Kiwi solves Zeno's paradox and argues against Hawking

[Eli]

Originally posted by yavoon 7
u should read the elegant universe then.

Oh I read it. I still *feel* that about 80 years ago some scientist somewhere took the wrong turn.

[Az]

I've got a similar feeling as well.

what really disturbs me is the fact that we've just on the beginning of piecing all of physics together. ( and a large part of that is chemistry, too. )

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Azazel
I've got a similar feeling as well.

what really disturbs me is the fact that we've just on the beginning of piecing all of physics together. ( and a large part of that is chemistry, too. )

chemistry is just piggy backing on quantum physics. all chemistry ever was was experimentation. have u seen how obtuse the rules are in chemistry? the exceptions have exceptions!

[Buck Birdseed]

Bah, this seems like entirely speculative airy-fairy physics to me rather than real philosophy.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Bah, this seems like entirely speculative airy-fairy physics to me rather than real philosophy.

u mean airy fairy philosophy rather than real physics?

[Buck Birdseed]

[Buck Birdseed]

Anyway, jokes aside, I can't see how this would have interesting philosophical implications. Plus it fails to solve several of the other infinity-time paradoxes, including the infinately fast ball-throwing machine one. But then metaphysics was never my main area of interest...

[Buck Birdseed]

Although I suppose if you think about it it could have bearing on more interesting philosophy. How would it apply to the free will problem, for instance? With no instance of decision can we truly be said to have free will?

...

Um, yes. I suppose. Well. Forget I even posted this.

[The Vagabond]

From the philosophical point of view, this work belongs to the realm of speculative philosophy, when philosophy moves far ahead of physics in a matter that clearly belongs to physics. ("Speculative" here is not meant in a derogatory way.) This is in contrast "interpretational" philosophy of science, when philosophy interpretes what is known to science and puts it in a more general context.

[Az]

Originally posted by yavoon


chemistry is just piggy backing on quantum physics. all chemistry ever was was experimentation. have u seen how obtuse the rules are in chemistry? the exceptions have exceptions!

I study chemistry in uni. BELIEVE ME, I KNOW.

This is exactly the leap I am talking about.

[st_swithin]

It's a Cerebral Circle Jerk, thank you very much.

At UCLA, it's called 'Physics for Poets.'

[The Vagabond]

Chemistry is not a science. At least, this is what an old Soviet joke claims. Proof: There is a journal "Science and life" (Nauka i zhizn'), and there is a journal "Chemistry and life" (Khimiya i zhizn'). Consequently, chemistry is not a science.

[Maniac]

I have to agree with DRoseDARs. There's nothing revolutionary about this article. While I was reading the article I thought: "I could've come up with this as well. " But then again, my world view also contains many oriental elements.

Boris Godunov:

Western scientific method produced the greatest flourishing of technological advancement and knowledge about the world and our universe ever, and it continues to accelerate to this day. It's rather difficult to argue with those results!

Oh please. Put things in historical perspective. It's only from 1400 on that Europe can be considered to really catch up with China and India. And it's only from 1800 on that Europe really began to overclass them. So implying the Western philosophy is superior because they made more scientific progress in the last 200 years (which is rather short when you compare it to how long human civilization already exists) is bull****. In another 200 years the roles may be reversed and China could be dominant again, looking down on western philosophy.

Besides, comparing philosophies by their scientific results is in itself a western bias, thus invalid. After all, eastern philosophies do not strive for objectification and understanding of the fenomenal universe. Rather for understanding of its essence, its basic principles (though the word "principle" may not be so good, as it might give the impression there are universal "laws" that can be observed loose from reality, hinting at a form of dualism). And regarding the "essence" of the universe, the eastern philosophies were probably much earlier much closer to it than the west: only now physicists are gradually moving their worldview closer to the eastern one, as this article proves.

DRoseDARs:

SH's BHoT

What book and author is that the abbreviation of?

[DRoseDARs]

Uhng...it's a quarter after 5am and I'm still awake...I have work at 1pm today...sleeep...

Maniac: Stephen Hawkin's Brief History of Time

...sleeep...nooow...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Agathon
In fact if you read Aristotle you would see that he is quite meticulous about observation, he invented the science of biology and has accounts of all the various sorts of animals and attempts to provide classifications for them.

It depends on how you define "biology" and "science."

Originally posted by Agathon
I'll say this again: you cannot accuse Aristotle and other ancient thinkers of being stupid simply because they differed with contemporary science. None of these guys had access to the technology that has been available since the renaissance. Do you think that Aristotle wouldn't have loved to have had a microscope? These guys didn't have the ability to make such observations, so they were forced to rely on reason

So Spontaneous Generation seemed reasonable to you?

Originally posted by Agathon
Frankly the scientific revolution of Galileo's time represented a kind of dumbing down of natural philosophy (science) and eventually led to the sceptical problems that beset empiricist theories

Wouldn't you classify Aristotle to be an empiricist, given the way you asserted him giving primacy to observations?

Originally posted by Agathon
For someone like Aristotle, who was trying to fit absolutely everything into one grand unified theory, such slipshod practice would have been unthinkable.

Given that the Greek "theory" of the four elements is inherently flawed, he didn't have much of a leg. Furthermore, Aristotle isn't really well known for gathering experimental evidence of anything at all.

Originally posted by Agathon
But then again, that was the method that his dearth of instruments forced on him - and frankly it made it harder for him.

On the other hand, the lack of instruments also meant not a whole lot of observations can be make, simplifying his work.

Originally posted by Agathon
Slagging him off as stupid while being in complete or near complete ignorance of his work is just unfair and totally out of order. There has probably never existed another individual who was as smart as Aristotle - he often manages to say more in a page than most thinkers do in a book.

Gee, did I sense idol worshipping here?

Originally posted by Agathon
He was the first person to think systematically about science and its methods, logic, aesthetic theory and countless other things. Don't be uncharitable.

Again, as I said, depends on how you define "science" and other things.