Strange

I would not say that this is a mathematical definition; it happens to use the + sign. The study of language (linguistics) is, or certainly should be, scientific. But that does mean that language is either mathematical or logical. It is not. The use and development of language is full of completely illogical, and even paradoxical, things. For example, Sturtevant's paradox: “Sound change is regular and causes irregularity; analogy is irregular and causes regularity.” There are probably no universal rules that can be applied to any language; for every nearly-universal rule you will probably find exceptions in actual usage.

In what sense is that a singularity?

This reminds me of a type of joke that was popular in the USSR as a way of commenting on state propaganda and the dishonesty of politicians: "I gave $1000 to a poor kid with cancer. Okay. I didn't give $1000. I gave $500. And it wasn't a poor kid, it was my nephew. And he doesn't have cancer, it was his birthday. But it's the same thing in principle." (I posted this earlier in the thread, but didn't want it to taken as a comment on anything going on in the thread, which I have not read, so I have moved it here.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Yerevan_jokes

That is not logical. We may each have different ideas and different definitions for words, and even use different abstractions. Abstractions have the same level of "existence" as ideas, words and meanings. These are all constructs of the mind. Do we? I'm not sure everyone does. Citation needed. Words are not "real and palpable" (you cannot touch them, for example). They are signs (audible, written, or conveyed in some other form) which we assign meaning to on an arbitrary basis. I think we do largely understand and agree on the process and why it works. And even if we didn't, we know it does work. I'm not sure what you mean by "the meaning of science" - it is an exercise in knowledge gathering which may or may not bring practical benefits. Who said there was any magic involved? That seems to be a bizarre strawman argument

Guilty! I posted a joke in response to something you wrote. Then I realised that not only was it off topic (or, at least, irrelevant to the discussion) but also that it might be interpreted as trying to make a point on one side or the other (for example, you might have interpreted as criticism of what you wrote - it wasn’t). And as I hadn’t followed the discussion I didn’t want to be seen to be taking sides in a political debate. I was going to move it to the jokes thread but I didn’t have time so I just deleted it (we can do that as mods). I probably should have hidden it with a note to explain why ... but I had no time to think about it more carefully

But yours was deliberate. Mine was acausal.

I was going to say something similar. (But wasn't sure it was really necessary.) But I am amazed that a record by a black singer (in the 1950s) should be the first million seller. There're were other factors related to technology and culture that may have played a part. But I would have guessed Elvis, if pressed.

You are right. I was probably taking quite a broad view of what makes up metaphysics. But questions about the nature of reality (and what we can know about that) do relate to science. For example, people often say that science is about us learning the turn about reality. But both the nature of "truth" and the nature of "reality" (and their relationship, if any) would seem to be solidly in the area of metaphysics. I agree completely. I think everyone should be taught the basic concepts of philosophical enquiry. If only so it makes them better equipped to question the claims made by politicians or to identify fraudsters. (But perhaps that is the same thing!)

Does that mean that meta-metaphysics is speculation about speculation about the unknown unknown?

Well, the methodology of science has been partly driven by practical experience but also, to a large extent, by philosophers of science debating the sort of questions I mentioned (and others). So a common view of the scientific method is Popper's criterion of "falsifiability". But that is not universally accepted, and is often considered to be too simplistic to match all of the ways that science develops knowledge. Plus we have to define what we mean by "falsify", what counts as evidence, what does it mean for a given model to be "right" or "wrong" - what does that tell us about the "real world" (if anything). So I think that is one area where philosophy generally, and metaphysics in particular, has a practical use. One could argue that because the scientific method works (produces useful results) then the philosophical ideas behind it also work (and are therefore tested and shown to be correct).

And there you are, engaging in metaphysics! What is does it mean to "know" something? What are the limits to what we can know? Is there more than one way of knowing something? Is knowledge only knowledge if it is scientific knowledge? Does something have to be "predicted, measured or modelled" in order to count as knowledge? Are these things "unknown" (as mistermack said). Not really. (Depending, of course, on your definition of "know") Are these things "unknowable" (as you said). Maybe. But is that a reason not to think about and discuss them? Maybe we can reach some conclusions that most people will accept. That could then become part of our shared knowledge. Is thoughtful analysis of these things "speculation"? I would say not, because that word too often has connotations of idle guesswork.

It isn’t. And you can’t use one debunked idea to support another one

! Moderator Note Moved to Physics - seems more appropriate I can’t quite see what is going on (on my phone) but I would say that the overall effect is due to refraction: the bending, splitting and focusing of light as it passes through the material The bright lines are probably caustics: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caustic_(optics)

Today I learned that Harry Belafonte's 1956 album Calypso was the first album in the US to sell more than a million copies. Sadly, this is because Irving Burgie, who wrote most of the songs, died today.

Meet Dunning-Kruger

I assume some (or all) of this is copied from the document. If so, it would be a good idea if you could make it clear which parts you have copied, perhaps using the Quote function. ! Moderator Note I don't think this belongs in Speculations - there is no science here. I'm not sure there is anything to discuss, but I will move it to The Lounge in case anyone does want to comment on it.

Not really. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics For a much more detailed discussion of the subject: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

That is roughly right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_zero But we can cool things down to within a fraction of a degree of absolute zero, for example, 0.00036 K https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2017/01/nist-physicists-squeeze-light-cool-microscopic-drum-below-quantum-limit This is many times colder than any naturally occurring temperature, in space or anywhere else. And even creating a perfect vacuum doesn't help, because you still have the equipment you are using to reduce the temperature, which will be above absolute zero. That Wikipedia page mentions an even lower temperature:

I wouldn’t waste time on it. It looks like the deranged ramblings of someone with mental health or drug problems. If they can’t be bothered to explain clearly, it is not up to others to spend time on it.

As I understand it, the Higgs field emerged in the same symmetry breaking at the end of inflation that caused the various force to emerge. So neither mass nor the particle we know would have existed before then. But I'm still not quite sure what the point is. Both mass and energy are properties of "things". So without "things" there can be no property called mass. So you can't have mass without things (and things with mass are what you call objects). But by referring to when these things came into existence, you are talking about a time before we have any detailed theories. It is thought that the strong force was unified with the electroweak, and maybe gravity. But I'm not sure how well understood this is.

This is not an area I know much about, but my understanding is that most of the particles we know of did not exist in the earliest time because all the forces are unified into a single force. I don't think we have any physics that can tells us what existed then, but it would have been particles very different then we know now (because current particles all interact differently with each of the forces). Maybe this means there would have been only one type of particle. I don't know. But there is no such thing as "energy particles". Energy, like mass, is just a property of particles. It is your definition of "object" that is circular: What is mass? Mass is a property of objects. What is an object? Something that has the property of mass. In other words, mass is a property of things that have mass as a property. Or, objects are things that have the properties of objects. So: can you have mass without an "object"? According to this definition, no.

At the earliest time, there were no 'objects" (with or without mass). Particles gained their mass as inflation ended, the symmetries unifying the fundamental forces broke and the Higgs field took on a non-zero value. So, by your definition, massless particles becomes "objects" at that point. So your definition of "object" is circular: it is something that has mass, but only things that have mass are called "objects". I don't think your thoughts are wrong, necessarily, but I think you are trying to find a way to make the science fit with your thoughts. (Which is what your definition of object seems to be designed to do.) There are various ways the "size" of a fundamental particle can be defined. The probability of finding it in a particular location (which is what that sentences seems to be referring to, and how electron orbitals are defined) or the interaction cross area or the various other ways (for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electron_radius) (By the way, when you quote something it would be useful if you provide a link to the source.)

Correct. Elementary particles are dimensionless.

So it sounds as if your definition of "object" is anything that has mass. With that definition, the answer to your question is (by definition): you can't have mass without an object. (In these sort of philosophical questions, the answers often come down to "how do you define X".) The only bit that sounds a little dubious (on a metaphysical level) is: 'the “object” has to exist before mass can be a property of it'. Which suggests that object have to exist without mass before they can gain mass. One could ask how for long they have to exist without mass, and various other related questions. But I don't think that is a very useful line of thought. An interesting question: do you consider that things which don't have mass can be objects too? For example is a photon (or a lightwave) an object? Also, there is a difference between your definition of object and the usual definition of matter (which is something that has mass and some physical extent; ie it takes up space). Just food for thought...

Maybe we need a Disgusting Medical Anecdotes section