and quantum physics. This is something I actually have some understanding of while you only imagine that you do.

Tarski, please read "Black Holes and Time Warps" by Kip Thorne... I believe I've recommended it to you once before. It's by a top physicist... who has made several best with Stephen Hawking.

.

Tao,

I have read that book. It is a merely popular account with the usual serving of mystical sounding inaccurate statements designed to titillate layperson.
More importantly, I have read the 1200 page graduate textbook "Gravitation" by Misoner, Thorne, and Wheeler not to mention quite a few actual scientific papers on the topic.


It is unfortunate that so many physicist fall into philosophically dubious phrasing. It is hard to tell if they are just using this as a pedagogic tool to make the subject more exciting or if they really have though so little about the cogency of such statements. Certainly saying that something both exists and doesn't exist is a case in point. (How could one just accept a flat logical contradictions as being deep without further qualifications?)
As a matter of fact, there is an ongoing but largely irrelevant argument as to whether virtual particles are "real" or if they are merely mathematical artifacts of the way we calculate (Feynman path integrals etc.).

I stand by my assertion that it is more or less impossible to get a good handle on what this stuff without knowing the mathematics. In a way, it is only the mathematics and the experimental proceedures that everyone agrees on. The spooky philosophical sounding stuff is not agreed on at all if one looks closely.

For this reason, popular accounts might create more false knowledge than real knowledge.

Just saying that you understand it because you have an unusual brain is really rather pointless if you can't explain anything. When it comes to physics, being able to explain it, calculate it, and apply it, is the very meaning of "understand". Nothing else counts.

Finally, the advanced stuff absolutely depends on the basics. You can't understand the advanced stuff without the basics.

[_mfbukowski]

It is unfortunate that so many physicist fall into philosophically dubious phrasing.

Agreed.

And that's why they should keep their noses out of philosophy. ;-)

A few though, have actually read the stuff.

[_mfbukowski]

deleted- duplicate

[_asbestosman]

Tarski,

I get the feeling that you meant can't in a few places where you typed can.

really rather pointless if you can't explain anything

Finally, the advanced stuff absolutely depends on the basics. You can't understand the advanced stuff without the basics.

Just trying to make sure TAO understands what you are saying.

[_TAO]

I have read that book. It is a merely popular account with the usual serving of mystical sounding inaccurate statements designed to titillate layperson.
More importantly, I have read the 1200 page graduate textbook "Gravitation" by Misoner, Thorne, and Wheeler not to mention quite a few actual scientific papers on the topic.

Good! You have read it!

It is unfortunate that so many physicist fall into philosophically dubious phrasing. It is hard to tell if they are just using this as a pedagogic tool to make the subject more exciting or if they really have though so little about the cogency of such statements. Certainly saying that something both exists and doesn't exist is a case in point. (How could one just accept a flat logical contradictions as being deep without further qualifications?)

I'm not basing it on his philosophical dubious phrasing. The bolded statement is something from my own thoughts on the subject. It's very un-philisophical.

As a matter of fact, there is an ongoing but largely irrelevant argument as to whether virtual particles are "real" or if they are merely mathematical artifacts of the way we calculate (Feynman path integrals etc.).

Well than good, I've just explained to you an example of something that we cannot determine is imaginary of real. That was my point. That is what I was trying to get across. I could have also used the 'no proven black hole' point, but I've already talked to you about that one.

I stand by my assertion that it is more or less impossible to get a good handle on what this stuff without knowing the mathematics. In a way, it is only the mathematics and the experimental proceedures that everyone agrees on. The spooky philosophical sounding stuff is not agreed on at all if one looks closely.

Tarsiki, I don't think you understood the reason I showed you 'virtual particles'. I showed you them to show that there were things out there which couldn't be told imaginary or real. And yes, whenever you use integration, it means a variable that is unknown unless you have more information.

For this reason, popular accounts might create more false knowledge than real knowledge.

Thus why I didn't go around claiming 'this is true'. I stated that top physicists deem it a reasonable explanation of black hole evaporation. And also, quantum fluctuations (the thing currently believed to exist before the big bang by some physicists) fall under the same category - that is both imaginary and real, for the same reason virtual particles are (if I read the information correctly).

Just saying that you understand it because you have an unusual brain is really rather pointless if you can explain anything. When it comes to physics, being able to explain it, calculate it, and apply it, is the very meaning of "understand". Nothing else counts.

...

I applied it how I wanted to apply it..... I don't see why you have a problem with it.

...

Finally, the advanced stuff absolutely depends on the basics. You can understand the advanced stuff without the basics.

This wouldn't explain why we understand atoms better than subatomic particles, strings (although they are theoretical), and the like. Unless you mean basic as in easy. And easy is very much based on the person, it is not the same between people.

You shouldn't put so much weight on basic Tarski - basic is a perspective Tarski - and what is complex to you might be basic to me.

[_Tarski]

The bolded statement is something from my own thoughts on the subject. It's very un-philisophical.

It is often quite apparent that you do not understand what you think you understand. Unfortuantely, you are incorrigible on this point.

Tarsiki, I don't think you understood the reason I showed you 'virtual particles'. I showed you them to show that there were things out there which couldn't be told imaginary or real.

I can't quite parse your sentence here. You had better rephrase it.

And yes, whenever you use integration, it means a variable that is unknown unless you have more information.

Huh? Again, on the face of it, this sounds like something one would only say in case one did not understand the meaning of integration (especially path integration).



...

I applied it how I wanted to apply it..... I don't see why you have a problem with it.

LOL
That's not exactly what I mean't by "apply".

This wouldn't explain why we understand atoms better than subatomic particles, strings (although they are theoretical), and the like. Unless you mean basic as in easy.

[/quote]
*sigh*
I mean basic as in foundational. One cannot understand algebra before one understands how to count or do basic arithmetic. One cannot be a stunt driver without being able to drive around the block and operate a steering wheel.

Why would you argue with such an obvious thing?

Furthermore, I question any claim to scientific insight that cannot be articulated in a way that conveys usable information to others. I can't tell you how tired I am of students telling me that they "understand it" but can't explain it correctly or that they understand it but can't do the problems or pass a test. I want to say to them, "well, no you don't".


A mute and inarticulate feeling of understanding is not the same as understanding. It is little better than a hallucination or delusion. (A point I also wish to make about the notion of a spiritual witness.)

However, your main problem is the inability to see how much further along one gets by an extended formal education on a scientific topic. You seem quite ready to school anyone on these topics-----even Kip Thorne himself if he were to show up here (he is an ex-Mormon). For all you know, I might actually be Kip Thorne or someone quite like him. :)

Now to be a little nicer about it, I will say that I am sure you got something of value out of reading your black hole book---at the very least a sense of fascination and enjoyment. I am sure you have something of value to offer others who maybe wanting to learn a little bit about black holes at a nontechnical level. That’s great. But let’s keep things in perspective.

[_TAO]

It is often quite apparent that you do not understand what you think you undeerstand. Unfortuantely, you are incorrigible on this point.

Sorry Tarski, but you have not demonstrated that you understand what I'm saying even. Start there, and then tell me why I don't understand. But not until then.

I can't quite parse your sentence here. You had better rephrase it.

The point of me quoting you in the original, was you were talking about how ridiculous for a particle to exist and not exist at the same time. This is an example of how it is possible. That was my purpose behind talking about virtual particles. That was what I was trying to demonstrate.

Huh? Again, on the face of it, this sounds like something one would only say in case one did not understand the meaning of integration (especially path integration).

In Math, when you integrate, there is nearly always that nasty "+C" at the end, so having integrals with many possible answers is expected.

LOL
That's not exactly what I mean't by "apply".

Hmmm.... what definition of apply do you mean?

I mean basic as in foundational. One cannot understand algebra before one understands how to count or do basic arithmetic. One cannot be a stunt driver without being able to drive around the block and operate a steering wheel.

Why would you argue with such an obvious thing?

I'd disagree with it because I don't take things like that as 'given' (yah, it's annoying, sorry =P).

Tarski, what is 'foundational' for certain people differs. That's why you get some people who learn science quickly, and others slowly. Certain things are more 'necessarily foundational' than others.

Furthermore, I question any claim to scientific insight that cannot be articulated in a way that conveys usable information to others. I can't tell you how tired I am of students telling me that they "understand it" but can't explain it correctly or that they understand it but can't do the problems or pass a test. I want to say to them, "well, no you don't".

Lol Tarski. I understand it - I just don't understand the math behind it. The math behind it isn't everything, and most everything that isn't the math behind it, I understand about the subject. To the extent it is researched of course. Understanding means to me "it makes sense".

A mute and inarticulate feeling of understanding is not the same as understanding. It is little better than a hallucination or delusion. (A point I also wish to make about the notion of a spiritual witness.)

No Tarski, that is called bad communication. It's something totally different. I have a bad case of bad communication, which is why you probably have trouble understanding me.

However, your main problem is the inability to see how much further along one gets by an extended formal education on a scientific topic. You seem quite ready to school anyone on these topics-----even Kip Thorne himself if he were to show up here (he is an ex-Mormon). For all you know, I might actually be Kip Thorne or someone quite like him. :)

Tarski, the amount of experience another person has doesn't really concern me. I think my own way, and I don't hesitate to voice my opinions, because people make mistakes. The only person I don't voice my opinions to is one who doesn't make mistakes. It's my favor to them, so they don't have to get embarrassed in front of somebody else.

Also you don't have the tone of Kip Thorne, so yah, your not him. Also, why would you say you read your own book on MADB? So na, your not Kip.

Now to be a little nicer about it, I will say that I am sure you got something of value out of reading your black hole book---at the very least a sense of fascination and enjoyment. I am sure you have something of value to offer others who maybe wanting to learn a little bit about black holes at a nontechnical level. That’s great. But let’s keep things in perspective.

I have my own perspective Tarski, lol. It is a perspective that differs from others very much. So yah, dismissing it doesn't do much... it doesn't have an effect on me. My methods of approaching the subject will be different than yours, but that doesn't make yours better.

Also....you need to show me what you view as wrong in my statements, especially the bolded one.

[_Tarski]

I have my own perspective Tarski, lol. It is a perspective that differs from others very much. So yah, dismissing it doesn't do much... it doesn't have an effect on me. .

You have thereby insulated yourself from correction.

The point of me quoting you in the original, was you were talking about how ridiculous for a particle to exist and not exist at the same time. This is an example of how it is possible. That was my purpose behind talking about virtual particles. That was what I was trying to demonstrate.

Please explain to me what it means to say that a particle both exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Clearly tell me how this is not just a contradiction in the same way as the statement "a number can be a prime and not a prime at the same time".


A contradiction cannot be true as we normally construe things. What are you talking about?
Something tells me that you cannot make sense out of this in a way that has any relevance for the discussion.

I also wonder why you would defend the rediculous notion that a nonexistant can be a cause. If water did not exist before men knew about water, could water erosion have been a cause of the Grand Canyon? I say no. Water did exist before anyone was conscious of it.

The conceptual distinction between the notions of "exist" and "know" is necessary for thought to even be possible. It is an invariant of our conceptual apparatus.

If the defense of a religion requires a person to descend into such sophomoric nonsense then so much the worse for that religion. It is only an embarrassment.
Try to avoid nonsense.