Models versus Reality...

[Hobbes' Choice]

Please watch this first:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44ngv-8b8FM

Seriously - you think I', going to waste 53minutes of my life wading through the made-for-morons Discovery Channel shite?
Little things please little minds.

I already know the root intentions of the words but you didn't use them appropriate. Maybe it would be best to describe a one directional arrow of time, "unidirectional", and a two directional arrow of time, "bi-directional" for our uses so as not to confuse these. For a perfect moment with multiple states or events occurring, "synchronous" may be used just as we might describe a "harmonic" as a simultaneous set of distinct notes occurring together.

If you've not yet worked out what the words mean, your perception of my usage has more to do with your idiosyncratic view of the universe than any error on my part. I used the terms correctly on both occasions.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I have no interest in debating matters of fact with somebody who deliberately employs such a combative style to misrepresent some simple truths of high school physics.
Not a misrepresentation, it's not about the physics of the physical proximity of our star to earth, rather the physics that the angle of incidence of the suns rays, (specifically UV), plays in determining the color of skin. While obviously your expertise is mechanical physics and mine is that of electromagnetic energy.

You may blather away at will but I'm content to leave it to the judgement of the other readers of this topic to determine whether your opinions are worth reading.
Agreed! As if it really needs saying, or that it shall sway the readers.

You may rest assured that I have formed my own conclusions on this question.
Yet you have never mentioned it, funny!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Isn't this a kind of example of how you can interpret causes and effects differently? That is, it seems a default assumption to see evolution as a function of nature 'causing' one's change in evolution. Yet Darwin argued a type of opposite. That while nature itself may cause some mutation, the nature of evolution is reversed where you have to interpret the success of one surviving in some environment (the end result after the fact) as the 'cause' to evolution, not the general environment forcing this change.

One should never forget, that we are made of star stuff, that we are the children of the universe, that we are not only of the universe, but we have a little of the universe in us, her crowning achievement. We are, autonomous, free thinking organisms, that have taken command of our environment. Why then is it such a stretch that we change as the environment does? Are we not already a result of the environment, i.e., stars, elements, compounds, solar systems, planets, the earth as it is, etc? So why would we stop just because, we're now here, as we are? Why believe that life, born of the universal environment, is suddenly ignorant of that which was it's creator? Such that it changes in a failing, hap hazard, lucky or unlucky, take your pick, 50/50 kind of way, not paralleling the universe, which is what Darwin suggests. Which doesn't mean an asteroid can't strike the planet, thus changing life as we know it.

It's a fact that the environment shapes us, just ask madam Currie. And there is much more evidence. Search for it and you'll find it as I have.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Please watch this first:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44ngv-8b8FM

Seriously - you think I', going to waste 53minutes of my life wading through the made-for-morons Discovery Channel shite?
Little things please little minds.
As long as you have you big gun in your hand, you mean! You should quit playing with it, but then you're already blind!

I already know the root intentions of the words but you didn't use them appropriate. Maybe it would be best to describe a one directional arrow of time, "unidirectional", and a two directional arrow of time, "bi-directional" for our uses so as not to confuse these. For a perfect moment with multiple states or events occurring, "synchronous" may be used just as we might describe a "harmonic" as a simultaneous set of distinct notes occurring together.

If you've not yet worked out what the words mean, your perception of my usage has more to do with your idiosyncratic view of the universe than any error on my part. I used the terms correctly on both occasions.

[Obvious Leo]

Not a misrepresentation, it's not about the physics of the physical proximity of our star to earth,

Then you should go back and correct your own statement because this is not what you said. You quite specifically stated the climate is hotter at the equator than it is at the poles because the equator is closer to the sun. You may be quite sure that I am well schooled in English comprehension as well as in all aspects of physics and that I need no remedial instruction in either of these subjects from you.

[Scott Mayers]

Please watch this first:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44ngv-8b8FM

Seriously - you think I', going to waste 53minutes of my life wading through the made-for-morons Discovery Channel shite?
Little things please little minds.

It was a recommendation because I felt he speaks clearly and articulately using good CG effects to help aid in understanding the various views on this. Brian Greenes' video is on the subject of time ("The Illusion of Time") to which he asks this in a philosophical as well as scientific perspective.

I still think you should check it out if only for the sake of finding some of your own understanding equally being presented in a fair light by him. I assure you that it was NOT made for morons in the least. But you're welcome not to bother if your set on dismissing it offhand. I thought it would at least be simpler than asking of you the burden to require a twelve-year degree or read x, y, z, something that some often prefer to suggest in order to evade the burden to at least try to argue for their own terms as mere statements of 'for' or 'against' something.

I already know the root intentions of the words but you didn't use them appropriate. Maybe it would be best to describe a one directional arrow of time, "unidirectional", and a two directional arrow of time, "bi-directional" for our uses so as not to confuse these. For a perfect moment with multiple states or events occurring, "synchronous" may be used just as we might describe a "harmonic" as a simultaneous set of distinct notes occurring together.

If you've not yet worked out what the words mean, your perception of my usage has more to do with your idiosyncratic view of the universe than any error on my part. I used the terms correctly on both occasions.

You've used your own preferred terms to which I thought appeared awkward and unusual. You initially stated this sentence,

"I still think there is some milage in your idea of causes being effects but only in descriptions that are synchronic. This can have some useful applications, but at the end of the day (excuse the pun), reality is diachronic."

I get that you likely are stating that my point of cause/effect relations may operate conditionally if they are NOT about time. So you'd be best to use the term, "static" or "timeless" as a reference. I believe I have correctly now figured out that this is your intentions using my vocabulary. But it threw me off when you also used the term, "diachronic" as this refers to time in two directions for which I call, "bi-directional". You need a term to indicate the idea of time in one direction, which is metaphorically described as "the arrow of time"; that is why I suggested "uni-" (one) "-directional" to help.

Examples: Geometry uses, "line" to illustrate two directions, and a "ray" for one; Physics uses "vector" to mean a direction added to a scalar in some uniquely specified way.

I was just thrown off of your use of "diachronic" with respect to your "synchronic". Note too that from computers, "synchron(ous)" means "the same WITH time" to describe making gates designed to be in sync with the clock, not to indicate simultaneity nor without time. In contrast, an "asynchron(ous)" circuit is one that ignores time but has triggers instead that make each logic gate or routine be designed even out of sync but requires waiting to be triggered externally (still often by a clock). It DOES NOT mean parallel even if it may sometimes imply it lacks a concern for time.

[Scott Mayers]

Not a misrepresentation, it's not about the physics of the physical proximity of our star to earth,

Then you should go back and correct your own statement because this is not what you said. You quite specifically stated the climate is hotter at the equator than it is at the poles because the equator is closer to the sun. You may be quite sure that I am well schooled in English comprehension as well as in all aspects of physics and that I need no remedial instruction in either of these subjects from you.

The angle of incidence with refraction differing from hitting the atmosphere is what makes equatorial differences in temperatures. But isn't the confusion about whether someone here presumed that the 'cause' of change by evolution is due to one's internal adaptation via genetics in presence of the changes from the environment rather than that chance mutation 'causing' the genetics to be more or less 'fit' (= match) to one's environment?

[Obvious Leo]

As Hobbes so succinctly pointed out, an effect should not be conflated with its cause. This is a lesson which physicists would also do well to learn when they so glibly speak of "forces", "fields", "waves" and "particles".

[Scott Mayers]

As Hobbes so succinctly pointed out, an effect should not be conflated with its cause. This is a lesson which physicists would also do well to learn when they so glibly speak of "forces", "fields", "waves" and "particles".

The problem is that there is a difference between our contingent experiences and to whether our own interpretation of them is what nature actually is. There may be no such thing as having, say, negative three dollars in your pocket, but while nature doesn't supply us with some magical dimension for us to pull such an amount out of your pocket does not mean this lacks real meaning. But if you insist that we must restrict ourselves only to the direct real observations, you can lose insight into how reality works distinct from our human bias. Even things like "forces, fields, waves, and particles" are all just as much being used for practical purposes too, even if some may not think they are real.

It's hard to determine your own demarcation between things sometimes on the differences between physics and philosophy as you don't take a consistent stance. In these things you mention above, they are actual demonstrations where science IS incorporating philosophy with the practice of science to which you and I agree. But you are complaining that now they are stepping out of their right to act philosophically, like using models without perfect accountability to nature, as you seem to be demanding they only speak about observations without philosophically inclusive devises.

[attofishpi]

Please watch this first:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44ngv-8b8FM

Hi Scott, i found you opening post in this thread intriguing, as it has touched on some points that i have considered since being made aware of the existence of 'God' and the fact that IT IS the true backbone to our reality. (that there is in fact a third party actual intelligence behind what we are able to perceive.)

Aside from that, and in relation to your quote above which though was not directed at me, i would like to make a few points that should be considered in the relation to the illusion of time. That video btw, i did watch quite some time ago.

Could i suggest that without cause and effect, there is NO time. We have managed to create this 'thing' called 'time' as a measurement whereby known cycles of cause and effect within matter can give us the 'time' scales with which a fairly accurate measurement can take place.
What is a true 'moment' in time. Surely, in a true single moment in time, there is nothing moving, not an electron spinning, a photon emitting. Time in essence is zero - the perceivable world could no longer be perceived since there is not even a 'spark' to feed ones own consciousness thus allowing its perception.
TIME reversed EMIT. Once that photon does emit - now there is time.
Mentioned within my art sight Beyond Reasonable Doubt? http://www.androcies.com

Some years back physicists measured the smallest amount of time (thus far), i think it was an attosecond, using lasers. To put it into context, an attosecond is to a second what a second is to about 31.71 billion years!

[Scott Mayers]

Hi Scott, i found you opening post in this thread intriguing, as it has touched on some points that i have considered since being made aware of the existence of 'God' and the fact that IT IS the true backbone to our reality. (that there is in fact a third party actual intelligence behind what we are able to perceive.)

I think this is why many feel worried or concerned to discuss abstractions like models or 'forms' as real. It might lead some to use it to argue for a religious form or model in kind. I'm not so sure what the worry is about though as I'm non-religious and still find these rational without a problem.

Aside from that, and in relation to your quote above which though was not directed at me, i would like to make a few points that should be considered in the relation to the illusion of time. That video btw, i did watch quite some time ago.

Could i suggest that without cause and effect, there is NO time. We have managed to create this 'thing' called 'time' as a measurement whereby known cycles of cause and effect within matter can give us the 'time' scales with which a fairly accurate measurement can take place.
What is a true 'moment' in time. Surely, in a true single moment in time, there is nothing moving, not an electron spinning, a photon emitting. Time in essence is zero - the perceivable world could no longer be perceived since there is not even a 'spark' to feed ones own consciousness thus allowing its perception.
TIME reversed EMIT. Once that photon does emit - now there is time.
Mentioned within my art sight Beyond Reasonable Doubt? http://www.androcies.com

Some years back physicists measured the smallest amount of time (thus far), i think it was an attosecond, using lasers. To put it into context, an attosecond is to a second what a second is to about 31.71 billion years!

Yes, I agree that 'cause and effect' are defined through time as we experience it moving in one direction. The video describes a true 'moment' in time as I think of it as frames like a photograph and just as you are thinking here where it is zero or non-existent at any point. Then since each point everywhere is equal, and, from Euclid's description that a line is simply a succession of these points, time in any or all possible directions have to be given equal valence logically.

It is like our arbitrary means to opt to read from left to right rather than right to left. So it is about perception. The bread slicing in the video aided in this description via the limits of the speed of light and our perception with respect to our varying observers and their motions too.

[Scott Mayers]

Oh, and remember when film projectors were still the norm everywhere? I remember a few times, especially in school, where for an additional value of entertainment, the teacher's would sometimes reverse the film with the bulb on so we could all have a laugh at seeing the film with everyone moving backwards. Although hard for us to think that such a reality would 'make sense', the logic of it still applies. I think that for some though, they mistake that I mean that we could somehow travel back through time but still think 'forward' like time travel movies imply but to each and every moment.

[Obvious Leo]

The problem is that there is a difference between our contingent experiences and to whether our own interpretation of them is what nature actually is

This is hardly a controversial statement, Scott. Kant had this problem figured out over 200 years ago and concluded that our subjective cognition of reality need have no relationship whatsoever to the thing-as-it-is. I'm yet to see a counter-argument.

There may be no such thing as having, say, negative three dollars in your pocket, but while nature doesn't supply us with some magical dimension for us to pull such an amount out of your pocket does not mean this lacks real meaning.

Yes it does.

Even things like "forces, fields, waves, and particles" are all just as much being used for practical purposes too, even if some may not think they are real.

How the fuck can they be real when it is only the theory which mandates their existence and the theory is itself no more than an abstract construct of the human mind which will inevitably have its "use by" date. This shit is just the modern version of phlogiston and the luminiferous aether. They are useful epistemic tools for as long as their utility survives.

"It is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe"....Albert Einstein.

But you are complaining that now they are stepping out of their right to act philosophically, like using models without perfect accountability to nature, as you seem to be demanding they only speak about observations without philosophically inclusive devises.

I just want people to shut the fuck up about things which they are not qualified to make commentary on and mind their own fucking business. Their epistemic tools are only designed to model reality and not designed to define it.

"It is NOT the role of the physicist to explain what our universe is but merely to determine what he can meaningfully say about the behaviour of matter and energy within it."...Niels Bohr.

Bohr did the honourable thing and hoisted the white flag, admitting that physics has no explanatory authority. The map is NOT the territory and physics is NOT metaphysics. All I want them to do is shut up and calculate and leave the thinking to the thinkers.

[Scott Mayers]

Leo,

I understand you. I just believe that you are not realizing that you are also accepting of the paradigm to separate science and philosophy when you interpret that physics and metaphysics are both distinct and that neither should cross each other's territory. It is like how the military sub-areas compete against each other, like the army being competitive against the navy against the air forces. I thought you were for reconciling philosophy and physics collectively which means accepting that both have sufficient 'real' value. All we have to do is find a common language to distinguish the differences as merely a means through varying perceptions of reality to the same goal.

[attofishpi]

Hi Scott, i found you opening post in this thread intriguing, as it has touched on some points that i have considered since being made aware of the existence of 'God' and the fact that IT IS the true backbone to our reality. (that there is in fact a third party actual intelligence behind what we are able to perceive.)

I think this is why many feel worried or concerned to discuss abstractions like models or 'forms' as real. It might lead some to use it to argue for a religious form or model in kind. I'm not so sure what the worry is about though as I'm non-religious and still find these rational without a problem.

A wise stance.

Aside from that, and in relation to your quote above which though was not directed at me, i would like to make a few points that should be considered in the relation to the illusion of time. That video btw, i did watch quite some time ago.

Could i suggest that without cause and effect, there is NO time. We have managed to create this 'thing' called 'time' as a measurement whereby known cycles of cause and effect within matter can give us the 'time' scales with which a fairly accurate measurement can take place.
What is a true 'moment' in time. Surely, in a true single moment in time, there is nothing moving, not an electron spinning, a photon emitting. Time in essence is zero - the perceivable world could no longer be perceived since there is not even a 'spark' to feed ones own consciousness thus allowing its perception.
TIME reversed EMIT. Once that photon does emit - now there is time.
Mentioned within my art sight Beyond Reasonable Doubt? http://www.androcies.com

Some years back physicists measured the smallest amount of time (thus far), i think it was an attosecond, using lasers. To put it into context, an attosecond is to a second what a second is to about 31.71 billion years!

Yes, I agree that 'cause and effect' are defined through time as we experience it moving in one direction. The video describes a true 'moment' in time as I think of it as frames like a photograph and just as you are thinking here where it is zero or non-existent at any point. Then since each point everywhere is equal, and, from Euclid's description that a line is simply a succession of these points, time in any or all possible directions have to be given equal valence logically.

It is like our arbitrary means to opt to read from left to right rather than right to left. So it is about perception. The bread slicing in the video aided in this description via the limits of the speed of light and our perception with respect to our varying observers and their motions too.

Your statement here:- that 'cause and effect' are defined through time as we experience it moving in one direction, is not what i am stating.
I am stating that time is only a man made measurement system. It doesnt actually exist. Suggesting 'cause and effect' are defined through time, is to me the total flip as to what i am alluding to.
I am stating that without an event (a cause and effect) then there is NO time. The moment an event occurs, then time exists.

Oh, and remember when film projectors were still the norm everywhere? I remember a few times, especially in school, where for an additional value of entertainment, the teacher's would sometimes reverse the film with the bulb on so we could all have a laugh at seeing the film with everyone moving backwards. Although hard for us to think that such a reality would 'make sense', the logic of it still applies. I think that for some though, they mistake that I mean that we could somehow travel back through time but still think 'forward' like time travel movies imply but to each and every moment.

I think the logic of 'it' if you are suggesting that something could plausibly go back in time is incorrect, and i think you are clarifying straight after that the likes of me could infer that is what you mean?!
A book i read sometime ago by a physicist 'The universe next door' had at some point suggestions that time could actually travel backwards in some universe - i think i gave up reading around about then.
The thing is - time is not material, its just a man made measurement that we know a certain number of events will occur in some material cause and effect way, at which point we can synchronise our measuring systems allowing us to measure a certain number of events occurring in other systems, life in general, fairly accurately.
So there are those, physicists included that believe we could travel back in time, i dont. Since over a period of time (which is nothing more than a human measuring stick) a whole myriad of events have occurred - matter is now rearranged in a vastly different way (as a result of cause and effect). The only way to truly travel back in time, would be if this 'God' entity could reverse all the cause and effect that occurred back to the condition of the period that we desired..and of course, without rearranging all the cause and effect that went on within your consciousness, such that your 'mind' is still of that of the later -original- period of time!