Philosophy Now Forum

Ginkgo wrote:
I am not going to read this paper and I would advise other people not to as well. It fails before it begins. The beginning is peppered with insults towards people such as Einstein and quantum physicists such as Richard Feynman. So, no Feynman's theory of quantum electrodynamics doesn't make him a demon.

Is Wheeler with any sort of serious countenance going to expect any person with any sort of academic background to read this?

One doesn't read any sort of credible scientific journal expecting it to be peppered with insults because it is tiresome and tedious and totally irrelevant to the subject of physics.

A proper study of relativity and quantum mechanics would reveal to Wheeler that Einstein was "not the puppeteer of the cult of quantum" he was fundamentally opposed to its implications.

Wanderlinglands I know this is a public forum, but let's try and maintain at least some semblance of standards when posting sources relevant to physics.

What this shows is that you don't have the ability to read his book; only dismissing it on accounts of insults. I know this book contains insults and some fallacies, but I'm still at least giving this some consideration into what it says. And even if it did contain insults, it still would not take away from the criticism that quantum mechanics needs considering its contradictions and baseless mathematical abstractions.

WanderingLands wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:
I am not going to read this paper and I would advise other people not to as well. It fails before it begins. The beginning is peppered with insults towards people such as Einstein and quantum physicists such as Richard Feynman. So, no Feynman's theory of quantum electrodynamics doesn't make him a demon.

Is Wheeler with any sort of serious countenance going to expect any person with any sort of academic background to read this?

One doesn't read any sort of credible scientific journal expecting it to be peppered with insults because it is tiresome and tedious and totally irrelevant to the subject of physics.

A proper study of relativity and quantum mechanics would reveal to Wheeler that Einstein was "not the puppeteer of the cult of quantum" he was fundamentally opposed to its implications.

Wanderlinglands I know this is a public forum, but let's try and maintain at least some semblance of standards when posting sources relevant to physics.

What this shows is that you don't have the ability to read his book; only dismissing it on accounts of insults. I know this book contains insults and some fallacies, but I'm still at least giving this some consideration into what it says. And even if it did contain insults, it still would not take away from the criticism that quantum mechanics needs considering its contradictions and baseless mathematical abstractions.

I can assure you I have the ability.

Ok, I'll overlook the obvious error in relation to Einstein and quantum mechanics.

I'll overlook the numerous ad hominems.

I'll overlook the fact that you rightly complain when people resort to such degrading arguments, yet you are prepared to post such material.

I'll read it in its entirely

Ginkgo wrote: I'll read it in its entirely

Good luck with that, Ginkgo. I gave it a go, but didn't get far before I started skimming. It's vaguely plausible, but the problem is, WanderingLands, that like you, the author doesn't understand how physics works. Roughly speaking, in any theory there are three elements: the data, the maths and the metaphysics.
1. The data is what it is: x, y or z demonstrably happen or they don't. You don't argue about that, you show it.
2. Once a phenomenon is identified, it is measured and the maths spuds have ago at distinguishing patterns that they can turn into tools to manipulate the phenomenon and perhaps see what it predicts. The mathematics that describe the behaviour of objects in gravitational fields and the behaviour of atomic and sub-atomic particles, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics respectively, do so to a staggering level of accuracy. Only a complete moron would claim they don't work very well indeed.

Those two, observation and mathematics, to all intents and purposes are physics. The point about them is that, even with the space telescopes and particle accelerators at our disposal, it never has been and never will be the case that we can know that an even more sophisticated piece of hardware will not tell a different story. Similarly, we can never know that the mathematics that we use to account for the observable phenomena will account for everything we see in future. Anybody who says they know the truth about matter or forces is a fool.

3. The metaphysics is superfluous to science. It's all very interesting and it's the bit that philosophers like to have a stab at, but why something happens doesn't make any difference to what happens. There are different theories for why gravity works for instance; the models of GR and QM are completely different. According to GR there is a substance called Minkowski space that gets warped in the presence of matter or energy. According to some versions of QM there are virtual particles called gravitons. Part of the early excitement of string theory was that it predicted the right sort of particles with spin 2, or something. Loop quantum gravity is something else again.
The observational facts are the same for everyone, but people have their favourite theories for reasons a bit those they have for supporting a particular football team. For some reason, WanderingLands, you support a pub team; all very commendable and I'm sure the emotional attachment is gratifying, but you're not going to win any cups.

uwot wrote: 1. The data is what it is: x, y or z demonstrably happen or they don't. You don't argue about that, you show it.

Why yes, it's about showing but it's also about telling, as in explaining the logic of it, which is what the people of the scientific establishment, like Richard Feynmann and others, seem to have a real hard time about. If the logic doesn't match with the observation, then it would be a good thinking to actually review the theories in science.

uwot wrote: 2. Once a phenomenon is identified, it is measured and the maths spuds have ago at distinguishing patterns that they can turn into tools to manipulate the phenomenon and perhaps see what it predicts. The mathematics that describe the behaviour of objects in gravitational fields and the behaviour of atomic and sub-atomic particles, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics respectively, do so to a staggering level of accuracy. Only a complete moron would claim they don't work very well indeed.

Mathematics, though indeed a good tool to use, is also abstract at times since it uses numbers and not language or observation, which is pretty much a problem with the scientific establishment since they put above theoretical and mathematical physics above all other sciences. Also, you can use whatever equation to prop up your theories, but the problem is much of the theories are contradictory to each other. For example, Quantum Mechanics and the Big Bang is contradictory to General and Special Relativity; General Relativity is a contradiction to Special Relativity; Special Relativity, along with all of the other theories in science, are insufficient explanations of the universe and are largely bunk.

uwot wrote: Those two, observation and mathematics, to all intents and purposes are physics. The point about them is that, even with the space telescopes and particle accelerators at our disposal, it never has been and never will be the case that we can know that an even more sophisticated piece of hardware will not tell a different story. Similarly, we can never know that the mathematics that we use to account for the observable phenomena will account for everything we see in future. Anybody who says they know the truth about matter or forces is a fool.

The problem with science is not just that we can't simply find a good theory to organize reality, but it's that we've accumulated so much knowledge and have churned so many theories without even using logic and critical thinking to circumvent through what is true and what is false. You'd be surprised that you can actually know the Truth, by laying out the basics and then following it through with logic and clear thinking to come up with a much simpler, but coherent model of everything.

uwot wrote: 3. The metaphysics is superfluous to science. It's all very interesting and it's the bit that philosophers like to have a stab at, but why something happens doesn't make any difference to what happens. There are different theories for why gravity works for instance; the models of GR and QM are completely different. According to GR there is a substance called Minkowski space that gets warped in the presence of matter or energy. According to some versions of QM there are virtual particles called gravitons. Part of the early excitement of string theory was that it predicted the right sort of particles with spin 2, or something. Loop quantum gravity is something else again.

Indeed, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have different versions of gravity, which is why they are incompatible with one another and why the standard model of the universe is completely unstable, just like the larger academic paradigm. Like I said, the problem lies in disorganization, accumulation, confusion, and also dogmatism. Lay down the basics and you will find that all of these problems will disappear.

WanderingLands wrote:Why yes, it's about showing but it's also about telling, as in explaining the logic of it, which is what the people of the scientific establishment, like Richard Feynmann and others, seem to have a real hard time about.

Which books of Richard Feynman have you read, and where did you struggle? Perhaps I can help, I think he writes brilliantly.

WanderingLands wrote:If the logic doesn't match with the observation, then it would be a good thinking to actually review the theories in science.

Feynman was characteristically lucid about this, it's a quote I have often used:
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

WanderingLands wrote:Mathematics, though indeed a good tool to use, is also abstract at times since it uses numbers and not language or observation, which is pretty much a problem with the scientific establishment since they put above theoretical and mathematical physics above all other sciences.

I'll try again: there is observation and there is measurement. In practical terms that means there is experimental science and mathematical science. Theoretical physics is the stuff you complain they don't do enough of; to philosophers, it is metaphysics until it makes demonstrably verifiable predictions. The observations have a truth value of 1 or 0. It may take a while and a lot of repetition, but eventually a (statement about a) phenomenon is established as true or false. Then the phenomenon is measured. Here's an example: Astronomers had noticed that Uranus wasn’t behaving quite as Newton’s law of universal gravitation predicted it should. Such was the stature of Newton that it was assumed there must be an unseen source of gravity. The maths was done, a telescope was pointed at the place the source of gravity was calculated to be and there was Neptune. When anomalies in the orbit of Mercury were investigated, the expected planet wasn’t discovered. The conclusion this time was inescapable; Newton’s law of gravity needed revision and in 1916, Einstein published the General Theory of Relativity, which included the field equations that do account for the orbit of Mercury. Today, analogous discrepancies in the rotation of galaxies predicted by General Relativity imply either that there is another source of gravity that we can’t see, some ‘dark matter’, or this time Einstein needs an upgrade. Both options are being explored. Once again: physics has no preference for the beliefs of any given physicist; the world does what it does. We watch and we measure, that is science. Then we make up stories about what is causing it all, there can be any number of different stories, all compatible with the facts and there is no way to tell which one is the Truth. If you believe that your version is the truth you do so because of faith, in the same way that people know the Truth about their favourite god.

WanderingLands wrote:Also, you can use whatever equation to prop up your theories,

Equations do not prop up theories. They describe what happens or they are useless. Apologies to pure mathematicians.

WanderingLands wrote:but the problem is much of the theories are contradictory to each other. For example, Quantum Mechanics and the Big Bang is contradictory to General and Special Relativity; General Relativity is a contradiction to Special Relativity; Special Relativity, along with all of the other theories in science, are insufficient explanations of the universe and are largely bunk.

Again, that isn't what those theories are for. The metaphysical models of QM and GR are incompatible. Can you explain why any of the other combinations are incompatible?

WanderingLands wrote:The problem with science is not just that we can't simply find a good theory to organize reality, but it's that we've accumulated so much knowledge and have churned so many theories without even using logic and critical thinking to circumvent through what is true and what is false. You'd be surprised that you can actually know the Truth, by laying out the basics and then following it through with logic and clear thinking to come up with a much simpler, but coherent model of everything.

What you and many others do is convince yourself that a story you make up that is consistent with the facts you are aware of must be the Truth. It is infantile and profoundly, perhaps pathologically conservative to insist the some version of reality is true, now and forever.

WanderingLands wrote:Indeed, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have different versions of gravity, which is why they are incompatible with one another

Well, since that is what I told you, it is hardly news.

WanderingLands wrote:and why the standard model of the universe is completely unstable, just like the larger academic paradigm. Like I said, the problem lies in disorganization, accumulation, confusion, and also dogmatism. Lay down the basics and you will find that all of these problems will disappear.

There is no larger academic paradigm, that is another thing that you have created a coherent story for that you have convinced yourself is true. The single most important scientific tool is the eye, not the brain, it doesn't matter what story you tell yourself, as Feynman said, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That is the bottom line in science.

uwot wrote: Which books of Richard Feynman have you read, and where did you struggle? Perhaps I can help, I think he writes brilliantly.

Feynman was characteristically lucid about this, it's a quote I have often used:
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
There is no larger academic paradigm, that is another thing that you have created a coherent story for that you have convinced yourself is true. The single most important scientific tool is the eye, not the brain, it doesn't matter what story you tell yourself, as Feynman said, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That is the bottom line in science.

Richard Feynman can't even properly explain the concept of magnetism, which is a basic concept in science. There's even an interview with him about this which you can access below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

He also can't explain energy, either.

"Energy is a very subtle concept. It is very, very difficult to get right."

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way." - volume I; lecture 4, "Conservation of Energy"; section 4-1, "What is energy?"; p. 4-2

He doesn't even understand Quantum Mechanics.

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." - chapter 6, “Probability and Uncertainty — the Quantum Mechanical View of Nature,” p. 129

"Will you understand what I'm going to tell you? ... No, you're not going to be able to understand it. ... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." - pg. 9, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter

All of the quotes came from here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Fe ... .281955.29

This goes back to my point about Feynman and the scientific establishment: they are merely just dogmatists who make a senseless cosmological model, just as the larger academia (with help of government) promotes other idiotic propaganda to numb the masses.

uwot wrote: I'll try again: there is observation and there is measurement. In practical terms that means there is experimental science and mathematical science. Theoretical physics is the stuff you complain they don't do enough of; to philosophers, it is metaphysics until it makes demonstrably verifiable predictions. The observations have a truth value of 1 or 0. It may take a while and a lot of repetition, but eventually a (statement about a) phenomenon is established as true or false. Then the phenomenon is measured. Here's an example: Astronomers had noticed that Uranus wasn’t behaving quite as Newton’s law of universal gravitation predicted it should. Such was the stature of Newton that it was assumed there must be an unseen source of gravity. The maths was done, a telescope was pointed at the place the source of gravity was calculated to be and there was Neptune. When anomalies in the orbit of Mercury were investigated, the expected planet wasn’t discovered. The conclusion this time was inescapable; Newton’s law of gravity needed revision and in 1916, Einstein published the General Theory of Relativity, which included the field equations that do account for the orbit of Mercury. Today, analogous discrepancies in the rotation of galaxies predicted by General Relativity imply either that there is another source of gravity that we can’t see, some ‘dark matter’, or this time Einstein needs an upgrade. Both options are being explored. Once again: physics has no preference for the beliefs of any given physicist; the world does what it does. We watch and we measure, that is science. Then we make up stories about what is causing it all, there can be any number of different stories, all compatible with the facts and there is no way to tell which one is the Truth. If you believe that your version is the truth you do so because of faith, in the same way that people know the Truth about their favourite god.

There is no need to explain it again; I already know what you have said. You reiterate that our knowledge of the universe changes with the discovery of new knowledge and the advent of new theories. However, as I have said, we cannot make simply make new theories or new adjustments to explain phenomena; we have to start back from the basics and filter out this accumulative knowledge, through use of critical thinking and reasoning (as in Occam's razor reasoning), in order to see what is true and what is false. Otherwise, we have theories that completely contradict each other, which is indeed the result of our incompetence and dogmatic reluctance to examine these theories. All of the issues, such as Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Relativity, QM, etc., can be solved by simply going back to the basics by use of thoughts, observations, comparisons, and critique. You may not be fond of considering rationalism and metaphysics as I am, but I feel that this may be more preferable than listening to other people for their opinions and getting all mixed up.

uwot wrote:Equations do not prop up theories. They describe what happens or they are useless. Apologies to pure mathematicians.

Equations cannot describe things; it's up to using tools such as grammar and rhetoric to do so. Equations are supposed to be explanations for phenomena, as in a priori sort of thing. How can numbers and symbols (an abstraction) describe an image (an abstraction according to our senses)? The logic of it is fallacious.

uwot wrote: Again, that isn't what those theories are for. The metaphysical models of QM and GR are incompatible. Can you explain why any of the other combinations are incompatible?

Metaphysics is about the overall, universal explanations, which QM and GR fails in being compatible with metaphysics.

As you said yourself, the models of GR and QM are completely different. For example, General Relativity says that space must be continuous, while Quantum Mechanics says that everything (including space) is made of discrete pieces. There's also the case with Black Holes and Superimposition, which may be included in Quantum Mechanics but is actually contradictory to General Relativity as unlike Black Holes and Superimposition, the field equations of General Relativity are nonlinear.

uwot wrote: What you and many others do is convince yourself that a story you make up that is consistent with the facts you are aware of must be the Truth. It is infantile and profoundly, perhaps pathologically conservative to insist the some version of reality is true, now and forever.

I don't simply just convince myself that there is Truth. I have actually contemplated on things as I have explored many ideas and perspectives through research to find out what Truth is, and I have saw the evidence for myself to know what's really going on in things, which is the opposite of mere "story making".

It's also real ignorant of you to bring up the word 'conservative' into this, and to also attach it to "psychological weakness" as I recall you saying that a while ago. Conservationism simply means to uphold the old guard in politics and institutions of society, which is a bit of antithesis of what I am actually doing, which is examining and critiquing these institutions, although I do somewhat agree with some of their critique of this "progressive" society. To call it a "psychological weakness", though, I'd say is hyperbole and complete dismissal of it.

In relation to the Feynman clip. What you and the person doing the interview don't understand is that Feynman was asked a teleological, or a why question in relation to magnetism. Teleological questions in relation to science are unanswerable. In other words, the why question was a metaphysical question. Science doesn't deal with metaphysics, it deals with function.

Ginkgo wrote:In relation to the Feynman clip. What you and the person doing the interview don't understand is that Feynman was asked a teleological, or a why question in relation to magnetism. Teleological questions in relation to science are unanswerable. In other words, the why question was a metaphysical question. Science doesn't deal with metaphysics, it deals with function.

The guy was asking Feynman simple questions about magnetism, such as the description of what it feels like and the interactions of magnetism. Thus, that statement that you have made was deceptive, as it did not to do with teleology because teleology is about the broad universal way of things. Either way, it does not relieve Feynman from his inability to answer the questions that they guy gave him.

WanderingLands wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:In relation to the Feynman clip. What you and the person doing the interview don't understand is that Feynman was asked a teleological, or a why question in relation to magnetism. Teleological questions in relation to science are unanswerable. In other words, the why question was a metaphysical question. Science doesn't deal with metaphysics, it deals with function.

The guy was asking Feynman simple questions about magnetism, such as the description of what it feels like and the interactions of magnetism. Thus, that statement that you have made was deceptive, as it did not to do with teleology. Either way, it does not relieve Feynman from his inability to answer the questions that they guy gave him.

No, the guy clearly asked "why" then after that he asked "how".

You don't understand the difference between metaphysical ontology and non-metaphysical ontology in relation to science. Unless you are prepared to get a handle on that your understanding of metaphysics in inadequate.

Google may help in this respect.

Ginkgo wrote: No, the guy clearly asked "why" then after that he asked "how".

You don't understand the difference between metaphysical ontology and non-metaphysical ontology in relation to science. Unless you are prepared to get a handle on that your understanding of metaphysics in inadequate.

Google may help in this respect.

It still would not alleviate Feynman from answering directly about the nature of magnetism, and instead turn the subject onto something about hospitals and stuff. This is nothing more than a distraction tactic.

WanderingLands wrote:

Ginkgo wrote: No, the guy clearly asked "why" then after that he asked "how".

You don't understand the difference between metaphysical ontology and non-metaphysical ontology in relation to science. Unless you are prepared to get a handle on that your understanding of metaphysics in inadequate.

Google may help in this respect.

It still would not alleviate Feynman from answering directly about the nature of magnetism, and instead turn the subject onto something about hospitals and stuff. This is nothing more than a distraction tactic, and it is confirming my belief that you and uwot are simply tag-teaming due since you two are often recurring in many of my threads.

This could be the case, but what still remains a fact that you continually demonstrate you don't understand the difference between metaphysical ontology and scientific ontology.


You cannot gain an adequate understanding of metaphysics by scrolling through websites. This is where an approved course would be of benefit.

Ginkgo wrote: This could be the case, but what still remains a fact that you continually demonstrate you don't understand the difference between metaphysical ontology and scientific ontology.


You cannot gain an adequate understanding of metaphysics by scrolling through websites. This is where an approved course would be of benefit.

I am not going to go back to this conversation on this thread. Maybe on other threads, but not here on this thread. This subject that you repeatedly bring up here has nothing to do with the prior conversation about Richard Feynman, which was part of a larger critique of Quantum Mechanics.

WanderingLands wrote:

Ginkgo wrote: This could be the case, but what still remains a fact that you continually demonstrate you don't understand the difference between metaphysical ontology and scientific ontology.


You cannot gain an adequate understanding of metaphysics by scrolling through websites. This is where an approved course would be of benefit.

I am not going to go back to this conversation on this thread. Maybe on other threads, but not here on this thread. This subject that you repeatedly bring up here has nothing to do with the prior conversation about Richard Feynman, which was part of a larger critique of Quantum Mechanics.

Your choice. Your thread.

WanderingLands wrote:This goes back to my point about Feynman and the scientific establishment: they are merely just dogmatists

You have completely missed the point of all those quotes: science doesn't know; it does not give dogmatic answers; it does not pretend to tell the Truth. The truth about science is that it can see things happen and it can measure them. The things happen or they don't and the measurement is accurate or it isn't. It has always been the case that metaphysical models have been used as an aid, celestial spheres in Ptolemaic cosmology, absolute space and time in Newtonian physics, Minkowski space in General Relativity, gravitons in some versions of QM. It does not follow that any of those things exist from the accuracy of the measurements.
A quote from Feynman that you missed: "All we know so far is what doesn't work."

WanderingLands wrote:who make a senseless cosmological model, just as the larger academia (with help of government) promotes other idiotic propaganda to numb the masses.

You are doing it again. This is another story that you have made up; it is nonsense.

WanderingLands wrote:You may not be fond of considering rationalism and metaphysics as I am, but I feel that this may be more preferable than listening to other people for their opinions and getting all mixed up.

I'm very fond of rationalism and metaphysics, but I know their limits. As I keep saying, you can make up any story that isn't contradicted by the evidence, that pleases you, but if you are not prepared to alter or abandon it in the light of evidence, you are an idiot.

WanderingLands wrote:Equations cannot describe things; it's up to using tools such as grammar and rhetoric to do so. Equations are supposed to be explanations for phenomena, as in a priori sort of thing.

No they are not. Equations will include conceptual entities, space, time, mass, energy, force and so on; all of which are measurable (pure mathematics notwithstanding again), but they do not make any claims about what those things are beyond their demonstrable effect. Equations don't generally describe things, they basically describe events.

WanderingLands wrote:How can numbers and symbols (an abstraction) describe an image (an abstraction according to our senses)? The logic of it is fallacious.

It isn't, because that isn't the logic of it.

WanderingLands wrote:Metaphysics is about the overall, universal explanations, which QM and GR fails in being compatible with metaphysics.

Metaphysics is about all sorts of things, do 'categories' exist, for example, if you want to get really dreary. What distinguishes metaphysics is that it extremely limited in what it can say with certainty. Parmenides nailed it 2500 years ago: something exists.

WanderingLands wrote:As you said yourself, the models of GR and QM are completely different.

Absolutely. That does not stop the mathematics of either being spectacularly successful.

WanderingLands wrote:I don't simply just convince myself that there is Truth. I have actually contemplated on things as I have explored many ideas and perspectives through research to find out what Truth is, and I have saw the evidence for myself to know what's really going on in things, which is the opposite of mere "story making".

Very well. Can you give an example of one thing you know to be the truth and explain the process by which you recognise it as such.

WanderingLands wrote:It's also real ignorant of you to bring up the word 'conservative' into this, and to also attach it to "psychological weakness" as I recall you saying that a while ago.

What am I ignorant of, do you think?

WanderingLands wrote:Conservationism simply means to uphold the old guard in politics and institutions of society, which is a bit of antithesis of what I am actually doing,

I don't think so. As far as I can tell, you believe the Truth to be absolute; unchanging, always and forever; that is the essence of conservatism.

WanderingLands wrote:which is examining and critiquing these institutions, although I do somewhat agree with some of their critique of this "progressive" society.

Who are 'they' that are critiquing?

WanderingLands wrote:To call it a "psychological weakness", though, I'd say is hyperbole and complete dismissal of it.

Again, I disagree. I think a lack of adaptability and an insistence on certainty or truth is feeble. Grown ups can cope with change.

uwot wrote: You have completely missed the point of all those quotes: science doesn't know; it does not give dogmatic answers; it does not pretend to tell the Truth. The truth about science is that it can see things happen and it can measure them. The things happen or they don't and the measurement is accurate or it isn't. It has always been the case that metaphysical models have been used as an aid, celestial spheres in Ptolemaic cosmology, absolute space and time in Newtonian physics, Minkowski space in General Relativity, gravitons in some versions of QM. It does not follow that any of those things exist from the accuracy of the measurements.

No, it is really you who missed the point, which was that the fact that the scientific establishment is run by individuals who can't even answer what magnetism or energy is, let alone even understand what Quantum Mechanics is, shows that it is the incompetence and laziness that is contributing to the outright contradictions and utter falsehood that is being promoted in society. Science, much like Philosophy, is supposed to be a grounded and simple study that is based upon reason, whether it be empirical or rational. Without reasoning or logic, and without proper foundation, you have a mess of over-accumulated knowledge that is half-truths and half-fabrication.

uwot wrote: I'm very fond of rationalism and metaphysics, but I know their limits. As I keep saying, you can make up any story that isn't contradicted by the evidence, that pleases you, but if you are not prepared to alter or abandon it in the light of evidence, you are an idiot.

This is emotional ad hominem that is speaking through you. The so-called "limits" arise from the fact that there is not a proper foundational methodology that is set up to actually discern what is true and what is false, as well as it is a test to challenge your dedication to the search for truth. I am in fact open to such changes, but I also have to have some sort of objectivity and critical thinking to really see if it holds water.

uwot wrote: No they are not. Equations will include conceptual entities, space, time, mass, energy, force and so on; all of which are measurable (pure mathematics notwithstanding again), but they do not make any claims about what those things are beyond their demonstrable effect. Equations don't generally describe things, they basically describe events.

Those things which you talk about are represented as symbols in equations, so thus equations still don't describe so you still will have to have good foundational elaborations on them. They are expressed merely to simplify the descriptions of the events.

uwot wrote: Metaphysics is about all sorts of things, do 'categories' exist, for example, if you want to get really dreary. What distinguishes metaphysics is that it extremely limited in what it can say with certainty. Parmenides nailed it 2500 years ago: something exists.

Definitely it is, but doesn't add weight to your arguments.

uwot wrote: Absolutely. That does not stop the mathematics of either being spectacularly successful.

It does indeed bring the mathematics into question when it comes to the fact that they are different and that you are bringing the question of cosmology into the picture. If it's two different models, then either one of them or neither of them are correct in both their models and in their mathematics.

uwot wrote: Very well. Can you give an example of one thing you know to be the truth and explain the process by which you recognise it as such.

Yes indeed.

1) First you must have a good foundation in how to explore Truth. The best form of foundation, I suggest, would be to use the Trivium method, which comprises of General Grammar (gathering of raw data and explaining it), Formal Logic (finding whatever inconsistency to make it more coherent), and Classical Rhetoric (applying that right knowledge into words and statements).
2) The process of finding Truth is done by applying what's known as Occam's razor, which is to simplify all of the many explanations by finding commonalities and consistencies within them to have few or even one explanation. It's done by applying the Trivium method into the picture in not only examining the many knowledge that is found outside, but also through your own self in your own thoughts and observations. With a sharp mind, you will be able to circumvent through any obstacle that may make your mind subjective, and so you will find the objective and Absolute Truth.
3) Also accompanying Trivium and Occam's Razor are Abductive Reasoning (finding whatever explanation to see if your explanations are true or if it's consistent with your explanations), and Meditation (to calm your stresses, thoughts, confusion, etc. so you can actually develop your intuition).

My explanation so far is that we are all one, as propounded by religion, esotericism, and various philosophical and even scientific inquiry. I've found that out through the notion that we are all of energy; we are all of mind and intellect; and that we have known this principle throughout the entire eternity of life. All other things follow through with the organizing of cosmological models, solving humanity's problems, and learning to live life the way that it is meant to be lived.

uwot wrote: What am I ignorant of, do you think?

You're ignorant of the fact that you've brought up Conservatism in a thread that otherwise has nothing to do with it, and that you've attached it to "psychological weakness" just because it's not as 'progressive', which I found to be an unnecessary hyperbole which I will explain further on into your last few responses.

uwot wrote: I don't think so. As far as I can tell, you believe the Truth to be absolute; unchanging, always and forever; that is the essence of conservatism.

It's still a moot point to call it "conservative", as you can also put absolute truth into the more progressive and utopian ideologies. One such example is British Idealism, which was inspired by the Hegelian Absolute Idealism. Both of these Idealism(s) (which are pretty much almost the same) believed in the Absolute and the Rational, and were a big influence on modern Progressivism in that they favored the State as the carrier to progress. Then there's also Lyndon LaRouche; though he also may have fell into the right, has also retained his leftist ideology in being attached to FDR; he believes in Absolute Truth and is inspired by Neoplatonic philosophy.

My point is that you can't really attach the idea of "Absolute Truth" just onto Conservationism, as Progressivism or those who believe in Progress have also clanged on to it. Above that, your statement still doesn't disprove the notion of such.

But back to my other point: the word "conservatism" still has nothing to do with this thread. If you want to debate on it, we will maybe do that in the future, but this is not so much politics as it is more about science.

uwot wrote: Who are 'they' that are critiquing?

Their critiques that:

1. Moral relativism that is being promoted in culture, and being used to manipulate and mold the masses.
2. That openness equates with homosexuality, abortions, contraceptions.
3. That progress equates with globalization: ignoring the damages of it caused unto the third world and the Western world. And that it also that it's equated with the state being the ultimate beneficiary to humanity ignoring the given tyranny that it has inflicted.

uwot wrote: Again, I disagree. I think a lack of adaptability and an insistence on certainty or truth is feeble. Grown ups can cope with change.

Well, I certainly think that we ought to question what this "adaptability" entails for us humans whether or not it is good for us as well as our surroundings. Calling it "feeble" (without explanation, of course), along with certainty of truth, is rather childish and emotional, and is in itself dogmatic as by dismissing it, you are dismissing any such possibility of truth and you are emotionally dismissing any criticism of 'progressivism' in our society.