Gary Lineker in a spot of bother

[beorhthelm]

Maybe you could start by telling me whether an electron is a wave or a particle?

its both. thats the whole point of duality, it depends on how you configure your experiment to measure the blighters.

 

[Triggaaar]

restrictions? nah.. I just want an answer not a ride on the magic roundabout.

You don't want an answer, you want a philosophical discussion where we can't agree if we really exist or not.

 

[Dub-67]

its both. thats the whole point of duality, it depends on how you configure your experiment to measure the blighters.

the point is, that while that is the scientific answer.. it doesnt make sense. this is exactly what I mean. how can someting be a wave and a particle ? This is where science starts to sound like religion... like the holy trinity.. god the father, and god the son and god the holy ghost.. 3 beings in one..

 

[Dub-67]

You don't want an answer, you want a philosophical discussion where we can't agree if we really exist or not.

well I'm arguing my perspective, as I have been throughout the thread.. the point you nake while I'm sure you are in fact trying to be facitious, is actually getting close to the issue. Descarte said 'I think therefore I am'. His view was that the only thing you can actually be certain of is that your thoughts exist. As for electrons..... or Gravity.. or Vicente..

Science says they are sometimes waves and sometimes particles.. doesnt that seem like maybe they are neither.. but something else that we cant comprehend. Thats why I said some pages ago that no one really knows what electricity is..

 

[father_and_son]

well I'm arguing my perspective, as I have been throughout the thread.. the point you nake while I'm sure you are in fact trying to be facitious, is actually getting close to the issue. Descarte said 'I think therefore I am'. His view was that the only thing you can actually be certain of is that your thoughts exist. As for electrons..... or Gravity.. or Vicente..

Science says they are sometimes waves and sometimes particles.. doesnt that seem like maybe they are neither.. but something else that we cant comprehend. Thats why I said some pages ago that no one really knows what electricity is..

It isn't both a wave and a particle... It behaves like as wave or a particle depending on how you try to look at it. But as I previously stated, the action of observing sub atomic particles it sufficient to change them. Technology is such that we have not yet developed a way to 'see' sub atomic particles without interacting with them.

That doesn't mean we cannot, just not now.

However, there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate they are there and when we don't interact, they behave in predictable ways that can be expressed mathematically.

Greater minds than log in to NSC are working on ways to link what is currently a paradox into a unified theory that explains what we see in the behaviour of sub atomic particles.

 

[BadFish]

you cant know its position and momentum, thats true, and seeing as electrons are never stationary, that means you can never know precisely where they are. The current scientific description 'clouds of probability' is the closet. Science makes predictions.. percentages.. these predictions work well enough to build very complex machines.

I find peoples unquestioning 'faith' in science as naive as other peoples unquestioning faith in religion. I personally dont 'believe' anything really. Your suggestion that to not believe anything is a belief system is a bit silly.
Some questions will remain unanswered by science... see David Chalmers. There is an explantory gap which can never be filled. How for example does something as immaterial as consciousness and subjective experience arise from matter? Science has no answer and will find no answer.

I agree that science doesn't know everything and, as things change and more is discovered, is likely never to know everything.

But why do you think it will find no answer to the idea of consciousness? The only way you can know this is if you know that there is nothing to find and the only way you can know that there is nothing to find is that you have studied and test consciousness in its entirety.

So how do you know that science will find no answer?

 

[beorhthelm]

the point is, that while that is the scientific answer.. it doesnt make sense. this is exactly what I mean. how can someting be a wave and a particle ? This is where science starts to sound like religion..

no it doesnt. just because you dont understand it, it doesnt mean its not understood. the understanding of how this works is predicatable and controlable, it forms the foundation of applied sciences that gives us nuclear reactors, lasers and transisitor made to 28nm in scale (and thats production, i think they've gone single digit in the lab).

its not like religion. in science when one theory on the nature of photons and electrons was found to be wrong because the evidence proved otherwise, they adopted a new theory. when that theory was also found to be wrong, they rejected that and formed a new theory that explained both. they adjusted and updated other theories to accomodate the new understanding and mathematics. in religion, new understandings are either rejected, partially adopted (leading to sectarian divergance), or they attempt to hold it altogether despite the contradictions. and of course, vitally, there's no proofs for religious understanding, only faith and belief. some hold a book to be the defining word, yet its known to be editted, abridged and amended by men over thousands of years.

religion is really just a branch of philosophy, only the notions of "god" have been found wanting for as long as philosophy, and most religious tenets are no more structured, reasoned or logical than a child's belief in fairies, or flying spagetti monsters. meanwhile, science provides a completely different paradigm. its not an alternative view, its a case of recognising observations and explaining them in a manner that is accurate, consistant and predictable. without predictable outcomes, science treats ideas as second class citizens (hypothesis), untill that state of proof changes and does so with grace (individuals with professional investments aside).

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

"Gary Lineker is in a spot of bother....."

... becomes... people angrily arguing over the existence of God.

God Bless you NSC.

But they're on to Electricity now.

 

[beorhthelm]

But they're on to Electricity now.

quantum theory, darling. anyway the Linker - God link was perfectly sensible given the religious context.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

quantum theory, darling. anyway the Linker - God link was perfectly sensible given the religious context.

I wasn't objecting - it's what makes life on here so interesting.

And I was participating in the religious bit

 

[Dub-67]

It isn't both a wave and a particle... It behaves like as wave or a particle depending on how you try to look at it. But as I previously stated, the action of observing sub atomic particles it sufficient to change them. Technology is such that we have not yet developed a way to 'see' sub atomic particles without interacting with them.

That doesn't mean we cannot, just not now.

However, there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate they are there and when we don't interact, they behave in predictable ways that can be expressed mathematically.

Greater minds than log in to NSC are working on ways to link what is currently a paradox into a unified theory that explains what we see in the behaviour of sub atomic particles.

I admire your 'faith' in Science... and scientists.. The priests of science.. You 'believe' they will overcome this paradox... and who am I to challange your faith?

 

[Dub-67]

I agree that science doesn't know everything and, as things change and more is discovered, is likely never to know everything.

But why do you think it will find no answer to the idea of consciousness? The only way you can know this is if you know that there is nothing to find and the only way you can know that there is nothing to find is that you have studied and test consciousness in its entirety.

So how do you know that science will find no answer?

This is better explained by Dr Chalmers on the video I posted. Basically I share his opinion that consciousness is a fundamental building block of the universe, not an emergent property. Science finds its answers by looing at the world in an objective manner. Consciousness by its nature cannot be studied objectively. You view the world via your own consciousness.. how can you objectively study yourself?

 

[Dub-67]

no it doesnt. just because you dont understand it, it doesnt mean its not understood. the understanding of how this works is predicatable and controlable, it forms the foundation of applied sciences that gives us nuclear reactors, lasers and transisitor made to 28nm in scale (and thats production, i think they've gone single digit in the lab).

its not like religion. in science when one theory on the nature of photons and electrons was found to be wrong because the evidence proved otherwise, they adopted a new theory. when that theory was also found to be wrong, they rejected that and formed a new theory that explained both. they adjusted and updated other theories to accomodate the new understanding and mathematics. in religion, new understandings are either rejected, partially adopted (leading to sectarian divergance), or they attempt to hold it altogether despite the contradictions. and of course, vitally, there's no proofs for religious understanding, only faith and belief. some hold a book to be the defining word, yet its known to be editted, abridged and amended by men over thousands of years.

religion is really just a branch of philosophy, only the notions of "god" have been found wanting for as long as philosophy, and most religious tenets are no more structured, reasoned or logical than a child's belief in fairies, or flying spagetti monsters. meanwhile, science provides a completely different paradigm. its not an alternative view, its a case of recognising observations and explaining them in a manner that is accurate, consistant and predictable. without predictable outcomes, science treats ideas as second class citizens (hypothesis), untill that state of proof changes and does so with grace (individuals with professional investments aside).

Well to be fair I dont understand it but to be blunt neither does science. If it does, show me.
Maybe it would be closer to the truth then to say that Science itself is not like religion, but it's followers exhibit signs of religious behaviour ! People on here have stated their belief and faith that science will understand how consciousness occurs from gooey material mush, and that the wave particle duality will also be understood, as will gravity, the big bang and probably a unified theory of everything. I'm not convinced. I think science does an excellent job of describing the world and building machines to exploit that.. However, on the fundamental questions, it has no answers.. Watch the video I posted some pages back. That is a scientist, he is a doctor of philosophy and has a masters degree in maths from Oxford, and his opinion is that science will never undersatnd a mechanism for creating consciousness. By the way, people keep thinking I am religious... I'm not. I see religion pretty much as you describe it.

 

[Dub-67]

I wasn't objecting - it's what makes life on here so interesting.

And I was participating in the religious bit

Brighton !

 

[BadFish]

This is better explained by Dr Chalmers on the video I posted. Basically I share his opinion that consciousness is a fundamental building block of the universe, not an emergent property. Science finds its answers by looing at the world in an objective manner. Consciousness by its nature cannot be studied objectively. You view the world via your own consciousness.. how can you objectively study yourself?

You really have no idea what the human brain will be able to do in the future and I think you are making big claims by predicting what science will not be able to work out.

 

[Dub-67]

You really have no idea what the human brain will be able to do in the future and I think you are making big claims by predicting what science will not be able to work out.

As I said, this isnt really my claim, its the claim of a professor of philosophy and a doctor of mathematics. Possibly one of the smartest people on earth. Did you watch the video? He's Australian dont you know ( I see you are in Geelong)

 

[BadFish]

As I said, this isnt really my claim, its the claim of a professor of philosophy and a doctor of mathematics. Possibly one of the smartest people on earth. Did you watch the video? He's Australian dont you know ( I see you are in Geelong)

Not to be fair I haven't watched the video, I will when I get a few quiet minutes.

Although while we are on the subject of outrageous claims, how can you suggest that one of the smartest people in the world is Australian

Okay so I am watching the video

The bloke just said

"It maybe that the methods of science have to be expanded" (2:50)

This suggests very strongly that science can at some point understand consciousness if it makes some changes to its methods .

Your video is arguing against your notion that "Science has no answer and will find no answer."

Anyway The Hamster Wheel is on so I will watch another time.

 

[Dub-67]

Not to be fair I haven't watched the video, I will when I get a few quiet minutes.

Although while we are on the subject of outrageous claims, how can you suggest that one of the smartest people in the world is Australian

Okay so I am watching the video

The bloke just said

"It maybe that the methods of science have to be expanded" (2:50)

This suggests very strongly that science can at some point understand consciousness if it makes some changes to its methods .

Your video is arguing against your notion that "Science has no answer and will find no answer."

Anyway The Hamster Wheel is on so I will watch another time.

I know.. there arent many famous australian intellectuals.. but he is !

Well when you get faster downloads watch the whole videao, and you'll see what he is saying. Basically he is saying that science might need to treat consciousness as a fundamental in order to deal with it. This isnt the same as 'understanding how it occurs' though.. in fact the opposite, he is saying because we cant hope to understand the mechanism, we should accept that and treat it differently.

 

[father_and_son]

I admire your 'faith' in Science... and scientists.. The priests of science.. You 'believe' they will overcome this paradox... and who am I to challange your faith?

You're not reading what I wrote.

I don't believe there is a paradox. Merely that "observing" sub atomic particle inherents means changing their behaviour. Once you understand that, the Uncertainty Principle and the Duality of Light merely become interesting by products of the experiments you perform.

I believe in science because science is by definition is what happens when you have an idea, test it to destruction and then accept it. As soon as someone comes along with a better idea, that is tested and if shown to explain the universe better, is accepted and the original idea becomes superseded and discarded as wrong or incomplete. Hence the analogy of a journey.
Priests is the wrong word for Scientists in one critical way. Priests claim to be infallible, scientists make no such claim, in fact they openly embrace their fallibility and strive for a better truth rather than accepting the existing one unquestioningly.

 

[Dub-67]

You're not reading what I wrote.

I don't believe there is a paradox. Merely that "observing" sub atomic particle inherents means changing their behaviour. Once you understand that, the Uncertainty Principle and the Duality of Light merely become interesting by products of the experiments you perform.

I believe in science because science is by definition is what happens when you have an idea, test it to destruction and then accept it. As soon as someone comes along with a better idea, that is tested and if shown to explain the universe better, is accepted and the original idea becomes superseded and discarded as wrong or incomplete. Hence the analogy of a journey.
Priests is the wrong word for Scientists in one critical way. Priests claim to be infallible, scientists make no such claim, in fact they openly embrace their fallibility and strive for a better truth rather than accepting the existing one unquestioningly.

I am not religious. However I dont think priests claim to be infallible !
Science itself is not 'religious' but the followers of science do seem to exert some religious behaviour.

You said this;
"It behaves like as wave or a particle depending on how you try to look at it. But as I previously stated, the action of observing sub atomic particles it sufficient to change them. Technology is such that we have not yet developed a way to 'see' sub atomic particles without interacting with them"

When you say 'technology is such that we have not yet developed a way to 'see' sub atomic particles without interating with them', you are expressing faith that science will overcome this paradox. The paradox is that consciousness/awareness affects the results of the experiment.. showing that a purely objective understanding of the world is not possible. 'Believing' that one day science will be able to overcome this is similar to religious behaviour. There is no 'proof' or 'evidence' that this will occur.