Argument by analogy

[Gibsense]

his is an incomplete sentence, can't understand what you are getting at.

Cat's argument is that the CMB consists of radiation, and radiation moves therefore it cannot be stationary.

 

[billslugg]

Yes, the radiation itself is travelling at the speed of light, as all radiation does. The particles that originally emitted the CMBR were moving randomly at the time, just like all hot atoms do. We know this because the spectrum of the CMBR is a perfect Black Body emission. The gas itself, that contained the atoms that radiated, was not moving. The gas was everywhere all at once in the same density, thus there was no motion of gas trying to get where it was less dense.

 

[Gibsense]

actually took out the patents in my name but did assign them. I used to visit RB (also when just R) but not in the last 35-40 years. I won't say more in case we recognise each other!!! But perhaps you are more recent, in which case, no possibility.

If you were a prisoner of war by the Japanese, I may know you

 

[Catastrophe]

This is an incomplete sentence, can't understand what you are getting at.

Quoting you "Every spot in the universe emitted a photon." in brackets.

This leaves
Photons you describe (bracketed quote)
must still be travelling here, unless you suggest that photons can remain stationary.

You describe photons, saying (bracketed quote) so

[they] must still be travelling here, unless you suggest that photons can remain stationary.

The word 'they' was omitted. Sorry.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Or more likely:

Photons, as you describe (bracketed quote) must still be travelling here, unless you suggest that photons can remain stationary.

Sorry. Again, I missed out a word.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Looking back, so much of the discussion was composed of semantic inconsequential bubbles.

I make no apologies in repeating "The map is not the territory".
A map may endeavour to describe or portray, but never is more than a collection of words or symbols.

For example, we see a foreground commentator on TV describing a horse race, with perhaps 20 horses in the background, "giving their all" to outrace each other, perhaps goaded on by the whips of their jockeys.
We use a word to describe this as "background". We then say this word IS "static". Another invented word.

Really, are these words much better than animal grunts? (My apologies to "animals")

It is our "civilisation" which attributes meaning (another word) to these assumptions.

We assume (at least on a daily basis) that our senses provide all the information necessary to give a perfect and complete description of our surroundings, and beyond. Further, that we have the necessary "brainpower" to convert those limited signals into "understanding", and "perfect understanding" at that.

These assumptions are necessary to our convenient survival. In terms of evolution, we have learned, as a species, not to be too fussy about accuracy and detail. We do not hesitate, faced with a charging bull, to meditate on its age - whether it means us harm and, if so, why - will it grow up to learn better - how sharp its horns are - would it be less aggressive if it were green or purple in colour?

We pay little attention to words, and hope people understand "what we mean".

Is a still photograph of racing horses static? Well, relative to what we hold in our hands, it is static. But the event it portrays is not static. But am I static when I hold this "static" photo? No, of course not. We all know that the Earth is spinning, and rotating around the c of g of the Earth-Moon system, which orbits the Sun, which orbits the centre of the Milky Way, which . . . . . . . . . .

So language is mostly just a compromise method of communicating approximate understanding, and normally, in living our llives, it is not too unfit for purpose.

But try to dissect it too avidly, and you will waste away your lives.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Cat:
"These assumptions are necessary to our convenient survival. In terms of evolution, we have learned, as a species, not to be too fussy about accuracy and detail. We do not hesitate, faced with a charging bull, to meditate on its age - whether it means us harm and, if so, why - will it grow up to learn better - how sharp its horns are - would it be less aggressive if it were green or purple in colour?"

Gibsense
"Our senses provide an approximate model that is held in our brains. This model is fairly accurate for most tasks and functions we encounter it seems"

Sorry for

So language is mostly just a compromise method of communicating approximate understanding, and normally, in living our llives, it is not too unfit for purpose.

But try to dissect it too avidly, and you will waste away your lives.

having trouble in replying - my fault


Yes

 

[CreatedEvolution]

Analogy observing all the mass in the universe in a 3 foot aquarium if all light started at point A and ends at point B you could theoretically watch the universe end.

For example in our solar system stuff would be so small we would be smaller than atoms because our body to the mass of the universe is insignificant. Let’s say the universe is so small it ends in 3 heart beats.

If everyone were to wake up after death above the aquarium everybody would wake in the blink of an eye

 

[Catastrophe]

This is logically impossible and therefore invalid.

Firstly, please explain how light stops. It is not explained above.
Are you suggesting, for example, that light stops "at an edge of the Universe?
If so, what is on the "other side" of that point?

For another, saying something does not make it so.
"Let’s say the universe is so small it ends in 3 heart beats."
But it has already lasted more than 3 heart beats, so your "say" is already impossible.
Your suggestion does not relate to reality.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense, you would seem to be agreeing with me?

These assumptions are necessary to our convenient survival. In terms of evolution, we have learned, as a species, not to be too fussy about accuracy and detail.

"Our senses provide an approximate model that is held in our brains. This model is fairly accurate for most tasks and functions we encounter it seems"

Cat

 

[whoknows]

Cat, how did you get on with your book about conciousness?

I find this statement of yours interesting

"These assumptions are necessary to our convenient survival" in terms of evolution, we have learned, as a species, not to be too fussy about accuracy and detail.

Einstein for one, imagined/journeyed beyond what was convenient into new territories in his mind - maybe he penetrated an interface of comprehension between subjective and objective reality?

 

[Catastrophe]

Still in progress

I am not praising laissez-faire communication. I am suggesting that fast superficial communication would probably have gained Darwin's approval

Maybe, now we are out of the jungle (or are we???) sane communication will begin to predominate?

Hence my support for Korzybski (Science and Sanity).
To me this world (of human dominance) seems to ooze insanity.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Cat, how did you get on with your book about conciousness?

I find this statement of yours interesting

"These assumptions are necessary to our convenient survival" in terms of evolution, we have learned, as a species, not to be too fussy about accuracy and detail.

Einstein for one, imagined/journeyed beyond what was convenient into new territories in his mind - maybe he penetrated an interface of comprehension between subjective and objective reality?

OK, replying to #113, replying to #111:

"These assumptions are necessary to our convenient survival" in terms of evolution, we have learned, as a species, not to be too fussy about accuracy and detail.

I replied "I am not praising laissez-faire communication. I am suggesting that fast superficial communication would probably have gained Darwin's approval".
I think that I made it clear that careful metered consideration was not appropriate in the face of a charging bull. However, when needs must, there may not be time for frivolous chitchat or deep philosophical thoought, a conclusion with which I think Darwin would have had some sympathy.
The assumptions in question being along the lines that, however much we may philosophise on the deficiencies in communication, sometimes short cut decision is more propitious to survival.

Einstein for one, imagined/journeyed beyond what was convenient into new territories in his mind - maybe he penetrated an interface of comprehension between subjective and objective reality?

I see no conflict. Einstein had the time to ponder, not being faced with a charging bull.
He was able to use this time in coming to see things differently, following the complete dominance of Newton. Nevertheless, a long time considering expansion and Λ ensued without rapid conclusion. Absence of bull did not prevent his "greatest mistake".

Einstein's deliberations brought him to understand that "the map is not the territory". The "force" of gravity was sometimes better understood as reaction to the geometry of spacetime.

Cat

 

[whoknows]

Still in progress

I am not praising laissez-faire communication. I am suggesting that fast superficial communication would probably have gained Darwin's approval

Maybe, now we are out of the jungle (or are we???) sane communication will begin to predominate?

Hence my support for Korzybski (Science and Sanity).
To me this world (of human dominance) seems to ooze insanity.

Cat

"Maybe, now we are out of the jungle (or are we???) sane communication will begin to predominate?"

Here's hoping that will be enough.

"Maybe, now we are out of the jungle (or are we???) sane communication will begin to predominate?
Hence my support for Korzybski (Science and Sanity).
To me this world (of human dominance) seems to ooze insanity."

Thanks, will dip my toe

 

[Catastrophe]

"Maybe, now we are out of the jungle (or are we???) sane communication will begin to predominate?"

Here's hoping that will be enough.

"Maybe, now we are out of the jungle (or are we???) sane communication will begin to predominate?
Hence my support for Korzybski (Science and Sanity).
To me this world (of human dominance) seems to ooze insanity."

Thanks, will dip my toe

I would suggest "Selections from Science and Sanity", as the complete book (at least the edition I read) was over 900 pages. Cat

Google Search

 

[whoknows]

OK, replying to #113, replying to #111:



I replied "I am not praising laissez-faire communication. I am suggesting that fast superficial communication would probably have gained Darwin's approval".
I think that I made it clear that careful metered consideration was not appropriate in the face of a charging bull. However, when needs must, there may not be time for frivolous chitchat or deep philosophical thoought, a conclusion with which I think Darwin would have had some sympathy.
The assumptions in question being along the lines that, however much we may philosophise on the deficiencies in communication, sometimes short cut decision is more propitious to survival.



I see no conflict. Einstein had the time to ponder, not being faced with a charging bull.
He was able to use this time in coming to see things differently, following the complete dominance of Newton. Nevertheless, a long time considering expansion and Λ ensued without rapid conclusion. Absence of bull did not prevent his "greatest mistake".

Einstein's deliberations brought him to understand that "the map is not the territory". The "force" of gravity was sometimes better understood as reaction to the geometry of spacetime.

Cat

I tried to edit my post #113, I assumed that the post is not the territory if it was being edited , anyway #114 is what I tried to replace it with.

 

[Catastrophe]

Now that we have discussed "the map is not the territory", I would like to remind everyone of my opening post in this thread. Especially one small exerpt.

The points I wish to draw from this analogy, are:
That the flatlander's 'universe' is limited to that spherical surface existing in his 'time. For us, as a D+ being, meaning a being able to perceive and process at least one more dimension than the flatlander, it is simply akin to an expanding soap bubble. Note that this is a common analogy for us, but not so in the later example. We should at least be prepared for some differences. Thus a D+ being (e.g., us) could observe a million or more of what a flatlander considers to be 'his' 'universe'. Hence my use of 'around' the word universe. That means that 'universe' is no longer "all there is", but "all that can be perceived or generally recognised by the entity owning that 'universe'.
"Universe" is a relative term, which may be replaced by "observed universe".

I am first to remind all that an analogy is not some underlying truth. Is is simply a peg on which to hang a thought, so that it is exposed to view. But compare this simple facilitation with demands for absolute .obedience of most preposterous suggestions. For one, that one can imigine 'winding the clock backwards' in a smooth linear fashion, when the reverse (including inflation) was an exact opposite. And that this reversal somehow continued until all space and time and contingent matter vanished through infinite temperature and infinite density through a singularity into timeless nothingness.

We just do not know, and, in fact, may be constrained by our sensory equipment and mental ability from ever knowing. I hope not, but better accept 'thought experiments' as possible analogies rather than absolute truths. Let us all remember the basic tenets of science.

Remember those caveats I recalled from the OU. Can we trust assumptions made about conditions way beyond those we have attained in practice? Is any theory requiring division by zero representative of reality? Is such a theory fundamentally flawed - at least under conditions which we can never hope to replicate. But, of course, we have forced two particles to collide in an underground tunnel. This obviously proves beyond doubt how the Universe began.

I am not anti-science. I am pro science. I am a scientist.

I do not offer wild theories that we cannot test adequately - let alone prove. I may try to air other ideas, but we do not know, and may even may be unable to know some information about our surroundings. Maybe we are like flatlanders, mistaking our tiny bubble in wider unknown dimensions as "all there is" - instead of "all there is accorfing to our limited abilities".
If there is a D+1, such a being would see our bubble as "one bubble observable universe" amongst many. How many dimensions are required by string theory?

I am not demanding absolute beliefs. Especially not in wild fictions. That stage is over. Let us emulate the Einsteins and decry flat Earth. Let us see gravity as geometry of spacetime - not as inexplicable "action at a distance". But let us not don blinkers and say "Now we know everything. We can stop here." Just rejoice that we are still moving forward, at last in some respects. But neither must we go to the opposite extreme, and accept any new fictions with alacrity. We may never know.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

But neither must we go to the opposite extreme, and accept any new fictions with alacrity.

I am in broad agreement with your comments. But I would like to point out I am more concerned about old fiction. That the world is flat (best dogma/opinion then). That the universe revolves around the Earth (best dogma/opinion then). That the major problems of the universe had been 'solved' after Newton (best dogma/opinion then). That the atom was the smallest 'thing' (best dogma/opinion then).

That time is a parallel arrow (best dogma/opinion now).
That extra dimensions must be 'rolled up' and not spatial because we cannot see them (best dogma/opinion now)
That gravity can be expressed in terms of a particle (best dogma/opinion now)
That dark matter is a new substance and not just 'shape' (best dogma/opinion now)

The history of science shows that your opinion is obviously correct and that 'extremes' to old positions have often been the correct ones

 

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense, I am not sure what you mean/intend by the 'now; items?

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Gibsense, I am not sure what you mean/intend by the 'now; items?

The 'now' versions can be considered current fictions that will, in future perhaps be found to be wrong just like the old 'science' fiction that was wrong