ydoaPs

Were degrees intended to furnish a career?

If you're a realist, yeah. If you're an anti-realist, not so much. As a general trend, experimentalists tend to be anti-realists (hi, swansont) and theorists tend to be realists (hi, ajb). Though, when you're dealing with new theory, like the quantum gravity theorists, sometimes the line between the scientists and the philosophers of science tends to be not so clear. It's not unheard of for theoretical physicists to cite philosophers of science. So, my suggestion, if you want the "'true' understanding of the Universe" is to either double major in philosophy of physics (or HPS if there's no specific phil physics program available) and physics or to major in philosophy of physics (or HPS) and minor in physics. The philosophy of physics courses will focus more on the foundational issues that are often ignored in traditional physics programs. Things like the metaphysical choices one has when it comes to physical theories (ex. GR implies either indeterminism or the unreality of time, so pick your poison and see what happens) and what the theories are even about (ex. Is QFT about particles, fields, both, or neither?). So, it really depends on what your focus is.

Why? Because you say so?

So, we ought to kill unruly children?

Do you have any specific questions? Special Relativity is just classical physics that uses the Minkowski space. Like I said previously, it generalizes from a space with a time parameter to a spacetime, so time is part of the 'distance'. s2=(time distance)2-(space distance)2. This s2 (the distance through spacetime) is the same between reference frames. So, if I have my own frame, and you have yours, we may disagree on how far you (or I) travel in space over a given amount of time, but we'll agree on how far you (or I) go through spacetime. Using the spacetime distance equation above, we can change co-ordinates from yours to mine and vice versa. In my frame of reference, I'm standing still and you're moving. In yours, you're standing still and I'm moving. So, let's get how much time you experienced as told by my frame of reference. (your time distance)2-(your space distance)2=(my time distance)2-(my space distance)2 Velocity (speed with the direction that you're going) is often written as ẋ. I'll use that here. The speed of light in a vacuum is written as c. I'll use that as well. When using two different co-ordinate frames, we usually give one an apostraphe (a prime) just so we can tell them apart. You'll be the primed frame. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all frames, so it doesn't get a prime. To get a reasonable answer, our distance through time and our distance through space have to have the same units. So, we use the speed of light as a conversion factor. The distance through time is given by c times time. So, my distance through time is ct and yours is ct'. Distance through space is given by velocity through space times time. So, mine is ẋt and yours is ẋ't'. (ct')2-(ẋ't')2=(ct)2-(ẋt)2 That's just restating what I said up there with the variables I explained below it. This is just that we both have the same spacetime distance. So, we're going to see how our times compare when you're going a certain speed relative to me. On your side of the equation, we can factor out a t'2, and on mine, we can factor out a t2. t'2(c2-ẋ'2)=t2(c2-ẋ2) To get your time by itself, we'll divide both sides by the term your time is multiplied by. t'2=t2(c2-ẋ2)/(c2-ẋ'2) Since we're looking at this from my frame, and I'm stationary in my own frame, my velocity will be zero through space. So, we can set ẋ=0 t'2=c2t2/(c2-ẋ'2) Let's go ahead and get rid of that c2 on top by cancelling it. To do that, we'll multiply ẋ'2 by 1 in the form of c2/c2, then we'll factor out a c2. t'2=(c2t2)/(c2-(c2/c2)ẋ'2) t'2=t2/(1-(ẋ2/c2)) Now to get your time, we just need to take the square root of both sides. We get [math]t'=t\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{\dot{x}'^2}{c^2}}}[/math], which is the famous time dilation equation. So, the faster you go relative to me, the longer your seconds are relative to mine. According to my frame, your time is slowed according to your speed relative to me. Now, we could have done this all the exact same way for my time according to your frame. In that case, my time is slowed according to your frame. The faster you're going relative to me, the more of my seconds each one of yours is, according to my frame.

Yes, it is possible to send things to Mars and not bring them back. We've done it many times. In fact, Mars is entirely inhabited by robots from Earth.

Or that Aristotle guy. Or even the presocratics. Anaximander was all about relying on observation and disregarding religion. He'd be right at home with today's "new" atheists.

Not if it's about quantum mechanics. If you literally have no idea what you're talking about, then, no, you're not going to be taken seriously.

It's just funny that you accused me of being arrogant in regards to how non-HPS philosophers do with QM, then you stated that you literally have no idea what you're talking about, but kept on talking anyway. Then maybe you should learn more about it. The ontological structure of QM does not admit Boolean logical structure. I've told you why several times and you just plug your ears. Maybe you should open them this time.

I wasn't aware that I was supposed to "disprove religion", whatever that means.

followed by The spin is clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time.

If Christians followed the teachings of Jesus, they would. "Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."-Matthew 5:13-20 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it."-Matthew 7:`3-27 "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."-Matthew 16:24-28 "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."-Matthew 19:16-24 "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed [thee]? or thirsty, and gave [thee] drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took [thee] in? or naked, and clothed [thee]? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."-Matthew 25:31-46 It's kind of one of his main points. "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."-Mark 16:17-18

Well, your opinion doesn't match fact. Too bad they totally are. You cannot get QM on a topos that allows Boolean structure. The propositions (states) in QM cannot be related in a Boolean way. LEM doesn't hold for QM universes. The ones that actually know quantum mechanics aren't. This is pretty well known stuff over here in history and philosophy of science land. At a fundamental level, Aristotelian logic and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible. You can't have Quantum Mechanics and the Law of Excluded Middle; pick at most one.

I meant code for the specific problem. Just steer clear of doing the actual project.

It does, but it's not an empirical matter. Nor is it a matter of interpretation choice. On the deepest level of structure, QM and Aristotle are incompatible.

It's pretty easy to disagree when you're simply ignoring the argument and saying "nuh uh". The most general structure shows that QM doesn't co-exist with Boolean structure. Classical physics is built on the category of Sets and the relations between sets. It should be obvious, since Aristotelian logic is just set theory in disguise that a subobject classifier can be defined that gives Boolean structure. Any Cartesian closed category will have a Boolean structure. Not only is it not possible to have QM on Sets, but it's also not possible on any Cartesian closed category. QM has to be constructed on a topos that is the category of presheaves on partially ordered sets. This isn't Cartesian closed. The logical structure is more general. The law of excluded middle does not apply.

This doesn't look like a webdev assignment as much as a python assignment for lists, directories, dictionaries, etc. Since I've already responded, this is technically unofficial modly advice, but don't give actual code as this is almost certainly homework.

They can't be applied if the structure of the universe doesn't permit them....as in a QM universe.

This isn't an empirical question. This is one of deep metaphysics. QM cannot be formulated on a cartesian closed topos. The typical choice of the category Sets isn't an option. QM has to be formulated on the category of presheaves on partially ordered sets (or something like it). But that's not cartesian closed, so it has a more general Heyting structure. Boolean structure doesn't work.

! Moderator Note Yes, she does. The threads are now merged.

What, exactly, is a natural right? I'm not sure it even makes sense to talk about rights as anything other than a type of promise.

! Moderator Note Posts on the nature of evidence split to here.

Considering your objections are taking Popper as a serious contender, it looks like you're just being argumentative. Popper's theory bears no resemblance to actual scientific practice. If you ask scientists if they believe their theory is true, they'll often tell you "yes". Popper can't tell you whether or not something is likely to be true. Popper can only get rid of false ones. Well, not even that. Popper can only get rid of false programmes (see Duhem, Lakatos, or Quine for more explanation), even if the part associated with the actual theory is true. Popper's account is just Modus Tollens. Theory A implies observation B. Rather than observation B, we observe an observation inconsistent with B. Therefore theory A is wrong. It doesn't tell you anything about whether or not any of the other theories are likely to be true. Popper gives absolutely no reason to trust well-tested theories. Yet, scientists do. Observation consistent with a theory does in fact make scientists trust their theory more. Popper also can't account for the Lakatosian behavior of scientists. When we thought that we observed neutrinos travelling faster than light, the science community didn't just chuck the Standard Model. We still use it. Falsification alone underdetermines the truth value of the falsified theory because of holism. In Lakatosian terms, a theory is its hard core (the laws and whatnot of the theory) and an associated belt of auxiliary assumptions (like how many things are in the system under consideration). So, rather than tossing out the whole thing and never using the Standard Model again, the science community acted in a Lakatosian way: they checked the belt of auxiliary assumption. It turns out that there was a loose connection in the wiring. Popper can't allow for this. This is also how we discovered a few planets in our own solar system; our calculated orbits for the planets we knew about didn't match observation. Our best theories of astrophysics were falsified. Did we throw them out? No. We checked for more planets, and we found them. As Dorling shows, probability theory has a firm place for Lakatosian scientific epistemology. But more than that, it tells you when to check the auxiliary assumptions and when to toss the hard core. Probability theory explicates Lakatos's positive and negative heuristics. The probabilistic framework also lets us know when an experiment makes a theory more likely to be true. It explains why scientists trust well tested theories more than untested theories, even though, on Popper's account, there should be no difference in trust between a theory that is tested and unfalsified and a theory that has not been tested. Popper doesn't look anything like science. It's not even a plausible contender. It never has been.

Good catch. I meant "spacetime".

You can start out with its defining feature: its metric. The diagonal of the metric is 1, -1, -1, -1. This means that the pythagorian theorem doesn't hold. Instead, you get s2=(cdt)2-dx2-dy2-dz2. If you factor out the negative sign, and apply the pythagorean theorem to the spatial components, you end up with (spacetime distance)2=(temporal distance)2-(spatial distance)2. Spacetime distance is what is called "frame invariant". That means it's the same in any (inertial) frame. So, what we see is that for the same spacetime distance, the more one moves through space, the less one moves through time.