kristalris

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_logic Indeed you gave "a" definition of logic. Indeed you can put all logic to mathematics. Are you implying that all logic(in science) should be best be put to mathematics? If not why not? If so, your wrong. And that is indeed the topic namely does mathematics better deal with paradoxes such as Zeno's paradox than lingual logic. So your thread derailment ploy is an easy way out when getting cornered. The only thing wrong with the thread is that it belongs in general philosophy in stead of speculations. May I assume you humble? Why is that important? I'll reply to the rest in due course.

I don't dispute that mathematics can do stuff that lingual statements can't. It is the other way round. Lingual statements can on the Lex parsimony more simply describe situations that are inherently woolly. You assume that you or mathematics knows the absolute truth on anything? Do you know any absolute truth? If so please fill it on the dotted line................. Your brain is not a vague entity it is an assumed fact. What it entails is maybe vague. Maybe vaguer for you than for me seeing the evidence you provide thereof in this thread. The norms you ask? Well you are mutatis mutandis using the norm of absolute truth. A norm I dispute exists in our observable world other than as within the assumed world of pure mathematics. The latter in the real world does not constitute an absolute truth on that norm.

Yes I've read and understood what it is what you try to depict. In lingual logic there is no problem what so ever. The paradox is only on the border between language and mathematics. You want to describe mathematics in words and conclude that language thus fails. It doesn't. It encompasses mathematics because it is more woolly. The latter is not a weakness but a strength. You are taking a one trick pony approach towards mathematics. Yet there are several norms applicable.

Well what does the instrument between your ears to do with it? Well ponder that a bit with that instrument that might tell you that you never make mistakes. If that instrument between those ears would indeed show these data, would that have to do with it? Of course it would. The simple fact that you even after having been pointed towards this problem still don't get it, shows that you have a lot to learn about that instrument in general and on what that means to your instrument in particular. Do you know what science in general has to say about your instrument?

Actually this has to do with psychology but what the heck. The paradox of Zeno is a seeming contradiction thus not a contradiction at all if you accept that we can not know the absolute truth. We see in the real world Achilles overtake the tortoise, yet mathematically he will never do so. This proves that the mathematical world is not the same as the real world. Yet you conclude that it is the superior way to describe it: i.e. the "real"= perceived = observed world. That is a contradiction in your reasoning. For mathematics if you reason like that is then the same as a religion for your logic is then not on the goal of reaching the truth but on the goal of your accepted authority/ book/ bible or what not stating the presence of a mathematical absolute truth that contradicts with the observed world. It thus only becomes a seeming contradiction = thus not a contradiction when you accept the fact that we can't observe an absolute truth yet only assume an absolute truth. If we can't observe an absolute truth, what do we then observe in pure mathematics other than an assumed absolute truth? If you don't assume that to be an assumption but an absolute then you have crossed over from pure science to the religion of science. I.e. believing in absolutes that haven't been observed. That 80% of scientists might agree with you only proves observed psychology correct that 80% of the fast thinkers are authority driven. I.e. have their logic on what the peers / group think for fear of loosing face. That then would constitute democratic science. Any bible in science be it mathematical or what not that states to know the absolute truth is per bloody definition, pseudo science. Zeno in effect proves that.

I guess paradox is used by Zeno as it should and means seeming contradiction instead of an actual contradiction. In effect using lingual logic it only shows that absolute truth doesn't exist. Well, does anyone since the cave of Plato believe it does? This then disproves your position for mathematics is based in lingual & figurative logic in order to have meaning. There, as we know the paradox doesn't exist as an actual contradiction but only as a seeming one, as long as you do not demand absolute proof.

http://www.nature.com/news/cosmic-light-could-close-quantum-weirdness-loophole-1.14771 "Do you ever feel like the Universe is plotting against you? Strange as it may sound, physicists are planning to test whether a cosmic conspiracy could lie behind one of the weirdest phenomena in quantum physics, in which particles appear to influence each other, no matter how far they are separated. The experiment, proposed in a paper due to be published in Physical Review Letters1, would use light from distant quasars to verify that this 'entanglement' is real. The test could also help cosmologists to distinguish between rival models of the early Universe."

A recently learnt that there is a gloun field that also is seen as the reason for mass. A gloun has spin a Higgs boson doesn't. What stands against assuming they are the same particle in and out of spin? And what is there against the idea that the missing graviton is the field that causes this spin of the Higgs boson thus becoming a gluon just before entering a string? If so I then don't see how this graviton can ever be detected, other than as a theoretical necessity.

It doesn't need to be a deterministic block universe. It probably does need deterministic boundaries and can be dicey for all possible scenario's for the rest. No problem with the now for it is meaning less if you assume moving mass = the paradigm shift you need to marry QM to GR. Only when you have the slightest possible time-frame between any interaction of mass do you have meaning. I.e. a probable game that ensues. Free will doesn't need to exist in a predefined way that doesn't fit, Yet you can have a meaningful definition of it that does fit the observations. I.e. free will is probably an essential algorithm for the socio-bots who we are to achieve a pareto optimum on the goal of getting as long and happy lives as possible. I.e. getting our fair share of dopa-mine or whatever that makes anyone happy over long periods. Infringing on that goal of others can be deemed as done by free will, in order to warrant a negative reaction so that every socio-bot behaves on the common goal. You are the neuro-scientist. All you need for logic in the brain is a Bayesian logarithmic algorithm. Set on different goals: authority, relationship, or stated goal. The latter is where the problem between science and the scientific method stems from. The instrument between the ears, requires a different organisation for it not to become more and more backward as a function of acquiring more science. As we historically observe as well, and as we observe in physics in getting more and more wacky data that is inconsistent with the current paradigm What this Qbism lacks IMO is that it is not integral. It doesn't deal with all known observations and answer all questions, but it does finally acknowledge the trend towards Bayesian common sense inference on this evident issue concerning incomplete evidence. The only logical way forward.

Hundred and four views and a roaring silence! Very probably a retired nuclear physicist that finely feels free enough to state what he actually thinks. In a discussion elsewhere it was noted that the article did't convince on Qbism being the merger between QM and Bayes. Nauseating as it me be to some: current science thinks that Bayes is in the brain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_approaches_to_brain_function Well if so and given that QM stems from the brain then we already have that merger.

Physics: QBism puts the scientist back into science N. David Mermin 26 March 2014 A participatory view of science resolves quantum paradoxes and finds room in classical physics for 'the Now', says N. David Mermin.http://www.nature.com/news/physics-qbism-puts-the-scientist-back-into-science-1.14912 Now in Nature: Quantum Bayes in the Brain: enjoy. Article tools

I'm in the process of doing that. First I need to prove my claim that your norms are incorrect. I do that in you lot failing your claim or the Biceps2 team failing that claim that the data better fit BB than any other model. You want to have your paradigm cake and eat it. That is a contradiction a logical fallacy.

Oh no it isn't. You have the BICEP2 team on the record put forward that claim. They most certainly won't. You make it in to a misrepresentation. Inflation is the law of Hubble and not per definition in conflict with a stationary universe a la Arp cs. The latter is most certainly in conflict with BB. That is what got him kicked out from behind his beloved telescope. No moot, you wish, I started off with an admitted mistake, as sir OOPSalot. I don't have to prove a claim I first made that I admit is wrong. I have to prove my point I made later, namely that you lot have claimed something that isn't claimed by the Biceps2 team. Well, I don't see them claim that. And I know why. They will run in exactly the same problem you lot are in, since I subsequently (and systematically) can show via predicting that you lot can't according to your own rules prove what you claim, prove my point that to change a paradigm, you need to adjust your current norms. If I succeed in that proof, which I will when you fail as predicted, then I'll have the burden of proof to show best model. Which is easy for there is no other that fits the criteria if you've got your norms correct. Which I'm in the process of proving. We can talk about that later when you are forced to admit you failed in your claim. Now then prove the Biceps2 team claims that their data fits BB best, or prove it yourself. My first claim is thus that you claimed this and that it is wrong.

Well, I'm not surprised either because these are clever people who know that if they had done that they would of saddled themselves up with a burden of proof they can't comply with. Preprints? Anyway, having an absolute perfect fit of Bicepts2 doesn't prove a thing on the probandum that the BB model is superior to other models and thus warrants more funding then other models. Though the mechanics of the instruments between the ears do have that happen in this in effect democratic scientific way of thinking. Yes that would indeed be too much work, and no, that then doesn't allow you to work that way because it is illogical. Science is per definition; thus as a conditio sine qua non logical. Another major point is that applying rules of the current paradigm towards finding a new paradigm constitutes a logical contradiction. You can only use the rules of the current paradigm to where they apply. The BB question is inherently a need a different paradigm question requiring a different creative purely logic on that goal approach. very few instruments between the ears can comply there especially in an unsafe environment. That is based on current science on these instruments.

I certainly stirred the Big Bang Beehive nest with the flurry of activity it invoked. Not panicked no, shall we say a slight heightend arousal state? Mad Arp's (did I say he has a debilitating mental illness just now?) model is an inflationary model for inflationary only means that it must fit the data of the law of Hubble. Not all models that do that have a BB. The list of Marmet should have several that are consistent with Hubble yet at odds with BB http://www.marmet.org/cosmology/redshift/mechanisms.pdf. The instruments between the ears of 80% of authority driven Astronomers are very sensitive to Arp affairs, so no one including dead Arp has put further work into his model. If you want to prove that his model doesn't fit the data of Biceps2 then you will have to actually do research into that. You lot claimed that the Biceps2 find supports BB more than any other model. Even though as I've pointed out the actual team of Biceps2 don't claim that at all. He who states a position must prove the position. As I keep on pointing out there is another way, around this problem: you do as Einstein / Leonardo etc show how to do it. Yet then you have to adjust your norms both higher and lower. So if you don't want to get hung up in the extremely difficult and painstaking activity of proving your claim, as you per rules as the topic in this thread requires, you have first go. My obligation of proof starts with the observation that you claim something that is not yet proven. I also claim that you can't comply in the way you demand yourself on your own norm of showing mathematically more accuracy to any potential other model of which I gave you a list and Arp. You et al carry that burden and NOT the Boceps2 team. They haven't made the claim. Again I claim you will fail and thus will be forced to use other norms. So I can sit back sipping my champagne at the correct mental table awaiting you either succeed in that proof or come up with an integrated in effect thus a TOE with the mathematics. I predict you will fail that proof as well. For what do you have in that department? The inverted Titanic of Everything of Krauss. I'll certainly be a sport and throw my bottle of Bollinger when that one gets launched. Then we have your mainstream one that is invisible. And we indeed have our Polish friend who I'll call Sensei. He's short of waves to float on that I can provide as some repair strings for qualms with quarks. Only after that does the shaken and not stirred bottle of Bollinger test come into play to see if it gives off a big bang or plop as I predict. Because this thread started off with Biceps2 to which you et all made first and first systematic claim your burden of proof. You'll see you can't comply proving my first point for starters. Nice thing with champagne is you can drink it with all courses. Again your failing to comply to your own norms is my proof that you need to work it like Einstein / Leonardo showed you. And yes, that does comply to the rules.

Again I don't dispute this. I.e. that Bicep2 brilliantly fits its predictions. Yet logically and mathematically that proves bugger all on BB. That is basic. The problem is between the ears but ok, you et all can't see that. It's rather funny the sudden panicky reaction of sir Flame Alot ACG52 cum suis to me cornering you lot.

I don't and haven't disputed this. Show me where I have. You repeatedly say I have. That constitutes a strawman. No quibbling or whatever. I say science is about finding the truth you contradict. Want to quibble / legalize about that?

I agree with you. Sorry that I don't make sense to you but he. I hope that sir Falme alot doesn't. Well in the only way I see that it can be integrated and that contradicts BB. But if you have a better model that does support BB - as long as it is integrated i.e. you answer what waves are and have a verbal TOE at least - then it's ok. IF it is potentially testable that is.

Good question. Ok what is all the data we have to contend with? Quite a lot but anyway I can only take into account what I know of. Introduce more relevant data as several open minded scientists have done in reaction to what I state because that is the only relevant - scientific - reaction. So what do I have on my table for my Einstein/ Leonardo induced 6 year old puzzle? - QM = SM; - GR (&QM) exempt straight flighing massless photons exerting gravity not holding c in the red-shifted curve; - Atom clocks slowing down in a function of the speed they gain; - Waves being a clear function of all observations; - Mounting entropy; - All fully observed functions are cyclic; - Black holes; - Everything small is spiraling/ spinning except photons? etc. etc. Now in verbal logic, if you want / can mathematics or drawings or thought experiments fuse (= integrate) all data in one elegant probable scenario if you can. BTW if you can't reach the mathematical norm then use the verbal logic norm, but integrate all you know to be pure observations. AND close is close enough for - scientifically required ! - further investigation on subsequent logically inferred norms. THEN and only THEN do you scientifically compare and conclude!

Was just in the process of doing that. "Integrating" means taking into account ALL (= integrating) data. AND it means in situations of incomplete data of answering ALL (= integrating) relevant questions. Well then, please do.

Yes, so did I understand that they have found data that fits their expansion based model. So? Still don't get it do you?

Very nice, seems to me that the same critique that I got from a Google post earlier on is in order. And this time I can say see how serious the mistake is! Everybody then seems to be parroting that the Biceps2 find supports BB. Whereas - as a scientific indisputable fact - it bloody red-shifted doesn't!

Stop there. You only have to do the six year old puzzle and you do that in verbal logic. Simple. As Einstein and Leonardo showed you. Simplify and not complicate the issue (Occam dixit). I.e. you got your norms mixed up. I can give you the simple rules you have to adhere to. Try and put your logic on the goal and not on the authority of the paradigm you want to change = the goal namely changing that. Strawman! I agree with their paper! I've even explicitly more than once done that! I've even called their paper and find brilliant. What the hell are you talking about? The Biceps2 group doesn't have to do more than they have done other than prevent others from claiming in their name things that are untrue. I don't say they have to compare anything. Science is indeed not about absolute truth. Yet it is about RELATIVE truth (you know relativity & Einstein) and the appropriate norms. I.e. is it to be held true or false to warrant further funding into BB or other fields of research? Now that is an actual question, that since the Arp debacle has - provable incorrectly - been answered with: BB research. The Biceps2 find or even claim doesn't change that.

Sorry mate, it is. Period. And as Einstein and Leonardo da Vinci and many other creative out of the box thinkers belonging to the 10% instruments that can actually even under pressure perform the required task have again and again shown is, that the only thing you have to do is integrate and then compare. Now then, show me where you have integrated it all? The burden of scientific proof thereof is on you. You claim that the Bicep2 find supports BB and proves to be on the right track. Well then prove it! That can logically AND MATHEMATICALLY - ONLY - be done by integrating. Care to differ (again)? All I have to do is like others state a possible alternate. Sorry to put your Bignose on this logically and mathematically point that you've clearly in your whole scientific carrier done this wrong. As so many as 80%/ 90% other scientists and lawyers and the rest of the populace. So don't feel to bad, but shape up: learn from Einstein: => INTEGRATE! Science is about finding the truth. Well stating that the (BTW brilliant) Bicep2 find supports BB more than others is not only not the truth but a conscious untruth, or in other words a blatant lie! The latter is simple probabilistic (common sense) reasoning. As did Einstein and Leonardo having it much more difficult. This BTW shows that BB is extremely improbable in light of all other models. Any of the 10% creative six year olds can see that if you put ALL the pieces of the puzzle on the table. For this conclusion I don't even have to put my Champagne bubbles on the table BTW,

Well indeed then. Please enlighten me where in the paper they explicitly state that their model of an expanding universe is backed by the found data better than any other model. They as far as I can see didn't. For if they did, they would of jumped the gun. This has nothing to do with legal evidence and proof what so ever but with any scientific evidence and proof. Yet you can of course compare it to a legal casus as I've done with suspect BB also having type O blood. Now lets say that was Bicep1 find. And now we have Bicep2 showing DNA mach of DNA found on the crime scene with BB. Say you are the suspect BB Swansont. Would you accept the fact that you are guilty (whether you are or not) on that basis? This in light of only mention of an other Champagne drinking suspect? Don't think so, yet now you do. Proof as in being more on the right track then any other model / idea.