There really is no way around using mathematics. If you want to use the scientific method to arrive at knowledge, then you have to test a “hypothesis.” In order to test a hypothesis, you need math. That is not necessarily modeling. It’s statistical testing.
funny, i throw the same accusation at those who worship at the altar of modern physics.
of course, in order to determine whose accusation carries more weight, it's necessary to explain why one is making such an accusation. please then tell me why that makes me retarded.
the math is only a symbolic representation of quantities, there must be a physical interpretation in order to have explanation. do you disagree, or do u faithfully believe whatever you are told?
Sir let me ask you this first: Do you know what is a mathematical model and what it is used for? As well, for personal interest only, what did you study in college? I am guessing philosophy, but please do correct me if I am wrong.
yes. every single variable in every single equation in physics represents a quantity of some kind. every single quantity requires a physical interpretation in order to make sense of it.
now, scientists can make extremely accurate predictions with equations, but equations have absolutely no explanatory power whatsoever.
most every scientist does not understand this at all, and i find it absolutely appalling. sadly so called "rationalists" are generally more dogmatic than theists.
@jimmydu444 I'm an M.S. in Chemical Engineering with a major in Mathematics and Biophysics. I don't think you understand how much math is used in chemistry, but that's not surprising. Predictions in physics are done via math because it DOES provide an explanation for what will happen. It is people who don't understand the math (such as -m/s being relative to position) who don't see it this way. How would you explain imaginary numbers and the applications towards electrical engineering?
Equations cannot be explanations. An explanation requires you to define what exists in the real world, and dictate how those agents operate in order to formulate your theory. An equation doesn't bring in the concept of causality, but is just a description of how various measured quantities vary with one another. Those measurements don't necessarily say anything about what exists.
Newton himself said that he had no causal explanation for gravity, just an equation describing it.
and how would i explain any technological advancement? equations are certainly useful tools for facilitating the trial and error process. prediction is a useful tool i won't deny that. and what about imaginary numbers in electrical engineering? it's used as a coordinate system, at least according to wikipedia. what does that have to do with anything, it's arbitrary.
@junior00bacon00chee So then what is your point? I misunderstood your incoherent... rant so to speak? Are you against the scientific method? Do you not feel as if peer-review is valid? There is nothing "dependent" on authority in science, there is simply right and wrong. Peer-review helps to weed out the wrong. My point with imaginary numbers was that by looking into them, we found ways to advance electrical power and calculate current. Math and modern physics provide explanations together.
the problem is that no one bothers to differentiate between prediction and explanation, and this leads to inconsistent use of definitions. for example, you say there is simply "right and wrong." what makes something right, b/c the prediction was correct or b/c the explanation is in fact true? those are two different things.
peer review isn't necessarily bad but it can be used to prevent new ideas from coming in and to prop up old ideas despite their problems.
@junior00bacon00chee By the way, it was through using math that physicists predicted it possible to reach escape velocity - it was for this reason that we new it possible to go into space. Of course, people doubted this, but the math was proved right, as it was also when we landed on the moon. My point here is that by saying "it is impossible for the human mind to undertake x" you are not thinking like someone who knows the scientific method.
huh? again, i don't have any problem with doing calculations or making predictions, i'm just saying that it is different than making explanations, and that explanations cannot be proven right or wrong using equations. okay math helped us get into space. equations have helped in all areas of technology development, so what? that doesn't mean that anyone can actually explain physically how such technology actually works, we just know that it does thanks to trial and error.
To be honest, the only reason I pursued this commenting is because you come right out and say that you don't want to debate what is being present. Does this mean you can challenge, but don't like to be challenged? To me this is like if I were to make a video saying how I think that women should have their right to vote taken away in America....and I don't want to be questioned about it. Not my opinion of course, but a bold claim nonetheless. Someone is going to debate it.
i'm not sure where you get that when i've provided you with detailed responses to your questions. please feel free to ask me whatever you'd like on the issue, i would gladly debate anyone on this, scientists included. what they lack is a consistent version of the scientific method, and as such everything is dependent upon authority and democratic consensus rather than consistency and rationality.
@junior00bacon00chee Furthermore, the use of math (pertaining to physics and the sciences) is virtually endless. Only someone with no background in the sciences would state otherwise. Even in biology mathematics plays a role. Math isn't something that engineers and scientists use to "prove" were smart, it is something we use to explain phenomena in ways semantics could not and (in engineering) to design things from the computer you use to the machines used to make it.
when did i say math was never used in science? again, what i am saying is that equations DO NOT explain anything, they merely show how quantities vary with one another, they don't explain WHY those quantities vary in the way that they do.
for example, it's one thing to say einstein's general relativity makes correct predictions, and quite another to say that "warped space" does in fact exist and can be used to explain gravity.
@junior00bacon00chee No, in fact, it isn't an entirely separate thing - your statement shows a general lack of knowledge in the sciences. Furthermore, when did I say that you espoused the idea that math was NEVER used in the sciences? Never. What I stated was merely a response to your idea that math and equations (which I don't think you quite understand) are not as useful in science as they are made out to be. "Why those quantities vary in the way they do" --- please elaborate.
okay, fair enough. i am not disputing anything with respect to the usefulness of equations in terms of their capacity to predict or enhance technology. i am disputing the notion that equations are explanatory. you can make measurements, look for patterns, and discover relationships between quantities, ie, equations, but those equations don't explain the empirical data from which they arose. the question is what mechanism causes these quantities to vary in the way that they do?
@junior00bacon00chee It isn't "warped space" that explains gravity, either, it is warped space-time. Your statement was again incorrect (at least read up on that which you bash). We measure this "warp" as you so eloquently stated through the use of math, much like it is possible to measure your weight. By the way, int he case of Einstein, he saw a phenomena and explained it with math - he has been proven correct as far as this goes... funny how math (when used correctly) doesn't lie?
If i had to type out every detail of GR in tiny YT comments i'd never get anywhere. i've read all the token astrophysics books since i was a lad so i'm familiar with all of the bullshit terms. "warped space" is irrational enough, but if you want to throw in the notion of "space-time," fine with me. You're correction is like a Christian telling me that I'm getting the alleged definition of god wrong. It's all irrational nonsense.
and "warp" is a physical interpretation for the math, no?
is there a difference between measuring weight and explaining gravity? do you see my point here? simply using tools, making measurements, and discovering patterns does not explain why those patterns arise. pattern recognition does not necessarily entail defining the objects responsible for producing those empirical data.
and btw even einstein's equations were wrong about gravity, but dark matter saved the day!
@junior00bacon00chee Einstein's equations were not wrong about gravity, indeed all tests so far indicate that Einstein has been right on every occasion tested. Anyway, I digress - you miss the point to equations - no scientist claims that equations explains why something is, they simply explain behavior, make predictions, etc. Why is it that those who vilify the scientific method don't understand it? Sorry to tell you, ignorance is just as bad as the "illusion" of knowledge.
Oh really? Dark matter was invented in part to try to explain why individual galaxies aren't ripping apart due to their calculated mass and angular velocity. So no, Einstein has not been right on every single occasion, but even if he were, it's irrelevant to my central arguments, so I digress.
I am not vilifying the scientific method, i am disputing the very definition of the scientific method. In my eyes, you are the one vilifying the scientific method.
@junior00bacon00chee For further information, search "NASA's Gravity Probe B Mission". If you seek an explanation via mathematics, you won't find one, nor any scientist who would state that an equation explains why something happens (though in chemistry, it is possible to explain different things through mathematics, such as why a concentration of an element is more or less present). Scientists and engineers don't seek to explain things through math, math is simply a means to an end.
"Math isn't something that engineers and scientists use to 'prove' were smart, it is something we use to explain phenomena" - You
You refuse to use your definitions consistently, and you are attacking me for being ignorant?
The probe B mission does not prove Einstein's physical interpretations to be correct! You can verify equations all day long, but that does not verify any one particular physical interpretation, especially if that interpretation is physically meaningless!
@junior00bacon00chee At what point did I lose you? "Something we use" is a tool, not an answer - a means to an end. By all accounts, I've stayed consistent, you've just failed to understand and are so anxious to "prove" a person wrong over the internet. The Probe B mission didn't merely "verify" so called "meaningless" equations it showed that geodetic and frame dragging effects occurred exactly as Einstein predicted with his theory (which used math to back it up). Would it kill you to read?
wow. your arrogance is astounding. when did i call the equations meaningless? would you like to actually comprehend my points before you start attacking me?
once again, i'll try to state this as clearly as i can, you can make quantitative predictions and verify them all day long, but that does not prove the physical interpretation used to explain why the measured quantities vary in the way that they do. does that make sense to you?
@junior00bacon00chee What people like you fail to realize is that mathematics is all just a summed up way of stating something, it is a language of sorts. Math is used to make predictions, design new machines, and guide us in our search for why things happen, but as I've stated, is just a means to an end, not the end itself. An example was a prediction made by mathematics - that spacetime is indeed curved and not straight - which was confirmed via NASA's Probe B satellite. Don't be lazy.
"a prediction made by mathematics - that spacetime is indeed curved and not straight"
do you at least recognize that you are doing two different things here? on one hand you are referencing predictions based upon empirical data and pattern recognition, and on the other you are hypothesizing the existence of something, ie, "curved spacetime," in order to explain that empirical data. the problem with "curved spacetime" is that it is physically meaningless so it does not qualify as a theory.
@junior00bacon00chee In fact, curved spacetime is VERY meaningful. It is what keeps you and I bound to the earth (and the earth bound to us). All studies show spacetime to be correct, not "hypothetical" and thus the validity of the Theory of General Relativity is not in question. You simply don't understand the scientific method, the use of equations, or basic physics. This "argument" is pointless as you simply misunderstand the point of mathetmatics in physics.
Yet you cannot explain how "curved spacetime" keeps us bound to the Earth b/c "curved spacetime" cannot be conceived of by the human mind. Why do you think we are always provided with lower dimensional models like the gravity well? It's b/c the "real" theory cannot be illustrated or imagined. If you cannot define physically what "curved spacetime" means then obviously you can't use it to explain the observations.
And enough hand waving, give me arguments or don't bother.
I'll give you a much more clear example to illustrate my point. Take string theory. String theory fails b/c no one can define what it means for one-dimensional strings to exist. It is impossible to conceive of something existing which only has one dimension. So, it follows that no explanation can come from string theory b/c any explanation would require to strings to be defined physically, ie, "X exists and behaves in this way. That is what explains such and such..."
do you see my point? an explanation necessarily requires you to define what exists, and if you cannot, then no theory can be formulated. The explanation itself is just a story about what exists and how it behaves so definitions are absolutely crucial. Also, even if there were experiments to test string theory, no amount of data in the world could "prove" something which can't even be defined. It's the same reason why GR, big bang theory, creationism, etc, fail. It's a definitional problem.
@junior00bacon00chee How the curving of spacetime keeps us tethered to the earth is simple. Space pushes down on us towards the earth, it does not in fact "pull" on us. What cannot be explained? The real theory can be illustrated and imagined by the human mind... clearly. I can define physically what spacetime is - space and time in a single continuum, also known as "3+1" dimensions in physics (3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time).
Okay, then show me a drawing of the architecture of spacetime. I don't want some lower dimensional bullshit like the 2D gravity well, I want you to find me ONE illustration of the architecture of curved spacetime.
You can define spacetime? Okay, let's slow down and do this right then. First define "space." In order to be scientific, your definition MUST be able to be used consistently. I'll give you my definition, it can be used consistently.
@junior00bacon00chee And would you certify plasma to be "space". Ugh, the lack of knowledge when it comes to physics is boggling. "In order to be scientific" you have no authority on matters scientific or unscientific as you yourself are someone without formal training in the subject area, but nonetheless I've remained consistent. Space is measured in the three dimensions of height, width, and length, no more, no less, any other definition would be incorrect.
define "plasma." if plasma has architecture then obviously it is not space. that follows by definition.
of course i have no authority on science, no one does. science is about the arguments, not the people who make them. it is sad to see what public education has reduced people to...you are trained like a dog to trust in authority and revolt against anyone who questions it. you tout your little degrees as if jumping through some hoops makes you an expert.
you wear your unquestioning subservience as if it is some kind of badge of honor. now, would you like to concentrate on arguments, or would you like to debate me on whether or not authority has any fucking place in science whatsoever?
"Space is measured"
measuring something is not a definition! you must either tell me what space is or you cannot use it in a theory. how can space "push" on something when you cannot even define what is doing the pushing?
"Space is measured in the three dimensions of height, width, and length, no more, no less, any other definition would be incorrect."
if that is the definition then how is "space" different from measuring an object? objects can be measured in three dimensions, right? so space and objects are the same?
two more salient points. number one, if that is the definition of space, then WHAT is being measured? you are using a circular definition, ie, "the definition of X is that X is measured as such and such." number two, even if i were to entertain your non definition, then how can "measured in three dimensions" push on us in order to keep us bound to the Earth???
so go ahead and try again. define "space," or accept my objective, scientific definition which can be used consistently.
@junior00bacon00chee It has nothing to do with "touting", it is just that you have no formal training in the maths or the sciences and cannot support your arguments scientifically. Instead, you rely on vague philosophical thinking - "define plasma" to keep alive in the argument. You stated that your definition (which must be used in ALL cases CONSISTENTLY) is "that without shape" - plasma has no definitive shape, yet it is not "space". Where in your definition did you state that w/o architecture
do i really need to keep making the point that this means absolutely nothing? arguments are all that matter, you can either respond to them or you can't. if you can't obviously your "formal training" did nothing but instill you with unwarranted arrogance. NOW...on to the actual substance...
@junior00bacon00chee Your "actual substance" was infinitely incorrect. It has nothing to do with arrogance, it has to do with the fact that you are commenting on that which you know nothing about. Would it be arrogant for an MD to tell me to back away while he treats a patient? No. You simply have not been trained to analyze scientifically and have not read up on physics which set your arguments up for failure - the internet will not give you the benefits of actual experiences in the sciences.
sigh....okay you want to go this route. no it wouldn't be arrogant for an Md to do that, but it WOULD be arrogant for an MD to throw his credentials around and act like he doesn't have to make arguments with respect to medical EXPLANATIONS. what does arguing about explanatory theories have to do with saving someone's life?
again, this is incredibly simple. you either have an explanation for things or you don't. you can either respond to arguments or you can't.
how is defining terms "vague philosophical thinking?" so definitions aren't important in science, is that what you are saying? then just come out and say it.
"plasma has no definitive shape"
once again, define "plasma." i would not equate plasma with space b/c i would define plasma as consisting of ionized particles. are you saying that you would define ionized particles as having no shape? how can something conceivably exist and yet have no structure or extension?
@junior00bacon00chee Defining plasma as consisting of ionized particles isn't correct - it consists of ions and electrons which exist in a free-moving state. Definitions are very important in science, I just don't understand why you can't look them up yourself. The ions and electrons have a shape which is not consistent do to their free-moving tendencies, think of plasma as the amoebas of the four states of matter, in a way. When I say that without shape, I am speaking for the "big picture".
"When I say that without shape, I am speaking for the 'big picture.'"
Okay now we are getting somewhere. The ions and electrons DO have shape. Yes, because they move about freely the overall shape of "plasma" changes. Does that mean a school of fishes ceases to have shape b/c the individual fish are moving around? No. "Plasma" would be a dynamic definition, meaning it has shape but also a particular motion.
@junior00bacon00chee Plasma has no shape because the individual particles which make it up are free moving. The particles which make you up are not free moving, if they were, "you" wouldn't exist in your state because you would have no set shape. This is not to say that the particles composing plasma have no shape, only that that which they make up has no defined shape do to their random free moving tendency.
"This is not to say that the particles composing plasma have no shape, only that that which they make up has no defined shape do to their random free moving tendency."
nonsense. the particles that make me move around, it's just that the particles in plasma can freely move apart from one another. so what if they drift apart? the fundamental constituents, regardless of their relation to one another, do not cease to have shape. Obviously that differentiates plasma from space.
@junior00bacon00chee No sir, what you are saying is nonsense. You are a solid (speaking for your exterior) which means that your atoms are tightly bound together. Clearly, plasma is not space, but plasma has no "definitive" meaning set shape. You misunderstand very easily... In any case it is unknown if space does or does not have shape, thus you cannot differentiate plasma and space with this logic.
@junior00bacon00chee Since you seem to misunderstand my use of the word "definitive" in shape, this argument is no longer going anywhere. You seem to misunderstand scientific terms... to a great degree. Furthermore, space itself cannot be defined as not having a shape, this is simply not necessarily true or false, though a greater amount of evidence states that space does have a shape. I wish you the best in understanding physics, semantics however does not interest me, please research!
"though a greater amount of evidence states that space does have a shape"
you can't use evidence in making definitions! definitions are necessary to formulate the theory which explains the evidence! they must be assumed. obviously, if you are going to say that something has shape, then you would not classify it as space under my definition. so if you are going to say, "wait a minute, look at this data, this has shape," then you are ceasing to claim that w/e it is is space!
@junior00bacon00chee The definition of space does not involve shape, thus there is no problem in what the physics community is doing by attempting to find if space does or does not have shape. As I've told you, we can only define space as having length, width, and height, not being absent of shape. Furthermore, definitions are not assumed, ever. "Under my definition" your definition has no validity unless you show me that space has no shape, the burden of proof lies on the claimant.
when you assume a definition you are NOT assuming that it is "true," you are simply taking it at face value for the purpose of understanding the theory. my definition of space is objective, clear, and consistent regardless of the empirical data. Now, if scientists find energy, or w/e, in what was previously thought to be empty space, then obviously they should cease to categorize what they discovered as "space."
@junior00bacon00chee Taking a definition at face value for understanding a theory (in my book) is taking it to be true. From what you wrote, I understood that we should assume your definition of space to be true for mere arguments sake. Let me make perfectly clear, there are no assumptions made in (good) science. I have never heard the word assume applied to definitions absent the context which I personally assumed to be true, not to say this use was incorrect, I appalled English classes :)
fair enough, indeed the term "assume" implies that one is assuming something to be true. so let me choose my words more carefully. when one defines something, one is first and foremost not concerned with whether or not the definition applies to reality. firstly one is concerned with whether or not the definition itself can be used consistently. if not, then it fails regardless of the evidence or experiments.
so you are 100% correct to assert that in science, we do not assume anything to be true. forgive my misleading usage of terms. i am saying that a definition is formulated absent of any considerations of its truth or falsity, or of its application to reality. the first thing i do is conceive of it, and just from that the test of whether or not it can be used consistently can be applied, regardless of the evidence.
@XXXMRcoolkidXXX Furthermore, it is unknown if space has shape, you can read up on this if you'd like, I have several reliable sources of information for you to visit and enlighten yourself. Let me explain what plasma having no definitive shape means. It means that were I to put it inside of a container, it would form to the shape of this container. By the way, the difference between plasma and a gas (which also has no definitive shape) is that plasma particles contain electrical charges.
definitions are not based upon empirical investigation, they are not "true" or "false." The definitions preexist empirical data, they stand on their own feet as models that we conceive. You have to ASSUME definitions of what exists, and then see whether or not such a theory can explain the data. There is no way to ever have knowledge of whether or not definitions map 100% onto reality, you can only judge them based upon their consistency and explanatory power.
@junior00bacon00chee Oh goodness, what a philosopher? Were it so simple. Scientists do not ASSUME anything (thankfully). Definitions in fact are based upon empirical investigations and yours have been very "false". The meaning behind the definition may preexist empirical data, however we do not realize them without study. Furthermore, definitions in physics are largely based on what is discovered mathematically. Your assumption that space has shape is a scientific fallacy.
"The meaning behind the definition may preexist empirical data, however we do not realize them without study."
so you at least agree that definitions can be conceived prior to any evidence or data, right? excellent. now, OF COURSE, if the definitions you formulate and the theories you produce from them do not do a good job of explaining the empirical data, then they should be rejected. the first test of any definition, regardless of evidence, is whether or not it's even conceivable.
@junior00bacon00chee Furthermore, I'm not trained like a "dog" to defend science, I'm just stating that which is according to the scientific method. You appear to be ranting at what? The modern physics and engineering communities for using math? Plasma is simply a collection of ions and electrons which are free moving (thus giving them no definitive shape or volume. I suppose next you'll ask me to define free moving? Is it possible for you to admit you are wrong?
jesus. fucking. christ. can you really be this obtuse? how many times do i have to explain this? you refuse to understand my very simple points. once again, i am not against the use of math, i reject the notion that math is explanatory. of COURSE math is useful in these endeavors, i've stated that time and time again, it is just not explanatory!
"Plasma is simply a collection of ions and electrons which are free moving"
ahah! okay, excellent. now, do ions and electrons have shape? you say no, because they are free moving? what does their motion have to do with whether or not they have shape? mainstream physics claims that electrons have no extension, this is obviously a contradictory definition. how can anyone conceive of a causal agent which has no shape? then how do define its existence?
@junior00bacon00chee And yet mainstream physics would tell you that the composure of plasma is insignificant to the argument of defined shape - now you are delving into a messed up understanding of quantum mechanics (micro) vs relativity (macro). This argument is pertaining to relativity, not quantum. The two are... irreconcilable so to speak in modern day physics. Again, research would have helped you out. You'd make a great philosopher, your great at dissecting arguments, but your too lazy...
let me be utterly clear. we start with experience in our investigation, right? this branches off into two things, 1) empirical data, and 2) models of existence. the former is based purely on analyzing sense data and formulating patterns, whereas the latter is based upon actually conceiving of a model. a model is a conscious experience which is not dependent upon the empirical data, and which is supposed to represent something outside of itself.
the former is where we get equations. it's all based on inductive reasoning and pattern recognition. you make measurements, then you discover patterns in how quantities vary given certain conditions. this is all predictive, and it is very useful, but NOT explanatory.
the latter is explanatory, it involves defining what exists as part of the model, and elucidating how it behaves. this then is an objective theory which can explain the former, ie, the empirical data.
@junior00bacon00chee Elaborate on models of existence please. I just have never personally heard the term... models always agree with evidence via the experimental method. (I don't like to say empirical, its too vague). I can tell you this because the models I construct as a chemical engineer are entirely based on scientific concepts (and mathematical ones) which agree with "empirical data" derived from experimentation and investigation.
models of existence are necessary to explain the data. if you can make observations, or experiments, or measurements, and use pattern recognition to make predictions or design things then that is wonderful. all i am saying that these activities do not constitute explanation. what accounts for these observations, experiments, and measurements? what exists, and how does it behave, such that these experimental data can be explained?
all knowledge is derived ultimately from our experience, right? so necessarily it follows that any model i create will be something i imagine, something i experience. the model comes into being when i conceive of it, when i have an experience which is supposed to represent something outside of that experience. for example, i can conceive of a shape which is rounded and discrete, and then say THIS is what exists and what partially accounts for my observation of, say, a basketball.
i can make all the observations and measurements of a basketball that i want, but until i actually define "basketball," ie, model it, then i cannot produce any explanation regarding the behavior of the basketball. as i stated earlier, newton himself admitted that he had an equation which could accurately predict the quantities associated with falling bodies, but that he had no explanation for the mechanism behind gravity. that requires defining what exists and showing how these behaviors arise.
I am beginning to understand your viewpoint, and I will admit a certain amount of validity. But again, I think your comparison to religion is a bit strong. I don't think anyone fully understands quantum, but there is empirical evidence to support it. Religion had no evidence. It's based on pure blind faith. String theory I have little use for. If there are experiments done that show real evidence, then maybe.
my argument is that the failure of these "theories" is not about whether or not there are experiments to support them, it all boils down to a conceptual issue. ST hypothesizes the existence of "1D strings," yet no one can actually tell you what it means for 1D strings to exist. they are inconceivable, and if you cannot conceive of the causal agent of a theory, then there is no theory there.
and QM may get the numbers right, but so did newton's law of gravitation before it was replaced by GR. yet, newton himself admitted that he had no explanation for the causal mechanism behind gravity.
being able to predict based upon empirical data and pattern recognition is far different than hypothesizing the existence of physical objects and using them to explain observations. the various physical interpretations of QM are either inconceivable or inconsistent.
You make it seem as if challenging these ideas is no big deal. As if you have any proof. These "ideas" are based on the life's work of brilliant men and women. You are not proposing anything revolutionary here. Let's not present yourself as if you are. There are no challenging statements about anything you disagree with. It comes down to a matter of respect, of which, you deserve just about as much as you are showing those with real intelligence. None.
why on earth would you displace skepticism with "respect?" i can question or disagree with someone and still respect them. what you are talking about is not respect, but unquestioning reverence. that is reserved for religion.
let me ask you cfrutig6, do YOU understand quantum mechanics, relativity, or string theory to a T? if not, why do you believe other people on faith? isn't that the province of religion?
Terrible video. Who do you think you are you little know-it-all shit? Did you equate believing the bible with believing mathematics? This in not solid logic. Please, do post more videos about how you are debunking relativity and quantum. Let's see it...
boy know-it-all, huh? haven't heard that one before. i never understood why people get so angry when you challenge ideas. i have made more videos on these things...
Since when has modern physics been based on pure math as opposed to a qualitative model? Both Relativity and QM are built on rigid interpretations that logically flow from classical understandings and experimentation that has shown limits to those classical understandings.
If a theory has been shown to have predictive capacity and has not been debunked, why would you throw it out? Skepticism is vital, but "throwing it out" because "nobody really gets it" is not skepticism, it's a huge positive assertion. The fact that QM and relativity are weird and non-intuitive is not a statement about their truth or falsehood at all. Maybe the models are largely flawed, but you haven't shown this, you've just appealed to your preference of what physics ought to be.
unless i have a prior physical model for understanding a measurement, then what meaning does it have? a measurement is a relationship between a unit and what is being measured, so we are dealing with at least two physical objects.
theories must be based upon more than just relationships between quantities, ie, equations, b/c otherwise we could not ascertain the meaning of the numbers!
there is a lot more than that....but that is as succinct as i can put in 500 words.
@junior00bacon00chee If you are saying that a physical model must precede a theory about something we cannot directly observe, then you are essentially shutting down science at a certain point. Predictions and models spring from the mathematics, which are then, unlike keynesian predictions, rigorously tested for falsifiability. I'll concede this is different from an apple landing on your head and you figuring out why, but I don't see what the alternative is.
in order to understand how the apple falls we must formulate a qualitative physical model which shows us the actual cause and effect mechanism behind this observation. simply measuring the mass of the earth, and of the apple, and measuring the force between them as it varies with distance, can allow us to derive newton's mathematical law of gravitation, but the equation is just a description of what is observed. we must hypothesize an actual mechanism.
Economics and science are two things im very interested in. I dare say youre smarter than me but i can styill grasp everything that youre saying.
Your video actually confirms something that im always saying. That humans, as advanced as we like to think we are. Are still stupid.... Well i say stupid. Ignorant may be better, but stupid still applies. We have many hypothsises on how everything works but very little true knowledge.
But i wouldnt say Einstein didsnt approached the world in maths
I think you missed the more advanced aspects of his video. I'm not trying to be rude.
Think of this question and you'll get a better understanding of his thesis in this video. "What is 2" Does 2 itself mean anything? Can you think about 2 without referring to what the number 2 represents? No. Two by itself is useless, it represents nothing by itself, explains nothing. Now, take the concept of 2 and introduce it to a physical Universe (like ours) and now it's very powerful.
well, if it weren't for purely imaginative/mathematical considerations we would have never conceived of ideas such as viruses, atomic energy and many more critical science. I don't suggest there is anything wrong with questioning the meaning of math in science but I suggest you actually learn it and discover that it isn't what you thought it was. You've made a very blunt conclusion at the end. I am sure that mathematical physicist know far more about the use of math and its limitations than you
Failed to address many aspects of mathematics in science/physics. For example, many scientific phenomena were first observed by the mathematics itself(equations) and subsequently discovered in reality/experiment.
Furthermore, entire concepts, such as the magnetic/electric fields are mathematical reality. The known universe as known by science depends on things which we have not a visualization for, no spatial reasoning. Our perception via our senses is inaccurate virtual reality.
I think I have given a similar rant on mathematical economics at least half a dozen times to mostly bewildered audiences, but your take on mathematical physics is new to me. Perhaps it's why I left academic physics before finishing my dissertation years ago. I don't know that I would agree that all modern physics lacks a logical physical interpretation. I always solved hairy GR problems by first constructing a 3D visualization for myself of the spacetime under consideration. Please say more
If I understand you correctly, then you're saying that understanding of economics and physics requires not just law, i.e. mathematical correlations validated by repeated empirical testing, but theory, i.e. deductive causal reasoning. While the former may indeed yield useful engineering knowledge, it is conceited to claim to understand a process, without first being able to describe the specific causes and effects of that process.
@junior00bacon00chee So you're really arguing against the conceit of modern physics professors in "knowing the truth" rather than saying anything about the truth or falsehood of various modern physics disciplines. I can agree with that, going through all of that crap in college and hearing people like thunderf00t talk. However, you've shown a reason for skepticism, not a reason to throw out modern physics entirely.
if there is no hypothesis then smashing atoms together is merely a sophisticated form of smashing rocks together. it is pointless unless your experiment has context! what physical model is being tested??
Great video. Well done. ***** & favorited. The points that you make seem especially potent when it comes to quantum mechanics. There is a strong tendency to treat the math as more real than the actual stuff being explained.
The same is true for psychology. You will not publish any psychological theory in 'serious' magazines unless you 'prove' it with stats and mathematical models. Right now im preparing a phd in psychology of religion and I'm forced to add maths there. That's a pretty cool mixture.
LOL typical (sordid) 'Austrian' nutjob, did you even take upper level maths at college? what's that? you didn't even go to college? you've worked at a meat-works factory sinse you were 16?
cant say I'm surprised, but hey, not all of us can be intellectuals, we need manual labor types like you folk to to the slave labor jobs. Please keep these constipated conspiracies theories to yourself, they stink like sh*t
It seems like juniorbacon is overestimating his intellectualism because he has been fiddling around with consipracy " theories" pulled out of pseudointellectuals ass so much. Its funny to see how he scribbled paul krugman in his description, so much for an anti-statist. It makes me chuckle how he says intellectualism cannot grasp the notion of reality yet he formulates his "theories" on it and i might add "pseudo" infront of it. Whats up with physical object-fetish of epistemological nihilist?
If you look into a discipline you are bound to find axioms that are not really.."self evident" and satisfactory. Even scientific method which is a specialized school of inductive reasoning has its own flaws...and the fact that physicists dont even know whether 5-11th dimensions exist in reality,(which exists in mathematical sense) seems to endorse his point(these are fucking obvious points)..but i would render him the retard certificate for saying how relativitiy and QM are unscientific.
some people are literally unable to engage people in genuine discussion, they have to go around and try to bash anyone who says anything that isn't perfectly in line with what they were taught.
But whats the point of giving physical observable proofs to an epistemological nihilst? That is like giving a schrodingers cat a salmon can which he cant even open. Your blind faith on physical observation and distrust on mathematical perception is unfound. Descartes will be proud.
yeah i decided to go back to college, one thing i noticed about my math class is that they tell you how to solve various equations but offer no explanation as to why they are solved like that i.e. the mechanisms.
No, it's what scientists actually often do. Look up theory-ladenness. The theories he refers to are a) logically constructed b) proceed from clear axioms. Both can be corrected if wrong. Nothing to do with mysticism.
what i am saying is that the first thing a physicist must do is formulate a valid hypothesis, which means presenting a physical model of the objects involved in the theory. relativity, QM, and string theory all fail at this level since they actually frame no real hypotheses. the physical interpretations they attempt to give in retro are nonsensical.
LING came back, austrolibertarian came back, even Franc posted a new video! now you are posting again. I swear it is some sort of sign. not sure what it means yet.
Interesting video, I agree that mathematics cannot explain anything by itself. Like another form of language it is just an operator. It needs data from reality to operate and relate, or else it is just rationalization, like juggling numbers out of nothing.
Well I'm just extraordinarily confused right now. Einstein's theory was proven in a tangible sense... and did help push forward physics in a huge way... I'm a bit disappointed right now with the video because I normally enjoy your stuff.
Don't panic, try to understand what he is saying. The fundamental principle of relativity is proven but Einstein did a very poor job at explaining it. Can you explain for example why the speed of light doesn't change with speed for example?
And quantum mechanics doesn't explain nothing, it is just statistics.
Well, in the -General- Theory of relativity does hold a bit of relevance in the we wouldn't have GPS. If you need an explanation of how I'd be happy to, but I'd hope you do haha.
Regardless of how well he explained it to general masses, what does that have to do with dropping it...which he said explicitly.
Have you heard of the millennium theory of relativity? It does a much better job with the mathematics of relativity than Einstein's. With a much better explanation for even "experts".
Like I know of a lot of PhD's that know the equations but they have no clue really of what they are dealing with.
equations can be useful. when i was in electrical engineering 101 we always used ohm's law. ohm's law explains nothing, but is very, very useful in building circuits.
there are more problems than just "bending of space" being meaningless physically. for example, if gravity "waves" propogate at the speed of light (consistent with SR) then the solar system would fly apart. if they are instantaneous (as newton's law implies) then SR fails.
the equations of relativity are formulated in what is called minkowski space. this is where the whole "space-time" thing comes from. points are described by three space coordinates and one time coordinate.
unfortunately, minkowski space is a mathematical abstraction. relativists "explain" gravity by invoking the "bending of space" which has no physical meaning. no one on the planet knows what that means.
Was with you their until said general relativity and quantum mechanics as theories fail. Sorry but you are just dead wrong. Quantum mechanics has ben verified correctly by a myriad of experiments pertaining to describing physical phenomena at the subatomic level. If you are so convinced that quantum mechanics fails as a theory, tell me where it has failed.Don't say it cannot describe macroscopic phenomena because one can say the same thing about CM failing to describe the physics of atoms.
as i stated in the vid, i plan on making videos which elaborate precisely on what you are talking about.
experiments cannot confirm invalid hypotheses. such is the failing of modern physics, and i will do my best to explain PRECISELY why modern physics fails in future videos, ie, being specific to the various theories and showing beyond all doubt that they explain nothing.
a hypothesis is only invalid if it cannot be confirmed by experiments.There is no other way to prove that a hypothesis is invalid other than the process of experimentatio; So far , the double slit experiment , wave properties of ions have been observed in particle detectors such as a cloud chamber. It has been the most physical tested theory ever. I agree with you on things like string theory isn't really a theory, and the hypothetical particle graviton has yet to be observed in a lab, not QM
"a hypothesis is only invalid if it cannot be confirmed by experiments."
if no one has any clue what is going on physically....then there is no hypothesis. experiments can help support an actual hypothesis.
stephen hawking says the universe was "created spontaneously out of nothing." he says this is "required by relativity and QM." whether or not this is true, we as human beings cannot conceive of creation "ex nihilo" and thus this EXPLAINS nothing.
I don't understand what you mean by describing everything through "physical objects".
What in physics doesn't relate to "physical objects"?
The problem in economics is not math, it's the ASSUMPTIONS that they make in creating the mathematical models. These assumptions are usually incomplete or plain false.
Also in many cases, especially in macro, you can't repeat experiments so Keynesians can always claim that they didn't stimulate enough
well, with regards the first portion of your comment, you are just being honest. i am still having a little trouble nailing down the EXACT, PRECISE epistemological basis for physics.
however, as consistent with everything i say in this vid, i whole heartedly reject the idea that equations, ie, relationships between quantities (quantites being relationships between objects), can have any explanatory power.
Welcome back! An interesting dive into the philosophy of science. To touch on a few points, you mention the bible v. physics-- I took a rigorous philosophy of science course in which science v. religion was seriously challenged...the greatest fundamental differences concluded are attitude/trajectory and degrees of brainwashing. The rest of the differences turns into an incredible shouting match.
There really is no way around using mathematics. If you want to use the scientific method to arrive at knowledge, then you have to test a “hypothesis.” In order to test a hypothesis, you need math. That is not necessarily modeling. It’s statistical testing.
lucidmaze 1 month ago
@lucidmaze
define "knowledge."
in the course of presenting a physical explanation you do not need to invoke a single equation.
junior00bacon00chee 1 month ago
"Deriving the mathematics from the model."
You sir are truly retarded.
jimmydu444 9 months ago
@jimmydu444
funny, i throw the same accusation at those who worship at the altar of modern physics.
of course, in order to determine whose accusation carries more weight, it's necessary to explain why one is making such an accusation. please then tell me why that makes me retarded.
the math is only a symbolic representation of quantities, there must be a physical interpretation in order to have explanation. do you disagree, or do u faithfully believe whatever you are told?
junior00bacon00chee 9 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee
Sir let me ask you this first: Do you know what is a mathematical model and what it is used for? As well, for personal interest only, what did you study in college? I am guessing philosophy, but please do correct me if I am wrong.
jimmydu444 9 months ago
@jimmydu444
yes. every single variable in every single equation in physics represents a quantity of some kind. every single quantity requires a physical interpretation in order to make sense of it.
now, scientists can make extremely accurate predictions with equations, but equations have absolutely no explanatory power whatsoever.
most every scientist does not understand this at all, and i find it absolutely appalling. sadly so called "rationalists" are generally more dogmatic than theists.
junior00bacon00chee 9 months ago
@jimmydu444 I'm an M.S. in Chemical Engineering with a major in Mathematics and Biophysics. I don't think you understand how much math is used in chemistry, but that's not surprising. Predictions in physics are done via math because it DOES provide an explanation for what will happen. It is people who don't understand the math (such as -m/s being relative to position) who don't see it this way. How would you explain imaginary numbers and the applications towards electrical engineering?
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXXMRcoolkid
Equations cannot be explanations. An explanation requires you to define what exists in the real world, and dictate how those agents operate in order to formulate your theory. An equation doesn't bring in the concept of causality, but is just a description of how various measured quantities vary with one another. Those measurements don't necessarily say anything about what exists.
Newton himself said that he had no causal explanation for gravity, just an equation describing it.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@XXXMRcoolkidXXX
and how would i explain any technological advancement? equations are certainly useful tools for facilitating the trial and error process. prediction is a useful tool i won't deny that. and what about imaginary numbers in electrical engineering? it's used as a coordinate system, at least according to wikipedia. what does that have to do with anything, it's arbitrary.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee So then what is your point? I misunderstood your incoherent... rant so to speak? Are you against the scientific method? Do you not feel as if peer-review is valid? There is nothing "dependent" on authority in science, there is simply right and wrong. Peer-review helps to weed out the wrong. My point with imaginary numbers was that by looking into them, we found ways to advance electrical power and calculate current. Math and modern physics provide explanations together.
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
the problem is that no one bothers to differentiate between prediction and explanation, and this leads to inconsistent use of definitions. for example, you say there is simply "right and wrong." what makes something right, b/c the prediction was correct or b/c the explanation is in fact true? those are two different things.
peer review isn't necessarily bad but it can be used to prevent new ideas from coming in and to prop up old ideas despite their problems.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee By the way, it was through using math that physicists predicted it possible to reach escape velocity - it was for this reason that we new it possible to go into space. Of course, people doubted this, but the math was proved right, as it was also when we landed on the moon. My point here is that by saying "it is impossible for the human mind to undertake x" you are not thinking like someone who knows the scientific method.
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
huh? again, i don't have any problem with doing calculations or making predictions, i'm just saying that it is different than making explanations, and that explanations cannot be proven right or wrong using equations. okay math helped us get into space. equations have helped in all areas of technology development, so what? that doesn't mean that anyone can actually explain physically how such technology actually works, we just know that it does thanks to trial and error.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
...
To be honest, the only reason I pursued this commenting is because you come right out and say that you don't want to debate what is being present. Does this mean you can challenge, but don't like to be challenged? To me this is like if I were to make a video saying how I think that women should have their right to vote taken away in America....and I don't want to be questioned about it. Not my opinion of course, but a bold claim nonetheless. Someone is going to debate it.
cfrutig6 1 year ago
@cfrutig6
i'm not sure where you get that when i've provided you with detailed responses to your questions. please feel free to ask me whatever you'd like on the issue, i would gladly debate anyone on this, scientists included. what they lack is a consistent version of the scientific method, and as such everything is dependent upon authority and democratic consensus rather than consistency and rationality.
junior00bacon00chee 9 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee Furthermore, the use of math (pertaining to physics and the sciences) is virtually endless. Only someone with no background in the sciences would state otherwise. Even in biology mathematics plays a role. Math isn't something that engineers and scientists use to "prove" were smart, it is something we use to explain phenomena in ways semantics could not and (in engineering) to design things from the computer you use to the machines used to make it.
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
when did i say math was never used in science? again, what i am saying is that equations DO NOT explain anything, they merely show how quantities vary with one another, they don't explain WHY those quantities vary in the way that they do.
for example, it's one thing to say einstein's general relativity makes correct predictions, and quite another to say that "warped space" does in fact exist and can be used to explain gravity.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee No, in fact, it isn't an entirely separate thing - your statement shows a general lack of knowledge in the sciences. Furthermore, when did I say that you espoused the idea that math was NEVER used in the sciences? Never. What I stated was merely a response to your idea that math and equations (which I don't think you quite understand) are not as useful in science as they are made out to be. "Why those quantities vary in the way they do" --- please elaborate.
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
okay, fair enough. i am not disputing anything with respect to the usefulness of equations in terms of their capacity to predict or enhance technology. i am disputing the notion that equations are explanatory. you can make measurements, look for patterns, and discover relationships between quantities, ie, equations, but those equations don't explain the empirical data from which they arose. the question is what mechanism causes these quantities to vary in the way that they do?
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee It isn't "warped space" that explains gravity, either, it is warped space-time. Your statement was again incorrect (at least read up on that which you bash). We measure this "warp" as you so eloquently stated through the use of math, much like it is possible to measure your weight. By the way, int he case of Einstein, he saw a phenomena and explained it with math - he has been proven correct as far as this goes... funny how math (when used correctly) doesn't lie?
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
If i had to type out every detail of GR in tiny YT comments i'd never get anywhere. i've read all the token astrophysics books since i was a lad so i'm familiar with all of the bullshit terms. "warped space" is irrational enough, but if you want to throw in the notion of "space-time," fine with me. You're correction is like a Christian telling me that I'm getting the alleged definition of god wrong. It's all irrational nonsense.
and "warp" is a physical interpretation for the math, no?
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@XXX
"much like it is possible to measure your weight"
is there a difference between measuring weight and explaining gravity? do you see my point here? simply using tools, making measurements, and discovering patterns does not explain why those patterns arise. pattern recognition does not necessarily entail defining the objects responsible for producing those empirical data.
and btw even einstein's equations were wrong about gravity, but dark matter saved the day!
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee Einstein's equations were not wrong about gravity, indeed all tests so far indicate that Einstein has been right on every occasion tested. Anyway, I digress - you miss the point to equations - no scientist claims that equations explains why something is, they simply explain behavior, make predictions, etc. Why is it that those who vilify the scientific method don't understand it? Sorry to tell you, ignorance is just as bad as the "illusion" of knowledge.
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXXMRcoolkidXXX
Oh really? Dark matter was invented in part to try to explain why individual galaxies aren't ripping apart due to their calculated mass and angular velocity. So no, Einstein has not been right on every single occasion, but even if he were, it's irrelevant to my central arguments, so I digress.
I am not vilifying the scientific method, i am disputing the very definition of the scientific method. In my eyes, you are the one vilifying the scientific method.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee For further information, search "NASA's Gravity Probe B Mission". If you seek an explanation via mathematics, you won't find one, nor any scientist who would state that an equation explains why something happens (though in chemistry, it is possible to explain different things through mathematics, such as why a concentration of an element is more or less present). Scientists and engineers don't seek to explain things through math, math is simply a means to an end.
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
"Math isn't something that engineers and scientists use to 'prove' were smart, it is something we use to explain phenomena" - You
You refuse to use your definitions consistently, and you are attacking me for being ignorant?
The probe B mission does not prove Einstein's physical interpretations to be correct! You can verify equations all day long, but that does not verify any one particular physical interpretation, especially if that interpretation is physically meaningless!
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee At what point did I lose you? "Something we use" is a tool, not an answer - a means to an end. By all accounts, I've stayed consistent, you've just failed to understand and are so anxious to "prove" a person wrong over the internet. The Probe B mission didn't merely "verify" so called "meaningless" equations it showed that geodetic and frame dragging effects occurred exactly as Einstein predicted with his theory (which used math to back it up). Would it kill you to read?
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXXMRcoolkidXXX
wow. your arrogance is astounding. when did i call the equations meaningless? would you like to actually comprehend my points before you start attacking me?
once again, i'll try to state this as clearly as i can, you can make quantitative predictions and verify them all day long, but that does not prove the physical interpretation used to explain why the measured quantities vary in the way that they do. does that make sense to you?
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee What people like you fail to realize is that mathematics is all just a summed up way of stating something, it is a language of sorts. Math is used to make predictions, design new machines, and guide us in our search for why things happen, but as I've stated, is just a means to an end, not the end itself. An example was a prediction made by mathematics - that spacetime is indeed curved and not straight - which was confirmed via NASA's Probe B satellite. Don't be lazy.
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
"a prediction made by mathematics - that spacetime is indeed curved and not straight"
do you at least recognize that you are doing two different things here? on one hand you are referencing predictions based upon empirical data and pattern recognition, and on the other you are hypothesizing the existence of something, ie, "curved spacetime," in order to explain that empirical data. the problem with "curved spacetime" is that it is physically meaningless so it does not qualify as a theory.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee In fact, curved spacetime is VERY meaningful. It is what keeps you and I bound to the earth (and the earth bound to us). All studies show spacetime to be correct, not "hypothetical" and thus the validity of the Theory of General Relativity is not in question. You simply don't understand the scientific method, the use of equations, or basic physics. This "argument" is pointless as you simply misunderstand the point of mathetmatics in physics.
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
Yet you cannot explain how "curved spacetime" keeps us bound to the Earth b/c "curved spacetime" cannot be conceived of by the human mind. Why do you think we are always provided with lower dimensional models like the gravity well? It's b/c the "real" theory cannot be illustrated or imagined. If you cannot define physically what "curved spacetime" means then obviously you can't use it to explain the observations.
And enough hand waving, give me arguments or don't bother.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@XXX
I'll give you a much more clear example to illustrate my point. Take string theory. String theory fails b/c no one can define what it means for one-dimensional strings to exist. It is impossible to conceive of something existing which only has one dimension. So, it follows that no explanation can come from string theory b/c any explanation would require to strings to be defined physically, ie, "X exists and behaves in this way. That is what explains such and such..."
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@XXX
do you see my point? an explanation necessarily requires you to define what exists, and if you cannot, then no theory can be formulated. The explanation itself is just a story about what exists and how it behaves so definitions are absolutely crucial. Also, even if there were experiments to test string theory, no amount of data in the world could "prove" something which can't even be defined. It's the same reason why GR, big bang theory, creationism, etc, fail. It's a definitional problem.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee How the curving of spacetime keeps us tethered to the earth is simple. Space pushes down on us towards the earth, it does not in fact "pull" on us. What cannot be explained? The real theory can be illustrated and imagined by the human mind... clearly. I can define physically what spacetime is - space and time in a single continuum, also known as "3+1" dimensions in physics (3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time).
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
Okay, then show me a drawing of the architecture of spacetime. I don't want some lower dimensional bullshit like the 2D gravity well, I want you to find me ONE illustration of the architecture of curved spacetime.
You can define spacetime? Okay, let's slow down and do this right then. First define "space." In order to be scientific, your definition MUST be able to be used consistently. I'll give you my definition, it can be used consistently.
Space: that without shape
done.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee And would you certify plasma to be "space". Ugh, the lack of knowledge when it comes to physics is boggling. "In order to be scientific" you have no authority on matters scientific or unscientific as you yourself are someone without formal training in the subject area, but nonetheless I've remained consistent. Space is measured in the three dimensions of height, width, and length, no more, no less, any other definition would be incorrect.
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
define "plasma." if plasma has architecture then obviously it is not space. that follows by definition.
of course i have no authority on science, no one does. science is about the arguments, not the people who make them. it is sad to see what public education has reduced people to...you are trained like a dog to trust in authority and revolt against anyone who questions it. you tout your little degrees as if jumping through some hoops makes you an expert.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@XXX
you wear your unquestioning subservience as if it is some kind of badge of honor. now, would you like to concentrate on arguments, or would you like to debate me on whether or not authority has any fucking place in science whatsoever?
"Space is measured"
measuring something is not a definition! you must either tell me what space is or you cannot use it in a theory. how can space "push" on something when you cannot even define what is doing the pushing?
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@XXX
"Space is measured in the three dimensions of height, width, and length, no more, no less, any other definition would be incorrect."
if that is the definition then how is "space" different from measuring an object? objects can be measured in three dimensions, right? so space and objects are the same?
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@XXX
two more salient points. number one, if that is the definition of space, then WHAT is being measured? you are using a circular definition, ie, "the definition of X is that X is measured as such and such." number two, even if i were to entertain your non definition, then how can "measured in three dimensions" push on us in order to keep us bound to the Earth???
so go ahead and try again. define "space," or accept my objective, scientific definition which can be used consistently.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee It has nothing to do with "touting", it is just that you have no formal training in the maths or the sciences and cannot support your arguments scientifically. Instead, you rely on vague philosophical thinking - "define plasma" to keep alive in the argument. You stated that your definition (which must be used in ALL cases CONSISTENTLY) is "that without shape" - plasma has no definitive shape, yet it is not "space". Where in your definition did you state that w/o architecture
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
"no formal training in the maths or the sciences"
do i really need to keep making the point that this means absolutely nothing? arguments are all that matter, you can either respond to them or you can't. if you can't obviously your "formal training" did nothing but instill you with unwarranted arrogance. NOW...on to the actual substance...
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee Your "actual substance" was infinitely incorrect. It has nothing to do with arrogance, it has to do with the fact that you are commenting on that which you know nothing about. Would it be arrogant for an MD to tell me to back away while he treats a patient? No. You simply have not been trained to analyze scientifically and have not read up on physics which set your arguments up for failure - the internet will not give you the benefits of actual experiences in the sciences.
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
sigh....okay you want to go this route. no it wouldn't be arrogant for an Md to do that, but it WOULD be arrogant for an MD to throw his credentials around and act like he doesn't have to make arguments with respect to medical EXPLANATIONS. what does arguing about explanatory theories have to do with saving someone's life?
again, this is incredibly simple. you either have an explanation for things or you don't. you can either respond to arguments or you can't.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@XXX
how is defining terms "vague philosophical thinking?" so definitions aren't important in science, is that what you are saying? then just come out and say it.
"plasma has no definitive shape"
once again, define "plasma." i would not equate plasma with space b/c i would define plasma as consisting of ionized particles. are you saying that you would define ionized particles as having no shape? how can something conceivably exist and yet have no structure or extension?
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee Defining plasma as consisting of ionized particles isn't correct - it consists of ions and electrons which exist in a free-moving state. Definitions are very important in science, I just don't understand why you can't look them up yourself. The ions and electrons have a shape which is not consistent do to their free-moving tendencies, think of plasma as the amoebas of the four states of matter, in a way. When I say that without shape, I am speaking for the "big picture".
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
"When I say that without shape, I am speaking for the 'big picture.'"
Okay now we are getting somewhere. The ions and electrons DO have shape. Yes, because they move about freely the overall shape of "plasma" changes. Does that mean a school of fishes ceases to have shape b/c the individual fish are moving around? No. "Plasma" would be a dynamic definition, meaning it has shape but also a particular motion.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee Plasma has no shape because the individual particles which make it up are free moving. The particles which make you up are not free moving, if they were, "you" wouldn't exist in your state because you would have no set shape. This is not to say that the particles composing plasma have no shape, only that that which they make up has no defined shape do to their random free moving tendency.
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
"This is not to say that the particles composing plasma have no shape, only that that which they make up has no defined shape do to their random free moving tendency."
nonsense. the particles that make me move around, it's just that the particles in plasma can freely move apart from one another. so what if they drift apart? the fundamental constituents, regardless of their relation to one another, do not cease to have shape. Obviously that differentiates plasma from space.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee No sir, what you are saying is nonsense. You are a solid (speaking for your exterior) which means that your atoms are tightly bound together. Clearly, plasma is not space, but plasma has no "definitive" meaning set shape. You misunderstand very easily... In any case it is unknown if space does or does not have shape, thus you cannot differentiate plasma and space with this logic.
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee Since you seem to misunderstand my use of the word "definitive" in shape, this argument is no longer going anywhere. You seem to misunderstand scientific terms... to a great degree. Furthermore, space itself cannot be defined as not having a shape, this is simply not necessarily true or false, though a greater amount of evidence states that space does have a shape. I wish you the best in understanding physics, semantics however does not interest me, please research!
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
"though a greater amount of evidence states that space does have a shape"
you can't use evidence in making definitions! definitions are necessary to formulate the theory which explains the evidence! they must be assumed. obviously, if you are going to say that something has shape, then you would not classify it as space under my definition. so if you are going to say, "wait a minute, look at this data, this has shape," then you are ceasing to claim that w/e it is is space!
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee The definition of space does not involve shape, thus there is no problem in what the physics community is doing by attempting to find if space does or does not have shape. As I've told you, we can only define space as having length, width, and height, not being absent of shape. Furthermore, definitions are not assumed, ever. "Under my definition" your definition has no validity unless you show me that space has no shape, the burden of proof lies on the claimant.
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
when you assume a definition you are NOT assuming that it is "true," you are simply taking it at face value for the purpose of understanding the theory. my definition of space is objective, clear, and consistent regardless of the empirical data. Now, if scientists find energy, or w/e, in what was previously thought to be empty space, then obviously they should cease to categorize what they discovered as "space."
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee Taking a definition at face value for understanding a theory (in my book) is taking it to be true. From what you wrote, I understood that we should assume your definition of space to be true for mere arguments sake. Let me make perfectly clear, there are no assumptions made in (good) science. I have never heard the word assume applied to definitions absent the context which I personally assumed to be true, not to say this use was incorrect, I appalled English classes :)
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
fair enough, indeed the term "assume" implies that one is assuming something to be true. so let me choose my words more carefully. when one defines something, one is first and foremost not concerned with whether or not the definition applies to reality. firstly one is concerned with whether or not the definition itself can be used consistently. if not, then it fails regardless of the evidence or experiments.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@XXX
so you are 100% correct to assert that in science, we do not assume anything to be true. forgive my misleading usage of terms. i am saying that a definition is formulated absent of any considerations of its truth or falsity, or of its application to reality. the first thing i do is conceive of it, and just from that the test of whether or not it can be used consistently can be applied, regardless of the evidence.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@XXXMRcoolkidXXX Furthermore, it is unknown if space has shape, you can read up on this if you'd like, I have several reliable sources of information for you to visit and enlighten yourself. Let me explain what plasma having no definitive shape means. It means that were I to put it inside of a container, it would form to the shape of this container. By the way, the difference between plasma and a gas (which also has no definitive shape) is that plasma particles contain electrical charges.
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
"unknown if space has shape"
definitions are not based upon empirical investigation, they are not "true" or "false." The definitions preexist empirical data, they stand on their own feet as models that we conceive. You have to ASSUME definitions of what exists, and then see whether or not such a theory can explain the data. There is no way to ever have knowledge of whether or not definitions map 100% onto reality, you can only judge them based upon their consistency and explanatory power.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee Oh goodness, what a philosopher? Were it so simple. Scientists do not ASSUME anything (thankfully). Definitions in fact are based upon empirical investigations and yours have been very "false". The meaning behind the definition may preexist empirical data, however we do not realize them without study. Furthermore, definitions in physics are largely based on what is discovered mathematically. Your assumption that space has shape is a scientific fallacy.
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
"The meaning behind the definition may preexist empirical data, however we do not realize them without study."
so you at least agree that definitions can be conceived prior to any evidence or data, right? excellent. now, OF COURSE, if the definitions you formulate and the theories you produce from them do not do a good job of explaining the empirical data, then they should be rejected. the first test of any definition, regardless of evidence, is whether or not it's even conceivable.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee Furthermore, I'm not trained like a "dog" to defend science, I'm just stating that which is according to the scientific method. You appear to be ranting at what? The modern physics and engineering communities for using math? Plasma is simply a collection of ions and electrons which are free moving (thus giving them no definitive shape or volume. I suppose next you'll ask me to define free moving? Is it possible for you to admit you are wrong?
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXXMRcoolkidXXX
"for using math?"
jesus. fucking. christ. can you really be this obtuse? how many times do i have to explain this? you refuse to understand my very simple points. once again, i am not against the use of math, i reject the notion that math is explanatory. of COURSE math is useful in these endeavors, i've stated that time and time again, it is just not explanatory!
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@XXX
"Plasma is simply a collection of ions and electrons which are free moving"
ahah! okay, excellent. now, do ions and electrons have shape? you say no, because they are free moving? what does their motion have to do with whether or not they have shape? mainstream physics claims that electrons have no extension, this is obviously a contradictory definition. how can anyone conceive of a causal agent which has no shape? then how do define its existence?
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee And yet mainstream physics would tell you that the composure of plasma is insignificant to the argument of defined shape - now you are delving into a messed up understanding of quantum mechanics (micro) vs relativity (macro). This argument is pertaining to relativity, not quantum. The two are... irreconcilable so to speak in modern day physics. Again, research would have helped you out. You'd make a great philosopher, your great at dissecting arguments, but your too lazy...
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
let me be utterly clear. we start with experience in our investigation, right? this branches off into two things, 1) empirical data, and 2) models of existence. the former is based purely on analyzing sense data and formulating patterns, whereas the latter is based upon actually conceiving of a model. a model is a conscious experience which is not dependent upon the empirical data, and which is supposed to represent something outside of itself.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@XXX
the former is where we get equations. it's all based on inductive reasoning and pattern recognition. you make measurements, then you discover patterns in how quantities vary given certain conditions. this is all predictive, and it is very useful, but NOT explanatory.
the latter is explanatory, it involves defining what exists as part of the model, and elucidating how it behaves. this then is an objective theory which can explain the former, ie, the empirical data.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@junior00bacon00chee Elaborate on models of existence please. I just have never personally heard the term... models always agree with evidence via the experimental method. (I don't like to say empirical, its too vague). I can tell you this because the models I construct as a chemical engineer are entirely based on scientific concepts (and mathematical ones) which agree with "empirical data" derived from experimentation and investigation.
XXXMRcoolkidXXX 4 months ago
@XXX
models of existence are necessary to explain the data. if you can make observations, or experiments, or measurements, and use pattern recognition to make predictions or design things then that is wonderful. all i am saying that these activities do not constitute explanation. what accounts for these observations, experiments, and measurements? what exists, and how does it behave, such that these experimental data can be explained?
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
@X
all knowledge is derived ultimately from our experience, right? so necessarily it follows that any model i create will be something i imagine, something i experience. the model comes into being when i conceive of it, when i have an experience which is supposed to represent something outside of that experience. for example, i can conceive of a shape which is rounded and discrete, and then say THIS is what exists and what partially accounts for my observation of, say, a basketball.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
i can make all the observations and measurements of a basketball that i want, but until i actually define "basketball," ie, model it, then i cannot produce any explanation regarding the behavior of the basketball. as i stated earlier, newton himself admitted that he had an equation which could accurately predict the quantities associated with falling bodies, but that he had no explanation for the mechanism behind gravity. that requires defining what exists and showing how these behaviors arise.
junior00bacon00chee 4 months ago
I am beginning to understand your viewpoint, and I will admit a certain amount of validity. But again, I think your comparison to religion is a bit strong. I don't think anyone fully understands quantum, but there is empirical evidence to support it. Religion had no evidence. It's based on pure blind faith. String theory I have little use for. If there are experiments done that show real evidence, then maybe.
(cont...)
cfrutig6 1 year ago
@cfrutig6
my argument is that the failure of these "theories" is not about whether or not there are experiments to support them, it all boils down to a conceptual issue. ST hypothesizes the existence of "1D strings," yet no one can actually tell you what it means for 1D strings to exist. they are inconceivable, and if you cannot conceive of the causal agent of a theory, then there is no theory there.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee
and QM may get the numbers right, but so did newton's law of gravitation before it was replaced by GR. yet, newton himself admitted that he had no explanation for the causal mechanism behind gravity.
being able to predict based upon empirical data and pattern recognition is far different than hypothesizing the existence of physical objects and using them to explain observations. the various physical interpretations of QM are either inconceivable or inconsistent.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
You make it seem as if challenging these ideas is no big deal. As if you have any proof. These "ideas" are based on the life's work of brilliant men and women. You are not proposing anything revolutionary here. Let's not present yourself as if you are. There are no challenging statements about anything you disagree with. It comes down to a matter of respect, of which, you deserve just about as much as you are showing those with real intelligence. None.
cfrutig6 1 year ago
@cfrutig6
proof has no place in the scientific method.
why on earth would you displace skepticism with "respect?" i can question or disagree with someone and still respect them. what you are talking about is not respect, but unquestioning reverence. that is reserved for religion.
let me ask you cfrutig6, do YOU understand quantum mechanics, relativity, or string theory to a T? if not, why do you believe other people on faith? isn't that the province of religion?
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
Terrible video. Who do you think you are you little know-it-all shit? Did you equate believing the bible with believing mathematics? This in not solid logic. Please, do post more videos about how you are debunking relativity and quantum. Let's see it...
cfrutig6 1 year ago
@cfrutig6
boy know-it-all, huh? haven't heard that one before. i never understood why people get so angry when you challenge ideas. i have made more videos on these things...
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
great video man
scout6686 1 year ago
great vid :-)
stealthswimmer 1 year ago
Since when has modern physics been based on pure math as opposed to a qualitative model? Both Relativity and QM are built on rigid interpretations that logically flow from classical understandings and experimentation that has shown limits to those classical understandings.
TehBANN3D 1 year ago
Mathematics never promised to explain anything. It's simply a language.
I really enjoyed your commentary on economics here but when you got into physics, I think you answered your own question, so-to-speak.
beejusbeejus 1 year ago 2
Economics without Maths is just bullshit
paulgallagher13 1 year ago
As economics can not effectively make verifiable predictions with any degree of success, how does it qualify as "science"?
Khaddar 1 year ago
@Khaddar
economists can and do make predictions, but they are not quantitative.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
If a theory has been shown to have predictive capacity and has not been debunked, why would you throw it out? Skepticism is vital, but "throwing it out" because "nobody really gets it" is not skepticism, it's a huge positive assertion. The fact that QM and relativity are weird and non-intuitive is not a statement about their truth or falsehood at all. Maybe the models are largely flawed, but you haven't shown this, you've just appealed to your preference of what physics ought to be.
FiremanHurley 1 year ago
@FiremanHurley
unless i have a prior physical model for understanding a measurement, then what meaning does it have? a measurement is a relationship between a unit and what is being measured, so we are dealing with at least two physical objects.
theories must be based upon more than just relationships between quantities, ie, equations, b/c otherwise we could not ascertain the meaning of the numbers!
there is a lot more than that....but that is as succinct as i can put in 500 words.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
@junior00bacon00chee If you are saying that a physical model must precede a theory about something we cannot directly observe, then you are essentially shutting down science at a certain point. Predictions and models spring from the mathematics, which are then, unlike keynesian predictions, rigorously tested for falsifiability. I'll concede this is different from an apple landing on your head and you figuring out why, but I don't see what the alternative is.
FiremanHurley 1 year ago
@FiremanHurley
in order to understand how the apple falls we must formulate a qualitative physical model which shows us the actual cause and effect mechanism behind this observation. simply measuring the mass of the earth, and of the apple, and measuring the force between them as it varies with distance, can allow us to derive newton's mathematical law of gravitation, but the equation is just a description of what is observed. we must hypothesize an actual mechanism.
junior00bacon00chee 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
stop reading :D
trizza82 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
stop reading :D
trizza82 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
stop reading :D
trizza82 1 year ago
boring und useless!
trizza82 1 year ago
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
This is great for working on one's information processing speed, as far as comprehending knowledge goes.
MoonLightFacade 1 year ago
Good to see you back.
You should consider switching to English Prime. You are less likely to incite reactionary arguments that way.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
Economics and science are two things im very interested in. I dare say youre smarter than me but i can styill grasp everything that youre saying.
Your video actually confirms something that im always saying. That humans, as advanced as we like to think we are. Are still stupid.... Well i say stupid. Ignorant may be better, but stupid still applies. We have many hypothsises on how everything works but very little true knowledge.
But i wouldnt say Einstein didsnt approached the world in maths
NicosMind 2 years ago
@NicosMind
I think you missed the more advanced aspects of his video. I'm not trying to be rude.
Think of this question and you'll get a better understanding of his thesis in this video. "What is 2" Does 2 itself mean anything? Can you think about 2 without referring to what the number 2 represents? No. Two by itself is useless, it represents nothing by itself, explains nothing. Now, take the concept of 2 and introduce it to a physical Universe (like ours) and now it's very powerful.
JRuni0r 1 year ago
haha
SpicyHam 2 years ago
Welcome back! awesome video!
wizkid2000 2 years ago
It's always ... the more you know the more you realize you don't know .... love it...
reference2me 2 years ago
well, if it weren't for purely imaginative/mathematical considerations we would have never conceived of ideas such as viruses, atomic energy and many more critical science. I don't suggest there is anything wrong with questioning the meaning of math in science but I suggest you actually learn it and discover that it isn't what you thought it was. You've made a very blunt conclusion at the end. I am sure that mathematical physicist know far more about the use of math and its limitations than you
roy77800 2 years ago 5
Failed to address many aspects of mathematics in science/physics. For example, many scientific phenomena were first observed by the mathematics itself(equations) and subsequently discovered in reality/experiment.
Furthermore, entire concepts, such as the magnetic/electric fields are mathematical reality. The known universe as known by science depends on things which we have not a visualization for, no spatial reasoning. Our perception via our senses is inaccurate virtual reality.
roy77800 2 years ago 7
I think I have given a similar rant on mathematical economics at least half a dozen times to mostly bewildered audiences, but your take on mathematical physics is new to me. Perhaps it's why I left academic physics before finishing my dissertation years ago. I don't know that I would agree that all modern physics lacks a logical physical interpretation. I always solved hairy GR problems by first constructing a 3D visualization for myself of the spacetime under consideration. Please say more
xleroc 2 years ago
I think I get it.
If I understand you correctly, then you're saying that understanding of economics and physics requires not just law, i.e. mathematical correlations validated by repeated empirical testing, but theory, i.e. deductive causal reasoning. While the former may indeed yield useful engineering knowledge, it is conceited to claim to understand a process, without first being able to describe the specific causes and effects of that process.
How badly did I mangle that just now? : P
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
wow. yes. i couldn't have said it better myself.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Yes, something like this occurred to me before, whilst evaluating the merits of the Austrian school.
Looking forward to seeing the continuation of your series.
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
@junior00bacon00chee So you're really arguing against the conceit of modern physics professors in "knowing the truth" rather than saying anything about the truth or falsehood of various modern physics disciplines. I can agree with that, going through all of that crap in college and hearing people like thunderf00t talk. However, you've shown a reason for skepticism, not a reason to throw out modern physics entirely.
FiremanHurley 1 year ago
Good video. Keep them up, I'm curious to see where you are going with this.
Weaselheadx 2 years ago
hahaha yes i agree.
if there is no hypothesis then smashing atoms together is merely a sophisticated form of smashing rocks together. it is pointless unless your experiment has context! what physical model is being tested??
i dont know....it's craziness.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
"Shut up and calculate!"
gf1605 2 years ago
Great video. Well done. ***** & favorited. The points that you make seem especially potent when it comes to quantum mechanics. There is a strong tendency to treat the math as more real than the actual stuff being explained.
tumbleweedjoe 2 years ago
The same is true for psychology. You will not publish any psychological theory in 'serious' magazines unless you 'prove' it with stats and mathematical models. Right now im preparing a phd in psychology of religion and I'm forced to add maths there. That's a pretty cool mixture.
HubertPaetz 2 years ago 2
LOL typical (sordid) 'Austrian' nutjob, did you even take upper level maths at college? what's that? you didn't even go to college? you've worked at a meat-works factory sinse you were 16?
cant say I'm surprised, but hey, not all of us can be intellectuals, we need manual labor types like you folk to to the slave labor jobs. Please keep these constipated conspiracies theories to yourself, they stink like sh*t
TheRepublicX 2 years ago
It seems like juniorbacon is overestimating his intellectualism because he has been fiddling around with consipracy " theories" pulled out of pseudointellectuals ass so much. Its funny to see how he scribbled paul krugman in his description, so much for an anti-statist. It makes me chuckle how he says intellectualism cannot grasp the notion of reality yet he formulates his "theories" on it and i might add "pseudo" infront of it. Whats up with physical object-fetish of epistemological nihilist?
idontgiveashit0930 2 years ago
If you look into a discipline you are bound to find axioms that are not really.."self evident" and satisfactory. Even scientific method which is a specialized school of inductive reasoning has its own flaws...and the fact that physicists dont even know whether 5-11th dimensions exist in reality,(which exists in mathematical sense) seems to endorse his point(these are fucking obvious points)..but i would render him the retard certificate for saying how relativitiy and QM are unscientific.
idontgiveashit0930 2 years ago
THIS is what im talking about in the beginning.
some people are literally unable to engage people in genuine discussion, they have to go around and try to bash anyone who says anything that isn't perfectly in line with what they were taught.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
But whats the point of giving physical observable proofs to an epistemological nihilst? That is like giving a schrodingers cat a salmon can which he cant even open. Your blind faith on physical observation and distrust on mathematical perception is unfound. Descartes will be proud.
idontgiveashit0930 2 years ago
i took several years of engineering at purdue university, and tutored for physics. not that that means anything actually....
obviously you can barely form a coherent sentence. go bother someone else dude, you are a waste of time. im ashamed that i gave you this many words.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
"the sweet, sweet nectar of my voice"...lol
givebirthathome 2 years ago
Long time no post!!!
linkdead14 2 years ago
yeah i decided to go back to college, one thing i noticed about my math class is that they tell you how to solve various equations but offer no explanation as to why they are solved like that i.e. the mechanisms.
chainzdown2dadik 2 years ago
some bold claims. I am looking forward to the next video.
TotalAnomy 2 years ago
Great video. favorited
aaron0883 2 years ago
I like you JBC, but a lot of what you are saying here sounds like arguments from ignorance.
You say that people should make theories first and then come up withe facts afterwards. This was done for centuries. It's called mysticism.
And, I'm not sure what "true knowledge" is supposed to mean, but it sounds pretty hocus pocus to me.
Cailwyn 2 years ago
No, it's what scientists actually often do. Look up theory-ladenness. The theories he refers to are a) logically constructed b) proceed from clear axioms. Both can be corrected if wrong. Nothing to do with mysticism.
Moragauth 2 years ago
i would have to agree with moragauth.
what i am saying is that the first thing a physicist must do is formulate a valid hypothesis, which means presenting a physical model of the objects involved in the theory. relativity, QM, and string theory all fail at this level since they actually frame no real hypotheses. the physical interpretations they attempt to give in retro are nonsensical.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Comment removed
Mattprole 2 years ago
No, that's not true. Prove me wrong!
:)
cnips20 2 years ago
LING came back, austrolibertarian came back, even Franc posted a new video! now you are posting again. I swear it is some sort of sign. not sure what it means yet.
DeraJa 2 years ago
So...if quantum chemistry isn't a viable tool for discerning hypermutation in proteins..what is?
TruthDevours 2 years ago
new style, thats what up.
Glad your back with some heat
JahLoveOnline 2 years ago
27th!
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
Is this a cry for the Noble savage?
Gettinghitonattheban 2 years ago
More like a cry for the savage noble.
TruthDevours 2 years ago
Interesting video, I agree that mathematics cannot explain anything by itself. Like another form of language it is just an operator. It needs data from reality to operate and relate, or else it is just rationalization, like juggling numbers out of nothing.
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
loved that fat guy dancing :D
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
Um, can you tell me why relativity would have to be dropped?
TrueEmergence 2 years ago
einstein would be disappoint.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
Well I'm just extraordinarily confused right now. Einstein's theory was proven in a tangible sense... and did help push forward physics in a huge way... I'm a bit disappointed right now with the video because I normally enjoy your stuff.
TrueEmergence 2 years ago
@TrueEmergence
Don't panic, try to understand what he is saying. The fundamental principle of relativity is proven but Einstein did a very poor job at explaining it. Can you explain for example why the speed of light doesn't change with speed for example?
And quantum mechanics doesn't explain nothing, it is just statistics.
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
Well, in the -General- Theory of relativity does hold a bit of relevance in the we wouldn't have GPS. If you need an explanation of how I'd be happy to, but I'd hope you do haha.
Regardless of how well he explained it to general masses, what does that have to do with dropping it...which he said explicitly.
TrueEmergence 2 years ago
Have you heard of the millennium theory of relativity? It does a much better job with the mathematics of relativity than Einstein's. With a much better explanation for even "experts".
Like I know of a lot of PhD's that know the equations but they have no clue really of what they are dealing with.
SuperFinGuy 2 years ago
yes i explicitly advocate dropping relativity.
equations can be useful. when i was in electrical engineering 101 we always used ohm's law. ohm's law explains nothing, but is very, very useful in building circuits.
there are more problems than just "bending of space" being meaningless physically. for example, if gravity "waves" propogate at the speed of light (consistent with SR) then the solar system would fly apart. if they are instantaneous (as newton's law implies) then SR fails.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
the equations of relativity are formulated in what is called minkowski space. this is where the whole "space-time" thing comes from. points are described by three space coordinates and one time coordinate.
unfortunately, minkowski space is a mathematical abstraction. relativists "explain" gravity by invoking the "bending of space" which has no physical meaning. no one on the planet knows what that means.
you cannot "prove" something that is meaningless.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
Great vid
Stargazer5781 2 years ago
Was with you their until said general relativity and quantum mechanics as theories fail. Sorry but you are just dead wrong. Quantum mechanics has ben verified correctly by a myriad of experiments pertaining to describing physical phenomena at the subatomic level. If you are so convinced that quantum mechanics fails as a theory, tell me where it has failed.Don't say it cannot describe macroscopic phenomena because one can say the same thing about CM failing to describe the physics of atoms.
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
as i stated in the vid, i plan on making videos which elaborate precisely on what you are talking about.
experiments cannot confirm invalid hypotheses. such is the failing of modern physics, and i will do my best to explain PRECISELY why modern physics fails in future videos, ie, being specific to the various theories and showing beyond all doubt that they explain nothing.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
a hypothesis is only invalid if it cannot be confirmed by experiments.There is no other way to prove that a hypothesis is invalid other than the process of experimentatio; So far , the double slit experiment , wave properties of ions have been observed in particle detectors such as a cloud chamber. It has been the most physical tested theory ever. I agree with you on things like string theory isn't really a theory, and the hypothetical particle graviton has yet to be observed in a lab, not QM
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
"a hypothesis is only invalid if it cannot be confirmed by experiments."
if no one has any clue what is going on physically....then there is no hypothesis. experiments can help support an actual hypothesis.
stephen hawking says the universe was "created spontaneously out of nothing." he says this is "required by relativity and QM." whether or not this is true, we as human beings cannot conceive of creation "ex nihilo" and thus this EXPLAINS nothing.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
You sir have a way with words, your vocabulary is refreshingly vast and you put it to great use.
You also bring up an excellent point about us not understanding the fundamental laws that make the technology we love so much work.
TUSENMAUG 2 years ago
why thank you sir, glad to see a new name!
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
I don't understand what you mean by describing everything through "physical objects".
What in physics doesn't relate to "physical objects"?
The problem in economics is not math, it's the ASSUMPTIONS that they make in creating the mathematical models. These assumptions are usually incomplete or plain false.
Also in many cases, especially in macro, you can't repeat experiments so Keynesians can always claim that they didn't stimulate enough
ba11in41ife 2 years ago
well, with regards the first portion of your comment, you are just being honest. i am still having a little trouble nailing down the EXACT, PRECISE epistemological basis for physics.
however, as consistent with everything i say in this vid, i whole heartedly reject the idea that equations, ie, relationships between quantities (quantites being relationships between objects), can have any explanatory power.
assumptions can help in creating physical models.
junior00bacon00chee 2 years ago
good stuff
Robinsonero 2 years ago
I hope you go into the other things that fail and make no sense as well. Awesome video, look forward to more!
thebeartaxes 2 years ago
yay! :D Very well put.
return135 2 years ago
......so sweet this nectre is.
lengthyounarther 2 years ago
hahaha <3
tpsisokayiguess 2 years ago
Welcome back! An interesting dive into the philosophy of science. To touch on a few points, you mention the bible v. physics-- I took a rigorous philosophy of science course in which science v. religion was seriously challenged...the greatest fundamental differences concluded are attitude/trajectory and degrees of brainwashing. The rest of the differences turns into an incredible shouting match.
theaaroneason 2 years ago