patrick.net

He is like a preacher for science and nature...nice video

If you understand physics, religion seems pretty boring.

If you understand physics, then you don't understand physics. The same is true with Mathematics. That is, with both subjects it's not all that difficult to get in over one's head.

IS it possible to understand physics without eliciting curiosity about cosmology, metaphysics and possibly if one is so inclined, spirituality? Even TYson (the atheist) sounds spiritually inclined when he talks about the universe being in us.

marcus says

If you understand physics, then you don't understand physics. The same is true with Mathematics.

WTF?

What Marcus says is completely correct. There is so much left to learn, its a wonderful and amazing thing.

wthrfrk80 says

WTF?

robertoaribas says

Conclusion: You don't understand Physics...

Seems to me it would be nice if people at least try to understand one's point.

marcus says

That is, with both subjects it's not all that difficult to get in over one's head.

I wasn't trying to contradict Kevin (actually I think he got my drift).

I guess I was reacting to the idea of "understanding physics" in much the same way that wthrfrk and roberto reacted to what I said. That is taking the words too literally, rather than how they were intended.

It's probably true in all areas of study, but possibly more so in physics and Mathematics that "understanding" is far more than just memorizing information. So if one is curious and driven, they naturally take it to a level where they bump up against (and hopefully expand) the limits of their cognitive abilities.

Sometimes thoughts are not so easily conveyed. This is one of those times. There is a famous Einstein quote (I am not comparing myself to him, but I think I know what he meant).

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."

I have heard some who infer (maybe indirectly) from this quote that he was not good at Math in his youth. I don't think this is what was meant at all. The point of it gets to what I was alluding to. The further you are in to Math or physics, the more challenging it becomes (not less so). In a way, the degree to which the subject is not understood actually increases (even though you know more).

Yeah, exactly.

People who don't "really" know physics learn some basic concepts like gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, and other highschool level stuff, and they think they have a pretty good idea of how the universe works. It seems ordered and sensible.

Then you get a little bit curious and you start asking questions like "What gives a particle mass?" or "What is gravity?" or "What is time?"

That's when things seem so amazing. You could spend your entire life just trying to answer one of those questions, and you still probably wouldn't.

marcus says

Even TYson (the atheist) sounds spiritually inclined when he talks about the universe being in us.

Here's another atheist who talks about universe being in us.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/r6w2M50_Xdk

That represents a connection between my comprehending eye through a narrow beam of light that came from that star .

marcus says

IS it possible to understand physics without eliciting curiosity about cosmology, metaphysics and possibly if one is so inclined, spirituality?

It is possible to question things in physics and cosmology and be curious without concerning the metaphysical. While you may consider rejecting metaphysics as dogmatic, I would consider it as filtering out the noise. The moment 'meta physical' comes into picture, scientific reasoning starts becoming blunt. Reaching an answer that's truth or attempting to get closer to truth is harder with all the noise.

marcus says

If you understand physics, then you don't understand physics. The same is true with Mathematics. That is, with both subjects it's not all that difficult to get in over one's head.

I do get what you say here though. Ego clouds judgment, that's a well known fact. And Ego introduces negative emotions like arrogance, anger etc. - all of which are harmful to have a healthy discourse.

uomo_senza_nome says

While you may consider rejecting metaphysics as dogmatic, I would consider it as filtering out the noise.

I don't know what you mean. You might want to look up metaphysics. It's not empirical in the way that modern science is, but the questions of metaphysics are interesting.

I really love good questions of philosophy. Some of the best ones don't have answers that we will have soon, if ever. What does it mean to exist? What or who really am "I." Am I just some kind of complex electrochemical trick my brain plays on me to feel that "I" actually exist?

Is it possible that "life is just a dream ?"

I think that what the religious have in common with hyper atheists is that they need answers to these questions. It's just that their answers are so different.

Me,...I just enjoy good questions. And I sometimes try on ways of looking things, but in some cases just as a model, not as an absolute scientific truth (not that some scientific truths are more than models, that for now are the best explanations of something).

But back to your point. I think you are possibly taking metaphysical to mean something more spiritual or even religious than what I meant.

If not, vive la difference. What would be the point of there being so many of us, if we didn't interface with this reality differently than one another ?

If there's anything to the universe beyond that which we can measure, observe, and experiment upon, we're by definition not going to be able to understand it, so I don't see the point in worrying about it.

My personal take is that we're ultimately going to be capable of understanding everything, it's just a matter of time (really, really long) and technological advancement. (a whole lot of it).

It will probably take millions of years, assuming we survive that long.

Kevin says

It will probably take millions of years, assuming we survive that long.

Only the religious humans will survive. At least if current birth rates are any indication. Will there be any human scientists a million years from now?

wthrfrk80 says

Kevin says

It will probably take millions of years, assuming we survive that long.

Only the religious humans will survive. At least if current birth rates are any indication. Will there be any human scientists a million years from now?

I can't decide if I'm more amused that you think the religious population is growing faster than the non-religious, or that you think the entire history of human religion is significant compared to my arbitrary "millions of years" number.

marcus says

I really love good questions of philosophy.

Full link here .

I remember a seminar Crick was giving on consciousness at the Salk Institute here in La Jolla. He'd barely started when a gentleman in attendance raised a hand and said, "But Doctor Crick, you haven't even bothered to define the word consciousness before embarking on this." Crick's response was memorable: "I'd remind you that there was never a time in the history of biology when a bunch of us sat around the table and said, 'Let's first define what we mean by life.' We just went out there and discovered what it was—a double helix. We leave matters of semantic hygiene to you philosophers. "

marcus says

I think you are possibly taking metaphysical to mean something more spiritual or even religious than what I meant.

Not really, I understood exactly what you mean. But I just don't like to concern myself with semantic hygiene type questions, because they are by their very nature: vague.

Science is sharp, and I love science.

uomo_senza_nome says

But I just don't like to concern myself with semantic hygiene type questions

I find it ironic that you would say that.

I love science too, so I guess we could say that the kinds of questions you like to explore are a subset of the types of questions I enjoy ?

(note: I don't really think that's true. I think in fact that you want to see a difference that doesn't so much exist. Or you are trying maybe to understand exactly what the difference is. The philosophical questions exist regardless of whether you enjoy them or ignore them. If I were to guess, I would say you like certainty in knowledge, and don't want to be bothered with possibilities. You can acknowledge the mysteries, but want to assert that science can eventually answer them all, and to the extent that it can not, you aren't interested. Or even see philosophical questions and spirituality as a possible obstacle to this.)

I think we are less different than you think, as unsatisfying to the ego as that may be. Much of the difference is probably in emotional make up. That is, there are sort of emotions (things I feel) about reality, the way I experience or interface with life and its deepest truths and mysteries. For you, I have to believe you also have incredibly similar feelings, but that you frame them in a different way.

How much of this is brain chemistry, how much is part of a sum total of experience, versus how much might even have to do with some real truths or only personal truths (models) ? I just don't know.

marcus says

How much of this is brain chemistry, how much is part of a sum total of experience, versus how much might even have to do with some real truths or only personal truths (models) ? I just don't know.

How much of this is bullshit?

Sorry, I'll try to keep it short, simple and interesting to you.

Hey, I was writing a quick response. I'm sure escalating it into the typical argument where we aren't even hearing eachother or talking about the same thing would have been far more interesting to you.

Asshole.

I'll have plenty of time for "vague spirituality" when I'm dead.

You won't even have the concept of "I" anymore, let alone the concept of time.

But hey, nobody is perfect.

marcus says

You won't even have the concept of "I" anymore, let alone the concept of time.

Agree. That was my point. I'm not into vague "spiritual" bullshit, so I'm not going to waste my precious time with it.

At least orthodox Christianity has something to offer: eternal life, based on the premise that human death is *not* natural, but the result of Adam and Eve's sin.

But as well all know, the Adam and Eve story is bullshit. Genetic evidence proves it. There was never a perfect world that can be restored by an Atoning Savior.

marcus says

I would say you like certainty in knowledge, and don't want to be bothered with possibilities.

I would love certainty, but I'm certainly for exploring all possibilities as long as these possibilities are based in reality. If I did not bother myself with the possibilities, how can the process of gaining further knowledge progress?

For instance, fairies in the sky is a possibility, but that's not a possibility supported by existing facts.

marcus says

You can acknowledge the mysteries, but want to assert that science can eventually answer them all, and to the extent that it can not, you aren't interested.

Yes I do acknowledge the unknown, but I don't lose interest simply because science cannot answer them today . Your statement "to the extent that it can not", seems to tell me that you think some questions are possibly not answerable by science, ever . Why is that? Science is not dogmatic at all.

marcus says

Or even see philosophical questions and spirituality as a possible obstacle to this.

Sometimes not always. There are philosophers who provide a lot of cogent arguments without getting into religion. so I don't think what you say is absolutely true..

marcus says

Much of the difference is probably in emotional make up.

Partly. Partly may also be due to the fact that you have a lower estimation of what Science can answer than I do. Because you say:

marcus says

How much of this is brain chemistry, how much is part of a sum total of experience, versus how much might even have to do with some real truths or only personal truths (models) ? I just don't know.

Sum total of experience of a human being is in their brain - where else can it be?

I don't get what you say by real truth vs. personal truth. Can you give an example or elaborate more on this?

Scientific truths are impersonal. They are true regardless of who looks at them. Law of conservation of energy has nothing to do with anybody's personal opinion.

You keep saying that "I don't know" and I don't think you are dogmatic, but you are unwilling to explore further.

You seem to think that the human experience has something to do outside of our brain chemistry, I really don't think that's true. the Brain is a lot more complex than you think and can explain a lot more about human interaction than you think. Which is why I'm saying you are underestimating the power of science.

uomo_senza_nome says

the Brain is a lot more complex than you think and can explain a lot more about human interaction than you think. Which is why I'm saying you are underestimating the power of science.

Who says I deny the complexity of the brain ? Actually, I think that like so many things it is infinitely complex. That is if you were to graph what we don't know about the brain, that graph might start to asymptotically approach zero tens of thousands of years from now (by definition never reaching zero).

Also, for me, if we one day have a far better understanding (as opposed to complete understanding) of how our brain creates our perception of self and our consciousness, that would not be the end of the mystery. It's sort of analogous to the creation versus evolution argument. Evolution proves that the bibles 6000 year version of history and creation is BS, but it doesn't fully explain how life came to exist on Earth and it doesn't preclude the possibilities of forces at play which are far outside of our comprehension. (note: I didn't say or imply supernatural - unless supernatural includes natural forces or intelligence that is beyond our understanding).

Similarly in physics, if we get to where we understand all subatomic particles and lets say we even eventually have some kind of unified field theory. So ? That's not the the end of mystery ? It surely increases it.

There will always be bigger and deeper questions. Say we found out that at one "time" there was nothing but a singularity from which everything came. IF that's true then how could that be ? And how do we even think about a world absent time ?

uomo_senza_nome says

I don't get what you say by real truth vs. personal truth. Can you give an example or elaborate more on this?

For some, their religion can be a personal truth. On some level, they might know that it's not the absolute truth, but it's something they choose to live by as if it were true. Are you familiar with the idea of models in science or say for example in psychology there is Freud's structural model (ego, id super ego) ? It doesn't deal in absolute truths but rather a framework, an agreed way of talking about and analyzing psychological growth and issues. There are many other models in psychology that are in use today. People understand they are models, but at the same time they live by them essentially as truths.

marcus says

that graph might start to asymptotically approach zero tens of thousands of years from now (by definition never reaching zero).

So you are actually saying that we will never have a complete understanding of the human brain by definition ? :)

See this is why arguing semantics is pointless. Actually figuring out and asking the right questions about how the consciousness happens is much more interesting.

marcus says

There will always be bigger and deeper questions.

:-) I never denied this. You did not have to go at great lengths to prove this one point. So what are we arguing on?

marcus says

For some, their religion can be a personal truth. On some level, they might know that it's not the absolute truth, but it's something they choose to live by as if it were true.

You mean it is truth in the strands of their neural cortex but may not be absolutely true? :-) Isn't that an illusion?

If it gets worse, then it might be a delusion.
I'm not kidding, there's actually a medical condition.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/F0R0OCurkLM

marcus says

Are you familiar with the idea of models in science or say for example in psychology there is Freud's structural model (ego, id super ego).

I don't have a very high opinion of Freud. Mainly because I read this book and some of his models have been seriously discredited. Not to say he's not a good scientist, just that his model based interpretation can be studied with much more advanced medical devices such as MRI etc. and can be tested. Some key models (such as his models for dreams) have been thoroughly bunked.

marcus says

an agreed way of talking about and analyzing psychological growth and issues.

Yeah but psychology without a neural basis is like shooting in the dark.

marcus says

. People understand they are models, but at the same time they live by them essentially as truths.

I think that's a problem, because how would you then know if the model you were working with is true or not? How do you test the model?

So sorry, I am still having a hard time understanding something as "personal truth"...I get personal belief, but I don't get personal truth.

uomo_senza_nome says

So you are actually saying that we will never have a complete understanding of the human brain by definition ?

No, I was saying a graph that approaches zero asymptotically never reaches zero by definition. But yes it is my opinion that we will ever know everything about the brain. But that is no leap, if you can even comprehend what knowing everything about something as complex as the brain, and in turn the human mind, means.

uomo_senza_nome says

.I get personal belief, but I don't get personal truth

But it was you who said:

uomo_senza_nome says

But I just don't like to concern myself with semantic hygiene type questions

I don't know that the distinction is important. But someone who bases decisions on a model is treating the model for all intents and purposes as if it deals in truths.

Marcus,

The whole point of science is to show that there is nothing "supernatural." Everything "must" be reduced to matter and energy and the laws-of-physics. If you haven't figured that out by now, you haven't been paying attention.

If you're into the idea of an eternal, immortal, immaterial soul that can survive death, science isn't exactly your friend.

wthrfrk80 says

If you're into the idea of an eternal, immortal, immaterial soul that can survive death, science isn't exactly your friend.

Never particularly into that idea per se.

wthrfrk80 says

The whole point of science is to show that there is nothing "supernatural."

Really ? That's the whole point of science ? That's the stupidest thing I have ever heard you say. True enough that science often finds itself contradicting religious beliefs. True that science doesn't depend on faith in any way, except possibly faith in science itself. Modern science is empirical. Anything "supernatural" that could be empirically proven true would henceforth be deemed natural.

Also, I have repeatedly said in these discussions that I have no belief in the "supernatural," whatever that even means. Talk about your bullshit semantics.

I can see it now. "Johnny, why do you want to be a scientist ?"

"So I can spend my life showing that there isn't anything supernatural. That's what really gets me excited about science."

marcus says

But yes it is my opinion that we will ever know everything about the brain. But that is no leap, if you can even comprehend what knowing everything about something as complex as the brain, and in turn the human mind, means.

Marcus - you are making the discussion way too complicated. The brain consists of more than 100 billion neurons. These neurons are interconnected in myriad different ways. From these connections emerge functions of the human brain. Functions can be mapped to structures and vice-versa. While the problem of mapping the whole human brain is infinitely difficult, our understanding is not limited. We understand the general functionality quite well and we can work off from that. This understanding is what I'd call foundational aspects of neuroscience.

So there - human mind = function emerging from the human brain, which in turn comprises of neurons connected in an infinitely varying, complex network. This neural network has dynamic properties such as learning and the network can adapt.

My brief description above does not explain the brain in all gory detail nor does it contain every possible minute detail that we know about the brain so far, but the general idea is irrefutably true.

I have a strong disagreement with your second statement, because you are needlessly making it sound complicated while the general structure and function of the brain can be understood quite easily through any popular book such as this excellent book .

marcus says

I don't know that the distinction is important

It is important because the true spirit of science is to ask questions, discover and work from what we already know. Your point has repeatedly been, "but how can we know EVERYTHING?"

We don't have to know everything, at the same time-- we don't have to be frightened or simply stand in awe for not knowing things. We can learn and make progress, by following the footsteps of giants (scientists who have laid the foundational work).

marcus says

But someone who bases decisions on a model is treating the model for all intents and purposes as if it deals in truths.

Yeah how did that work out in Freudian times?

He came up with Oedipus Complex which has been utterly discredited by the work of Ramachandran.

I stand by my statement: there's no such thing as personal truth. Just because someone assumes in their mind to be true doesn't make that to be true. If that were the case, then the unicorns are true as my mind tells me that they really really exist.

More likely Johnny goes in to science just because of curiosity.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/tu57B1v0SzI

By the way, if all we had was Newtonian Mechanics, wouldn't this be kinda supernatural ?

marcus says

Never particularly into that idea per se.

really? Your Cool Story Bro thread doesn't imply that way.

I mean you also said:

marcus says

I believe that "The Egg" appeals to the spiritual in me.

marcus says

Also, I have repeatedly said in these discussions that I have no belief in the "supernatural," whatever that even means. Talk about your bullshit semantics.

So what's your point then? It seems we're just involved in a mere juggling of words. It's a waste of time.

uomo_senza_nome says

We don't have to know everything, at the same time-- we don't have to be frightened or simply stand in awe for not knowing things.

Good. Then please don't be afraid. I know you aren't the kind of asshole that would project that kind of BS point of view on me.

I will be in awe, as all true scientists are. You want to make me out to be someone I am not, and I am done trying to help you understand what my point of view is or isn't.

uomo_senza_nome says

I stand by my statement: there's no such thing as personal truth. Just because someone assumes in their mind to be true doesn't make that to be true. If that were the case, then the unicorns are true as my mind tells me that they really really exist.

THere have been moments when I thought we were in the same conversation. You ask me to elaborate and probe away. When I try pretty hard to answer you project all kind of BS my way. A conversation doesn't have to be an argument.

I have nothing to say on this anymore.

marcus says

By the way6, if all we had was Newtonian Mechanics, wouldn't this be kinda supernatural ?

Marcus,

Sonic booms (as shown in that rocket video) are not supernatural any more than sound waves are. And don't confuse sound waves with the kind of "waves" involved in quantum physics. You show that you don't really understand the science involved or science at all for that matter.

If you want vague spiritual/emotional bullshit, go on Oprah or The View.

uomo_senza_nome says

I mean you also said:

marcus says

I believe that "The Egg" appeals to the spiritual in me.

Yes. And sorry, but I'm not going to break it down for you. It's like art. It either does something for you or it doesn't.

wthrfrk80 says

You show that you don't really understand the science involved or science at all for that matter.

You're right. Because I don't understand that:

wthrfrk80 says

The whole point of science is to show that there is nothing "supernatural."

I have no idea what rocket video you're talking about. Goodnight.

marcus says

You want to make me out to be someone I am not, and I am done trying to help you understand what my point of view is or isn't.

Not quite. I hope you at least got the part where you were ambiguous.

marcus says

When I try pretty hard to answer you project all kind of BS my way. A conversation doesn't have to be an argument.

I don't think what I said is BS. and I think I have provided sufficient proof to show that simply having faith that models are true doesn't work.

I think I've shown this with examples from neuroscience (Freudian specifically). But only if you dig further, you'll understand the fallacy in your statement.

Instead, if you superficially claim what I wrote as BS and just reject it outright, I don't think there can be an effective conversation.

uomo_senza_nome says

I stand by my statement: there's no such thing as personal truth. Just because someone assumes in their mind to be true doesn't make that to be true. If that were the case, then the unicorns are true as my mind tells me that they really really exist.

Well put.

marcus says

I have no idea what rocket video you're talking about. Goodnight.

The toward the end of the double slit experiment video you posted, there's a clip of a rocket creating a sonic boom that is visible thanks to a cloud of ice particles. It's pretty neat.

uomo_senza_nome says

I don't think what I said is BS. and I think I have provided sufficient proof to show that simply having faith that models are true doesn't work.

I think I've shown this with examples from neuroscience (Freudian specifically). But only if you dig further, you'll understand the fallacy in your statement.

Instead, if you superficially claim what I wrote as BS and just reject it outright, I don't think there can be an effective conversation.

You're arguing where there is no argument and you project opinions and beliefs and a side of the conversation on to me that isn't there.

I talked about personal truths. I think people operate this way sometimes, I didn't say it's right or good (or wrong or bad).

I only mentioned Freud because you wanted examples of what I meant by personal truths or models. AGain you're arguing where there is none. People use models all the time in science, psychology, economics, and business for the purposes of making decisions. Because decisions are sometimes required. I didn't say it was good or bad.

The BS and straw man projections are all of this kind of stuff (if your your idea of effective conversation, is just making my point of view whatever you want it to be, then I'll do without)

uomo_senza_nome says

but you are unwilling to explore further.

or

uomo_senza_nome says

the Brain is a lot more complex than you think and can explain a lot more about human interaction than you think.

or

uomo_senza_nome says

If it gets worse, then it might be a delusion.

or

uomo_senza_nome says

We don't have to know everything, at the same time-- we don't have to be frightened or simply stand in awe for not knowing things

or

uomo_senza_nome says

Your Cool Story Bro thread doesn't imply that way.

or

uomo_senza_nome says

I stand by my statement: there's no such thing as personal truth. Just because someone assumes in their mind to be true doesn't make that to be true. If that were the case, then the unicorns are true as my mind tells me that they really really exist.

I have no interest in arguing this. I think I originally distinguished between personal truth and absolute truth. For someone who doesn't like to get hung up on semantics, you sure do. If you don't understand what I meant, or want to say there is no such thing, that's fine.

By the way though, compared to Dan discussing this stuff, you are truly enlightened, thoughtful and a gentleman promoting excellent and positive conversation.

wthrfrk80 says

The toward the end of the double slit experiment video you posted, there's a clip of a rocket creating a sonic boom that is visible thanks to a cloud of ice particles. It's pretty neat.

I hadn't seen that part of the video.

wthrfrk80 says

You show that you don't really understand the science involved or science at all for that matter.

Was it my posting the video that "showed" that ? I'm going to assume that you reached this conclusion using your idea of what empirical means.

Marcus,

My apologies. I thought you were trying to say that quantum physics was directly related to the shock waves seen in the rocket video. I didn't realize you hadn't even seen that part of the video. Total mistake on my part.