Mathematical Physics is irrational, as admitted by the Physicists themselves

IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Mathematical Physics is irrational, as admitted by the Physicists themselves

The main issue with mathematical physics is that it reifies (i.e. turns abstract concepts into concrete objects) mathematical concepts such as POINTS, FIELDS, FORCE, ect.

Since physics is about explaining how events physically occur, these reifications do not cut it as a rational mechanism. Concepts do not exist in reality, so they certainly do not ACT UPON objects.

http://www.integratedpost.com/2012/12/mathematical-physics-is-irrational-video.html


 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
as someone whose knowledge

as someone whose knowledge in this area is admittedly scarce, it has always seemed to me that mathematics is applied to various fields of science not because it "acts upon" anything, but because it has proved useful as a predictor of phenomena.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Physics uses mathematics as

Physics uses mathematics as a tool to build models of reality that describe and predict the behaviour and properties of observable reality to a useful degree, ie that allows a degree of prediction of how a system will behave under various conditions. It is NOT 'reifying' mathematical concepts, simply showing that by aligning various aspects of empirical reality with certain mathematical expressions , we can 'model' reality to a useful degree.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek: "it has proved


iwbiek: "it has proved useful as a predictor of phenomena."

What is proof to you is irrelevant to your neighbor. Proof, truth, verification, ect. are NOT scientific. Niether is prediction.

They may be able to use the math to help invent technology or make predictions, but that doesn't change the fact that neither tech. nor predictions are extra-scientific.

Theoretical science is explicitly about explanation.  But the mathematical "physicists" cannot explain a single phenomena rationally because they have been trained in reification (turning concepts into objects).

BobSpence: "Physics uses mathematics as a tool to build models of reality that describe and predict the behaviour and properties of observable reality to a useful degree"

Description is merely the first step of science. A hypothesis is a description of an initial scene... the power of science is in explaining HOW the event we described occured. Any child can describe the fact that a ball is PULLED to the earth. The scientific question is, what object extends from the earth to the ball to pull it? This is what all of current theoretical physics fails to explain.

And I repeat, Science has nothing to do with utility.  It is PURELY for rationally, unambiguously explaining how a hypothetical event, mediated by hypothetical objects can possibly occur.  That is what is called a Theory. The practical application of a Theory has no relevance.

"It is NOT 'reifying' mathematical concepts,"

You are mistaken here.  When a mathemagician tells you "two magnets are attracted by their FIELDS" then they have reified a concept. They are telling you that the CONCEPT of "a" field is physically reaching out of the bar of iron, grabbing the other and pulling it in.

It's as ludicrous as saying "Love moves mountains."

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:Physics uses

BobSpence wrote:

Physics uses mathematics as a tool to build models of reality that describe and predict the behaviour and properties of observable reality to a useful degree, ie that allows a degree of prediction of how a system will behave under various conditions. It is NOT 'reifying' mathematical concepts, simply showing that by aligning various aspects of empirical reality with certain mathematical expressions , we can 'model' reality to a useful degree.

 

Furthermore the mathematics that best describe reality is statistical mathematics.  Mathematics proper is nothing but an abstract tautological tool, much like the video identified.  What I don't understand is why you would include Feynman as a strawman in your video.  He is likely the most intellectually honest of all the celebrity physicists.  This is on of the best minds of our times, and he is quoted to say something like:

"The next question was — what makes planets go around the sun? At the time of Kepler some people answered this problem by saying that there were angels behind them beating their wings and pushing the planets around an orbit. As you will see, the answer is not very far from the truth. The only difference is that the angels sit in a different direction and their wings push inward"

As for most of the other points you've raised in your video,  most of them seem to be based on misconceptions about how scientific theories work.  Scientific theories best describe observable data, they don't define observable data with absolute certainty.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
""Don't seek these laws to

""Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc"
 

Precisely! Science sets no laws, laws are only tautologies. In science, the best we can do is hypothesis and then explain the hypothesis.

""The next question was — what makes planets go around the sun? At the time of Kepler some people answered this problem by saying that there were angels behind them beating their wings and pushing the planets around an orbit. As you will see, the answer is not very far from the truth. The only difference is that the angels sit in a different direction and their wings push inward""
 

Feynman understood that he had no rational explanation for why planets are all pulled toward each other, but answering questions like that are exactly what science is for. A theory IS an explanation, not a description as you state.

Like I said before, a description, e.g. "An apple falls to the ground at 9.8m/s^2) is something a child can do with a tape measurer and a stopwatch. Explaining HOW nature performs this magic trick in a rational way that can be understood is what the great challenge is.

"observable data"

Science has nothing to do with observation... ONLY explanation.  Observation requires a subjective interpretation. All we can do is illustrate or imagine hypothetical objects and then explain how the objects interact.  ALL hypothetical objects proposed by mathematical physicists are irrational, either by virtue of their inexplicable behavior (HOW do two electron marbles hold atoms together?) or by virtue of them being reified concepts (point particles, fields, forces, event horizons). This is why the theories of mathematical physics fail at the conceptual level and cannot be explained.

Whether or not the math can be applied to tech or in making predictions, again I stress, makes NO difference. If the theory is irrational (i.e. defines terms loosely, uses abstract concepts as actors in reality, ect.) then it cannot possibly be understood.

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Welcome aboard

 Welcome aboard IntegratedPost.  I'm glad I didn't accidentally delete your account in my morning deletion of 50 accounts with monikers that look spammy.  I'd love to see you make a few more posts here.  Please stick around.


Here's an example of that morning spam roundup... Atheism United recent changes.  

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

IntegratedPost wrote:

The main issue with mathematical physics is that it reifies (i.e. turns abstract concepts into concrete objects) mathematical concepts such as POINTS, FIELDS, FORCE, ect.

Since physics is about explaining how events physically occur, these reifications do not cut it as a rational mechanism. Concepts do not exist in reality, so they certainly do not ACT UPON objects.

http://www.integratedpost.com/2012/12/mathematical-physics-is-irrational-video.html

Other than the fact you do not appear to understand science in general nor physics in particular much less "mathematical physics" (you probably mean theoretical physics) whatever you might mean by that, not bad. You might also get around to defining what you mean by your usage of "rational" some day. In the mean time you are mis-using proof as nothing in science is ever proven.

In any event you inability to understand something says nothing about the thing itself but rather only speaks to limits of your abilities.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Anyone look at where the

Anyone look at where the source of this information is coming from?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15734
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:""Don't

IntegratedPost wrote:

""Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc"
 

Precisely! Science sets no laws, laws are only tautologies. In science, the best we can do is hypothesis and then explain the hypothesis.

""The next question was — what makes planets go around the sun? At the time of Kepler some people answered this problem by saying that there were angels behind them beating their wings and pushing the planets around an orbit. As you will see, the answer is not very far from the truth. The only difference is that the angels sit in a different direction and their wings push inward""
 

Feynman understood that he had no rational explanation for why planets are all pulled toward each other, but answering questions like that are exactly what science is for. A theory IS an explanation, not a description as you state.

Like I said before, a description, e.g. "An apple falls to the ground at 9.8m/s^2) is something a child can do with a tape measurer and a stopwatch. Explaining HOW nature performs this magic trick in a rational way that can be understood is what the great challenge is.

"observable data"

Science has nothing to do with observation... ONLY explanation.  Observation requires a subjective interpretation. All we can do is illustrate or imagine hypothetical objects and then explain how the objects interact.  ALL hypothetical objects proposed by mathematical physicists are irrational, either by virtue of their inexplicable behavior (HOW do two electron marbles hold atoms together?) or by virtue of them being reified concepts (point particles, fields, forces, event horizons). This is why the theories of mathematical physics fail at the conceptual level and cannot be explained.

Whether or not the math can be applied to tech or in making predictions, again I stress, makes NO difference. If the theory is irrational (i.e. defines terms loosely, uses abstract concepts as actors in reality, ect.) then it cannot possibly be understood.

And a little helpful advice. Try to learn to use the [quote ] function when quoting other people. It helps the reader distinguish better between your words and theirs. You can hit the "quote" button at the bottom of each post.

 

Or copy and past the text with the following syntax,

Open quote looks like this without any spaces [quote...]Remove the dots, I put them there for example reasons.

Close quote looks like this [/quote.....]

It will end up looking like this if you do it right.

Quote:
Welcome to Rational Responders

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Other

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Other than the fact you do not appear to understand science in general nor physics in particular much less "mathematical physics" (you probably mean theoretical physics) whatever you might mean by that, not bad.


 

There's nothing to be understood when it comes to most mathematical physics theories, such as, General Relativity, Quantum Mech. & String Theory.  These establishment schools do not offer any explanation or Rational Theory for any phenomena of reality. Not one!

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You might also get around to defining what you mean by your usage of "rational" some day.



Rational:
Any communication that can be resolved to a single possible meaning.  That is, objects can be visualized and concepts are clearly defined.  I defined all of the concepts I use over at my website's Lexicon: http://www.integratedpost.com/2012/11/rational-science-lexicon.html
 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

 

In the mean time you are mis-using proof as nothing in science is ever proven.


 

I don't think you were paying attention. Allow me to quote myself, "What is proof to you is irrelevant to your neighbor. Proof, truth, verification, ect. are NOT scientific. Neither is prediction."  I backed these statements up with definitions and arguments in the posts above.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

In any event you inability to understand something says nothing about the thing itself but rather only speaks to limits of your abilities.

No, what I am saying is that an object is that which has SHAPE. If it has shape, it is amenable to illustration.  Same with concepts, if you are using a term as a crucial element in your hypothesis or theory, then the onus is on YOU to define that term so that we can all understand exactly what you're trying to say.  If the proponent of a theory fails to hypothesize visualizable objects and/or fails to provide rational definitions for his terms, the theory is IRRATIONAL and cannot possibly be understood, even by the proponent himself.

This is indeed the case with Relativity, Quantum.

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Anyone

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Anyone look at where the source of this information is coming from?

Like all of the "information" throughout all of history, this stuff is coming from a human brain.  You know, "considering the source" and not the argument itself is what they call ad hominem?

 

Edit: Also, thank you Brain Sapient for the welcome. And also Brian37 for the tip on quoting.

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Science is very much reliant

Science is very much reliant on observation, both to provide the data about reality which it attempts to explain, and further data which shows how accurate are any predictions based on current hypotheses or theories, so we know whether they require further refinement or perhaps outright rejection.

The mathematics of the theories of physics comprise the explanations of the measured/observed forces between both sub-atomic particles and objects under the influence of gravity, such as the exchange of "force particles", or curvature of space-time envisaged by General Relativity.

The "hypothetical objects" of our theories are meant to be simplified or idealized models of the actual objects being described by the science. They are not "irrational" in any sense. If any terms in a theory or hypothesis are "defined loosely", that means the theory or hypothesis is poorly formulated.  What do you consider to be "subjective" in the measurement of size, position, velocity, mass, charge, etc?

It is true that Science cannot provide any ultimate and complete explanation for the behaviour of real objects, but it does not have to to be extremely useful.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:Like

IntegratedPost wrote:

Like all of the "information" throughout all of history, this stuff is coming from a human brain.  You know, "considering the source" and not the argument itself is what they call ad hominem?

 

I wouldn't go so far as to call that an ad hominem.

For instance, any scientific journal or even a college essay has to cite MLA sources.

Just like how most instructors will not accept something from wiki or such.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
<quote>Science is very much

BobSpence wrote:
Science is very much reliant on observation, both to provide the data about reality which it attempts to explain,


Sure, people have to explore reality but that has nothing to do with explaining any event scientifically. A hypothesis is NOT a theory and a statement of the facts within your hypothesis is not a fact itself.  The hypothesis is taken at face value... the objects are illustrated and the terms are defined, no need to bring in a SUBJECTIVE observer.  Observation is not scientific, only explanation is.  One does not need to see the event to explain what happens.... a BLIND person should be able to understand your theory, or explanation of a hypothesis.
BobSpence wrote:
data which shows how accurate are any predictions based on current hypotheses or theories,


Like I said above, the theory (explanation) is only about past events. We are meant to take the initial scene you lay out at face value and then you explain what happens.  It has nothing to do with prediction (which requires subjective verification in the future).  Predictions are for priests and tarot card readers. Science is hypothesis & explanation.

BobSpence wrote:
The "hypothetical objects" of our theories are meant to be simplified or idealized models of the actual objects being described by the science. They are not "irrational" in any sense.


The hypothetical objects are crucial in understanding the theory.  Objects like Bohr's atom which are still used all the way up into university level chem/phyz, are irrational in the ONLY rational sense of the word, the object has no clearly defined shape.  The electron bead inexplicably rotates around another bead.  When pushed on the question of what keeps the two beads from flying apart, the physicist evokes his GOD, the "Force"... This shapeless beast, it turns out, cannot be an object at all because the definition of an object is that which HAS shape.

What I am saying is that the mediator of such an effect MUST have a shape if it exists and actually binds the thing we call and electron to the thing we call a proton.

BobSpence wrote:
What do you consider to be "subjective" in the measurement of size, position, velocity, mass, charge, etc?


The act of measurement! No joke! Measurement is subjective by definition because it is only the concept OF measuring. There is not such 'thing' as a measurement, only people (noun, object, may exist) measuring (verb, relation b/t objects, conceptual, nonexistent).

BobSpence wrote:
It is true that Science cannot provide any ultimate and complete explanation for the behaviour of real objects, but it does not have to to be extremely useful.


Can you define those terms? Ultimate? Complete? No, a theory in Science is only rational or irrational, possible or not possible. Again, utility has nothing to do with whether or not the explanation is rational. Here is an example of a rational explanation, where all of the objects have been illustrated, the terms are clearly and unambiguously defined, and the event is explained.

How magnets work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8  I hope you will check it out.

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
harleysportsterI wouldn't go

harleysportster wrote:

I wouldn't go so far as to call that an ad hominem.

For instance, any scientific journal or even a college essay has to cite MLA sources.

Just like how most instructors will not accept something from wiki or such.

 

These are critical thinking questions that do not need citation.  A Scientific Hypothesis/Theory should be analyzed at face value.

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:And I

IntegratedPost wrote:



And I repeat, Science has nothing to do with utility.  It is PURELY for rationally, unambiguously explaining how a hypothetical event, mediated by hypothetical objects can possibly occur.  That is what is called a Theory. The practical application of a Theory has no relevance.

 

Yep, that germ theory had no practical application. Praying and chanting over someone worked a lot better.

Same for the theory of gravity and relativity. We didn't need those to get a man to the moon or communicate with satellites. 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i smell an agenda...

i smell an agenda...


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i smell an

iwbiek wrote:

i smell an agenda...

Me too


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i smell an

iwbiek wrote:

i smell an agenda...

DP


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
yup, there is one.  check

yup, there is one.  check out the william lane craig thread.  i hate this undercover theist bullshit, especially when they obviously think they're being original or clever about it.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote: These

IntegratedPost wrote:

 

These are critical thinking questions that do not need citation.  A Scientific Hypothesis/Theory should be analyzed at face value.

Analyze and debate away, but I still don't consider a question an ad hominem attack.

Either way, I am done here.

Please continue.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:There's

IntegratedPost wrote:

There's nothing to be understood when it comes to most mathematical physics theories, such as, General Relativity, Quantum Mech. & String Theory.  These establishment schools do not offer any explanation or Rational Theory for any phenomena of reality. Not one!

I'm sorry but those are all examples of attempts to explain otherwise incomprehensible observable results.  For example, General Theory of Gravitation is an attempt to explain why our Newtonian Gravitation fails to predict the orbit of certain planets.  QM is an attempt to explain experiments such as the double slit experiment and quantum eraser.  String Theory is an attempt to explain quantum gravitation.  To say that we have nothing to understand from those theories is beyond idiotic.  They are our best attempts at explaining observable phenomena, if you have something better, or a way to discredit them besides semantics, I would LOVE to hear it.

IntegratedPost wrote:

Rational:
Any communication that can be resolved to a single possible meaning.  That is, objects can be visualized and concepts are clearly defined.  I defined all of the concepts I use over at my website's Lexicon: http://www.integratedpost.com/2012/11/rational-science-lexicon.html
 

No, I'm not sure where you got that definition, but it is wrong.

oxford dictionary wrote:

Definition of rational

adjective

1.  based on or in accordance with reason or logic:

I’m sure there’s a perfectly rational explanation

able to think sensibly or logically:

Ursula’s upset—she’s not being very rational

endowed with the capacity to reason:

man is a rational being

2 Mathematics (of a number, quantity, or expression) expressible, or containing quantities which are expressible, as a ratio of whole numbers. 

 

Can you give me an example of a single concept that would fit your incorrect definition of rational?

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:Feynman

IntegratedPost wrote:

Feynman understood that he had no rational explanation for why planets are all pulled toward each other, but answering questions like that are exactly what science is for. A theory IS an explanation, not a description as you state.

Hmmm, I would not assume what Feynman may or may not have understood.  He may have thought that he didn't need a "rational" explanation.  He may have considered any explanation, he may have even gone as far as to postulate a hypothesis, and test a theory based on said hypothesis.  That is what science is for.  It is an attempt to describe what is occurring RATIONALLY (also known as an explanation), not "rationally" (your definition).  Look, if you want to argue semantics, at least don't argue against yourself.  An explanation is an attempt to clarify a description of a given phenomena.

IntegratedPost wrote:

Science has nothing to do with observation... ONLY explanation.  Observation requires a subjective interpretation. All we can do is illustrate or imagine hypothetical objects and then explain how the objects interact.  ALL hypothetical objects proposed by mathematical physicists are irrational, either by virtue of their inexplicable behavior (HOW do two electron marbles hold atoms together?) or by virtue of them being reified concepts (point particles, fields, forces, event horizons). This is why the theories of mathematical physics fail at the conceptual level and cannot be explained.

Whether or not the math can be applied to tech or in making predictions, again I stress, makes NO difference. If the theory is irrational (i.e. defines terms loosely, uses abstract concepts as actors in reality, ect.) then it cannot possibly be understood.

I'm sorry, there is so much wrong in that, I'm not even sure where to begin.:

1. Science is based on nothing but observation.  

2. Subjective observation is only that until it is replicated, at which point becomes objective, and prior to is not admissible as scientific evidence.

3. I'm not sure what you mean but I can walk up to you, and give you a very tangible punch to the face, therefore demonstrating a number of basic physics "hypothetical objects". 

4. What is a mathematical physicists?

5. Electrons are not "marbles"... I'm not even sure how to begin correcting that misconception... pick up a science book, look up electrons on wiki... do something.

6. What is mathematical physics? 

7. Your last paragraph is so far gone into the irrational as I cannot even begin to make sense of it.  Making correct predictions makes no difference? Irrational theories?  You've completely lost me in your incorrect definitions of "irrational", "theory" and even "math".  I'm not even sure we're both speaking English anymore.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:yup, there is

iwbiek wrote:

yup, there is one.  check out the william lane craig thread.  i hate this undercover theist bullshit, especially when they obviously think they're being original or clever about it.

I smelled a rat also, which is why I was asking about the source. The website was full of conspiracy theories which set off the bells and whistles for me.


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I'm sorry but

Ktulu wrote:

I'm sorry but those are all examples of attempts to explain otherwise incomprehensible observable results.  For example, General Theory of Gravitation is an attempt to explain why our Newtonian Gravitation fails to predict the orbit of certain planets.  QM is an attempt to explain experiments such as the double slit experiment and quantum eraser.  String Theory is an attempt to explain quantum gravitation.  To say that we have nothing to understand from those theories is beyond idiotic.  They are our best attempts at explaining observable phenomena, if you have something better, or a way to discredit them besides semantics, I would LOVE to hear it.

IntegratedPost wrote:

Rational:
Any communication that can be resolved to a single possible meaning.  That is, objects can be visualized and concepts are clearly defined.  I defined all of the concepts I use over at my website's Lexicon: http://www.integratedpost.com/2012/11/rational-science-lexicon.html
 



 

No, I'm not sure where you got that definition, but it is wrong.

oxford dictionary wrote:

Definition of rational

adjective

1.  based on or in accordance with reason or logic:

I’m sure there’s a perfectly rational explanation

able to think sensibly or logically:

Ursula’s upset—she’s not being very rational

endowed with the capacity to reason:

man is a rational being

2 Mathematics (of a number, quantity, or expression) expressible, or containing quantities which are expressible, as a ratio of whole numbers. 

 

Can you give me an example of a single concept that would fit your incorrect definition of rational?



"They are our best attempts at explaining observable phenomena, if you have something better, or a way to discredit them besides semantics, I would LOVE to hear it."

Without understanding my fundamental criticism, you won't have any foundations to understand any theory I present to you, because YOU don't even understand the theories you claim.

The fundamental criticism I am referring to is the difference between a CONCEPT and an object.

You cannot explain any event using the IRRATIONAL concepts of QM or GR.  It is impossible.

1. Discrete particles can and will never be able to explain the force of PULL.
2. Space-time is NOT an object to be warped, pulled, tunnelled through, ect.
3. Concepts like energy, force, fields, ect. do NOT have physical presence all on their own- that would require a SHAPE and a LOCATION. What shape does "a" force have?

Until you understand this, there's really no reason to explain any phenomena to you because it'll go way over your head.

"1.  based on or in accordance with reason or logic...

Okay so rational = reasonable = logical... all you've given me are SYNONYMS. It's CIRCULAR. You haven't actually defined (limited the utility of the word) down to a SINGLE possible meaning.

I have.

Here's an example of a rational definition:

Exist: an object with location.
Object: that which has shape
Concept: relations between two or more objects

These are definitions which have precise, unambigous meanings, and they can be used consistently.  That is what is meant by RATIONAL.

 

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Is a soul an object then?

 Is a soul an object then?


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I'm sorry, there

Ktulu wrote:

I'm sorry, there is so much wrong in that, I'm not even sure where to begin.:

1. Science is based on nothing but observation.  


Do you mean to say that an explanation is only rational if you yourself can watch the event happen in reality?  Can we only theorize about evolution if we were THERE to OBSERVE it occur?  Of course not, we hypothesis the acting objects, define the actions, then explain how the event happens.
Ktulu wrote:

2. Subjective observation is only that until it is replicated, at which point becomes objective, and prior to is not admissible as scientific evidence.


LOL until replicated??? But, don't you have to rely on YOUR subjective sensory system to verify that it has indeed been replicated? Observation is BY DEFINITION subjective because it invokes the sensory system as the means for validation.  There's no way around this.
Ktulu wrote:

3. I'm not sure what you mean but I can walk up to you, and give you a very tangible punch to the face, therefore demonstrating a number of basic physics "hypothetical objects". 


I have no idea WHAT this is about but I'm no nihilistic nutjob, man. If you punched me in the face there would be serious problems! But punching faces has nothing to do with Rational Science.  Unless we assume your nose is broken... in order to explain this event we hypothesis a FIST (object) swinging (verb) into your nose (object) breaking (verb) it.  In our hypothesis we illustrate both the fist and the nose, we define what it means to swing and to break, then we explain how the particular objects mediated the particular verbs.
Ktulu wrote:

4. What is a mathematical physicist?


An idiot who studies GR, SR, ST, or QM.  One who reifies shapeless mathematical concepts into OBJECTS with SHAPE.
Ktulu wrote:

5. Electrons are not "marbles"... I'm not even sure how to begin correcting that misconception... pick up a science book, look up electrons on wiki... do something.


Then why don't YOU tell me what an electron looks like.  Why don't you illustrate what this thing is that pulls/pushes atoms?  Then we can tell objectively whether or not the behavior is explained by the model.
Ktulu wrote:

6. What is mathematical physics? 


A religion.  Religion: an irrational or supernatural explanation.
Ktulu wrote:

7. Your last paragraph is so far gone into the irrational as I cannot even begin to make sense of it.  Making correct predictions makes no difference? Irrational theories?  You've completely lost me in your incorrect definitions of "irrational", "theory" and even "math".  I'm not even sure we're both speaking English anymore.



Then YOU get to define, Ktulu. I won't do all the talking here. Why don't you give me a definition of irrational: _________ theory: _________ math: _________
And again, predictions are not scientific.  Predictions are for crystal balls and tea leafs, and again, they require a SUBJECTIVE observer to verify the prediction.

 

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Is a soul an object then?



Soul is a CONCEPT, it does not exist..  When I am playing my blues guitar, I'm feeling soulful.

If a soul is an object, then you should be able to illustrate it, because all objects have shape.

 EDIT: Funny that many posters have chosen to ignore the topic at hand in favor of gossiping with each other about how they "smell a rat" or think I'm a theist in disguise.

Puh-lease. If anybody is the religionist in disguise it is the atheist who swallows irrational explanations HOOK LINE & SINKER every time.  I understand that it is impossible for God to exist, do you?
 

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I'm sorry, there

Ktulu wrote:

I'm sorry, there is so much wrong in that, I'm not even sure where to begin.:

 

I won't argue with postmodernists.   If he now claims he isn't, I am not going to argue with him about it. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost

IntegratedPost wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Is a soul an object then?



Soul is a CONCEPT, it does not exist..  When I am playing my blues guitar, I'm feeling soulful.

If a soul is an object, then you should be able to illustrate it, because all objects have shape.

 EDIT: Funny that many posters have chosen to ignore the topic at hand in favor of gossiping with each other about how they "smell a rat" or think I'm a theist in disguise.

Puh-lease. If anybody is the religionist in disguise it is the atheist who swallows irrational explanations HOOK LINE & SINKER every time.  I understand that it is impossible for God to exist, do you?
 

and yet you believe - why?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
No.

IntegratedPost wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Is a soul an object then?



Soul is a CONCEPT, it does not exist..  When I am playing my blues guitar, I'm feeling soulful.

If a soul is an object, then you should be able to illustrate it, because all objects have shape.

 EDIT: Funny that many posters have chosen to ignore the topic at hand in favor of gossiping with each other about how they "smell a rat" or think I'm a theist in disguise.

Puh-lease. If anybody is the religionist in disguise it is the atheist who swallows irrational explanations HOOK LINE & SINKER every time.  I understand that it is impossible for God to exist, do you?
 

 

 

                    I didn't say you were a theist, your nose may be up WLC asshole but that doesn't make you a theist.   I SAID take your meds;  it will help.

 

 

        

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

IntegratedPost wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Is a soul an object then?



Soul is a CONCEPT, it does not exist..  When I am playing my blues guitar, I'm feeling soulful.

If a soul is an object, then you should be able to illustrate it, because all objects have shape.

 EDIT: Funny that many posters have chosen to ignore the topic at hand in favor of gossiping with each other about how they "smell a rat" or think I'm a theist in disguise.

Puh-lease. If anybody is the religionist in disguise it is the atheist who swallows irrational explanations HOOK LINE & SINKER every time.  I understand that it is impossible for God to exist, do you?
 

and yet you believe - why?



You either have very poor reading comprehension or you are drunk.  When did I mention anything about belief?

 

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

IntegratedPost wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Is a soul an object then?



Soul is a CONCEPT, it does not exist..  When I am playing my blues guitar, I'm feeling soulful.

If a soul is an object, then you should be able to illustrate it, because all objects have shape.

 EDIT: Funny that many posters have chosen to ignore the topic at hand in favor of gossiping with each other about how they "smell a rat" or think I'm a theist in disguise.

Puh-lease. If anybody is the religionist in disguise it is the atheist who swallows irrational explanations HOOK LINE & SINKER every time.  I understand that it is impossible for God to exist, do you?
 

 

 

                    I didn't say you were a theist, your nose may be up WLC asshole but that doesn't make you a theist.   I SAID take your meds;  it will help.

 

 

        



WLC has brought the whole religion of "experimentation" "evidence" and "proof" down right on top of the heads of many Atheists in LIVE debate.  The man is extremely intelligent (intelligent: ability to conceive of and apply concepts- he is a master of this, as IRRATIONAL as he may be) and he is able to get even the most outspoken of Atheists like Hitchens to admit that it's possible for God to exist and create matter.


And LOL I think you're projecting with your outbursts concerning medication.  First of all, medication doesn't cure mental illness, they only give that shit to YOU over at the Asylum because they need to you keep calm while they change your diapers.  I'd ask you to stay on topic but it doesn't seem like many people on this forum are interested.


Is this just another circlejerk forum or are people interested in critically analyzing the current popular theories of Physics?

 

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:If

IntegratedPost wrote:

If anybody is the religionist in disguise it is the atheist who swallows irrational explanations HOOK LINE & SINKER every time.  I understand that it is impossible for God to exist, do you?

So, you're an atheist who doesn't accept "irrational explanations"?  Also, what kind of god are you referring to in you're last sentence?

 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost

IntegratedPost wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

IntegratedPost wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Is a soul an object then?



Soul is a CONCEPT, it does not exist..  When I am playing my blues guitar, I'm feeling soulful.

If a soul is an object, then you should be able to illustrate it, because all objects have shape.

 EDIT: Funny that many posters have chosen to ignore the topic at hand in favor of gossiping with each other about how they "smell a rat" or think I'm a theist in disguise.

Puh-lease. If anybody is the religionist in disguise it is the atheist who swallows irrational explanations HOOK LINE & SINKER every time.  I understand that it is impossible for God to exist, do you?
 

and yet you believe - why?



You either have very poor reading comprehension or you are drunk.  When did I mention anything about belief?

 

In your worship of WLC and Kalam (that special pleading fallacy you call a good argument).

Do you believe in Craig's god or just Craig?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Mintyfell
Theist
Mintyfell's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2012-11-15
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:The

IntegratedPost wrote:

The main issue with mathematical physics is that it reifies (i.e. turns abstract concepts into concrete objects) mathematical concepts such as POINTS, FIELDS, FORCE, ect.

Since physics is about explaining how events physically occur, these reifications do not cut it as a rational mechanism. Concepts do not exist in reality, so they certainly do not ACT UPON objects.

http://www.integratedpost.com/2012/12/mathematical-physics-is-irrational-video.html


 

 

Watched your video. It was quite interesting. I like how you say that people are stuck in the math. I tend to agree... Mostly. Unfortunately, or fortunately, there are people here that worship math as a god. Almost as good, or as bad as, the christians...lol. 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:WLC has

IntegratedPost wrote:


WLC has brought the whole religion of "experimentation" "evidence" and "proof" down right on top of the heads of many Atheists in LIVE debate.  The man is extremely intelligent (intelligent: ability to conceive of and apply concepts- he is a master of this, as IRRATIONAL as he may be) and he is able to get even the most outspoken of Atheists like Hitchens to admit that it's possible for God to exist and create matter.

WLC debunked :



http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2011/11/calling-out-and-debunking-william-lane-craigs-smears-against-infidels-and-apostates/

http://www.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7806

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2012/11/william-lane-craig-is-shamelessly.html

http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2010/05/william-lane-craigs-arguments-for-god.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0M4gYvr1ck

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/craig.html

 

Former student calls William out for a debate and he won't do it :

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/10/lets-recap-why-william-lane-craig.html

Bill Craig loses :

http://apologiapad.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/bill-craig-loses-a-debate-and-all-sorts-of-goodies-are-revealed/

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's a bit

 

IntegratedPost wrote:

WLC has brought the whole religion of "experimentation" "evidence" and "proof" down right on top of the heads of many Atheists in LIVE debate.  The man is extremely intelligent (intelligent: ability to conceive of and apply concepts- he is a master of this, as IRRATIONAL as he may be) and he is able to get even the most outspoken of Atheists like Hitchens to admit that it's possible for God to exist and create matter. 

 

odd to be using the term 'religion' to blanket cover scientific theory by observation, notwithstanding your opponents' apparent adherence to some humanly 'subjective' understanding of 'intrinsic' truth. Given your arguments against physics math as a viable way of knowing things to be more or less true, it's probably not surprising you're meeting push-back. 

From an epistemological point of view, I tend to think truth is a malleable thing, dependent on understanding, context, sensing ability. Do you argue there is nothing we can know with certainty - that what we consider the study of the underpinnings of reality is questionable at root? Is that why you mean by calling into question the mathematics of physics? 

I've thought in the past that religion attempts to reify labels like god - bringing human concepts without definition into an objective reality for which no objective proof is possible. It's interesting to see this position turned against physics math. My simple understanding is that math concepts apply to possible unknown parameters of things in existence, or to projections of things as they can materially exist on the basis of related observation, rather than applying to things that don't or cannot exist, or things that are entirely hypothetical and that have never been defined or shown to exist. 

You mention your certainty a 'god' is not possible. Notwithstanding the fact I don't know what a god actually is, I'd be keen to hear why you think a human god concept is impossible - and can be considered to be certainly impossible from the position of intellectual integrity. Personally, I don't believe an undefined, undefinable 'god' is possible but can't entirely be certain. I feel forced to be agnostic in my atheism, a position I don't particularly enjoy. 

Welcome to the forum, by the way. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Again WTF is a god?

 

IntegratedPost wrote:

The main issue with mathematical physics is that it reifies (i.e. turns abstract concepts into concrete objects) mathematical concepts such as POINTS, FIELDS, FORCE, ect.

Since physics is about explaining how events physically occur, these reifications do not cut it as a rational mechanism. Concepts do not exist in reality, so they certainly do not ACT UPON objects.

http://www.integratedpost.com/2012/12/mathematical-physics-is-irrational-video.html

Mintyfell wrote:
 

Watched your video. It was quite interesting. I like how you say that people are stuck in the math. I tend to agree... Mostly. Unfortunately, or fortunately, there are people here that worship math as a god. Almost as good, or as bad as, the christians...lol. 

 

Don't you mean to say some people here grant math primacy in terms of its concrete ability to repeatedly and consistently explain certain physical aspects of what can be observed?

How in any small way can granting primacy to math-based measurement be compared to the beliefs of christians, Minty? This assertion is plain silly. Christians themselves grant primacy to math-based measurement in all areas of their lives bar those times such experiments appear to call into question the possible existence of the supernatural. 

Could some one please clearly show me how it is that math-based measurement fails to be a viable method of forming reasonable beliefs in support of what our senses consistently show us are certain aspects of reality. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:Ktulu

IntegratedPost wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

1. Science is based on nothing but observation.  


Do you mean to say that an explanation is only rational if you yourself can watch the event happen in reality?  Can we only theorize about evolution if we were THERE to OBSERVE it occur?  Of course not, we hypothesis the acting objects, define the actions, then explain how the event happens.

No, of course not.  What I mean to say is that without observation, science has no fundamental basis.  You can theorize about evolution because we can observe the fossil record, continuity in the DNA and other anatomical connections.  

IntegratedPost wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

2. Subjective observation is only that until it is replicated, at which point becomes objective, and prior to is not admissible as scientific evidence.


LOL until replicated??? But, don't you have to rely on YOUR subjective sensory system to verify that it has indeed been replicated? Observation is BY DEFINITION subjective because it invokes the sensory system as the means for validation.  There's no way around this.

I'm not sure why this strikes you as funny.  I would venture to say that you can test "objective" data by "subjectively" observing it repeatedly.  After a given amount of attempts, I would have to pragmatically classify this information as objective until given reason to believe otherwise.  I have reason to believe that rubies are red objectively, because I have repeatedly, subjectively observed them to be so.  

What other epistemic method do you possess that does not involve your senses?  Do you perhaps magic information directly into your memory?

IntegratedPost wrote:

I have no idea WHAT this is about but I'm no nihilistic nutjob, man. If you punched me in the face there would be serious problems! But punching faces has nothing to do with Rational Science.  Unless we assume your nose is broken... in order to explain this event we hypothesis a FIST (object) swinging (verb) into your nose (object) breaking (verb) it.  In our hypothesis we illustrate both the fist and the nose, we define what it means to swing and to break, then we explain how the particular objects mediated the particular verbs.

You come across as in irrational skeptic.  It wouldn't be a far stretch to classify you as a solipsist.  This pseudo-propositional logic you are so experienced at employing offers no answers, but a number of irrational rants.

IntegratedPost wrote:

Then why don't YOU tell me what an electron looks like.  Why don't you illustrate what this thing is that pulls/pushes atoms?  Then we can tell objectively whether or not the behavior is explained by the model.

An Electron doesn't "look" like anything.  Any photon frequency that we can measure is much too large to "see" an electron.  You cannot, therefore, "look" at an electron, you can only measure and observe an electron under given experiments.  It is impossible to talk about subatomic particles without invoking QM, which you irrationally dismiss out of hand. 

IntegratedPost wrote:

Then YOU get to define, Ktulu. I won't do all the talking here. Why don't you give me a definition of irrational: _________ theory: _________ math: _________
And again, predictions are not scientific.  Predictions are for crystal balls and tea leafs, and again, they require a SUBJECTIVE observer to verify the prediction.

Well, I will use the oxford dictionary instead of picking and choosing whatever semantics fit my agenda. 

oxford dictionary wrote:

 

Definition of irrational

adjective

1 not logical or reasonable:

irrational feelings of hostility

not endowed with the power of reason.

 

 

Definition of theory

noun (plural theories)

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:

Darwin’s theory of evolution

a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based:

a theory of education

[mass noun]:

music theory

an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action:

my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged

Mathematics a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject.

 

 

 

Definition of mathematics

plural noun

[usually treated as singular]

the abstract science of number, quantity, and space, either as abstract concepts ( pure mathematics), or as applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics):

a taste for mathematics

[often treated as plural] the mathematical aspects of something:

James immerses himself in the mathematics of baseball

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

IntegratedPost wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Other than the fact you do not appear to understand science in general nor physics in particular much less "mathematical physics" (you probably mean theoretical physics) whatever you might mean by that, not bad.

 

There's nothing to be understood when it comes to most mathematical physics theories, such as, General Relativity, Quantum Mech. & String Theory.  These establishment schools do not offer any explanation or Rational Theory for any phenomena of reality. Not one!

As I said, ignorant of science in general and physics in particular.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You might also get around to defining what you mean by your usage of "rational" some day.



Rational:
Any communication that can be resolved to a single possible meaning.  That is, objects can be visualized and concepts are clearly defined.  I defined all of the concepts I use over at my website's Lexicon: http://www.integratedpost.com/2012/11/rational-science-lexicon.html

 

When you choose to make up your own definition for words it is appropriate to footnote it with your invented definition.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
 

In the mean time you are mis-using proof as nothing in science is ever proven.


 

I don't think you were paying attention. Allow me to quote myself, "What is proof to you is irrelevant to your neighbor. Proof, truth, verification, ect. are NOT scientific. Neither is prediction."  I backed these statements up with definitions and arguments in the posts above.

Proof is only for math and logic. Truth is for philosophy. Verification is for most anything. Mixing the terms does not make sense. 

However prediction is the essence of science as it is predictions which are verified to test the validity of theories.

Quote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
In any event you inability to understand something says nothing about the thing itself but rather only speaks to limits of your abilities.

No, what I am saying is that an object is that which has SHAPE. If it has shape, it is amenable to illustration.

What does "shape" have to do with anythinig? That you declare it has no bearing upon reality. That a thing can illustrated is calling upon the cretivity of the illustrator having nothing to do with fact.

Quote:
Same with concepts, if you are using a term as a crucial element in your hypothesis or theory, then the onus is on YOU to define that term so that we can all understand exactly what you're trying to say.  If the proponent of a theory fails to hypothesize visualizable objects and/or fails to provide rational definitions for his terms, the theory is IRRATIONAL and cannot possibly be understood, even by the proponent himself.

This is indeed the case with Relativity, Quantum.

In science all terms are defined as that is part of the process of science. Your invention of "visualizable objects" does not enter into the disucssion at all. Most trivially, the concept of force is not an object yet force is inextricably part of physics.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

IntegratedPost wrote:

BobSpence wrote:
Science is very much reliant on observation, both to provide the data about reality which it attempts to explain,


Sure, people have to explore reality but that has nothing to do with explaining any event scientifically. A hypothesis is NOT a theory and a statement of the facts within your hypothesis is not a fact itself.  The hypothesis is taken at face value... the objects are illustrated and the terms are defined, no need to bring in a SUBJECTIVE observer.  Observation is not scientific, only explanation is.  One does not need to see the event to explain what happens.... a BLIND person should be able to understand your theory, or explanation of a hypothesis.

Did you come up with this crap on your own or is there someone else to blame?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
A_Nony_Mouse

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

IntegratedPost wrote:

BobSpence wrote:
Science is very much reliant on observation, both to provide the data about reality which it attempts to explain,


Sure, people have to explore reality but that has nothing to do with explaining any event scientifically. A hypothesis is NOT a theory and a statement of the facts within your hypothesis is not a fact itself.  The hypothesis is taken at face value... the objects are illustrated and the terms are defined, no need to bring in a SUBJECTIVE observer.  Observation is not scientific, only explanation is.  One does not need to see the event to explain what happens.... a BLIND person should be able to understand your theory, or explanation of a hypothesis.

Did you come up with this crap on your own or is there someone else to blame?

There are some things on his site that make me think he got some of his ideas from this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSJjs4l_FHU&feature=related

I watched a number of these YouTube videos.  If I remember correctly the guy claims that points can't make up lines, that basic scientific and mathematical concepts are poorly or circularly defined and that light is actually waves traveling through "ropes"  that connect all atoms.   

I thought the video were kind of fun to watch because they ask you to rethink basic concepts, but they don't prove anything.  Science is all about predictions.  If "rope theory"  can't make predictions better than current models than it has no scientific value.  


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

IntegratedPost wrote:

"They are our best attempts at explaining observable phenomena, if you have something better, or a way to discredit them besides semantics, I would LOVE to hear it."

Without understanding my fundamental criticism, you won't have any foundations to understand any theory I present to you, because YOU don't even understand the theories you claim.

The fundamental criticism I am referring to is the difference between a CONCEPT and an object.

You cannot explain any event using the IRRATIONAL concepts of QM or GR.  It is impossible.

1. Discrete particles can and will never be able to explain the force of PULL.
2. Space-time is NOT an object to be warped, pulled, tunnelled through, ect.
3. Concepts like energy, force, fields, ect. do NOT have physical presence all on their own- that would require a SHAPE and a LOCATION. What shape does "a" force have?

I don't know exactly how to describe you but it would degrade the idea of crackpot to call you one.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

IntegratedPost wrote:
WLC has brought the whole religion of "experimentation" "evidence" and "proof" down right on top of the heads of many Atheists in LIVE debate.

And the whole world reverted to campfires and flintstone.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote: You

IntegratedPost wrote:
You either have very poor reading comprehension or you are drunk.

IntegratedPost wrote:
Is this just another circlejerk forum or are people interested in critically analyzing the current popular theories of Physics?

IntegratedPost wrote:
Puh-lease. If anybody is the religionist in disguise it is the atheist who swallows irrational explanations HOOK LINE & SINKER every time.  I understand that it is impossible for God to exist, do you?

 

IntegratedPost wrote:
An idiot who studies GR, SR, ST, or QM.  One who reifies shapeless mathematical concepts into OBJECTS with SHAPE.

 

IntegratedPost wrote:
If making irrational claims makes you an idiot then Hitchens should really take the cake on that one, shouldn't he?

For someone who bitched about ad homs over a question, you sure do like to resort to them don't you ?



 

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Mintyfell wrote:I like how

Mintyfell wrote:

I like how you say that people are stuck in the math. I tend to agree... Mostly. Unfortunately, or fortunately, there are people here that worship math as a god. Almost as good, or as bad as, the christians...lol. 

What people or posts have you seen that would indicate that there are people here who worship math as a "god" ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:What I

IntegratedPost wrote:

What I am saying is that the mediator of such an effect MUST have a shape if it exists and actually binds the thing we call and electron to the thing we call a proton.

Why? Can you give me an example of why the thing that holds you to the earth has a shape, and what shape that is?

 

It sounds to me like you're trying to make up an alternative theory of the standard model. There are already gauge bosons postulated and then experimentally proved that explain all the fundamental forces. Why are your simplistic bald assertions more valid as a way of understanding the way the world works than this?
 


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Wow great reception to the

Wow great reception to the thread here, guys! Currently, I have a headache but hopefully, by tonight, I will have complete responses!

One thing that I will address right now, because it is simple, is the post accusing me of making "ad hominem" attacks.

Let's get this straight, an ad hominem is when personal remarks are used as a SUBSTITUTE for a critical analysis of the arguments themselves.

I will critique your arguments at face value, THEN ridicule you for using such irrational arguments.  Ridicule is almost just as important as critical analysis, in my opinion, as long as the attacks do not serve as replacements for actual arguments.
 

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


Mintyfell
Theist
Mintyfell's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2012-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

IntegratedPost wrote:

The main issue with mathematical physics is that it reifies (i.e. turns abstract concepts into concrete objects) mathematical concepts such as POINTS, FIELDS, FORCE, ect.

Since physics is about explaining how events physically occur, these reifications do not cut it as a rational mechanism. Concepts do not exist in reality, so they certainly do not ACT UPON objects.

http://www.integratedpost.com/2012/12/mathematical-physics-is-irrational-video.html

Mintyfell wrote:
 

Watched your video. It was quite interesting. I like how you say that people are stuck in the math. I tend to agree... Mostly. Unfortunately, or fortunately, there are people here that worship math as a god. Almost as good, or as bad as, the christians...lol. 

 

Don't you mean to say some people here grant math primacy in terms of its concrete ability to repeatedly and consistently explain certain physical aspects of what can be observed?

 

 

 

Yes, that is exactly what I was saying, just in different words. Thank you for rephrasing.

Apologies for the general statement, I meant nothing derogatory.

So for all practical purposes, whatever I grant Primacy in this life becomes my god. Whether it is money, power, sex, material things, math, or any idea(true or false---think religion), a person, or object; it matters not what it is.

I don't mean any offense by this at all, if it doesn't apply to you then good, or bad, it really doesn't matter. It is another way of looking at things.