talkmagic.co.uk

but where did the matter from that moment of creation COME FROM????? They didn't magically appear from nowhere, or did they? This opens the door for the whole argument of parallel universes and wormholes and the such...
....my head hurts....I need a lie down.

cartorious wrote:but where did the matter from that moment of creation COME FROM????? They didn't magically appear from nowhere, or did they? This opens the door for the whole argument of parallel universes and wormholes and the such...
....my head hurts....I need a lie down.

It came from a singularity... probably. A point so dense and hot that none of the fundamental particles or photons or time could form or have meaning. A quantum soup waiting for an instability to cause it to rip apart, cool and allow matter and time to form.

....yea.........



.........that's what I thought.......




....*backs out slowly and closes the door*

If any of you want your heads baking, research the Holographic Principle.

Just the most bizarre thing I've ever tried to wrap my head around.

Or you could try learning to visualise 4 dimensional shapes.
WHOA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VS1mwEV ... re=related

I remember watching this one day when I was bored at uni, explains the principles of extra dimensions quite well

Uncle Carl can explain ANYTHING!

There's a video on the New Scientist web site that does a pretty good job of explaining how the universe could pop out of nothing: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/ ... nline-news

Tomo wrote:There's a video on the New Scientist web site that does a pretty good job of explaining how the universe could pop out of nothing: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/ ... nline-news

Interesting stuff... I also really enjoyed their video on whether we have free will, or whether all our choices are predetermined by brain function: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/04/why-free-will-may-be-an-illusion.html

"Whether or not free will exists, we may be hardwired to believe that it does."

Now that's something to think about

Madelon Hoedt wrote:Interesting stuff... I also really enjoyed their video on whether we have free will, or whether all our choices are predetermined by brain function: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/04/why-free-will-may-be-an-illusion.html

"Whether or not free will exists, we may be hardwired to believe that it does."

Now that's something to think about

He he. We might not believe we're in The Matrix because we're in The Matrix.

Tomo wrote:Now that's something to think about

He he. We might not believe we're in The Matrix because we're in The Matrix.[/quote]

What made me think was how much we are influenced by culture. In the video, they use the thought experiment of a baby who is predetermined to rob a bank thirty years on. The question is asked whether the baby is still morally responsible, as he was wired to do it, and most respondents said yes to this.

Even if we are hardwired, do we still see certain actions as morally wrong, because we are taught to regard them as such (similar to the cultural differences between different countries and their customs)?

Hmmm. I'm to entirely convinced the future can be completely predetermined due to the cumulative effects of random events such as quantum fluctuations. Logically and philosophically, it feels like there must be some "wiggle room" in there somewhere.

Tomo wrote:Hmmm. I'm to entirely convinced the future can be completely predetermined due to the cumulative effects of random events such as quantum fluctuations. Logically and philosophically, it feels like there must be some "wiggle room" in there somewhere.

Ah, but is that because that is the truth, or because that is what you'd like to believe?

Besides, as the video itself states, the fact that we cannot predict every detail does not mean it is not predetermined...

We understand much less about physics as a species than we let on, as a result we question physics less and as a result, we understand less than we could...

Physics is by it's nature philosophy. Biology and Chemistry can be analysed in terms of material phenomena and as such are irrefutable over that domain. How physics explains causes of phenomena, when explainations are causal, is a subjective philosophical issue, although many scientists forget that and consequently erroneously arrogate 'science' to some kind of elevated philosophical insight.

So non-determinism being supposedly 'proved' by quantum mechanics, in my view, is absurd. Non-determinism is a philosophical doctrine which is certainly worth considering- but quantum mechanics is only epistemology and not ontology, as Einstein put it perfectley.

Historians of physics like to record Einstein's stubborness and the stubborness and resistance of his generation to the philosophical doctrines proposed by the 'new generation' of quantum mechanical physicist, as naive conservativism. Of course this is possible- in philosophy, anything is possible. But it is by no means neccessary and by no standard of valuable intellect is it even likley.

Einstein came from a generation where everyone was acquainted with philosophy to some degree- be you a psychoanalyst, philologist, writer or even physicist, the acedemic standards neccessitated some awareness of the philosophical questions that existed. Perhaps to put it like this makes philosophy sound religious, but to contend that human thought could not be benefited from the insight and considerations of the great minds of the past is nothing short of delusional arrogance. To imagine philosophy to be a form of accepted doctrines, is to reveal total philosophical ignorance, for all philosophers are in disagreement with one another- and philosophy is, or rather should be, the very model of anarchic thought... but from such anarchy, many questions have arisen and many clarifications of the implications of those questions are to be found in the thoughts of the minds of the past. As Kant said of his own philosophy- you may disagree with me, you may think my work is irrelevant, but whatever you do, you cannot just ignore it.

However, an attitude that scientific method was replacing philosophy and general contempt for philosophy seemed to grow with the works of Nietzsche (well, he only recorded this trend as it first began appearing, although his influence is diminished by the hatred he recieves), Wittgenstein, Ayer, Moore and the general Zeitgeist of the latter 19th and early 20th century. As such, the following generation grew up largley without having to deal so much with the bitter-sweet taste of philosophy. It is interesting to note that Schrodinger, who's work was hated by the so called 'new generation' was very much considerate of philosophical questions.

This general standard in acedemia descended throughout the generations and these days we have so-called 'geniuses' like Stephen Hawking declaring that 'Philosophy is dead' because empty headed philosophers have 'failed to keep up' with enourmously brained physicists like him. The indubitably brilliant Feynmann was similarly contemptuous of philosophy and, not surprisingly, similarly ignorant and in fact helped to spread this silliness of his and so we see such attitudes parroted by disciples of his, like Susskind. Even the 'representatives' of science perpetuate this; where we used to have the brillaint James Burke, we now have Michio Kaku and even for some unfathomable reason, Morgan Freeman. The focus seems to be more on supplying the demand for the fantastical, pseudo-philosophical 'theories' coming out of modern physics which was created partly by the reputation science developed for itself in sixties of being futuristic and 'sci-fi' and partly by the physicists who had to elicit public support of the ridiculously expensive research going on at institues like CERN and the like once the cold war ended and they could no longer use fear mongering to push congress to fund their research.

So, my point is that we should take what 'physics' says about reality cynically. Physics itself says remarkably little and what it does, is by no means beyond question. Interpreters, who really haven't the skills to interpret, say an awful lot of things and therefore, very little of actual philosophical value. If we want to ask questions about possibility, existance, the begining, determinism... e.t.c. we should remember that scienctific method cannot ever answer those questions with the same certainty as it can explain photosynthesis or evolution, because science is always working within the questions of philosophy. When it comes to examining fossils and plants and matter, philosophy is largley dormant and irrelevant and the scientific conclusions are largley certain... but when it comes to any question of hardcore metaphysics, science can ask, but never answer without first consulting philosophy. Richard Dawkins, who is not a physicist, and the more affable Christopher Hitchens, who did study philosophy but not science, should remind themselves of this more often than they do. Religious people are just as bad when they beat physics into their medieval attempts at philosophy.

If I am to offer any practical advice, I would reccomend Roger Penrose as someone who explains science extraordinarily well. He is thoughtfull and questioning and not interested in hype and frenzy and is soley concerned with supplying truth and not a demand created by people who simply want to find out what new absurd and completley nonsensical thing physics has supposedly now discovered. On the question of practical advice... Roger Penrose still cannot compete with the incommensurable Bertrand Russell, who would be a much needed character in the world today.

Anyway, my argument has perhaps lost its cogency by forgetting what it's conclusion was, but I feel I have sufficiently vented my complaints and irritations about modern physics and I am tired, so I will shut up much to the universes delight.

Sam, first of all, a very interesting post! One question that rose in my mind, though, is how much the position of psychics has been influenced by "the public" and their opinions and treatment of science.

See http://xkcd.com/882/

As a humanities student, it seems that academia as a whole is neglecting philosophy as part of the curriculum. However, I wonder to what extent this is a response to the "philosophy is dead" dogma that seems to be believed not only by science, but by many of us today.

Science and physics might have moved away from philosophy, but to what extent is this prompted by public opinion and by the expectations we have of what science (supposedly) is and should come up with?

As is shown in the comic, much of the data and results of even rigorous testing is simply ignored in favour of headlines (just look at the BBC news feed for a week or so, and several examples will pop up). Is there still room for the 'big ideas' when this is the way we approach science and physics?