Frank Sinatra is not a poached egg

[Davy_Jones]

4 hours ago, Davy_Jones said:

I'd like to direct the following to @Markus Hanke and @TheVat with regards your recent remarks [. . . ]

Don't the witchhunters in the thread have other witches to burn?

Edited September 14, 2021 by Davy_Jones

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Davy_Jones said:

Don't the witchhunters in the thread have other witches to burn?

Funny philosophical stance you have, treating anyone that disagrees with you and  showing you wrong as witch hunters. A shame you do not have the more desirable philosphical stance of the great man you have mis-quoted in Albert Einstein and the ability to admit to error and mistakes. 

Edited September 14, 2021 by beecee

[Markus Hanke]

21 hours ago, studiot said:

Consider a brick wall.

In my reality the wall, the bricks and the mineral particles that make up the bricks and mortar are all simultaneously real.

Yes, I agree. I didn’t mean to apply anything different in my post; apologies if it gave that impression. 

What I attempted to say is what you see depends on how you look - using human eyes, you see only bricks and mortar. Add a microscope, and you see minerals as well, and both are true. But what if you were to only look at it at a much smaller scale? What if you were a virus sitting on that wall? You might see minerals as well (the size of Mount Everest!), but would you be able to infer bricks and mortar? Or the house?

A different example: say you have access only to atomic scales. You know all there is to know about the properties of hydrogen and oxygen, and how they combine, and their dynamics. Would you be guaranteed to be able to infer the concept of ‘liquid water’ as we know it on human scales?

It’s scale dependence in that sense. In other words, the question is about scale, emergence, and reductionism. Does knowing about minerals necessarily allow you to know about the house?

7 hours ago, Davy_Jones said:

No doubt I'm missing something obvious here and making a fool of myself. But, hey, we live and learn. Your explanation would be greatly appreciated.

It’s not really obvious, but what you are missing is that our universe empirically is in violation of Bell’s Theorem. That means that local realism cannot hold on quantum scales. You need to let go either of realism, locality, or both. All three of these hold major philosophical challenges.

As for soccer ball - it is both local and real, in the scientific sense of these terms. Simultaneously, the elementary constituents making up that ball empirically are not. So what gives?

PS. Just to add a bit more clarity as to what I am getting at @studiot: the laws that govern ‘reality’ are not scale-invariant; you can’t use classical mechanics to describe an atom, use Navier-Stokes equation to describe a quark-gluon plasma, or quantum field theory to describe a galaxy. A bit flippant - but between us, I think you know what I mean. So the question is: does knowledge of the laws on any given scale - say eg quantum mechanics - necessarily imply knowledge of all dynamics on larger scales? Alternatively, are all dynamics on this given scale uniquely determined by whatever goes on an smaller scales? How could one formally (dis-)prove this? Can one formally prove that reductionism holds (or not)?

This is supremely important. For example, we accept that laws differ as we go to small scales. But at the same time, we quietly assume that solar-system scale laws apply unchanged to all larger scales as well. Now, this may well be the case, but how do we actually know this for certain? Historically, everytime we investigated new scales, we had to adjust our paradigms - so it’s not like there’s even a historical precedent for this assumption. 

Edited September 14, 2021 by Markus Hanke

[studiot]

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Yes, I agree. I didn’t mean to apply anything different in my post; apologies if it gave that impression. 

What I attempted to say is what you see depends on how you look - using human eyes, you see only bricks and mortar. Add a microscope, and you see minerals as well, and both are true. But what if you were to only look at it at a much smaller scale? What if you were a virus sitting on that wall? You might see minerals as well (the size of Mount Everest!), but would you be able to infer bricks and mortar? Or the house?

A different example: say you have access only to atomic scales. You know all there is to know about the properties of hydrogen and oxygen, and how they combine, and their dynamics. Would you be guaranteed to be able to infer the concept of ‘liquid water’ as we know it on human scales?

It’s scale dependence in that sense. In other words, the question is about scale, emergence, and reductionism. Does knowing about minerals necessarily allow you to know about the house?

It’s not really obvious, but what you are missing is that our universe empirically is in violation of Bell’s Theorem. That means that local realism cannot hold on quantum scales. You need to let go either of realism, locality, or both. All three of these hold major philosophical challenges.

As for soccer ball - it is both local and real, in the scientific sense of these terms. Simultaneously, the elementary constituents making up that ball empirically are not. So what gives?

PS. Just to add a bit more clarity as to what I am getting at @studiot: the laws that govern ‘reality’ are not scale-invariant; you can’t use classical mechanics to describe an atom, use Navier-Stokes equation to describe a quark-gluon plasma, or quantum field theory to describe a galaxy. A bit flippant - but between us, I think you know what I mean. So the question is: does knowledge of the laws on any given scale - say eg quantum mechanics - necessarily imply knowledge of all dynamics on larger scales? Alternatively, are all dynamics on this given scale uniquely determined by whatever goes on an smaller scales? How could one formally (dis-)prove this? Can one formally prove that reductionism holds (or not)?

This is supremely important. For example, we accept that laws differ as we go to small scales. But at the same time, we quietly assume that solar-system scale laws apply unchanged to all larger scales as well. Now, this may well be the case, but how do we actually know this for certain? Historically, everytime we investigated new scales, we had to adjust our paradigms - so it’s not like there’s even a historical precedent for this assumption. 

 

Hi Markus, thanks for your reply.

I'm sorry but that's too one sided.

It's not true to say that the laws of Physics are scale dependant per se.

It would be better to say that physical structures formed from interactions and combinations of these laws may be scale dependant.

Some structures may only form at certain 'scales', such as colloidal suspensions, critical fission masses and black holes.

It is true to say that different laws obey different variation relations with distance and/or or time

This results in different laws predominating at different distance or time separations.

I define 'local' as within a given region of space containing the subject(s) of interest.

So clearly different physical structures can arise depending upon the size or extent of the 'locality'

Exceptions to this might be regions with a huge extent in one dimension,but a minute extent in other dimensions.

So shape is also significant.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

These arguments seemed eerily familiar, and after some digging the staff has determined that Davy_Jones is Reg Prescott, a previously banned user. The feeling of deja vu was because we had, in fact, done this before. Right down to the citing of Frank Sinatra in a thread title.

If you find merit in the discussion please continue, but Davy/Reg will not be participating

 

[TheVat]

Another way to view scale dependence is to see some properties as emergent.   If you have a couple water molecules, they aren't wet.   Pull back to a macro scale,  with billions of them,  at the right temperature range,  and you get wet.   I have no problem with viewing the world as having all sorts of emergent properties,  especially where you have a scale where tiny entities can be viewed in the aggregate.  The way we get into trouble is when we start to assign causal powers to aggregates -- as in the case of a billion neurons giving rise to consciousness, and then we are tempted to say that consciousness itself has holistic causal powers that act on the whole aggregate.  Downward causation is a challenge to the physicalist view of reality.  

 

PS -  I really appreciate Reg/Davy raising issues about all this that get people thinking about how they use words to refer to large ungainly abstractions.   So I'll miss him,  warts and all.   

[Phi for All]

34 minutes ago, TheVat said:

PS -  I really appreciate Reg/Davy raising issues about all this that get people thinking about how they use words to refer to large ungainly abstractions.   So I'll miss him,  warts and all.   

I'm not as enamored of the "Archie Bunker" perspective as a negative example. Whatever a person's opinion, it's intellectually dishonest to hold anyone to their exact words while tap-dancing around your own. I'm always appalled when intelligent people use words to obfuscate instead of elucidate. It's mental snake oil, imo.

[MigL]

6 hours ago, studiot said:

It's not true to say that the laws of Physics are scale dependant per se.

It would be better to say that physical structures formed from interactions and combinations of these laws may be scale dependant.

Isn't the bolded part exactly what Physics does ?
Thereby making Markus' statements, about Physics, 'true'.
( or am I just Philosophising ? 😄 )

 

I also think Davy_Jones brought some interesting topics to the forum that got people participating again.
I must say, I did enjoy his brief time here.

Edited September 14, 2021 by MigL

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I also think Davy_Jones brought some interesting topics to the forum that got people participating again.
I must say, I did enjoy his brief time here.

I'll stop being so critical then. Quantity over quality, controversy over conciseness. Got it.

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I'm not as enamored of the "Archie Bunker" perspective as a negative example. Whatever a person's opinion, it's intellectually dishonest to hold anyone to their exact words while tap-dancing around your own. I'm always appalled when intelligent people use words to obfuscate instead of elucidate. It's mental snake oil, imo.

That certainly covers his methodology to a "T"...but I won't pidgeon hole you for that! 😉

 

[studiot]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

sn't the bolded part exactly what Physics does ?
Thereby making Markus' statements, about Physics, 'true'.
( or am I just Philosophising ? 😄 )

 

I also think Davy_Jones brought some interesting topics to the forum that got people participating again.
I must say, I did enjoy his brief time here.

Yes of course the business of Physics is to examine the interactions of its laws and the resulting structures in excruciatingly fine detail, as well as discovering and enunciating the laws themselves.

But my point is that it is not the laws that can be scale dependent but the results of their interactions.

Some are some are equally definitely not and some vary as scale varies.

I gave some examples, but I am surprised considering one  I have not mentioned, that cosmologists do not accept this since the spectra resulting from electron transitions and molecular vibrations are held to be that same at either end of the universe as on Earth.

How's that for scale ?

 

I do agree with your comment abour Reg/Davy/...? although it would have been nice if he knew when to call time on antics.

Edited September 14, 2021 by studiot

[Markus Hanke]

50 minutes ago, studiot said:

But my point is that it is not the laws that can be scale dependent but the results of their interactions.

That’s an interesting perspective, I’ve never looked at it quite in that way. Thank you for bringing that in here.

Given this, how would you characterise the relationship between QM/EM that governs the interaction between individual H2O molecules, and Navier-Stokes that describes the dynamics of very large ensembles of such molecules (ie flows of liquid water, for example)? The dynamics at play are remarkably different, it seems to me.

58 minutes ago, studiot said:

the spectra resulting from electron transitions and molecular vibrations are held to be that same at either end of the universe as on Earth.

I don’t quite get this example, since the scale this process (molecular vibrations) happens on is the same both here and far away. They’re just separated in space.

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I'll stop being so critical then. Quantity over quality, controversy over conciseness. Got it.

Unless I'm misreading things, and adding in my own thoughts, I suspect it is not Davy that is missed but the conversations he generated among the other members.

I'm thrilled he is gone as I hate his type of approach to discussion. I find it very rude and disingenuous. On the other hand, like with the many trolls who occasionally roam our halls, I learned a lot as people made honest attempts to educate him. It wasn't Davy who provided any insights, it was everyone else.

I've never enjoyed burst water pipes, losing a job, or a serious illness in the family, but I am always better educated once it is over.

[TheVat]

I didn't condone the sealioning,  just meant I missed the Reg Prescott who brought a lot of interesting philosophy to his former haunt at my erstwhile website.   When he's not playing the games,  he can be quite the scholar and introduce a fascinating array of colorful characters in the philosophy of science and make them more understandable.   

Maybe I just don't understand the Scots.   

 

[beecee]

33 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm thrilled he is gone as I hate his type of approach to discussion. I find it very rude and disingenuous. On the other hand, like with the many trolls who occasionally roam our halls, I learned a lot as people made honest attempts to educate him. It wasn't Davy who provided any insights, it was everyone else.

I was rather nonplussed that he could continue to misconstrue and misquote what others supposedly were saying, and then when confronted with that, just ignored it and continued on his merry way. Yes annoying and disingenuous to say the least.

[MigL]

On 9/14/2021 at 4:30 PM, Phi for All said:

I'll stop being so critical then. Quantity over quality, controversy over conciseness. Got it.

I thought he was too concise, to the point of being absurd.
Ascribing only one specific meaning, to words the general population has different meanings for. And attempting this at length, over three threads ( is that the quantity part ? ).
His fault was trying ( insisting actually ) to make us all think and communicate like Philosophers.
( sometimes, not always, that might not be a bad idea )

His posts had nothing to do with his getting banned.
It was the 'sock-puppetry' rules, not posting style or content.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

His posts had nothing to do with his getting banned.
It was the 'sock-puppetry' rules, not posting style or content.

His posting style got him banned the first time. There’s a good chance it would have happened again.

[MigL]

This is probably off topic in this thread Swansont, so please move or split off.

This site purports to be a teaching/learning discussion site.
Learning implies a modification/expansion of your thinking.
So why assume, as the sock puppet rule does, that someone, who use to be a jackass, and got banned, has learned nothing from the interaction, and deserves to be automatically banned ( even while posting some interesting/thought-provoking and controversial questions ).

I did agree to these rules on joining, so I'm not asking for a change of the rules; just an explanation of the thinking behind that particular rule.

[Phi for All]

23 hours ago, MigL said:

His posts had nothing to do with his getting banned.
It was the 'sock-puppetry' rules, not posting style or content.

Just like tax evasion finally took Al Capone off the streets. His posts were the real crime though, imo.

I understand you think his style of controversy was entertaining and lively, but having several posts in a thread over a short time is meaningless if people argue past each other or purposely obfuscate what could have been enlightening. For me, it was like trying to seriously explain something to a person, and their reply is to throw popcorn in my face.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

This is probably off topic in this thread Swansont, so please move or split off.

This site purports to be a teaching/learning discussion site.
Learning implies a modification/expansion of your thinking.
So why assume, as the sock puppet rule does, that someone, who use to be a jackass, and got banned, has learned nothing from the interaction, and deserves to be automatically banned ( even while posting some interesting/thought-provoking and controversial questions ).

I did agree to these rules on joining, so I'm not asking for a change of the rules; just an explanation of the thinking behind that particular rule.

There has been at least one member that registered another account after being banned, and was allowed to remain after discovery. Precisely because they changed their behavior. Some have contacted us up front and asked for a second chance some were denied, some were given another chance.

Many sockpuppets are obvious because they don’t. Which is true in this case - these are pretty much the same arguments previously presented, with violations of the rules (persistent fallacies, arguing in bad faith) so I don’t see this as a case of having learned anything.

The bigger picture is how much effort the staff are willing to expend after having dealt with numerous rules violations that led to the first banning. Bridges are often burned.

[MigL]

22 hours ago, swansont said:

There has been at least one member that registered another account after being banned, and was allowed to remain after discovery. Precisely because they changed their behavior. Some have contacted us up front and asked for a second chance some were denied, some were given another chance.

Thanks for clearing that up, Phi and Swansont.
I wasn't aware of the above cases; at least a few people have stopped 'throwing popcorn in our faces'.

I did get something out of the discussion, such as knowledge is a 'justified true belief', which is still only a belief unless you ascribe one particular meaning to the word 'true', at least in my mind. Maybe Eise will elaborate, one day.
And I hope Davy_Jones got some insights into Physics, and how it works, so that it wasn't a total wasteof time for all.

[beecee]

23 hours ago, swansont said:

There has been at least one member that registered another account after being banned, and was allowed to remain after discovery. Precisely because they changed their behavior. Some have contacted us up front and asked for a second chance some were denied, some were given another chance.

Many sockpuppets are obvious because they don’t. Which is true in this case - these are pretty much the same arguments previously presented, with violations of the rules (persistent fallacies, arguing in bad faith) so I don’t see this as a case of having learned anything.

The bigger picture is how much effort the staff are willing to expend after having dealt with numerous rules violations that led to the first banning. Bridges are often burned.

A nice flexible consitution if I may say so. Nice to see.