Author Topic: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light  (Read 9508 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MockTurtle

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 798
  • Darwins +4/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • The power of reason compels you!
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #116 on: August 12, 2010, 07:08:22 PM »
It's not necessarily eternally unprovable or unfalsifiable, any more than consciousness itself is unprovable or unfalsifiable.
What experiment would convince you that you are wrong?
If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. — Paul Dirac

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #117 on: August 12, 2010, 07:50:19 PM »
I don't think that science should be about convincing ourselves of anything, right or wrong, but some things that would steer me towards an independent photon model would include:

An experiment which results in my observation of light in a vacuum without a light source or light reflection.

An experiment which produces an experimentally complete and coherent three dimensional model of a photon.

An experiment based on QM which predicts how colors/hues in invisible parts of the spectrum will look to us if our neurology permitted it.

An experiment which predicts how subjectivity arises from living cells independently of their molecular-atomic behavior.
I can probably crank out more if you want, but hopefully you get the idea.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 08:59:17 PM by Immediacracy »
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline MockTurtle

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 798
  • Darwins +4/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • The power of reason compels you!
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #118 on: August 12, 2010, 09:39:13 PM »
I don't think that science should be about convincing ourselves of anything, right or wrong,
Which explains why your post isn't about science.

Your "experiments" are a further example.  For most scientific theories, the answer isn't
that complicated.  Some are even famous, like that of Haladane who, when asked what
would falsify evolution, replied "a fossil rabbit in the precambrian". Instead you proposed
experiments are either impossible by definition, not clearly defined, or not conclusive.

 

If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. — Paul Dirac

Offline penkie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Let science rule!
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #119 on: August 13, 2010, 02:53:17 AM »
Immediacracy already admitted a long time ago that his ideas are not scientific. Instead he has a semi-philosophical position about the universe that "could be true", but cannot be verified nor falsified and has no practical application.

One of the things that Immediacracy cannot grasp is that understanding that a beautiful flower is composed of individual cells and atoms and that beauty can come from the arrangement of those cells and atoms. Because beauty is assigned to a flower by a human observer, he thinks that the human consciousness should be part of every scientific theory out there. He cannot see that this is nonsense. I tried to explain this numerous times, but apparently I cannot persuade him, just as he cannot persuade me that what he is saying makes any sense. Fair enough.

Instead, because of this thread I watched some Richard Feynman videos yesterday. This guy can explain these things much better than I can do, so I'll let him do the explaining (his view about science and the beautiful flower starts at 25 sec in the video).

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srSbAazoOr8[/youtube]

Discussion with Immediacracy doesn't make much sense to me. He will keep on saying that his theories make sense, but there is only no means to verify it, while all others will maintain he is a crank. Stalemate, I guess. Instead, I advise to watch the rest of those Feynman videos. They are really good and insightful.  :)
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #120 on: August 13, 2010, 08:13:08 AM »
Immediacracy already admitted a long time ago that his ideas are not scientific.
I'm pretty sure that's not true. I don't categorize my ideas, but I would say they are philosophical and scientific in the sense of 'science' as a search for understanding regardless of where the path leads, (but not in the sense of conforming to the assumptions of contemporary laboratory physics). I see that as just a matter of different theories requiring different methods to test.

Quote
Instead he has a semi-philosophical position about the universe that "could be true", but cannot be verified nor falsified and has no practical application.
Nobody knows if they can be verified or have any practical application yet. That's for others to work out...not my specialty. The discovery of quorum sensing and it's application to saving humanity's antibiotic exhaustion may very well be the most practical discovery of science since penicillin. Seems like reason enough to allow some curiosity in this direction.

Quote
One of the things that Immediacracy cannot grasp is that understanding that a beautiful flower is composed of individual cells and atoms and that beauty can come from the arrangement of those cells and atoms.
Of course I can grasp that. My whole point is that the Cosmos is made of pattern - arrangements - sense. Can you grasp that the exact same arrangements of sand and bricks of sand will produce not produce a flower? That's because an atom isn't just a grain of inert sand, an atom is a proto-living process with the potential to produce arrangements which are beautiful and which respond to beauty.

Quote
Because beauty is assigned to a flower by a human observer, he thinks that the human consciousness should be part of every scientific theory out there.
Human consciousness already is part of every scientific theory out there, I just think it's possible that some occasions warrant admitting it - like when you are trying to explain the Cosmos. It has nothing to do with beauty or flowers.

Quote
He cannot see that this is nonsense. I tried to explain this numerous times, but apparently I cannot persuade him, just as he cannot persuade me that what he is saying makes any sense. Fair enough.
I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I'm just trying to effectively communicate my ideas. I know they aren't nonsense because they make sense to me, and nobody has been able to give me a specific counterexample of my idea so far. (Even if someone does, it wouldn't make my ideas 'nonsense', just discarded hypotheses.

Quote
Instead, because of this thread I watched some Richard Feynman videos yesterday. This guy can explain these things much better than I can do, so I'll let him do the explaining (his view about science and the beautiful flower starts at 25 sec in the video).
I think that Feynman is a genius is one of the few things the you, I, and James Randi would agree upon. Coincidentally 'Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman' has been on the top of my reading for the last couple weeks. Personally I identify with his childhood curiosity with the ball and wagon. I remember the first time I saw a laser in elementary school (this was 1978 so, not a red diode pointer, but a lab instrument in a briefcase) how surprised I was that there was no beam. The beam had to be sort of hinted at by spraying something in the air. Why no laser beam?

Quote
Discussion with Immediacracy doesn't make much sense to me. He will keep on saying that his theories make sense, but there is only no means to verify it, while all others will maintain he is a crank. Stalemate, I guess. Instead, I advise to watch the rest of those Feynman videos. They are really good and insightful.  :)
Penkie makes perfect sense to me, he is capable of good scientific reasoning but rather than use that to explain his own ideas about what I've laid out, he is compelled to use it to explain that ideas which contradict the established conventions of recent science must be nonsense, and that anyone who dares express such an idea is automatically disqualified. This is what my OMM vs ACME model predicts - that empirical, objective reasoning can become as prejudiced and intolerant as religious, subjective dogma. I am surprised he considers it a stalemate, so maybe his Feynman-like curiosity still has veto authority over his Randi-like certainty. Either way, it's ok with me. It's good to have hardnosed OMM debunkers too.

He may be right, my ideas may be wrong, but not because they don't make sense and not because they disagree with contemporary scientific authority. If they are wrong it's because there is some observation to be made which proves a different, more reasonable truth, and that's all I'm looking for. Now I'm gonna watch more Feynman YouTubes too.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #121 on: August 13, 2010, 08:35:00 AM »
Wondering where dark matter fits into your ideas about light and the ACME/OMM model.  I think it is said that about 90 percent of everything does not emit/reflect light? I don't know what I am talking about. I've only started watching youubes on cosmology yesterday.

I attended a lecture by Arthur M Shallow co-inventor of the laser. He started off by asking someone to turn off the light. He says, "All work on light must be done in the dark."
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline penkie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Let science rule!
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #122 on: August 13, 2010, 10:17:44 AM »
I'm pretty sure that's not true. I don't categorize my ideas, but I would say they are philosophical and scientific in the sense of 'science' as a search for understanding regardless of where the path leads, (but not in the sense of conforming to the assumptions of contemporary laboratory physics). I see that as just a matter of different theories requiring different methods to test.

Which assumptions do you mean? That it must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning?

Different methods of testing are fine. As long as they are scientific and reproducible.

Quote
Nobody knows if they can be verified or have any practical application yet. That's for others to work out...not my specialty. The discovery of quorum sensing and it's application to saving humanity's antibiotic exhaustion may very well be the most practical discovery of science since penicillin. Seems like reason enough to allow some curiosity in this direction.

Science is describing nature as it is, by interpreting nature phenomena that are not yet understood. Also science is using the language of nature, mathematics. As far as I can tell, your ideas don't describe an phenomenon that is not understood, nor did I see a specific description, i.e. using math or some other formal framework.
Another discipline is engineering. That is applying technical, scientific, and mathematical knowledge to design and implement materials, structures, machines, devices, systems, and processes that safely realize a desired objective or invention. And sure, some engineered things might have additional uses that were not its original goal. Anyway, I didn't really see any way your ideas qualify as engineering.

That probably leaves philosophy. However, the things you mentioned (penicillin and quorum sensing) are not part of philosophy. Actually, I don't see much in philosophy anyway. But maybe I don't understand your ideas well enough.

Quote
Of course I can grasp that. My whole point is that the Cosmos is made of pattern - arrangements - sense. Can you grasp that the exact same arrangements of sand and bricks of sand will produce not produce a flower? That's because an atom isn't just a grain of inert sand, an atom is a proto-living process with the potential to produce arrangements which are beautiful and which respond to beauty.

I have seen sand sculptures of flowers that were also quite beautiful. But that doesn't say anything. So what that we think that some arrangement is beautiful and another is not? A flower doesn't react to our judgment. Our judgment is a human thing, the flower isn't even aware of what we think. And the fact that a flower is beautiful of course doesn't mean every single atom of that flower is beautiful. In the same way, if we pluck the flower and use the same atoms to make an ugly composition of rotting plants, the atom doesn't suddenly transition in being ugly. Only the composition changes.

Quote
Human consciousness already is part of every scientific theory out there, I just think it's possible that some occasions warrant admitting it - like when you are trying to explain the Cosmos. It has nothing to do with beauty or flowers.

Most scientific theories out there have nothing to do with human consciousness. What has gravity to do with consciousness?

Quote
I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I'm just trying to effectively communicate my ideas. I know they aren't nonsense because they make sense to me, and nobody has been able to give me a specific counterexample of my idea so far. (Even if someone does, it wouldn't make my ideas 'nonsense', just discarded hypotheses.

Depends on your definition of nonsense. I don't see a theory that relates to measurements, nor can explain any specific element of reality and I don't see any logic in claiming that science should be broadened. For me that sounds as nonsense. The fact that you have a mental model of some concept in your mind doesn't automatically make that concept valid nor sensible. If someone in an Asylum has a clear mental model and his theory is that he is Napoleon, doesn't make it sensible, even if it makes sense to the one thinking it. Maybe it is sensible, but then your just not communicating very effectively.


Quote
I remember the first time I saw a laser in elementary school (this was 1978 so, not a red diode pointer, but a lab instrument in a briefcase) how surprised I was that there was no beam. The beam had to be sort of hinted at by spraying something in the air. Why no laser beam?

I've had a similar experience with lasers, yes.

Quote
Penkie makes perfect sense to me, he is capable of good scientific reasoning but rather than use that to explain his own ideas about what I've laid out, he is compelled to use it to explain that ideas which contradict the established conventions of recent science must be nonsense, and that anyone who dares express such an idea is automatically disqualified.

I have no ideas about what you've expressed. I cannot connect with yours. But indeed, I reject most ideas about reality that have no actual relation with that reality and the scientific method. That's not because I choose to be open minded, but because I understand very well were the 'established conventions' came from. They do not exist to mock people with different ideas or be elitists or closed minded. These methods evolved because they are the only way to make sense of reality, because they work. It is fine to extend reasoning or invent new measuring methods. But non-mathematical ideas that deviate from successful scientific theory and method, without any real reason and without any verification method or even reason.. well, sorry, but they are just senseless to me.

Quote
This is what my OMM vs ACME model predicts - that empirical, objective reasoning can become as prejudiced and intolerant as religious, subjective dogma.

You can call it prejudiced to the scientific method if you want. But I don't think these are just dogma's. The scientific method is just a way to make sense. And yes, I am pretty prejudiced to nonsense.
Also I don't think I am intolerant. I would never kill or hurt you for your ideas. I only wouldn't except them, nor would any other man of reason.

Quote
I am surprised he considers it a stalemate, so maybe his Feynman-like curiosity still has veto authority over his Randi-like certainty.

It's a stalemate, because you have the right to be wrong and I do not possess absolute certainties.

Quote
If they are wrong it's because there is some observation to be made which proves a different, more reasonable truth, and that's all I'm looking for. Now I'm gonna watch more Feynman YouTubes too.

Then your ideas first have to lead to predictions that can be proved or disproved. But this will probably take a mathematical modeling of reality and I don't think you can do that. In that case there is just nothing reasonable that can be said about your them. So again, they are senseless in that respect. Maybe it helps if you make them more concrete with the right math, and test them against reality. If that can be even done.

Also, truth cannot be more reasonable than it is. It is what it is.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #123 on: August 13, 2010, 10:44:21 AM »
Wondering where dark matter fits into your ideas about light and the ACME/OMM model.  I think it is said that about 90 percent of everything does not emit/reflect light? I don't know what I am talking about. I've only started watching youubes on cosmology yesterday.

I attended a lecture by Arthur M Shallow co-inventor of the laser. He started off by asking someone to turn off the light. He says, "All work on light must be done in the dark."
Well, I don't have any direct experience with dark matter like I do with light, but my QC idea of light would be consistent with the idea of non-illuminating matter. If light is a behavior of matter, then it's certainly possible that not all matter participates in that behavior.

As for the reality of dark matter, it seems too early to tell whether it's 'really real' or just a figment of self-fulfilling mathematics and measurements (which would push it toward the OMM extreme).
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Jim

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2462
  • Darwins +11/-1
  • Born Again Atheist
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #124 on: August 13, 2010, 11:02:15 AM »
...I watched some Richard Feynman videos yesterday. This guy can explain these things much better than I can do, so I'll let him do the explaining (his view about science and the beautiful flower starts at 25 sec in the video....

Yes, some people are more equipped to explain the physical universe than others are.  Feynman is a good source.
Survey results coming soon!

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #125 on: August 13, 2010, 12:16:34 PM »
Which assumptions do you mean?
The assumption that matter must be nothing more than senseless objective behavior.

Quote
Science is describing nature as it is, by interpreting nature phenomena that are not yet understood. Also science is using the language of nature, mathematics.
The language of nature is sense, not mathematics. Mathematics is a type of sense, so is beauty or humor. Once we think we understand something, that doesn't mean we won't revise that understanding and occasionally revolutionize it. More than anything, revision and revolution has been both the history of science and it's method of inquiry.

Quote
As far as I can tell, your ideas don't describe an phenomenon that is not understood, nor did I see a specific description, i.e. using math or some other formal framework.
Consciousness is not understood. Life is not understood. Qualities of conscious experience are not understood. These are all phenomena which exist and are legitimate aspects of the Cosmos which cannot be explained through mathematics, and all of which could be potentially tied together with a QC-like model of electromagnetism.

Quote
Anyway, I didn't really see any way your ideas qualify as engineering...
That probably leaves philosophy...
Why does it matter at all what name to give my ideas? Why do they have to fit into these imaginary verbal categories?

Quote
I have seen sand sculptures of flowers that were also quite beautiful. But that doesn't say anything. So what that we think that some arrangement is beautiful and another is not...
I agree, beauty is subjective, but that's not what I was talking about at all. Emergent properties can of course be greater than their source, but you can't make a living cell out of grains of sand or Legos. You can make some fantastic sculptures, sure, but they are aren't going to come to life and reproduce.

My point is that life and consciousness are not possible unless matter itself supports the possibility of life and consciousness. Legos or sand grains do not support the possibility of forming a living cell, but organic molecules do. To me, this means that there is something a little different about molecules and atoms than our mathematical, objective models of them account for.

The atoms of a pretty flower aren't pretty-flower-atoms, but neither are they just sterile mathematics. A flower comes from a seed - it's an emergent property of it's seed, but it's still a seed and not a seed-shaped pebble.

Quote
Most scientific theories out there have nothing to do with human consciousness. What has gravity to do with consciousness?
Gravity is a concept which arises from and exists within human consciousness. It has no purpose whatsoever but to serve the designs of human consciousness. It's how an educated person in this civilization at this time describes their experience and understanding of the properties of mass on physical bodies.

Quote
Depends on your definition of nonsense. I don't see a theory that relates to measurements, nor can explain any specific element of reality and I don't see any logic in claiming that science should be broadened. For me that sounds as nonsense.
I am explaining specific elements of reality:

Electromagnetic awareness as an aspect of matter explains visual consciousness as an aspect of the brain and optical system.

Electromagnetism as a behavior of matter explains why a laser is a dot or a band rather than a beam.

Cooperative sense on an atomic level explains consciousness as electromagnetic patterns in the nervous system.

Qualitative content on an atomic level explains the possibility of interiority, qualia, and intelligence on a human level.

The capacity for order and sense to be carried by/through matter itself resolves the Cartesian split.

Quote
These methods evolved because they are the only way to make sense of reality, because they work.
Those are two very different things. There is no 'only way to make sense of reality'. There are countless ways to make sense of reality, and only some of those are rooted in mathematics.

Quote
Also, truth cannot be more reasonable than it is. It is what it is.
Ah, naive realism.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Operator_011

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2646
  • Darwins +17/-1
Re: More Of My Pointless Background Noise On Light
« Reply #126 on: August 13, 2010, 01:09:57 PM »
Anyway, I didn't really see any way your ideas qualify as engineering...
That probably leaves philosophy...
Why does it matter at all what name to give my ideas? Why do they have to fit into these imaginary verbal categories?

If you are not posting actual scientific data and are only posting material that is a personal "idea" then your threads have no business being placed in the Science board of this forum. They should be started in Chatter where those sorts of threads belong. Our Science board is not a personal think-tank.

Can you confirm whether your threads are presenting factual scientific data or whether they're just your own personal "ideas", as you claim[1]?

If the former, your threads will be moved to Chatter where they will be treated as less serious chit-chat from now on. If the latter, you will be required to start providing evidence to support your claims as required by our rules.


I require a SIMPLE answer, something along the line of "Yes they're just my ideas" OR "No I am presenting factual scientific data".


Thanks.
 1. And please don't lawyer the definition of the word "claim" with me. We're using the standard definition in this context.
Former Moderator Account