The Origin of the Universe discussion by Steven Weinberg

[mboundtogether]

sometimes i use rationalizationisms in my linguistification if you know what i mean

[gr0mithtimon]

By the way, even though the finite speed of light means that we can not see things as they are "right now", we can see how they _were_ "right now" shortly after "right now". Therefore, I would not use the word invisible, just as i would not call the sound of a weapon firing inaudible because me hearing it is not simultaneous with the firing of the weapon.

[natmanprime]

@gr0mithtimon when lightning strikes, it is inaudible, is it not? UNTIL a few seconds later, when the thunder strikes.

The weapon analogy probably makes sense to you because the time interval is so small.

But this is understandable because you tend to deal with things that are on the same planet.

Consider the Sun. You see it there, but it could have blown up 5 minutes ago. That Sun is invisible to you for another 3 minutes. Just because you'll see it later, doesn't mean it wasn't invisible.

[gr0mithtimon]

@natmanprime This is sloppy language use. The current state of the sun is undetectable (i know this, i am a physics undergrad), but when we say "the sun": we refer to the object troughtout its existence, not any particular version at a particular time. (Look at statements like "it will be full Moon next week" or "Sun will explode in 5 billion years".) When i say i can see the sun i don't claim to be seeing the sun "as it is right now".

[natmanprime]

@gr0mithtimon aha, physics undergrad, I kind of suspected as much, your attitude makes sense now : D

ok, so let's look at those statements...

we don't know that it will be full moon, we don't know that the sun'll explode.

those are fatalistic statements, and very unscientific.

It is more proper to say it SEEMS LIKELY that the moon'll be full, etc.

You can't just assume that you absolutely know whats going to happen to the sun (or the view of it) in the next 8 minutes.

thats BASIC cmon now

[gr0mithtimon]

@natmanprime

You completely missed my point (again), which was about the meaning of "sun" or "moon", NOT about whats going to happen to the physical objects they refer to .The statements in my previous post are examples, that show that we can't mean the sun or the moon "as it is right now" when we say "the sun" or "the moon". If we did, those sentences would contradict themselves. I was not arguing that either of these statements is true. They are examples. And this really is BASIC.

[natmanprime]

@gr0mithtimon of course we make assumptions in our language to get through the day. I'm just teling you the truth of the matter.

I can't help it if this upsets you.

in fact why do you keep changing subjects? I thought this was about 'time'

[gr0mithtimon]

@natmanprime

It's a shame you feel the need to revert to personal attacks. I was making a serious point about language. Like in our other discussions, you keep using words thinking you know what they mean (like dimension), while in fact you don't know what other people mean by it, and to make things worse you don't have a consistent definition of your own. This is the worst kind of philosophy, and no science at all. Have a nice day.

[natmanprime]

@gr0mithtimon er, WHAT are you rabbiting on about?

pointing out you're upset is a "personal attack" ?

what kind of an EGO considers that an insult?

I RESPONDED to your "serious point" about language.

all my definitions are perfectly consistent to my knowledge, why don't you show me the discrepency? I would much appreciate it : )

btw i think the reason you're upset is because I'm questioning the subject you're working so hard to learn LOL

[gr0mithtimon]

@natmanprime

I quote: "aha, physics undergrad, I kind of suspected as much, your attitude makes sense now : D "

Ignoring my argument and attacking my attitude = Ad hominem. Why would I be upset? I was simply pointing out a fallacy.

Were did you respond to my point about language? inconsistency is using the world invisible in the way you do, as it assumes a word like "sun" means "sun as it is right now". As I showed, this is a mistake (S. Kagan has a nice lecture on this)..

[natmanprime]

@gr0mithtimon attitude=upset so I repeat: what kind of ego considers it a personal attack when i point out you're upset? where did i respond to language point? i repeat: "of course we make assumptions to get through the day" so did i ignore it? NO i attacked your attitude, not YOU So that's NOT an ad hominem And it's YOU who've ignored the INITIAL argument about 'time'. and i think you know this

[gr0mithtimon]

@natmanprime

Thats not a response to the point i was making. I don't argue that our language assumes that things are seen "as they are right now", i'm arguing words like Sun don't refer to the object "as they are right now", making it correct to say the sun is visible, even though the current state of the sun is not visible. About time: can you give me your definition of dimension and explain to me how many dimensions you think time has (or must have due to the existence of probability)?

[natmanprime]

@gr0mithtimon so we're not talking about things, we're talking about our *perception* of things. Our perception of the sun is visible. In fact, that's all 'vision' is. A rationalisation. Language assumes that perception is reality, whereas in fact seeing is believing.

Time/space is the irrationality that we rationalise.

As an irrationality, it has an indefinite amount of dimensions.

It entirely depends on the number of dimensions you percieve, in other words.

[gr0mithtimon]

@natmanprime

Its been fun, but there's a limit to the amount of meaningless blabla i can read before i get bored. You still haven't defined dimension. "As an irrationality, it has an indefinite amount of dimensions." Completely meaningless. If you had anything interesting to say i trust you would not resort to hiding behind empty obscurantisms. Also, you still don't understand my elementary point about language.

[natmanprime]

@gr0mithtimon as the 'expert', why are you looking to me to define the word "dimension" for you?

you're on the f@#king INTERNET.

but i'll do the readers a favour (NOT you) and quote:"late 14c., "measurement, size," from L. dimensionem (nom. dimensio) "a measuring," from pp. stem of dimetri "to measure out," from dis- (see dis-) + metiri "to measure" (see measure). Meaning "any component of a situation" is from 1929. "

Ratio= 'to measure'.

dimension=rationalisation

also

language=rationalisation

[Mathikins]

just got back from watching his most recent discussion on Astronomy. had its funny Weinberg bits and it was informative as usual

i liked this little piece he said tonight

"Man-in-space exploration has as much to do with scientific discovery as football does with higher education"

haha gotta love Dr. Weinberg

[natmanprime]

doesn't the concept of probabiliy mean that there are 2 dimensions to time, not 1?

Seeing as we're dealing with arbitrary labels anyway...

[gr0mithtimon]

@natmanprime

why would it?

[natmanprime]

@gr0mithtimon well yknow, passing through it (forwards/back), and the parallel worlds coming from choices, (side to side).

[gr0mithtimon]

@natmanprime

I don't think probability requires parallel worlds.. And time has only one direction.

[natmanprime]

@gr0mithtimon direction? to where? from where? you can only talk about direction if there's a definable point a and point b.

look around, you're looking at things further and closer away from you, and it's all in the past, at different points in time.

you are concieving of parallel world when considering probability, regardless of whether they exist, just as you concieve of the past and future.

the future is abstract, so why not optional futures as well? its all abstract until experienced.

[gr0mithtimon]

@natmanprime

Time has only one physical direction; e.i. it only runs one way, never the other. From yesterday to tomorrow. By definition, past events don't exist in the present, even though we can speak and think about them. But you are (and I) are now answering physical questions by practicing philosophy, a practice rightly abonded by sensible folks a long time ago.

[natmanprime]

@gr0mithtimon haha it's 'too late' ironically. The very premises you assume are already made of practiced philosophy applied to physical questions. A priori arguments to get results, and logical extrapolation from those results. Science in other words.

yesterday=defined abstraction

tomorrow= abstraction

now=what you feel

this is entirely based on science.

light travels.

what we see are messages from something invisible.

what's really there is in the dark.

As are we.

[gr0mithtimon]

@natmanprime

I don't agree.The difference between science as opposed to philosophy is exactly that you don't limit yourself to arguments based on axioms, but use deduction to produce laws and theories, and therewith testable predictions.

Also, these concepts are just that, and concepts can not be based on science. We did not discover these concepts in a dark and deep cape, we made them. Science uses them to describe reality. Part of the must current description is one dimension of time.

[natmanprime]

@gr0mithtimon ok some etymology

science=to know

philosophy=love of knowledge/wisdom

what you're caught up in, if i may say, are institutions built around those concepts.

science is a branch of philosophy that deals in the percieved world. arguments not deductions what are you talking about??? arguments are deductions. And you missed out 'discovery'. Look we can deduce that because light travels, we cannot see things as they currently are. Therefore what's currently there is invisible.

[gr0mithtimon]

@natmanprime

I apologize, i typed deduction when i meant to type induction..

The idea that science is a branch of philosophy (natural philosophy) is out of date, and has been abandoned by practitioners of both. The disciplines have split. The justifications for science, and its methods, are part of philosophy, but that does not imply that science is philosophy. Not even in principle, and especially not in reality.

[natmanprime]

@gr0mithtimon if you wish to argue a case, please argue it.

i am not impressed by invocations of culture and tradition, they are 'a posteriori' arguments. you argue after the fact.

we know 3 things by necessity: that we are, what we feel, that we percieve.

That's philosophy.

science deals with perception.

That's science.

There's the link.

[gr0mithtimon]

@natmanprime

Such argument are perfectly valid when one is actually arguing about culture and tradition, which i was trying to do. In our "culture", science and philosophy are two related, but separate disciplines, practiced mostly by separate people. Where, if not from observing our world, did you get the idea that science is a sub-discipline of philosophy? The argument you put forth only implies that everything (including science) is a subject for philosophy, not that science IS philosophy.

[natmanprime]

@gr0mithtimon ok.

if you took philosophy out of science you would have nothing.

how would you ask a hypothesis?

how would you devise the scientific method?

by what method would you decide to call gravity a theory instead of a fact?

also, a philosopher who doesn't ground himself in some basic knowledge across the subjects is not worth listening to, imho.

btw you can't philosophise wihout any observation.

and we were never arguing about culture or tradition.

(i think you know that...!)

: )

[gr0mithtimon]

@natmanprime

Let me make myself clear: I think philosophy forms the basis and justification for science and its methods, there would be and could be no science without philosophy. This simply does not imply that science is philosophy. You are simply ignoring what the fields do in the real world.

[natmanprime]

@gr0mithtimon i said science is A philosophy.

it's a branch of philosophy that deals with perception. Applied philosophy. Practical philosophy.

ok?

[gr0mithtimon]

@natmanprime

So if i want to be a biochemist, i should get a degree in philosophy?

[natmanprime]

@gr0mithtimon well it would certainly balance you out.

i repeat science is A philosophy.

a degree in philosophy teaches rigourous thought, which could be applied to any subject.

biochemistry has an inherent philosophy that you pick up just by learning the subject. nothing wrong with that.

[gr0mithtimon]

@natmanprime

So, you would consider a biochemist a philosopher?

[natmanprime]

@gr0mithtimon anyway, all i'm saying is that IF you're going to concieve of many possible futures, that is a 2 dimensional plane you're talking about. that's not a 'guess', that's what it IS.

And the notion of probability IS the conception of possible outcomes. The reality may be different.

tell you what, why don't you explain how the description of 1d time was deduced?

[gr0mithtimon]

@natmanprime

You are assuming that everything that could happen "exists" (like locations in space other then your own location); that choices about the future are choices about were to go in 2-dimensional time (which you visualized as a plane). This is a dubious visualization. Physicists see time as a (in fact, one) dimension because It makes sense mathematically, and they subsequently visualize it as such. You are trying to do things backwards, using your visualizations as proof.

[natmanprime]

@gr0mithtimon haha i made no such assumption.

It is a conception that the future is in a straight line, not a perception.

Therefore 'the future' is abstract. Therefore it is not the exclusive domain of science, and furthermore the various possible futures can be considered on the same 'plane' of existence as the your conceptual 'line' because they are equally abstract until 'collapsed' into the present.

Again, i stress that i do not say that time IS 2 dimensional.  Thats not the point.

[jackdav34]

Very funny presentation.

[kmost0]

yep, smart ending

[Gravitationalist]

Great ending.

[amarbleinspace]

graphs bore everyone but the most tedious.