Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It means as much as astrology ever did.

Maybe. On the other hand, the stuff the universe is made of is (probably) exactly the same stuff of which the Big Bang was made. We really don't know much about it, but the potential rewards for understanding it are enormous. So are the risks. If you consider that a single star that goes supernova can outshine it's entire galaxy of 2 or 3 hundred billion stars, the potential for unlimited energy, or an entirely pointlessly powerful bomb, become clear. That's the stuff we're made of (probably); it's worth getting to know.

uwot wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It means as much as astrology ever did.

Maybe. On the other hand, the stuff the universe is made of is (probably) exactly the same stuff of which the Big Bang was made. We really don't know much about it, but the potential rewards for understanding it are enormous. So are the risks. If you consider that a single star that goes supernova can outshine it's entire galaxy of 2 or 3 hundred billion stars, the potential for unlimited energy, or an entirely pointlessly powerful bomb, become clear. That's the stuff we're made of (probably); it's worth getting to know.

It's just a model. It's self justifying. Nothing beyond the basic sub-atomic particles make any sense or have practical applications.
Please spare me the "unlimited energy" schtick. You can only split atoms so many ways.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It's just a model.

What is?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It's self justifying. Nothing beyond the basic sub-atomic particles make any sense or have practical applications.
Please spare me the "unlimited energy" schtick. You can only split atoms so many ways.

You don't know until you try. It's the nature of empiricism. The thing is, we don't know what fundamental particles are made of, but presumably it's the same stuff that the Big Bang was made of, which appears to have the capacity to expand from a tiny volume to something with a radius of at least 13.7 billion light years. Harnessing that could power a few light bulbs.

uwot wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It's just a model.

What is?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It's self justifying. Nothing beyond the basic sub-atomic particles make any sense or have practical applications.
Please spare me the "unlimited energy" schtick. You can only split atoms so many ways.

You don't know until you try. It's the nature of empiricism. The thing is, we don't know what fundamental particles are made of, but presumably it's the same stuff that the Big Bang was made of, which appears to have the capacity to expand from a tiny volume to something with a radius of at least 13.7 billion light years. Harnessing that could power a few light bulbs.

No one is even pretending that this will provide a source of energy.
It sucks up the science budget, whilst more useful things go unfunded.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:No one is even pretending that this will provide a source of energy.

So what reason has anyone given?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It sucks up the science budget, whilst more useful things go unfunded.

What is CERN taking money from?

uwot wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:No one is even pretending that this will provide a source of energy.

So what reason has anyone given?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:It sucks up the science budget, whilst more useful things go unfunded.

What is CERN taking money from?

I think I could find some more useful things for the Billion dollars it has already sucked up.

The philosophy of LHC:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/life ... n-collider

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The philosophy of LHC:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/life ... n-collider

PhilX

You can always rely on the Guardian for well written copy - maybe the last bastion of quality journalism.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:In other words we can all ride on the gravy train for many more years, sucking the science budget out of several nations in the grip of so-called austerity.

It does not matter the homelessness is undergoing a meteoric rise in several European countries, just as long as the CERN guys are burning mega bucks on pretty pictures.

Yeah, I really don't give a crap about CERN. Nothing will come of it in my lifetime that will make a difference to me.

Since our countries are nonmembers, then it's not much concern to me either.

However let me say this from a historical perspective. CERN is important in this way:

"CERN is also the place the World Wide Web was first implemented." I also know that Tang and the microwave were due to NASA (yeah I know, big deal). When you have so much money involved in these projects, they can lead to spinoffs. Aside from the money, I like to know a few things about the neighborhood I live in.
PhilX

PhilX,

A few keyboard strokes by way of research would tell you some truth about the neighborhood you imagine that you live in and claim to know something of. Microwaves were predicted by James Maxwell back in the 19th century and experimentally produced in the first quarter of the 20th century. Perhaps in your abject ignorance you are confusing microwaves with microwave ovens, likely about the only exposure that an alleged philosopher is likely to have to the concept. Raytheon patented their oven implementation in 1945 and produced the first commercially available microwave oven in 1947.

NASA came into existence in 1958.

Was the bullshit that you tried to pass off as factual information just some crap that you made up, and typical of most philosophers did not bother to research, or did you glean it from the writings of even more ignorant philosophers?

If you stop sharing your half-vast knowledge about the neighborhood you live in, children growing up therein would be smarter by default.

Greylorn

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

uwot wrote:]What is CERN taking money from?

I think I could find some more useful things for the Billion dollars it has already sucked up.

Well, thanks to "the last bastion of quality journalism", I could find better places to find money to fund humanitarian projects: http://www.theguardian.com/business/201

Greylorn Ell wrote:BTW for the US, CERN is a bargain. The Europeans paid for a lot of that pseudo-scientific farce, as they deserve.

Greylorn

Creating apparatus to produce observable phenomena, discovering patterns of behaviour and generating or applying mathematical models pretty well defines modern physics.

uwot wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:BTW for the US, CERN is a bargain. The Europeans paid for a lot of that pseudo-scientific farce, as they deserve.

Greylorn

Creating apparatus to produce observable phenomena, discovering patterns of behaviour and generating or applying mathematical models pretty well defines modern physics.

Uwot,

Agreed. Alas...

Greylorn

Greylorn Ell wrote:

uwot wrote: Creating apparatus to produce observable phenomena, discovering patterns of behaviour and generating or applying mathematical models pretty well defines modern physics.

Uwot,

Agreed. Alas...

Greylorn

That's no bad thing. The point about physics is that it is a response to phenomena. If an hypothesis doesn't make manipulating our environment simpler or more accurate, it's not physics.

The LHC is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get. Does that mean we shouldn't buy into it?

Dubious wrote:The LHC is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get. Does that mean we shouldn't buy into it?

People who know how to read the list of items, know exactly what they are going to get from a box of chocolates. The trick is to not be Forrest Gump.

Dubious wrote:The LHC is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get. Does that mean we shouldn't buy into it?

Anyone who pays taxes will be funding something they think a waste of money, or even immoral. Personally, I don't begrudge the time I have to work to help pay for CERN.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:People who know how to read the list of items, know exactly what they are going to get from a box of chocolates. The trick is to not be Forrest Gump.

There is no list of items for fundamental particles; that's why we have to smash them to bits to see what they are made of.