Seems to me that theoretical physicists can't get their story straight on gravity, dark matter and dark energy, the ad hocness of the Standard Model, the expansion "constant", and on and on. The whole subject is in shambles and many of them are too blind to see it. As Sabine Hossenfelder says, we need some new thinking here.
@philipthrift On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 4:03:05 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: > > Thrift, it's the impact, over time, that a scientist has, typically, and > not like what Feyerabend thought "uncivilized savages," even with Feynman > at the Berkeley conference. I mean, Feyerabend, a nice guy, still served > and got shot while soldiering for the 3rd Reich in Mother Russia. But, we > are gossiping not deciding what is true? We as a species, argues Freeman > Dyson, should always improve our science-mostly by improving our scientific > instruments. Should we invoke maths(s) and philosophy when we cannot afford > to do measuring, yeah, but it's a poor second. Eventually, we should be > able to populate the outer solar system with radio telescopes of > prodigious, size and capability, as well as super Ligo's, and Infrareds, > etc. This will change physics (eventually again), cosmology, philosophy, > and yeah, religion. Having stated this, it will also change politics. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> > To: Everything List <[email protected] <javascript:>> > Sent: Thu, Jul 25, 2019 4:31 pm > Subject: Re: STEP 3 > > > "The younger generation of physicists, the *Feynmans*, the Schwingers, > etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their > predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. > But they *are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth*." > > -- Paul Feyerabend [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend ] > > > (Feyerabend personally knew Feynman, might have been sort of friendly. > They were together at at least one conference in Berkeley.) > > @philipthrift > > On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 3:03:19 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > Regarding the identity of particles: A hydrogen atom is a hydrogen atom is > a hydrogen atom. > > “So what is this mind of ours: what are these atoms with consciousness? > Last week’s potatoes! They now can remember what was going on in my mind a > year ago — a mind which has long ago been replaced. To note that the thing > I call my individuality is only a pattern or dance, that is what it means > when one discovers how long it takes for the atoms of my brain to be > replaced by other atoms. The atoms come into my brain, dance a dance, and > then go out — there are always new atoms, but always doing the same dance, > remembering what the dance was yesterday.” > –Richard Feynman (The Value of Science) > > http://www.strange-loops.com/ blog/?p=23 > <http://www.strange-loops.com/blog/?p=23> > > > Jason > > > > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 2:04 PM Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 11:44:26 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > ... > Closest continuer theory is the "Copenhagen Interpretation" of personal > identity theory. A stop gap to preserve common sense notions in light of > paradoxes that imply the old way if thinking is untenable. > > As with quantum mechanics, common sense personal identity theories are > forced to either abandon any connection linking observer moments (like the > zero universe interpretation) or to a universalism that links all observers > to a single person (like many worlds). > > Personal identity theories based on psychological or bodily continuity can > always be shown to break down, either by holding the body the same and > changing the psyche, or holding the psyche the same and changing the body. > > "Oneself: the logic of experience" by Arnold Zuboff is a good introduction > to the reasoning. Many thinkers, including Shrodinger, Dyson, and Hoyle > reached the same conclusion. > > Jason > > > One Self: > > All experience is equally here, now and mine and all conscious organisms > are equally I. My argument for this crucial further development is > presented in ‘One Self – The Logic of Experience’, Inquiry 33 (1991): pp. > 39-68. > > https://philpapers.org/rec/ ZUBMUA <https://philpapers.org/rec/ZUBMUA> > > Thus would radically differ from the ("real") materialist theory of > selfhood of Galen Strawson. > > (To talk of 100% duplicate persons, A here, B there, is lurking > functionalism, I think Strawson would say. A and B are not made of the same > particles.) > > @philipthrift > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/21690b98-40d9-4655-9b0d-5572bf138ddf%40googlegroups.com.
