I agree with everything that you've said. You've done a great video. You're points have been spot on, and many point just accept what science as if it's gospel. You've pointed out the empirical problems (relying on things we don't observe). You've pointed out theory laden observation. You've pointed out some of the fictional aspects (the AS IF way of science). Not to mention science relies on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Hence, science isn't getting at hidden causes. It can't.
All scientific concepts are assumptions made to the best understanding by the mind at the time. I love the way the "scientists" have dominion over reality when they intrinsically have no idea at all, just a logical asssumption. And all logic is constructed by the mind. Yes youre right, no scientisct can show you waht charge looks like, or what gravity actually is, because the physical world is the effect of something that we cant perceive. Id love to have a conversation over skype .
You ask how can you explain gravity / charges attracting / etc but at some point you have to have something that just is, something that is the ultimate nature of reality. Theories have two purposes: explanation and prediction. Current physics seems to make really good predictions. You say that it doesn't actually explain anything, but things can only be explained in terms of some other model, because the ultimate nature of reality simply is and cannot be explained.
to some extent i agree. the notion of "ultimate nature" is beyond rationalizing. so, as far as im concerned, the best you can do is create an objective presentation of the shapes of hypothetical objects, of definitions, and of the initial scene. this method stands on its own epistemological feet. theories can be developed from what is presented in the hypothesis, and are explanations which make use of physical objects.
whether or not a theory is "true" seems like an entirely different matter. i think what is being developed is a physical model that deals with the only objective and inherent thing you can ascribe to an object - shape. the explanation follows from the shape.
so i think maybe i agree w/you if you mean that there is a sort of gap between the physical model and reality. one is something developed in the mind, the other is what is actually out in the world.
but as far as understanding the causal mechanism behind observed phenomena, i think this method is the only one available to human beings b/c the very notion of a physical explanation presupposes the category of shape.
and i think some things will have to just be taken at face value, and can't be explained, like if or why objects maintain their separateness when they collide.
excellent video - one thing I would like to nitpick is your idea that if there were a God he would be some man in space creating things...... Well he wouldn't have to be a "man", he could just be some bizarre thing that doesn't even resemble a man.
I've always considered the curving of space time to be nonsensical garbage, despite several expert physicists believing it as their dogma. Tesla considered it to be garbage science. It's more of a cute mathematical metaphor since Einstein was more of a numbers person than an inventor of actual physical things.
@HugNow LoL, I could never get my head around how the curving of space time explaineds what it is supposed to explain. It's just created from logical concepts not what is actually happening in life. I can see in concept but concept is just... concept
i am saying that the only way to comprehend the meaning of the words "physical explanation" is to assert that a physical explanation follows logically from shape. i don't deny the precision and accuracy of any measurements, i deny that they or their associated equations explain anything.
if the shape of the objects cannot be visually imagined, then i don't see how there could be what is called "physical explanation."
so yes, it may be that the universe is beyond comprehension through such a method. when you say "absolute theory," what do you mean? i don't think that hypothesizing objects w/shape means that you are asserting anything "absolute", like anything about the nature of reality itself, if that's what you mean. i just think that you must start with a physical model, ie, visualizable objects with shape, define the words you'll be using, paint the initial scene, then theorize as to an explanation.
Why is it for you that it can not be understood? I mean the god created the universe part?
As to the gps argument for relativity it's bs the reason the clocks are different is because they are opperating at different pressures. If I take the clock in my bathroom and send it to the bottom of the ocean it wont work the same I bet.
because A) i don't think god is a coherent concept, and B) b/c i can't understand the mechanism behind something coming from nothing. i can imagine shape popping in and growing, but that doesn't at all help me to answer the question, "how can something be created from nothing?" if i accepted the notion of creation ex nihilo i would have no need to search for the cause of gravity. my "explanation" would just be "i can imagine objects coming together, now ive explained attraction."
@junior00bacon00chee Some things may not have a mechanism behind it at least not one that can be understood. To suggest that all things in existance can be understood is more of an absurd ground to stand on as is the belief in god imo.
"To suggest that all things in existance can be understood"
when did i say this?
i don't think there is a rational way to explain creation in general. maybe the universe is eternal. as far as i am concerned the question is beyond the scope of the scientific method.
okay. the problem is that when you say "god" what are you referring to? i have no ability to conceive of "god" any more than "schmod." how can we even argue about whether or not something exists if we cannot communicate exactly the meaning of the words we are using?
in fact, i vehemently deny that consciousness can be explained, yet i am a witness to its existence at every waking moment, so i certainly don't think all things in existence can be understood or visualized.
certainly, the human ability to imagine the general category of shape is based upon the biology of the brain, etc. my point is that the word "explanation" in physics only makes sense if it refers to a mechanism which can be imagined. sure, the explanation may be questionable b/c who knows how the brain works or what reality IS, but to use shape to explain is objective and, IMO, necessary for explanation in physics.
okay, fair enough, i think other people maybe have been insinuating this point.
by visualization i don't mean directly seeing, i mean imagining the shape. i believe that any explanation must follow from shape, or else it does not qualify as physical explanation. w/o shape i cannot conceive of the physical explanation for a given observed phenomenon.
imagining shapes may be ultimately based upon the sense of vision, so it is then really a posteriori. i think the important distinction is that in order to even make sense out of a measurement one must attempt to visualize the relationship between the instrument and that which is being measured, and this necessitates that one make use of the general logical category of shape. the human mind may not be capable of visualizing what is going on in the U, but that means physics is a dead end, IMO.
the distinction between "a priori" and "a posteriori" then is a methodological one IMO, meaning that to interpret any measurement requires a visualization. so the human mind may be inadequate to understand reality, and in fact i wholeheartedly believe this to be true, but w/o shape there can be no explanation in physics. at that point all you have is a description of what hypothetical measurement you would expect to get at various points.
that seems to be the opinion of most physicists today, and i strongly disagree. the explanation follows from the visualizing of the shape of the objects involved. otherwise, there is no explanation, only a description. mathematical equations can tell me about, hypothetically, what measurements i would get, but they explain nothing.
i would say that in physics visualization is the criterion for being rational.
Hans Hoppe has a nice article on this wherein he tries to delve into the aprioristic foundations of geometry and by extension physics in his Economics & Ethics of Private Property. I think Steve Wolfram also goes for an aprioristic grounding of physics.
yes, i am saying that einstein did not explain gravity. bending of space is beyond comprehension, so my question is how can something be an explanation if it can't even be conceived?
einstein's equations can get the numbers right, so they may be useful, but there is no physical interpretation for them. on top of that there are anomalies which, even if i agreed with the empiricists, would disconfirm both einstein's and newton's equations.
@junior00bacon00chee well maybe it is becouse the human mind is not capable of imagining abstract things like quantum mechanics and general relativity, because it had no use for the survival of our species, dont you think it is kind of arrogant to presume that becouse you cant properly visualise something it must be inacurate, and besides einstein could visualise the curvature of space, although it did take some effort.
if you cannot visualize what is going on, then how could there possibly be an explanation? again, i'm not saying einstein's equations don't get the numbers right, i'm saying that einstein absolutely could not visualize the "bending of space." it's not a matter of effort, it's a matter of the very notion itself being inconceivable.
if the human mind is not capable of understanding such abstractions then they are just pragmatic tools for developing technology, not explanations!
yes, the numbers must be right, otherwise gps wouldn't work and all that, but if the equations accurately predict what will happen then how could reality be diferent from what the numbers imply? and again, as einstein (supposedly) said, the human's perception of the universe is really quite flawed, we should not assume that just becouse we might not be able to comprehend something it is not the reality, hystory told us many times that the math doesn't lie.
okay what you are saying i think really gets to the heart of the issue.
for any given measurement there could be many different physical interpretations. for example, i could measure velocity...but what am i measuring the velocity of, a particle? the propagation of a wave? torsion along a rope?
there are in fact several different interpretations given by mainstream scientists for einsteins eqs. my point is that if it can't be visualized then physical explanation is impossible.
the example you gave, that for a measurement there could be many deieferent physical explanations aplies only when you begin with the results of the measurement, normaly you begin with measuring something and so you know what is measured. in the example of general relativity einstein began bij imagining the curvature of space, and then found the equations. and again, sorry if i misinterprete your position, this is still hard to wrap my head around (ironicly).
@junior00bacon00chee also, while i dont think the inablility to visualise something means it isn't reality is true per se, in some situations it might be. so i guess i acknowledge your point, but on a more humble scale, our visualisation is based on our vision, and on what we can imagine based on the things we have seen, and since the human eye is incapable of seeying many of the wavelengths we should not presume visualisation is capable of representing all of reality. peace
i dunno, i'm no authority on physics either but i imagine that if something can't be visualized internally, it is possible that it is simply beyond the scope of one's comprehension. either because of ignorance or inadequate cognitive ability. we're not gods we're just smarter apes. mises actually said something to that effect in human action
@MaikUniversum Yes! That's exactly what I was thinking about recently.
I tried to research the topic. Everyone ridicules ICP for asking questions when clearly that is what philosophy is all about. And, say, the wikipedia article for one does not in the least bit explain how magnetism actually functions, but is a circle jerk of circular and self- references. Of course there are explanations for such things, but they are certainly not widely known, if at all.
Theories can be disconformed by finding a concequence of the theory which isn't found in the other theories and then do measurements to find that effect. This has been done for QM and General Relativity. Only for string theory no such measurements can be performed because the effects occur at a too small area to be measured.
The Gen. Rel. area is a visualisation. Doesn't mean it's irrational, counter-intuitive perhaps. But it's true, you can only ask 3 times 'why' and then nobody has an answer
Does this mean no science about sound? Because sound can not be visualized. It seems like the sense organ which detects electro magnetic radiation in a certain wave lengths.
The grid in general relativity is a 2D visualization with the 3rd dimension containing the bending. In reality space is 3D and bending is in the 4th dimension.
Special relativity just starts from the axiom that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, I am really worried you call this rational and link it ..
what is sound, theoretically, but vibrations? vibrations can be visualized. waves can be visualized.
"In reality space is 3D and bending is in the 4th dimension." that can be described mathematically, but there is no physical interpretation, which is why they resort to the grid. so there is no comprehensible explanation for gravity coming from GR.
@junior00bacon00chee You will never be able to visualize sound it self. You can visualize a representation of sound, but not the sound itself. You can not visualize smell either and touch no either. Why you single out visual is a mystery to me.
You will never be able to visualize electrons or positrons, so they do not exist either. Energy, fields, all nonsense? Come on, get out of here. Read a physics book.
what are you talking about? sound is transferred somehow, right? there is a mechanism which takes my voice go to your ear, ie, disturbances in the air. what do you mean "sound itself?" like the actual conscious experience of sound? no, obviously that cannot be visualized.
what i am saying is there is no explanation for the observed effects, obviously i do not deny something like that iron filings line up under a magnetic "field."
@modelmark The pressure changes you can not see, fields you can not see, neither gravity nor magnetic fields. You can only see the effects of gravity and magnetic fields and pressure changes. Just like iron filings, you can observe the bending of space by gravitational fields. This is called gravitational lensing and is not materially different from the visual effect of iron filings following the magnetic field lines.
by visualize i mean imagine the shapes involved, not directly see, like observe.
a "field" is a mathematical description of the force at each point, there is no physical interpretation for what is going on. what is the shape of a field? why do iron filings line up under a magnetic "field?"
and you can't observe the bending of space, only the alleged effects of space bending. there are other possible explanations for gravitational lensing.
@junior00bacon00chee like you can't directly observe the bending of space, you can't observe directly the magnetic field. You can only see the effects.So you don't believe in the magnetic field? Do you have other explanations for the effects of magnetic fields, electric fields, gravitational fields?
What is your alternative explanation of gravitational lensing?
Do you also diss special relativity and everything of Newton, Maxwell, Gallileo?
i don't believe in the magnetic "field" b/c those words refer only to a mathematical equation which can tell you, hypothetically, what measurements you would get if you placed a magnetometer at all those locations. of course, i do not deny that SOMETHING is there pushing on those iron filings.
gaede has an interesting alternative, but i don't fully agree with it.
what i am rejecting is pure empiricism, so yes i have major problems with those guys.
@junior00bacon00chee I think you do not have any idea what you are messing with. The amount of empirical observations you have to realign is monumental. The lifespan of muons, measured time dilation and length contraction, effect of masses on the bending of light, the constant speed o light, but also all the physics used to get the computer working you are typing on, the PET and MRI scanners, which all heavily depend on Maxwell's equations. It's insane.
Science is nothing but speculation without verification. If X is true we should see Y. Therefore if we don't see Y, X is false. We see Y. We haven't shown X is true absolutely, but we have strengthened the case. This is what science is. It is not about all-encompassing explanations.
I watched many of Gaede's videos after you told me about him. I found them interesting but I eventually saw he was holding science to a standard of truth that the actual practitioners (Newton, Faraday, Einstein, Tesla, Feynman, etc) never held it too. Also, him giving his alternative "helical rope" explanation for various stuff and then saying he doesn't have to experiment or verify because that is "just politicking" is largely unsatisfying.
haha. democracy isn't bad, only statist democracy, where you extort people and tell them how to live. otherwise i've got nothing against voting. in fact, voluntary voting can be quite useful.
@junior00bacon00chee "A little knowledge that acts is worth infinitely more than much knowledge that is idle." Kahlil Gibran = meaning a lil Force goes a Long way.
The guy's just redefining shit arbitrarily and attempting to discard well-founded models that predict and describe rather well. I'm all for improving upon the foundations, but his arguments against the entirety of physics are not convincing to me.
i think BG has some good points. i agree that the current mathematical models predict pretty well, but as far as i'm concerned they don't explain anything.
@junior00bacon00chee I should also note that he does not understand speciation. At the bottom of the page, he has some shit about this (homo sapiens sapiens) being the last hominid species, showing cartoony images of other hominids dying off. This doesn't necessarily discredit his views on science despite his biological illiteracy, but it does ramp up the skepticism on my part.
fair enough. i also disagree with his views on that issue, and actually told him so, to which he replied that he gets that a lot. a lot of people will agree with his views on physics, but then disagree with his thread theory or with his whole last generation on earth thing.
@junior00bacon00chee Your points in the video about entities not having intrinsic measurements is of course correct. Measurement is a model we use that spawns objectivity from arbitrariness - i.e. two different people, so long as they are using identical units, will arrive at consistent measurements. But any person who thinks these things out and recognizes the abstractions will not disagree with you at all.
@doucher337 Electrical fields are also a model to explain and in some sense vaguely visualize observations regarding electron transfer, and I see no reason why this being the case would invalidate electrical theory.
Admittedly, quantum mechanics is necessarily the most abstract and detached field of physics. It makes sense then that much of this will be founded in calculus derived from the scant observations that can be made in that field and from the rest of physics in general.
I think physics is unintegrated and the understanding is only superficial, as you said those very fundamental concepts like gravity, electromagnetism, mass, space and time are left unexplained and seen only as mathematical objects, like quantum mechanics for example.
Take electrical charge, we have only a description of it as a difference of potential, but why it is called that? Well because you have an imbalance and a flow in the electromagnetic field that drives the electrons.
yeah i've spent so much time trying to understand electricity, i can't make sense of any of it, voltage, charge, amperage, etc. i think gaede is right, that the problem is that while all of these experiments wrt electricity have been very useful, no one can actually visualize what is going on. there are some very useful descriptions, but no explanations. even the notion of electrons flowing from negative to positive doesn't make sense b/c why do opposites attract? i can't understand it.
@junior00bacon00chee I go with the so called conventional current picture of electricity, that positive flows to negative (obviously) The idea of the electron current (flow from negative to positive) is due to the misconception and the mathematical object that electrons have charge, when they actually move with charge.
I've actually heard people say it doesn't matter, because either way the circuit works, i mean are they serious? It is a very important concept of what is actually going on.
yeah, i definitely agree that what is going on is important, that's why i've never understood electricity. and i think you are correct about current flowing from pos to neg, and it being visualized as electrons heading towards the positive.
my allegation towards the physicists would be that they have no explanation for either direction of flow, on top of the allegation that they have converted "charge," a measurement, ie, a relationship, into an object which can then be moved.
Physics cannot explain such as tings opposites attract, gravity works at a distance, etc because in their eyes they are axioms. If "axioms" could be explained they would not be axioms. They would be true statements...but they would not be axioms in which to lay the foundations of physics.
I don't think EVERYTHING can be explained. I think there are some things you just simply have to accept without necessarily being able to explain them.
The thing that always bugged me about space-time models is why are they flat? If you get you're telescope out the universe is not flat. It is 3d. I've never understood why every space-time model is flat. It seems to go against empiricle evidence
yeah, as far as i understand it's supposed to be another "trick" to help visualize something which can't be visualized. the question is what gives rise to the contour of the grid? if what lies just above the grid is space, what accounts for the contour? what is the dark stuff that floats above "space?" i have no idea.
all of this can be described mathematically, but it's visually inconceivable.
@junior00bacon00chee But that seems so completely backwards. Mathematics is an abstract logical science. When there is a contraction between logic and evidence...evidence always wins.
yeah, i think the problem is that math can describe anything, and what ends up happening is they will come up with some mathematical relationships and then attempt to come up with some kind of physical interpretation, but that leads to either reification or concepts which can't at all be visualized.
Yeah, but the reason why you don't see other objects bending and shapping space liked the earth and the sun is because there are not that many objects around whos mass is large enough to distort the fabric of space-time. How is mass not a quantity inherent to an object when in every frame of reference at least on the macroscopic level, the quantity of mass remains constant. I think all physics theories are incomplete because they only describe matter in different contexts.
as far as i understand, mass is measured as gravitational mass or inertial mass, but defined as quantity of matter (a definition they never actually use). it only "remains constant" if you conceive of mass as "quantity of matter." this notion would not be a magnitude, like a measurement, but an actual counting of some fundamental unit of matter. however, this notion of mass, if held consistently, would destroy relativity and QM.
Something else to note is that while reification might be pervasive, remember that what gives us the memory and data to visualize starts with observations.
Also, I don't know what you mean by "irrational objects/explanations".
If you mean, "they don't make sense or there are issues visualizing them" that's rather subjective.
If you mean, "they are complete bs", then why is there even evidence of any of them in the first place.
but there may be multiple possible explanations for any given observation, such as an apple falling to the earth. according to gaede, and i agree with him, shape is the fundamental category of physics. you have to presuppose the shape of the objects in an experiment in order to interpret your measurements, so you must start a priori.
they are irrational b/c they cannot be visualized.
i would say that only about physics in particular because i am of the opinion that explanation in physics requires a presentation of the shapes involved.
Yes, that's called the "correspondence principle".
Then the people doing and theorizing in physics for the past 105 years must have far greater visualization skills than must mundanes, because physics, moves on.
@7:17 - Well, from a philosophical point of view, yes. The theory had better be internally consistent, or the possibility of contradictions would be a problem.
In terms of science, the main issue is whether or not the general framework of the theory (explanation) and the predictions made by that theory are consistent.
So it must be externally consistent as well.
We wouldn't remember, say, Einstein's General Relativity, had it not made a prediction that tested, falsifying the null hypothesis.
that is precisely what i am rejecting, experimental physics. even within GR there are different physical interpretations used, and all of them are irrational. the equations of GR can get the numbers right (not all the time though), but it explains nothing.
The only way that you can see reality as consistent is to excise information from your model. As far as I can see, reality is inherently contradictory.
bgaede?
45means45 1 month ago
I agree with everything that you've said. You've done a great video. You're points have been spot on, and many point just accept what science as if it's gospel. You've pointed out the empirical problems (relying on things we don't observe). You've pointed out theory laden observation. You've pointed out some of the fictional aspects (the AS IF way of science). Not to mention science relies on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Hence, science isn't getting at hidden causes. It can't.
TheApollo81 4 months ago
If an object was two feet, would it need shoes?
infinitesimotel 1 year ago
Comment removed
infinitesimotel 1 year ago
All scientific concepts are assumptions made to the best understanding by the mind at the time. I love the way the "scientists" have dominion over reality when they intrinsically have no idea at all, just a logical asssumption. And all logic is constructed by the mind. Yes youre right, no scientisct can show you waht charge looks like, or what gravity actually is, because the physical world is the effect of something that we cant perceive. Id love to have a conversation over skype .
infinitesimotel 1 year ago
You ask how can you explain gravity / charges attracting / etc but at some point you have to have something that just is, something that is the ultimate nature of reality. Theories have two purposes: explanation and prediction. Current physics seems to make really good predictions. You say that it doesn't actually explain anything, but things can only be explained in terms of some other model, because the ultimate nature of reality simply is and cannot be explained.
ba11in41ife 1 year ago
@ba11in41ife
to some extent i agree. the notion of "ultimate nature" is beyond rationalizing. so, as far as im concerned, the best you can do is create an objective presentation of the shapes of hypothetical objects, of definitions, and of the initial scene. this method stands on its own epistemological feet. theories can be developed from what is presented in the hypothesis, and are explanations which make use of physical objects.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
whether or not a theory is "true" seems like an entirely different matter. i think what is being developed is a physical model that deals with the only objective and inherent thing you can ascribe to an object - shape. the explanation follows from the shape.
so i think maybe i agree w/you if you mean that there is a sort of gap between the physical model and reality. one is something developed in the mind, the other is what is actually out in the world.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
but as far as understanding the causal mechanism behind observed phenomena, i think this method is the only one available to human beings b/c the very notion of a physical explanation presupposes the category of shape.
and i think some things will have to just be taken at face value, and can't be explained, like if or why objects maintain their separateness when they collide.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
excellent video - one thing I would like to nitpick is your idea that if there were a God he would be some man in space creating things...... Well he wouldn't have to be a "man", he could just be some bizarre thing that doesn't even resemble a man.
HugNow 1 year ago
I've always considered the curving of space time to be nonsensical garbage, despite several expert physicists believing it as their dogma. Tesla considered it to be garbage science. It's more of a cute mathematical metaphor since Einstein was more of a numbers person than an inventor of actual physical things.
HugNow 1 year ago
@HugNow
absolutely.
i believe einstein towards the end of his days began to really question his own ideas, and he never could accept quantum mechanics.
but yeah, curving space is inconceivable.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@HugNow LoL, I could never get my head around how the curving of space time explaineds what it is supposed to explain. It's just created from logical concepts not what is actually happening in life. I can see in concept but concept is just... concept
infinitesimotel 1 year ago
good philosophy here
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
@HyperBorealOperator
okay.
i am saying that the only way to comprehend the meaning of the words "physical explanation" is to assert that a physical explanation follows logically from shape. i don't deny the precision and accuracy of any measurements, i deny that they or their associated equations explain anything.
if the shape of the objects cannot be visually imagined, then i don't see how there could be what is called "physical explanation."
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
so yes, it may be that the universe is beyond comprehension through such a method. when you say "absolute theory," what do you mean? i don't think that hypothesizing objects w/shape means that you are asserting anything "absolute", like anything about the nature of reality itself, if that's what you mean. i just think that you must start with a physical model, ie, visualizable objects with shape, define the words you'll be using, paint the initial scene, then theorize as to an explanation.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
Why is it for you that it can not be understood? I mean the god created the universe part?
As to the gps argument for relativity it's bs the reason the clocks are different is because they are opperating at different pressures. If I take the clock in my bathroom and send it to the bottom of the ocean it wont work the same I bet.
magpiesmn 1 year ago
@magpiesmn
because A) i don't think god is a coherent concept, and B) b/c i can't understand the mechanism behind something coming from nothing. i can imagine shape popping in and growing, but that doesn't at all help me to answer the question, "how can something be created from nothing?" if i accepted the notion of creation ex nihilo i would have no need to search for the cause of gravity. my "explanation" would just be "i can imagine objects coming together, now ive explained attraction."
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee Some things may not have a mechanism behind it at least not one that can be understood. To suggest that all things in existance can be understood is more of an absurd ground to stand on as is the belief in god imo.
magpiesmn 1 year ago
@magpiesmn
"To suggest that all things in existance can be understood"
when did i say this?
i don't think there is a rational way to explain creation in general. maybe the universe is eternal. as far as i am concerned the question is beyond the scope of the scientific method.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee When you said you don't think that a correct idea of god exists.
magpiesmn 1 year ago
@magpiesmn
okay. the problem is that when you say "god" what are you referring to? i have no ability to conceive of "god" any more than "schmod." how can we even argue about whether or not something exists if we cannot communicate exactly the meaning of the words we are using?
in fact, i vehemently deny that consciousness can be explained, yet i am a witness to its existence at every waking moment, so i certainly don't think all things in existence can be understood or visualized.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@HyperBorealOperator
okay, i think i see what you are getting at.
certainly, the human ability to imagine the general category of shape is based upon the biology of the brain, etc. my point is that the word "explanation" in physics only makes sense if it refers to a mechanism which can be imagined. sure, the explanation may be questionable b/c who knows how the brain works or what reality IS, but to use shape to explain is objective and, IMO, necessary for explanation in physics.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@HyperBorealOperator
okay, fair enough, i think other people maybe have been insinuating this point.
by visualization i don't mean directly seeing, i mean imagining the shape. i believe that any explanation must follow from shape, or else it does not qualify as physical explanation. w/o shape i cannot conceive of the physical explanation for a given observed phenomenon.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
imagining shapes may be ultimately based upon the sense of vision, so it is then really a posteriori. i think the important distinction is that in order to even make sense out of a measurement one must attempt to visualize the relationship between the instrument and that which is being measured, and this necessitates that one make use of the general logical category of shape. the human mind may not be capable of visualizing what is going on in the U, but that means physics is a dead end, IMO.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
the distinction between "a priori" and "a posteriori" then is a methodological one IMO, meaning that to interpret any measurement requires a visualization. so the human mind may be inadequate to understand reality, and in fact i wholeheartedly believe this to be true, but w/o shape there can be no explanation in physics. at that point all you have is a description of what hypothetical measurement you would expect to get at various points.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@HyperBorealOperator
that seems to be the opinion of most physicists today, and i strongly disagree. the explanation follows from the visualizing of the shape of the objects involved. otherwise, there is no explanation, only a description. mathematical equations can tell me about, hypothetically, what measurements i would get, but they explain nothing.
i would say that in physics visualization is the criterion for being rational.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
i like owls that dont have ears
OdeToNecrophilia 1 year ago 2
Hans Hoppe has a nice article on this wherein he tries to delve into the aprioristic foundations of geometry and by extension physics in his Economics & Ethics of Private Property. I think Steve Wolfram also goes for an aprioristic grounding of physics.
Moragauth 1 year ago
@Moragauth
really?? very interesting, i was not at all aware of that. ima check that out.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
It's available online in his Economic Science & the Austrian Method (for Hoppe I mean.)
Moragauth 1 year ago
einstein was wrong becouse you cant visualise it? or am i just completely missing the point here?
lepthymo 1 year ago
@lepthymo
yes, i am saying that einstein did not explain gravity. bending of space is beyond comprehension, so my question is how can something be an explanation if it can't even be conceived?
einstein's equations can get the numbers right, so they may be useful, but there is no physical interpretation for them. on top of that there are anomalies which, even if i agreed with the empiricists, would disconfirm both einstein's and newton's equations.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee well maybe it is becouse the human mind is not capable of imagining abstract things like quantum mechanics and general relativity, because it had no use for the survival of our species, dont you think it is kind of arrogant to presume that becouse you cant properly visualise something it must be inacurate, and besides einstein could visualise the curvature of space, although it did take some effort.
lepthymo 1 year ago
@lepthymo
if you cannot visualize what is going on, then how could there possibly be an explanation? again, i'm not saying einstein's equations don't get the numbers right, i'm saying that einstein absolutely could not visualize the "bending of space." it's not a matter of effort, it's a matter of the very notion itself being inconceivable.
if the human mind is not capable of understanding such abstractions then they are just pragmatic tools for developing technology, not explanations!
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee
yes, the numbers must be right, otherwise gps wouldn't work and all that, but if the equations accurately predict what will happen then how could reality be diferent from what the numbers imply? and again, as einstein (supposedly) said, the human's perception of the universe is really quite flawed, we should not assume that just becouse we might not be able to comprehend something it is not the reality, hystory told us many times that the math doesn't lie.
lepthymo 1 year ago
@lepthymo
okay what you are saying i think really gets to the heart of the issue.
for any given measurement there could be many different physical interpretations. for example, i could measure velocity...but what am i measuring the velocity of, a particle? the propagation of a wave? torsion along a rope?
there are in fact several different interpretations given by mainstream scientists for einsteins eqs. my point is that if it can't be visualized then physical explanation is impossible.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee
the example you gave, that for a measurement there could be many deieferent physical explanations aplies only when you begin with the results of the measurement, normaly you begin with measuring something and so you know what is measured. in the example of general relativity einstein began bij imagining the curvature of space, and then found the equations. and again, sorry if i misinterprete your position, this is still hard to wrap my head around (ironicly).
lepthymo 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee also, while i dont think the inablility to visualise something means it isn't reality is true per se, in some situations it might be. so i guess i acknowledge your point, but on a more humble scale, our visualisation is based on our vision, and on what we can imagine based on the things we have seen, and since the human eye is incapable of seeying many of the wavelengths we should not presume visualisation is capable of representing all of reality. peace
lepthymo 1 year ago
i dunno, i'm no authority on physics either but i imagine that if something can't be visualized internally, it is possible that it is simply beyond the scope of one's comprehension. either because of ignorance or inadequate cognitive ability. we're not gods we're just smarter apes. mises actually said something to that effect in human action
chainzdown2dadik 1 year ago
JBC,
Awesome video.
Nice to see a rational youtuber with common sense.
Only religion performs experiments to prove that space can bend and time can warp.
Physics is about providing rational explanations to questions starting with WHY.
paros011 1 year ago
fuckin' magnets, how do they work?
MaikUniversum 1 year ago
@MaikUniversum Yes! That's exactly what I was thinking about recently.
I tried to research the topic. Everyone ridicules ICP for asking questions when clearly that is what philosophy is all about. And, say, the wikipedia article for one does not in the least bit explain how magnetism actually functions, but is a circle jerk of circular and self- references. Of course there are explanations for such things, but they are certainly not widely known, if at all.
tpsisokayiguess 1 year ago
@tpsisokayiguess WHOOPS!
I just watched a vid by bgaede explaining how magnets work.
watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8
WHOA!
tpsisokayiguess 1 year ago
nice pic. not.
OdeToNecrophilia 1 year ago
@OdeToNecrophilia
i had fun making it. you have to admit those are some pretty good paint skillz, no?
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee lol didnt know you made it. yes very nice. very..swell!
OdeToNecrophilia 1 year ago
science = language, there is no difference between magic and science only the biase we carry from our school days.
Nebelung13 1 year ago
Theories can be disconformed by finding a concequence of the theory which isn't found in the other theories and then do measurements to find that effect. This has been done for QM and General Relativity. Only for string theory no such measurements can be performed because the effects occur at a too small area to be measured.
The Gen. Rel. area is a visualisation. Doesn't mean it's irrational, counter-intuitive perhaps. But it's true, you can only ask 3 times 'why' and then nobody has an answer
ContinuumXT 1 year ago
Does this mean no science about sound? Because sound can not be visualized. It seems like the sense organ which detects electro magnetic radiation in a certain wave lengths.
The grid in general relativity is a 2D visualization with the 3rd dimension containing the bending. In reality space is 3D and bending is in the 4th dimension.
Special relativity just starts from the axiom that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, I am really worried you call this rational and link it ..
modelmark 1 year ago
@modelmark to austrian economics and anarchism.
modelmark 1 year ago
@modelmark
what is sound, theoretically, but vibrations? vibrations can be visualized. waves can be visualized.
"In reality space is 3D and bending is in the 4th dimension." that can be described mathematically, but there is no physical interpretation, which is why they resort to the grid. so there is no comprehensible explanation for gravity coming from GR.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee You will never be able to visualize sound it self. You can visualize a representation of sound, but not the sound itself. You can not visualize smell either and touch no either. Why you single out visual is a mystery to me.
You will never be able to visualize electrons or positrons, so they do not exist either. Energy, fields, all nonsense? Come on, get out of here. Read a physics book.
modelmark 1 year ago
@modelmark
"visualize sound itself"
what are you talking about? sound is transferred somehow, right? there is a mechanism which takes my voice go to your ear, ie, disturbances in the air. what do you mean "sound itself?" like the actual conscious experience of sound? no, obviously that cannot be visualized.
what i am saying is there is no explanation for the observed effects, obviously i do not deny something like that iron filings line up under a magnetic "field."
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@modelmark The pressure changes you can not see, fields you can not see, neither gravity nor magnetic fields. You can only see the effects of gravity and magnetic fields and pressure changes. Just like iron filings, you can observe the bending of space by gravitational fields. This is called gravitational lensing and is not materially different from the visual effect of iron filings following the magnetic field lines.
modelmark 1 year ago
@modelmark
by visualize i mean imagine the shapes involved, not directly see, like observe.
a "field" is a mathematical description of the force at each point, there is no physical interpretation for what is going on. what is the shape of a field? why do iron filings line up under a magnetic "field?"
and you can't observe the bending of space, only the alleged effects of space bending. there are other possible explanations for gravitational lensing.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee like you can't directly observe the bending of space, you can't observe directly the magnetic field. You can only see the effects.So you don't believe in the magnetic field? Do you have other explanations for the effects of magnetic fields, electric fields, gravitational fields?
What is your alternative explanation of gravitational lensing?
Do you also diss special relativity and everything of Newton, Maxwell, Gallileo?
modelmark 1 year ago
@modelmark
i don't believe in the magnetic "field" b/c those words refer only to a mathematical equation which can tell you, hypothetically, what measurements you would get if you placed a magnetometer at all those locations. of course, i do not deny that SOMETHING is there pushing on those iron filings.
gaede has an interesting alternative, but i don't fully agree with it.
what i am rejecting is pure empiricism, so yes i have major problems with those guys.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee I think you do not have any idea what you are messing with. The amount of empirical observations you have to realign is monumental. The lifespan of muons, measured time dilation and length contraction, effect of masses on the bending of light, the constant speed o light, but also all the physics used to get the computer working you are typing on, the PET and MRI scanners, which all heavily depend on Maxwell's equations. It's insane.
modelmark 1 year ago
Science is nothing but speculation without verification. If X is true we should see Y. Therefore if we don't see Y, X is false. We see Y. We haven't shown X is true absolutely, but we have strengthened the case. This is what science is. It is not about all-encompassing explanations.
FiremanHurley 1 year ago
I watched many of Gaede's videos after you told me about him. I found them interesting but I eventually saw he was holding science to a standard of truth that the actual practitioners (Newton, Faraday, Einstein, Tesla, Feynman, etc) never held it too. Also, him giving his alternative "helical rope" explanation for various stuff and then saying he doesn't have to experiment or verify because that is "just politicking" is largely unsatisfying.
FiremanHurley 1 year ago
how does this prove that democracy is bad?
oldhacks 1 year ago
@oldhacks
haha. democracy isn't bad, only statist democracy, where you extort people and tell them how to live. otherwise i've got nothing against voting. in fact, voluntary voting can be quite useful.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee I will find out why physics hates democracy. and then I will disprove physics.
oldhacks 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee "A little knowledge that acts is worth infinitely more than much knowledge that is idle." Kahlil Gibran = meaning a lil Force goes a Long way.
oldhacks 1 year ago
The guy's just redefining shit arbitrarily and attempting to discard well-founded models that predict and describe rather well. I'm all for improving upon the foundations, but his arguments against the entirety of physics are not convincing to me.
doucher337 1 year ago
@doucher337
i think BG has some good points. i agree that the current mathematical models predict pretty well, but as far as i'm concerned they don't explain anything.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee I should also note that he does not understand speciation. At the bottom of the page, he has some shit about this (homo sapiens sapiens) being the last hominid species, showing cartoony images of other hominids dying off. This doesn't necessarily discredit his views on science despite his biological illiteracy, but it does ramp up the skepticism on my part.
doucher337 1 year ago
@doucher337
fair enough. i also disagree with his views on that issue, and actually told him so, to which he replied that he gets that a lot. a lot of people will agree with his views on physics, but then disagree with his thread theory or with his whole last generation on earth thing.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee Your points in the video about entities not having intrinsic measurements is of course correct. Measurement is a model we use that spawns objectivity from arbitrariness - i.e. two different people, so long as they are using identical units, will arrive at consistent measurements. But any person who thinks these things out and recognizes the abstractions will not disagree with you at all.
doucher337 1 year ago
@doucher337 Electrical fields are also a model to explain and in some sense vaguely visualize observations regarding electron transfer, and I see no reason why this being the case would invalidate electrical theory.
Admittedly, quantum mechanics is necessarily the most abstract and detached field of physics. It makes sense then that much of this will be founded in calculus derived from the scant observations that can be made in that field and from the rest of physics in general.
doucher337 1 year ago
I think physics is unintegrated and the understanding is only superficial, as you said those very fundamental concepts like gravity, electromagnetism, mass, space and time are left unexplained and seen only as mathematical objects, like quantum mechanics for example.
Take electrical charge, we have only a description of it as a difference of potential, but why it is called that? Well because you have an imbalance and a flow in the electromagnetic field that drives the electrons.
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
With that bigger picture in mind you can begin to see why positive and negative attract and like charges repel.
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
@SFG
yeah i've spent so much time trying to understand electricity, i can't make sense of any of it, voltage, charge, amperage, etc. i think gaede is right, that the problem is that while all of these experiments wrt electricity have been very useful, no one can actually visualize what is going on. there are some very useful descriptions, but no explanations. even the notion of electrons flowing from negative to positive doesn't make sense b/c why do opposites attract? i can't understand it.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee I go with the so called conventional current picture of electricity, that positive flows to negative (obviously) The idea of the electron current (flow from negative to positive) is due to the misconception and the mathematical object that electrons have charge, when they actually move with charge.
I've actually heard people say it doesn't matter, because either way the circuit works, i mean are they serious? It is a very important concept of what is actually going on.
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
@SuperFinGuy
yeah, i definitely agree that what is going on is important, that's why i've never understood electricity. and i think you are correct about current flowing from pos to neg, and it being visualized as electrons heading towards the positive.
my allegation towards the physicists would be that they have no explanation for either direction of flow, on top of the allegation that they have converted "charge," a measurement, ie, a relationship, into an object which can then be moved.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee Exactly, they have turned this relationship into an object that the electrons have.
SuperFinGuy 1 year ago
Physics cannot explain such as tings opposites attract, gravity works at a distance, etc because in their eyes they are axioms. If "axioms" could be explained they would not be axioms. They would be true statements...but they would not be axioms in which to lay the foundations of physics.
I don't think EVERYTHING can be explained. I think there are some things you just simply have to accept without necessarily being able to explain them.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
The thing that always bugged me about space-time models is why are they flat? If you get you're telescope out the universe is not flat. It is 3d. I've never understood why every space-time model is flat. It seems to go against empiricle evidence
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@DaveDoggOwns
yeah, as far as i understand it's supposed to be another "trick" to help visualize something which can't be visualized. the question is what gives rise to the contour of the grid? if what lies just above the grid is space, what accounts for the contour? what is the dark stuff that floats above "space?" i have no idea.
all of this can be described mathematically, but it's visually inconceivable.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee But that seems so completely backwards. Mathematics is an abstract logical science. When there is a contraction between logic and evidence...evidence always wins.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@DaveDoggOwns *contradiction* correction
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@DaveDoggOwns
yeah, i think the problem is that math can describe anything, and what ends up happening is they will come up with some mathematical relationships and then attempt to come up with some kind of physical interpretation, but that leads to either reification or concepts which can't at all be visualized.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
Yeah, but the reason why you don't see other objects bending and shapping space liked the earth and the sun is because there are not that many objects around whos mass is large enough to distort the fabric of space-time. How is mass not a quantity inherent to an object when in every frame of reference at least on the macroscopic level, the quantity of mass remains constant. I think all physics theories are incomplete because they only describe matter in different contexts.
Pentazoid111 1 year ago
@Pentazoid111
as far as i understand, mass is measured as gravitational mass or inertial mass, but defined as quantity of matter (a definition they never actually use). it only "remains constant" if you conceive of mass as "quantity of matter." this notion would not be a magnitude, like a measurement, but an actual counting of some fundamental unit of matter. however, this notion of mass, if held consistently, would destroy relativity and QM.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
Comment removed
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@DaveDoggOwns
too much donkey porn i guess.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?
Gettinghitonattheban 1 year ago
@Gettinghitonattheban
I knew SOMEONE would say that...
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
great video. very interesting stuff.
return135 1 year ago
Speaking of visualization:
/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA ("Imagining the Tenth Dimension part 1 of 2" by 10thdim)
/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o ("Imagining the Tenth Dimension part 2 of 2" by 10thdim)
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome
i can still only visualize three dimensions, no more, no less. i'd check out bill's website, he goes pretty in depth on this particular issue.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
Wow I had one hell of a glitch on the forums...
BIackOp 1 year ago
Something else to note is that while reification might be pervasive, remember that what gives us the memory and data to visualize starts with observations.
Also, I don't know what you mean by "irrational objects/explanations".
If you mean, "they don't make sense or there are issues visualizing them" that's rather subjective.
If you mean, "they are complete bs", then why is there even evidence of any of them in the first place.
I'm guessing it is the former.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome
but there may be multiple possible explanations for any given observation, such as an apple falling to the earth. according to gaede, and i agree with him, shape is the fundamental category of physics. you have to presuppose the shape of the objects in an experiment in order to interpret your measurements, so you must start a priori.
they are irrational b/c they cannot be visualized.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee
Also, couldn't a person say this about all the sciences?
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome
i would say that only about physics in particular because i am of the opinion that explanation in physics requires a presentation of the shapes involved.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee
Yes, that's called the "correspondence principle".
Then the people doing and theorizing in physics for the past 105 years must have far greater visualization skills than must mundanes, because physics, moves on.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
"Maybe you won't be such a disappointment in the next dimension!"- Vegeta
BIackOp 1 year ago 2
@BIackOp FINAL FLAAASH!
lengthyounarther 1 year ago
@7:17 - Well, from a philosophical point of view, yes. The theory had better be internally consistent, or the possibility of contradictions would be a problem.
In terms of science, the main issue is whether or not the general framework of the theory (explanation) and the predictions made by that theory are consistent.
So it must be externally consistent as well.
We wouldn't remember, say, Einstein's General Relativity, had it not made a prediction that tested, falsifying the null hypothesis.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome
that is precisely what i am rejecting, experimental physics. even within GR there are different physical interpretations used, and all of them are irrational. the equations of GR can get the numbers right (not all the time though), but it explains nothing.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee
Define "irrational".
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome
as far as physics goes, i would say an irrational explanation or object is one which cannot be visualized.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee
What do you mean?
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee
Also, I'm not sure what you're getting at.
It sounds like you're saying, "because there can't be 100% certainty in physics, so I reject all experimental physics."
Sounds very postmodernist.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome
The only way that you can see reality as consistent is to excise information from your model. As far as I can see, reality is inherently contradictory.
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
Are you familiar with Kant? great vid, you might dig him.
09m 1 year ago
@09m
somewhat, i had to read a little kant in college. ima have to check him out again, see what he's got to say.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee
He talks a lot about a priori judjments, and has pretty unique/interesting view on metaphysics.
09m 1 year ago
since you know a little about physics have you ever done a 9/11 demolition debate
CavsHooligan 1 year ago
Comment removed
CavsHooligan 1 year ago
Or why are there no magnetic monopoles?
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome
yeah, that's another perfectly rational question to ask. good luck finding an answer to that one.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
You forgot the link in the description.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago
@Surhotchaperchlorome
fixed. gracias senior.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee
And you're welcome, JBC.
Surhotchaperchlorome 1 year ago