Spec 2685 Last Light Help Please
Crosswords0 min ago
Science And Metaphysics
I read from, 'Sämtliche Werke und Briefe in Vier Bänden', a biography of the Berlin German woman poet; Mascha Kaléko, that in 1952 she sent one of her poems to Albert Einstein, the opening line was; "Time stands still. It is us who are passing away".
Einstein replied: "I think your poem is very beautiful and rich in meaning. It touches upon a deep metaphysical problem that has become relevant through physics".
What do you think he meant by that?
Einstein replied: "I think your poem is very beautiful and rich in meaning. It touches upon a deep metaphysical problem that has become relevant through physics".
What do you think he meant by that?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
'Solipsism merits close examination because it is based upon three widely entertained philosophical presuppositions, which are themselves of fundamental and wide-ranging importance. These are: (a) What I know most certainly are the contents of my own mind – my thoughts, experiences, affective states, and so forth.; (b) There is no conceptual or logically necessary link between the mental and the physical. For example, there is no necessary link between the occurrence of certain conscious experiences or mental states and the “possession” and behavioral dispositions of a body of a particular kind; and (c) The experiences of a given person are necessarily private to that person.'
The onus is on you to prove that you know the 'contents' of your own mind. Are you referring to your concious mind or your subconcious mind? Do you know why you hold the beliefs that you do, do you know why you are so reluctant to answer questions, do you know why you favour unprovable notions above those which can be proven...I could go on...but there is no point as there will not be any answers forthcoming.
Jim360
Yep bizarre indeed given that we both agree that we human parvenus have nothing to do with why the universe is what it is, or anything other than a minor local transient influence on it's future. Your gedanken involving someone visiting a black hole was fair enough, so I am as mystified as you, though I note it was 2am when I posted!
I think time exists as part of the fabric of spacetime and that across the universe it is most certainly not standing still. I wonder if the poet realised that E. had proved that if we were somehow able to travel closer to the speed of light 'us who are passing away' would pass away more slowly precisely because time does not stand still. Science's problem is we have no idea what spacetime is made of or how it interacts with matter to produce gravity. I doesn't stop theoretical physicists coming up with theories that in the absence of evidence are little more than science fiction. So why not let other branches of philosophy or the arts join in.
I read that E., after reading the remarks of the man who fell off the roof came up with the principle of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass which was his Launchpad for general relativity. That's why I would love to have gone up in a lift with him. At the start and end of the ride you can feel exactly what he was thinking about.
Yep bizarre indeed given that we both agree that we human parvenus have nothing to do with why the universe is what it is, or anything other than a minor local transient influence on it's future. Your gedanken involving someone visiting a black hole was fair enough, so I am as mystified as you, though I note it was 2am when I posted!
I think time exists as part of the fabric of spacetime and that across the universe it is most certainly not standing still. I wonder if the poet realised that E. had proved that if we were somehow able to travel closer to the speed of light 'us who are passing away' would pass away more slowly precisely because time does not stand still. Science's problem is we have no idea what spacetime is made of or how it interacts with matter to produce gravity. I doesn't stop theoretical physicists coming up with theories that in the absence of evidence are little more than science fiction. So why not let other branches of philosophy or the arts join in.
I read that E., after reading the remarks of the man who fell off the roof came up with the principle of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass which was his Launchpad for general relativity. That's why I would love to have gone up in a lift with him. At the start and end of the ride you can feel exactly what he was thinking about.
The difference between a philosopher and a physicist is that at least the physicist's work *might* be testable at some point. A Philosopher's can never be almost by definition, as their work is often an attempt to construct a series of logical deductions with only words as their medium. As least String Theory and Quantum gravity can in principle lead to testable predictions for the future. In practice they have not so far, because the suspicion is that Quantum Gravity is only apparent at a scale far beyond our current experimental abilities. The difference in scale between the work at the LHC and the "Planck Scale" is so vast that an equivalent comparison would be looking at another star, being currently able to see that it has some planets, and then being asked to see if there are any flies on the planet.
When I was talking about the Black Hole example it wasn't meant to say that time is dependent on the observer, but rather on the observer's position and speed. Where you are, and how you are moving, affects how you see time -- which is entirely related to the fact that time is wrapped up in space in a complicated way.
Would I be right in thinking, Colm, that you're not always convinced by certain scientific claims? If so, why not, and which ones? -- but that might be a topic in its own right.
When I was talking about the Black Hole example it wasn't meant to say that time is dependent on the observer, but rather on the observer's position and speed. Where you are, and how you are moving, affects how you see time -- which is entirely related to the fact that time is wrapped up in space in a complicated way.
Would I be right in thinking, Colm, that you're not always convinced by certain scientific claims? If so, why not, and which ones? -- but that might be a topic in its own right.
Yes I do have a problem when theorists use the media, Horizon for instance, to promote their theories while the presenters use every trick in the book to sell the theory as a scientific reality, lacking only the small minor consideration of experimental/observational science not having quite caught up them yet. The scientists seem to be happy enough to go along with it, probably with a popular science best-seller in mind.
In particular I have reservations about the way the discovery of a new exchange particle aka boson at the LHC has been handled by the press and media with the scientists there not doing enough to keep the hyperbole under control, presumably because it serves their purposes. There's a discussion of this that I've contributed to elsewhere on the subject of the Higgs boson and the apparent imminent end of the universe!
I know exactly what you mean, but I'm afraid I don't put scientists on a pedestal by default these days. I'm naturally cynical about any great endeavours that have the misfortune of being conducted by human beings, and I'm a great believer in Occam's razor.
In particular I have reservations about the way the discovery of a new exchange particle aka boson at the LHC has been handled by the press and media with the scientists there not doing enough to keep the hyperbole under control, presumably because it serves their purposes. There's a discussion of this that I've contributed to elsewhere on the subject of the Higgs boson and the apparent imminent end of the universe!
I know exactly what you mean, but I'm afraid I don't put scientists on a pedestal by default these days. I'm naturally cynical about any great endeavours that have the misfortune of being conducted by human beings, and I'm a great believer in Occam's razor.
I responded to your post on the end of the UNiverse. That's the media sensationalising an important topic -- not, of course, that the end of the Universe is imminent, but that we could even consider the idea and what it says about current and future physics are hugely important.
I think the problem is that you can't share a lot of Science to non-scientists, not that easily anyway, and the media tends to try to make it more dramatic than it actually is -- or the reporters don't understand it themselves, and get the wrong idea.
The Higgs boson was an important discovery in its own right because it completes our current picture. Scientists emphasised it perhaps a bit too much, but then that was surely in response to learning the lessons of the "Superconducting Supercollider" disaster, when a lack of emphasis on what it was for cost the entire project. So Scientists had to find something to sell the idea, to secure the funding, and the Higgs boson is certainly that. But the Science remains brilliant and accurate.
I think the problem is that you can't share a lot of Science to non-scientists, not that easily anyway, and the media tends to try to make it more dramatic than it actually is -- or the reporters don't understand it themselves, and get the wrong idea.
The Higgs boson was an important discovery in its own right because it completes our current picture. Scientists emphasised it perhaps a bit too much, but then that was surely in response to learning the lessons of the "Superconducting Supercollider" disaster, when a lack of emphasis on what it was for cost the entire project. So Scientists had to find something to sell the idea, to secure the funding, and the Higgs boson is certainly that. But the Science remains brilliant and accurate.
"The Higgs boson was an important discovery in its own right because it completes our current picture."
Sorry I can't make myself feel the same. I think it's too early to be so confident, and you are right the scientists have to talk the signal they discovered at 125Gev up and sell it to the world as some kind of justification for the astronomical cost of the project.
We already know their are 3 generations of matter categorised by their fundamental particles and antiparticles. Gen 1- Quarks: Up(charge+1/3), Down(-2/3), anti-Up, anti-Down/ Leptons: Electron(-1),Positron(+1), Electron neutrino, anti-Electron neutrino/ Boson Photon/ Force\interaction- Electromagnetic.
No time to list the participants in the other two generations that are the mediators of the electroweak force and finally the strong force where the gluon is the boson and the quarks, Top and Bottom with the mighty Tauon being the lepton.
To me it's no surprise there is another generation about to be discovered, what worries me is that no scientist I have heard has said that these generations could be part of a near-infinite series of generations stretching back up the huge energy gradient with the big bang
itself at the summit.
They're already debating the next collider. I think they should smash tauons and anti-tauons into each other in a giant linear collider with the LHC serving to create the giant leptons at super-high energies. I mean what's another few dozen billions of euro compared with the excitement of lifting off another Russian doll to put alongside the three we already have!
Sorry I can't make myself feel the same. I think it's too early to be so confident, and you are right the scientists have to talk the signal they discovered at 125Gev up and sell it to the world as some kind of justification for the astronomical cost of the project.
We already know their are 3 generations of matter categorised by their fundamental particles and antiparticles. Gen 1- Quarks: Up(charge+1/3), Down(-2/3), anti-Up, anti-Down/ Leptons: Electron(-1),Positron(+1), Electron neutrino, anti-Electron neutrino/ Boson Photon/ Force\interaction- Electromagnetic.
No time to list the participants in the other two generations that are the mediators of the electroweak force and finally the strong force where the gluon is the boson and the quarks, Top and Bottom with the mighty Tauon being the lepton.
To me it's no surprise there is another generation about to be discovered, what worries me is that no scientist I have heard has said that these generations could be part of a near-infinite series of generations stretching back up the huge energy gradient with the big bang
itself at the summit.
They're already debating the next collider. I think they should smash tauons and anti-tauons into each other in a giant linear collider with the LHC serving to create the giant leptons at super-high energies. I mean what's another few dozen billions of euro compared with the excitement of lifting off another Russian doll to put alongside the three we already have!
I admit my understanding of the CERN results are limited to say the least, but intuitively I tend to fall in with colm when I hear of the lavish lifestyles and salaries of those guys down the road in Geneva, - it's a dream of a job! why would they want it to ever end?
Every time throughout its life, when questions have been asked about funding, they seem to have come up with some astounding news of another discovery, as with a particle supposedly travelling faster than light.
Every time throughout its life, when questions have been asked about funding, they seem to have come up with some astounding news of another discovery, as with a particle supposedly travelling faster than light.
I don't think it's too early, yet, because so far every sign is that it is at least "a" Higgs boson. There's a fair amount of work still to be done on analysing the data, ruling out alternatives, and so on, but so far all attempts to show that it is something else have failed.
Scientists have actually tested the "three generations" idea recently. Again, there is perhaps more work to be done, but all the signs there too indicate that there are only three generations of matter (at least, only three generations of "light" matter). Not really sure why you think that a fourth is about to be discovered -- where did you get that?
Strikes me that you are being rather too cynical -- would I be right in thinking that you have only an outside interest in Science and physics rather than being actively involved?
"Every time in its life, when questions have been asked about funding...". My advice is that you check arXiv.org more regularly, and you'll see that many dozens of papers are released from CERN and other Scientific centres each month. Obviously funding is important -- we need the money to work, after all -- but if you are suggesting that scientists wait until the money is about to run out before inventing yet another stunning result, you have another think coming. Important work is going on almost continuously, and if only some of it filters down to the media then you're getting a wrong impression. So my advice is to cut out the media "middle man" and go straight to the source.
Scientists have actually tested the "three generations" idea recently. Again, there is perhaps more work to be done, but all the signs there too indicate that there are only three generations of matter (at least, only three generations of "light" matter). Not really sure why you think that a fourth is about to be discovered -- where did you get that?
Strikes me that you are being rather too cynical -- would I be right in thinking that you have only an outside interest in Science and physics rather than being actively involved?
"Every time in its life, when questions have been asked about funding...". My advice is that you check arXiv.org more regularly, and you'll see that many dozens of papers are released from CERN and other Scientific centres each month. Obviously funding is important -- we need the money to work, after all -- but if you are suggesting that scientists wait until the money is about to run out before inventing yet another stunning result, you have another think coming. Important work is going on almost continuously, and if only some of it filters down to the media then you're getting a wrong impression. So my advice is to cut out the media "middle man" and go straight to the source.
I am a trained graduate scientist and in my work with my wonderful patients, most of whom have four legs not two I use both scientific knowledge and scientific reasoning. Part of that reasoning is scepticism, in fact without scepticism there is no science imho.
My physics teacher in his address to us on our last day implored us not to become too focused on our own areas of specialisation. It was the best advice at least for me, as my efforts to be a scientific generalist have, in this age of wonders, been a source of endless fascination and wonder.
I have to say that the Cern discoveries are arguably a luxury we should perhaps put on hold for now. Humanity and all the wonderful life-forms on this planet have far more important things we require science to be delivering right now than another Russian doll even if, as in the other three we have already, there will be intriguing differences between each one.
My physics teacher in his address to us on our last day implored us not to become too focused on our own areas of specialisation. It was the best advice at least for me, as my efforts to be a scientific generalist have, in this age of wonders, been a source of endless fascination and wonder.
I have to say that the Cern discoveries are arguably a luxury we should perhaps put on hold for now. Humanity and all the wonderful life-forms on this planet have far more important things we require science to be delivering right now than another Russian doll even if, as in the other three we have already, there will be intriguing differences between each one.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.