beecee

I havn't yet made any comment on Frankie being a poached egg. I actually preferred the calm easy going style and charisma of Dean Martin. 😉 Agreed!! No problems with that at all, and I'm pretty sure I have said it more then once....in fact we may one day [if any truth and rality really exist] serendiptiously fall upon it. Unlikely I think , but still within the realms of possibility.

I did, but hey, let's both do it again..... Highlighted bits by me. Yes, Einstein seems to be saying, we can never be sure we know the true reality and/or truth of any observation. Not sure how any other interpretation can be arrived at.

It's beecee, not Sir, OK? And of course we see the convincing evidence of spacetime curvature. I bow to your sharper pedant and semantics. *just joking* Einstein as great as he was, was also human and wrong at times. Even his own model told him of a dynamic universe, which he failed to accept. Secondly, I don't believe Einstein thought he was describing reality as you seem to be thinking....perhaps rose coloured glasses and all that?

Best as in "best theory" is the theory that covers the bigger domain, and matches further observational data, and also makes the most validated predictions. eg: GR surpasses Newtonian, but still falls short of an all encompassing explanation.

Falsified in this case we can do no better then to go to WIKI.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability "In the philosophy of science, a theory is falsifiable (or refutable) if it is contradicted by an observation that is logically possible, i.e., expressible in the language of the theory, and this language has a conventional empirical interpretation". The first paragraph is interesting in that it supports everything that others have been trying to tell you, and comparable to the question, what is gravity...we see spacetime curvature when mass/energy is present, and feel the result as gravity, but we still do not understand the true nature of gravity, as our theories do not cover all contingencies.

https://phys.org/news/2021-09-black-holes-exert-pressure-environment.html Black holes found to exert a pressure on their environment: Physicists at the University of Sussex have discovered that black holes exert a pressure on their environment, in a scientific first. In 1974 Stephen Hawking made the seminal discovery that black holes emit thermal radiation. Previous to that, black holes were believed to be inert, the final stages of a dying heavy star. The University of Sussex scientists have shown that they are in fact even more complex thermodynamic systems, with not only a temperature but also a pressure. The serendipitous discovery was made by Professor Xavier Calmet and Folkert Kuipers in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Sussex, and is published today in Physical Review D. more at link........................ the paper: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.066012 Quantum gravitational corrections to the entropy of a Schwarzschild black hole: ABSTRACT: We calculate quantum gravitational corrections to the entropy of black holes using the Wald entropy formula within an effective field theory approach to quantum gravity. The corrections to the entropy are calculated to second order in curvature and we calculate a subset of those at third order. We show that, at third order in curvature, interesting issues appear that had not been considered previously in the literature. The fact that the Schwarzschild metric receives corrections at this order in the curvature expansion has important implications for the entropy calculation. Indeed, the horizon radius and the temperature receive corrections. These corrections need to be carefully considered when calculating the Wald entropy. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The first thing I needed to do was eliminate my ignorance on " Wald entropy" and the "Wald entropy formula".... https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3206.pdf Wald's entropy is equal to a quarter of the horizon area in units of the effective gravitational coupling:

As others have said, sometimes people are lazy in their speech and choice of words. I am pretty certain that Albert actually meant that gravity is caused by mass/energy bending warping spacetime. Gravity is geometry as the model GR tells us. Of course as we know, GR fails us at certain regions. The following is beautiful and brought a tear to my eye and a lump to my throat!😉 7 hours ago, MigL said: "Their most famous exchange had Einstein declaring "God does not play dice with the universe" To which Bohr replied "Yes he does, and sometimes he throws them where they cannot be seen" Sometimes Philosophers, and even Physicists, pretend they can see the dice .. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Even the great man made some blunders, but his forte was admitting readily them. I stubbed my toe on a rock once. It was real, as also is my toe. Gravity still remains a mystery, and scientific models are still useful descriptions based on observational data that mostly have zilch to do with reality or truth. The Sun has just recently risen where I am, but I cannot be sure it is there. I'll confirm it or otherwise in 8.25 minutes, OK? I was admiring the constellation Crux and Alpha Centauri last night. Was it really there? I'll let you know in 4.5 years.

What knowledge I have of WW2 is simply the number of isolated incidents that in hindsight changed the course of the war...the invention of radar, code breaking, Hitler invading the Soviet......If these things had not have taken place, the result/s may have been different.

There are very small error bars in the WMAP data that gives us a likely flat universe. 100 billion L/Y's is a reasonable representation, but in essence, we can never really be sure.

I understand Davy's questions. Not being a smarty, but I have a few questions if you could answer for me...my thoughts/answers are in brackets after each question.[1] So do you believe we know the true nature of gravity? [NO][2] Do you accept that sciencetific theories are useful models that do not necessarily aim for truth and reality? [yes] [3]Do you agree that perhaps if there is a truth and/or reality that science may one day accidentley discover it? [possibly] [4] Do you accept that the further any scientific model matches our observations, and keeps making successful predictions, it does get ever more certain? [yes] [5] Do you think perhaps if that "certainty" is reached, it could be this truth/reality?[possibly] [6] Is there any truth or reality to be found? [dunno] [7]Might it be impossible to find? [dunno but in reality, and until we have one all encompassing theory, it may as well be] These are the questions that have created the furore of some philosophers on this forum, and with me. I have answered all bar one with simple yes/no/dunno/possibly answers. I'll surprise you now....no actually no difference. I would love to know the deeper insights of gravity, and why it presents itself in the presnce of mass/energy. I would love to know the exact nature of the still hypothetical quantum foam...I would love to understand properly, the nature of infinity...I would love to understand how a finite universe [if the universe was shown to be finite] could be. And so would any damn scientist worth his or her salt. And thanks for the reasonable approach. Ever heard of a Canadian fella by the name of Jordan Peterson? Your style seems very much like his. 😉 Nice and like studiot +1

Let me make a final comment on the above...I don't adhere to any particular form of science. I follow science to the best of my ability, because of its phenomenal success rate...afterall it affects our lives everyday. It has given us much, and answers many questions, and is trying to answer more...it took us to the Moon, and has sent our probes to every planet, minor planet in our system...zeal? possibly, so? How do you follow your philosophy? in a mediocre fashion? Currently we have a world wide pedamic. Who are we and who do we call on? Our general health and any problems with it...do you call the butcher? a priest? a philosopher? Your car...OK we call a mechanic who fixes it up according to scientific mechanical knowledge. Bingo! Don't worry about it...I have more important things to do...shit, shave, shower, shampoo and off to bed!!!

I have mentioned the otherwise great Astronomer, Fred Hoyle. I don't agree with him. I accept you as an authority but reject your interpretation. You're funny. Yes, because I thought you made some silly and obtuse comments in that thread, just as you have with your "note the question mark" in this one and my invalid Philoosphy inference. Does that mean I can ask you if you are a rapist? Or that you are mental? if I put in a question mark/ We can all play that game, but I prefer logical reasonable unbiased if possible debate. I don't see many of your questions as reasonable and adequate. eg: suggesting [with a question mark] that I inferred/said/suggested that philosophy was invalid. And I'm not angry per se, just rather perplexed that a long standing member can induge in such abstract questions and answers...still I suppose I haven't really had the need to debate/argue with you on any previous occasion and never really read too many of your posts. Perhaps what you see as my insults are just not as subtle as yours...perhaps I'm more brutally honest. please don't take that personally. Because of your rather less then reasonable questions and of course, your false inferences. I'll be as nice as apple pie, if you come down to Earth just a bit. Just as we can also have "bad science" people [scientists] still argue against GR...cold fusion perhaps....The electric/plasma universe crap...the originator of that won a Nobel prize I remember...for another aspect, not his electric/plasma universe.

I love the first line.... "Philosophers are a critical lot. There countless disagreements, there love of arguments, and there inability to arrive at conclusions" Bloody beautiful, and certainly fits a couple to a "T" note: "love of argument" not love of debate mind you....Hmmm, I wonder what pedant or semantics one or two will use to get around that little doozy! No, not boiled over, just a small mention, as your methodology there and here are similar. Which is why I finished ignoring you. Is that also offensive to your person? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-are-philosophers-too/ Editor’s Note: Shortly before his death last August at the age of 79, the noted physicist and public intellectual Victor Stenger worked with two co-authors to pen an article for Scientific American. In it Stenger and co-authors address the latest eruption of a long-standing historic feud, an argument between physicists and philosophers about the nature of their disciplines and the limits of science. Can instruments and experiments (or pure reason and theoretical models) ever reveal the ultimate nature of reality? Does the modern triumph of physics make philosophy obsolete? What philosophy, if any, could modern theoretical physicists be said to possess? Stenger and his co-authors introduce and address all these profound questions in this thoughtful essay and seek to mend the growing schism between these two great schools of thought. When physicists make claims about the universe, Stenger writes, they are also engaging in a grand philosophical tradition that dates back thousands of years. Inescapably, physicists are philosophers, too. This article, Stenger’s last, appears in full below. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: And the last for tonight....... https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2012/05/a-philosopher-defends-krauss.html A philosopher defends Krauss: Justin Fisher, a philosopher of mind, cognitive science and science at Southern Methodist University, writes: I'm writing to urge you to correct your unfair anti-Krauss stance in your earlier post on the Krauss-Albert affair. E.g., you say Krauss thought his book answered old philosophical questions about why there was something rather than nothing. But, if you had read the book, you'd know that Krauss did not claim to answer all such questions, and indeed that he openly acknowledges that there are open questions of precisely the sort that Albert raises, e.g., about why the laws of quantum mechanics should obtain in the first place. What Krauss does do - and do quite well - is provide an engaging popularly accessible depiction of how a universe like ours could come from initial quantum states involving nothing at all like familiar physical objects, nor even space-time. Krauss is admirably clear in the book about what he claims to have done, and it's not what you say he claims to have done. You also suggest that Albert's review "called [Krauss] out for his intellectual limitations." But the only substantive disagreement Albert's review raises against Krauss involves the question of how ordinary people use the word 'nothing'. Albert thinks the only possible interpretation of 'nothing' is nothing at all, not even a particle-less space-time-less quantum vacuum state. Krauss openly acknowledges this as one reading, but argues (correctly) that people often use 'nothing' in a broader sense. E.g., many ordinary folk think it is impossible, without miraculous intervention, for ordinary physical objects spontaneously to come to exist where no such objects had existed before - something they often abbreviate by saying "something can't come out of nothing!" It is such people, and not we professional philosophers with our "wholly unrestricted quantifiers", who are the intended audience of Krauss' book. And Krauss' book provides a thrilling presentation of the diverse sorts of evidence that have convinced quantum theorists that physical particles can, and indeed do all the time, come from "nothing" in this way. Showing this clearly doesn't defang the cosmological argument - no one claims it does, except perhaps Dawkins - but it does help make clear what is at issue in this argument and dispels common misperceptions about it. This terminological squabble over 'nothing' really is the only substantive objection Albert raises against Krauss, and no matter what you think of this squabble, it's not fair for you to describe it as revealing "intellectual limitations" in Krauss. extract: My own view is that Albert's review was an embarrassment to our profession, and a setback for all philosophers of science who want our work to be taken seriously by scientists. more at link.........................

Oh I don't doubt your credentials one bit, just mentioned how you told me you were aneducated philoospher...Tha's nice, but changes nothing at all, particularly my opinion and the evidence from reputable people on reasonable philosphy critique. Again you read into something which isn't there, and exagerate. I reiterate, I have never claimed philoosphy is invalid...but I have been witnessed to philosophical nonsense on this forum. I suggest you seek your higher authority and obviously I'll stand by that ruling as you will. If anyone has spoken in forked tongue, it is you suggesting I said philoosphy was invalid. There are a number of posts by me praising philosophy for what it is. There are also posts from me criticising philosphical nonsense. The ball's in your court. Here's some more..... https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Amer/AmerLown.htm Dewey's Criticisms of Traditional Philosophy: Towards a Pragmatic Conception of Philosophy ABSTRACT: In this paper I address some of John Dewey’s more generally applicable criticisms of the philosophic "tradition," and show how his criticisms stem from his naturalistic approach to philosophy. This topic is important because Dewey gives great insight into discussions that are relevant today regarding the role of philosophy. In 1935 he anticipated many of the criticisms of the "later" Wittgenstein regarding the establishment of post facto standards as a cause, the separation of language from behavior and the privatization of mind—yet Dewey still finds use for metaphysics or "thinking at large." I believe the essence of Dewey’s criticisms are found in a few key distinctions. Therefore, I cover the history of philosophy with blanket criticisms of the blanket categories of "classical" and of "modern" thought. For Dewey, the fundamental error characteristic of both Greek and Modern thinking is the artificial bifurcation of our thoughts, feelings and actions from the natural world. As I see it, the heart of this metaphysical mistake is captured by the distinctions he draws between the "instrumental" and "consummatory," and between the "precarious" and "stable." ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: And this little doozy!!! https://www.jstor.org/stable/4544514

Why would you worry about my refusal to answer dimreeper, when you asked the same question and received an answer? Another exapmle of birds of a feather, sticking together? Yes, 100% particularly in this instant and the answer that I gave dimreper. I have never suggested philosophy is invalid, which is what he inferred. I express my opnion, based my life experiences, and I certainly will not change my PoV on science and the scientific methodology, simply because one or two online self appraised "philosophers" take offence at just critique of philosophical nonsense, when it is taken too far...including of course the usual pedant and semantics often used as red herrings. What you think doesn't really concern me at this time. I have a valid argument and that argument is supported by many others. And I'm also less concerned and/or interested in how you see the need to interprete any of my language, as I believe that the interpretation, as meant, is the interpretation that will be accepted by most approaching this without a particular bias.... Again, not too interested in your semantics and pedant on a four letter word. I believe most know what is meant. Which one do I adhere to?? The factual one!Perhaps even both. Either way, it changes nothing with regards to the just criticism that has seen philosophers screaming blue murder. I say it is. You have the whole paragraph to judge my opnion on. If that screws up your argument, then tough titty. Let's get this straight once and for all...I am not interested in conflated philosphical jargon, pedant or semantics, or dimreeper's videos and unreal expectations. I'm interested in the real differences between science and philosophy. No no zeal at all...just a logical love for science and the scientific methodology. If you want an example of zeal, visit the justice thread and the nonsensical argument put up their by someone that sees a society without jail as realistic. It's only your opinion that they are unknowledgable about philosophy, coming from an online self claimed educated philsopher. I disagree, and while that may not be enough for your deep psycological insight, I have given my reasons and the reasons of many other notable reputable scientists. Any that's it for me tonight, I have finals football in the NRL to watch, far more important then arguing semantical points with a couple of offended philosophers. Have a good night...I'm gunna!

Firstly my approach was initiated by your now known usual less then honest questions, primarly your last one, that at worst could be construed as a plain lie on your part...."Also, why are you posting on the philosophy forum when you don't think philosophy is valid?" No where in any of my replies to you or any of the other philosophers playing your games, did I ever infer philosophy was invalid. At this time I will cease playing your games, as I did in your other unreal thread re justice and jails. ps: and no I did not watch your video as along with your approach I suggest it is a waste of my time.

🤪Yeah, including a leggy blonde or two. But always ignored!!!

I was once informed by a noted astronomer on a now defunct science forum, that one of the stengths of the main models in cosmology today, was how GR and the BB go together like a finger in a bum, or a hand in a glove, take your pick! He also threw in the particle zoo with those two as obviously complimentary..

Yes, it takes all kinds. I have a group of indigenous friends that I have known for more then 30 years...we still get together for the occasional piss up...I have an old school mate from more then 40 years ago, who married a pommy sheila and now lives in England...we still converse via a couple of mediums every week...Our old boys group from school, still 7 of us that are still standing, to one degree or another, not counting quadtriple by-passes, ALS and broken hips,...I have a recent old [old in age] friend I only met a couple of years ago, while I was delivering to his house for meals on wheels, I still visit him and help out when needed..my Mrs's Fijian church choir who [before lockdown] would practise at my house every couple of months or so...after their practise, I would have a great time with the men folk drinking yaqona [kava], some often come round for a bowl or two or three, 😉 independant of the choir.... I have many football [rugby league] friends that meet on game day, have a few beers, and go out to shout encouragement for the might Eastern suburbs Roosters. And then of course is my beautiful family!

I was busy elsewhere, trying to placate and reason with some philosophers, and was going to get back to you. 😉

Sorry dimreeper, you are wrong on so many counts, and your questions and statements don't really change much. But as usual I will answer them. [1] the same old argument that other philosophers have put up. [2] You can dress it up to fit your agenda, and exaggerate his remarks to your little heart's content, but it changes nothing. Reminds me errily of the justice/jail merry-go-round. Let me tidy it up for you. He expressed an opinion on the hypocrisy of religion and also expressed an opinion on philosophy that other notable and reputable people have. And I more or less agree ith his views, and dismiss yours. [3] Tell me, what is your truth and reality? Are you again making a poor attempt to practice your psychoanalysis of me? 🤮 That question has been answered a hundred times, and will not change no matter how many times you act so pretentiously in asking it again. [4] More pretentious nonsense, if not a blatant misinterpretation. I have never said philosophy is invalid, that's just you once again, making a piss poor attempt at trying to sound like a reasonable philosopher. Yes, thanks for that, and yet we still have so called philosophers like dimreeper still overlooking the truth and instead practising the politics of philosophy, and rather poorly I add. I havn't yet had time to read the whole article, as even in lockdown, I do have other interests and things to do. Yes, you are right, I don't believe the arguments put forward are valid and find far more logic in the reasons put by Krauss and others. My aim, as you put it is simply to express my lay person's opinion, that the practical nature of science, and the theoretical physics aspect, has crossed over into regions that were once the sole domain of philoosphy. Why do you see that as sneering at philosophers? Yes, I have been provocative, and I make no apologies for that, as the same can be said for others here that have taken the opposite stance. I will attempt to read the whole article later today or tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure it won't change my mind, just as I'm pretty sure if I scrounged the Internet and dug up all the arguments and more reputable people agreeing with Krauss, won't change your PoV either. Yes. "Still" has a simple everyday meaning, so stop being all pretentious and playing the poor philosopher in trying to read something into it that is not there. If that sounds a bit sarcastic, you are probably right, as I have seen your own sarcasm further down. Please refrain from taking the one sentence out of context, it could be construed as dishonest. What I said... "And with regard to physicists not speaking in one voice, there are mavericks in every profession. I mentioned Fred Hoyle the other day to some one on this forum in a similar debate [to lazy to check out who it was] and his Steady State model that I believe he took to the grave with him...an otherwise great scientist. That though is part of the success of science and the scientific model, and the fact that our models/theories may change as further data comes to hand. I see that as a plus. And since when have philosophers always spoke with the one voice? Old established theories that are superseded by new models, in many situations have a damn hard job getting accepted, but probably just like the incumbent theory, they need to and must run the gauntlet, so to speak". 😊 Perhaps you can practise some of your semantics and pedant with me now. Your inference of calling Krauss "your god" is that an example of sarcasm? Facetiousness? provocation? or stupidity? Again, I'm in total agreement with Krauss, Feynman, Hawking, Degrasse-Tyson, and Weinberg. I may see when I have time, if I can dig up some more reputable physicists that see it the same way. I cant see anything too controversial in what Feynman says in your video. No philosophy is not useless and perhaps Krauss was simply being provocative to sell books, and of course, similar provocation also is found among the ranks of the philosophers also, I'm sure you'll agree.

Like I said, Krauss over stepped the mark, calling him a moron, but essentially I agree with him and others. I thought I made that clear. I read part of Albert's argument, and found it the same old argument that other philosophers have put up. I also find it rather disappointing, that you still chose to throw barbs at him with your condescending remark "just a good physicist" Yes we both made cynical remarks, and Everyone is a philosopher, and in saying that, I also have my views, and while they are not terribly complimentary of philosophy in general, I have never claimed science is better, or greater, simply that science is the practical search for knowledge, while imo philosophy is rather astract in its dealings, while still being the foundation of science. And with regard to physicists not speaking in one voice, there are mavericks in every profession. I mentioned Fred Hoyle the other day to some one on this forum in a similar debate [to lazy to check out who it was] and his Steady State model that I believe he took to the grave with him...an otherwise great scientist. That though is part of the success of science and the scientific model, and the fact that our models/theories may change as further data comes to hand. I see that as a plus. And since when have philosophers always spoke with the one voice? Old established theories that are superseded by new models, in many situations have a damn hard job getting accepted, but probably just like the incumbent theory, they need to and must run the gauntlet, so to speak. On your Feynman comment, all I can say is there you go again! Don't you think you are taking one word out of context? Why not research what the message he was conveying over the whole post. Sorry, that sort of pedant and semantics does nothing for me. What Krauss was effectively saying, and Degrasse Tyson from memory, is that areas that once were the domain of the philosopher, are now more the domain of the theoretical physicist. He may have been more provocative in his rhetoric, but that may have been in the hope of increasing sales of his book. Aint that the truth!

Yes, my apologies for my part, but I find it hard to accept being talked down by someone and called a liar. I also understood what you have said and agree inmost parts.

Is there a country that doesn't government debt? Australia's debt [mainly due to the current reasonably generous covid19 payments to businesses and individuals that have lost jobs] is approaching 2 trillion dollars. Personal debt, I have been in on a few occasions during my long life, and all efforts are made to pay them off as quick as possible. Australia's interest rates at this time have been stable for around 18 months and at an all time low of 0.1%