desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (09/23/86)
In article <346@unc.unc.UUCP> gallmeis@unc.UUCP (Bill Gallmeister) writes: > >2. Man has rules and the universe -- just kind of works. In reality, there > is no E, or M, or C, and certainly no "squaring". These are > labels man uses to define our universe. They are only true so > far as we can see today. There is a name for the opposite belief -- that the behavior of the universe can be understood. It is called 'science.' Understandably, therefore, those of us who consider ourselves 'scientists' don't go along with your opinion as expressed above. >3. The universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety by Man, because > we are only Man, and when we characterize a thing, we > bring our own bias into the matter. There is no evidence to support your statement (that the universe is uncharacterizable), and there is substantial evidence to the contrary (every successful prediction of science provides such evidence). > For instance, when we > say that it's impossible to go faster than the speed of light, > we are implying that the only way to get from A to B is by > traversing some connected path from A to B. This is reason- > able for us to assume -- for US to assume. Today. I won't dissect this particular example, except to note that no one has said that FTL travel is impossible. What has been said is that FTL travel is equivalent to time travel. This is a logical necessity (not an belief) under the single assumption that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames -- an assumption which is based on both experimental observation and philosophical elegance. >The point of this disconnected raving is that the rules we posit are only >as good as the environment they are proposed in. What is God's Truth >today (pick your dogma; any dogma!) can be disproven in an instant if we >poke our heads out of the little rut we live in. FTL transport will become >a reality, and all it will mean is that we were wrong. Again. Or it will never become a reality, and all it will mean is that you were wrong. Again. I can't help wondering how you can be so sure of yourself, in criti- cizing others for being too sure of themselves. -- David desJardins Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,net.philosophy,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: Impossibilities (...and Recommended Reading) Summary: Expires: References: <3279@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> <15634@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <346@unc.unc.UUCP> <15761@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Sender: Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: University of California, Berkeley Keywords:
marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) (09/23/86)
In article <15763@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes: >In article <346@unc.unc.UUCP> gallmeis@unc.UUCP (Bill Gallmeister) writes: >> >>3. The universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety by Man, because >> we are only Man, and when we characterize a thing, we >> bring our own bias into the matter. > > There is no evidence to support your statement (that the universe is >uncharacterizable), and there is substantial evidence to the contrary >(every successful prediction of science provides such evidence). > Sometimes, David, you go overboard when you blast a posting like Bill's. I generally don't mind when you blast me, because I usually learn a lot in the process. But let's not let that process grind over poor old Bill without a few words on his behalf. "The universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety" seems to me to be a true statement. I can never know the state of the universe because the memory required to hold that state would be bigger than the universe itself. Even when somebody does discover the GUT theory, it won't characterize the universe in its entirety; we will use it to characterize whichever small part of the universe we are looking at. As for "...we are only Man, and when we characterize a thing, we bring our own bias into the matter." This is a restatment of the underlying principle of quantum mechanics that says, when we do an experiment, our observations change the results. >>The point of this disconnected raving is that the rules we posit are only >>as good as the environment they are proposed in. What is God's Truth >>today (pick your dogma; any dogma!) can be disproven in an instant if we >>poke our heads out of the little rut we live in. FTL transport will become >>a reality, and all it will mean is that we were wrong. Again. > > Or it will never become a reality, and all it will mean is that you >were wrong. Again. > > I can't help wondering how you can be so sure of yourself, in criti- >cizing others for being too sure of themselves. People should be criticized when they are *too* sure of themselves. Perhaps Bill's point was off the mark, but people who are *too* sure of themselves, whether they be scientists, mystics, or whatever, probably are in a rut. Marty Smith
g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) (09/24/86)
All too often people (and Rich Rosen) quote material from other people and then comment on the quoted material in a way that does address what was actually said. Our example for today is: In article <> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes: >In article <346@unc.unc.UUCP> gallmeis@unc.UUCP (Bill Gallmeister) writes: >> >>2. Man has rules and the universe -- just kind of works. In reality, there >> is no E, or M, or C, and certainly no "squaring". These are >> labels man uses to define our universe. They are only true so >> far as we can see today. > > There is a name for the opposite belief -- that the behavior of the >universe can be understood. It is called 'science.' Understandably, >therefore, those of us who consider ourselves 'scientists' don't go >along with your opinion as expressed above. > >>3. The universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety by Man, because >> we are only Man, and when we characterize a thing, we >> bring our own bias into the matter. > > There is no evidence to support your statement (that the universe is >uncharacterizable), and there is substantial evidence to the contrary >(every successful prediction of science provides such evidence). > Number 3 is quite blatant -- Gallmeister says "uncharacterizable in its entirety by Man" and David renders it as "uncharacterizable". Gallmeister asserts a certain type of limitation on knowledge and David translates this into an assertion that no knowledge at all is possible. David's response in #2 is also unresponsive. Gallmeister makes the legitimate observation that our descriptions of the universe are different in character from the universe itself, and David reads him as saying that it is impossible to understand the universe. -- Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.] For Cheryl :-)
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/24/86)
Bill Gallmeister writes: >> >>2. Man has rules and the universe -- just kind of works. In reality, there >> is no E, or M, or C, and certainly no "squaring". These are >> labels man uses to define our universe. They are only true so >> far as we can see today. > There is a name for the opposite belief -- that the behavior of the >universe can be understood. It is called 'science.' Understandably, >therefore, those of us who consider ourselves 'scientists' don't go >along with your opinion as expressed above. I disagree. There is no contradiction between the practice of science and Gallmeister's statement; his statement isn't about the possibility of scientific knowledge, but rather one of what that knowledge means. If one accepts the premise, then one can draw two conclusions: 1: That the universe must be trusted before the models, and 2: that a theory claiming that something is impossible must be read with all the implications about the permanence and structures of physical law kept in mind. There is an argument about the possibility of communication with FTL particles (Tachrons) which claims that it is impossible, because of TT paradoxes. The problem is that any such argument is based on a lot of speculation about what time-travel really means. More fundamentally, it is based upon a whole network of notions about causality. But if the universe does in fact have tachrons going from place to place, then the new theory need not honor those notions (although it must explain their apparent macroscopic truth). >>3. The universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety by Man, because >> we are only Man, and when we characterize a thing, we >> bring our own bias into the matter. > There is no evidence to support your statement (that the universe is >uncharacterizable), and there is substantial evidence to the contrary >(every successful prediction of science provides such evidence). That merely shows that we can model some portion of the universe which we experience. I think the statement is a bit extreme, but it is a question again of what scientific models mean. I happen to believe that they for almost all purposes satifactory as models. C. Wingate
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/24/86)
Due to an oversight, the quotes are misattributed in my reply. >> = Bill Gallmeister > = David desJardins Sorry. CGW
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (09/26/86)
>>>3. The universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety by Man, because >>> we are only Man, and when we characterize a thing, we >>> bring our own bias into the matter. [Gallmeister] >> There is no evidence to support your statement (that the universe is >>uncharacterizable), and there is substantial evidence to the contrary >>(every successful prediction of science provides such evidence). [dJ] In article <3634@ism780c.UUCP> marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) writes: > "The universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety" seems to me to be >a true statement. I can never know the state of the universe because the >memory required to hold that state would be bigger than the universe itself. >Even when somebody does discover the GUT theory, it won't characterize the >universe in its entirety; we will use it to characterize whichever small >part of the universe we are looking at. > As for "...we are only Man, and when we characterize a thing, we >bring our own bias into the matter." This is a restatment of the underlying >principle of quantum mechanics that says, when we do an experiment, our >observations change the results. Ah! This is a different interpretation of Gallmeister's statement, which is in fact true. We certainly cannot characterize the exact state of the universe, even in theory; it simply is not possible to measure and record the states variables of all of the different particles. However (although I don't have the context at hand) I don't think this is what Gallmeister meant. His meaning (I am paraphrasing a statement with which I disagree, so be careful!) was that the exact characterization by Man of natural law is impossible. And this is that with which I disagree. Suppose we lived in a Newtonian world. Suppose in fact that Newtonian machanics were sufficient to predict exactly all physical occurrences (I will leave aside the question of whether life, or intelligence, could exist in such a universe). Then we *would* be able to characterize the universe, by those Newtonian laws. Similarly, I see no evidence that we do *not* live in a completely characterizable world. And I do see some evidence to indicate that we *do* live in a characterizable world; the success of any partial char- acterization is evidence (say, in the Bayesian sense -- I know PL doesn't believe in such things, so he may diagree as to whether it constitutes evidence) for characterizability, since it would be implied by character- izability but would not be implied by noncharacterizability. And I there- fore feel justified in claiming that the question is not settled. I do *not* make the opposite claim, that the universe *is* characterizable; if I were to do this I would be as guilty as Gallmeister of reaching conclusions unsupported by evidence. All I claim is that it *may* (or may not) be characterizable; I prefer to *believe* that it *is* character- izable, since I find that the assumption of noncharacterizability leaves science essentially without foundation or justification. >People should be criticized when they are *too* sure of themselves. Perhaps >Bill's point was off the mark, but people who are *too* sure of themselves, >whether they be scientists, mystics, or whatever, probably are in a rut. Exactly *my* point. I am *not* sure of myself. Gallmeister is the one who made the positive assertion that the universe is uncharacterizable; I only note that the question is at least open. -- David desJardins P.S. to Mr. Harter, and anyone else to whom my meaning is unclear. When I write "characterizable" or "uncharacterizable" without qualification in the above, I mean "characterizable in its entirety by Man" or "uncharacterizable in its entirety by Man" respectively. P.P.S. The above P.S. applies to all future articles I write on this subject.
hurst@grc97.UUCP (Dave Hurst) (09/26/86)
References: <3279@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> <15634@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <346@unc.unc.UUCP> <15763@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> In article <15763@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, David desJardins writes: > In article <346@unc.unc.UUCP> gallmeis@unc.UUCP (Bill Gallmeister) writes: > > > >2. Man has rules and the universe -- just kind of works. In reality, there > > is no E, or M, or C, and certainly no "squaring". These are > > labels man uses to define our universe. They are only true so > > far as we can see today. > > There is a name for the opposite belief -- that the behavior of the > universe can be understood. It is called 'science.' Understandably, > therefore, those of us who consider ourselves 'scientists' don't go > along with your opinion as expressed above. > > >3. The universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety by Man, because > > we are only Man, and when we characterize a thing, we > > bring our own bias into the matter. > > There is no evidence to support your statement (that the universe is > uncharacterizable), and there is substantial evidence to the contrary > (every successful prediction of science provides such evidence). Please allow me to quote the Law of Fives: All phenomena are directly or indirectly related to the number five, and this relationship can always be demonstrated, given enough ingenuity on the part of the demonstrator. This is the very model of what a true scientific law must always be: a statement about how the human mind relates to the cosmos. We can never make a statement about the cosmos itself--but only about how our senses (or our instruments) detect it, and about how our codes and languages symbolize it. We must remember that scientific inquiry can only build possible models to describe the behavior we have observed. In this sense, we cannot understand the universe, but only the models which we build. We can never make predictions about what the universe will do; we can only make predictions about our models. Sometimes these models accurately reflect what we observe, sometimes they don't. Since these models are human artifacts, they must _necessarily_ reflect our experience of human existance. They are not and can never be complete representations of the universe! This is not to say that the models we build are not useful! On the contrary, they may be very useful, depending on their accuracy. But these models are useful only in that they reflect our experience. The results of scientific inquiry are not Truths of the universe. Rather, they are statements about ourselves and how we perceive the universe. -- email: ...ihnp4!grc97!hurst David Hurst, KSC phone: (312) 640-2044 Gould Research Center flames: /dev/null #include <std.disclaimer> "Who are you?" "I am the new number two." "Who is number one?" "You are, number six." "I am not a number, I am a free man!" "Ahahahahahahahahaha!!
gallmeis@unc.UUCP (Bill Gallmeister) (09/30/86)
In article <15763@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes: > There is a name for the opposite belief -- that the behavior of the >universe can be understood. It is called 'science.' Understandably, >therefore, those of us who consider ourselves 'scientists' don't go >along with your opinion as expressed above. Is it the opposite of science to say that there are things science cannot find out? I would hate to think I were anti-science -- I'd sure feel stupid! I did not mean to say that science is a crock -- it works, doesn't it? I think it is obvious that the scientific method and the empirical quest for knowledge have been, ah, successful, to understate things considerably. At the same time, I think it is obvious that there are things science (as we know it) can never discover, because this sort of knowledge is just not susceptible to the empirical method of attack. In short, I think that "Scientific Knowledge" is a proper subset of "Knowledge". I think it is a little pompous to say that you can learn anything by the scientific method, and that, once science uncovers something, it will never be disproven. > I can't help wondering how you can be so sure of yourself, in criti- >cizing others for being too sure of themselves. I'm not. The emphatic wording of my posting was meant to stimulate some interesting conversation. And thank you, it succeeded. Yours in wondering as well, Bill O. Gallmeister ...!mcnc!unc!gallmeis