MigL

That song should have been banned long ago, Beecee. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen.

You seem to quote a lot of people. Philosophers you obviously admire, and whose thinking you respect. You also tend to put groups of people into different camps, like ( anti ) realists, ( contra ) idealists, etc. I was wondering, do you you ever post what YOU think about these subjects ? A scientist ( Physicist, as I like to pretend I am ), when asked will give you their opinion. Sometimes those opinions even differ, or are totally opposite, other scientists. But I assume you're human, just like the rest of us; surely you must have your own opinion without appealing to the authority of your (philosophical ) masters ? Tell us what YOU think that cannonball 'really' and 'truly' is ... edit And welcome back I thought you might have gotten upset and left us.

If the universe is not homogenous and isotropic, rewinding the clock back wll not lead to the Big Bang. If the universe is not expanding equallyin all directions there is no Big Bang. You don't seem to understand the Big Bang very well. Maybe you should ask questions, or read up on it, before making assertions.

No, assertions carry baggage. A center, or an edge, implies homogeneity and isotropy fly out the window; and we lose two sides of the foundation of the Big Bang Theory. They also imply a preferred frame, something which is not allowed by GR. With GR no longer valid, we lose the third foundation of the Big Bang Theory. We are left with a pretty wobbly structure. Just because we don't know what something is, does not mean we don't know what it can't be. That is the essence of science ( to wax Philosophical ), falsify what cannot be, and keep narrowing down the options of what it can be.

One could make the argument that climate change is simply one of those factors that determines the Earth's carrying capacity for humans ...

Don't try to butter me up after provoking me into almost downvoting you 😄 . I would think a good argument would accomplish the same while also educating less informed/less familiar future readers. I don't expect others to do the same as I do; it is a personal choice for me. And @TheVat seems to think along the same lines

To most Physicist, that is a non-sensical question. To Philosophers, apparently it invokes a lot of distress and hand -wringing ( I didn't want to say sanctimonius posturing; I need to be civil ). Why the concern with what Physics does ? If I have insulted you in any way, I apologize. I don't give downvotes, so you got none from me, as a matter of fact, you got my upvote in the Gravity thread. I appreciate your Philosophical take, much as I have appreciated Eise's over the years. Keep it coming. Just don't be so critical of our Physical take.

It annoys me also. If you disagree with someone's position, tell them why. I don't like it when a downvote is used instead of a good argument, or when you lack an argument. Does the downvote change their mind ? Or is it just a way for you to take out your frustrations ?

Not that Swansont needs me to answer for him ... You must realize, Davy_Jones, that Physics treats the trajectory of a cannonball by considering forces acting on its center of mass, or center of gravity. That is, as a point mass. Is that your 'true reality' ??? We may not know much concerning Philosophy, but you have no clue about Physics ( nor reality, for that matter ). Maybe we ( actually you ) should start over, and, instead of being antagonistic and telling us what is wrong with our world view, try to learn from each other.

The theories are certainly real, and that they make true predictions in applicable circumstances. But they tell us that the underlying 'reality', which you think Physics should be responsible for, is nothing more than indeterminate mathematical constructs like wavefunctions and fields. Even your cannonball and its trajectory is a wavefunction being influenced by a field. That is the knowledge we currently have; do you have the cojones tostand in front of people and say it is 'true' and 'real' ?

Yes. Knowledge is information. Information changes in quality and quantity. I ask you, sir, what will you say is 'true' and 'real' when our understanding of the universe's mechanisms change ( as in the previously mentioned Holographic Principle ), or perhaps, you can tell us what is 'true' and 'real' at the Quantum level ( maybe you can compare to the trajectory of that cannonball ).

Eise wears two hats; he is both a Physicist and a Philosopher. It seems to me Philosophy has appropriated the word 'knowledge' to have a specific meaning to Philosophers, aside from the meaning us lay-folks give it. You could say that the cannonball and its trajectory are true and real, but what if we eventually discover our universe acts as a holographic projection ? Or that we actually live in the 'Matrix'? Will your definitions then change ? This is by no means a fault of Philosophy. Physics does it also. Maybe we should ask Eise about the difference between 'force' and 'geodesic deviation', as it pertains to gravity, and which is 'true' and 'real'.

I know what you mean. Sometimes questions are asked on this site, and members are all too quick to jump on them with claims of 'hidden agendas' and accusations of 'denial'. I prefer giving the benefit of the doubt, and I've often been wrong, but sometimes peple just come to a science site to get the opinion of scientifically minded people. Why waste an opportunity to change the opinion of someone who's not thinking clearly ? Not that I'm accusing anyone of doing so, but sometimes the most important discussions, pertaining to climate change, race and gender relations, gun control, etc., are shut down by such accusations before they even begin. Unfortunate because these are discussions that need to happen

Philosophy, at least as I understand it, pertains to everything. But I have to ask ... What happens when the ball is dropped, and the bell stops ringing ?

I suggest we all re-read the OP. He's asking if a 'little bit' of something bad could actually turn out to be good. If a global temperature increase as we have witnessed over the last several decades, could actually be beneficial. The problem, of course, would still be stoppng further temperature increases which will lead to the scenareos presented by other members. That would be 'too much' of something bad.

When it is no offense, what is it? Gymnastics ( mental or otherwise ) are not useless. Mental gymnastics sharpen the mind and help refine our thought processes. ( I have alluded to this in a previous post ) Are we heading towards the conclusion that Philosophers use the word 'knowledge' to mean justified true beliefs, while the rest of us ( Physicists included ) use it to mean a commonly accepted, evolving, body of information ?

Again, you are equating 'reality' ( the eart is NOT flat ) with the working theory ( mistaken ) of the people who proposed it. Didn't we already have 8 pages of this discussion ? Are we going to re-hash it all, so you can come to the conclusion that the word knowledge conveys a different meaning for a scientist ( an evolution of commonly accepted information ), than that from your quotes of Philosophers ( the absolute 'truth'; whatever that is ).

Really Davy_Jones ?? An awful lot of people know things which are simply untrue. But I like how you included justified beliefs as modifiers of 'truth' in your standard ( ? ) definition.

Our knowledge of the way things work, the mechanisms of the universe, is increasing; I don't know what that has to do with 'truth'. My initial comment may have been slightly disparaging towards Philosophers, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with 'mental gymnastics'. Someone who I consider a friend has taught me the value of Philosophy. It teaches us HOW to think. According to Eise, Philosophy can help direct the thought process in order to solve a Physics problem, and, as such, is a valuable discipline. I must say that your thought processes, in equating expanding knowledge of the mechanisms of the universe, with approaching 'truth', are a little confused ( for someone who claims to be a Philosopher ). Maybe you should ask a Philosopher to help guide your thinking 😄 😄 . es

Which were a result of discrepancies between observations and existing theories.

Don't sell yourself short... This has been one of the most interesting discussions in quite a while. It even brought Markus out of 'retirement'. They say that the first step on the path to better oneself is recognizing one's shortcomings. You're on your way to becoming a much better Physicist. 8 pages of ( very informative and interesting ) discussion, and that is your conclusion ? That sometimes Physicists ( and people in general ) sometimes use inappropriate words to describe things/effects ? You're only back briefly, and already we are learning and ggaining new interests.

One is based on evidence/observation; the other on mental gymnastics. ( no offense meant, Eise )

Flight of fancy ,indeed. The observable universe has an 'edge', but it recedes as you move closer to it. ( it is always at the same distance ) Correspondence of points is a useful tool when dealing with infinities. That doesn't mean areas are equal. So why would you need to prove it ( physically or otherwise ) ?

You've always been famous on ScienceForums.net 😄 .

That bolded question was answered, at which point it 'evolved' to which model, force or geometric, is true or real